4 ms·

Worth noting: > In a phone call leaked by the Tehran Times

lordofgibbons 2y ago
It's a recorded audio file, not an opinion or hearsay, so I don't think the leaking organization matters. Would you feel better if an anonymous user uploaded it to Reddit/Twitter/Tiktok?
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity of the recording in some way. A state-controlled newspaper in an autocratic county? It could be something they did verify as true and just happens to align with their agenda - or it could be nonsense and they know it. Or they couldn't just shrugged and said "makes the US look bad, run it." I think most people don't appreciate the levels of internal review and fact-checking that go on when a national paper in the US ends up with a big story in its lap.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    NYT, WaPo, etc aren't very likely to publish it. It'd be in the same bucket as Jeff Epstein - politically toxic and the majors aren't going to take the lead drawing attention to it even if it is plausible. Facts would need to be in the public sphere for a while and gaining traction before they pick it up. It might be the Iranians making stuff up, although realistically that sort of activity is what should be expected without any leaks at all. It has been obvious since around 2016 that the corporate media doesn't have the ability to single-handily dominate the narrative any more and that will impact national security propaganda because, you know, what military would be stupid enough to leave that sort of messaging to chance?
  - nico 2y ago
    > NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity Oh yeah, like the verification of their stories of the oven babies If anything, this whole ordeal has shown that all media is at some level censored and controlled by special interests behind the scenes We’ve been living in a post-truth world for a long time, way before AI
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      Who lived in a world with no lies, Adam?
      - nico 2y ago
        Great point. Ever since we’ve had language, we’ve had lies My comment just points to the naïveté of thinking that somehow big media are big sources of unbiased truth that we can all trust
  - nico 2y ago
    > Schwartz said as much in an interview with Israeli Army Radio on December 31. “The New York Times said, ‘Let’s do an investigation into sexual violence’ — it was more a case of them having to convince me,” she said. Her host cut her off: “It was a proposal of The New York Times, the entire thing?” > The bigger scandal may be the reporting itself, the process that allowed it into print, and the life-altering impact the reporting had for thousands of Palestinians whose deaths were justified by the alleged systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas the paper claimed to have exposed https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/ https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw... Surely the NYT would verify, right? And of course the WaPo has no conflicts of interest being owned by Bezos either
- tomjen3 2y ago
  I would. 10 years ago, no. Today? An audiofile is really easy to make with or even just a couple people in a studio.
  - pydry 2y ago
    It's also really easy for Greenblatt to issue a denial. That is, of course, unless it is true. A denial wouldnt necessarily indicate that it is false (he has every reason to deny it, but lying is a risk) but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is, in fact, true. There is a very low cost to denying lies, so the absence of a denial (unlike its presence) is a very good indicator.
    - ogogmad 2y ago
      "No rumour is true until it's categorically denied" -- Otto Von Bismarck. > There is a very low cost to denying lies. So people can just lie. See: Clinton and Lewinski, the Profumo affair, Russian troop buildup on the Ukraine border 2022, Russian attacks on Ukraine 2014+, claims by NSA execs prior to the Snowden leaks, etc.
- dekelpilli 2y ago
  I don't doubt he said it, because I think it's pretty plain to see it's a correct analysis - antisemitism is rife with the new generation to a degree that, to me at least, is quite scary. I just think it's quite instructive that a hostile state is trying to use this to sow discord.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    There's an extent to which that word was used to mean criticism of the previous administration's foreign policy. Politicians are generally not known for their honor, and will try to hide behind anything, no matter how sacrosanct.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > antisemitism is rife with the new generation Is there an example one could provide of this which shows members of the new generation criticizing Jewish people for being Jewish? Surely it wouldn’t be examples of people voicing criticism of the actions of people who happen to be Jewish.
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      Oh sweetheart. Just search twitter for “jews”.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        Yeah, fair enough; it was a mistake to ask for examples, I realize that now. One could probably go to twitter and search “chemtrails” and find a lot of words written seemingly without preceding critical thought. I don’t think many people would assert that chemtrail conspiracy theories are rife with the new generation, however.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
pydry 2y ago
Only worth noting if Greenblatt has denied the phone call. E.g when Russia stopped denying the presence of North Korean troops, it was pretty much cast iron proof that Ukraine's recent videos of the prisoners were not fakes. A denial wouldnt necessarily mean it wasn't true, but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is.
- ogogmad 2y ago
  Whenever the Russian government denies something like you're suggesting, I take it to be an admission. I'm usually right. You're naive and wrong.
sonotathrowaway 2y ago
So you’re admitting that the call was real, we should just ignore it because it’s inconvenient to your beliefs?
- dekelpilli 2y ago
  You shouldn't ignore it, you should listen carefully, and you should ponder why an enemy state wants it to outrage you.
  - sonotathrowaway 2y ago
    They know their argument is bolstered by the truth being widely known in this case, so it benefits them to leak it. Why is it so important to you that the truth is suppressed?

It's a recorded audio file, not an opinion or hearsay, so I don't think the leaking organization matters. Would you feel better if an anonymous user uploaded it to Reddit/Twitter/Tiktok?

KennyBlanken 2y ago
NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity of the recording in some way. A state-controlled newspaper in an autocratic county? It could be something they did verify as true and just happens to align with their agenda - or it could be nonsense and they know it. Or they couldn't just shrugged and said "makes the US look bad, run it." I think most people don't appreciate the levels of internal review and fact-checking that go on when a national paper in the US ends up with a big story in its lap.
- roenxi 2y ago
  NYT, WaPo, etc aren't very likely to publish it. It'd be in the same bucket as Jeff Epstein - politically toxic and the majors aren't going to take the lead drawing attention to it even if it is plausible. Facts would need to be in the public sphere for a while and gaining traction before they pick it up. It might be the Iranians making stuff up, although realistically that sort of activity is what should be expected without any leaks at all. It has been obvious since around 2016 that the corporate media doesn't have the ability to single-handily dominate the narrative any more and that will impact national security propaganda because, you know, what military would be stupid enough to leave that sort of messaging to chance?
- nico 2y ago
  > NYT, WaPo, etc would disclose whether they had been able to verify the source or authenticity Oh yeah, like the verification of their stories of the oven babies If anything, this whole ordeal has shown that all media is at some level censored and controlled by special interests behind the scenes We’ve been living in a post-truth world for a long time, way before AI
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    Who lived in a world with no lies, Adam?
    - nico 2y ago
      Great point. Ever since we’ve had language, we’ve had lies My comment just points to the naïveté of thinking that somehow big media are big sources of unbiased truth that we can all trust
- nico 2y ago
  > Schwartz said as much in an interview with Israeli Army Radio on December 31. “The New York Times said, ‘Let’s do an investigation into sexual violence’ — it was more a case of them having to convince me,” she said. Her host cut her off: “It was a proposal of The New York Times, the entire thing?” > The bigger scandal may be the reporting itself, the process that allowed it into print, and the life-altering impact the reporting had for thousands of Palestinians whose deaths were justified by the alleged systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas the paper claimed to have exposed https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/ https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw... Surely the NYT would verify, right? And of course the WaPo has no conflicts of interest being owned by Bezos either
tomjen3 2y ago
I would. 10 years ago, no. Today? An audiofile is really easy to make with or even just a couple people in a studio.
- pydry 2y ago
  It's also really easy for Greenblatt to issue a denial. That is, of course, unless it is true. A denial wouldnt necessarily indicate that it is false (he has every reason to deny it, but lying is a risk) but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is, in fact, true. There is a very low cost to denying lies, so the absence of a denial (unlike its presence) is a very good indicator.
  - ogogmad 2y ago
    "No rumour is true until it's categorically denied" -- Otto Von Bismarck. > There is a very low cost to denying lies. So people can just lie. See: Clinton and Lewinski, the Profumo affair, Russian troop buildup on the Ukraine border 2022, Russian attacks on Ukraine 2014+, claims by NSA execs prior to the Snowden leaks, etc.
dekelpilli 2y ago
I don't doubt he said it, because I think it's pretty plain to see it's a correct analysis - antisemitism is rife with the new generation to a degree that, to me at least, is quite scary. I just think it's quite instructive that a hostile state is trying to use this to sow discord.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  There's an extent to which that word was used to mean criticism of the previous administration's foreign policy. Politicians are generally not known for their honor, and will try to hide behind anything, no matter how sacrosanct.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > antisemitism is rife with the new generation Is there an example one could provide of this which shows members of the new generation criticizing Jewish people for being Jewish? Surely it wouldn’t be examples of people voicing criticism of the actions of people who happen to be Jewish.
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    Oh sweetheart. Just search twitter for “jews”.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      Yeah, fair enough; it was a mistake to ask for examples, I realize that now. One could probably go to twitter and search “chemtrails” and find a lot of words written seemingly without preceding critical thought. I don’t think many people would assert that chemtrail conspiracy theories are rife with the new generation, however.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

pydry 2y ago

Only worth noting if Greenblatt has denied the phone call. E.g when Russia stopped denying the presence of North Korean troops, it was pretty much cast iron proof that Ukraine's recent videos of the prisoners were not fakes. A denial wouldnt necessarily mean it wasn't true, but the lack of a denial is very strong evidence that it is.

ogogmad 2y ago
Whenever the Russian government denies something like you're suggesting, I take it to be an admission. I'm usually right. You're naive and wrong.

sonotathrowaway 2y ago

So you’re admitting that the call was real, we should just ignore it because it’s inconvenient to your beliefs?

dekelpilli 2y ago
You shouldn't ignore it, you should listen carefully, and you should ponder why an enemy state wants it to outrage you.
- sonotathrowaway 2y ago
  They know their argument is bolstered by the truth being widely known in this case, so it benefits them to leak it. Why is it so important to you that the truth is suppressed?