Also, you're inventing things. I'm uninterested in truth of negotiators claim. My arg is entire thing doesn't show what NYT claims.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
I’m saying that the Russia/DNC claim is also unsourced and, by some definitions, speculative. It isn’t proven in the piece.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tqbf
Sure. but that's not NYT standard. Also for primary claim: Russia hacks DNC, it's common intel lang.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @tqbf
I do think there's vast difference bt using intel "high degree of confidence" & "assume." The former is not speculation, NYT standard
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Ok, same language, different context:pic.twitter.com/5qsntFT6HU
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tqbf
Fair! That shouldn't be in there anyway. (But then, NYT proves it shouldn't be in that they disprove it ¶s later)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
I feel like maybe you’re holding them to a higher standard than you’d usually expect, because you oppose TPP.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tqbf @emptywheel
Did you really expect NAMED sources from US IC? Of course you did not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tqbf @emptywheel
Like, the factually incorrect statements you referred to earlier seem like NYT giving short shrift to US anti-TPP activism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tqbf @emptywheel
Which, fair enough, but I don’t think that alone clears the bar of making this a “hit piece”.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Nor did I say it did. I pointed to two other general problems, with solid examples.
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.