4 ms·

Came here to post this. Haven't we learned many times in the last 5 years that, on average, "The Literal New York Times" is a better and more reliable source th

Came here to post this. Haven't we learned many times in the last 5 years that, on average, "The Literal New York Times" is a better and more reliable source than "Some Guy on Substack"? Claiming that anonymous sources inside an agency/administration is "not a thing" clearly betrays the fact that this person knows nothing about actual journalism. Heck even a casual NYT reader will know that they cite anonymous sources within the administration all the time! Just look at all the reporting about the Musk/Rubio dust-ups!

f33d5173 1y ago
News is a good source for facts. If they say the sky is blue, I would have no reason to doubt them. But if they say the sky is turning from blue to pink, and we should all be worried because this might be a sign of the end times, I wouldn't get up from my chair. I found the focus on the source being anonymous odd as well. I think the correct lesson is that substacks have just as much propensity towards being propaganda as the nyt does.
moscoe 1y ago
They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders. The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official.
- reaperducer 1y ago
  They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. Citation needed. The New York Times has very strict rules about using anonymous sources. It's not some scary, shadow journalism effort. They publish their rules for anonymous sources right on their web site. Google is your friend. The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official. Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much. I can also say that I look at it with a much more critical eye than most because of my journalism degrees and decades of experience as a journalist. A major problem with society is that some anonymous low-karma recent-joiner rando spews things on HN like "The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders" and people believe it for no reason other than it tickles the part of their brain that agrees with it. Not because of any kind of objectivity, analysis, proof, or thought. To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism. This was a routine daily story covering an announcement by a government agency. If you don't know the difference between the two, then you lack the knowledge and understanding required to be critical of any sort of journalism.
  - zer00eyz 1y ago
    > Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/07/new-york-times-editor-resigns-tom-cotton-oped-protests https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/07/new-york-times... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov... > To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism. From the NYT article: "James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity researcher at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington, said that only a handful of countries could pull off such an operation, including Russia, China and Israel." Using the agreeable expert isn't "reporting" its BAD journalism. It's WMD's all over again.
    - reaperducer 1y ago
      The links you posted do not refute my statement. So I ask, how many times have you read the New York Times? As I stated above, I've read it almost daily for nearly 50 years. Do you subscribe? Do you read it regularly? Do you even read it at all? Or just parrot what you've seen on the internet? The remainder of your comment is a non-sequitur, and has nothing to do with what I wrote.
      - zer00eyz 1y ago
        The coverage of WMD's was appalling. Both the BBC and the Guardian were reporting how fucked up it was, but NYT ra ra America fuck yea just went along with it. There were other us news orgs that spoke up but no traction. And this is the thing. The NYT isnt doing reporting here. This isnt a presser they are covering where they are quoting cops and their claim on the street value of the drug sized. This is a "confidential source" whos narrative is then supported by a know insider but its made to look like its being fact checked. Its not. This is not journalism, and if you want to make it that, then you have to admit it's awful. There needs to be a retraction, or better yet a mecupla and some interviews with real technical experts.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
istjohn 1y ago
Both can be bad. The NYT absolutely publishes some slop from time to time, and I'm inclined to believe this is one such occasion. But this Substack essay isn't a measured correction and has its own mistruths and exaggerations. In other words, there's a middle ground between total credulity and solipsistic nihilism.
nostrademons 1y ago
Uh, my recent experience is that "Some guy on Substack" is a significantly more reliable source than "The Literal New York Times". Gel-Mann Amnesia affect applies here: every time I've seen mainstream media cover a subject that I have personal experience or expertise with, it's been shockingly inaccurate. This includes the NYTimes. It includes random guys on Substack too, but I've found that random guys on Substack when speaking about their area of expertise are actually pretty accurate. It's left to the reader to determine whether some random guy on Substack is actually speaking to an area of their expertise, but other comments here have attested that the author actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to SIM farms.
- deelowe 1y ago
  And what exactly makes "Robert Graham" such an expert in this particular domain? I don't know who this person is or why I should trust their personal blog over the NYT. The article itself is rather hand-wavy in it's assessment of the report. The thesis is essentially "bot farms use lots of sims & this is an example of using lots of sims, therefore this is a bot farm and not espionage."
  - nostrademons 1y ago
    Here's his bio from the RSA conference: https://www.rsaconference.com/experts/robert-graham https://www.rsaconference.com/experts/robert-graham BlackICE was a big personal firewall 20 or so years ago - you can read all the CNet/ZDNet reviews if you search for it. You can also look at his code (for a port scanner that can scan the entire Internet in 5 minutes, whew) on GitHub: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan
    - deelowe 1y ago
      Thank you for sharing. I recall blackice. I'm not seeing anything here would lead me to believe he's an expert in this particular domain though, which is more about nation state intelligence operations than it is anything technical.
immibis 1y ago
Maybe on average, but we've also learned there are too many times when "The Literal New York Times" either repeats propaganda for money, or literally just makes shit up.
- abirch 1y ago
  When has the NYTimes made shit up?
  - michael1999 1y ago
    Judith Miller reported total fabrications and helped lead the entire country into a disastrous invasion of Iraq.
    - abirch 1y ago
      For some reason I feel like reporting fabricated evidence is magnitudes different than fabricating evidence (making shit up.) From what I've briefly read is that Judith Miller reported on evidence that Ahmad Chalabi provided her: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ I'm not saying that the NYTimes doesn't have an agenda (it has one) nor do I believe that they are infallible. I'm just wondering when they've manufactured information like the days of yellow journalism or the likes of Stephen Glass or Janet Cooke
      - michael1999 1y ago
        Correct. I got lost in the threads, and lost context here. I have never heard of the NYT deliberately inventing falsehoods. They do have a history of credulously repeating falsehoods as truth to serve an editorial goal. I’ll grant that distinction. Note that does nothing to defend the story in question.
        abirch 1y ago
        I believe the story in question is overly hyped. I don't think anyone was planning on destroying the phone system. It seems like the secret service found a text spam ring and is trying to make it more nefarious.
elzbardico 1y ago
> Haven't we learned many times in the last 5 years that, on average, "The Literal New York Times" is a better and more reliable source than "Some Guy on Substack"? Humm... No?

f33d5173 1y ago

News is a good source for facts. If they say the sky is blue, I would have no reason to doubt them. But if they say the sky is turning from blue to pink, and we should all be worried because this might be a sign of the end times, I wouldn't get up from my chair. I found the focus on the source being anonymous odd as well. I think the correct lesson is that substacks have just as much propensity towards being propaganda as the nyt does.

moscoe 1y ago

They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders. The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official.

reaperducer 1y ago
They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. Citation needed. The New York Times has very strict rules about using anonymous sources. It's not some scary, shadow journalism effort. They publish their rules for anonymous sources right on their web site. Google is your friend. The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official. Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much. I can also say that I look at it with a much more critical eye than most because of my journalism degrees and decades of experience as a journalist. A major problem with society is that some anonymous low-karma recent-joiner rando spews things on HN like "The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders" and people believe it for no reason other than it tickles the part of their brain that agrees with it. Not because of any kind of objectivity, analysis, proof, or thought. To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism. This was a routine daily story covering an announcement by a government agency. If you don't know the difference between the two, then you lack the knowledge and understanding required to be critical of any sort of journalism.
- zer00eyz 1y ago
  > Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/07/new-york-times-editor-resigns-tom-cotton-oped-protests https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/07/new-york-times... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov... > To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism. From the NYT article: "James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity researcher at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington, said that only a handful of countries could pull off such an operation, including Russia, China and Israel." Using the agreeable expert isn't "reporting" its BAD journalism. It's WMD's all over again.
  - reaperducer 1y ago
    The links you posted do not refute my statement. So I ask, how many times have you read the New York Times? As I stated above, I've read it almost daily for nearly 50 years. Do you subscribe? Do you read it regularly? Do you even read it at all? Or just parrot what you've seen on the internet? The remainder of your comment is a non-sequitur, and has nothing to do with what I wrote.
    - zer00eyz 1y ago
      The coverage of WMD's was appalling. Both the BBC and the Guardian were reporting how fucked up it was, but NYT ra ra America fuck yea just went along with it. There were other us news orgs that spoke up but no traction. And this is the thing. The NYT isnt doing reporting here. This isnt a presser they are covering where they are quoting cops and their claim on the street value of the drug sized. This is a "confidential source" whos narrative is then supported by a know insider but its made to look like its being fact checked. Its not. This is not journalism, and if you want to make it that, then you have to admit it's awful. There needs to be a retraction, or better yet a mecupla and some interviews with real technical experts.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

istjohn 1y ago

Both can be bad. The NYT absolutely publishes some slop from time to time, and I'm inclined to believe this is one such occasion. But this Substack essay isn't a measured correction and has its own mistruths and exaggerations. In other words, there's a middle ground between total credulity and solipsistic nihilism.

nostrademons 1y ago

Uh, my recent experience is that "Some guy on Substack" is a significantly more reliable source than "The Literal New York Times". Gel-Mann Amnesia affect applies here: every time I've seen mainstream media cover a subject that I have personal experience or expertise with, it's been shockingly inaccurate. This includes the NYTimes. It includes random guys on Substack too, but I've found that random guys on Substack when speaking about their area of expertise are actually pretty accurate. It's left to the reader to determine whether some random guy on Substack is actually speaking to an area of their expertise, but other comments here have attested that the author actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to SIM farms.

deelowe 1y ago
And what exactly makes "Robert Graham" such an expert in this particular domain? I don't know who this person is or why I should trust their personal blog over the NYT. The article itself is rather hand-wavy in it's assessment of the report. The thesis is essentially "bot farms use lots of sims & this is an example of using lots of sims, therefore this is a bot farm and not espionage."
- nostrademons 1y ago
  Here's his bio from the RSA conference: https://www.rsaconference.com/experts/robert-graham https://www.rsaconference.com/experts/robert-graham BlackICE was a big personal firewall 20 or so years ago - you can read all the CNet/ZDNet reviews if you search for it. You can also look at his code (for a port scanner that can scan the entire Internet in 5 minutes, whew) on GitHub: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan
  - deelowe 1y ago
    Thank you for sharing. I recall blackice. I'm not seeing anything here would lead me to believe he's an expert in this particular domain though, which is more about nation state intelligence operations than it is anything technical.

immibis 1y ago

Maybe on average, but we've also learned there are too many times when "The Literal New York Times" either repeats propaganda for money, or literally just makes shit up.

abirch 1y ago
When has the NYTimes made shit up?
- michael1999 1y ago
  Judith Miller reported total fabrications and helped lead the entire country into a disastrous invasion of Iraq.
  - abirch 1y ago
    For some reason I feel like reporting fabricated evidence is magnitudes different than fabricating evidence (making shit up.) From what I've briefly read is that Judith Miller reported on evidence that Ahmad Chalabi provided her: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/ I'm not saying that the NYTimes doesn't have an agenda (it has one) nor do I believe that they are infallible. I'm just wondering when they've manufactured information like the days of yellow journalism or the likes of Stephen Glass or Janet Cooke
    - michael1999 1y ago
      Correct. I got lost in the threads, and lost context here. I have never heard of the NYT deliberately inventing falsehoods. They do have a history of credulously repeating falsehoods as truth to serve an editorial goal. I’ll grant that distinction. Note that does nothing to defend the story in question.
      - abirch 1y ago
        I believe the story in question is overly hyped. I don't think anyone was planning on destroying the phone system. It seems like the secret service found a text spam ring and is trying to make it more nefarious.

elzbardico 1y ago

> Haven't we learned many times in the last 5 years that, on average, "The Literal New York Times" is a better and more reliable source than "Some Guy on Substack"? Humm... No?