@DonnyDiggins @Mike_hugs Even if this **were** his only argument (not so) you'd still be obliged to address it.
-
-
Replying to @mtracey
@mtracey Third, the fear of losing journalistic 'objectivity' is a fear of losing credibility with those GG himself calls hacks.@Mike_hugs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DonnyDiggins
@DonnyDiggins@Mike_hugs Given that GG relentlessly mocks "objectivity" I'd hoped the blinding sarcasm of my previous tweet would be obvious2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
@mtracey Some people think the most important thing is having GG on cable news. You're not one of those. Good.@Mike_hugs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DonnyDiggins
@DonnyDiggins@Mike_hugs I don't know of anyone who actually thinks that, but if you say so.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
@mtracey Isn't that a shorthand for the claim about incrementalism? People wouldn't be able to obtain the info. without him?@Mike_hugs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DonnyDiggins
@DonnyDiggins@Mike_hugs So anyone who acknowledges the virtue of the current approach is some kind of "incrementalist" sycophant?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
@mtracey 2. Unless you think the current approach is superior to the anonymous dump approach. Then, yes.@Mike_hugs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DonnyDiggins
@DonnyDiggins@Mike_hugs There are good reasons to believe that an indiscriminate dump would produce unintended harms.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
@mtracey Okay, but if they're harms to imperial informants and heads of state, you're not talking my language.@Mike_hugs1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@DonnyDiggins @Mike_hugs No, I'm talking about harms to victims of surveillance who are names in the documents.
-
-
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.