The media won't carry a story that their numbers tell them doesn't have legs with the audience.
Why is that?
"Let me tell you: You take on the intellegence community and they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."
Hypothetically, of course.
The two communities above are receptive to messages about government overreach and corruption, the general public seems not to care much.
I suspect this is largely because libertarians and conspiracy theorists (which do overlap to some extent) are already skeptical of government "goodness" and anything that feeds that skepticism is easily accepted. The general public places government on a higher moral plane of existence and any challenge to that is met with skepticism and excuses.
The end result is that those that speak out/expose the government are sidelined and punished through smears or government action. See: Attacks on Gabbard, Ron Paul, Snowden, Bill Binney, Assange, etc.
It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures. There is literally no question that those emails are real and unaltered.
Because there was nothing in them that painted Clinton in a bad light. They were normal boring emails that were sensationalized in conspiracy blogs but recognized as normal boring emails by professional journalists.
If the act of leaking emails about media collusion is a "bad" thing that influenced the election in one way, so can the media collusion itself be a "bad" thing that influenced the election the other way.
Despite what the conspiracy bloggers would have you believe, this is standard fact checking. If the conspiracy bloggers did that, they wouldn't have anything to report.
> Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate.
This was heavily covered mainstream news and resulted in CNN firing Brazile. Brazile also assisted the Sanders campaign as the Sanders campaign has admitted, but we don't have the Sanders campaign emails to see how much.
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/3038...
Clinton's team was not offered the opportunity to edit or review the articles either. They were sent articles about the costs of policy proposals to respond with their own numbers. If you think this is out of the ordinary or that conservatives don't get the same consideration, what do you think " did not immediately respond to requests for comment" means at the end of news articles?
Clearly they're part of a conspiracy to make us believe, against all possible odds, that anyone still believes in Pizzagate.
(And let's note: it's not like 4chan broke open Epstein's crimes. Old fashioned FBI legwork did. And the guy had a history of sex trafficking already, which nobody in Pizzagate did. As fun as it is to pretend to be an armchair sleuth, it sure isn't a pass-time that's got a good batting average over professional investigation).
You're wrong about... everything.
FBI washed their hands of this when the rest of DoJ did, in 2008. Two things caused national attention to return to Epstein: Alexander Acosta's nomination to Labor, and Julie K. Brown at the Miami Herald refusing to forget about Epstein's victims even after the rest of the media had. FBI had fuck-all to do with any of this; they don't like to investigate people who can afford to hire lawyers.
Not jakeogh though. like I said, he's part of a conspiracy to make us believe people still believe Pizzagate. The purpose of which is to undermine confidence in average human reasoning skills, which undermines faith in democracy. This is important for the next step of the Triluminati's plan.
Does it even count as "JAQing off [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]" if one party in the conversation doesn't even bother asking questions?
jakeogh, I wish I could say I wished you the best, but I'm not a fan of conspiracy theorists and I'm not a fan of this game you're playing trying to convince people that anyone still believes in Pizzagate. Reality is already complex enough as it is.
May the Triluminati treat you gently for doing their bidding, whether or not you know you are.
Fake whistleblower: still works for CIA, whistleblowing has purely political rather than administrative effects, and ongoing adulation in the press.
If you don't want to see this on HN, then downvote and move on.
Do NOT believe that!
The reality is probably quite different. Many organizations (both private and civil) make such promises but, in truth, the complaint phone line/box/e-mail is a direct line to either higher-ups in the company or to someone in another agency who will, very quickly, pass identifying information to higher-ups. The whistleblower will be tracked down mercilessly and driven out always. Those for whom the whistle blows will, not infrequently, be rewarded.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been in many public and private endeavors and, in every case, so-called whistleblower phone lines, complaint boards or monitoring companies have proven to be ineffectual and/or downright deadly to the career of anyone who contacts them. They are usually honeytraps for those poor individuals who believe their complaints will be fairly judged.
With reasonable care the press can be relied upon to vent complaints to the public w/o identifying the complainant.
A whistleblower that is heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'.
A whistleblower blowing the whistle on a hierarchy unable to directly fire him will also, not surprisingly, not lose his job.
"Heavily covered in the media", that's an interesting criterion for "whistleblower", and I'm sure it would serve someone's interests if it got any traction. Also "critical thinking" is now defined as "believing what the war media tell us"? This would be Orwellian, if it weren't so silly.
My claim is that media coverage cannot say anything meaningful about the authenticity of a whistleblower.
To say otherwise is a terrible argument -- Snowden himself had widespread media coverage, both positive and negative.
Media coverage tells you nothing about the authenticity of a whistleblower. You have not demonstrated any useful criterion for identifying 'fake' whistleblowers other than "I do not agree with his/her goals."
The others sited didn't follow the legal procedure which would have allowed them to also enjoy whistleblower protection.
Unsurprisingly, no one stepped forward for Crane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project#Whistleblo...
No True Whistleblower gets "glowing plaudits" and "ongoing adulation".
What is their name? IDK. What exactly did they hear? IDK. From who did they hear it from? IDK.
People here seem awfully sure about something they know nothing about.
How so?
Take the lessons of Manufacturing Consent and apply them to the contemporary political context instead of Vietnam and East Timor, even if the elite media seems to be aligned with your own political beliefs.
But I don't see any reason to belive that it constitutes 'controlling the media'.
As for the second I'm not sure what you feel the answer is there either, more what it means.
There is a whole history of folks leaking things for you to look at.