
Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media - kodz4
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million
======
montalbano
Although I agree with many of the points here, unfortunately the piece itself
has made the same mistake as the media it criticises: it's jumping to
conclusions a little prematurely.

Why read so much into the lack of indictments when Mueller's team have agreed
to the standard that they cannot indict a sitting president? [1] Let's just
wait and see -- I'm fed of speculation at this point.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/muellers-team-
told-t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/muellers-team-told-trumps-
lawyers-the-special-counsel-cannot-indict-a-sitting-
president/2018/05/16/cf4d5700-5961-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?utm_term=.69151ddb2c5b)

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
Because to have collusion you need to have multiple parties colluding. They
haven't indicted anymore Russians or any other members of the Trump campaign,
and no existing indictment has been due to collusion.

So even though the President can't be indicted, the indication that no other
indictments means that collusion is not a part of the report.

There may be other offenses that Trump have committed, but that is even MORE
speculation.

~~~
SEJeff
Yet there could be sealed indictments that have yet to be unsealed. In fact,
every single one of Mueller's indictments were originally sealed. Who's to say
there aren't others that he's handed off to various federal prosecutors like
at SDNY or EVDA? Assuming that Mueller has entirely cleared the president (or
anyone around him) at this point is about as pointless as proving he's about
to be arrested in the Oval Office.

Let it play out and see what happens. Regardless, I suspect Congress will
inevitably get the truth out and eventually it will come out to the public.
Like most things in a democracy, they're often slow and sometimes messy. This
is a feature, not a bug!

~~~
Fjolsvith
> as pointless as proving he's about to be arrested in the Oval Office.

A sitting president cannot be arrested by his administration, by law.

~~~
SEJeff
A sitting president can not be indicted by the DoJ, per DoJ policy. There is
no law whatsoever, but only a memo that makes a policy from the DoJ's OLC
(Office Of Legal Opinion). If you think this is a law, you are mistaken.

~~~
Fjolsvith
Perhaps Trump can meet Barr in his private plane to discuss grandchildren
prior to Russian collusion being found to be an inconsequential "matter" not
requiring prosecution.

------
CptFribble
I think the old guard media has misstepped on this, not for ideological
reasons but for clicks. More banal certainly, but somehow worse, I think. Even
the conservative media continued to talk about it, railing _against,_ because
it drives clicks.

What we really need, and hopefully comes from this reckoning, is a new model
of financing journalism that can be free to act in the public interest, and is
built with that in its DNA.

Unfortunately, ideas on what's in the public interest are so vastly separated,
I wonder if such a thing even makes sense to hope for.

~~~
db48x
No, it's pretty clear that a lot of reporters have compromised their ethics,
or never had any. The article quotes several; it is in fact the entire point
of the article. Of course you might also say that the _owners_ of the media
don't care about this lack of ethics as long as they're making money. That's
probably true, but it's not the same thing at all. The blame goes to the
people who have no ethical standards, or who compromised them in favor of
politics.

~~~
akhilcacharya
How is covering one of the biggest scandals in modern American politics
malpractice?

Obama never had anything similar in scope over 8 years.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
Is it a scandal if it isn't true? And you're right, Obama never had anything
in this scope, it's worse, because people died from things he perpetuated.

1) Fast and Furious: Continued program that caused a border agent to be
murdered with one of the many guns the US sold to the cartels.

2) Benghazi: We all know this disaster that killed 4 Americans. Severely
understaffed embassy that should have never even been there. No support when
requested. Blamed the whole thing on a video.

3) Iran Nuclear Deal: Pallets of unmarked Euros flown over to a sponsor of
terrorism in the dead of night

4) Spied on conservative reporters

5) IRS Scandal: Targeted conservatives with the IRS

6) Private Email Server: Lied about knowledge of her server, turns out he had
a pseudonym on it and received emails from it. He said he found out about it
from the media, woops.

7) NSA Spying: Obama forever known as the spying President.

~~~
CptFribble
I must take issue with two of your points:

2) The State Dept. approved some requests for security upgrades, and denied
others. If they had approved everything, would it have stopped the attacks?
There's no way to know. Placing blame on Hillary or Obama specifically is
problematic at best.

3) Before the revolution in 1979 the Iranian govt signed an arms contract with
the US and paid money into a US account. Then the revolution happened and the
equipment was never delivered. The cash flown over was just them getting their
money back out of that account, with 30+ years of interest.

The rest I either know nothing about, or are too general to get into here.

For what it's worth, I'm not just an Obama apologist. I also think a lot of
stuff he did was problematic, especially the unaccountable drone campaigns,
and _especially_ Anwar Al-Alwaki and his son, which should have been
considered a major scandal.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
2) The problem wasn't stopping it, it was fighting it back. They were too
understaffed to make a defense. Given how long they held out with what they
had is a good indicator that they could have repelled it with more defenses.
Air support would have sufficed.

3) Fair enough, but how it was done that wasn't appropriate.

------
ethbro
I would argue that the US invasion of Iraq (WMD), the Vietnam War (Gulf of
Tonkin), or the Spanish-American War (remember the Maine) have exposed the
fallibility and blindness of mainstream press to counter-naratives in pursuit
of being first / having an article about the issue of the day.

The broader point about clicks is that the economic model behind the US press
changed from a subsidized press to a for-profit press... and yet everyone
expected the work product to remain the same?

~~~
skookumchuck
When was the US press subsidized?

~~~
ethbro
As a first approximation, about 20 years before the end of each century:
pre-1880 for newsprint & pre-1980 for television.

All that is required for the press to function is that someone foots the bill.

They can do so for a variety of reasons. Supported by a political party (Fox
is actually returning to earlier times here). Supported as a charity / pet
project (the news barons, Bezos). And supported commercially from sales (CNN).

Generally, every news media form in the US has eventually moved to the last.

------
ForrestN
This is an incredibly backwards hot take.

The media has made many mistakes and continues to do so. But in the opposite
direction.

In addition to the extraordinary number of people already indicted as part of
the Special Counsel’s work, there is already ample documented public evidence
of “russiagate.” Marcy Wheeler, the best reporter on this story, says “We know
of at least five conversations at which various people entered into what I
describe as a quid pro quo conspiracy.” 1

Russia and the Trump Campaign worked together to elect Trump as part of a quid
pro quo conspiracy.

The media’s error was in anointing Mueller and his report as the savior and
sword that would slay our villainous leader. The media has failed to convey
reality to the public: in addition to crimes related to Russia, the president
and his family have been shown to be awash in many, many kinds of crimes.

He cheated the non-profit system, lied about assets to secure loans, defrauded
participants in his “university,” confessed on tape to a pattern of sexual
assault corroborated by multiple credible first person accounts, committed tax
fraud, helped his parents commit tax fraud, committed campaign finance
violations, skirted White House anti-nepotism and ethics rules, publicly
threatened witnesses, and has done many other things that are obviously
disqualifying.

The failure of the press to convey the extent of Trump’s prolific criminal
behavior before and after the 2016 election is this generation’s War in Iraq
coverage.

1 [https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/02/24/quid-pro-quo-redux-
par...](https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/02/24/quid-pro-quo-redux-part-two-
russian-government-involvement-in-all-three-conspiracy-agreements/)

------
vowelless
I wanted to dislike this piece. But it’s a fantastic write up. It covers all
the bases I was anticipating that it won’t.

The HN community might find this interesting:

[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

~~~
0xDEFC0DE
All respect to Aaron's memory, but it hasn't aged that well. There's an
implicit trust in books for authority, but those have been used on both sides
of the Trump press war for political reasons. News is how you find out the
candidate you might want to vote for is actually a hypocrite through
undeniable audio/video evidence. By the time a book is written, printed, and
distributed, most elections will have likely been decided already (except for
Presidential election activities which seem to never end these days). You
can't just bury your head in the sand on this but there are no good
alternatives yet.

I still think I'm going to follow that prescription though: establishing trust
has become even more difficult as fake accounts can establish a thin authority
by pretending to trust each other. Information complexity and volume has only
gone up and there is more information to digest, and establishing someone as a
trustworthy source by yourself is time consuming.

The only way this changes is a) humans manage electronic volume/complexity
more easily (enhanced brain and more available time) or b) by coincidence we
happen to get news sources that are all unbiased and social media platforms
with good moderation. (a) is far more likely IMHO.

It's going to be a hell of a ride if there's nothing more in Mueller's report.
And yeah, I'm exhausted. I'm giving up my news habits either way it goes.

------
hguant
Taibbi is an interesting writer who is hard to pigeon hole politically. As far
as I can tell, he mostly gets torqued off at people lying and does his best to
call them out on it, be it the Pentagon, Wall Street, or his peers.

~~~
repolfx
It's the same with Greenwald. I read him regularly. I'm pretty sure
ideologically and politically he's a totally standard left leaning journalist,
but he is willing to attack anyone if they're being inconsistent regardless of
political affiliation, and he's been covering journalistic dishonesty for
years now. There are good reasons the apparently rather libertarian and
conservative Edward Snowden went to Greenwald with his story and not the many
more mainstream alternatives.

------
nkkollaw
I think a lot of critique of events can be done with much better results by
independent journalist (ex. on YouTube).

At least they put their own reputation on the line.

For instance, I regularly watch Tim Pool and he seems to be completely
unbiased and covers culture-related news for the US.

------
overwhelm
Taibbi has mellowed, alas, but at least he can still do this:

"Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad,
when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of
this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without
pants."

------
Overtonwindow
Just my opinion: I worked on Capitol Hill during the mid-2000's. As I got to
know a lot of the older policy wonks, lobbyists, and former members, I found
in ways both small and loud, they decried today's political atmosphere. Many
trace it back to the Clinton's and Newt Gingrich.

The opinion, which I agree with, starts with the Clinton's response to the
Republicans, and vice versa. It became personal, particularly after things got
heated with Clinton's legal troubles.

Then comes Rep. Tom Delay, a.k.a. "The Hammer" who took it one step higher.
When the Republicans took over, he worked to ram legislation through. Now
everyone is looking at their cross-the-ailse counterparts and saying "I hate
you. I want you to lose."

The business of governing broke down, and only exacerbated with Bush, Obama,
Pelosi, etc. They are no longer working together, they are at war.

------
joveian
There is a different (and shorter) excerpt from his book on Rolling Stone that
is also quite good:

[https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
features/iraq...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
features/iraq-war-media-fail-matt-taibbi-812230/)

It notes the recent issue with Venezuela coverage at the end, although not
noting that it took the New York Times more than two weeks to issue a
correction while others outside the mainstream media pointed out the video
evidence the day of the event.

------
IdontRememberIt
Internet is doing to the journalists what Gutenberg's press has done to the
"old" Catholic Church.

It is a difficult transition period but I am hopeful a better industry will
emerged (in pain).

------
jessaustin
"We could lose 90% of our journalists, those whose efforts are primarily
focused toward sticking to their assigned scripts, and we would be both
better-off and better-informed."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17241730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17241730)

------
wildermuthn
Everyone wants to have an opinion, and to publish said opinion, before they
have any justification for an opinion. We’ve seen this over and over again,
from both the left and the right, and yet it remains a blind-spot.

Recall the MAGA kids who brutalized the peaceful Native American. Recall Trump
directly ordering Cohen to lie to congress. Recall any story where in the rush
to gain clicks, everyone jumped to ill-informed conclusions.

The problem is not an idealogical press. That is capitalism at work. American
history reveals muckracking as the norm rather than the exception.

The problem is the speed at which this now occurs. The true driver of ‘clicks’
is the astonishing efficiency of forming and disseminating opinions that stoke
ideological mobs, mobs which are no longer limited by geography or
synchronicity.

I’ve long believed that the only solution to a truth-based press is to replace
opinion with primary sources. Now that there are networked cameras on every
corner and in every pocket, this shouldn’t be far off. However, the advent of
deep-fakes certainly throws a twist into this story.

Ultimately, those of us who value reason and logic should form our beliefs
slowly, relying on primary sources as available. Although ideology and
unreasonable conclusions dominate American politics, there is no reason for us
to do the same. There is no urgency to form a conclusion here, unless your
livelihood depends on publishing stories that will drive traffic.

Spending any mental energy on this, at the present moment, is a waste of time.
The report will be out soon enough, and that will be the time to even
entertain making judgments. More likely than not, however, the report will
lead to more questions than answers. At least for those who value knowing the
truth over making a buck.

~~~
cm2187
Except that all the "mistakes" you mention, and I can think of a few others,
are all against the same side of the political spectrum. If it was merely an
apolitical click-baity reaction, it would be statistically impossible to end
up with this level of political bias. I think it is good old fashion political
propaganda, Pravda style.

------
r721
[https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1109617564186001408](https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1109617564186001408)

------
olefoo
It should be noted that Matt Taibbi has considerable history in Russia and may
not be particularly objective about the American media establishment.

To wit [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-
wh...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-who-
terrorized-women-correspondents-in-
moscow/2017/12/15/91ff338c-ca3c-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html)

------
davvolun
Personally flagged this article. This is incredibly hyperbolic and ignores
some very important facts. What surprised me was that the title here
"Russiagate is a death-blow" may have been slightly _less_ hyperbolic than the
article's title.

If the purpose of journalism is to sort fact from fiction, and we clearly have
a President that thrives on providing "fiction," seems to me journalism is
doing alright here. Maybe a C+.

------
mark_l_watson
My wife and I are liberal, but I have been complaining to her for a half a
year that it seemed like the news media was making a lot of opinionated or
unsubstantiated statements as if they were 100% true (infinitely true!).

I think you know what I mean, when a news hour host makes statements in a tone
of voice that implies there is no doubt about something.

For me, the main theme of this article was “None of this has been walked
back.” - very few news outlets have admitted really sloppy reporting.

And, this all unfortunately plays into Trumps hands and increases his odds of
winning in 2020.

~~~
thatoneuser
I've been saying there's basically no difference now between many of the major
left news outlets and straight up tabloids. Just more polishing. It's really
sad. Rather than having rational discourse that could set up a strong 2020 dem
pres bid, all anyone can talk about is how bad trump is. All exposure is good
exposure.

------
ykevinator
And the reputation of bloggers because it's not published yet.

------
Invictus0
This article seems rather premature. The Mueller report has not been released
yet, and we know that the Justice Department prohibits indictment of a sitting
president. We also know from court filings that President Trump personally
directed his lawyer to violate campaign finance laws.

Trump cannot be indicted. We knew that from day 1. In addition, "collusion" is
not even a real crime. The question is whether the Mueller report discovers
sufficient evidence of crimes for Congress to initiate impeachment
proceedings, the real mechanism for removing Trump from office.

However, I do agree with the author. The coverage of this issue has been
relentless and actually did reach witch hunt proportions. The bias was there
and everyone knew it.

------
lumberingjack
The media is just entertainment now if you're in taking that crud you're
literally being entertained that's not news. James traficant was right the
American Media is under the control of foreign entities they should be the
ones being investigated who owns these media outlets why do they seem to all
have an agenda why are they so biased? Keep up the work because you just
handed Trump another 4 years.

------
abrahamepton
This is...utterly delusional, and totally disconnected from the evidence on
record.

The President's campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, personal lawyer and
National Security Advisor have either pled guilty or been convicted of
felonies. Despite denying any contacts with Russia, we now know he'd been
offered a deal to build the biggest tower in Europe, a payout worth $300
million, during the campaign. During the transition, his son-in-law met with
the Russian ambassador and asked to use the Russian government's communication
system to evade scrutiny by the American intelligence community. During
sentencing, a federal judge told the President's former NSA that "arguably,
you sold out your country".

On what earth does Taibbi live?

I grant that perhaps the media built up the Mueller report to a point that no
actual product could satisfy. But what we know is so outrageous that it's
quite strange to conclude that the people doing the irresponsible misleading
are the news media. This is such a strange, bizarre, consequential,
unprecedented story cloaked in classified details that it's pretty odd to
expect a media to do a great job of contemporaneously reporting on it.

I used to have a lot of respect for Taibbi, and I suppose I still do, but this
is deranged on his part.

~~~
75dvtwin
I think you are purposefully ignoring facts, so that high level sentences
match your narrative.

Flynn (security advisor for a couple of day) -- was setup. There was no
collusion with Russia to change 2016 election outcomes, that Flynn was accused
of.

"... made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in
Washington, D.C. "

[1][https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download](https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download)
that's not collusion.

Roger Stone did not have his day in court, and the allegation were are not
about directing Foreign powers to do anything.

Certainly hiring a foreign agent to write a document to be used trigger for
FBI to initiate opposition party surveillances (like Clinton orchestrated) --
would have been a worthy avenue for Mueller to pursue, if he was about justice

The other indictments had nothing to do with 2016 election and happened for
offenses outside 2016 election activities.

\--- ---

In general, my definition of deep state is:

a shadow government (consisting of elected officials and hired bureaucrats),
that performs illegal activities, but blames opposition exact same things they
are guilty of.

Whether it is collusion with foreign powers to orchestrate a coup, or abuse of
women, or anti-Semitism, or racism, launder money through charities, or get
bribes for political favors.

The fact that left-wing media had zero interest in investigative reporting of
the deep state, and the true collusions with foreign powers to orchestrate
coup in this country --- in an indication of their actual profession (paid
propagandists).

~~~
int_19h
Lying to FBI is one thing Flynn pleaded guilty of, as part of his deal. But
there were other charges, such as working for Turkey without registering as a
foreign agent - the deal is pretty much the only reason why Flynn got out of
it, by giving them enough evidence to convict his co-conspirators.

And while it's not Russia, it is still very much relevant to 2016 election,
since Flynn's participation in the scheme happened while he was already the
national security adviser for the Trump campaign.

------
sonnyblarney
Disclosure: I deeply loathe Trump, and I think he is unfit for office; very
glad to see Mueller investigation initiated, because there was a lot of smoke
and it needed to happen.

But the author is very correct.

A 'free press' is the 5th estate - an important part of civil society.

... but it only works if they have integrity.

Over the last two years it has become clear how narrow and biased they have
become in their contempt for Trump and of course in search of 'more clicks'.

This is a deep wound for America that I do not think we can blame on Trump
himself, however much some of us may loathe him.

Trump is a Loki who exposed a serious degradation in another part of the
system and it has to remedied.

Sadly, I do not think they will admit their failures, and they will not
reform, and as a result, we're going to be having wars over 'fake news' for a
long time.

Post-Edit: I don't want this to take away from critiquing Trump for some of
the awful things that he's said, or some of his questionable policies - my
only point is 'the press broke' on this, and it's a legitimate concern. If the
press lacks integrity, we lose the ability to hold people to account.

~~~
Theodores
It is a pity you have to put the big disclosure at the top of your comment.
But our media have made things very binary black and white.

Not buying into the 'red scare' means that in the eyes of some you must be a
Trump supporter.

This is a failure of critical thinking and far too many people fall into this
trap, thereby perpetuating things like 'RussiaGate' when it no longer makes
sense to do so.

The suspicions won't die down amongst those that have been sat in front of
their televisions feeding their imaginations with 'RussiaGate'. To them 'it
happened but it could not be proven'. Their suspicions are still confirmed.

There is also a failure to take people at their word when it could be prudent
to do so in this world of politics and lying. People have motivation for lying
and people have motivation for being honest.

The leadership in Russia - Putin, Lavrov and others - have stated why it is
that they have not secretly foisted Trump on the American people. But those
that don't listen don't want to take them for their word on that.

Fundamentally the Kremlin see other nations as having national interests and,
in the case of America, they have no need to care about who sits in the Oval
Office as the national interests will be the same. The Pentagon isn't going to
go away, the need for oil isn't going to go away, the need for the world to be
using the dollar as the world currency isn't going to go away. American
capitalism is always going to be what it is. American national interests are a
constant as far as Russia is concerned. They cannot expect some external
change, they have to be self-reliant and foster their own good relationships
with traditional partners.

The Russian leadership have also stated why it is not in their interest to put
'their man' in the Oval Office. It is not due to any standards of conduct it
is simpler than that. Thinking two moves ahead, what legitimacy would a puppet
President hold, how long would he/she last and how would Russia be treated
should the American people find out?

The Kremlin have thought this out. However, explaining to someone that the
Russians are not motivated to influence the American elections also falls
under the 'instant disclaimer'.

'So you must be a Putin fan?' is the expectation for proffering this
explainer. But it is not about that, it is about understanding motivation and
the Russian leadership are not motivated to influence American elections in
some super-sneaky way.

There is a failure by the press that have pursued RussiaGate to empathise and
understand others, whether they be the people that voted for Trump, the
Russians, the Democrat machine or even themselves. It is because of this that
you are correct, the press will not reform. It is not in their culture and
they don't have the mindset to do so.

~~~
dTal
Okay, but...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections)

That's 496 citations and a warning "This article may be too long to read and
navigate comfortably".

In other words, there's _overwhelming_ evidence that Russia interfered. Like,
not even a question. Suggesting it's a made-up media frenzy is just...
alternate universe.

~~~
overwhelm
The length of an article proves nothing about the truth of its contents.

~~~
dTal
The article is not the source of truth. The article is simply a collection of
facts. A very large number of externally sourced and undisputed facts. Facts
like "On December 29, 2016, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) released an unclassified report[91] that gave new technical details
regarding methods used by Russian intelligence services for affecting the U.S.
election, government, political organizations and private sector.", to pick
one virtually at random.

I'm not pointing to the length of the article or the number of citations as
direct support - I'm simply showing how overwhelmingly the burden of proof is
on the person claiming it's all made up. To suggest that there was no Russian
election interference of any sort is on par with moon landing denial.
Literally nobody seriously asserts that - not even Trump! (Not anymore,
anyway). That bears repeating, if you think Russians didn't interfere with the
2016 presidential election, you have a weaker grasp of reality than Donald
Trump. It's frightening post-truth wingnuttery.

[https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/87841331318880256...](https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/878413313188802560)
[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/96520255620400332...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965202556204003328)?

~~~
overwhelm
It's highly disputed. We just don't hear about that outside alternative
sources. Taibbi alludes to this in the OP:

 _I didn’t really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to
stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece of the story seemed
“solid,” but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still
based on an “assessment” by the intelligence services that always had issues,
including the use of things like RT’s “anti-American” coverage of fracking as
part of its case. The government didn’t even examine the DNC’s server, the
kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous._

Words like "wingnuttery" and "moon landing" weaken your case. If you get
enough publications to print something, you can make a terrifically long list
of citations, but what does that prove? Quality matters, not quantity, and the
quality of journalism devoted to this case has been astonishingly low, as
Taibbi shows. As he says:

 _We won’t know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets
out of bed with the security services and looks at this whole series of events
all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors._

------
patrickg_zill
So Viacom purchasing ad space on a video billboard in Times Square to push the
10 year old drag queen kid named Desmond, fits your version(definition) of
conservative?

~~~
astrodust
"Conservative" here meaning "content permissible within the narrow window of
generally accepted social standards" and not "conservative" as in "the most
extreme position expressed by religious firebrands".

In any case, what's wrong with ten year old drag queens? That sounds no worse
than any typical beauty pageant and probably a lot more fun.

~~~
lamarpye
You are right sounds like a good thing to do to a child.

~~~
astrodust
If the kid wants to do it, why not?

Too many girls are forced to into "normal" beauty pageants. Maybe you should
focus your aggression that way.

~~~
l24ztj
What if I loathe both things?

~~~
astrodust
Lots of street corners in Times Square to stand on and yell things at people.

------
Logly
This appears to be propaganda. Unfounded "conclusions" are drawn that support
a given side and depricate another side.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
Is there anything specific you disagree about it?

~~~
darkpuma
'Propaganda' isn't synonymous with 'wrong'.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
I was more directing my question to "unfounded".

So let me clarify, what did OP see that was unfounded?

------
skookumchuck
> Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller’s final
> report might leave audiences “disappointed,” as if a President not being a
> foreign spy could somehow be bad news.

That sums it up for me. People were desperate to believe their President was a
criminal.

~~~
tucats
I think people were desperate to rationalize Hillary's loss and shift the
blame.

------
unclebucknasty
Take a look at this thread. Note all of the downvoted comments (many without
replies), that critique the article, weigh-in negatively against Trump, or
otherwise seem supportive of the idea that there is a Russia problem.

Seems we have a bit of a troll/bot/propaganda problem right here on HN.

~~~
dang
You've broken more than one of the site guidelines in this thread,
particularly the ones that ask you not to insinuate astroturfing and not to go
further into flamewar. Please review
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and abstain from doing these things here, hard though that can be.

The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can
explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become
so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Please review..._

Sure. Will have a look at the guidelines and appreciate the pointer, as well
as the job you have to do.

> _The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills
> can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also
> become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the
> shark soon._

But, I don't appreciate the additional editorializing and don't believe your
attempt to ridicule me here stands up to your own guidelines. Add to that the
fact that you are a moderator, and the standard to which you hold yourself
should be even higher.

And, that speaks only to the style you chose here. On the substance, of course
we know that my pointing to what I noted as an observable pattern vs merely
"something I dislike online" are two entirely different matters. We also know
that such things as trolls and shills continue to exist, even if some too
readily make the claim that they are present. As for me, you will very rarely
find those claims in my history here and, where I have applied it, you might
even be surprised at the patterns were you to look more closely. Or not. I
could certainly be wrong.

But, as it is, you've restated my position so as to trivialize it, then
ridiculed it. In so doing, you've moved it from "hey, please don't do that
here, as it's a violation" to "here's my opinion of your comment".

If you want to be part of the discussion to make some additional point about
what you think of people who, say, display an "internet reflex" you disdain,
then perhaps use a throwaway. But, as it is, I would have difficulty seeing
how your comment doesn't "further a flamewar", apart from your position as a
moderator precluding members from engaging with you in such.

~~~
dang
I have spent many hours looking at this. From the data I've seen, there's zero
evidence to back up the accusations of political astroturfing, shilling, and
spying that users make against each other on HN, and plenty of evidence
against it [1]. The only actual observable pattern is users posting comments
that disagree with one another. Anything beyond that is an interpretation. I
have not seen any data to support those interpretations [2].

When it comes to users accusing each other of astroturfing, shilling, spying,
and so on, the only conclusion that fits the data is that people are imagining
things. In reality, the community is simply divided and users have opposing
views. Unfortunately, when my view is sufficiently obnoxious to your side or
vice versa, the assumption of good faith evaporates and people reach for more
sinister explanations. We can speculate about why, but it's clear that users
are projecting those sinister explanations onto fellow users. The more
divisive the topic, the more opposed people's views become and the more
harshly they express them, leading to more projection, accusation, and
division. A vicious loop.

This is especially toxic to HN because HN is a single community where
everybody sees the same threads. Here you are more likely to run into views
that you strongly dislike than you are on sites where communities partition
into like-minded factions. Even when discussions on HN are more thoughtful
than these other places, the fact that you're part of one big group—everybody,
instead of mostly your own tribe—makes them feel less so.

When people post aggressive remarks to HN, they're not just bonding with their
own tribe, they're simultaneously broadcasting to the other side, who take the
harshness like a punch. All sides do this, so all sides feel punched. This is
painful and one can't help but react internally. I believe that the accusatory
reactions are self-protective. If you're a spy or a shill, that explains
whatever you say and I needn't give it any credence. Unfortunately, these
defensive reactions are also offensive ones, so we get an escalatory cycle. If
HN is to avoid being ripped apart, we need a rule against such accusations.
Therefore we do have such a rule.

1\. There are other contexts on HN where we do find manipulation: usually
startups or projects trying to promote themselves, but occasionally also more
sophisticated astroturfing that appears to involve larger companies.

2\. More on this at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403438).
For a specific example, see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19404162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19404162).

p.s. I'm sorry that felt like I was targeting you specifically. My intention
was only to say something about a general phenomenon which I've written about
many times already:
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0).

------
areoform
It is bizarre when an opinion piece on the death of the American news media,
makes the same mistakes as the news media i.e. blending facts and opinion as
one and treating editorials as news. For E.g.

“There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn’t prove anything!
What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The Trump tower revelations?
The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters! There’s an ongoing
grand jury investigation, and possible sealed indictments, and the House will
still investigate, and…

Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.”

This is actually factually wrong. It is persuasive but wrong because while
Mueller isn’t pursuing more prosecutions, he has referred people on for more
prosecutions and investigations.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-
repor...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-report.html)

Also no one is actually saying that the mueller report doesn’t prove anything,
because no one has read it yet. And that position is a rhetorical flourish
that makes no sense given that all of the indictments, prosecutorial referrals
etc were done by Mueller.

The next few sentences aren’t true either;

“The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off
a porn star. That’s a hell of a long way from what this business was
supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to
pretend this isn’t so.“

First of all, he plead guilty to charges by the SDNY. AFAICT, The WSJ broke
the story, Common Cause then filed a lawsuit followed by Stormy Daniels, and
then the FBI raid happened. So this claim is actually inaccurate.

He has a point to make and he is willing to throw facts into the blender to
make it. He is also a part of what’s wrong with the media and seems to be
unable to recognize that.

Edit: given the downvoting here are some citations;

WSJ breaking the story - [https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyer-
arranged-130-000-p...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyer-
arranged-130-000-payment-for-adult-film-stars-silence-1515787678)

Common Cause’s lawsuit - [https://www.npr.org/2018/05/03/608291878/watchdog-
questions-...](https://www.npr.org/2018/05/03/608291878/watchdog-questions-
whether-trumps-reimbursement-is-a-campaign-finance-violation)

SDNY and Cohen - [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453401-SDNY-
Cohen-s...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453401-SDNY-Cohen-
sentencing-memo.html)

~~~
abrahamepton
It is very odd and telling that this is the comment that gets downvoted on
this thread, while all the deep-state ravings get upvotes.

What is happening to HN?

~~~
read_if_gay_
What deep-state ravings? I didn't come across a single upvoted top level
comment fitting that description.

------
pmoriarty
Mueller's report could still recommend or build a case for impeachment, even
if he does not formally charge Trump, since it's legally questionable whether
a sitting President could be indicted for a crime while in office.

------
akhilcacharya
>For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new
Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said
impeachment is out, unless something “so compelling and overwhelming and
bipartisan” against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political
trouble to prosecut

Genuinely confused - is it _not_ worse than Watergate? At least Watergate was
done by Americans.

The Mueller investigation confirmed the source of the hacks and the propanda
effort in nauseating detail that was denied and dismissed during the campaign.

~~~
lamarpye
It is worse than Watergate. The FBI spied on a Presidential campaign using
evidence supplied and paid for by the another candidate.

If the names were changed, Hacker News people would be outraged. They would be
mad at the FISA court, mad at the FBI, mad at the media.

Look in the mirror and decide, do you have consistent principles or do they
own apply in certain situations.

~~~
abrahamepton
Multiple senior members of a Presidential campaign have either pled guilty or
been convicted of serious felonies, and you think the ones to blame are the
FBI?

I mean I think the FBI has a lot to answer for, here and on plenty of other
issues, but...

I don't know how to tell you this, because you won't believe it, but if you're
sincere and not a troll then you have a very unhealthy media diet. Your take
here is very disconnected from reality.

I'm sure you disagree. Alas.

~~~
dang
Would you please not cross into incivility and personal swipes, regardless of
how wrong someone else is or how strongly you feel? Your comments have been
increasingly breaking the site guidelines in this thread.

I know this is an issue on which views are both polarized and fixed. But
that's why the guidelines say that _comments should get more civil and
substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
pmoriarty
_" even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something "so
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" against Trump is uncovered it
would be worth their political trouble to prosecute."_

You know why impeachment is out? Because Republicans control the Senate, and
because there are plenty of conservative Democrats too, so impeachment doesn't
stand a chance.

If anti-Trump politicians controlled Congress, Trump would have been booted
out long ago.

The only reason Trump is still in office is because plenty of Congressmen
still support Trump, and many of them don't care what the evidence says.

He's nominated the judges they want. He's given gigantic tax cuts to the
wealthy. He's pushing hard against immigration and pissing off liberals.
That's clearly more than enough to get the support of most conservatives. If
he had to cheat or lie or get Russian help to get in to office, that doesn't
matter to his supporters because all they care about is that their agenda gets
pushed.

His supporters also know if they admit he's committed impeachable offenses,
they'll be politically stained along with him, and it'll be a gift to the
anti-Trump camp. So they'll never admit it.

------
olefoo
Just the things that are public about Trump should be disqualifying for an
American President.

* failure to disclose tax returns

* failure to divest of his business interests

* blatant nepotism ( including issuing his son-in-law a security clearance against the advice of professional sta ff )

* Owning a private club (Mar-a-lago) to which he sells memberships and visits at taxpayer expense where his customers have exclusive access to the President and his cabinet.

Add in his business interests in Russia and what looks an awful lot like a
quid pro quo trade of favorable treatment for policy changes desired by the
Russian leadership...

And you're gonna declare it's all just fine because there is no smoking gun
evidence of campaign pay to play?

I really hope you all are more attentive to your own businesses; this is
basically the political equivalent of your CFO suddenly developing a sports
car and supermodel habit; maybe everything is fine, but you should probably
get an outside audit.

~~~
peisistratos
I think you are making his point. Put all those things together, plus his
loony policies, you have a better case against him - in 2020 (or perhaps
sooner). This overblown Russian nonsense, which is a lot of smoke for so small
a fire, distracts from the other things.

------
Logly
The article looks like propaganda.

------
dayaz36
Everyone needs to follow Aaron Mate on twitter. He is one of very few
reporters that's been debunking russiagate from the outset

------
newnewpdro
I've been saying for quite some time that the media has been making it quite
certain this embarassment of a president will be reelected when Mueller comes
up empty.

The religious voters will come out in droves to vote for him based on guilt
alone for society having dragged his now irrefutably innocent name through the
muck all these years. The poor man!

------
unclebucknasty
This headline could have been taken directly from Sputnik News or RT. It
suggests that not only is America's democratically critical Fifth Estate now
entirely disreputable, but it has essentially fallen at the hands of Russia.

The content of the article is pure propaganda that deliberately conflates news
and opinion and conflates sources and information with reporting on sources
and information.

Again, pure propaganda. Shame on Taibbi.

------
unclebucknasty
This article is confused. Its assertion is that the press's reputation has
been destroyed due to its reporting on Russiagate, yet it goes on to cite U.S.
intelligence officials, politicos like HRC, and others who suggested that
Russiagate is a thing.

Now, which is it? If the press is essentially reporting what prominent people
--presumed to have inside information--are saying, then is it the press whose
reputation has been destroyed?

I'll be the first to say that their breathless reporting and the 24-hour news
cycle are exhausting, as is their click-baity ratings chase. But, with regard
to reporting the substance, what else are they supposed to do when many
believe POTUS is breaking laws in plain sight, and so-called experts are
corroborating that crimes are being committed?

