The thing with calling someone a liar is that it attributes a sense of deliberate action to their words and beliefs; that they *know* the truth and choose this position instead. Lying, the verb, is a deliberate act of deception and saying somebody's done that impugns their character. Lie, the noun, is a little broader and covers the basket of un-truths. Young Earth theory is a lie, but is a true believer who spreads Young Earth theory, feeling it in their hearts to be true, a liar?
So it does become political and editorial in that way, since it deigns to peer into a person's heart and sort out one from the other.
Not to say this excuses Trump, who plays fast and loose with the truth so often that it almost has to be deliberate almost all of the time, because to assume he was always merely speaking in ignorance would point to him having substantial cognitive disabilities, but to take something murkier, pointing to Art Laffer and calling him a liar for continuing to believe in supply-side economics is harder to do. It's a daft stupid ideology, but you can at least conceive of Laffer pitching his views in good faith.
The thing with calling someone a liar is that it attributes a sense of deliberate action to their words and beliefs; that they *know* the truth and choose this position instead. Lying, the verb, is a deliberate act of deception and saying somebody's done that impugns their character. Lie, the noun, is a little broader and covers the basket of un-truths. Young Earth theory is a lie, but is a true believer who spreads Young Earth theory, feeling it in their hearts to be true, a liar?
So it does become political and editorial in that way, since it deigns to peer into a person's heart and sort out one from the other.
Not to say this excuses Trump, who plays fast and loose with the truth so often that it almost has to be deliberate almost all of the time, because to assume he was always merely speaking in ignorance would point to him having substantial cognitive disabilities, but to take something murkier, pointing to Art Laffer and calling him a liar for continuing to believe in supply-side economics is harder to do. It's a daft stupid ideology, but you can at least conceive of Laffer pitching his views in good faith.
Bullshitter is probably the most appropriate term for Trump, as lying implies both an awareness of and concern for the truth, but you can't print that on the front page.
Politicians call each other liars all the time, so saying "Donald Trump is a liar" just sounds like regular mudslinging and gets tuned out. However a more polite phrasing, such as "Donald Trump's claims that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement are factually incorrect and are directly contradicted by the 'sources' he cites" is full of high falutin' words and also is likely to be tuned out by his supporters who prefer "plain speaking."
Eh, you can 'simplify' it - "Donald Trump's falsely claims Hillary has links to the birther movement" or "Donald Trump's claims not based on reality" etc.
@Spaffy the problem with calling someone a liar is that it's hard to prove the intent to deceive. I don't know what's going on in Donnies brain (and God help me if I do, I'm sure it's the shit nightmares are made of) so when I say he's a liar it's because I perceive him to be. Maybe he's not, maybe he truly believes the shit he's spouting will bring about the changes he alludes to. Tearing apart statement and showing they are objectively false is much easier and, ideally, reduces the likelihood that you get bogged down with arguments about whether your reporting is biased (although you'd still be open to claims that your overall reporting is biased even if your specific reports are objectively true).
That said, I we're not exactly in an environment where either thing is happening so.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
We can't say "Person lied" because we don't know what was within Person's heart of hearts when Person uttered a patent falsehood? There's no other aspect of the media where they decide that human psychology is unknowable and all truth is subjective. Are they stenographers or reporters? Because Trump can tweet me his statements directly, I don't need anybody writing them down for me in a little article unless they're going to provide valuable context like "He lied."
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
The problem is that's not all he revealed. He also exposed a lot of legitimate intelligence operations as well.
"Pat Buchanan asked Tubbs Jones about a photograph, supposedly leaked by the Clinton campaign, that showed Obama wearing an African tribal tunic and turban on a ceremonial visit to Kenya. Tubbs Jones started gingerly, telling Buchanan that the Clinton campaign did not condone its surrogates’ promoting photographs that the Obama team might find insulting. “But let me say this,” she added, warming to the subject. “I have no shame or no problem with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in the clothing of his country.” - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28tubbsjones-t.html?_r=0
Now, obviously this Tubbs Jones person is not named Hillary Clinton, so the hyperbole and false equivocation of her as "The Clinton Campaign" or worse, as Hillary Clinton herself, doesn't ring true, per se. However, are we to absolve Hillary and her campaign from not nipping this in the bud, so to speak, early and often? They were more than happy to be silent or allow surrogates like Mrs. Jones speak out like this.
Calling Trump a liar simply because he is incapable of nuance doesn't mitigate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
The problem is that's not all he revealed. He also exposed a lot of legitimate intelligence operations as well.
PRISM is one of the ones that might be considered legitimate, as it was fully legal at the time
the other "legitimate" intelligence operations were also covered by the Post
in fact there's only one thing Snowden leaked which they acknowledge had real value, which was the metadata gathering on US citizens
incidentally, that is the only thing which the Post did not cover
so, again
if none of this stuff was in the public interest, why did the Post publish all of it, and why shouldn't the paper also be prosecuted?
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
The problem is that's not all he revealed. He also exposed a lot of legitimate intelligence operations as well.
PRISM is one of the ones that might be considered legitimate, as it was fully legal at the time
the other "legitimate" intelligence operations were also covered by the Post
in fact there's only one thing Snowden leaked which they acknowledge had real value, which was the metadata gathering
incidentally, that is the only thing which the Post did not cover
so, again
if none of this stuff was in the public interest, why did the Post publish all of it, and why shouldn't the paper also be prosecuted?
What do you call the people who publish the secrets they vehemently declare the revelation there-of to be traitorous? Besides hypocrites? This legitimately gives me a headache seeing this level of ineptitude in our so-called Fourth Estate.
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
There should be a different standard for the press than for the leakers. The press doesn't really know precisely what is important until things get out there, but a leaker, who is should have that information and should know what is and isn't illegal about what is being leaked has a higher burden. On top of this the press serves an adversarial position in government (this is why its called the 4th estate*) and more or less is expected to make these kinds of "mistakes".
Furthermore the act that is illegal is not publishing it, but rather removing it.
*This goes back to pre-revolution France. The first estate was the Clergy, the second the nobility, and the third everyone else. When we call the press the 4th estate we are signifying that its a separate class of citizen which has an important role in the governance of society.
Fox News star Sean Hannity—a vocal supporter of Donald Trump on his radio show and his 10 p.m. program on the top-rated, right-leaning cable network—is in hot water Tuesday after his bosses were alerted to his participation in a Trump campaign video.
Hannity, who regularly features Trump on his shows in softball interviews and town halls, and recently sent a private jet for Newt Gingrich to confer with the Republican presidential nominee, appears along with Ted Nugent, Donald Trump Jr., Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., and other Trumpkins to extol the candidate’s devotion to gun rights among other virtues.
“One of the reasons I’m supporting Donald Trump this,” a jeans- and sport-shirt wearing Hannity tells the camera around minute six of the video, “is No. 1, he’s gonna put originalists on the Supreme Court who believe in fidelity to the Constitution, separation of powers, co-equal branches of government. He’s a guy who vet refugees to keep Americans safe…”
And so on and so forth.
Apparently, Hannity didn’t see fit to obtain permission for starring in the political ad—an act that would be considered a serious breach of ethics at the overwhelming majority of news outlets—and the sort of behavior that is definitely not condoned at a post-Roger Ailes Fox News.
“We were not aware of Sean Hannity participating in a promotional video,” said a Fox News spokesperson, after The Daily Beast informed the network of Hannity’s appearance, “and he will not be doing anything along these lines for the remainder of the election season.”
It was not clear if Fox News co-presidents Bill Shine and/or Jack Abernethy gave Hannity a talking-to or whether he will face any disciplinary action.
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
There should be a different standard for the press than for the leakers. The press doesn't really know precisely what is important until things get out there, but a leaker, who is should have that information and should know what is and isn't illegal about what is being leaked has a higher burden. On top of this the press serves an adversarial position in government (this is why its called the 4th estate*) and more or less is expected to make these kinds of "mistakes".
Furthermore the act that is illegal is not publishing it, but rather removing it.
*This goes back to pre-revolution France. The first estate was the Clergy, the second the nobility, and the third everyone else. When we call the press the 4th estate we are signifying that its a separate class of citizen which has an important role in the governance of society.
the taking isn't what is actually problematic though, it's the publishing
if snowden took a bunch of information, and then didn't do anything with it, nobody would care
they are absolutely suggesting that Snowden be prosecuted for a crime that they are complicit in, and aren't even admitting it
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
There should be a different standard for the press than for the leakers. The press doesn't really know precisely what is important until things get out there, but a leaker, who is should have that information and should know what is and isn't illegal about what is being leaked has a higher burden. On top of this the press serves an adversarial position in government (this is why its called the 4th estate*) and more or less is expected to make these kinds of "mistakes".
Furthermore the act that is illegal is not publishing it, but rather removing it.
*This goes back to pre-revolution France. The first estate was the Clergy, the second the nobility, and the third everyone else. When we call the press the 4th estate we are signifying that its a separate class of citizen which has an important role in the governance of society.
the taking isn't what is actually problematic though, it's the publishing
if snowden took a bunch of information, and then didn't do anything with it, nobody would care
they are absolutely suggesting that Snowden be prosecuted for a crime that they are complicit in, and aren't even admitting it
it's incredibly hypocritical
That has...very little relationship with the way things work. If Snowden has just removed the documents and then gotten caught he absolutely would have been prosecuted. Because that's the crime.
Meanwhile publishing them isn't and hasn't ever been.
Not that this changes the fact that the WP is being stupid, but still.
+5
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
"Pat Buchanan asked Tubbs Jones about a photograph, supposedly leaked by the Clinton campaign, that showed Obama wearing an African tribal tunic and turban on a ceremonial visit to Kenya. Tubbs Jones started gingerly, telling Buchanan that the Clinton campaign did not condone its surrogates’ promoting photographs that the Obama team might find insulting. “But let me say this,” she added, warming to the subject. “I have no shame or no problem with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in the clothing of his country.” - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28tubbsjones-t.html?_r=0
Now, obviously this Tubbs Jones person is not named Hillary Clinton, so the hyperbole and false equivocation of her as "The Clinton Campaign" or worse, as Hillary Clinton herself, doesn't ring true, per se. However, are we to absolve Hillary and her campaign from not nipping this in the bud, so to speak, early and often? They were more than happy to be silent or allow surrogates like Mrs. Jones speak out like this.
Calling Trump a liar simply because he is incapable of nuance doesn't mitigate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing.
Wikipedia says that the whole Birthism things was being speard around conservative websites by at least March 2008.
The article doesn't mention (or I missed it) when they supposedly leaked that e-mail or when that interview took place (though the article date is from December)
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
There should be a different standard for the press than for the leakers. The press doesn't really know precisely what is important until things get out there, but a leaker, who is should have that information and should know what is and isn't illegal about what is being leaked has a higher burden. On top of this the press serves an adversarial position in government (this is why its called the 4th estate*) and more or less is expected to make these kinds of "mistakes".
Furthermore the act that is illegal is not publishing it, but rather removing it.
*This goes back to pre-revolution France. The first estate was the Clergy, the second the nobility, and the third everyone else. When we call the press the 4th estate we are signifying that its a separate class of citizen which has an important role in the governance of society.
the taking isn't what is actually problematic though, it's the publishing
if snowden took a bunch of information, and then didn't do anything with it, nobody would care
they are absolutely suggesting that Snowden be prosecuted for a crime that they are complicit in, and aren't even admitting it
it's incredibly hypocritical
That has...very little relationship with the way things work. If Snowden has just removed the documents and then gotten caught he absolutely would have been prosecuted. Because that's the crime.
Meanwhile publishing them isn't and hasn't ever been.
Not that this changes the fact that the WP is being stupid, but still.
cool, then we just revert to the fact that the WP profited from the crime they are now demanding prosecution for on the grounds that the information didn't meet the criteria it was supposed to before the WP published it
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
There should be a different standard for the press than for the leakers. The press doesn't really know precisely what is important until things get out there, but a leaker, who is should have that information and should know what is and isn't illegal about what is being leaked has a higher burden. On top of this the press serves an adversarial position in government (this is why its called the 4th estate*) and more or less is expected to make these kinds of "mistakes".
Furthermore the act that is illegal is not publishing it, but rather removing it.
*This goes back to pre-revolution France. The first estate was the Clergy, the second the nobility, and the third everyone else. When we call the press the 4th estate we are signifying that its a separate class of citizen which has an important role in the governance of society.
the taking isn't what is actually problematic though, it's the publishing
if snowden took a bunch of information, and then didn't do anything with it, nobody would care
they are absolutely suggesting that Snowden be prosecuted for a crime that they are complicit in, and aren't even admitting it
it's incredibly hypocritical
Taking them means he can disseminate without publishing. It's the act that creates the possibility of publishing as well as direct transfer to foreign governments.
The press are protected because they serve a special role. Even if they were not unless there was inducement or some sort of participation in the actual taking I can't see the problem.
I mean, do you also hold them (criminally) responsible for buying the Bush administration's bullshit about Iraq without scrutiny? If they're not directly responsible for things like the Valarie Plame thing, I don't see why extra criticism should be applied for something a bit murkier like this.
Now, repeating the lie, even in the face of multiple corrections from outside sources changes things. As would, 'That's not true.' followed by 'I don't care!'
Trump is wrong to imply that Clinton started Birtherism.
Trump is lying when he says he did (or did not, whatever it is today...) support invading Iraq.
In the first case, he probably is lying. But it's a story that's been around and repeating it serves his purpose. In the second, it's just bullshit because we have him on film being for and against invading Iraq.
I mean, do you also hold them (criminally) responsible for buying the Bush administration's bullshit about Iraq without scrutiny? If they're not directly responsible for things like the Valarie Plame thing, I don't see why extra criticism should be applied for something a bit murkier like this.
no, I don't
and I don't actually think they should be prosecuted for this
I am pointing out that it's bullshit that they think Snowden should be, since the only reason what he did could be considered wrong (morally, ethically, not legally) is because they published it
It's a murky position for sure, but being a Stenographer to Power doesn't necessarily make one criminally responsible. And attempting to do so creates a significant problem to freedom of the press.
What is absolutely true is that anybody who did repeat admin bullshit, and especially who did not subsequently appologise for it, should continue to have their feet held to the fire for the rest of their days.
At best, in a criminal matter, they'd be an accessory and that still implies an active assistance. Unless a particular member of the press was participating in the actual creation of the story, their culpability remains low. No matter how shitty they looked doing it.
Also, Libby hadn't started his sentence yet, so he never actually saw the inside of a cell. Did get a $250k fine and two years probation, which I'm sure was quite manageable for a well-connected Washington insider.
Politicians call each other liars all the time, so saying "Donald Trump is a liar" just sounds like regular mudslinging and gets tuned out. However a more polite phrasing, such as "Donald Trump's claims that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement are factually incorrect and are directly contradicted by the 'sources' he cites" is full of high falutin' words and also is likely to be tuned out by his supporters who prefer "plain speaking."
Eh, you can 'simplify' it - "Donald Trump's falsely claims Hillary has links to the birther movement" or "Donald Trump's claims not based on reality" etc.
@Spaffy the problem with calling someone a liar is that it's hard to prove the intent to deceive. I don't know what's going on in Donnies brain (and God help me if I do, I'm sure it's the shit nightmares are made of) so when I say he's a liar it's because I perceive him to be. Maybe he's not, maybe he truly believes the shit he's spouting will bring about the changes he alludes to. Tearing apart statement and showing they are objectively false is much easier and, ideally, reduces the likelihood that you get bogged down with arguments about whether your reporting is biased (although you'd still be open to claims that your overall reporting is biased even if your specific reports are objectively true).
That said, I we're not exactly in an environment where either thing is happening so.
Fox News doesn't get shit for it. And Hillary's been called a liar repeatedly one the years. And Obama and (99% it's a Democrat)
Mediaite has learned from sources that Corey Lewandowski, the former embattled campaign manager for the Trump campaign who joined CNN as a political contributor on June 23rd, and been suspended by the cable news net. The network found out that Lewandowski was still being paid by the Trump campaign, separate from his severance package that he received after leave his work on the campaign trail.
[...]
UPDATED: 10:36 a.m. EST: The Donald Trump campaign reached out moments ago with the following statement from Hope Hicks regarding Lewandowski’s status:
“Corey Lewandowski, who is no longer involved in the campaign, continues to receive monthly severance payments. The campaign will continue to honor its contract with Mr. Lewandowski, which stipulates he will be paid through the end of the year. These payments are in no way compensation for services rendered.”
I still don't understand how anyone with the network ever thought that hiring him was a good idea. Hiring the former campaign manager of a running presidential candidate, who even worked for said candidate in the current election cycle, is a major conflict of interest to begin with. Add on the fact that he was most known for being a sleeze that manhandled a female reporter, and you have to ask how they ever thought this would go well for them?
I know we talk a lot about how shitty the media is in here, but this was just flat out incompetence at its base level.
The thing with calling someone a liar is that it attributes a sense of deliberate action to their words and beliefs; that they *know* the truth and choose this position instead. Lying, the verb, is a deliberate act of deception and saying somebody's done that impugns their character. Lie, the noun, is a little broader and covers the basket of un-truths. Young Earth theory is a lie, but is a true believer who spreads Young Earth theory, feeling it in their hearts to be true, a liar?
So it does become political and editorial in that way, since it deigns to peer into a person's heart and sort out one from the other.
Not to say this excuses Trump, who plays fast and loose with the truth so often that it almost has to be deliberate almost all of the time, because to assume he was always merely speaking in ignorance would point to him having substantial cognitive disabilities, but to take something murkier, pointing to Art Laffer and calling him a liar for continuing to believe in supply-side economics is harder to do. It's a daft stupid ideology, but you can at least conceive of Laffer pitching his views in good faith.
Its only really applied to "lies" though. And frankly only to lies like this.
If a basketball player shoots and fails to score, we're pretty OK with "misses" despite the unproven assumption that he was trying to score. If you found your spouse cheating on you when you came home, no one is going to have a problem with dismissing the possibility that they might be so incompetent that they forgot their clothes and repeatedly slipped such that they happened to be having intercourse with someone else. Maybe when the police arrested someone for stealing a car, the alleged thief just thought it was a free car.
And by simply saying its untrue, you equate actual mistakes or different interpretations of facts or even hyperbole or obfuscation, with overt lies. And that does us all a disservice
The thing with calling someone a liar is that it attributes a sense of deliberate action to their words and beliefs; that they *know* the truth and choose this position instead. Lying, the verb, is a deliberate act of deception and saying somebody's done that impugns their character. Lie, the noun, is a little broader and covers the basket of un-truths. Young Earth theory is a lie, but is a true believer who spreads Young Earth theory, feeling it in their hearts to be true, a liar?
So it does become political and editorial in that way, since it deigns to peer into a person's heart and sort out one from the other.
Not to say this excuses Trump, who plays fast and loose with the truth so often that it almost has to be deliberate almost all of the time, because to assume he was always merely speaking in ignorance would point to him having substantial cognitive disabilities, but to take something murkier, pointing to Art Laffer and calling him a liar for continuing to believe in supply-side economics is harder to do. It's a daft stupid ideology, but you can at least conceive of Laffer pitching his views in good faith.
Its only really applied to "lies" though. And frankly only to lies like this.
If a basketball player shoots and fails to score, we're pretty OK with "misses" despite the unproven assumption that he was trying to score. If you found your spouse cheating on you when you came home, no one is going to have a problem with dismissing the possibility that they might be so incompetent that they forgot their clothes and repeatedly slipped such that they happened to be having intercourse with someone else. Maybe when the police arrested someone for stealing a car, the alleged thief just thought it was a free car.
And by simply saying its untrue, you equate actual mistakes or different interpretations of facts or even hyperbole or obfuscation, with overt lies. And that does us all a disservice
To use a different sports analogy, lying for the political media is like a referee calling intentional grounding.
That's it CNN, just double down and keep acting like everything's fine. Fake it till you make it. That will convince us all that you aren't a bunch of incompetent morons.
Posts
So it does become political and editorial in that way, since it deigns to peer into a person's heart and sort out one from the other.
Not to say this excuses Trump, who plays fast and loose with the truth so often that it almost has to be deliberate almost all of the time, because to assume he was always merely speaking in ignorance would point to him having substantial cognitive disabilities, but to take something murkier, pointing to Art Laffer and calling him a liar for continuing to believe in supply-side economics is harder to do. It's a daft stupid ideology, but you can at least conceive of Laffer pitching his views in good faith.
Bullshitter is probably the most appropriate term for Trump, as lying implies both an awareness of and concern for the truth, but you can't print that on the front page.
Eh, you can 'simplify' it - "Donald Trump's falsely claims Hillary has links to the birther movement" or "Donald Trump's claims not based on reality" etc.
@Spaffy the problem with calling someone a liar is that it's hard to prove the intent to deceive. I don't know what's going on in Donnies brain (and God help me if I do, I'm sure it's the shit nightmares are made of) so when I say he's a liar it's because I perceive him to be. Maybe he's not, maybe he truly believes the shit he's spouting will bring about the changes he alludes to. Tearing apart statement and showing they are objectively false is much easier and, ideally, reduces the likelihood that you get bogged down with arguments about whether your reporting is biased (although you'd still be open to claims that your overall reporting is biased even if your specific reports are objectively true).
That said, I we're not exactly in an environment where either thing is happening so.
Do not use words like "Stretched The Truth" for something that isnt true at all.
And definitely do not let Trump make statements without putting them into context, or we end up with the "Lead Up to Iraq War 2: Trumping Ridiculous."
MWO: Adamski
Lied implies intent which is very hard to prove
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.06c24d546fb0
here is where I point out that, if exposing PRISM was not in the public interest, The Washington Post probably shouldn't have published all that information on it, it probably shouldn't have accepted the Pulitzer that it got for doing so, and should probably also be prosecuted
The problem is that's not all he revealed. He also exposed a lot of legitimate intelligence operations as well.
"Pat Buchanan asked Tubbs Jones about a photograph, supposedly leaked by the Clinton campaign, that showed Obama wearing an African tribal tunic and turban on a ceremonial visit to Kenya. Tubbs Jones started gingerly, telling Buchanan that the Clinton campaign did not condone its surrogates’ promoting photographs that the Obama team might find insulting. “But let me say this,” she added, warming to the subject. “I have no shame or no problem with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in the clothing of his country.” - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/magazine/28tubbsjones-t.html?_r=0
Now, obviously this Tubbs Jones person is not named Hillary Clinton, so the hyperbole and false equivocation of her as "The Clinton Campaign" or worse, as Hillary Clinton herself, doesn't ring true, per se. However, are we to absolve Hillary and her campaign from not nipping this in the bud, so to speak, early and often? They were more than happy to be silent or allow surrogates like Mrs. Jones speak out like this.
Calling Trump a liar simply because he is incapable of nuance doesn't mitigate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing.
PRISM is one of the ones that might be considered legitimate, as it was fully legal at the time
the other "legitimate" intelligence operations were also covered by the Post
in fact there's only one thing Snowden leaked which they acknowledge had real value, which was the metadata gathering on US citizens
incidentally, that is the only thing which the Post did not cover
so, again
if none of this stuff was in the public interest, why did the Post publish all of it, and why shouldn't the paper also be prosecuted?
What do you call the people who publish the secrets they vehemently declare the revelation there-of to be traitorous? Besides hypocrites? This legitimately gives me a headache seeing this level of ineptitude in our so-called Fourth Estate.
There should be a different standard for the press than for the leakers. The press doesn't really know precisely what is important until things get out there, but a leaker, who is should have that information and should know what is and isn't illegal about what is being leaked has a higher burden. On top of this the press serves an adversarial position in government (this is why its called the 4th estate*) and more or less is expected to make these kinds of "mistakes".
Furthermore the act that is illegal is not publishing it, but rather removing it.
*This goes back to pre-revolution France. The first estate was the Clergy, the second the nobility, and the third everyone else. When we call the press the 4th estate we are signifying that its a separate class of citizen which has an important role in the governance of society.
Oopsy.
the taking isn't what is actually problematic though, it's the publishing
if snowden took a bunch of information, and then didn't do anything with it, nobody would care
they are absolutely suggesting that Snowden be prosecuted for a crime that they are complicit in, and aren't even admitting it
it's incredibly hypocritical
That has...very little relationship with the way things work. If Snowden has just removed the documents and then gotten caught he absolutely would have been prosecuted. Because that's the crime.
Meanwhile publishing them isn't and hasn't ever been.
Not that this changes the fact that the WP is being stupid, but still.
Wikipedia says that the whole Birthism things was being speard around conservative websites by at least March 2008.
The article doesn't mention (or I missed it) when they supposedly leaked that e-mail or when that interview took place (though the article date is from December)
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
cool, then we just revert to the fact that the WP profited from the crime they are now demanding prosecution for on the grounds that the information didn't meet the criteria it was supposed to before the WP published it
Taking them means he can disseminate without publishing. It's the act that creates the possibility of publishing as well as direct transfer to foreign governments.
The press are protected because they serve a special role. Even if they were not unless there was inducement or some sort of participation in the actual taking I can't see the problem.
More or less.
Now, repeating the lie, even in the face of multiple corrections from outside sources changes things. As would, 'That's not true.' followed by 'I don't care!'
Trump is wrong to imply that Clinton started Birtherism.
Trump is lying when he says he did (or did not, whatever it is today...) support invading Iraq.
In the first case, he probably is lying. But it's a story that's been around and repeating it serves his purpose. In the second, it's just bullshit because we have him on film being for and against invading Iraq.
no, I don't
and I don't actually think they should be prosecuted for this
I am pointing out that it's bullshit that they think Snowden should be, since the only reason what he did could be considered wrong (morally, ethically, not legally) is because they published it
What is absolutely true is that anybody who did repeat admin bullshit, and especially who did not subsequently appologise for it, should continue to have their feet held to the fire for the rest of their days.
At best, in a criminal matter, they'd be an accessory and that still implies an active assistance. Unless a particular member of the press was participating in the actual creation of the story, their culpability remains low. No matter how shitty they looked doing it.
Scooter Libby was convicted and then had his 30 month prison sentence commuted a month later by President Bush.
Alternatively: Don't do that, you jaded beltway fuck.
*
Fox News doesn't get shit for it. And Hillary's been called a liar repeatedly one the years. And Obama and (99% it's a Democrat)
Not when it's a Democrat. And haven't the press revealed various things about Trump that he has lied about?
Edit: Nevermind.
Presumably they escaped from the black hole.
Of course, we can change that to "several months" in this case.
I know we talk a lot about how shitty the media is in here, but this was just flat out incompetence at its base level.
Its only really applied to "lies" though. And frankly only to lies like this.
If a basketball player shoots and fails to score, we're pretty OK with "misses" despite the unproven assumption that he was trying to score. If you found your spouse cheating on you when you came home, no one is going to have a problem with dismissing the possibility that they might be so incompetent that they forgot their clothes and repeatedly slipped such that they happened to be having intercourse with someone else. Maybe when the police arrested someone for stealing a car, the alleged thief just thought it was a free car.
And by simply saying its untrue, you equate actual mistakes or different interpretations of facts or even hyperbole or obfuscation, with overt lies. And that does us all a disservice
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Fuck you, CNN.
There you go, CNN. First one is free.
Looks like incompetence has given way to evil. GG
Nah, Team Stupid clearly has a seat at the table:
To use a different sports analogy, lying for the political media is like a referee calling intentional grounding.
That's it CNN, just double down and keep acting like everything's fine. Fake it till you make it. That will convince us all that you aren't a bunch of incompetent morons.