Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on April 04, 2016, 03:48:45 am
-
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/
2.6TB of data from a company that deals with all of the world's most corrupt individuals.
This does not seems to be a wikileaks like situation though, you cannot look through the data yourself. and this is a really well produced website so I am a bit suspicious about this whole deal.
-
That's what happens when the leak happens old-style, with people offering their information to journalists, who then proceed to analyse whatever was leaked for a year.
I'm curious though, Bob, why is having a well produced website a suspicious thing?
-
I'm curious though, Bob, why is having a well produced website a suspicious thing?
Because when you put time and resources into fancy graphics and trendy webdesign, it gives the impression that you're not trying to just present the facts, but a constructed narrative that's supposed to make things appear a certain way.
-
Because when you put time and resources into fancy graphics and trendy webdesign, it gives the impression that you're not trying to just present the facts, but a constructed narrative that's supposed to make things appear a certain way.
Or you just give two ****s about presentation after years of being indoctrinated into the cult of slick powerpoints like pretty much everyone working in a company with more than a hundred employees. Either way.
-
it means this has been sat on for at least as long as it has taken for there to be a fancy site to be put together. and what zoo said. and its more the fact I can't look through the material myself and have to trust in in objectivity of the reporters reporting on it, and reporters have been ****ting on objectivity as a virtue in recent years.
-
Yeah, you do have to wonder if the person who pays these journalists is mysteriously absent from this website. Hopefully they'll put up all the data later on.
-
Because when you put time and resources into fancy graphics and trendy webdesign, it gives the impression that you're not trying to just present the facts, but a constructed narrative that's supposed to make things appear a certain way.
You do know that there are companies that can be hired to make sites these days? That the newspaper behind this actually does have specialist staff to do it?
And, for ****'s sake, of course these people are presenting a constructed narrative. They're journalists. It's what journalists do, what they have always done. It's what wikileaks et al have also done in the past.
it means this has been sat on for at least as long as it has taken for there to be a fancy site to be put together. and what zoo said. and its more the fact I can't look through the material myself and have to trust in in objectivity of the reporters reporting on it, and reporters have been ****ting on objectivity as a virtue in recent years.
It has been "sat on" for more than a year by this point. If by "sat on" you mean analyzed, investigated and corroborated. You know, because this was leaked to a Newspaper, not a random webserver.
Personally, I find this argument that you can only trust leaks like this if you can examine the source personally to be spurious. Because you, Bobboau, can't. You likely do not have the time to do it, you may not have the skills to do it. You'd be relying on other people's commentary for it, and what exactly makes them trustworthy or objective?
-
You do know that there are companies that can be hired to make sites these days? That the newspaper behind this actually does have specialist staff to do it?
And, for ****'s sake, of course these people are presenting a constructed narrative. They're journalists. It's what journalists do, what they have always done. It's what wikileaks et al have also done in the past.
I don't know why you think I'd disagree with any of that. I used the wording "gives the impression" for a reason.
-
because everyone with every bias would be mining through it, not just people funding western media.
go here:
https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/
after the intro animation is done, look in the upper right hand corner, you will see "Filters>Region>Country" click on country,
USA is a good boy! USA didn't do nothing wrong!
-
This is not at all different from the wikileaks cables which were also screened by selected journalists considered trustworthy and objective before being released to the public. This isn't like that hillary e-mail dump from a while back which, considering how that was marketed, seemed more to pander towards already existing suspicions regarding Hillary's corruption rather then an interest in building a story.
-
USA is a good boy! USA didn't do nothing wrong!
The US is already a tax haven to those who know how to exploit it's systems. (http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/08/12/20-big-profitable-u-s-companies-paid-0-taxes/) They don't need a Panamian law firm to sort trough it all - they have all that stuff inhouse.
-
You do know that there are companies that can be hired to make sites these days? That the newspaper behind this actually does have specialist staff to do it?
And, for ****'s sake, of course these people are presenting a constructed narrative. They're journalists. It's what journalists do, what they have always done. It's what wikileaks et al have also done in the past.
I don't know why you think I'd disagree with any of that. I used the wording "gives the impression" for a reason.
The point is, you could make the same comment if they had just spun up a plain old HTML 1 site for it. How the site looks is irrelevant for the "it gives the impression that you're not trying to just present the facts, but a constructed narrative that's supposed to make things appear a certain way" part of your argument; Any editorializing, anything that isn't a straight source dump would do it. And even then, as we have seen with wikileaks, there is a lot of influence over the narrative that's going to form on the part of whoever makes these leaks available.
All leaks are suspicious. All leaks are, in some way, constructed narratives from the get go.
because everyone with every bias would be mining through it, not just people funding western media.
go here:
https://projects.icij.org/panama-papers/power-players/
after the intro animation is done, look in the upper right hand corner, you will see "Filters>Region>Country" click on country,
USA is a good boy! USA didn't do nothing wrong!
You do know that not everything in those leaks has been released yet, right? That the full release of all names is expected to be sometime in May?
There are 31 named Journalists from the US mentioned on the ICIJ page as having worked on this data. Several hundred more from countries all over the world. Do you honestly believe that they're going to keep quiet about it when they find prominent US figures in this thing?
-
all I am saying is I have suspicions.
and yeah, I could see that happening, I have completely lost all faith I ever had in the media.
-
The point is, you could make the same comment if they had just spun up a plain old HTML 1 site for it. How the site looks is irrelevant for the "it gives the impression that you're not trying to just present the facts, but a constructed narrative that's supposed to make things appear a certain way" part of your argument; Any editorializing, anything that isn't a straight source dump would do it. And even then, as we have seen with wikileaks, there is a lot of influence over the narrative that's going to form on the part of whoever makes these leaks available.
It wasn't an argument for or against, I was just explaining what sort of pattern-matching I believe goes on in the minds of people who find it suspicious due to how it looks.
I don't really have an opinion on the suspiciousness of the leaks myself, since like most people I basically know nothing about them.
-
apparently wikileaks might have a copy of the data (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/716772373408718849) so I might get my wish.
-
all I am saying is I have suspicions.
and yeah, I could see that happening, I have completely lost all faith I ever had in the media.
All of the media? How did that happen?
-
yeah, all of it, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox News. I've just seen them all lie too much over the years, especially when their power or money is threatened.
-
yeah, all of it, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox News. I've just seen them all lie too much over the years, especially when their power or money is threatened.
NPR? And what's wrong with the Sueddeutsche?
-
you are seriously implying they don't have their own agendas to push?
-
Are you seriously implying that it was ever different?
-
are you seriously implying that I am seriously implying that it ever was?
but to answer your question. No.
-
you are seriously implying they don't have their own agendas to push?
No, but not in the way you're implying!
Ahum.
CNN, MSNBC and Fox are all these 24 hours news networks that need constant sensationalism in order to keep people watching - The daily mail uses similar tactics. But the issue what I have with that statement of yours is that you're comparing something like Fox News to something like Aftenposten or NRC Handelsblad. There's a reason why these papers get selected for Wikileaks, and that is because their agenda is not aligned with a political party but rather aligned with the ideals of journalism itself. Can you really blame someone for having an agenda when that agenda is to be as honest as possible?
CNN and Fox and MSNBC completely suck but they are not representative for the state of media all around the world.
-
I can blame them when they choose "honesty" over objectivity.
-
I can blame them when they choose "honesty" over objectivity.
A journalist can never be truly objective. Part of their job is selecting what information is or is not important. I'd rather have someone I can trust figure that out rather then have a system that encourages dumping every sex tape online for the sake of objective truth.
Look, sorry, but you're lumping in outlets whose agenda revolves around uncovering the truth and to be truthful and accurate in their reporting with companies who can not succeed unless they keep feeding people sensationalism because else they stop watching. That is a massive overgeneralization.
-
They can try to be objective, they can not misrepresent someone's position. I'd rather have someone who told me what everyone involved is saying and figure it out myself than rely on someone else to make my opinions for me.
-
They can try to be objective, they can not misrepresent someone's position. I'd rather have someone who told me what everyone involved is saying and figure it out myself than rely on someone else to make my opinions for me.
Not everyone involved has equal coverage primarily because not everyone involved equally has something to say. I mean, you can pretty much assume Donald Trump disagrees with anything a news network says about him. If you couldn't draw that conclusion on your own already, then I'm not sure why you think anyone will let you figure it out on your own because you're probably not equipped.
And you're equating "misrepresentation" with "reporting" in some strange way. People will check that what they are being told is verifiable; they'll check facts; simply uncritically publishing statements is in no way "objectivity" and is really quite the opposite. "They said this, and it's not true/is true according to x" is kind of how objectivity works, rather than just "they said this, and as we are not qualifying it most people will assume that we agree".
If nothing else, it allows you to check and determine their biases.
-
Ironically Bobboau's position is remarkably consistent with "Teach the controversy".
-
I have no problem with creationists having their accurate position being communicated and allowing them to make an argument for their idiotic case. I think it helps long term and I think censoring them gives them far more power.
-
I have no problem with creationists having their accurate position being communicated and allowing them to make an argument for their idiotic case. I think it helps long term and I think censoring them gives them far more power.
... How does censorship even play into this?
-
not letting a person/group present their position.
-
There's a difference between being allowed to present your position and being given a free platform to broadcast your position.
-
and there is also the case of one side being characterized by their opposition who is then given a free platform to present themselves unopposed. I am opposed to this.
-
I have no problem with creationists having their accurate position being communicated and allowing them to make an argument for their idiotic case. I think it helps long term and I think censoring them gives them far more power.
You have no problem with creationism being taught in science class?
-
yes I do have a problem with that obviously.
I am rather interested in how you construed what I have been saying about how the media should handle things to say something about what should be taught in classrooms.
It is in fact the creationists failure when given equal footing that gives me confidence in opposing them.
-
I'd rather have someone who told me what everyone involved is saying and figure it out myself than rely on someone else to make my opinions for me.
Sounds like a pretty good argument for why creationism should be taught in science class to me. If you expect the teachers to fact check and only tell the side that is actually consistent then why not reporters too?
-
because how am I to decide if I want creationism taught in schools or not if I don't know what creationism is? maybe they have some good point.? I now know, having heard them, that they don't. I only know that because they were given a fair chance to make their case and failed.
Just so I have a clear idea what you want, what do you consider the ideal?
-
But why should you get to make the decision and not the kids who are to be taught in the class?
As for what I want. I'm quite happy to be told the truth by a newspaper I trust. I don't need to hear everything so I can make the decision myself when there obviously is only one side to the story.
-
I don't need to hear everything so I can make the decision myself when there obviously is only one side to the story.
Generally, when there's "obviously" only one side to the story, it's a good cue that you're not being told everything. There's always another side to the story. Even the most despicable creatures in human skin should be allowed to state their reasons for being what they are at least once. Usually it won't change anything, but you can't be certain until you hear it.
Ultimately, even if you're told "the truth" by a newspaper you trust, you're still getting it colored by someone else's viewpoint. Even if the newspaper as a whole is supposed to be unbiased, personal agenda of particular writers might still seep through. Ultimately, I always take secondary sources with a bigger or smaller grain of salt. Good as arguments in a discussion, but when it comes to making my own worldview, it's primary sources or bust. Especially in cases like this, where there's a lot of money and a huge potential for foul play involved. I see Wikileaks as no different than anyone else, except for the times they allow direct access to material they gather.
Creationism should not be taught in a science class because, well, it isn't science (those who insist it is usually have no idea of how actual science works). It should be taught in the religion class, where it belongs. Then the kids can decide which teacher to believe. It is definitely important to hear both points of view, but they should be categorized appropriately.
-
well, for one thing they are children and I am an adult.
second those kids can hear the debate on the news just like me.
As for your vision for journalism... that attitude disgusts me.
So I guess we have an impassable difference of values. Fortunately I'm not prescribing what you should do, but describing why I have no faith in the media.
:doubt:
-
Generally, when there's "obviously" only one side to the story, it's a good cue that you're not being told everything. There's always another side to the story.
Really? So you need to hear the "Aliens shot it down" side of a plane crash story too?
-
Yes, if only to debunk it. Believe me, I have a lot of personal experience with that particular side (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash#Conspiracy_theories)... OK, so it's more "Russians shot it down" (though I believe aliens did come up at some point, much like everything else), but either way, trying to silence such claims only encourages them. Better to listen, at least if they can produce some "proof" (note that I'm not advocating listening to completely unfounded stories) and at least try to make their case. Anyone who goes that far warrants a solid, well researched debunking, at the very least.
-
And you really think that a newspaper should devote column inches to "aliens shot it down"?
Yeah, I prefer my newspapers to be readable rather than covering every single piece of nonsense that has something to do with the story in the interest of "objectivity".
-
That's not objectivity, that's false equivalence...
-
The whole "deplatform" thing that should have been seen for the miserable idea that it always was *only* got good references when biologists couldn't take with creationists anymore, since any effort to debate or talk to them was always absorved by the other side as a "win" ("See? They're talking with us which means there's a controversy"). So to counter this regurgitating tactic by some creationists, biologists thought that "deplatforming", denying any kind of conversation and so on should be the correct answer. "We're not going to lend our credibility to these buffoons", they said.
And everyone with a brain understood that position. What very few people understood was how this idea was poisonous and anti-intellectual in itself, it based on an anti-enlightenment view of the world, one which just suspects people are dumb and should not be trusted into reaching truths through reason and debate, but rather should be told what to believe by those who are obviously in the right. But few people cared, because the target was so obviously wrong on their positions (and they did try hard to dismantle actual biological education).
Problem is how hard and how ubiquituous this idea has become, this one of "deplatforming" anyone who disagrees with the "obvious truth", which is, of course, always with a "liberal bias" (Colbert, 2005). You disagree with climate change even if just in this one little detail? You're a denier and should be deplatformed. It's about the future of the world, you see, nothing personal. You disagree with feminism? You're a sexist and should be deplatformed. It's about equality. You disagree with intersectionality? Let's ban and shout you down. You are a student that disagrees with the black lives matter movement? What are you, a KKK member? We'll have the university administration persecute your ass down until you're out. And then it eats itself, when we see trans people being deplatformed because they were invited by a jewish club (worrying about anti-semitism is so 20th century, guys), when we see Maryan Namazie being deplatformed because she had one wrong particular idea within the ideology she so shares 99% with. It eats itself while burning the wider forum, the wider "marketplace of ideas". Enlightenment itself.
It's a tragedy, but what to expect? Bad ideas are not suddenly good ones because they had good intentions behind them. This devilish deal we had with deplatforming as a tool to crackdown "bad ideas" is turning any debate into either an intellectual masturbatory exercise between those who think alike (and in progressive manners, but I can totally find right wing analogues), or into a cruel witch hunt against that guy who just said something deeply "problematic", "disturbing" and "triggering".
Life is not a safe space where we have to deplatform (to where, Mars?) those who disagree with us. And my primary reason for this is that I do not trust *anyone* to do the job of deciding who is to be deplatformed, because as far as I know, he's an ape just like me, with his own agenda and errors. Deplatforming should be deplatformed. For the sake of us all.
-
Ah, also, yeah, anyone defending "deplatforming" as something viable shall not come to whine about how our societies are getting so polarized and balkanized. Anyone making those two points will so get a slap out of me, I ****ing warn you beforehand.
-
That's not objectivity, that's false equivalence...
no "false equivilence" is the fun new meme you are using to justify no platforming people who you disagree with now that you have the power to do it.
just like "its not censorship when corporations do it", and "racism is power + privilege" all memes to justify why it's OK for you to be intellectually lazy or morally reprehensible for the greater good.
when the power shifts away from you, and you are the one being shut down, I will remember what you did when you had the power.
was thinking about making a topic for this, but sinse it seems relevant to the current discussion
http://lokithescottishrapper.com/2016/02/25/privilege-and-prejudice-social-justice-in-an-age-of-male-confusion/
-
Loki is probably too late in his observations there.
Back to the topic. I don't see any harm whatsoever in being a little paranoid and skeptical about the sources and the journalists doing the gatekeeping of these secrets. I think that's quite healthy in fact, for a society to possess skeptical individuals like that.
I will only groan when skeptics then overreach and conclude that Putin (or any other outed dude) is actually in the right, or a good guy, because the Powers That Be are against him, and these Panama Papers being so filled with bad info on the guy proves the papers' actual source is The Powers that Be, and thus let's all root for Putin and against "Soros" or, ultimately where the hole goes, "the Jews" (it always goes there, doesn't it?).
No, I am quite skeptical in fact, despite acknowledging that this was probably the best way to leak bad **** to the public at large. It's too well organized for it to be totally trustworthy (any such good organization can't be so opaque to the kinds of people who were dug up). So I will still be skeptical about the whole "narrative" that will be built around this, but one thing we cannot do is deny the facts.
What I find more optimistic in all of this is how game theory somewhat negates the worst paranoias, since because if so much **** is being dug up from so many people, that if they feel this is gamed or whatever against them from equal or worse people, then the former will find a way to dig up dirt on the latter too. Which is a win win for all of us.
-
I cannot get past this idea that good organization (or presentation) implies untrustworthiness. It's really, really bizarre.
-
as opposed to just a raw data dump, followed by a simple search, followed by shnazzy UI. it's a red flag because it makes me think "where did this come from? who paid for this site?" I have a feeling all the info is legit, but one sided, but we will see what comes out, maybe Trump or Hillary will have a shell company in there somewhere.
-
Bobbeau, is a website like politifact deplatforming people by virtue of them fact checking statements before they publish them?
-
so long as they are publishing accurately and fairly those people's statements, and they are not cherry picking, no, that would not be deplatforming.
but that site does not give one side of an argument a platform at all, and I would not classify that site as a journalism outlet, so I think that would be a tenuous link to begin with.
-
I cannot get past this idea that good organization (or presentation) implies untrustworthiness. It's really, really bizarre.
I don't care how well the html's are done, I'm thinking much more on the lines on how 400 journalists all over the world were coordinating all of this without a peep for a whole year, and now suddenly the papers are getting these leaks according to some kind of highly coordinated planned leakage. And I'm quite skeptical not a single one of those 400 journalists were slightly corrupt or leaking anything at all that might have reached someone who treats billion dollars like a fun game. Moreso, such coordination needs a kind of hierarchy.
Now think. If there's a kind of comitee, and if someone leaked this a long time ago, is it really a stretch to imagine this organization to be compromised by the wrong kinds of people? If you remember, we are dealing with a leak that compromises people who manipulates laws to get profits from the total destruction of entire countries.
So no, I don't think being skeptical is out. Not that I'm not thankful... at least I am pretty sure a lot, if not all of, those journalists are really trying to do good, and much more can come out of it. But to think there's no possible way this organization isn't flawed or compromised is a tad naive, sorry. Real life is harsher than that.
-
but the journalists say the journalists can be trusted, there is no other side.
-
That's always the catch, isn't it? We have now superheroes of sorts, watching for us all the bad **** that they got their hands into. But who watches the Watchmen?
There is much to go Hmmm. Specially the manner in which these things can easily be weaponized. Already a PM quit his job. Curiously, it was a PM that benefited from its own country's rebellious treatment of the global banking system collapse. The other leak was about Cameron's dad, which could be a sign that his real power is meaningless (and it is, ever since the pig scandal). Then there's Putin, but Putin has been a bad boy for a long time. And then, very few people from the US. If we were to take Joshua's excuse seriously (there's enough US laws to make Panama unimportant), then why would anyone else even go through the troubles of using Panama in the first place, when there are also so many european offshore places to begin with? It doesn't smell right.
Even if I'm being too harsh, the point is not this. The point is that this harshness should be allowed to enter the discussion. After Wikileaks and the NSA scandal, it's all easy to see how "big leaks" could be politically weaponized against major powers in the world (and by powers I don't mean countries). In this interpretation, what would appear as a benign "Watergate" type of grassroots David vs Goliath talking truth to Power, could actually be just the front-end of a particular kind of cold war being waged between different political / financial hidden superpowers, and where one bunch is trying to gain some kind of leverage over another bunch. And that by using the very public as a weapon.
There are many possible explanations for the unfolding events. One of them includes the good heoric story. Others do not. Never be too optimistic when there's so much hidden information.
-
Don't get me wrong: I fully understand where you're coming from. It's just that, after the last 18 months, the constant insinuations that there's a jewish agenda, an SJW agenda, a neocon agenda, a muslim agenda, an agenda agenda behind everything are losing their grip on me. There's an element of sanity preservation at play here, the idea that if you expect the worst of everyone, the only surprises you're going to get are good ones; But I do not want to play that game anymore. It's not doing good things to me and my outlook on life.
-
I'm not going to debate your own personal priorities, and don't take my words negatively or "depressingly", at least. That wasn't my point either... I try not to expect anything (neither bad or good) from anyone. David Brin interprets all of this as one more step into his susveillance idea, and I kinda hope it's the true correct interpretation, that somehow barriers of information are destroying horrible powers' ability to at least maintain their farces. Probably that's why there are so many ghastly truths going around about every kinds of people going around - it's not that we are living in a worse place, it's just that we are getting the information that these people exist when previously we didn't (the world is getting more and more collapsed into a swirling singularity where people and information are clashing like never before).
My thing is, I don't expect anything to come about in these papers. And I didn't even touch the worst outcome of all of this.
The worst, most pessimistic outcome is the following: it becomes passé. Nobody cares. It's just "another one of those leaks", despite uncovering truly maddening stuff. In such an outcome, dangerous powers start to realise that they can just do whatever they want without even disguising it (what cynics would call at least a modicum of civilizational respect), and become more like Trump: lying all the time, pure emotional discourse without any kind of reality check.
That kind of interpretation is not unrealistic. It happened once too, in the beggining of the 20th century when radio started to enter the discussion and there was a similar kind of "collapse" of information, when suddenly everyone got aware of much more they were used to. We didn't enter an age of reason then, we had to go through a collapse of emotional rage and that generated fascism itself. The germans had to go a step further than that and go super-sayian about it, and it didn't end well. Freud was terrified by what was happening in the late 20s and the 30s and had become totally misanthropic and depressed.
Well, the world did go through a crisis but the silver lining is, we are still here. And I think, in a better shape. So, you know, there's always hope and chance for good to come through (goodness is quieter than evilness, I do think, and much more ubiquitous than we often imagine).
-
I cannot get past this idea that good organization (or presentation) implies untrustworthiness. It's really, really bizarre.
I don't care how well the html's are done, I'm thinking much more on the lines on how 400 journalists all over the world were coordinating all of this without a peep for a whole year, and now suddenly the papers are getting these leaks according to some kind of highly coordinated planned leakage. And I'm quite skeptical not a single one of those 400 journalists were slightly corrupt or leaking anything at all that might have reached someone who treats billion dollars like a fun game. Moreso, such coordination needs a kind of hierarchy.
Now think. If there's a kind of comitee, and if someone leaked this a long time ago, is it really a stretch to imagine this organization to be compromised by the wrong kinds of people? If you remember, we are dealing with a leak that compromises people who manipulates laws to get profits from the total destruction of entire countries.
So no, I don't think being skeptical is out. Not that I'm not thankful... at least I am pretty sure a lot, if not all of, those journalists are really trying to do good, and much more can come out of it. But to think there's no possible way this organization isn't flawed or compromised is a tad naive, sorry. Real life is harsher than that.
I can get the reasoning behind your suspiciouns, but I have no idea why people working on this for a year would validate those suspicions: YOu say yourself that these are extremely serious allegations. There is a lot of stake on people getting this right. When people get this wrong, when there is a case of information being manipulated in order to suit a political goal or whatnot, it would not just invalidate this particular leak - it would seriously comprimise anyone who would want to leak in the future. The Panama route is not the only route to tax dodging, and it's not the one that is commonly used by Americans due to the strong ties that Panama has with the US government. They HAVE to get this a hundred percent right. The Law(tm) will be doing their own investigations, and this information has to match. A failure to do this would be a violation of quite a few journalistic principles, and would seriously hamper their agenda: To uncover corruption.
And that's why the organisation around it has to be so strong. It really is the same back when wikileaks first started (although they have since gotten a lot more sensationalist).
but the journalists say the journalists can be trusted, there is no other side.
Becuase this is their side. This is a group of journalists presenting a hard case. There will be plenty of other newspapers that will also be looking into this, which will also be looking into the journalists behind this. Although journalists generally have the same principles it's not like they ever agree with eachother. Look at the diversity of newspapers in even a small country. But these journalists presenting a hard case does not immeaditely mean that the 'other side' (Although considering the amount of people involved it's more of a variety of sides) is being excluded. Do you think that newspapers will stay silent if these revelations turn out to be phoney? Off course they won't, which is also why see above.
-
It's not that the good willing people are willing to validate my suspicions. It's not those I'm worried about. The mere fact they are uncovering these harsh truths is a testament that there are cruel evil bastards out there, willing to do very different things than the "Good people". This "they have to get this a hundred percent right" I don't get. Is there some law of physics that demands this to come to pass that I'm unaware of? What is really there that forces all of these stories to be 100% uncompromised? Please do tell.
A failure to do this would be a violation of quite a few journalistic principles, and would seriously hamper their agenda: To uncover corruption.
First, violating "journalistic principles" is not something novel for my eyes. It's actually pretty common, if you pay the minimum of attention. Second, you are attributing agendas to people you don't even know about. That's some kind of super meta telepathy that I just can't follow you on. Until you prove me that you do indeed have this Marvel-like kind of superpower to discern what people are actually "up to", why would anyone take your statement seriously?
I'm *not* saying it is a false statement. I'm saying that you are just asserting a belief with little to no evidence apart from the journalists' own statements that they are indeed doing what they say they are doing. What now, are journalists a class of their own too, like scientists? They are hovering all over us with their amazing moralities unlike the rest of us apes? They are humans, Joshua. That means they are as flawed as ****.
Becuase this is their side. This is a group of journalists presenting a hard case. There will be plenty of other newspapers that will also be looking into this, which will also be looking into the journalists behind this.
Don't buy it. Journalism has been long replaced in the mainstream by clickbait emotional discourse produced to get your eyeballs for publicity money. I love the idealism. I just don't see it with my eyes.
-
Journalism has been long replaced in the mainstream by clickbait emotional discourse produced to get your eyeballs for publicity money. I love the idealism. I just don't see it with my eyes.
You are aware that there are plenty of newspapers which operate with a classical subscriber system and don't rely on publicity money?
Like, those paper things? Don't take Gawker or Breitbart or Fox as the arbiter of everything journalism.
This "they have to get this a hundred percent right" I don't get. Is there some law of physics that demands this to come to pass that I'm unaware of? What is really there that forces all of these stories to be 100% uncompromised? Please do tel
Becuase doing anything else would mean they would get into a lot of trouble. There are quite a few nations with plaintiff friendly libel laws, and falsely accusing someone of corruption with falsified evidence is, well, awfull. Why do I even have to explain you this?
-
these are extremely serious allegations. There is a lot of stake on people getting this right. When people get this wrong, when there is a case of information being manipulated in order to suit a political goal or whatnot, it would not just invalidate this ... - it would seriously comprimise anyone who would want to ... in the future. ... They HAVE to get this a hundred percent right.
oh, it's 2003 and the American political establishment says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. they won't show us the solid evidence? but they swear they have it? OK, well they wouldn't just lie right? I mean the consequences to that would be disastrous to them once it was found out there was nothing.
-
Journalism has been long replaced in the mainstream by clickbait emotional discourse produced to get your eyeballs for publicity money. I love the idealism. I just don't see it with my eyes.
You are aware that there are plenty of newspapers which operate with a classical subscriber system and don't rely on publicity money?
Like, those paper things? Don't take Gawker or Breitbart or Fox as the arbiter of everything journalism.
You mean these newspapers?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c4qhmgEqsNE/T0rWJ4iBbpI/AAAAAAAAQ7c/GNhzushcZKI/s1600/newspaper.jpg)
(http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/uploaded_images/Collapse-of-Newspaper-Employment-706646.jpg)
This dying industry? It's over. No one reads paper anymore.
Becuase doing anything else would mean they would get into a lot of trouble. There are quite a few nations with plaintiff friendly libel laws, and falsely accusing someone of corruption with falsified evidence is, well, awfull. Why do I even have to explain you this?
I haven't read any direct accusations of anything. "Allegedly" and "Apparently", "According to these leaks" and so on are quite the semantical tools that all journalists employ. There is no real danger of "trouble", especially if the "papers" doing the so-called "accusations" are well written and located in more "free speech" countries (and in here, the US is quite the special place I have to admit).
oh, it's 2003 and the American political establishment says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. they won't show us the solid evidence? but they swear they have it? OK, well they wouldn't just lie right? I mean the consequences to that would be disastrous to them once it was found out there was nothing.
It's 2016 and I'm happy there are still naive people around... I don't know exactly why, but it warms my heart a bit. It also irritates me, but in a lesser degree.
-
I haven't read any direct accusations of anything. "Allegedly" and "Apparently", "According to these leaks" and so on are quite the semantical tools that all journalists employ. There is no real danger of "trouble", especially if the "papers" doing the so-called "accusations" are well written and located in more "free speech" countries (and in here, the US is quite the special place I have to admit).
Really doesn't matter. There's more than enough to get sued in the UK or Australia for this unless you can prove it true, particularly given their libel law does not have a presumption of innocence as such.
-
Well, even in the US you get libeled and the process itself is enough punishment. I don't think the underlying truth has any bearing on there being law suits or not. It's merely a calculation of "is it worth it?", and probably given the current popularity of these kinds of leaks versus the Streisand effect it is absolutely not worth it regardless of there being truth to it or not.
The worst outcome for some of these rascals is if there are wild exagerations to their case. What are they gonna say? "They are lying, I never laundered *that* amount of money, they are totally blowing things out of proportion!", that wouldn't work would it?
-
actually a lot of the people accused are using the accusation to their advantage, saying "it's a Western plot! rally around me!"
-
Well, even in the US you get libeled and the process itself is enough punishment. I don't think the underlying truth has any bearing on there being law suits or not.
It absolutely does; if you lose a libel case in most jurisdictions in the US or UK you have to pay the other sides' fees almost as a matter of course. The publishers are well-resourced; simply suing them is not going to get them to back down, they have the means to go to the mats.
You're making an argument like they're normal people. They're not. The decisions are functionally very different.
-
Given the newspapers backing this, they'd probably be very happy if someone was dumb enough to sue them. It would give them a fairly major trial to cover and allow them to get their lawyer to ask all kinds of juicy questions under oath which the plaintiff wouldn't otherwise touch with a bargepole.
-
Processes like these drag on for years. I do take your point of hope that the crumbling media will totally back their journalists over this issue like Gawker is in their totally important Hulk Hogan hundred million bucks case. I hope these are "Spotlight" type journalists, that they are intelligently protected and they get as much snake blood as they can. I'm sorry if I feel that's too optimistic regarding that, but hey hope should never die.
-
USA is a good boy! USA didn't do nothing wrong!
dindu nuffin
-
just saw a headline that reminded me about the recent end of this thread
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/20/the-deep-and-disturbing-decline-in-global-press-freedom/