"We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks."
Honestly, coming from not known who ether party was in this before this hackernews post. The intercept comes off as in the wrong to me. However, I could be being manipulated.
I am interested. Do you think these emails will come out as faked? I think even if they are real it doesn't change who should be president. But shouldn't we always be watching our elected leaders closely? What is the line between not publishing something because it is wrong and not publishing something because it might be true, but it goes too far against your beliefs.
We should absolutely watch elected leaders very closely.
The problem however is the convenience of whatever bullshit-du-jour is on the menu just in time for the election, by an administration that's been crying wolf at every corner since before it even started.
You can't get your "leader watch" news from agencies that are so blatantly corrupt, especially when they conveniently protect the leader who's got it way worse than the one they're accusing.
That this is a discussion is mind blowing to me. Your house is on fire and half the people in it are shit-talking the firefighter.
The point is, mainstream media (also known as fake news) spent the last 4 years baselessly "crying wolf" on a daily basis, completely discrediting itself in the process.
> Do you think these emails will come out as faked?
DKIM is already confirmed by an independent security researcher: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim. This is why Biden is not denying this, he knows the entire _three_ troves are real, dick pics and all. Graham, by the way, stated on October 14 that he's voting for Biden.
Are you claiming that Glenn Greenwald, one of the most respected journalists, is publishing a garbage article?
I... kind of think this wouldn't be the first time?
Greenwald rose to fame on the back of Snowden's revelations, and I don't want to downplay how important that was. But much of his journalism since then has had, well, a pretty conspiratorial no one else is writing this because THEY don't want you to know the TRUTH! slant to it, and he is always specifically -- often, it seems, exclusively -- concerned with failings of The Left, either "The Left is baselessly accusing The Right of something" (cf. Russian interference with the 2016 election) or "The Left is suppressing an important story that makes them look bad" (cf. Hunter Biden's magical mystery laptop).
And, look, sometimes THEY don't want you to know the TRUTH! is true! It was true with Snowden! But the boring, pedestrian reality is that most of the time when someone is the lone voice with the "big story" that other major news outlets are "suppressing," it's not because those other outlets are afraid to offend their Deep State, it's because the story doesn't have a lot of there there.
I mean, the Hunter Biden laptop story starts with asking us to believe that he dropped off three personal laptops for repair at a small computer repair shop, in a different state than he lived or worked in, and then forgot about those laptops, and that then those laptops were subpoenaed by the FBI and the shop owner illicitly made copies of the laptop's hard drive and that made its way to a tabloid -- the only publication that would run it, apparently -- by way of Rudy Guiliani. I'm just saying, it's not hard to imagine reasons other than they're part of the deep state conspiracy, man! that the Washington Post took a pass on this.
The thing is, this kind of story appeals to Greenwald because he's become -- or maybe always was -- the kind of person who doesn't believe he's doing his job properly unless he's taking the contrary position. Well, actually, there's no evidence Russia wanted Trump to win the election, they really wanted Clinton. Well, actually, there are no far-right conspiracies promoted by Trump, just far-left conspiracies against Trump. As New York (the magazine) put it a couple years ago,
It is of course important to keep one’s own side honest and to prevent conspiracy theories or bad arguments from taking hold. The problem is that the search for anti-Trump conspiracy theories is the whole of Greenwald’s analysis. He sees, or allows himself to see, nothing but crazy charges against Trump, to the point where there is no room in his field of vision for Trump himself. And so it seems obvious for him to casually observe that the conspiracy theories of the far right have disappeared, when in reality they have more power and influence than ever before.
That was written in 2018,[1] but I don't see much sign of that attitude changing since. Glenn is now stomping out of The Intercept because they challenged him to back up his "well, actually, this Hunter Biden stuff is a really big deal" contrarian take, which proves that they're part of the deep state conspiracy theory too, man.
I know this is harsh on Greenwald. He's absolutely correct that the conspiratorial mindset isn't something found just in right-wing circles; it's something I noticed occasionally many years ago when I was a more regular listener to Pacifica Radio. The problem is that he has repeatedlty demonstrated his own susceptibility to that mindset, and it's a real hard one to break out of. Removing himself from all editorial constraints and pushback is... not likely to help.
> But much of his journalism since then has had, well, a pretty conspiratorial no one else is writing this because THEY don't want you to know the TRUTH! slant to it,
Not only since then, but also before then. Unclaimed Territory was sensational first, news second. I mean I read and liked it, post-9/11 everyone was desperate for any views not drip-fed by the Bush administration. But if you had told me this guy's resignation from his own news startup would be pitched as the presidential-crisis-cum-journalistic-scandal in the 2020 elections I wouldn't've believed a word.
I am. The Burisma affair was genteel corruption and I don't care about it at this point, especially since the Senate majority didn't give AF about corruption that made that look quaint.
Right now it's an existential referendum and if we choose survival we can return back to to such matters.
I agree: this site, despite its many other good qualities, is a freaking disaster regarding these nonsense "censorship" claims, either regarding the NYPost story, or this one.
All these BS stories are coming out right now, with days to go in the election, so that they can't be debunked and/or placed in context. It's "but what about her e-mails" all over again.
I don't think it has anything to do with HN specifically, more to do with this bullshit reaching the mainstream. And HN is full of mainstream people (much as those same people would like to think they aren't).
It's bizarre. All these people have fallen hook line and sinker for blatantly obvious far right conspiracy nonsense, but I guess it's easier to see from the outside looking in?
That story contradicts nothing I wrote. It actually borders on the ridiculous. Did AI fake the crack photos too?
"Rosemont Seneca Bohai Morgan Stanley bank records show Hunter Biden, while simultaneously serving on Burisma’s board, received $708,302 between June 2014 and October 2015 from Rosemont Seneca Bohai, for undisclosed reasons, in a series of payments that ranged from $10,000 to $150,979 per month"
You say this like its a "gotcha." Surely you've heard of the Streisand effect?
Imagine that you are in charge the the Biden campaign, and that the story is false. What action would you take? It looks like its not gaining traction on its own, would you really direct the public's attention back to it?
Maybe because whistleblowers like Snowden actually provided the world with tons of evidence that conspiracies like this are sometimes far from fiction.
Or maybe because your company's been complicit in feeding high-engagement videos and content to users, indiscriminate to whether the type of engagement is toxic or the damage the videos do, sending those users into a vicious, cult-like rabbit hole and disconnecting them from reality.
Or you'll have to remind me where Snowden, possibly the most thorough and careful whistleblower of the last century, talked about the "deep state" or any of that QAnon shit.
The revelations with Snowden were in the details of things people already knew at a high level. People knew about the NSA's Echelon program, but didn't know things like how they tapped the un-encrypted intra-datacenter links.
I think everyone's talking past each other. QAnon, "the Deep State", Snowden, Hunter Biden's emails, Twitter's censorship, and the media's non-reporting are all barely related, here. Let's maybe talk about things on a case-by-case, factual basis.
I also didn’t want to believe, but the amount of evidence is staggering and now there is an active FBI investigation. At the very least the press should report that.
You know who actually has an endless amount of evidence of corruption, fraud, and general awfulness, and has had it for years, not a mere convenient pre-election period?
Your current administration.
If your country burns, it takes a lot of other countries with it. You'll understand that we actually want what's good for you.
What evidence? There was a dossier, which has been discredited as false. Inform yourself here, from one of the “trusted” sites that won’t even run the Hunter Biden story:
Edit: Jesus christ those replies. This is what I'm talking about. You're reaching North Korea levels of indoctrination.