They accessed the business networks of the NNSA, the agency responsible for maintaining the nuclear stockpile, but did not access the networks managing the actual nuclear weapons, as the title half-implies.
There was no threat of random nuclear weapon exploits, those networks have not been compromised as far as we know.
There is an odd quirk in our culture, where lying is universally acknowledged to be toxic behavior, but the use of intentionally misleading language is merely frowned upon--as long as it doesn't contain a falsifiable claim. But this is really a distinction without a difference, as they achieve the same goal, which is to put an idea in the mind of the listener/reader which the speaker/writer knows to be false. After all, lying isn't what got us into the current era of a post-truth public discourse. What got us here is a historical and ongoing toleration of journos and politicians who are careful truth tellers in a technical sense, but liars in practice.
In my opinion, these liars-in-practice are far more pernicious than the liars-in-fact. It's easy to disprove a fact, whereas it takes time, effort, and some analytical ability to unpack a carefully worded untruth.
Excellent point. The goal of honest language should be the creation of correct beliefs about reality in the minds of who listens to you, even if those beliefs might sometimes not serve your ends. Otherwise, it's not communication, it's warring against truth.
(Of course, there is disagreement about what is true in many cases, but in this particular case, the reporter or editor presumably knew the difference and went forward with the title anyway.)
"liars in practice" is uncharitable at best. A headline has some maximum number of words, and there is only so much that can be conveyed. "Technically true" is strong standard to meet in under a sentence. Is this purposefully misleading? I would say no.
It’s interesting to me, because in my mind Reuters is characteristically a good actor in this space, often opting for more of a mouthful but not misleading title.
It might have been an honest mistake? Although it would be surprising to me that a Reuters editor would miss the implication of this headline.
I would argue that there's a caveat: if the lie is about a person or group that the mainstream media is active hostile against, lying is not just expected, but encouraged and rewarded.
Or so, anonymous sources familiar with the matter tell me.
> They accessed the business networks of the NNSA, the agency responsible for maintaining the nuclear stockpile, but did not access the networks managing the actual nuclear weapons, as the title half-implies.
That they know of / are admitting at this time.
The damage could really be far worse. It's hard to tell right now I think.
Yea, also, who would build a nuclear bomb that could be detonated via the internet? I would be outright shocked if there wasn’t a mechanical part of the process... eg, in the early days, they literally had the warhead and bomb parts physically separated
Well, it looks like they started to build up narrative for another military deployment once new president is in power, who cares about specific details?
They accessed the business networks of the NNSA, the agency responsible for maintaining the nuclear stockpile, but did not access the networks managing the actual nuclear weapons, as the title half-implies.
There was no threat of random nuclear weapon exploits, those networks have not been compromised as far as we know.