4 ms·

I would also suggest that we teach our children to read articles and understand the nuances within them, rather than assuming a worldview based on headlines alo

I would also suggest that we teach our children to read articles and understand the nuances within them, rather than assuming a worldview based on headlines alone.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
I agree overall, but I can't pretend that every article even has nuance to look out for. Where was the nuance when almost the entire media was towing the line to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop leak articles as "Russian Disinformation"? It was a complete lie. That's not just one article, it was dozens with no nuance to be found.
- wpietri 4y ago
  FYI, lines get toed, not towed. Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? I also remember it differently, with that being one theory expressed at the time, and it is certainly in line with what Russia has gotten up to in the past. I wondered how it turned out. From Wikipedia, on what independent analysts hired by the Washington Post found: "One of the analysts characterized the data as a 'disaster' from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names 'Biden Burisma,' 'Salacious Pics Package' and Hunter. Burisma Documents.'"
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    It was known from the very beginning that the laptop was legit because the Bidens never denied it. There are reasons to deny something that is real, but no reason not to deny something that is fake.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      That's definitely too black and white. Does it contain real data from him? Yes. Might it have been hardware he once owned? Also possible, but not proven. Was the data all his? As the text I quoted said, definitely not. Do a lot of people have an interest in making the Bidens look bad without regard to the truth? Definitely. But none of that addresses my actual question, which is asking for evidence that it's a coverup.
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        I don't claim that it's 100% guaranteed legit just because they didn't deny it, but it certainly puts the burden of proof on the people who would claim that it is fake. As for evidence that it was a coverup, Mark Zuckerberg stated publicly that FB algorithmically suppressed the story because the FBI came to them warning that it was Russian disinformation (of course they used the phrase "has all the hallmarks of" so they can deny that they lied about it later). Of course he could be lying, but I don't think he is, and you just asked for evidence, not outright proof.
        wpietri 4y ago
        That's not proof of a coverup. People can be legitimately wrong. And you claiming that they phrased it carefully as part of a coverup is another thing that requires evidence. Given that you and the other poster seem to be indulging in low-fact speculation, I think I'm done here.
        Cupertino95014 4y ago
        > another thing that requires evidence. Now how, exactly, would someone provide "evidence" that there was a coverup? In Watergate, Leon Jaworski went to elaborate lengths to prove it with conversations, statements by collaborators, written documents, etc. Do you expect ordinary people to have that? So we're left with extremely strict standards from "fact checkers" when Trump says anything, and "hey, what the hell, he meant well" when Biden says something blatantly wrong. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-ar-15-bullet-gun/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-ar-15-bullet-gun/ So they rate this a "correct attribution" even though they say "the President's claim is false." I'm glad you're done here. Otherwise, you'd have to go to even more insane contortions now.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    > Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? The fact that 50 "retired intelligence officers" said it had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" when none of them had examined it -- do you want a citation for that? How about that Zuckerberg said, and the FBI admitted, that they warned him about a "Russian document dump"? How if you give us citations? Show us all the NYT and WaPo stories about the laptop before the election, and what page they ran on. Especially highlight the ones that talked about its content, or showed the pictures of Hunter?
    - wpietri 4y ago
      I'm not the one making the claim of a coverup. You are, and so the burden of proof is on you. As to the first point, assuming for the moment that whatever you're quoting is a good source, the easy explanation is that what was disclosed at the time did indeed have the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. That being something that is well studied by intelligence officers, and something that Russia produces quite a lot of.
      - Cupertino95014 4y ago
        I did prove it, and all you can manage is to question (and not even question it, really) the source. Weak, weak. And if you assert it's not a coverup, then show us how they covered it. That isn't too much to ask. You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. No, you need to show how it was NOT covered up. That only takes a reference or two. As is your second paragraph: to only say "other disinformation looks like this, so we're just going to go with that and ignore it, instead of digging deeper into it" is what a press outlet that's in the tank does. It's not what an objective outlet does.
        wpietri 4y ago
        > You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. That is actually a positive. You're saying people did particular things. That's a positive assertion. Asking me to show that there was no conspiracy is the request to prove a negative. Which you are correct to think impossible.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Sure, chain-of-custody rules would have gotten it thrown out as evidence in a hypothetical criminal trial. That doesn't mean it could not have been discussed on social media.
Bloating 4y ago
Would help if the articles had substance worth reading. Lack of substance is by design
- jjulius 4y ago
  Ah, but you can't know if there's no substance unless you actually read it. ;)
autoexec 4y ago
Critical thinking is something that needs to be taught at home because schools have obviously been failing us for a long time now. Not that it's entirely the fault of schools (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQR2aMGhjuw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQR2aMGhjuw) but either way it falls on parents to fill in the gaps.

I would also suggest that we teach our children to read articles and understand the nuances within them, rather than assuming a worldview based on headlines alone.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

I agree overall, but I can't pretend that every article even has nuance to look out for. Where was the nuance when almost the entire media was towing the line to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop leak articles as "Russian Disinformation"? It was a complete lie. That's not just one article, it was dozens with no nuance to be found.

wpietri 4y ago
FYI, lines get toed, not towed. Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? I also remember it differently, with that being one theory expressed at the time, and it is certainly in line with what Russia has gotten up to in the past. I wondered how it turned out. From Wikipedia, on what independent analysts hired by the Washington Post found: "One of the analysts characterized the data as a 'disaster' from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names 'Biden Burisma,' 'Salacious Pics Package' and Hunter. Burisma Documents.'"
- fallingknife 4y ago
  It was known from the very beginning that the laptop was legit because the Bidens never denied it. There are reasons to deny something that is real, but no reason not to deny something that is fake.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    That's definitely too black and white. Does it contain real data from him? Yes. Might it have been hardware he once owned? Also possible, but not proven. Was the data all his? As the text I quoted said, definitely not. Do a lot of people have an interest in making the Bidens look bad without regard to the truth? Definitely. But none of that addresses my actual question, which is asking for evidence that it's a coverup.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      I don't claim that it's 100% guaranteed legit just because they didn't deny it, but it certainly puts the burden of proof on the people who would claim that it is fake. As for evidence that it was a coverup, Mark Zuckerberg stated publicly that FB algorithmically suppressed the story because the FBI came to them warning that it was Russian disinformation (of course they used the phrase "has all the hallmarks of" so they can deny that they lied about it later). Of course he could be lying, but I don't think he is, and you just asked for evidence, not outright proof.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        That's not proof of a coverup. People can be legitimately wrong. And you claiming that they phrased it carefully as part of a coverup is another thing that requires evidence. Given that you and the other poster seem to be indulging in low-fact speculation, I think I'm done here.
        Cupertino95014 4y ago
        > another thing that requires evidence. Now how, exactly, would someone provide "evidence" that there was a coverup? In Watergate, Leon Jaworski went to elaborate lengths to prove it with conversations, statements by collaborators, written documents, etc. Do you expect ordinary people to have that? So we're left with extremely strict standards from "fact checkers" when Trump says anything, and "hey, what the hell, he meant well" when Biden says something blatantly wrong. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-ar-15-bullet-gun/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-ar-15-bullet-gun/ So they rate this a "correct attribution" even though they say "the President's claim is false." I'm glad you're done here. Otherwise, you'd have to go to even more insane contortions now.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  > Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? The fact that 50 "retired intelligence officers" said it had "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" when none of them had examined it -- do you want a citation for that? How about that Zuckerberg said, and the FBI admitted, that they warned him about a "Russian document dump"? How if you give us citations? Show us all the NYT and WaPo stories about the laptop before the election, and what page they ran on. Especially highlight the ones that talked about its content, or showed the pictures of Hunter?
  - wpietri 4y ago
    I'm not the one making the claim of a coverup. You are, and so the burden of proof is on you. As to the first point, assuming for the moment that whatever you're quoting is a good source, the easy explanation is that what was disclosed at the time did indeed have the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. That being something that is well studied by intelligence officers, and something that Russia produces quite a lot of.
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      I did prove it, and all you can manage is to question (and not even question it, really) the source. Weak, weak. And if you assert it's not a coverup, then show us how they covered it. That isn't too much to ask. You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. No, you need to show how it was NOT covered up. That only takes a reference or two. As is your second paragraph: to only say "other disinformation looks like this, so we're just going to go with that and ignore it, instead of digging deeper into it" is what a press outlet that's in the tank does. It's not what an objective outlet does.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        > You are demanding I prove a negative: that it was deliberately covered up. That is actually a positive. You're saying people did particular things. That's a positive assertion. Asking me to show that there was no conspiracy is the request to prove a negative. Which you are correct to think impossible.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Sure, chain-of-custody rules would have gotten it thrown out as evidence in a hypothetical criminal trial. That doesn't mean it could not have been discussed on social media.

Bloating 4y ago

Would help if the articles had substance worth reading. Lack of substance is by design

jjulius 4y ago
Ah, but you can't know if there's no substance unless you actually read it. ;)

autoexec 4y ago

Critical thinking is something that needs to be taught at home because schools have obviously been failing us for a long time now. Not that it's entirely the fault of schools (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQR2aMGhjuw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQR2aMGhjuw) but either way it falls on parents to fill in the gaps.