No one is objecting to investigating and reporting corruption by Trump or his family. They certainly should be!
Youâre 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?
Thatâs a question about consequences, but you retreated into a normative answer, âsoft corruption and sleaze is badâ. 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 Giulianiâs information dump is Step One of cleaning up soft corruption in DC?
Iâm 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 Trumpâs taxes or Ivankaâs Chinese trademarks? Or does he only go on to complain that the NY Times isnât 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?
Breaking News
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 SHOULDNâT BE ALLOWED TO POST!
1 Like
The latter, as far as I can tell.
1 Like
Again, why would I possibly give a shit what you are and arenât âadvocating forâ, this is another attempt to steer the conversation back into the terrain of abstract normative standards. Iâm 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 âhow do we prevent the powerful authorities from selectively searching peopleâ he could have just said âbro Iâm not advocating for that, they should just treat everyone equallyâ. But what if they donât? âWell they shouldâ. OK dude.
4 Likes
Iâve seen the scandalous SenorKeed pics as well and they are definitely real and obviously newsworthy. Theyâre BAD and outline a broader pattern of SK posting that was already clear to all of us.
Buckle up cause this ainât going away!
4 Likes
Theyâre not obligated to do so. Theyâre obligated to do so if theyâre newsworthy. As Iâve said, I think Hunter Bidenâs corruption is newsworthy.
Again, dodging the question. Given that, as Greenwald has said, what the emails show is âstandardâ, what prevents journalists becoming selective media prosecutors for targets selected by the powerful? If you dodge the question again Iâll assume the answer is ânothingâ.
I didnât dodge the question. Journalistsâ judgement as to what is newsworthy is what prevents that.
By your own standard you should care
No, even denying an allegation gives it some credibility and legitimacy. It also creates another news cycle.
I agree with Greenwald that Schiff is a prolific liar.
Thatâs not what GG said.
Right, his statement is bombastic and hyperbolic. Which is typical of Greenwald. As I said, I donât 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 Trumpâs administration is so wrong it is actually providing cover for Trump.
2 Likes
When does hyperbole become lying? Never, by definition.