3 ms·

The article is a bit disingenuous. Both sides are not the same, but both do tend to cater to the big media companies pretty readily.

binarybits 14y ago
What's the disingenuous part?
- altcognito 14y ago
  A bit of a mountain out of a molehill but... First, the article is setup as if Khanna was being held hostage over this disagreement.(By contrasting his time while he was on the payroll with how he was now a "free-agent" because he was no longer on the GOP payroll. Then there is implication that the internal response of the GOP to his memo was driven by the content industry. None of the above is disingenuous until we get to the blogger quote talking about how the GOP is just beholden to money interests. What's the value of that quote? You immediately throw in this disclaimer like sentence about how they could change their stance for their own benefit, but why put the quote in there in the first place?
kragen 14y ago
I really think that before you haul off with accusations of dishonesty, you should have more to back them up with.
- altcognito 14y ago
  My complaint falls more into the weaker category of a complaint with the stylization of the content than outright dishonesty. My kneejerk reaction was that this was yet another article that somehow implied that the GOP is unique in their level of legislative commitment to the content industry and will cut down those who don't tow the line. Disingenuous isn't the same as dishonest - it is weaker that that. So, I'm not accusing anyone of being dishonest.
  - pekk 14y ago
    When the paper was linked on HN, it was taken as an indication that the Democrats were beholden to Hollywood and the GOP was by contrast progressive on copyright, which is itself a distortion. That was the PR effect it had. So I can understand if the article does not shy away from mentioning that the GOP is also beholden to various interests.
  - kragen 14y ago
    Disingenuity is a specific kind of dishonesty. Look it up.

binarybits 14y ago

What's the disingenuous part?

altcognito 14y ago
A bit of a mountain out of a molehill but... First, the article is setup as if Khanna was being held hostage over this disagreement.(By contrasting his time while he was on the payroll with how he was now a "free-agent" because he was no longer on the GOP payroll. Then there is implication that the internal response of the GOP to his memo was driven by the content industry. None of the above is disingenuous until we get to the blogger quote talking about how the GOP is just beholden to money interests. What's the value of that quote? You immediately throw in this disclaimer like sentence about how they could change their stance for their own benefit, but why put the quote in there in the first place?

kragen 14y ago

I really think that before you haul off with accusations of dishonesty, you should have more to back them up with.

altcognito 14y ago
My complaint falls more into the weaker category of a complaint with the stylization of the content than outright dishonesty. My kneejerk reaction was that this was yet another article that somehow implied that the GOP is unique in their level of legislative commitment to the content industry and will cut down those who don't tow the line. Disingenuous isn't the same as dishonest - it is weaker that that. So, I'm not accusing anyone of being dishonest.
- pekk 14y ago
  When the paper was linked on HN, it was taken as an indication that the Democrats were beholden to Hollywood and the GOP was by contrast progressive on copyright, which is itself a distortion. That was the PR effect it had. So I can understand if the article does not shy away from mentioning that the GOP is also beholden to various interests.
- kragen 14y ago
  Disingenuity is a specific kind of dishonesty. Look it up.