You’re dodging the question here because I asked this:
What then prevents our media discourse from being completely dominated by the kind of people who are able to make these kinds of leaks?
That’s a question about consequences, but you retreated into a normative answer, “soft corruption and sleaze is bad”. OK, so what? Does adding a selectively-enforced standard solve this problem, or does it simply put another weapon in the hands of powerful interests?
To put it another way, are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that Giuliani’s information dump is Step One of cleaning up soft corruption in DC?
I’m not advocating for a selective standard. Investigate and report the corruption around Biden. Investigate and report the corruption around Trump. Investigate and report the corruption around every powerful public official. This is the job of the journalist.
So, can you show me a clip where Glenn has asked Tucker to look into Trump’s taxes or Ivanka’s Chinese trademarks? Or does he only go on to complain that the NY Times isn’t spending enough time looking into an allegation that was so sketchy that the hard news folks at Fox passed on it and the NY Post had a few reporters refuse to put their byline on it?
My sources have done a reverse image search of the images, and it is possible that they have been posted in places that frankly, shock the conscience. More to come… For now, all I will say is… YOU GOT CAUGHT AND SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO POST!
Again, why would I possibly give a shit what you are and aren’t “advocating for”, this is another attempt to steer the conversation back into the terrain of abstract normative standards. I’m asking about real-world consequences. If journalists are duty-bound to report on any unclear, vaguely sleazy emails, what prevents them from becoming pet muckrakers for the people most able to get their hands on information?
Like James Madison was a moron to propose the Fourth Amendment I guess, in response to the question “how do we prevent the powerful authorities from selectively searching people” he could have just said “bro I’m not advocating for that, they should just treat everyone equally”. But what if they don’t? “Well they should”. OK dude.
I’ve seen the scandalous SenorKeed pics as well and they are definitely real and obviously newsworthy. They’re BAD and outline a broader pattern of SK posting that was already clear to all of us.
Again, dodging the question. Given that, as Greenwald has said, what the emails show is “standard”, what prevents journalists becoming selective media prosecutors for targets selected by the powerful? If you dodge the question again I’ll assume the answer is “nothing”.
Right, his statement is bombastic and hyperbolic. Which is typical of Greenwald. As I said, I don’t care if Greenwald is hyperbolic in his description of Schiff. I agree with the general sentiment.
When does hyperbole become lying? Calling Schiff the most anything kind of liar during Trump’s administration is so wrong it is actually providing cover for Trump.
Journalists aren’t supposed to be hyperbolic. They’re supposed to report the facts.
Glenn isn’t a journalist. Doesn’t matter whether or not you agree with him. He’s a talking head no different from any other on MSM shows and his reliability is compromised by his blatant biases and own ignorance.