|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 12 2019 02:21 Doublemint wrote:you get what you pay for in capitalism. don't want to pay for good journalism, actually motivated and well educated people? great, let's have billionaires and partisan think tanks/pacs finance outlets. or have people churn out clickbait articles like this one... the Guardian looks stupid now, rightfully so. though there's a decent chance that this story did not make it into the actual paper. I know from experience that many papers have different editorial staffs for online and offline products. //edit: typo and clarity
There's nothing wrong with the article. There is nothing that there that makes "the Guardian looks stupid now, rightfully so", and you do not say anything further.
But whilst you are here, what are your journalistic sources for "good journalism, actually motivated and well educated people (sic)?"
Whilst you are at it, please use some grammar and punctuation properly. Irregardless of your mother tongue, you should be able to do so. It currently gives me a headache interpreting your posts.
|
The article reports something that other publications were unable to corroborate. If true, the article is fine. But there is a question as to why other major publications were unwilling to carry the story.
|
On April 12 2019 02:43 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassyAn example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics: + Show Spoiler +Keep in mind we're selling bombs (they drop on children) to a country that chopped a journalist (he was a dick) living in the US into pieces on tape Speaking tangentially in relation to your last point, thoughts on this move? edition.cnn.comI'm not really under illusions that Cuba is some paradise that is great or whatever, but I mean come on. It's not the Cold War anymore, they're hardly a big international mover and shaker. It just seems both anachronistic and incredibly hypocritical given the standards the likes of the Rowdy Saudis are expected to adhere to (and don't even do that)
Baseball is a remarkably racist industry in the US, a lot of Cubans are good at baseball, a lot of mediocre white guys don't want to get replaced like happened in Basketball, football, etc... and those guys have lobbyists and benefit from a network similar to the Varsity Blues thing, but the "legal" side.
To sum it up. There's also the Commie spite from the US but that's mostly just PR imo and will fade as teams sneak players through with fake documents and such and capitalism takes over the equation from the recruitment side. There's also already quite a bit of Cuban players in MLB fwiw.
|
On April 12 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It’s not like specific brands of music in the US are popular with racists and skinheads. The Dead Kennedys could tell us all about it.
Yup, it's pretty standard practice for right wing extremist groups to look for populations of disgruntled, disaffected, young white men to brainwash. Luckily the punk scene was more resistant to such attempts than the skinhead scene - and unfortunately the SHARPS are lumped in with the boneheads out of ignorance.
|
It's the Trump administration. It could be because:
Corruption
Incompetence
Mean spirited
Racist
"Obama did it"
It does make sense that the trump administration wouldn't want Cubans to compete professionally in USA. It would humanise the very same peoples on TV that they are determined to dehumanise.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On April 12 2019 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:43 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassyAn example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics: + Show Spoiler +Keep in mind we're selling bombs (they drop on children) to a country that chopped a journalist (he was a dick) living in the US into pieces on tape Speaking tangentially in relation to your last point, thoughts on this move? edition.cnn.comI'm not really under illusions that Cuba is some paradise that is great or whatever, but I mean come on. It's not the Cold War anymore, they're hardly a big international mover and shaker. It just seems both anachronistic and incredibly hypocritical given the standards the likes of the Rowdy Saudis are expected to adhere to (and don't even do that) Baseball is a remarkably racist industry in the US, a lot of Cubans are good at baseball, a lot of mediocre white guys don't want to get replaced like happened in Basketball, football, etc... and those guys have lobbyists and benefit from a network similar to the Varsity Blues thing, but the "legal" side. To sum it up. There's also the Commie spite from the US but that's mostly just PR imo and will fade as teams sneak players through with fake documents and such and capitalism takes over the equation from the recruitment side.
I don't really care that much about baseball, it just so happens that it's really lucrative potentially, plus this defrosting is being actively rolled back from a bit of a thaw that I mentioned, so I guess it brings the wider question out there.
Oh noes the Russians are destroying our democracy, also we'll embargo a small nation for 60 years for being Communist.
|
On April 12 2019 03:00 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It’s not like specific brands of music in the US are popular with racists and skinheads. The Dead Kennedys could tell us all about it. Yup, it's pretty standard practice for right wing extremist groups to look for populations of disgruntled, disaffected, young white men to brainwash. Luckily the punk scene was more resistant to such attempts than the skinhead scene - and unfortunately the SHARPS are lumped in with the boneheads out of ignorance.
Punk music taught us all the only way to deal with skin heads and Nazis is to boot their ass out of the scene. Because skin heads and Nazis are not there to get along, so don’t bother trying to make space for them. Just boot them and be better for it.
|
On April 12 2019 03:02 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2019 02:43 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassyAn example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics: + Show Spoiler +Keep in mind we're selling bombs (they drop on children) to a country that chopped a journalist (he was a dick) living in the US into pieces on tape Speaking tangentially in relation to your last point, thoughts on this move? edition.cnn.comI'm not really under illusions that Cuba is some paradise that is great or whatever, but I mean come on. It's not the Cold War anymore, they're hardly a big international mover and shaker. It just seems both anachronistic and incredibly hypocritical given the standards the likes of the Rowdy Saudis are expected to adhere to (and don't even do that) Baseball is a remarkably racist industry in the US, a lot of Cubans are good at baseball, a lot of mediocre white guys don't want to get replaced like happened in Basketball, football, etc... and those guys have lobbyists and benefit from a network similar to the Varsity Blues thing, but the "legal" side. To sum it up. There's also the Commie spite from the US but that's mostly just PR imo and will fade as teams sneak players through with fake documents and such and capitalism takes over the equation from the recruitment side. I don't really care that much about baseball, it just so happens that it's really lucrative potentially, plus this defrosting is being actively rolled back from a bit of a thaw that I mentioned, so I guess it brings the wider question out there. Oh noes the Russians are destroying our democracy, also we'll embargo a small nation for 60 years for being Communist.
It's worse than that. They are embargoing a country that is slowly but surely opening themselves up to being capitalistic. There's no reason why the Trump administration should want to deter them from doing so, except for really horrible reasons.
|
Northern Ireland24428 Posts
On April 12 2019 03:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 03:00 Gahlo wrote:On April 12 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It’s not like specific brands of music in the US are popular with racists and skinheads. The Dead Kennedys could tell us all about it. Yup, it's pretty standard practice for right wing extremist groups to look for populations of disgruntled, disaffected, young white men to brainwash. Luckily the punk scene was more resistant to such attempts than the skinhead scene - and unfortunately the SHARPS are lumped in with the boneheads out of ignorance. Punk music taught us all the only way to deal with skin heads and Nazis is to boot their ass out of the scene. Because skin heads and Nazis are not there to get along, so don’t bother trying to make space for them. Just boot them and be better for it.
But it's 2019, where freedom of speech, freedom of association and provision of a platform are literally all the same thing and the left are totalitarians.
|
Cubans play in the MLB btw they just can't be Cubans typically. They are generally referred to as "defectors" depending on when they came.
|
On April 12 2019 03:13 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 03:03 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 03:00 Gahlo wrote:On April 12 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It’s not like specific brands of music in the US are popular with racists and skinheads. The Dead Kennedys could tell us all about it. Yup, it's pretty standard practice for right wing extremist groups to look for populations of disgruntled, disaffected, young white men to brainwash. Luckily the punk scene was more resistant to such attempts than the skinhead scene - and unfortunately the SHARPS are lumped in with the boneheads out of ignorance. Punk music taught us all the only way to deal with skin heads and Nazis is to boot their ass out of the scene. Because skin heads and Nazis are not there to get along, so don’t bother trying to make space for them. Just boot them and be better for it. But it's 2019, where freedom of speech, freedom of association and provision of a platform are literally all the same thing and the left are totalitarians.
Freedom of association is very important to folks today. Except when it comes to unions, who need to represent all workers, even not union members that refuse to pay anything towards that representation. And that needs to be enforced through federal law. But people can just choose not to pay, but still get the benefits being part of the union.
And there need to be so many congressional hearings about bias on social media to assure conservative voices are heard. And laws must be put in place to assure those voices can be heard equally at all times to combat the dominance of liberals in the media. A true market place of ideas where balance is preserved by law.
|
On April 12 2019 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:43 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassyAn example of how much more widespread western propaganda is compared to Russian when it comes to US politics: + Show Spoiler +Keep in mind we're selling bombs (they drop on children) to a country that chopped a journalist (he was a dick) living in the US into pieces on tape Speaking tangentially in relation to your last point, thoughts on this move? edition.cnn.comI'm not really under illusions that Cuba is some paradise that is great or whatever, but I mean come on. It's not the Cold War anymore, they're hardly a big international mover and shaker. It just seems both anachronistic and incredibly hypocritical given the standards the likes of the Rowdy Saudis are expected to adhere to (and don't even do that) Baseball is a remarkably racist industry in the US, a lot of Cubans are good at baseball, a lot of mediocre white guys don't want to get replaced like happened in Basketball, football, etc... and those guys have lobbyists and benefit from a network similar to the Varsity Blues thing, but the "legal" side. To sum it up. There's also the Commie spite from the US but that's mostly just PR imo and will fade as teams sneak players through with fake documents and such and capitalism takes over the equation from the recruitment side. There's also already quite a bit of Cuban players in MLB fwiw.
This is silly MLB is controled by its owners and those owners would be more than happy to hire cheap Cuban talent (see miami). Those white guys were already replaced by a wave of dominicans and no one complained then.
Only a few cuban players are in MLB they have to be human trafficed to some other nation first. The deal was just a way for MLB to pay cuba directly for the players and to avoid the human trafficking bad PR.
No ones dumb enough to not refer to the cuban players as cuba. They're defectors beacuse legaly they have to defect to get a visa.
|
Stop trying to make what trumps doing with the MLB deal in cuba any more complex than that hes trying to erase the cuba-us relations thaw that obama started.
|
On April 12 2019 02:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:21 Doublemint wrote:On April 12 2019 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:I feel like folks have already forgotten this story and the lack of accountability it triggered for those who spread it, especially before they changed the headline. It was about the meeting between Assange and Manafort which as far as anyone can tell never happened. Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy you get what you pay for in capitalism. don't want to pay for good journalism, actually motivated and well educated people? great, let's have billionaires and partisan think tanks/pacs finance outlets. or have people churn out clickbait articles like this one... the Guardian looks stupid now, rightfully so. though there's a decent chance that this story did not make it into the actual paper. I know from experience that many papers have different editorial staffs for online and offline products. //edit: typo and clarity There's nothing wrong with the article. There is nothing that there that makes "the Guardian looks stupid now, rightfully so", and you do not say anything further. But whilst you are here, what are your journalistic sources for "good journalism, actually motivated and well educated people (sic)?" Whilst you are at it, please use some grammar and punctuation properly. Irregardless of your mother tongue, you should be able to do so. It currently gives me a headache interpreting your posts.
if corroborated this story would have been another game changer in the Manafort/Trump/Russia/Wiki saga.
a good indicator it is false though, as already said, is the fact that no one else was able or willing to run with it.
try The Economist. if you get past the blind trust in the market in many articles, it's actually pretty darn good. though I am sure there are many others out there that do a good job. and to your liking as well. 
what I meant to say is that by all accounts democracy is very much in danger because the (print)media is. I cannot stretch this enough, people need to get paid somehow to attract more good ones, maybe even from other industries. that job is just too important for a functioning democracy.
the (media) market - which does a fine job in many instances, though certainly not in all realms of our daily lives - does not work when too many consumers cannot distinguish between "good and bad information".
and social media is cannibalizing legacy media. and an adblocker is easier and cheaper than subscribing.
it is not an easy problem to fix, there are so many dimensions to it, so many interests and stakeholders involved...
//some more clarity.
|
The Cubs thing is easily understood as "Obama did it so I must undo it". If Obama gave the people Trump is aiming to please a house those people would complain about the red drapes and say it shows how awful he is
|
On April 12 2019 02:25 Doodsmack wrote:
Assange is an enemy of the United states, even though trump and Republicans love Wikileaks.
As you are living in a democracy, doesn't the normal citizen have the right to know of the corruption and war crimes that his government and military have done? If the evidence is genuine why hate on the publisher, even if his methods of obtaining the evidence is questionable? I mean yes the US image suffers, but why condemn whistle blowers that are shading light on serious crimes, you would rather be in the dark if it supports your political agenda? If Assange dropped information on Trump colluding with Russia or some other bad stuff, while he got the information from China or an allied state hacking Trump's emails would it be any different for you or others who would rather be in the dark and label Assange a russian spy...
|
On April 12 2019 02:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:43 IgnE wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism? Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ Reporters sell their stories all the time. Publications, the ones who pay reporters, compete to publish first because attention-worthy information is profitable. You don’t trust unsigned work? Oh really? Do I have to go digging to find your defenses of anonymous sources? As usual, you seem to just be throwing an incoherent mixture of moralistic apothegms at the wall to see what sticks. Anonymous sources are completely different. And frankly, you know that. Or you I have vastly overestimated you, which is on me. Anonymous sources are filtered through the reporter writing the story and rely on the reporter's, editor's and publication's reputation. Reporters have clear standards on when and how they use anonymous sources and are more than willing to explain why they were will to do so for one story and not for another. And the reporter's reputation will be damaged if they cite an anonymous source that turns out of have been lying. And do I really need to explain the difference between paying for stolen documents/information and a reporter receiving compensation for a their labor in writing a story?
On April 12 2019 01:54 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:43 IgnE wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism? Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ Reporters sell their stories all the time. Publications, the ones who pay reporters, compete to publish first because attention-worthy information is profitable. You don’t trust unsigned work? Oh really? Do I have to go digging to find your defenses of anonymous sources? As usual, you seem to just be throwing an incoherent mixture of moralistic apothegms at the wall to see what sticks. Anonymous sources isn't the same thing as an anonymous article. The sources in articles may be anonymous to the reader, but not the reporter, along with the information being corroborated by multiple sources. This is the absolute basics of journalism.
usually if anonymous sources are corroborated then theres no need to use them as a source. when people object to “anonymous sources say” they are objecting to the lack of non-anonymous corroboration. moreover, only an idiot would think that reporters only get paid “for their labor.” reporters get paid for the labor and also for the news value of their article(s). if you write boring shit then you eventually don’t write anymore.
let’s make this analogy real easy to follow: just assume everything wikileaks ever published is “signed” by julian assange. now, maybe you dont’t trust assange. that’s fine. but stop pretending that wikileaks is actually that different from reporters who run with insufficiently corroborated stories from anonymous sources. in many cases assange is arguably the more transparent “reporter.”
it’s honestly hard to even make sense of what your objection is. wikileaks has no “name” behind it? you object to what, exactly? the “agenda” of assange? you cant argue on the one hand that his stuff is fake and on the other hand that hes putting people and nations at risk by publishing classified information. and you’d have a very difficult time arguing that “real reporters” are consistently more accurate or more transparent than him
|
here’s a thought experiment: why did ben bradlee not just pay to buy the pentagon papers from the guy who stole them from rand? because then he opens himself up to criminal liability. there is no other reason. he would have paid for them if he could have without consequence. assange doesn’t care about US law. but there is no reason why paying for the information directly would be immoral if you believe it was moral to publish the pentagon papers at all. the reason you don’t pay for them is so that a secretive government doesn’t retaliate with its laws against you
|
On April 12 2019 04:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 02:02 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2019 01:43 IgnE wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism? Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ Reporters sell their stories all the time. Publications, the ones who pay reporters, compete to publish first because attention-worthy information is profitable. You don’t trust unsigned work? Oh really? Do I have to go digging to find your defenses of anonymous sources? As usual, you seem to just be throwing an incoherent mixture of moralistic apothegms at the wall to see what sticks. Anonymous sources are completely different. And frankly, you know that. Or you I have vastly overestimated you, which is on me. Anonymous sources are filtered through the reporter writing the story and rely on the reporter's, editor's and publication's reputation. Reporters have clear standards on when and how they use anonymous sources and are more than willing to explain why they were will to do so for one story and not for another. And the reporter's reputation will be damaged if they cite an anonymous source that turns out of have been lying. And do I really need to explain the difference between paying for stolen documents/information and a reporter receiving compensation for a their labor in writing a story? Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 01:54 Gahlo wrote:On April 12 2019 01:43 IgnE wrote:On April 11 2019 23:37 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 23:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:On April 11 2019 22:32 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 11 2019 21:54 Plansix wrote:
For all its talk about transparency, WikiLeaks has never been much of a transparent organization. I can’t put a face to anyone who works for them beyond Assange. I don’t know how they make money, but they do. Their mission statement is similar to most journalistic organization, to report what it happening in the government. But unlike investigative journalist, no one at WikiLeaks signs their name to their work. In a lot of ways I know less about WikiLeaks than I know about the CIA and NSA. I can’t exactly blame them. I’d read years ago that Iceland was going to invest a ton in server farms, which they could embed in their geothermally rich country to cut power costs and try to restructure a chunk of their economy away from the banking sector and into being a safe haven of sorts for stuff like actual whistleblowing g Which I liked as an idea, I’m not sure how far along it is, if they are doing it. Who can dislike the nation that gave us Bjork? If it’s done in a conditional way and there’s oversight, I’d much prefer some kind of arrangement of that kind, on stuff like proper redaction and whatnot, than the likes of Wikileaks being left to their own devices. Who protects whistleblowing and whatnot, for its own sake right now? If there’s mechanisms to do so, with a setup that has some kind of framework and some kind of oversight that will actually protect legitimate whistleblowing I’m all for it. Not just in terms of national security stuff but the corporate sector as well. There were plenty of people pre 2008 pointing out the problems in the financial sector and what was going on there, who ended up blacklisted and probably many more besides who would have added their voices but decided not to because of those kind of risks. There are risks to having huge amounts of information in the hands of someone like Wikileaks in an accountability sense, or in that information being used not to hold a government to account, but by another government/state against that state, etc, all those things are possible or have actually happened. Plus I think inextricably making Assange = Wikileaks either intentionally or not was something harmful to that organisation. Ultimately though the best defence over accusations of doing bad shit, is not to do bad shit, or at least do less not try to dig up dirt on the other guys and use that as a counter-attack. I’m really no fan of Russia but it’s not some boogeyman. Sure do look into such things but to have the United States being high and mighty on interfering with the elections and politics of other countries is absolutely insane and transparent as hell. I generally do not trust people who refuse to sign their names to their work. I understand the fear of government power and violence. But there are women’s rights activist in Saudi Arabia who are open about it and jailed for advocating what they believe it. Journalist are held, jailed and sometimes killed for their work. There were journalists jailed in the US during the Bush administration for not revealing their sources. Those journalist understand that there is value in being transparent about who they are and why they are reporting on a topic. They are interested in earning my trust and are willing to put themselves at risk to get it. Wikileaks is not and would rather rely on the malfeasance of my government to justify their lack of transparency. And that will never be a compelling argument for me. Is there something you think Wikileaks is hiding that invalidates it's work or justifies Assange's imprisonment by US officials? Or is this more a general commentary of how you feel about ethics in journalism? Assange encouraged and offered to help Manning break into the NSA files to steal more information. Journalist will, in general, take information someone wants to leak to the public, but not assist them in criminal activity to obtain information. And Wikileaks has a NDA, which it has employees sign. They do not want all their information leaked because it “has value”. Reporters do not sell the information they discover for a profit. They don’t pay sources. If they do either, they are no longer reporters. A story about the NDA, for reference. https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nda-wikileaks/ Reporters sell their stories all the time. Publications, the ones who pay reporters, compete to publish first because attention-worthy information is profitable. You don’t trust unsigned work? Oh really? Do I have to go digging to find your defenses of anonymous sources? As usual, you seem to just be throwing an incoherent mixture of moralistic apothegms at the wall to see what sticks. Anonymous sources isn't the same thing as an anonymous article. The sources in articles may be anonymous to the reader, but not the reporter, along with the information being corroborated by multiple sources. This is the absolute basics of journalism. usually if anonymous sources are corroborated then theres no need to use them as a source. when people object to “anonymous sources say” they are objecting to the lack of non-anonymous corroboration. moreover, only an idiot would think that reporters only get paid “for their labor.” reporters get paid for the labor and also for the news value of their article(s). if you write boring shit then you eventually don’t write anymore. let’s make this analogy real easy to follow: just assume everything wikileaks ever published is “signed” by julian assange. now, maybe you dont’t trust assange. that’s fine. but stop pretending that wikileaks is actually that different from reporters who run with insufficiently corroborated stories from anonymous sources. in many cases assange is arguably the more transparent “reporter.” it’s honestly hard to even make sense of what your objection is. wikileaks has no “name” behind it? you object to what, exactly? the “agenda” of assange? you cant argue on the one hand that his stuff is fake and on the other hand that hes putting people and nations at risk by publishing classified information. and you’d have a very difficult time arguing that “real reporters” are consistently more accurate or more transparent than him
I consider myself reasonable knowledgeable about journalism and this is not the case. The corroboration could and often comes from other anonymous sources. Many journalists have said that sources are willing to corroborate information under the condition of anonymity. As for journalist getting paid, they get paid for their labor. Not for the raw information that they discovered. This shouldn’t be a debate, they are to very separate things.
Second of all, I never argued that anything from wikileaks was fake. I specifically stated otherwise today. These points would be a lot easier to understand if you took the time to read what people have articulated on the subject.
|
On April 12 2019 04:28 IgnE wrote:
here’s a thought experiment: why did ben bradlee not just pay to buy the pentagon papers from the guy who stole them from rand? because then he opens himself up to criminal liability. there is no other reason. he would have paid for them if he could have without consequence. assange doesn’t care about US law. but there is no reason why paying for the information directly would be immoral if you believe it was moral to publish the pentagon papers at all. the reason you don’t pay for them is so that a secretive government doesn’t retaliate with its laws against you
Reporters don’t pay sources because it is a tawdry practice, undercuts the creditability of the source and by extension, the reporter’s work. Criminal liability is also a major factor, as you articulate above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
