05-31-2022, 10:08 AM
(05-30-2022, 11:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I've asked you to demonstrate what you think was wrong with the Slate article. Why not do that instead of just claiming the way it was written was "unethical." What would have to be different to pass muster for you?
I mentioned points about that article which I think indicate good journalism in post # 258.
I don't understand why you call Foer's Slate article "highly suggestive." A RWM article demanding to know why the MSM is ignoring the Hilary sex trafficking rumors is highly suggestive. But reporting on how computer scientists cross check the results of their investigation into an anomaly everyone agrees is there, certainly is not. Again, HOW does this place "party over journalistic standards"? Select a line from Foer's article which you think exemplifies this, and then show me how an “independent” would rewrite it. If you cannot, then you are just shooting the messenger.
It's hard to cite a singular line from an article when the entire thing is an absolutely sensationalized piece of propaganda, force fed from the Clinton campaign.
This wasn't investigative journalism, it was nothing more than a summary of CrowdStrike's findings while investigating the DNC email hack that was aggressively pushed out to the media by Fusion GPS. I'll concede that Foer did a good job of summarizing the technicalities of CrowdStrikes findings, but that's it. The rest his pure garbage. A legitimate journalist with integrity would've sought out independent sources to discover, explain, and understand any inconsistencies with CrowdStrike's findings before writing the article. Foer didn't. He only sought outsiders who supported the underlying theme that this was something nefarious from the Trump campaign.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/
https://blog.erratasec.com/2016/11/debunking-trumps-secret-server.html#.YpXcipPMIqt
Fusion shopped this story around to several journalists who investigated and decided against running it. Until they found their rube, their useful idiot in Foer. This story was pushed to the New York Times, Reuters, and ABC among others. All of which refused to report on it.
Peter Fritsch, a Fusion lawyer, emailed to a Reuters reporter “do the ***** alfa bank secret comms story...it is hugely important. forget the wikileaks sideshow” To an ABC reporter he emailed "dude this is huge."
And then they found their dupe. Foer's email reply to Fritsch.....
"My editors are very excited about this piece...We’ve been at the vanguard of the Russia story and they want to keep aggressively pushing. They can’t understand the tentativeness of the Times. We know that we need to move quickly. Anything you could do to help connect me with the source would help immensely. This is a big deal story. One of the biggest of the campaign"
Yeah, they're non-partisan and w/o an agenda
And what does Foer do? He writes the piece and then SENDS A FULL PREPUBLICATION BACK TO FRITSCH to proof read it? Are you kidding me? And you claim that this was somehow not equivalent to Trump going to Hannity? IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING! I find it comical that you said the campaign gave it to the reporter so that he could vet the story, and it turns out that his 'vet-ing' was to go back to the source and ask for a review.
Well, duh how do you think that's going to turn out? Is that unethical enough for you? (my guess is, no)https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/alfa-bank-ping-russiagate/
This whole story is a closed loop, a bubble, an echo chamber, and you're stuck squarely in the middle.
1. CrowdStrike finds something questionable
2. Fusion takes these findings, aggressively shops them to the media
3. Finds it's dupe in Foer
4. Foer verifies it by going BACK TO THE SOURCE
5. Foer writes the sensationalized hit piece
6. People who are predisposed to hating Trump eat it up like candy because its WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!
Most people now know that this story is phony and dismiss it as such. Congrats on being part of the very few who are willing to go down with the ship. If nothing else, I admire your loyalty. You're so far in, you'd make Joe McCarthy blush.
