Discussion
Sam.M said:
This presumes that "big tech" is the primary source for news.
To me that seems to be the thing we should be aiming to change.
If people choose to see the world through the lens of facebook or twitter, how do we change that?
No rhetorical btw, would welcome solutions for discussion.
Tech has its hands in news distribution these days, less and less read papers. Its a real problem. For example in the US if I search yahoo news uk all the portal shows is Guardian and Independent news feeds. To me that seems to be the thing we should be aiming to change.
If people choose to see the world through the lens of facebook or twitter, how do we change that?
No rhetorical btw, would welcome solutions for discussion.
To me one of the biggest problems also is the old trusted news sources (BBC in UK and NPR in US) have now become biased. Vast majority of journalists are unionized and left leaning. People don't trust any news outlets anymore since this happened.
I think the first cure is to hit big tech with antitrust. We cant have Amazon for example owning the news media/outlets and the distribution mechanism. Same with yahoo and AT@T. Verizon owns Yahoo and AT@T owns CNN. These two companies own 75% of US cellphones/plans and CNN/Yahoo come embedded on new phones with their "brand"of news.
blackrabbit said:
To me one of the biggest problems also is the old trusted news sources (BBC in UK and NPR in US) have now become biased. Vast majority of journalists are unionized and left leaning. People don't trust any news outlets anymore since this happened.
.
Just because YOU don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they’re the ones that are biased..
If you don’t like the Beeb there are plenty of other sources you can use, and the majority of newspapers in the UK tend to be right-leaning rather than left.
And here we go with the faked story for the 'comey effect'. The Deepfake Peddling a Hunter Biden Dossier
The Hunter Biden 'dossier' that went viral on right-wing internet sites and was later disseminated by Trump's close associates appears to be from a fake 'intelligence firm'.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-per...
HAHAHAHA
The Hunter Biden 'dossier' that went viral on right-wing internet sites and was later disseminated by Trump's close associates appears to be from a fake 'intelligence firm'.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-per...
HAHAHAHA
Edited by Byker28i on Friday 30th October 07:48
It seems that the fbi have been investigating the Biden laptop since 2019
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-has-been-i...
And were only starting to hear about it now???
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-has-been-i...
And were only starting to hear about it now???
williamp said:
It seems that the fbi have been investigating the Biden laptop since 2019
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-has-been-i...
And were only starting to hear about it now???
Because the FBI know that the story is a fabrication. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-has-been-i...
And were only starting to hear about it now???
Much like HER EMAILS it's just being raised to try to smear Trump's political opponent and there is no substance to the allegations.
Well beyond that of a foreign power interfering in US elections but thats OK right? Hardly even a crime.... Not like her emails, right?
Edited by captain_cynic on Friday 30th October 08:09
williamp said:
It seems that the fbi have been investigating the Biden laptop since 2019
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-has-been-i...
And were only starting to hear about it now???
Do you think the FBI and other law enforcement agencies should publicly declare every investigation they start? Would be a god-send for those they are investigating to allow them to cover up their tracks. https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-has-been-i...
And were only starting to hear about it now???
Plus the whole reputation thing. Say a jealous ex accused you of child molestation. The police have to investigate. Now, for ever more, it is on record that you were investigated for being a nonce. No smoke without fire and all that...
Edited by wisbech on Friday 30th October 08:59
_dobbo_ said:
Serious question - you're using Yahoo as a news source?
Of course not, just indicating how biased media has become. Point is internet portals/social media etc becoming one big funnel that can then be manipulated by the tech companies that own the funnel and many of the devices. They need to be broken up via anti trust investigations etc. This is not a partisan issue although I see some of the usual rabid anti Trump suspects are trying to make it one jumping on this thread. It is not the media's job or ethical to suppress information period whether damaging to Democrats or Republicans. In this case its clear the media are letting Biden of the hook by not asking him robust questions. All Biden needs to do is say whether or not he met the Head of Burisma and if the emails are real. Its the media's job to ask him not let him avoid the questions. If it was Trump they would be non stop on him for answers. If the media continue to to press Biden then many will assume he has something to hide and distrust will be even higher for the media which actually plays into Trumps hands..............
Edited by blackrabbit on Friday 30th October 09:38
Byker28i said:
And here we go with the faked story for the 'comey effect'. The Deepfake Peddling a Hunter Biden Dossier
The Hunter Biden 'dossier' that went viral on right-wing internet sites and was later disseminated by Trump's close associates appears to be from a fake 'intelligence firm'.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-per...
HAHAHAHA
1) So the two ex partners both named in the e-mails who have given sworn statements confirming they are real are fake as well ?.The Hunter Biden 'dossier' that went viral on right-wing internet sites and was later disseminated by Trump's close associates appears to be from a fake 'intelligence firm'.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-per...
HAHAHAHA
Edited by Byker28i on Friday 30th October 07:48
2) Are you puddled or paid ?
Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald resigns from The Intercept, a publication he co-founded, over censorship.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-fr...
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-fr...
article said:
The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.
The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.
The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.
Frustrating for him. However, nothing to do with big tech - newspaper editors and owners have always censored what is in their papers - which is why we have (say) the Telegraph and The Militant with very different editorial policies. And note that he has been able to use the internet now to publish his article - he just isn't getting paid for it (there is a link in the article you posted) Pre internet, if the editor squashed a story, that was the end of it
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to."
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to."
Edited by wisbech on Friday 30th October 13:21
Glenn Greenwald, you know, that radical MAGA/white supremacist/Qanon/Russian shill not happy with state of censorship.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-fr...
vetrof said:
Glenn Greenwald, you know, that radical MAGA/white supremacist/Qanon/Russian shill not happy with state of censorship.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-fr...
And the other side of that particular coin is here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-fr...
BlackTails said:
And the other side of that particular coin is here:
Facts are facts yet they did not dispute the factual accuracy of his article? He explicitly invited them to do so:https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-inter...
amusingduck said:
Facts are facts yet they did not dispute the factual accuracy of his article? He explicitly invited them to do so:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-inter...
"....none of my articles is edited...." https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-inter...
Countdown said:
blackrabbit said:
To me one of the biggest problems also is the old trusted news sources (BBC in UK and NPR in US) have now become biased. Vast majority of journalists are unionized and left leaning. People don't trust any news outlets anymore since this happened.
.
Just because YOU don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they’re the ones that are biased..
If you don’t like the Beeb there are plenty of other sources you can use, and the majority of newspapers in the UK tend to be right-leaning rather than left.
Not only that, there's a lot of research showing, quite clearly, that one's perceptions are subject to filters, another word for bias in many ways. So even when people are recounting something they saw, with a desire not to manipulate the information, they are doomed to failure. Most irritatingly, you cannot balance it yourself because you have bias. The BBC is criticised for being biased to the left as well as the right. Which side is correct? Who knows?
There's no such thing as a fact. Everything is subjective. The one thing that has come with age is the knowledge that everything I knew is wrong because it was filtered. The nearest thing to truth is poetry.
It probably shows my bias.
amusingduck said:
Facts are facts yet they did not dispute the factual accuracy of his article? He explicitly invited them to do so:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-inter...
To take this argument to the absurd - so if an article is factually correct, it should be printed by every newspaper in the world? Or it is censorship? Editors have no right to decide what to print or not? If I write a 5000 word review of a new car that is factually correct, then Top Gear, Autocar, EVO etc are censoring me if they don’t print it?https://greenwald.substack.com/p/emails-with-inter...
And note, he is still able to publish his article- just as I could still publish a review.
wisbech said:
To take this argument to the absurd - so if an article is factually correct, it should be printed by every newspaper in the world? Or it is censorship? Editors have no right to decide what to print or not? If I write a 5000 word review of a new car that is factually correct, then Top Gear, Autocar, EVO etc are censoring me if they don’t print it?
And note, he is still able to publish his article- just as I could still publish a review.
Strawman. Who said anything about every newspaper in the world? The story is about the Intercept.And note, he is still able to publish his article- just as I could still publish a review.
Greenwald said:
When Salon offered me a job as a columnist in 2007, and then again when the Guardian did the same in 2012, I accepted their offers on the condition that I would have the right, except in narrowly defined situations (such as articles that could create legal liability for the news outlet), to publish my articles and columns directly to the internet without censorship, advanced editorial interference, or any other intervention permitted or approval needed. Both outlets revamped their publication system to accommodate this condition, and over the many years I worked with them, they always honored those commitments.
When I left the Guardian at the height of the Snowden reporting in 2013 in order to create a new media outlet, I did not do so, needless to say, in order to impose upon myself more constraints and restrictions on my journalistic independence. The exact opposite was true: the intended core innovation of The Intercept, above all else, was to create a new media outlets where all talented, responsible journalists would enjoy the same right of editorial freedom I had always insisted upon for myself. As I told former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a 2013 exchange we had in The New York Times about my critiques of mainstream journalism and the idea behind The Intercept: “editors should be there to empower and enable strong, highly factual, aggressive adversarial journalism, not to serve as roadblocks to neuter or suppress the journalism.”
When I left the Guardian at the height of the Snowden reporting in 2013 in order to create a new media outlet, I did not do so, needless to say, in order to impose upon myself more constraints and restrictions on my journalistic independence. The exact opposite was true: the intended core innovation of The Intercept, above all else, was to create a new media outlets where all talented, responsible journalists would enjoy the same right of editorial freedom I had always insisted upon for myself. As I told former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a 2013 exchange we had in The New York Times about my critiques of mainstream journalism and the idea behind The Intercept: “editors should be there to empower and enable strong, highly factual, aggressive adversarial journalism, not to serve as roadblocks to neuter or suppress the journalism.”
Greenwald resignation said:
The precipitating (but by no means only) cause is that The Intercept is attempting to censor my articles in violation of both my contract and fundamental principles of editorial freedom. The latest and perhaps most egregious example is an opinion column I wrote this week which, five days before the presidential election, is critical of Joe Biden, the candidate who happens to be vigorously supported by all of the Intercept editors in New York who are imposing the censorship and refusing to publish the article unless I agree to remove all of the sections critical of the candidate they want to win. All of that violates the right in my contract with FLM to publish articles without editorial interference except in very narrow circumstances that plainly do not apply here.
Worse, The Intercept editors in New York, not content to censor publication of my article at the Intercept, are also demanding that I not exercise my separate contractual right with FLM regarding articles I have written but which FLM does not want to publish itself. Under my contract, I have the right to publish any articles FLM rejects with another publication. But Intercept editors in New York are demanding I not only accept their censorship of my article at The Intercept, but also refrain from publishing it with any other journalistic outlet, and are using thinly disguised lawyer-crafted threats to coerce me not to do so (proclaiming it would be “detrimental” to The Intercept if I published it elsewhere).
Worse, The Intercept editors in New York, not content to censor publication of my article at the Intercept, are also demanding that I not exercise my separate contractual right with FLM regarding articles I have written but which FLM does not want to publish itself. Under my contract, I have the right to publish any articles FLM rejects with another publication. But Intercept editors in New York are demanding I not only accept their censorship of my article at The Intercept, but also refrain from publishing it with any other journalistic outlet, and are using thinly disguised lawyer-crafted threats to coerce me not to do so (proclaiming it would be “detrimental” to The Intercept if I published it elsewhere).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff