11 ms·

Rolling Stone left out the reason why FBI raided journalist's home

162 points by leephillips 4y ago

londons_explore 4y ago
We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Based upon NPR's telling it seems like the editor was trying to hide details about a friend's story as long as possible, and not present the details of the story with skepticism like you're implying.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jstarfish 4y ago
  I know what you're referring to but don't think this is one of those cases. The affidavit is very thorough about what was found. Starts on page 3. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...
  - TylerE 4y ago
    To split the difference a bit... They have him "on tape" IMing multiple other suspects, talking extremely graphically about pedophilia, and exchanging images and video of same.
    - briantakita 4y ago
      "on tape" meaning they have a video of him in front of a computer engaging in the conversation? I skimmed through the affidavit & couldn't find that claim. It was difficult to read the content so I didn't look to deeply into it. Could you post a quote of the claim if it's there?
      - martinjacobd 4y ago
        They don't claim to have video of him engaging in the conversation, but they do claim to have a pretty damning picture of him. To support the idea that it was he who engaged in these messages, they claim that you can only be logged in to kik on one device at a time and have evidence that he was using the device for other purposes around the same time and in the same location as kik for at least one of these conversations. That's my reading, anyways. Not a lawyer and have trouble with the stilted language in these kinds of things.
      - TylerE 4y ago
        On tape as in they have the phone with messages on it, and the ip addeess and device info used to send the messages. (As opposed to testimony, where you have someone else testifying that they SAW him doing it, but no way of proving that post facto)
  - recyclelater 4y ago
    FYI to anyone curious, do not read the affidavit if you do not want to have pretty horrific images of infants etc in your mind.
  - scythe 4y ago
    So Dropbox found uploads, allegedly from Meek, containing CP. Then devices were found at Meek's residence containing CP. To there, you could fake it: pwn the box, open a Dropbox, upload pictures. Basic parallel construction. In items 30-53 we have an allegation that Meek exposed himself to children on Omegle. This is more damning. Included in the evidence are pictures apparently showing Meek naked. Harder to fake. His face does not seem to be visible in any of the images. Some legitimate communications of Meek are also on the phone, corresponding with his known whereabouts (and might be checked against the other end if possible). Conclusion: if this is a frame, it's a very well-made one. Why would he be framed, though? He made a documentary about a military embarrassment (the Tongo Tongo ambush), and many years ago he documented a case of apparent manslaughter (of an American) by a captain in Iraq. In short, he was not exactly a Seymour Hersh or a Glenn Greenwald. I just don't see the 3LAs going to this much trouble to bag a guy who wrote a story about Niger. So I conclude the case is probably real. Thought I'd put this down and save someone else the trouble.
    - celdon25 4y ago
      Thank you, it’s hard to find reasonably good arguments like this in the HN comments these days.
- penultimatename 4y ago
  Isn't it a reporters job to report the facts? The fact is the FBI was investigating them for a specific crime. It's already suspect that they left out that key fact. It's extra suspect when it turns out they had personal connections to the accused.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    If you think the government only reports facts, stop reading Rolling Stone. Read the FBI report.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one. The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether. I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty. My wife's ex was "being investigated by CPS" at one point. He didn't do anything, but it is/was humiliating for him nonetheless.
    - brwck 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - pr0zac 4y ago
        I'm really confused how you read that sentence as spinning Rolling Stone's actions positively?
        brwck 4y ago
        But he used it as justification to "give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one.". It's interesting how criticizing trash publications like the rolling stone with facts and truth gets your comment flagged. Makes one wonder...
    - 4y ago
- john15 4y ago
  [flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  > the investigation into James Gordon Meek, 53, of Arlington, was initiated from an investigative lead sent by Dropbox and ultimately received by the FBI Washington Field Office’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    The problem with stating stuff like this is it can be used as an example of how deep the conspiracy goes rather than a refutation.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      To the conspiracy minded, sure. How can any discussion be had with these people who don't require evidence in order to make bold claims?
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        Honestly, no idea. Seems a fool's errand.
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        Dropbox working with the fbi is a fact here. Jumping to dropbox working with the fbi regarding other files is fact as well. Dropbox knowing what is in your files is known as well. It stops being a conspiracy when everyone admits to the facts
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        The poster insinuated that the FBI planted CSAM on a reporter's devices.
        vuln 4y ago
        Well at one point they were paying GeekSquaders to _find_ and report it. > "how does the government intend to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Geek Squad employees themselves didn't put the alleged porn pictures on the device?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504
- tempsy 4y ago
  [flagged]
- version_five 4y ago
  It's fucked up that a conspiracy theory gets the top post and actual criticisms of the reporting are at the bottom.
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    First day on HN? When you ask for examples of this happening they get really mad and try to hide your question by downvoting it.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  So then report on that?
- lalopalota 4y ago
  The journalist quit after the pedophilla charges were edited out of the article.
- mrandish 4y ago
  In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and skeptical when there are no real facts yet. An affidavit in support of a search warrant is little more than an unevidenced assertion. Compared to the often extreme punitive consequences of the mere accusation being widely spread it can be disproportionate. If the warrant produces actual evidence of wrongdoing it will later result in an indictment and ultimately a trial. That's the more appropriate time for media to consider those allegations as newsworthy. Sadly, there are documented examples of government (or individuals wielding the power of government) using extreme accusations in affidavits to intentionally inflict punishment. Rolling Stone choosing to not be unwitting 'judge-jury-executioner' at that early no-evidence stage doesn't mean they wouldn't report on an eventual indictment - when and if it happens.
  - leephillips 4y ago
    You make excellent points, and in a world were we know that people will remember accusations and not subsequent exonerations, it would be humane to delay reporting on the kind of accusation that will ruin a person’s life. The problem is that Rolling Stone plays favorites. In a recent incident they ran the false headline “CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be Eradicated,” about someone that they didn’t like and who wasn’t a friend of the editor in chief. After being threatened with a lawsuit for this libel, they changed the headline. I don’t think they can be trusted.
    - mcguire 4y ago
      Seems like that article is currently titled much more accurately: "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People".
    - myko 4y ago
      The speaker called for transgenderism to be eradicated. Consider headlines if AOC called for conservatism to be eradicated.
  - burkaman 4y ago
- tqi 4y ago
  In the absence of evidence, what is the line between a "reasonable suspicion" and a "conspiracy theory"?
  - brookst 4y ago
    You said it yourself -- it's the difference between a suspicion, aka hypothesis, and theory, aka explanation based on evidence. The problem with conspiracy theorists isn't that they think unlikely things might have happened, it's that they are 100% convicted that unlikely things are the only possible explanation, and (typically) that any evidence to the contrary is just part of the conspiracy.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  > We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people. Based on other comments it seems like the accusations are a bit more substantial than a low effort frame. Nevertheless, there's a reason that the rest of the journalism industry basically dismissed it flat out. That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard.
  - bsder 4y ago
    > "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people. Except that we know, via Snowden, all manner of things that the TLAs can do and have done. "Child Porn" charges should ALWAYS be acknowledged with great skepticism given just how much damage even the accusation will do--especially if the investigation is focused on just one person (ie. not part of a broader sting or sweep). However, in this instance, the evidence looks pretty damning. I still don't like them reporting on it, though. The man deserves the opportunity to prove his innocence in court and reporting the accusations denies him that--even if he is found innocent (which admittedly looks unlikely), the reporting will destroy his life. > That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard. That is fair and hard to disagree with.
johnklos 4y ago
News that cares this much about sensationalizing isn't news. While I'm entirely for unfettered protection of free speech, free speech doesn't include the right to lie, at least not in a professional capacity. Perhaps we need to start punishing intentionally deceptive reporting by not allowing these people to call themselves journalists and / or not allowing these sources of information to call themselves news.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- version_five 4y ago
  I think it's a problem that can take care of itself. People need to be incredulous. Why would anyone reading Rolling Stone, Teen Vogue, Ars Technica, Vice, Buzfeed, or any of the other publications clearly in the realm of entertainment imagine that they actually do "journalism" in the usual sense.
- nradov 4y ago
  Free speech generally does include the right to lie. There are only very limited legal circumstances where a lie could be a criminal offense or cause for civil liability. Even if you could somehow ban people from calling themselves "journalists" that would be meaningless under US federal law as journalists enjoy no more rights or privileges than any other common citizen.
  - blowski 4y ago
    Indeed, the current Fox vs Dominion case is highlighting that very point.
- usednet 4y ago
  Ever watched a police interrogation?
- arp242 4y ago
  How would you distinguish between "intentionally deceptive" and "being wrong"? In principle I don't disagree; but proving "intentionally deceptive" beyond reasonable doubt in court is extraordinarily hard, so in practice I don't really think we can do much about it.
wdb 4y ago
Rolling Stone magazine has been going down hill for a long time. There reporting of late has been pretty disappointing with slanted views/one sided reporting
- ffhhj 4y ago
  At least they keep the stones rolling, down the hill that is.
- fortran77 4y ago
  They aren't credible anymore. Not since this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-rolling-stone-frat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-r...
  - brookst 4y ago
    That's incredibly damning and everyone involved should be ashamed. That said, is there any organization in the world, let alone a media outlet, that has never had any catastrophic failures? Are we supposed to be one-strike to forever irredeemable for every org?
  - 93po 4y ago
    Should we also not call the NYT credible anymore after they supported the invasion of Iraq (and associated WMD BS) and admitted their reporting "had not been as rigorous as they should have been, and were insufficiently qualified, frequently overly dependent upon [biased] information"? That one of their reporters had to retire in shame, but only after a generous severance package deal, and all of the editors and people who allowed this were allowed to stay?
- drak0n1c 4y ago
  The only recent major Rolling Stone scoop that has held up after further scrutiny was Matt Taibbi's coverage of financial institutions. That was ages ago.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bleuchase 4y ago
They lied. That’s what it’s called. Not left out.
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  >They lied. There are several 'theys' in the story. Which 'they'?
  - mcguire 4y ago
    "Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-enforcement officers actually removed him from the building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case remain sealed." (https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fbi-raid-abc-news_producer-1234613619/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/https://www.rolli...) The editor of Rolling Stone had information saying that first sentence, which he introduced, was false.
decapita 4y ago
[flagged]
droptablemain 4y ago
I'm incredibly skeptical of the machine, as well as NPR, which mostly exists to support the narrative of the ruling elite. However, I recommend everyone skeptical of this to read the full affidavit -- or at least as much as you can stomach. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...
glonq 4y ago
I hate to sound like a grumpy old man [especially because I'm not...] but I'm increasingly discouraged by both (1) the media's willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity, and (2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces. We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed.
- watwut 4y ago
  There was never period in history in which there were no media lies. Not because media are uniquely evil, but because media people are kinda like everyone else. There might be more or less lies depending on various factors, but literally every single year in the past, including when we were little, there were some lies being widely read. That being said, there are whole lawsuits going on about lies in media right now. Pretty big ones and widely reported about ones. So, if you think that nobody noticed, it is just not true.
  - P_I_Staker 4y ago
    Yeah, and it was way worse in the era of yellow journalism… but this is all beside the point. We’re on a backslide where journalists are far more shameless than eg. 10-30 years ago.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Have we checked old media for it's shamelessness now that we have hindsight? Easy to say that they weren't shameless back then, when we didn't have a global network feeding us updated information on what they were reporting.
    - watwut 4y ago
      This case is hardly an instance showing that. You could maybe argue by Alex Jones stuff for that. But the sort the the missing reasons like this did happened in 1990-2010 too.
- waboremo 4y ago
superkuh 4y ago
That's probably because the FBI has a history of making up excuses to get search warrants for journalist and activist's homes. The reasons the FBI gives for getting a search warrant have about as much connection to real life as the daily horoscope.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  The reasons are extremely clear here, secondly, judges issue warrants based on facts, it's not perfect, but most warrants are obtained 100% legally. In this case the accused had top secret document on his computer but more importantly is being investigated for images of child sexual abuse which was redacted by Rolling Stone. You have to read the article, otherwise I would think you're defending an accused pedophile just because you have some imaginary beef with the FBI.
  - superkuh 4y ago
    >otherwise I would think you're defending an accused pedophile just because you have some imaginary beef with the FBI. You're on the right track but you have it backwards. We should be mad that the FBI has so consistently degraded their reputation with parallel construction and other flat out lies that even in the case of a potentially heinous guilty person we cannot believe their claims before they are tested in court and the evidence, and evidentiary chain, is shown. So yeah, I'm defending anyone who has rocked the boat and then suddenly been raided by the FBI for an unrelated reason during which they happen to find something related to the rocking the boat. I find it just as likely that the FBI used their access to plant evidence for parallel construction in the Dropbox account and iPhone 8 conversation log. So they could search for national security stuff.
    - bastardoperator 4y ago
      I see a lot of police making mistakes on youtube. Do I assume every police officer is a bad apple? No, because I'm not an idiot.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
uejfiweun 4y ago
Just another example of Rolling Stone literally being the worst of the worst in terms of unethical media. It’s not the first time they’ve been caught like this, nor will it be the last. Their newsroom is honestly so prolific in terms of producing lies that you’d think the political parties would be paying attention to them, they could be a great batch of future politicians.
paulpauper 4y ago
Disturbing stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_Meek#Investigation_and_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_Meek#Investigatio... Shame on Rolling Stone for omitting this It's hard to find any way to defend Rolling Stone's actions. It's actions in 2014 showed it cannot be trusted as a reputable source.
nailer 4y ago
Also Rolling Stone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

162 points by leephillips 4y ago

We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Based upon NPR's telling it seems like the editor was trying to hide details about a friend's story as long as possible, and not present the details of the story with skepticism like you're implying.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jstarfish 4y ago
I know what you're referring to but don't think this is one of those cases. The affidavit is very thorough about what was found. Starts on page 3. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...
- TylerE 4y ago
  To split the difference a bit... They have him "on tape" IMing multiple other suspects, talking extremely graphically about pedophilia, and exchanging images and video of same.
  - briantakita 4y ago
    "on tape" meaning they have a video of him in front of a computer engaging in the conversation? I skimmed through the affidavit & couldn't find that claim. It was difficult to read the content so I didn't look to deeply into it. Could you post a quote of the claim if it's there?
    - martinjacobd 4y ago
      They don't claim to have video of him engaging in the conversation, but they do claim to have a pretty damning picture of him. To support the idea that it was he who engaged in these messages, they claim that you can only be logged in to kik on one device at a time and have evidence that he was using the device for other purposes around the same time and in the same location as kik for at least one of these conversations. That's my reading, anyways. Not a lawyer and have trouble with the stilted language in these kinds of things.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      On tape as in they have the phone with messages on it, and the ip addeess and device info used to send the messages. (As opposed to testimony, where you have someone else testifying that they SAW him doing it, but no way of proving that post facto)
- recyclelater 4y ago
  FYI to anyone curious, do not read the affidavit if you do not want to have pretty horrific images of infants etc in your mind.
- scythe 4y ago
  So Dropbox found uploads, allegedly from Meek, containing CP. Then devices were found at Meek's residence containing CP. To there, you could fake it: pwn the box, open a Dropbox, upload pictures. Basic parallel construction. In items 30-53 we have an allegation that Meek exposed himself to children on Omegle. This is more damning. Included in the evidence are pictures apparently showing Meek naked. Harder to fake. His face does not seem to be visible in any of the images. Some legitimate communications of Meek are also on the phone, corresponding with his known whereabouts (and might be checked against the other end if possible). Conclusion: if this is a frame, it's a very well-made one. Why would he be framed, though? He made a documentary about a military embarrassment (the Tongo Tongo ambush), and many years ago he documented a case of apparent manslaughter (of an American) by a captain in Iraq. In short, he was not exactly a Seymour Hersh or a Glenn Greenwald. I just don't see the 3LAs going to this much trouble to bag a guy who wrote a story about Niger. So I conclude the case is probably real. Thought I'd put this down and save someone else the trouble.
  - celdon25 4y ago
    Thank you, it’s hard to find reasonably good arguments like this in the HN comments these days.
penultimatename 4y ago
Isn't it a reporters job to report the facts? The fact is the FBI was investigating them for a specific crime. It's already suspect that they left out that key fact. It's extra suspect when it turns out they had personal connections to the accused.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  If you think the government only reports facts, stop reading Rolling Stone. Read the FBI report.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one. The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether. I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty. My wife's ex was "being investigated by CPS" at one point. He didn't do anything, but it is/was humiliating for him nonetheless.
  - brwck 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - pr0zac 4y ago
      I'm really confused how you read that sentence as spinning Rolling Stone's actions positively?
      - brwck 4y ago
        But he used it as justification to "give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one.". It's interesting how criticizing trash publications like the rolling stone with facts and truth gets your comment flagged. Makes one wonder...
  - 4y ago
john15 4y ago
[flagged]
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> the investigation into James Gordon Meek, 53, of Arlington, was initiated from an investigative lead sent by Dropbox and ultimately received by the FBI Washington Field Office’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  The problem with stating stuff like this is it can be used as an example of how deep the conspiracy goes rather than a refutation.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    To the conspiracy minded, sure. How can any discussion be had with these people who don't require evidence in order to make bold claims?
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Honestly, no idea. Seems a fool's errand.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Dropbox working with the fbi is a fact here. Jumping to dropbox working with the fbi regarding other files is fact as well. Dropbox knowing what is in your files is known as well. It stops being a conspiracy when everyone admits to the facts
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        The poster insinuated that the FBI planted CSAM on a reporter's devices.
        vuln 4y ago
        Well at one point they were paying GeekSquaders to _find_ and report it. > "how does the government intend to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Geek Squad employees themselves didn't put the alleged porn pictures on the device?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504
tempsy 4y ago
[flagged]
version_five 4y ago
It's fucked up that a conspiracy theory gets the top post and actual criticisms of the reporting are at the bottom.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  First day on HN? When you ask for examples of this happening they get really mad and try to hide your question by downvoting it.
madeofpalk 4y ago
So then report on that?
lalopalota 4y ago
The journalist quit after the pedophilla charges were edited out of the article.
mrandish 4y ago
In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and skeptical when there are no real facts yet. An affidavit in support of a search warrant is little more than an unevidenced assertion. Compared to the often extreme punitive consequences of the mere accusation being widely spread it can be disproportionate. If the warrant produces actual evidence of wrongdoing it will later result in an indictment and ultimately a trial. That's the more appropriate time for media to consider those allegations as newsworthy. Sadly, there are documented examples of government (or individuals wielding the power of government) using extreme accusations in affidavits to intentionally inflict punishment. Rolling Stone choosing to not be unwitting 'judge-jury-executioner' at that early no-evidence stage doesn't mean they wouldn't report on an eventual indictment - when and if it happens.
- leephillips 4y ago
  You make excellent points, and in a world were we know that people will remember accusations and not subsequent exonerations, it would be humane to delay reporting on the kind of accusation that will ruin a person’s life. The problem is that Rolling Stone plays favorites. In a recent incident they ran the false headline “CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be Eradicated,” about someone that they didn’t like and who wasn’t a friend of the editor in chief. After being threatened with a lawsuit for this libel, they changed the headline. I don’t think they can be trusted.
  - mcguire 4y ago
    Seems like that article is currently titled much more accurately: "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People".
  - myko 4y ago
    The speaker called for transgenderism to be eradicated. Consider headlines if AOC called for conservatism to be eradicated.
- burkaman 4y ago
tqi 4y ago
In the absence of evidence, what is the line between a "reasonable suspicion" and a "conspiracy theory"?
- brookst 4y ago
  You said it yourself -- it's the difference between a suspicion, aka hypothesis, and theory, aka explanation based on evidence. The problem with conspiracy theorists isn't that they think unlikely things might have happened, it's that they are 100% convicted that unlikely things are the only possible explanation, and (typically) that any evidence to the contrary is just part of the conspiracy.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
> We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars. "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people. Based on other comments it seems like the accusations are a bit more substantial than a low effort frame. Nevertheless, there's a reason that the rest of the journalism industry basically dismissed it flat out. That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard.
- bsder 4y ago
  > "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people. Except that we know, via Snowden, all manner of things that the TLAs can do and have done. "Child Porn" charges should ALWAYS be acknowledged with great skepticism given just how much damage even the accusation will do--especially if the investigation is focused on just one person (ie. not part of a broader sting or sweep). However, in this instance, the evidence looks pretty damning. I still don't like them reporting on it, though. The man deserves the opportunity to prove his innocence in court and reporting the accusations denies him that--even if he is found innocent (which admittedly looks unlikely), the reporting will destroy his life. > That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard. That is fair and hard to disagree with.

johnklos 4y ago

News that cares this much about sensationalizing isn't news. While I'm entirely for unfettered protection of free speech, free speech doesn't include the right to lie, at least not in a professional capacity. Perhaps we need to start punishing intentionally deceptive reporting by not allowing these people to call themselves journalists and / or not allowing these sources of information to call themselves news.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
version_five 4y ago
I think it's a problem that can take care of itself. People need to be incredulous. Why would anyone reading Rolling Stone, Teen Vogue, Ars Technica, Vice, Buzfeed, or any of the other publications clearly in the realm of entertainment imagine that they actually do "journalism" in the usual sense.
nradov 4y ago
Free speech generally does include the right to lie. There are only very limited legal circumstances where a lie could be a criminal offense or cause for civil liability. Even if you could somehow ban people from calling themselves "journalists" that would be meaningless under US federal law as journalists enjoy no more rights or privileges than any other common citizen.
- blowski 4y ago
  Indeed, the current Fox vs Dominion case is highlighting that very point.
usednet 4y ago
Ever watched a police interrogation?
arp242 4y ago
How would you distinguish between "intentionally deceptive" and "being wrong"? In principle I don't disagree; but proving "intentionally deceptive" beyond reasonable doubt in court is extraordinarily hard, so in practice I don't really think we can do much about it.

wdb 4y ago

Rolling Stone magazine has been going down hill for a long time. There reporting of late has been pretty disappointing with slanted views/one sided reporting

ffhhj 4y ago
At least they keep the stones rolling, down the hill that is.
fortran77 4y ago
They aren't credible anymore. Not since this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-rolling-stone-frat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-r...
- brookst 4y ago
  That's incredibly damning and everyone involved should be ashamed. That said, is there any organization in the world, let alone a media outlet, that has never had any catastrophic failures? Are we supposed to be one-strike to forever irredeemable for every org?
- 93po 4y ago
  Should we also not call the NYT credible anymore after they supported the invasion of Iraq (and associated WMD BS) and admitted their reporting "had not been as rigorous as they should have been, and were insufficiently qualified, frequently overly dependent upon [biased] information"? That one of their reporters had to retire in shame, but only after a generous severance package deal, and all of the editors and people who allowed this were allowed to stay?
drak0n1c 4y ago
The only recent major Rolling Stone scoop that has held up after further scrutiny was Matt Taibbi's coverage of financial institutions. That was ages ago.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bleuchase 4y ago

They lied. That’s what it’s called. Not left out.

InCityDreams 4y ago
>They lied. There are several 'theys' in the story. Which 'they'?
- mcguire 4y ago
  "Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-enforcement officers actually removed him from the building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case remain sealed." (https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fbi-raid-abc-news_producer-1234613619/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221019003915/https://www.rolli...) The editor of Rolling Stone had information saying that first sentence, which he introduced, was false.

decapita 4y ago

[flagged]

droptablemain 4y ago

I'm incredibly skeptical of the machine, as well as NPR, which mostly exists to support the narrative of the ruling elite. However, I recommend everyone skeptical of this to read the full affidavit -- or at least as much as you can stomach. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/downl...

glonq 4y ago

I hate to sound like a grumpy old man [especially because I'm not...] but I'm increasingly discouraged by both (1) the media's willingness to abandon any sense of ethics or integrity, and (2) the public's willingness to unquestioningly consume everything that such media produces. We somehow crossed over an invisible line that separates "cheeky hyperbole" from "outright deceit and lies" and nobody noticed.

watwut 4y ago
There was never period in history in which there were no media lies. Not because media are uniquely evil, but because media people are kinda like everyone else. There might be more or less lies depending on various factors, but literally every single year in the past, including when we were little, there were some lies being widely read. That being said, there are whole lawsuits going on about lies in media right now. Pretty big ones and widely reported about ones. So, if you think that nobody noticed, it is just not true.
- P_I_Staker 4y ago
  Yeah, and it was way worse in the era of yellow journalism… but this is all beside the point. We’re on a backslide where journalists are far more shameless than eg. 10-30 years ago.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Have we checked old media for it's shamelessness now that we have hindsight? Easy to say that they weren't shameless back then, when we didn't have a global network feeding us updated information on what they were reporting.
  - watwut 4y ago
    This case is hardly an instance showing that. You could maybe argue by Alex Jones stuff for that. But the sort the the missing reasons like this did happened in 1990-2010 too.
waboremo 4y ago

superkuh 4y ago

That's probably because the FBI has a history of making up excuses to get search warrants for journalist and activist's homes. The reasons the FBI gives for getting a search warrant have about as much connection to real life as the daily horoscope.

bastardoperator 4y ago
The reasons are extremely clear here, secondly, judges issue warrants based on facts, it's not perfect, but most warrants are obtained 100% legally. In this case the accused had top secret document on his computer but more importantly is being investigated for images of child sexual abuse which was redacted by Rolling Stone. You have to read the article, otherwise I would think you're defending an accused pedophile just because you have some imaginary beef with the FBI.
- superkuh 4y ago
  >otherwise I would think you're defending an accused pedophile just because you have some imaginary beef with the FBI. You're on the right track but you have it backwards. We should be mad that the FBI has so consistently degraded their reputation with parallel construction and other flat out lies that even in the case of a potentially heinous guilty person we cannot believe their claims before they are tested in court and the evidence, and evidentiary chain, is shown. So yeah, I'm defending anyone who has rocked the boat and then suddenly been raided by the FBI for an unrelated reason during which they happen to find something related to the rocking the boat. I find it just as likely that the FBI used their access to plant evidence for parallel construction in the Dropbox account and iPhone 8 conversation log. So they could search for national security stuff.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    I see a lot of police making mistakes on youtube. Do I assume every police officer is a bad apple? No, because I'm not an idiot.
s1artibartfast 4y ago

uejfiweun 4y ago

Just another example of Rolling Stone literally being the worst of the worst in terms of unethical media. It’s not the first time they’ve been caught like this, nor will it be the last. Their newsroom is honestly so prolific in terms of producing lies that you’d think the political parties would be paying attention to them, they could be a great batch of future politicians.

paulpauper 4y ago

Disturbing stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_Meek#Investigation_and_arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_Meek#Investigatio... Shame on Rolling Stone for omitting this It's hard to find any way to defend Rolling Stone's actions. It's actions in 2014 showed it cannot be trusted as a reputable source.

nailer 4y ago

Also Rolling Stone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case