4 ms·

Glenn Greenwald believed in the story, and was later proven right. I don't blame other media outlets for waiting for additional confirmation, but I do blame Twi

by Meekro 4y ago

Glenn Greenwald believed in the story, and was later proven right. I don't blame other media outlets for waiting for additional confirmation, but I do blame Twitter for inventing a totally new policy for censoring this one story. In a case like this, where some journalists believe in a story and others don't, but neither side has won the debate (yet), the story should be published and discussed. That's the policy they take with literally every other news story, including many dubious ones that are later discredited. I guess I can't prove this part, but I'm pretty sure Twitter would have taken the opposite stance if, say, CNN had found Trump Jr's laptop. Regarding your claim that the story is not a big deal, you as a voter are entitled to decide that for yourself. However, a majority of likely voters disagree with you. A Rasmussen poll found that 48% of likely voters consider the story "very important" and another 18% consider it "important."[1] Rasmussen is considered a grade-B pollster by FiveThirtyEight, so their data can be trusted. [1] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_say https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/gen...

ahiknsr 4y ago
> Glenn Greenwald believed in the story, and was later proven right mind sharing this proof?
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> I don't blame other media outlets for waiting for additional confirmation, but I do blame Twitter for inventing a totally new policy for censoring this one story. Given the impact of the "but her emails" on Clinton's presidential run (a story that was actually real, but absurdly (especially in retrospect) framed and overstated), I don't blame Twitter for not wanting to play a role in spreading yet another potentially BS "story" around the time of an election in arguably the world's most powerful nation. > I guess I can't prove this part, but I'm pretty sure Twitter would have taken the opposite stance if, say, CNN had found Trump Jr's laptop. No, you can't prove that part, and I'm pretty sure they would not have taken the opposite stance.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> In a case like this, where some journalists believe in a story and others don't, but neither side has won the debate (yet), the story should be published and discussed. No, these are not viable standards. First of all, Greenwald was 100% free to publish and discuss the story. Just not on Twitter. Secondly, the criteria is not "do some journalists believe in a story", but "is there actually evidence that the story is true". Greenwald had no more evidence than anyone else, it just "felt right" to him, and so he believed it. Nobody stopped him from talking about it (nobody seems to be able to stop Greenwald from talking about anything, really). A private corporation decided that it did not want to play a role in this story without more evidence that it may be true. The threshold is not "is there a journalist who believes it (because there more or less always is).

by Meekro 4y ago

ahiknsr 4y ago

> Glenn Greenwald believed in the story, and was later proven right mind sharing this proof?

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> I don't blame other media outlets for waiting for additional confirmation, but I do blame Twitter for inventing a totally new policy for censoring this one story. Given the impact of the "but her emails" on Clinton's presidential run (a story that was actually real, but absurdly (especially in retrospect) framed and overstated), I don't blame Twitter for not wanting to play a role in spreading yet another potentially BS "story" around the time of an election in arguably the world's most powerful nation. > I guess I can't prove this part, but I'm pretty sure Twitter would have taken the opposite stance if, say, CNN had found Trump Jr's laptop. No, you can't prove that part, and I'm pretty sure they would not have taken the opposite stance.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> In a case like this, where some journalists believe in a story and others don't, but neither side has won the debate (yet), the story should be published and discussed. No, these are not viable standards. First of all, Greenwald was 100% free to publish and discuss the story. Just not on Twitter. Secondly, the criteria is not "do some journalists believe in a story", but "is there actually evidence that the story is true". Greenwald had no more evidence than anyone else, it just "felt right" to him, and so he believed it. Nobody stopped him from talking about it (nobody seems to be able to stop Greenwald from talking about anything, really). A private corporation decided that it did not want to play a role in this story without more evidence that it may be true. The threshold is not "is there a journalist who believes it (because there more or less always is).