3 ms·
I don't know that I would take the Time's reporting on the investigation to be the end-all-be-all of what evidence there is. Like you say, accusing a Nation Sta
by rnovak 12y ago
I don't know that I would take the Time's reporting on the investigation to be the end-all-be-all of what evidence there is. Like you say, accusing a Nation State probably requires a decent amount of evidence, and I doubt they would release it all to the NY Times. The article even says
> It is not clear how the United States came to its determination that the North Korean regime played a central role in the Sony attacks
To me, that sounds like they aren't privy to the reasoning used.
- hugi 12y agoYes, accusing a nation state requires a decent amount of evidence - however the US has a track record of lying about and and manufacturing evidence when required. Or how's that whole "chemical weapons in Iraq"-thing going? If the US has better evidence, why not show it? I'm not saying NK didn't conduct those attacks, I'm just saying the US government isn't really a reliable source about anything.
- notjackma 12y agoThe headlines go around the world and people will just accept it as the truth. If there is a retraction it will be in a year's time and buried under an ad for washing powder on page 17. You simply don't need evidence anymore when the media, unwittingly perhaps, construct the narrative for you. Why is the New York Times held in such high esteem? Was there a period of time when it truly was a paper of record? These days it seems like the name Pravda on the Hudson is well deserved.