Rayvin 5223 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 But the non-MSM who generally promote even stronger narratives. Ergo it's all news media you dislike? It depends who you're talking about. The key bit for me is their support or otherwise of a failing system and their complicity in maintaining this system. If non-MSM sources are culpable of this then yes, I'd argue that they're in the same boat. Not all are, though. The Guardian, as much as I find it incredibly unhelpful in a number of ways, is the closest thing in terms of the major news sources to something I could get behind. The problem I have with them is that they're useful idiots for the same powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 a structure that reports factually correct information, exactly right. worth remembering next time you lay into the MSM like it's a collective evil in the world. however a news organisation shapes its editorial, reputable ones do so while presenting the facts. access to a free press is one of the great things about living in the west. too many take it for granted. I think you've missed my issue with the MSM actually. I don't want rid of them at all, I just want people to see past their spin, and for them to cease being a barrier to meaningful change. As long as they're unwilling to do this then yes, I consider them to be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 They always verify their sources and the authenticity of docs. They don't have the resources to go through with a fine tooth comb and make redaction decisions. They do invite the impacted parties to do that though. the likes of the US government refuse https://openanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/gc-letter.pdf They maintain that the source of the Clinton emails isn't Russia though. You buying that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 It depends who you're talking about. The key bit for me is their support or otherwise of a failing system and their complicity in maintaining this system. If non-MSM sources are culpable of this then yes, I'd argue that they're in the same boat. Not all are, though. The Guardian, as much as I find it incredibly unhelpful in a number of ways, is the closest thing in terms of the major news sources to something I could get behind. The problem I have with them is that they're useful idiots for the same powers. So the media are okay as long as they're promoting something you already believe in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 They maintain that the source of the Clinton emails isn't Russia though. You buying that? I've seen no evidence that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 But the evidence appears to be so compelling that even Trump now believes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 So the media are okay as long as they're promoting something you already believe in? The media are ok as long as they're acting in the interests of the people, whether they support something I believe in or not. I'm entitled to my opinion on what those interests are, and I think with Brexit and Trump on the horizon we can agree that the current system needs, at the very least, some tweaking. The reason I don't think they're acting in such interests, is that they're almost all owned by corporate powers and very wealthy individuals. With the sole (to my knowledge) exception of the Guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 But the evidence appears to be so compelling that even Trump now believes it. Surprised Trump hasn't taken credit for it as he publicly encouraged them to do it. I don't know the source. Once verified, I agree with them being published regardless of source. I also have no issue with Assange protecting his source. International law guards his right to protect his source. I have no doubt that Russia seek to interfere in foreign elections almost to the same extent that the US do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Surprised Trump hasn't taken credit for it as he publicly encouraged them to do it. I don't know the source. Once verified, I agree with them being published regardless of source. I also have no issue with Assange protecting his source. International law guards his right to protect his source. I have no doubt that Russia seek to interfere in foreign elections almost to the same extent that the US do. I keep thinking you're Alex because of your avatar. Just FYI I'm in agreement with your stance on this whole thing tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) There's a difference between protecting your source and plain lying about it. He stated that the source was not Russian, yet yesterday refused to confirm or deny that accusation. He's all over the shop. But allowing himself to be the conduit by which the Russian government directly interfered with the US election is disgraceful behaviour. Edited January 11, 2017 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 There's a difference between protecting your source and plain lying about it. He stated that the source was not Russian, yet yesterday refused to confirm or deny that accusation. He's all over the shop. But allowing himself to be the conduit by which the Russian government directly interfered with the US election is disgraceful behaviour. Monday's press conference Assange, speaking during an audio-only Periscope Q&A session, said the source of his information was not a member “of any government” or “state parties” and did not “come from the Russian government.” The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief blasted Friday’s declassified intelligence report on “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” as being inadequate and misleading. Asked Monday whether it's possible that WikiLeaks' source was a go-between affiliated with the Russian government, Assange said he didn't want to "play twenty questions with our sources." In November he said to Pilger "we can say that the Russian government is not the source,” He's consistent enough for me, but it's noteworthy he's not as categoric on the go-between question. If it was an internal leak from the Clinton campaign then he could possibly have been. i think he's choosing his words very carefully so as not to lie but to say where it definitely did not come directly from, but also not to give any indication who it did come from. Again though, I don't think this is a a criticism that Assange needs to answer to. I wonder more about his decision to time the release as close to the election as possible to give Trump the boost, rather than give Sanders a boost if they had some emails during the primaries. He probably informed this decision on Snowden's claimed one regret from his leak, that he didn't time it closer to the election to maximise it's impact on the news cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Maybe it's possible that one of the world's most powerful intelligence agencies decided to employ a bit of misdirection with their leak? He also entirely ignored the following question in yesterday's AMA Please address the allegations that WikiLeaks has a friendly relationship with Russia and cannot be considered objective with their leaks and their agenda. The timeline that makes these allegations seem plausible: 10/26/10 – WikiLeaks ready to drop a bombshell on Russia 11/01/10 – Russia’s FSB to Wikileaks: We Can Destroy You 1/20/11 – Julian Assange gets Russian Visa 1/25/12 – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s TV show to be aired on Russian channel 4/6/16 – WikiLeaks: US Gov’t Behind Panama Leaks to Attack Putin 8/8/16 – http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html Since you are so adamant that Russia was not involved in the recent leaks that played a major role in the US presidential election, it would be helpful if you can make a compelling case for why Americans should trust you over their own intelligence agencies whose reason for existence is to defend the US against foreign threats and who are saying the opposite about Russian involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44935 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 He's about to give a news conference. This is gonna be mint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 Maybe it's possible that one of the world's most powerful intelligence agencies decided to employ a bit of misdirection with their leak? He also entirely ignored the following question in yesterday's AMA So is he besties with Russia or are they misleading him? All seems like guesswork by people with an axe to gring against Wikileaks because there is no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 i'm going to be the biggest job creator god has ever created Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 he's accepting the russia hack then. that's new Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 with some caveats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 trump - "|if donald trump had been given the debate questions in advance it'd have been the biggest story in the history of stories" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35095 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 He has the best caveats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 he tells people every day to be wary of hidden cameras in hotels apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 i still can't believe this is real. how the fuck is this loonie president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 298 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 lol - "I can run my own company and run the country" I'd do a good job... lol, total arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 he tells people every day to be wary of hidden cameras in hotels apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 ''Jan is going to be great it'll be like the best Jan ever, trust me...2017 is going to be beautiful..'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 the only people who care about his tax returns are reporters apparently. the people don't care, or need to know because he won the election. jesus wept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now