|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Man I know you want another war so you can make more money profiteering off it but you don't have to help start it. Ah yes, open source journalists, the creme-de-la-creme of the money machine that is news media.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Ideology shapes what evidence you consider relevant, though? It's not really something you can just step outside. I think this is something the reaction to the article has demonstrated clearly, those with strong political ideologies, left or right, are annoyed about its content because it doesn't support their conclusions based on their own political ideologies, because my intention wasn't to project my own political ideology onto the evidence. Intent is key, if you want to read some talking head explaining why it's clearly a false flag/definitely Iran responsible you have Fox News and Russia Today to watch for that. I just wanted to show that the evidence presented so far is inconclusive for either viewpoint, but apparently that's a rabidly pro-war/anti-American position, depending on your ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think this is something the reaction to the article has demonstrated clearly, those with strong political ideologies, left or right, are annoyed about its content because it doesn't support their conclusions based on their own political ideologies, because my intention wasn't to project my own political ideology onto the evidence. Intent is key, if you want to read some talking head explaining why it's clearly a false flag/definitely Iran responsible you have Fox News and Russia Today to watch for that. I just wanted to show that the evidence presented so far is inconclusive for either viewpoint, but apparently that's a rabidly pro-war/anti-American position, depending on your ideology. you also have a strong political ideology brown moses if you think otherwise you've literally just not examined it
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you also have a strong political ideology brown moses But I don't have that override my opinion of the evidence, which is the main complaint of people, left and right, about that article. People who have strong political beliefs tend to project the way they allow that to inform their opions onto other people with less strident beliefs. Out of interest, those of you commenting on "open source journalism", how many of you actually have any experience at all in the media, or doing open source investigation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
It was a thousand word article: with the best will in the world, you can't squeeze every little nuance and caveat into that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:But I don't have that override my opinion of the evidence, which is the main complaint of people, left and right, about that article. it's not the evidence that's the problem, it's the presentation and what's not included in the analysis, so yeah you clearly have ideas about what is or what isn't relevant to factor into an analysis, or as you'd say, a strong ideology
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it's not the evidence that's the problem, it's the presentation and what's not included in the analysis, so yeah you clearly have ideas about what is or what isn't relevant to factor into an analysis, or as you'd say, a strong ideology In your opinion what should I have factored into my analysis?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
I don't really have much of a problem at all with the article, it's just not really a good look beside Brett Stephens 'it's time to destroy Iran's navy' piece in the same newspaper. If the editor is going to take out the warning about accepting John Bolton's or the state departments words at face value I'd argue it's irresponsible to allow your work to be published. If it was published on bellingcat I don't think this would have generated a tenth of the discussion, it's that it was in the NYT that's the issue. Maybe if the same newspaper hadn't been so happy to publish lies about Iraq or seem so eager for war with Iran this wouldn't be a problem. I guess it's a question BM will have to ask himself, is he comfortable with his piece being used in a way that allows warmongers to continue to beat the drums of war? I personally would not be, but a mans got to work I guess. My job doesn't contribute to putting millions of lives in danger though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:In your opinion what should I have factored into my analysis? the weirdly low resolution of the footage (144p in TYOOL 2019? i'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but my mobile phone could take higher resolution footage), and the political context where the US is clearly chomping at the bit for any excuse to discredit iran; more to the point, the tonkin thread should've been clearer in the text and that byline is potentially very misleading basically, you limit yourself to what can be absolutely proven - when speaking truth to power, that's not enough and when something just stinks about the official narrative, that's the actual story that needs telling, not 'well they're right about some things and not about others, must talk to both sides' which can reasonably have the perverse effect of entrenching the very narrative you're trying to criticise
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I actually went through as many examples as I could find, but if you can find any examples, especially with the same armaments as Iran uses, feel free to share them. Did you try asking someone who knows about boats? Googling can be used as a journalism technique, but that doesn't mean you have to rely solely on that and never use any other journalism technique. Brown Moses posted:My feeling was if there was actually something about the US claims that was contradicted by the avaliable evidence then it would have been possible to make a stronger conclusion than the publicly available evidence for the US claims or the incident was a false flag was at best inconclusive. But it wasn't, so I didn't. Virtually all of the available evidence originates from the US themselves, so the fact that there isn't any evidence that clearly contradicts their case isn't surprising. The incident happened out in the middle of the sea with no witnesses - except, apparently, a US drone with a barely-functional camera which was able to hover there in plain sight and watch as the sneaky Iranians did their sneaky secret evidence-destruction without any concern for the drone hanging out and watching them do it. Or so the Navy says, anyway! I see what you're saying about wanting to base your reporting solely on evidence and nothing else, and not wanting to make value judgments about the quality of that evidence. But that same mindset is exactly what led so many journalists into being Iraq War cheerleaders in 2002: the US government was releasing plenty of "evidence" suggesting that Saddam had WMDs, and since secret illegal weapons programs aren't generally publicly available in the first place, there was no way for anyone to provide meaningful evidence that Saddam didn't actually have one. So all the fair-minded balanced neutral journalists who prided themselves on reporting based on only the evidence and nothing else ended up reprinting the US case for war verbatim, because the US evidence was the only evidence. And if "open-source journalism" had been around back then, you would have been lined up right behind them, poring over satellite photos to see that Iraq did in fact have military buildings at the exact locations where the US said they had WMD labs, and combing through shipping records to find that Iraq did indeed order aluminum tubes that could potentially have been dual-use, and it's up to the reader to decide what those inconclusive things mean. In the end, though, the ones who were correct were the ones who knew that "evidence" that first shows up in a voluntarily-issued press release is rarely as trustworthy as it appears - even though they were attacked as ideological and irrational for daring to distrust the US government's evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think this is something the reaction to the article has demonstrated clearly, those with strong political ideologies, left or right, are annoyed about its content because it doesn't support their conclusions based on their own political ideologies, because my intention wasn't to project my own political ideology onto the evidence. Intent is key, if you want to read some talking head explaining why it's clearly a false flag/definitely Iran responsible you have Fox News and Russia Today to watch for that. I just wanted to show that the evidence presented so far is inconclusive for either viewpoint, but apparently that's a rabidly pro-war/anti-American position, depending on your ideology. I think you missed the point. What you consider 'evidence' is itself shaped by ideology. For example, some folks might consider the material information available (shell casings, craters, and so on) to be the most important part, while others might consider the past statements and actions of the people involved to be more important, and the degree to which you focus on one at the expense of the other is itself an ideological stance, a reflection of your worldview. An article for an international publication with a limited word-count is a particularly sharp test of ideology - 'which of these things I know or believe is important enough to tell the rest of the planet about?'. I'm not saying you're right or wrong about any of this, only that it can be very useful to engage in a moment of introspection every so often in order to ensure that you are having the effect you want with the platform you have, especially when your platform is that powerful. If you don't believe you're motivated by ideology, you're probably playing into the hands of someone more self-aware and more in control of their own messaging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the weirdly low resolution of the footage (144p in TYOOL 2019? i'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but my mobile phone could take higher resolution footage), Could your mobile phone take clearer video footage from miles away with day/night modes? It turns out selfies and landscapes with little or no zoom are easy for any old camera to pull off. Mobile phones look like dogshit when you use digital zoom to look at something across the street, much less far away. Anyone who looks at that video and swears they see a clear look at a limpet mine being removed that says "Made in Iran" on the side is clearly full of poo poo. However, it turns out that even a decent camera kind of sucks when you're filming from very far away. Given that Iranian Naval forces and third-party civilians were also in the area, it would be trivially easy for them to point it out if the video was wholesale faked (i.e. false flag boat, actors, etc). Unless I missed it, Iran has not claimed the video of the boat is fake. They have simply stated that they were in no way responsible for the attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
I for one am waiting until we get some info from the ships in port. We can go back and forth for ages on a heavily edited Centcom video, but other sources of info will really help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Could your mobile phone take clearer video footage from miles away with day/night modes? It turns out selfies and landscapes with little or no zoom are easy for any old camera to pull off. Mobile phones look like dogshit when you use digital zoom to look at something across the street, much less far away. ya i'm not going to insist on this because i know next to nothing about camera tech, but intuitively the charge that the resolution is deliberately grainy at least warrants a follow-up
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the weirdly low resolution of the footage (144p in TYOOL 2019? i'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but my mobile phone could take higher resolution footage), and the political context where the US is clearly chomping at the bit for any excuse to discredit iran; more to the point, the tonkin thread should've been clearer in the text and that byline is potentially very misleading
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
The biggest problem with the article is that it tries to give the reader the false impression that glancing at googlemaps and marinetraffic we no longer need journalists on the ground:quote:Thanks to the internet and the range of publicly available information, confirming or denying such an attack has become far easier since the 1960s. A distance of several thousand miles does not mean much today. This isn't useful information for the reader this is an attempt to promote bellingcat, mostly by greatly exaggerating what open source journalism can hope to accomplish. By the end of the article it's very clear that his claim that "a distance of several thousand miles does not mean much today" is wrong obviously wrong because the reader has no clearer an idea of what happened by the end of the article than they did at the beginning. He's blatantly stretching a toolset to try and do things it just isn't suited to do. There's a role for open source journalism but it sure isn't this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ya i'm not going to insist on this because i know next to nothing about camera tech, but intuitively the charge that the resolution is deliberately grainy at least warrants a follow-up My feeling is it's more likely a cropped video. What's more interesting to me is seeing the footage from before the start time of the video, because it starts with the supposed mine obscured, and it seems fishy to say they just started the video recording at the moment they removed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
Doesn't the testimony of the Japanese crew contradict the US narrative? At the very least the US is completely mistaken about what happened, barring Yutaka Katada being a deep cover Iranian agent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The biggest problem with the article is that it tries to give the reader the false impression that glancing at googlemaps and marinetraffic we no longer need journalists on the ground: That was actually the editor's wording, my draft says quote:However, much has changed in the world since the 1960s, and a gulf thousands of miles away is no longer as distance as it once was thanks to the range of publicly available information accessible to anyone with an internet connection, and some free time. This was also the paragraph about the US bombing Al-Jinah mosque and the US CENTCOM statement about it that was removed: quote:However, despite the source of the statement it’s still worth checking the claims made. In 2017 a mosque near the town of Al-Jinah in Syria was bombed by US Coalition forces, with US Central Command putting out a statement that they bombed a Al Qaeda in Syria meeting location, and a drone image they said proved the mosque that was supposedly bomb was undamaged, next to the targeted building that was destroyed. Investigations by Bellingcat, Human Rights Watch, and Forensic Architecture using satellite imagery and footage of the destroyed building before and after it was targeted clearly showed that it was in fact a full functioning mosque, a fact the US military eventually admitted to, and dozens of civilians were killed. The US military in their final report stated only one civilian had died in the attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Did you try asking someone who knows about boats? Googling can be used as a journalism technique, but that doesn't mean you have to rely solely on that and never use any other journalism technique. This is at the core of the issue from a purely evidence based standpoint, when publishing in a journal that is ostensibly prestigious and influential, about a major security crisis that is still developing, it is probably best not to rely on techniques that are unreliable and likely to lead to an "welp, we can't really tell you what is going on, sorry" outcome, even if you are really proud of how you made this technique popular, and want to promote it further. Given the very sensitive nature of the topic, you should probably rather focus on doing more involved work that contextualizes the limits of your own approach and provides more insight by presenting expertise of people who actually possess it on this issue, or not publish at all if you can't do that. That's also an option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The request from the NYT was to write a piece based on the Twitter thread I shared earlier, and the editor writes the headline and description of the article, not me. I was also limited to 1000 words, and I could barely fit in what I had been asked to write about, which, again, was the Twitter thread, not an analysis of the broader political situation, which there's no shortage of to fit all kinds of political ideology. Sure, but you were free to reject that request. Instead, you chose to write something that fit the NYT's desired framing. Don't turn around and blame the NYT for it being a crap story. Yes, they may have asked for a crap story, but you're the one who accepted that request and wrote one for them. And after all these years in D&D watching people roast bad articles, you should really know better than to think that excuse would get you anywhere. Brown Moses posted:That was actually the editor's wording, my draft says Sure, but you're defending them, instead of getting mad that they wrote things you didn't mean in an article with your name and your reputation attached to it. The editor's name isn't on that article; yours is. If you opposed those decisions, you'd presumably have either withdrawn permission to run the article, or kicked up a stink about them rewriting your article. Don't try to blame them for editorial decisions you appear to have accepted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:This is at the core of the issue from a purely evidence based standpoint, when publishing in a journal that is ostensibly prestigious and influential, about a major security crisis that is still developing, it is probably best not to rely on techniques that are unreliable and likely to lead to an "welp, we can't really tell you what is going on, sorry" outcome, even if you are really proud of how you made this technique popular, and want to promote it further. Given the very sensitive nature of the topic, you should probably rather focus on doing more involved work that contextualizes the limits of your own approach and provides more insight by presenting expertise of people who actually possess it on this issue, or not publish at all if you can't do that. That's also an option. As I keep saying, the NYT asked me to write a piece based on a Twitter thread we published on the website, not a political analysis. Not sure how many times I have to explain that before you get it. Meanwhile, updates on the locations of the two vessels: https://twitter.com/TankerTrackers/status/1140260251259801601
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
brown moses's article main flaw wasn't the lack of analysis, but that it was supremely boring. the topic is something tom clancy would salivate over, a mysterious terrorist attack on the high seas and conflicting reports from multiple governments. look at how bret stephens opens: he calls the iranians pirates in the headline, calls for a military response in the highlighted quote, and fills the entire article with jingoistic trash like "we sunk their entire navy before [when it was 4 ships] and we can do it again!" it's pure propaganda, but it is interesting to read. your piece spends so much time talking about googling ship registries that it fails to tell a convincing story. it doesn't even work well as promotion for bellingcat. this is an oped, there has to be a driving narrative. blandly stating "objective" facts in an attempt to appear serious doesn't impress nytimes readers; you should save that tactic for a different audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:brown moses's article main flaw wasn't the lack of analysis, but that it was supremely boring. the topic is something tom clancy would salivate over, a mysterious terrorist attack on the high seas and conflicting reports from multiple governments. look at how bret stephens opens: he calls the iranians pirates in the headline, calls for a military response in the highlighted quote, and fills the entire article with jingoistic trash like "we sunk their entire navy before [when it was 4 ships] and we can do it again!" it's pure propaganda, but it is interesting to read. your piece spends so much time talking about googling ship registries that it fails to tell a convincing story. it doesn't even work well as promotion for bellingcat. this is an oped, there has to be a driving narrative. blandly stating "objective" facts in an attempt to appear serious doesn't impress nytimes readers; you should save that tactic for a different audience. Yeah, that's exactly not what to do at all. Sensationalizing this poo poo like a new exciting adventure is not the way to go. First, the exciting narrative only really exists for the jingoistic camp, and second, if you apply the same far-fetched, nakedly hostile propaganda against US actors, you are going to get blacklisted. Brown Moses posted:As I keep saying, the NYT asked me to write a piece based on a Twitter thread we published on the website, not a political analysis. Not sure how many times I have to explain that before you get it. First, it's a political article even if you deny it. That's just your ideology speaking. Second, even if we pretend it's not political, I just said in this case (and OP as well) that the problem is the quality and superficiality of the journalistic techniques applied that is completely inadequate for the matter at hand, not political slant (for the sake of the argument). Third, if NYT asked specifically to just rewrite a Twitter thread and do no additional scooping at all, why accept? Why not challenge them? steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Guys just think of how many great videos will be posted to twitter once bombs are falling in iran though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Personally, I'm gonna moreso look forward to all the hot takes and mental gymnastics about how it's for the ME's own good simultaneously as US troops bug the gently caress out of Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Doesn't the testimony of the Japanese crew contradict the US narrative? At the very least the US is completely mistaken about what happened, barring Yutaka Katada being a deep cover Iranian agent. Or he could be simply mistaken, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. I imagine a missile should leave quite some identifiable debris (turbines blades for example) discerning it from a mine so hopefully someone is actually looking into this. Where are the ships now and who's in control of them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Yeah but like 700 words of that article is about googling stuff. You have a duty, dude Getting paid. No op-ed has ever been worth the ink it took to print.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Ah yes, open source journalists, the creme-de-la-creme of the money machine that is news media. A grift is a grift. Even piddly ones can keep a couple people in beer and skittles for a lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it must feel really cool to realize you have joined such luminaries as Erik Prince in looking at a potential outbreak of hostilities and leaping, immediately, to the advertorial possibilities probably feels real lucrative tbh
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:A grift is a grift. Even piddly ones can keep a couple people in beer and skittles for a lifetime. this is unfair imo, there's no obvious reason to assume that BM is running a grift
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:Dude makes a living on a niche type of reporting which is "what can I interpret from open source information." He does so and mostly reaches the conclusion that he can't reach a conclusion and gets dogpiled for not appending a supplementary treatise on American disinformation operations throughout history or personally responding to posters' individual critiques. If those goons aren't in on the grift then that's a tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:That was actually the editor's wording, my draft says As a writer you're supposed to advocate for your piece and fight back against the editors who want to ruin it. That's one of the reasons why professional journalists are so important and why you can't replace them with google maps - because you need people who are cynical and confident enough to fight back against editorial fuckery. You just treated this as an opportunity for self promotion. Brown Moses posted:As I keep saying, the NYT asked me to write a piece based on a Twitter thread we published on the website, not a political analysis. Not sure how many times I have to explain that before you get it. That is exactly what people are objecting to though. You let the Times use you to advance their own agenda, and in exchange you were given an opportunity to promote your business and advocate for open source journalism. You had a very rare opportunity to actually pushback against the narrative that might literally lead to tens of thousands of deaths (or more) and instead of standing up for yourself or your readers you let yourself get played.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Boy it sure is funny to see the usual gang of dictator lovers cry crocodile tears about an article explaining there is no proof at all that Iran bombed some ships. And then they go on to claim that the nothingburger is totally going to start a war? It's amazing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:As a writer you're supposed to advocate for your piece and fight back against the editors who want to ruin it. That's one of the reasons why professional journalists are so important and why you can't replace them with google maps - because you need people who are cynical and confident enough to fight back against editorial fuckery. You just treated this as an opportunity for self promotion. If only there was a summary of the article at the top saying something like "the Trump administration hasn’t provided convincing evidence of Tehran’s culpability." You literally see that before even clicking through to the article. Truely, the fix is in! The NYT prominently publishing op eds with fact-oriented independent analysis of the latest international incident is the opposite of what the NYT was doing in the run up to the Iraq war. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is unfair imo, there's no obvious reason to assume that BM is running a grift A Typical Goon posted:If the editor is going to take out the warning about accepting John Bolton's or the state departments words at face value I'd argue it's irresponsible to allow your work to be published. This is what makes it a grift imo. If you're acting as a source of information and leaving out key bits that benefit you or your employer then you're acting as a grifter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Since people are in the mood to talk about propaganda, why don't we establish what the US government propaganda is saying about what should be done. After all, if we want to make inference about the intentions of US leaders and what they want people to take away, I think we should provide evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75DYej8nErk This segment from Fox news includes a statement from the acting Secretary of Defense and interviews with three ex-US military and officials speaking in an unofficial capacity. The secretary's statement is just a nothing, that carries no hint the US will respond in anyway. The three ex-officials all say that the United States should not respond by declaring war or anything so drastic. They call for patience, gathering more intelligence, and MAYBE some kind of limited retaliation. Here is a three week old statement from Donald Trump, where he suggests he does not want to invade Iran, and emphasizes economic weapons in the conflict with that country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc4vYWJfJnE Here's a horrible rambly statement made by Trump on Fox and Friends about the tanker incident, in which he dodges a question about how the US will respond and reiterates earlier statements, again emphasizing the US economic campaign against Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5hA9G_bac&t=180s Looking at the the way the Trump administration is addressing the issue, it is clear they are downplaying the potential for a military response. The old establishment of both the Democrats and Republicans is also talking down that potential, and at most suggesting some kind of limited response against the Iranian navy is warranted. All indications I can see are that the Trump administration does not want this to escalate into war in the immediate future. Maybe someone else has seen/read statements contradicting this impression however? Can anyone who reads Farsi share how the Iranian government is addressing this incident? I mean like internally, it would be interested to hear the discourse around the issue there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:If only there was a summary of the article at the top saying something like "the Trump administration hasn’t provided convincing evidence of Tehran’s culpability." You literally see that before even clicking through to the article. Truely, the fix is in! The most egregious part of the article is not what it does or doesn't say about Iranian culpability, but rather the premise that we can use googlemaps and marinetraffic as a reliable substitute for actually investigating the claims by sending reporters and having real experts evaluate the evidence. The actual analysis is barely worth talking about because it says so little of interest or relevance. What's more concerning is that he was given the opportunity to write for the Times and what he produced was a lame sales pitch misrepresenting what bellingcat is actually capable of doing. At a time when actual journalism is dying BM is here to imply it is no big deal because freely available satellite images mean we're now privy to the same kind of data that is analyzed by government intelligence agencies. It's selling readers on the illusion of being well informed while giving them nothing they can actually use. It's exactly the kind of reporting that by its very nature lends itself to manipulation by the State Department or other bad actors. To anyone familiar with the post-Vietnam trajectory of US journalism this is not a trend to celebrate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Since people are in the mood to talk about propaganda, why don't we establish what the US government propaganda is saying about what should be done. I think we'll likely need to dispense with the idea that the US government has a single coherent agenda here. Even within the Trump administration there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what they actually want to see happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Helsing posted:The most egregious part of the article is not what it does or doesn't say about Iranian culpability, but rather the premise that we can use googlemaps and marinetraffic as a reliable substitute for actually investigating the claims by sending reporters and having real experts evaluate the evidence. The actual analysis is barely worth talking about because it says so little of interest or relevance. What's more concerning is that he was given the opportunity to write for the Times and what he produced was a lame sales pitch misrepresenting what bellingcat is actually capable of doing. It really is kinda funny-sad. The NYT has a lovely editorial line, as evidenced by the other drivel they've published so far. So what do they do? They ask a guy to write them something resembling objective, fact based analysis so they look respectable. Who do they ask? A guy who is convinced he is totally apolitical, who believes his trust in the data means that he can't be biased, when in reality his lack of any expertise in the topic, including his ability to estimate the significance of the scarce data he has, means that he is merely blissfully ignorant of the biases he brings along with him. A man who is not going to challenge the NYT editorializing, and won't editorialize himself, because he's convinced of the sacrosanct nature of his analytical work. Somebody who is going to deliver the most limp dick report ever that will look great next to the "Iranian Cannibals Photographed Eating Tortured Bodies of Tanker Crew" article. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:09
|
|