Julian Assange arrested

Jan 2011
12,934
Only to you and those who are trying to find excuses. Can't refute the argument so attack the source. This is about as credible as saying that RT is a paragon of journalistic virtue.

Surely you can do better than this.
You and others clearly have not looked into the NYT record, nor its agenda..... They may lie better than others but this does not make them a reliable source. Like every other one they must be double and triple checked....

And the argument "you criticize CNN or NYT so you must be supporting RT" that keeps being used in one form or the other is rather weak

5 Biggest Screw-Ups by The New York Times So Far This Year

After The New York Times reported that the newspaper had “obtained” an unpublished government draft of a climate change report some feared President Donald Trump would suppress, it turned out the draft has been available online for eight months.

In a June report, the Times regurgitated the baseless claim that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed Russia was responsible for meddling in the 2016 election. The report in question was published roughly one month after The Daily Caller News Foundation’s fact-check team thoroughly debunked the claim.

The New York Times and other media outlets parroted the claim after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used it in a presidential debate. Almost a year later, after the claim was debunked in multiple high-profile settings, the Times issued a correction noting that only four intelligence agencies came to a consensus on Russian meddling in the election.

Jonathan Weisman, the Times’ deputy Washington editor, was forced to retract a June tweet insinuating Attorney General Jeff Sessions was corrupt.

Weisman asserted that former FBI Director James Comey testified that Sessions asked him directly to call the Russia probe “a matter.” But Comey actually testified that Sessions’ predecessor in the Obama administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, made that request.

After a man shot up Republicans’ congressional baseball practice in May, the Times used a debunked conspiracy theory to attack Palin, the former Alaska governor, in an editorial. The paper baselessly linked her campaign messaging to the shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., in 2011.

The New York Times claimed Manafort provided polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person “close to the Kremlin”; in fact, he provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story

In 1999, the Times ran a series of stories about alleged theft of classified documents from Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. The prime suspect, Taiwan-born U.S. citizen Dr. Wen Ho Lee, had his name leaked to the Times by U.S. Energy Department officials. Dr. Lee was indicted on 59 counts and jailed in solitary confinement for 278 days until he accepted a plea bargain from the government. Dr. Lee was released after the government's case could not be proven.[

President Clinton issued a public apology to Dr. Lee over his treatment.The federal judge in charge of the case, James Aubrey Parker, remarked that "top decision makers in the executive branch ... have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen

In 2003, the Times admitted that Jayson Blair, one of its reporters, had committed repeated journalistic fraud over a span of several years.The general professionalism of the paper was questioned, though Blair immediately resigned following the incident.

Judith Miller wrote a series of exclusive and prominently displayed articlesstrongly suggest[ing] Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction"using Ahmad Chalabi as her source prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This aided the George W. Bush administration in making the case for war

On December 22, 2006 at the request of the Bush Administration, the paper removed sections of an Op-Ed piece critical of the administration's policy towards Iranwhich contained publicly available information that Iran cooperated after the 9/11 attacks and offered to negotiate a diplomatic settlement in 2003

 
Jan 2011
12,934
(continued)

In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze a variety of major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on The Times. They conclude that a bias exists which is neither liberal nor conservative in nature, but aligned towards the interests of corporate conglomerates, which own most of these media outlets and also provide the majority of their advertising revenue. The authors explain that this bias functions in all sorts of ways:

"...by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.
The New York Times controversies - Wikipedia

Former top editor Jill Abramson slams The New York Times: 'It's making horrible mistakes'

78 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List | Sharyl Attkisson


The New York Post published modeling photos of Trump’s wife Melania and reported they were taken in 1995. Various news outlets relied on that date to imply that Melania—an immigrant—had violated her visa status. But the media got the date wrong. Politico was among the news agencies that later issued a photo date correction.

The New York Times and other media widely suggested or implied that Trump had not paid income taxes for 18 years. Later, tax return pages leaked to MSNBC ultimately showed that Trump actually paid a higher rate than Democrats Bernie Sanders and President Obama.

The New York Times’ Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo reported about supposed contacts between Trump campaign staff and “senior Russian intelligence officials.” Comey later testified “In the main, [the article] was not true.”


The New York Times’ Jonathan Weisman reported that Comey testified Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Comey not to call the Russia probe “an investigation” but “a matter.” Weisman was mistaken about the attorney general and the probe. Actually, it was Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch (not Sessions) who told Comey to refer to the Hillary Clinton classified email probe (not the Russia probe) as “a matter” instead of “an investigation.”

The New York Times’ Jan Rosen reported on a hypothetical family whose tax bill would rise nearly $4,000 under Trump’s tax plan. It turns out the calculations were off: the couple’s taxes would go actually go down $43; not up $4,000.

The New York Times’ Adam Goldman, NBC’s Noreen O’Donnell and AP’s Deb Riechmann reported that Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, had waterboarded a particular Islamic extremist terrorist dozens of time at a secret prison; and that she had mocked his suffering. In fact, Haspel wasn’t assigned to the prison until after the detainee left.
 
Jul 2012
2,934
Dhaka
The problem with Wikileaks by now is rally how amazingly naive it's conception of the interconnected digital world has been, and how it now works. Essentially its a concept by a bunch of conceited nerds, with Julian A as Exhibit Nr 1. The idea is to keep tabs on and fault "Government", which is always Bad. And fair enough, the original leaks of clips by Manning et al. did a service in the sense that few really want unaccountable governments, armed forces etc., killing civilians in a free and easy manner.

So ideally the US, which in particular has been circled on here, would have promoted Snowden, decorated Manning and hired Assange for their troubles. And then set about cleaning house and fixing problems. But we know the US govt didn't.

The problem now, a few years down the road, is that it has since become rather obvious that it's not necessarily "The Man" but rather faceless corporatism commodifying humanitys' digital imprint itself that is the greater threat. And that the Wikileakers haven't really go an opinion on that is seems, since it's not the horrible scary Government doing it.

Worse, it does in fact turn out that the public's best resort to get some protection from the commodification and monetization of their digital personas IS government itself. At least those governments that might actually give a rat's ass about citizen and human rights, not least privacy. Which is to say primarily the free and open societies of representative democracies.

But it of course turns out that by their own inner workings these free and open societies, with ideas of government being accountable to the public, are disproportionally sensitive to the kind of revelations Wikileaks has gone for. To the extent that Wikileaks rather seems set up to just reveal dirt on western representative democracies, the US in particular.

And that is of course feeds straight into the agendas on unfree non-democratic governments, who by reason of not being free, open and accountable, have every reason to support an activity that doesn't target them (partly because Wikileaks is relatively handicapped in relation to dictatures that controls its info itself).

IF Wikileaks was clearly providing us the dirt and detail of the inner workings of the Chinese "reeducation camps" for Uighurs, or had provided the kind of info on how Russia has played flying artillery on behalf of the Syrian government for years, then the image would need to be revised. But I can't see that wikileaks has done that. Whether it can't or just won't. Regardless, in the end Wikileaks looks less like an asset, and more like a group of very loose guns, with a not particularly fit-for-purpose-agenda these days, and rather stark risk it might be exploited by forces in international politics that have the exact opposite agenda to free and open information and accountability.
Right, and Wikileaks didn't stand for the preservation of Arctic polar bears either. Therefore, they must be condemned to hell just like guards of Nazi concentration camps.

When nationalism rears its ugly head, all other isms go out of the window, including much vaunted liberalism.
 
Oct 2011
25,211
Lago Maggiore, Italy
Generally speaking the limit of Wikileaks [which is also the reason of its success] is quite evident:

leaks are the fruit of the action of individuals who feels no more [at least no more totally] the moral duty to honor their oath. This means that who produces these leaks feels also a bit of resentment in relation to the agency / organization where he/she works.

Usually who feels resentment tends to make public negative events. Not all secret records in an impartial way. If we based our judgment of governments and intelligence on Wikileaks, we could reach the conclusion that at the end Mafia and Islamic Terrorism are better! At least they don't hide what they really want to do ...

A simple question: in which percentage leaks on Wikileaks present governments and intelligence agencies in a positive way?
 
Jan 2011
12,934
Generally speaking the limit of Wikileaks [which is also the reason of its success] is quite evident:

leaks are the fruit of the action of individuals who feels no more [at least no more totally] the moral duty to honor their oath. This means that who produces these leaks feels also a bit of resentment in relation to the agency / organization where he/she works.

Usually who feels resentment tends to make public negative events. Not all secret records in an impartial way. If we based our judgment of governments and intelligence on Wikileaks, we could reach the conclusion that at the end Mafia and Islamic Terrorism are better! At least they don't hide what they really want to do ...

A simple question: in which percentage leaks on Wikileaks present governments and intelligence agencies in a positive way?
Not only... It can also be individuals who are witness to unethical actions and have no other way to address them

In several countries for example there are hotlines allowing to ANONYMOUSLY denounce certain things... Do you consider these to be wrong ?

Also, the Mafia and terrorists actually do hide what they want to do....

As to your green questions you might as well ask "what is the percentage of news where the media talks about trains that arrive on time ?"... If one is denouncing corruption or other government failures one is not going to talk about cases where there is no corruption (because no corruption should be the norm)
 
Sep 2011
4,997
Right, and Wikileaks didn't stand for the preservation of Arctic polar bears either. Therefore, they must be condemned to hell just like guards of Nazi concentration camps.

When nationalism rears its ugly head, all other isms go out of the window, including much vaunted liberalism.
BS. The polar bear problem is different from our digital future for starters. Are you just annoyed, or actively trying to distract? It's becoming increasingly hard to work out with these internet interactions

The problem is that Wikileaks now is a liability, not a solution, in relation to Big Data because it keeps getting the format of the current problems of the internet wrong.

But if anything it has turned out Wikileaks, and Assange, are mere details in a bigger picture, and rather trivial compared to the bigger problems. Turns out they aren't the solution. They're not the problem either. On balance it's a distraction.
 
Jul 2012
2,934
Dhaka
BS. The polar bear problem is different from our digital future for starters. Are you just annoyed, or actively trying to distract? It's becoming increasingly hard to work out with these internet interactions

The problem is that Wikileaks now is a liability, not a solution, in relation to Big Data because it keeps getting the format of the current problems of the internet wrong.

But if anything it has turned out Wikileaks, and Assange, are mere details in a bigger picture, and rather trivial compared to the bigger problems. Turns out they aren't the solution. They're not the problem either. On balance it's a distraction.
Why would you expect them to be the solution in the first place?
 
Oct 2013
13,486
Europix
The New York Times’ Adam Goldman, NBC’s Noreen O’Donnell and AP’s Deb Riechmann reported that Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, had waterboarded a particular Islamic extremist terrorist dozens of time at a secret prison; and that she had mocked his suffering. In fact, Haspel wasn’t assigned to the prison until after the detainee left.
Tomar, sometimes it's useful to fact check the fact checkers.

What I found (on NBC’s Noreen O’Donnell, for example) is (quote):
"... Gina Haspel, is a career officer who ran a secret prison in Thailand, where suspected terrorists were waterboarded after the September 11th attacks. [...]
briefly was in charge of the prison, or CIA black site, where accused terrorist Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri was waterboarded in 2002, The Associated Press has reported.
[...]
(end of quote- source: Trump's CIA Pick Ran Prison Where Suspects Were Waterboarded

I looked a bit around on the three mentioned (The New York Times’ Adam Goldman, NBC’s Noreen O’Donnell and AP’s Deb Riechmann) and I didn't found them stating that Gina Haspel would have had waterboarded anyone.

Do You have a link for that?
And Your quotes, are coming from?

Thank You.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions