4 ms·

>I can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this Has this AP reporter been asleep for … their entire career? Charitably, I can interpret this

>I can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this Has this AP reporter been asleep for … their entire career? Charitably, I can interpret this as the reporter thinking they wouldn’t make up something about a potential Article 5 event, but - and maybe it’s my cynicism about this war - wouldn’t that mean you’d want to guarantee that what you’re saying is super precise? “Russian missiles hit Poland” vs “Russian missiles fired by Ukraine hit Poland” obviously mean very different things. Doesn’t look like LaPorta did anything wrong here, necessarily, and this looks like an editorial problem to me.

0x_rs 4y ago
You can always retract your statements and pieces, most of the time the evidence isn't as glaring and it just goes unnoticed. I firmly believe prioritizing shock value in journalism is dangerous and without brakes it'll keep getting worse, and some will absolutely, inevitably pay for it because misinformed people acted in some unpredictable way. Especially in such a propagandized conflict. Speaking of US officials, or from any country at all, they don't really care about evidence. It's political games that news media feeds with like vultures, sometimes. >It was an attention-grabbing assertion that made headlines around the world: U.S. officials said they had indications suggesting Russia might be preparing to use chemical agents in Ukraine. >President Joe Biden later said it publicly. But three U.S. officials told NBC News this week there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine. They said the U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions. from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-...
mc32 4y ago
Who say things like “American missiles fired by Ukraine?” It would only make sense to say that if US troops on the ground hosted by Ukraine fired the missiles. It’s stupid. No one says Chinese AK-47s fired by Ukrainian soldiers. Someone was playing stupid.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Are you saying that LaPorta, a Marine so he’s probably more likely to be familiar with these weapons systems than other non-military veteran journos, is playing stupid in the thread about the manufacturing origins of those missiles? The origin, both manufacturing and who fired them, seems pretty relevant in this war because both sides are using a lot of the same weapons systems.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    > Are you saying that LaPorta, a Marine so he’s probably more likely to be familiar with these weapons systems than other non-military veteran journos… Isn’t this assumption of knowledge/authority pretty much the same sort of appeal to validity that this quote from the Slack thread fell into? “I can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this” I am saying often in an effort to push a narrative or POV or get the scoop, journos may overlook inconvenient facts or appeal to an authority that perhaps they shouldn’t…since that authority may have an ulterior motive. The gravity of the allegations required hyper-responsible journalism that did not happen here…this was a rush to get a scoop. This wasn’t a message board post that effectively had a small audience where assumptions of a rumor’s validity had essentially zero real world impact. This has the chance to create mass death.
  - mc32 4y ago
    It’s way more relevant WHO fired them from where than who manufactured them.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    The missiles aren't even Russian made. They're Soviet made, and there's a fair chance they were even made in Ukraine at least partly. Yes, someone is playing dumb here.
  - nomel 4y ago
    > The origin, both manufacturing and who fired them, seems pretty relevant in this war because both sides are using a lot of the same weapons systems. That, logically, make the manufacturer less relevant, bordering on irrelevant.
elgenie 4y ago
Even the intelligence community's own PR materials wouldn't put forward such a claim. Saying something like "can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this" in the first place shows a misunderstanding of what the point of such "intelligence" is: collecting (often-dubious) information as quickly as possible to enable probabilistic (but sometimes wrong) assessments for decision-making. Nobody with the sort of fundamental lack of judgement shown by Gera belongs anywhere near an editorial chain of command.

0x_rs 4y ago

You can always retract your statements and pieces, most of the time the evidence isn't as glaring and it just goes unnoticed. I firmly believe prioritizing shock value in journalism is dangerous and without brakes it'll keep getting worse, and some will absolutely, inevitably pay for it because misinformed people acted in some unpredictable way. Especially in such a propagandized conflict. Speaking of US officials, or from any country at all, they don't really care about evidence. It's political games that news media feeds with like vultures, sometimes. >It was an attention-grabbing assertion that made headlines around the world: U.S. officials said they had indications suggesting Russia might be preparing to use chemical agents in Ukraine. >President Joe Biden later said it publicly. But three U.S. officials told NBC News this week there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine. They said the U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions. from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-...

mc32 4y ago

Who say things like “American missiles fired by Ukraine?” It would only make sense to say that if US troops on the ground hosted by Ukraine fired the missiles. It’s stupid. No one says Chinese AK-47s fired by Ukrainian soldiers. Someone was playing stupid.

remarkEon 4y ago
Are you saying that LaPorta, a Marine so he’s probably more likely to be familiar with these weapons systems than other non-military veteran journos, is playing stupid in the thread about the manufacturing origins of those missiles? The origin, both manufacturing and who fired them, seems pretty relevant in this war because both sides are using a lot of the same weapons systems.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > Are you saying that LaPorta, a Marine so he’s probably more likely to be familiar with these weapons systems than other non-military veteran journos… Isn’t this assumption of knowledge/authority pretty much the same sort of appeal to validity that this quote from the Slack thread fell into? “I can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this” I am saying often in an effort to push a narrative or POV or get the scoop, journos may overlook inconvenient facts or appeal to an authority that perhaps they shouldn’t…since that authority may have an ulterior motive. The gravity of the allegations required hyper-responsible journalism that did not happen here…this was a rush to get a scoop. This wasn’t a message board post that effectively had a small audience where assumptions of a rumor’s validity had essentially zero real world impact. This has the chance to create mass death.
- mc32 4y ago
  It’s way more relevant WHO fired them from where than who manufactured them.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The missiles aren't even Russian made. They're Soviet made, and there's a fair chance they were even made in Ukraine at least partly. Yes, someone is playing dumb here.
- nomel 4y ago
  > The origin, both manufacturing and who fired them, seems pretty relevant in this war because both sides are using a lot of the same weapons systems. That, logically, make the manufacturer less relevant, bordering on irrelevant.

elgenie 4y ago

Even the intelligence community's own PR materials wouldn't put forward such a claim. Saying something like "can’t imagine a US intelligence official would be wrong on this" in the first place shows a misunderstanding of what the point of such "intelligence" is: collecting (often-dubious) information as quickly as possible to enable probabilistic (but sometimes wrong) assessments for decision-making. Nobody with the sort of fundamental lack of judgement shown by Gera belongs anywhere near an editorial chain of command.