Are those things he even has control over? I mean, the budget is set by Congress, and I guess I assumed that tax exemption status was also defined by Congress.
Traditionally? No. Legally? Probably not.
But this fucker doesn't care. Write an Executive Order, then fight it through the courts, and claim it as a win regardless.
I mean, as we've seen, he's more than comfortable throwing taxpayer money at untenable lawsuits that cost the plaintiff significant sums.
Stiffing people through expensive lawsuits is Trump’s signature move.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+17
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I know this isn't a media thread, but it is important to how Press operates: Another local paper is victim to vulture capitalism I realize we focus on the malfeasance and malpractice of papers like the NYT and WaPo, but they also do important work.
Also wanted to focus on this bit of bullshit, the only comment they received:
Would The New York Times likely terminate the employment of a staff member who showed up randomly unannounced demanding to question Mr. Sulzberger[NYT publisher] at his home? That’s why we are unclear why The New York Times is choosing to glorify this improper intrusive conduct.
The White House is back to threatening journalists, and on behalf of the Trump organization, not even anything in government. Bonus Hatch Act violations ahoy.
The White House said in a story published Thursday that it was compiling a "very large" dossier on a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter and others who it said are a "disgrace to journalism and the American people."
..
In a statement, White House spokesperson Judd Deere accused The Washington Post of "blatantly interfering with the business relationships of the Trump Organization" and demanded "it must stop."
+12
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
If David Farenthold is a disgrace to journalism there is absolutely no hope for any of the rest of us whatsoever
I’m not even sure what Farenthold is doing is difficult, it’s just laborious because there’s a million potential grift victims to call to follow up with and debunk Trump’s claims
I’m not even sure what Farenthold is doing is difficult, it’s just laborious because there’s a million potential grift victims to call to follow up with and debunk Trump’s claims
That seems true of a lot of this kind of work. The difficulty is primarily in sifting through all the information and doing a massive amount of leg-work and information collation. Which shouldn't take away from the work.
I’m not even sure what Farenthold is doing is difficult, it’s just laborious because there’s a million potential grift victims to call to follow up with and debunk Trump’s claims
That seems true of a lot of this kind of work. The difficulty is primarily in sifting through all the information and doing a massive amount of leg-work and information collation. Which shouldn't take away from the work.
99% perspiration, 1% convincing the editor to let you spend all that time chasing the story.
I’m not even sure what Farenthold is doing is difficult, it’s just laborious because there’s a million potential grift victims to call to follow up with and debunk Trump’s claims
That seems true of a lot of this kind of work. The difficulty is primarily in sifting through all the information and doing a massive amount of leg-work and information collation. Which shouldn't take away from the work.
99% perspiration, 1% convincing the editor to let you spend all that time chasing the story.
And then 80% of your work undercut by some dipshit writing a piss poor headline, and the rest of the media not taking it up as legitimate in favor of the President's latest dipshittery.
With the modern bonus of having ignorant edgelords shitting all over your work on social media.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+8
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
CNN is reporting that the Dems carried the edge on TV ratings 3-1 vs the GOP during their respective conventions, including Biden beating out Trump on their final night speeches.
While both parties’ viewership during the acceptance was down from 2016, Biden saw a drop of 5 million over Clinton, while Trump saw a drop of 9 million from his first acceptance speech.
CNN is reporting that the Dems carried the edge on TV ratings 3-1 vs the GOP during their respective conventions, including Biden beating out Trump on their final night speeches.
While both parties’ viewership during the acceptance was down from 2016, Biden saw a drop of 5 million over Clinton, while Trump saw a drop of 9 million from his first acceptance speech.
They're clinging to the online numbers being a bit better for Rs over Ds and coming up with rationalizations based around that.
Problem being that the sole data point they 'won' on, they won by a couple hundred thousand, while losing the actual TV broadcast viewership by millions.
Naturally, they're contorting themselves into all manner of rationalizations to explain it.
Imagine thinking they'll find something on Farenthold, widely known for being basically the nicest guy in journalism.
Not about finding anything, just the dirtying of the implication. That and being jerks and fascistic tough guys who punish journalists for being journalists is their brand. And It’s their only tactic
CNN is reporting that the Dems carried the edge on TV ratings 3-1 vs the GOP during their respective conventions, including Biden beating out Trump on their final night speeches.
While both parties’ viewership during the acceptance was down from 2016, Biden saw a drop of 5 million over Clinton, while Trump saw a drop of 9 million from his first acceptance speech.
They're clinging to the online numbers being a bit better for Rs over Ds and coming up with rationalizations based around that.
Problem being that the sole data point they 'won' on, they won by a couple hundred thousand, while losing the actual TV broadcast viewership by millions.
Naturally, they're contorting themselves into all manner of rationalizations to explain it.
It’s the lie about his inauguration crowd size all over again.
CNN is reporting that the Dems carried the edge on TV ratings 3-1 vs the GOP during their respective conventions, including Biden beating out Trump on their final night speeches.
While both parties’ viewership during the acceptance was down from 2016, Biden saw a drop of 5 million over Clinton, while Trump saw a drop of 9 million from his first acceptance speech.
They're clinging to the online numbers being a bit better for Rs over Ds and coming up with rationalizations based around that.
Problem being that the sole data point they 'won' on, they won by a couple hundred thousand, while losing the actual TV broadcast viewership by millions.
Naturally, they're contorting themselves into all manner of rationalizations to explain it.
It’s the lie about his inauguration crowd size all over again.
Nope. This one at least has some factual (if logically faulty) basis.
The inauguration lie was just patently ludicrous bullshit from the start.
CNN is reporting that the Dems carried the edge on TV ratings 3-1 vs the GOP during their respective conventions, including Biden beating out Trump on their final night speeches.
While both parties’ viewership during the acceptance was down from 2016, Biden saw a drop of 5 million over Clinton, while Trump saw a drop of 9 million from his first acceptance speech.
They're clinging to the online numbers being a bit better for Rs over Ds and coming up with rationalizations based around that.
Problem being that the sole data point they 'won' on, they won by a couple hundred thousand, while losing the actual TV broadcast viewership by millions.
Naturally, they're contorting themselves into all manner of rationalizations to explain it.
Not sure what else they could have expected with a low effort, scattershot convention, and no real A-list speakers in the lineup except Trump, who couldn't resist speaking every night. By the the last night I'm not sure how many people would bother tuning in to hear the same exact message they had already been hearing for several days.
Dark_Side on
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
We've been through this before. They're going to lie about the numbers and such, including Trump himself, but the key moment is going to be when someone goads him enough into admitting how much it pisses him off. Does it accomplish anything? No. But hitting him where it hurts (because he's too dumb to be hurt by intellectual matters) makes me smile.
The White House is back to threatening journalists, and on behalf of the Trump organization, not even anything in government. Bonus Hatch Act violations ahoy.
The White House said in a story published Thursday that it was compiling a "very large" dossier on a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter and others who it said are a "disgrace to journalism and the American people."
..
In a statement, White House spokesperson Judd Deere accused The Washington Post of "blatantly interfering with the business relationships of the Trump Organization" and demanded "it must stop."
New York Magazine had this to add;
What’s actually astonishing about this line is its assumption that Trump is entitled to absolute privacy in the operation of his business. Of course, no businesses — certainly not large ones — are entitled to operate free of any scrutiny from reporters. Certainly a business run by the president has no such right. And a business run by the president that is collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of taxpayer pockets has the weakest imaginable claim to privacy.
We're already fighting an uphill battle against corporations on this stuff. Anyone running for public offices has to disclose their finances in greater detail. That is how it is. The New York Magazine article I pulled this from did have the shitty take of saying it was fully within the White House's right to do this dossier shit, albeit from the angle of disproving the article contents. It at least included the note of they won't be able to.
Trump can't be held responsible for this. It's not like he winds people up to actively hate the media, and I'm sure, given these allegations, he'll condemn these acts in the most vehement ways possible, and properly modulate his speech regarding journalists and the media.
I mean it's not like this has happened before, and only by dint of incompetence in making bombs in the back of a van festooned with Trump signage, was noone killed.
So, Glenn Greenwald has left The Intercept, and from the response of the editorial team, the separation was rather less than friendly, with Greenwald unsurprisingly trying to grab the freedom of the press as a shield:
Glenn Greenwald’s decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.
Wow. And yeah, Greenwald has been circling the drain for some time - his endorsing a candidate who turned out to be a serial domestic abuser and his repeated attempts at trying to make Hunter Biden a story were probably the straws that broke the camel's back at The Intercept. But it's worth remembering that Greenwald first gained notoriety for defending the right of an open white supremacist (and likely domestic terrorist) to practice law.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'm not sure that quite fits what I intended this thread for but at the same time it's fucking hilarious how mad he got because he was asked to have a second source.
I'm not sure that quite fits what I intended this thread for but at the same time it's fucking hilarious how mad he got because he was asked to have a second source.
I debated putting it in the Freedom of Speech thread (since he's crying censorship), but given the journalism aspect I thought it fit better here. Honestly, he should have been booted after throwing Reality Winner to the wolves, but it's telling how either you're on his side or you're corrupt and censoring him.
Also, he's posted his resignation letter on Substack, and it is a piece of work:
So, Glenn Greenwald has left The Intercept, and from the response of the editorial team, the separation was rather less than friendly, with Greenwald unsurprisingly trying to grab the freedom of the press as a shield:
Glenn Greenwald’s decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.
Wow. And yeah, Greenwald has been circling the drain for some time - his endorsing a candidate who turned out to be a serial domestic abuser and his repeated attempts at trying to make Hunter Biden a story were probably the straws that broke the camel's back at The Intercept. But it's worth remembering that Greenwald first gained notoriety for defending the right of an open white supremacist (and likely domestic terrorist) to practice law.
Flipping through his twitter and his substack (whatever the fuck that is) I think paints a pretty clear picture of what this is about: Greenwald wanted to carry water for the Hunter Biden Laptop story and that was something even The Intercept was not willing to entertain. That, at least imo, seems to have been the last straw.
So yeah, this basically 100% confirms that the issue is Greenwald wanted to push the Hunter Biden laptop story and the rest of the editing team called it a bullshit smear made up by the Trump campaign.
shryke on
+11
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Greenwald didn't want to be a journalist, he wanted to be a blogger treated with the same respect as a journalist. He's always been a credulous moron with a massively over-inflated sense of his own importance. The only noteworthy things he ever did were provide cover for a russian spy and defend a rapist.
Greenwald didn't want to be a journalist, he wanted to be a blogger treated with the same respect as a journalist. He's always been a credulous moron with a massively over-inflated sense of his own importance. The only noteworthy things he ever did were provide cover for a russian spy and defend a rapist.
Good riddance.
He's one of the best english language reporters covering Bolsanaro
Greenwald didn't want to be a journalist, he wanted to be a blogger treated with the same respect as a journalist. He's always been a credulous moron with a massively over-inflated sense of his own importance. The only noteworthy things he ever did were provide cover for a russian spy and defend a rapist.
Good riddance.
He's one of the best english language reporters covering Bolsanaro
So what you're saying is that the coverage of Bolsanaro is utter crap.
Greenwald didn't want to be a journalist, he wanted to be a blogger treated with the same respect as a journalist. He's always been a credulous moron with a massively over-inflated sense of his own importance. The only noteworthy things he ever did were provide cover for a russian spy and defend a rapist.
Good riddance.
He's one of the best english language reporters covering Bolsanaro
So what you're saying is that the coverage of Bolsanaro is utter crap.
Whatever you like and look Greenwald is a reactionary dick with an ego problem but he's risking his life reporting on the crimes in Brazil and its silly to say he "didnt want to be a journalist".
Anyway, his problem here isnt that he's overly credulous, its that he lets his hatred of all things Obama Administration, some of it perfectly justified, cloud his judgment and like many men of a similar kind, spirals off from there.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators issued a subpoena this week demanding BuzzFeed News identify its sources — an extraordinary attempt by the government to interfere with a news outlet acting under the protections of the First Amendment, and a move that the agency’s former chief lambasted as “embarrassing.”
The effort to pressure BuzzFeed News into revealing sources comes after relentless efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to undermine the free press. The outgoing president has for years lied about news outlets that publish true but critical stories about him and his administration, calling them “fake news,” which has opened reporters up to threats and violence.
The administration has also targeted journalist sources. Specifically in the Department of Homeland Security, officials have warned employees not to discuss internal policies or documents with the media. They have also told employees to report colleagues they suspected of sharing sensitive internal information, along with those who requested information that fell out of their day-to-day duties.
The subpoena appears to be an escalation of the Trump administration’s efforts to track down the identities of people who provide information to news outlets. It comes just months after the Washington Post reported that DHS investigators had created “intelligence reports” about media members who had reported on leaked documents.
ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"BuzzFeed News emphatically rejects any requests for information about possible sources and methods of our reporting,” said BuzzFeed News Editor-in-Chief Mark Schoofs. “We do not confirm or discuss confidential sources, and this subpoena is an outrageous overreach by the federal government. It's fundamentally at odds with the US Constitution and will not have any impact on our journalism."
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Tweet is from a producer at MSNBC. Basically OAN's owner Herring Networks filled a $10 million defimation suit against Rachel Maddow in 2019, for calling a spade and spade, by mentioning on air that one of OAN's "sources" at the time also worked for Suptnik, the Russian news service. She went on to say that not only was OAN failing to provide valid stories, but was more or less Russian propaganda.
The suit was thrown out a few weeks ago via California's Anti-SLAPP law and Herring Networks have been ordered to pay a quarter mill in attorney fees and court costs.
Its worth clicking through to get to some exerpts from the Judge's ruling on it, its some legal shade on par with Kagan's dissent from this week's SCOTUS ruling.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Would it surprise anyone to find out that the fascists out of silicon valley have had ideas of targeting the press and journalists for over a decade now?
Or that at least one person who worked high up at a venture capital firm thought this was a grand idea and might have done his part in it?
There's an important story to be told about far-right techbros lurking in the libertarian herd of independent minds. There's also an interesting story to be told about Scott Siskind, whose Rationalist ramblings attracted both groups and others to Slate Star Codex. But in trying to combine these stories, the Times lost sight of both.
Which is a shame because it includes an incredible buried lede that stares right at the bigger picture: in 2013, the prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist Balaji Srinivasan privately proposed marshaling the "Dark Enlightenment" to harass "vulnerable" journalists.
It's also worth noting that this is long before Gamergate and it being a supposed dry-run for Russia's involvement for Trump. While that may not surprise many readers here, it's still worth noting as GG is considered my many in more mainstream settings to be that. This article shows that our libertarian techbros were suckling at the teat of fascist thought long, long before that. They may have been playing around with targeting the kinds of low-information public, whose minds are fertile ground for that kind of thing for a decade or more.
But why bring it up here and not say in the aftermath thread?
Because the article and people involved are talking about going after the free press. That their line to fascist power doesn't directly go through the masses but goes first to attacking the most vulnerable of journalists. Minorities and women who work on more fringe topics such as social justice and entertainment, both areas which are ripe for attack since they're of least importance to most. Establishing that foothold, one can then escalate to harder to assail topics such as politics or the economy. Which once again, points out the lie that Trump voters were "anxious" about anything.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I think the government can get involved without having to circle jerk sofa king hypothetical situations on 1st amendment rights. Breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to allow cross platform interaction, like we did with cell phones and numbers, would go a long way to addressing core problems without having to get wade down in that cesspool of masturbation.
We can talk about breaking up monopolies if you want, but I thought we were talking about Gab recruitment strategies and their relevance to the public perception of free speech and pragmatic exercise of lawful power. Gab isn't a monopoly of anything.
Oh, and if government intervention is necessary for change, then it's necessary for change. But unlike most other countries, when the government is involved, we're going to get in a huff, because then it's no longer the cultural perception of free speech, it's constitutional.
Other countries have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution and still manage to have anti-hate speech laws.
Some countries even have explicit limits to the right to free speech enshrined in their constitution!
In light of South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.[3] Freedom of speech and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the South African Bill of Rights, chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:
16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
In countries with anti-hate speech laws and similar restrictions on speech, social media platforms have had little difficulty implementing filters to block any of that content from showing up there.
I agree. When your constitution is built that way, you can make laws based on these exceptions.
Having the clauses built into one's constitution is not required for anti-hate speech laws, etc., to be onthe books.
I think the government can get involved without having to circle jerk sofa king hypothetical situations on 1st amendment rights. Breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to allow cross platform interaction, like we did with cell phones and numbers, would go a long way to addressing core problems without having to get wade down in that cesspool of masturbation.
We can talk about breaking up monopolies if you want, but I thought we were talking about Gab recruitment strategies and their relevance to the public perception of free speech and pragmatic exercise of lawful power. Gab isn't a monopoly of anything.
Oh, and if government intervention is necessary for change, then it's necessary for change. But unlike most other countries, when the government is involved, we're going to get in a huff, because then it's no longer the cultural perception of free speech, it's constitutional.
Other countries have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitution and still manage to have anti-hate speech laws.
Some countries even have explicit limits to the right to free speech enshrined in their constitution!
In light of South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on some listed grounds.[3] Freedom of speech and expression are both protected and limited by a section in the South African Bill of Rights, chapter 2 of the Constitution. Section 16 makes the following provisions:
16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
In countries with anti-hate speech laws and similar restrictions on speech, social media platforms have had little difficulty implementing filters to block any of that content from showing up there.
I agree. When your constitution is built that way, you can make laws based on these exceptions.
Having the clauses built into one's constitution is not required for anti-hate speech laws, etc., to be onthe books.
certainly makes it easier.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
Stiffing people through expensive lawsuits is Trump’s signature move.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Another local paper is victim to vulture capitalism I realize we focus on the malfeasance and malpractice of papers like the NYT and WaPo, but they also do important work.
Also wanted to focus on this bit of bullshit, the only comment they received:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/media/white-house-dossier-journalists/index.html
That seems true of a lot of this kind of work. The difficulty is primarily in sifting through all the information and doing a massive amount of leg-work and information collation. Which shouldn't take away from the work.
99% perspiration, 1% convincing the editor to let you spend all that time chasing the story.
And then 80% of your work undercut by some dipshit writing a piss poor headline, and the rest of the media not taking it up as legitimate in favor of the President's latest dipshittery.
While both parties’ viewership during the acceptance was down from 2016, Biden saw a drop of 5 million over Clinton, while Trump saw a drop of 9 million from his first acceptance speech.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/media/ratings-trump-vs-biden-convention-speeches/index.html
I’m sure Trump is gonna be grumpy about this
They're clinging to the online numbers being a bit better for Rs over Ds and coming up with rationalizations based around that.
Problem being that the sole data point they 'won' on, they won by a couple hundred thousand, while losing the actual TV broadcast viewership by millions.
Naturally, they're contorting themselves into all manner of rationalizations to explain it.
Not about finding anything, just the dirtying of the implication. That and being jerks and fascistic tough guys who punish journalists for being journalists is their brand. And It’s their only tactic
It’s the lie about his inauguration crowd size all over again.
Nope. This one at least has some factual (if logically faulty) basis.
The inauguration lie was just patently ludicrous bullshit from the start.
Not sure what else they could have expected with a low effort, scattershot convention, and no real A-list speakers in the lineup except Trump, who couldn't resist speaking every night. By the the last night I'm not sure how many people would bother tuning in to hear the same exact message they had already been hearing for several days.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/08/29/7-news-trump-rally-video-clip
Trump can't be held responsible for this. It's not like he winds people up to actively hate the media, and I'm sure, given these allegations, he'll condemn these acts in the most vehement ways possible, and properly modulate his speech regarding journalists and the media.
I mean it's not like this has happened before, and only by dint of incompetence in making bombs in the back of a van festooned with Trump signage, was noone killed.
Wow. And yeah, Greenwald has been circling the drain for some time - his endorsing a candidate who turned out to be a serial domestic abuser and his repeated attempts at trying to make Hunter Biden a story were probably the straws that broke the camel's back at The Intercept. But it's worth remembering that Greenwald first gained notoriety for defending the right of an open white supremacist (and likely domestic terrorist) to practice law.
I debated putting it in the Freedom of Speech thread (since he's crying censorship), but given the journalism aspect I thought it fit better here. Honestly, he should have been booted after throwing Reality Winner to the wolves, but it's telling how either you're on his side or you're corrupt and censoring him.
Also, he's posted his resignation letter on Substack, and it is a piece of work:
Flipping through his twitter and his substack (whatever the fuck that is) I think paints a pretty clear picture of what this is about: Greenwald wanted to carry water for the Hunter Biden Laptop story and that was something even The Intercept was not willing to entertain. That, at least imo, seems to have been the last straw.
Erik Wemple is a Washington Post media critic
So yeah, this basically 100% confirms that the issue is Greenwald wanted to push the Hunter Biden laptop story and the rest of the editing team called it a bullshit smear made up by the Trump campaign.
Good riddance.
He's one of the best english language reporters covering Bolsanaro
So what you're saying is that the coverage of Bolsanaro is utter crap.
Whatever you like and look Greenwald is a reactionary dick with an ego problem but he's risking his life reporting on the crimes in Brazil and its silly to say he "didnt want to be a journalist".
Anyway, his problem here isnt that he's overly credulous, its that he lets his hatred of all things Obama Administration, some of it perfectly justified, cloud his judgment and like many men of a similar kind, spirals off from there.
Ken is a journalist. They redacted the bullet points
In a lot of software, that happens when you just highlight everything on the page.
Pompeo continues to be a cowardly shitlord to the very end.
Tweet is from a producer at MSNBC. Basically OAN's owner Herring Networks filled a $10 million defimation suit against Rachel Maddow in 2019, for calling a spade and spade, by mentioning on air that one of OAN's "sources" at the time also worked for Suptnik, the Russian news service. She went on to say that not only was OAN failing to provide valid stories, but was more or less Russian propaganda.
The suit was thrown out a few weeks ago via California's Anti-SLAPP law and Herring Networks have been ordered to pay a quarter mill in attorney fees and court costs.
Its worth clicking through to get to some exerpts from the Judge's ruling on it, its some legal shade on par with Kagan's dissent from this week's SCOTUS ruling.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Or that at least one person who worked high up at a venture capital firm thought this was a grand idea and might have done his part in it?
Wonder no more! Boing-boing has the deets.
It's also worth noting that this is long before Gamergate and it being a supposed dry-run for Russia's involvement for Trump. While that may not surprise many readers here, it's still worth noting as GG is considered my many in more mainstream settings to be that. This article shows that our libertarian techbros were suckling at the teat of fascist thought long, long before that. They may have been playing around with targeting the kinds of low-information public, whose minds are fertile ground for that kind of thing for a decade or more.
But why bring it up here and not say in the aftermath thread?
Because the article and people involved are talking about going after the free press. That their line to fascist power doesn't directly go through the masses but goes first to attacking the most vulnerable of journalists. Minorities and women who work on more fringe topics such as social justice and entertainment, both areas which are ripe for attack since they're of least importance to most. Establishing that foothold, one can then escalate to harder to assail topics such as politics or the economy. Which once again, points out the lie that Trump voters were "anxious" about anything.
Having the clauses built into one's constitution is not required for anti-hate speech laws, etc., to be onthe books.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
certainly makes it easier.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.