• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Matt Taibbi sees the light?

Lutherf said:
Taibbi: Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media - Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone in general and Matt Taibbi in particular have a rather extensive history of political bias in their reporting which makes this piece even more interesting.

Taibbi doesn't so much expose media bias as he bases his whole article on the fact that there is bias. He also concludes, rather surprisingly for a guy like me, that the left wing media may well be in the process of skewering themselves.

The article is a short read but some might want to consider how Taibbi's concerns regarding the media mirror what we're seeing on this site.
Click to expand...

Maybe he is seeing the light, but he is still not quite there. While arguing that the left's attack on Trump is all smoke, he still gives credence to the argument used by the left that the Russian hacking of the DNC helps the theory that there was Russian collusion with Trump, or at least that the Russians specifically targeted the DNC.

The problem with that argument is that the RNC was also targeted in the same hacks. The only real difference is apparently the RNC IT team knew what they were doing... likely hired strictly for IT credentials rather than quotas. :lol:
 
Interestingly-- to me anyway -- Taibbi made the same inoculation argument that I made this morning when discussing Trump's using the liberal media in the primaries and the general election. Taibbi is arguing that the news agencies are doing it to themselves, however, which I also agree with.
 
Fishking said:
That's been my thought as well. The left has rabidly kicked up a fauxrage over every single little thing Trump does or even looks like doing. Instead of focusing the outrage on less-frequency but more serious stuff, it causes people to turn it out as background noise.
Click to expand...

That's very true. What really frosts my flakes, is the fact they gloss over the seriousness of the act of leaking classified material the same material they have used in their reporting to push innuendoes. Make no mistake that there will be people charged for their unlawful actions, but don't be surprised the MSM/Democrats will spin it as Trump getting even.


There will come a time in the Trump administration like every other administration from the beginning of something that truly needs scrutinized and there are going to be a good number of people look at such accusations and blow them off because the media has proved it is not trustworthy.
 
vesper said:
That's very true. What really frosts my flakes, is the fact they gloss over the seriousness of the act of leaking classified material the same material they have used in their reporting to push innuendoes. Make no mistake that there will be people charged for their unlawful actions, but don't be surprised the MSM/Democrats will spin it as Trump getting even.
Click to expand...

And what takes the issues with the leaks to the next level is that they are political in nature. So not should they get charged with crimes directly related to leaking but also some form of sedition should come to play as well.
 
Lutherf said:
Taibbi: Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media - Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone in general and Matt Taibbi in particular have a rather extensive history of political bias in their reporting which makes this piece even more interesting.

Taibbi doesn't so much expose media bias as he bases his whole article on the fact that there is bias. He also concludes, rather surprisingly for a guy like me, that the left wing media may well be in the process of skewering themselves.



The article is a short read but some might want to consider how Taibbi's concerns regarding the media mirror what we're seeing on this site.
Click to expand...

Have you read Taibbi's work? He's a lib, but he doesn't write partisan polemics like an Ann Coulter - he skewers both sides quite mercilessly. Griftopia is better than The Big Short, imo, and The Big Short is very good.
 
It goes back to the campaign.

THE REAL STORY OF 2016
There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble

By Nate Silver

. . . It’s hard to reread this coverage without recalling Sean Trende’s essay on “unthinkability bias,” which he wrote in the wake of the Brexit vote. Just as was the case in the U.S. presidential election, voting on the referendum had split strongly along class, education and regional lines, with voters outside of London and without advanced degrees being much more likely to vote to leave the EU. The reporters covering the Brexit campaign, on the other hand, were disproportionately well-educated and principally based in London. They tended to read ambiguous signs — anything from polls to the musings of taxi drivers — as portending a Remain win, and many of them never really processed the idea that Britain could vote to leave the EU until it actually happened.
So did journalists in Washington and London make the apocryphal Pauline Kael mistake, refusing to believe that Trump or Brexit could win because nobody they knew was voting for them? That’s not quite what Trende was arguing. Instead, it’s that political experts[SUP]4[/SUP] aren’t a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment. Once a consensus view is established, it tends to reinforce itself until and unless there’s very compelling evidence for the contrary position. Social media, especially Twitter, can amplify the groupthink further. It can be an echo chamber. . . .




 
Kobie said:
It's ingenious. He's SO bad, SO corrupt that he becomes teflon, because there's so many reasons to despise this asshole that they drown each other out.

The only thing sadder is that right-wing America LOVES this, simply because it pisses off liberals. Spite wins out over the good of the nation.
Click to expand...

Well, no. What you miss is that the majority of those reasons to despise Trump are actually false stories from hyperventilating lefties that you accept because that meet you perceptions. Taibbi is trying to be the dad in the leftist family by shining a flashlight in the closet to show you that there aren't monsters there so you will calm down and go to bed.
 
jmotivator said:
Maybe he is seeing the light, but he is still not quite there. While arguing that the left's attack on Trump is all smoke, he still gives credence to the argument used by the left that the Russian hacking of the DNC helps the theory that there was Russian collusion with Trump, or at least that the Russians specifically targeted the DNC.

The problem with that argument is that the RNC was also targeted in the same hacks. The only real difference is apparently the RNC IT team knew what they were doing... likely hired strictly for IT credentials rather than quotas. :lol:
Click to expand...

Add to that, that the US intelligence hackers can leave any type of finger prints they want on the servers they've exploited to implicate someone other than themselves, comes down to we still don't know with sufficient certainty who hacked the DNC systems, and released that content to WikiLeaks.

I didn't know that Russian hackers were so conveniently timely in their hacking as to support justification for FISA warrants against an opposition political campaign and it's presidential candidate. That just seem awfully convenient and timely to be coincidence.

Assange has been adamant that it wasn't the Russians. OK, well, as far as he knows.

Given that the US intelligence hackers can spoof digital finger prints, it's reasonable to assume that all the other nation's intelligence hackers can do the same thing.

The Podesta spoof was script kiddie level play, that nearly anyone could have pulled off, coupled with his stupidity, which presents an even wider pool of possible perpetrators.

The longer we go along, the weaker and weaker this Russian hacked DNC meme seem to become, unable to bear the weight of evidence and reasonability.
 
eohrnberger said:
Add to that, that the US intelligence hackers can leave any type of finger prints they want on the servers they've exploited to implicate someone other than themselves, comes down to we still don't know with sufficient certainty who hacked the DNC systems, and released that content to WikiLeaks.

I didn't know that Russian hackers were so conveniently timely in their hacking as to support justification for FISA warrants against an opposition political campaign and it's presidential candidate. That just seem awfully convenient and timely to be coincidence.

Assange has been adamant that it wasn't the Russians. OK, well, as far as he knows.

Given that the US intelligence hackers can spoof digital finger prints, it's reasonable to assume that all the other nation's intelligence hackers can do the same thing.

The Podesta spoof was script kiddie level play, that nearly anyone could have pulled off, coupled with his stupidity, which presents an even wider pool of possible perpetrators.

The longer we go along, the weaker and weaker this Russian hacked DNC meme seem to become, unable to bear the weight of evidence and reasonability.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt the Russians hacked the DNC and attempted to hack the RNC.
There is no doubt no US entity hacked either the DNC or the RNC.
There is no doubt Assange is not to be trusted.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no doubt the Russians hacked the DNC and attempted to hack the RNC.
There is no doubt no US entity hacked either the DNC or the RNC.
There is no doubt Assange is not to be trusted.
Click to expand...

You seem awfully certain of these conclusions. Which information gives you this certainty?
 
Jack Hays said:
Long experience.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately one I can easily gain.

I'll give you #3, but I have my doubts as to #1 & #2.

#1. Given the trove of attack SW released on WikiLeaks, seems anyone can implicate nearly anyone else in cyberwar, just by leaving a file on the compromised server.

So much so that someone from a US intelligence agency could have hacked the DNC and left a finger print to implicate the Russians and throw the scent off, as it were.

So given what's been made public, and lacking your experience, that's kinda where I end up.
 
eohrnberger said:
Unfortunately one I can easily gain.

I'll give you #3, but I have my doubts as to #1 & #2.

#1. Given the trove of attack SW released on WikiLeaks, seems anyone can implicate nearly anyone else in cyberwar, just by leaving a file on the compromised server.

So much so that someone from a US intelligence agency could have hacked the DNC and left a finger print to implicate the Russians and throw the scent off, as it were.

So given what's been made public, and lacking your experience, that's kinda where I end up.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to exaggerate the legal, policy and procedural barriers which make it impossible for a US intelligence entity to hack either the DNC or RNC.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is impossible to exaggerate the legal, policy and procedural barriers which make it impossible for a US intelligence entity to hack either the DNC or RNC.
Click to expand...

If those legal, policy and procedural barriers were being observed, yes. If not observed, then not so much.
 
eohrnberger said:
Add to that, that the US intelligence hackers can leave any type of finger prints they want on the servers they've exploited to implicate someone other than themselves, comes down to we still don't know with sufficient certainty who hacked the DNC systems, and released that content to WikiLeaks.

I didn't know that Russian hackers were so conveniently timely in their hacking as to support justification for FISA warrants against an opposition political campaign and it's presidential candidate. That just seem awfully convenient and timely to be coincidence.

Assange has been adamant that it wasn't the Russians. OK, well, as far as he knows.

Given that the US intelligence hackers can spoof digital finger prints, it's reasonable to assume that all the other nation's intelligence hackers can do the same thing.

The Podesta spoof was script kiddie level play, that nearly anyone could have pulled off, coupled with his stupidity, which presents an even wider pool of possible perpetrators.

The longer we go along, the weaker and weaker this Russian hacked DNC meme seem to become, unable to bear the weight of evidence and reasonability.
Click to expand...

I would wager there were no FISA warrants for the Trump campaign or members of the campaign. They would not need them. Under the law, IIRC they can monitor say Russian A, and any information gleaned from that persons phone calls, regardless of who they call or calls received, are recorded, captured, turned over to the FBI and it is not in violation of any law.
 
JANFU said:
I would wager there were no FISA warrants for the Trump campaign or members of the campaign. They would not need them. Under the law, IIRC they can monitor say Russian A, and any information gleaned from that persons phone calls, regardless of who they call or calls received, are recorded, captured, turned over to the FBI and it is not in violation of any law.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Conversations of any US person which are "inadvertently" collected are redacted unless that specific US person is already the subject of a valid warrant.
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. Conversations of any US person which are "inadvertently" collected are redacted unless that specific US person is already the subject of a valid warrant.
Click to expand...

Just going by what I read yesterday and dug this up today. Should have saved that article

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target "non-US persons" under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance.

The documents show that even under authorities governing the collection of foreign intelligence from foreign targets, US communications can still be collected, retained and used.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
US communications, not US persons.
Click to expand...

For these things I dislike using Wiki, but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court
Judicial and public oversight
keep data that could potentially contain details of U.S. persons for up to five years;
retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney–client communications; and
access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the U.S., for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
Click to expand...
 
JANFU said:
I would wager there were no FISA warrants for the Trump campaign or members of the campaign. They would not need them. Under the law, IIRC they can monitor say Russian A, and any information gleaned from that persons phone calls, regardless of who they call or calls received, are recorded, captured, turned over to the FBI and it is not in violation of any law.
Click to expand...

Other than the news reporting from NYT and else where that that admin requested FISA warrants. First one was not granted, while the second one was.

Legality or not, the more concerning is that here we have a president and his admin in the last months of their administration using the nation's intelligence services to wiretap and surveil the campaign and presidential candidate of the opposing political party. It seems reasonable to be concerned about this.

The intel that was collected, which was previously kept classified and confidential and accessible by a very few, was made accessible by a factorial larger population by this president via an EO in the last weeks of his administration. Low and behold, and unsurprisingly, this classified and confidential intel is then anonymously leaked out to the press and the public. The result is damage to the newly elected and in office president and his admin. Given the factorial larger population that had access to this information it'll be far harder to track down the leakers. This appears to be by design, and is very troubling as a precedent for future transitions of power between the two political parties.
 
Jack Hays said:
None of that gets you to hacking either the DNC or the RNC.
Click to expand...

It can lead to collection of collateral information by the NSA from US Citizens inside the US. Is that point correct?
 
eohrnberger said:
Add to that, that the US intelligence hackers can leave any type of finger prints they want on the servers they've exploited to implicate someone other than themselves, comes down to we still don't know with sufficient certainty who hacked the DNC systems, and released that content to WikiLeaks.

I didn't know that Russian hackers were so conveniently timely in their hacking as to support justification for FISA warrants against an opposition political campaign and it's presidential candidate. That just seem awfully convenient and timely to be coincidence.

Assange has been adamant that it wasn't the Russians. OK, well, as far as he knows.

Given that the US intelligence hackers can spoof digital finger prints, it's reasonable to assume that all the other nation's intelligence hackers can do the same thing.

The Podesta spoof was script kiddie level play, that nearly anyone could have pulled off, coupled with his stupidity, which presents an even wider pool of possible perpetrators.

The longer we go along, the weaker and weaker this Russian hacked DNC meme seem to become, unable to bear the weight of evidence and reasonability.
Click to expand...

2 things. 1) Assange had his own show on RT for awhile. 2) Do you trust or believe what Assange says?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom