I also think the @nytimes disgraced itself by not publishing the story of Bush/Cheney’s NSA dragnet surveillance before the 2004 election. The substance of the story warranted publication. Procedural fundamentalists will see these 2 judgments as contradictory; they’re wrong.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Dnc stuff was worth knowing, but most Podesta stuff was useless but treated like a bombshell every day
-
Yeah, it was really excessive and drowned out more important things.
-
And it was entirely predictable that the media would cover the hacked emails that way
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What changed your mind? The outcome of the election?
-
Yes. I’m more of a consequentialist than a procedural fundamentalist. I don’t think the publication of the hacked emails was necessarily dispositive to the election outcome, it didn’t hurt.
-
Of course it's speculation, but I too doubt the effects. I read a lot of the hacked emails, and they were pretty boring, for the most part. I think only obsessives like me, who had long ago made up our minds, read or cared about them.
-
It was not really the released emails, but the hacked DNC analytics that swung the election. Pascale and GRU collaborated on a massive social media/targeted ad buy based on that info, in swing states.
-
that's bullshit. hrc was the one that blew hundreds of millions of dollars on "analytics" and it was all fucking useless because their message sucked and microtargeting it didn't make it any better. trump bought ad time on coast to coast nfl broadcasts. fuck it. nothing matters.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
lol "the time for journalism is after the voters have made their choice not before"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You’d prefer to have the country learn HRC cheated in a primary debate after she takes office? While “journalists” sit on the info?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No one needed DNC emails to know NEVER to vote for Hillary Clinton. Mueller & the Russia-gate crew take voters for fools. Hillary blatantly screwed over US workers and the middle class, and left a trail of death & destruction around the world.https://www.thenation.com/article/a-voters-guide-to-hillary-clintons-policies-in-latin-america/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A journalist thinks journalists should sit on accurate and important information in order to help a political candidate. Great.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s bullshit! The public deserved to know what the DNC did! What your objection should be is why we didn’t also see the RNC leaks
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Kudos Sir. It would be a better world if more people were willing to admit their mistakes and apologize for them.
-
Yes. Censorship by journalists should be something we all strive for.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No. I disagree. We need a distinction betwee releasing (absolutely right) and subsequent treatment. The challenge the media face is with the latter and needs to be resolved in that area. Adding playing with release timing (even more) will only make things worse.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You'd rather reporters hoard information and decode when/if to release it to the public? Bullshit
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The purity of disinterest doesn’t strike me as a relevant consideration for (or against) the release of the information. Compare to, say, its accuracy and importance.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.