5 ms·

If it helps you feel better, this is in a thread about them getting caught and called out. There are some horrifically bad actors in our media landscape right

If it helps you feel better, this is in a thread about them getting caught and called out. There are some horrifically bad actors in our media landscape right now who are more than happy to lie or label opinion shows as "news" if makes their stock price goes up. It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like NPR doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS.

93po 4y ago
[flagged]
- the_why_of_y 4y ago
  Here the media claim that the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the network of the Russian "Cozy Bear" group for more than a year and caught them pretty much live on camera while they hacked the Democratic Party. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-... Wow, I wasn't aware how far the tentacles of the DNC establishment reach if they paid for that as you say!
  - 93po 4y ago
    Ah yes, the same Dutch intelligence agency that release from custody a person that stole nuclear weapons technology which enabled Pakistan to develop nuclear bombs. And did so at the behest of a foreign country. I wonder what else they'd do for a foreign country when asked? 1. All of the reporting on this in 2016 relied on the auditing I'm mentioning. Whether there was other evidence is beside the point - it wasn't something they used to influence their reporting 2. If it was known in 2014 that Cozy Bear was targeting the DNC and AIVD already had full access and knowledge of all of Cozy Bear's actions, why did they let them hack the DNC? 3. All sources say there were multiple people who had illicit access to DNC servers. There was clearly a vulnerability that multiple groups were able to exploit, and the exploiters were clearly doing nothing to prevent others from doing the same. Why are we so confident it was Cozy Bear? 4. Why did the DNC, after being told in summer 2015 that they were hacked, do nothing about this? Even the article points this out: "It is not clear why the hacks at the DNC could continue for so long despite the Dutch warnings." They continued to be allegedly hacked for more than a year since the leaked emails date as far as May 2016. 5. We're also completely ignoring that the journalist who published the emails explicitly said it was an insider who provided it, and there is no evidence that this journalist received information from Russian officials. Literally none of this adds up to anything remotely close to conclusive.
- myko 4y ago
  Sadly your comment is an example of the problem, as it is known fact that Russia was part of the DNC hack. Beyond the media the Mueller investigation covered this, you can read related transcripts: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6887586/Yared-Tamene-Wolde-Yohannes-Aug-30-2017.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6887586/Yared-Tam...
- BryantD 4y ago
  I may be misunderstanding this; can you help me out and be specific about what you mean by DNC email leaks? If we’re talking about the Guccifer 2.0 leaks, it seems relevant to note that in October of 2016, the US intelligence community stated that they were confident that Russia was involved. Mueller also indicted 12 Russian nationals on related charges. There is currently a fair bit of evidence that yes, the Guccifer leaks were Russian based. Now, perhaps your objection is that media outlets reported this prior to those findings. For politically charged questions like these, I’d recommend that you still include the post-facto findings I reference, since otherwise your audience could wind up with the understanding that our knowledge about the hacks is limited to the reporting you mention. Back to the question of “auditors” — let’s once again be specific. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to investigate the hack. Their initial response and follow ups are here: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... CrowdStrike used stronger words than “likely.” Some of them: “We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR.” “At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.” The report does not go into detail on methods, for obvious reasons. But that is the statement of a company that is positive about identifications. It is reasonable for a news agency to report that CrowdStrike was certain. It’s harder for me to track down whatever NPR article you mean. I’m open to a specific reference here! In the meantime, though: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-penetrate-democratic-national-committee-steal-trump-research https://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-pen... The first paragraph states the Russian source as fact, but the remainder of the article is very clear that CrowdStrike is the source. It links to this WaPo article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi... The first paragraph specifies “according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.” So… if I’m right about the hack you mean, I think you’ve chosen a bad example of media gullibility.
fsckboy 4y ago
[flagged]
hersko 4y ago
I was going to point out how NPR dropped the ball [1] on the Hunter Biden story, but then found this followup [2] and i'm not sure how i feel. Is it a correction? A copout? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-covering-the-hunter-biden-laptop-story-and-now-president-trumps-son-wants-to-defund-it-11603386611 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerge-in-federal-investigation-into-hunter-biden https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerg...
- legitster 4y ago
  I mean, the whole laptop story was clearly held back and conveniently timed by political actors in an attempt to manipulate the media. I have my problems with NPR, but I'll go on the record and respect them for not playing ball and doing proper due diligence.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    It was being manipulated from both sides. If you had serious evidence against the son of the sitting president, your first reaction should not be to mail the thing, untracked and uninsured to TUCKER CARLSON.
  - Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
    Sure, but they certainly seemed to apply less scepticism and due diligence to the Trump Russia stuff.
    - legitster 4y ago
      FWIW: NPR was also pretty hands off on the Steele dossier. But I don't know what level of due diligence you need on the other stuff. Most of the incriminating connections between Trump's orgs and Russian agents were pretty largely substantiated - sometimes by Trump's own words and actions.
- t-3 4y ago
  NPR almost never ignores stories outright. They will slip things into a vague half a sentence quickly between segments, only cover one viewpoint, and uncritically repeat government statements. All news sources do this kind of stuff though, so it's important to read and listen widely and critically.
legitster 4y ago
> It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like NPR doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS. While I agree that NPR News bats above average they are not without their blind spots. While they may not chase clickbait or obvious ragebaiting trash, their journalists still latch onto convenient or lazy explanations all of the time.
- stusmall 4y ago
  It's a human institution. It absolutely isn't without flaw. I can think of a couple stories they did I wasn't a big fan of. But this is part of how the system works and why well funded, ethical, serious media is crucial to a functioning society. News agencies will report on each other and help raise the standard of how they are run. Some, NPR included, with have news desks that are devoted to just that and will even report non-flattering news on themselves. The author of this article is really good about it. He's aired some pretty unflattering, dirty laundry about NPR/PBS, not just other news orgs. Sometimes his pieces are a bit too inside baseball for me, but I appreciate the value they bring to the system as a whole. An introspective news ecosystem is a healthy one. A healthy news ecosystem helps build a healthier society by rooting out corruption, waste and injustice.
- Rapzid 4y ago
  I recall that NPR had the "Weed is actually bad" book guy on and was pretty much letting him say whatever unchallenged. No opposing viewpoint guest, a bunch of softball questions, and no pushback in general. This guy totally gave off vibes of using this kernel of truth, these studies on THC in developing brains, and wrapping it in a bunch of FUD to sell his personal brand and books. Oh, and his wife is the scientist not him.. Honestly it felt like a paid advertising spot or a bit of propaganda. At the time I was wondering about the latter because it seemed that NPR had somehow taken a stance AGAINST legalization around the time all that activity was occurring a couple years ago.
  - glonq 4y ago
    Yeah I'm also sad that the Fairness Doctrine is dead. It's healthy to hear dissenting viewpoints, even if it makes people uncomfy.

93po 4y ago

[flagged]

the_why_of_y 4y ago
Here the media claim that the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the network of the Russian "Cozy Bear" group for more than a year and caught them pretty much live on camera while they hacked the Democratic Party. https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-... Wow, I wasn't aware how far the tentacles of the DNC establishment reach if they paid for that as you say!
- 93po 4y ago
  Ah yes, the same Dutch intelligence agency that release from custody a person that stole nuclear weapons technology which enabled Pakistan to develop nuclear bombs. And did so at the behest of a foreign country. I wonder what else they'd do for a foreign country when asked? 1. All of the reporting on this in 2016 relied on the auditing I'm mentioning. Whether there was other evidence is beside the point - it wasn't something they used to influence their reporting 2. If it was known in 2014 that Cozy Bear was targeting the DNC and AIVD already had full access and knowledge of all of Cozy Bear's actions, why did they let them hack the DNC? 3. All sources say there were multiple people who had illicit access to DNC servers. There was clearly a vulnerability that multiple groups were able to exploit, and the exploiters were clearly doing nothing to prevent others from doing the same. Why are we so confident it was Cozy Bear? 4. Why did the DNC, after being told in summer 2015 that they were hacked, do nothing about this? Even the article points this out: "It is not clear why the hacks at the DNC could continue for so long despite the Dutch warnings." They continued to be allegedly hacked for more than a year since the leaked emails date as far as May 2016. 5. We're also completely ignoring that the journalist who published the emails explicitly said it was an insider who provided it, and there is no evidence that this journalist received information from Russian officials. Literally none of this adds up to anything remotely close to conclusive.
myko 4y ago
Sadly your comment is an example of the problem, as it is known fact that Russia was part of the DNC hack. Beyond the media the Mueller investigation covered this, you can read related transcripts: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6887586/Yared-Tamene-Wolde-Yohannes-Aug-30-2017.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6887586/Yared-Tam...
BryantD 4y ago
I may be misunderstanding this; can you help me out and be specific about what you mean by DNC email leaks? If we’re talking about the Guccifer 2.0 leaks, it seems relevant to note that in October of 2016, the US intelligence community stated that they were confident that Russia was involved. Mueller also indicted 12 Russian nationals on related charges. There is currently a fair bit of evidence that yes, the Guccifer leaks were Russian based. Now, perhaps your objection is that media outlets reported this prior to those findings. For politically charged questions like these, I’d recommend that you still include the post-facto findings I reference, since otherwise your audience could wind up with the understanding that our knowledge about the hacks is limited to the reporting you mention. Back to the question of “auditors” — let’s once again be specific. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to investigate the hack. Their initial response and follow ups are here: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... CrowdStrike used stronger words than “likely.” Some of them: “We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR.” “At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.” The report does not go into detail on methods, for obvious reasons. But that is the statement of a company that is positive about identifications. It is reasonable for a news agency to report that CrowdStrike was certain. It’s harder for me to track down whatever NPR article you mean. I’m open to a specific reference here! In the meantime, though: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-penetrate-democratic-national-committee-steal-trump-research https://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-pen... The first paragraph states the Russian source as fact, but the remainder of the article is very clear that CrowdStrike is the source. It links to this WaPo article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi... The first paragraph specifies “according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.” So… if I’m right about the hack you mean, I think you’ve chosen a bad example of media gullibility.

fsckboy 4y ago

[flagged]

hersko 4y ago

I was going to point out how NPR dropped the ball [1] on the Hunter Biden story, but then found this followup [2] and i'm not sure how i feel. Is it a correction? A copout? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-covering-the-hunter-biden-laptop-story-and-now-president-trumps-son-wants-to-defund-it-11603386611 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/npr-explained-why-its-not-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerge-in-federal-investigation-into-hunter-biden https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerg...

legitster 4y ago
I mean, the whole laptop story was clearly held back and conveniently timed by political actors in an attempt to manipulate the media. I have my problems with NPR, but I'll go on the record and respect them for not playing ball and doing proper due diligence.
- TylerE 4y ago
  It was being manipulated from both sides. If you had serious evidence against the son of the sitting president, your first reaction should not be to mail the thing, untracked and uninsured to TUCKER CARLSON.
- Wolfenstein98k 4y ago
  Sure, but they certainly seemed to apply less scepticism and due diligence to the Trump Russia stuff.
  - legitster 4y ago
    FWIW: NPR was also pretty hands off on the Steele dossier. But I don't know what level of due diligence you need on the other stuff. Most of the incriminating connections between Trump's orgs and Russian agents were pretty largely substantiated - sometimes by Trump's own words and actions.
t-3 4y ago
NPR almost never ignores stories outright. They will slip things into a vague half a sentence quickly between segments, only cover one viewpoint, and uncritically repeat government statements. All news sources do this kind of stuff though, so it's important to read and listen widely and critically.

legitster 4y ago

> It's good to see serious, well respected news outlets like NPR doing the hard work and calling others out on their BS. While I agree that NPR News bats above average they are not without their blind spots. While they may not chase clickbait or obvious ragebaiting trash, their journalists still latch onto convenient or lazy explanations all of the time.

stusmall 4y ago
It's a human institution. It absolutely isn't without flaw. I can think of a couple stories they did I wasn't a big fan of. But this is part of how the system works and why well funded, ethical, serious media is crucial to a functioning society. News agencies will report on each other and help raise the standard of how they are run. Some, NPR included, with have news desks that are devoted to just that and will even report non-flattering news on themselves. The author of this article is really good about it. He's aired some pretty unflattering, dirty laundry about NPR/PBS, not just other news orgs. Sometimes his pieces are a bit too inside baseball for me, but I appreciate the value they bring to the system as a whole. An introspective news ecosystem is a healthy one. A healthy news ecosystem helps build a healthier society by rooting out corruption, waste and injustice.
Rapzid 4y ago
I recall that NPR had the "Weed is actually bad" book guy on and was pretty much letting him say whatever unchallenged. No opposing viewpoint guest, a bunch of softball questions, and no pushback in general. This guy totally gave off vibes of using this kernel of truth, these studies on THC in developing brains, and wrapping it in a bunch of FUD to sell his personal brand and books. Oh, and his wife is the scientist not him.. Honestly it felt like a paid advertising spot or a bit of propaganda. At the time I was wondering about the latter because it seemed that NPR had somehow taken a stance AGAINST legalization around the time all that activity was occurring a couple years ago.
- glonq 4y ago
  Yeah I'm also sad that the Fairness Doctrine is dead. It's healthy to hear dissenting viewpoints, even if it makes people uncomfy.