Regarding the Colonial pipeline hack, there is the fact that the original narrative was later proven false, as the pipeline itself remained functional,
this is what I heard people on the ground reporting, remember?
14 Matching Annotations
- Jul 2021
-
www.thelastamericanvagabond.com www.thelastamericanvagabond.com
-
- Jun 2021
-
assets.documentcloud.org assets.documentcloud.org
-
@phil
-
From: Sent: To: Cc: (NIH/NIAID) [ E] Subject: Fauci, Anthony (NIH/NIAID) [El Fri, 6 Mar 2020 03:49:45 +0000 Haskins, Melinda (NIH/NIAID) [El Selgrade, Sara (NIH/NIAID) [E);Crawford, Chase (NIH/NIAID) [E];Conrad, Patricia RE: Please review: House Oversight Letter on Coronavirus Diagnostics I do not understand why you are asking me to "review" this. Is this an FYI?
@Phil
-
From: Sent: To: Cc: (NIH/NIAID) [ E] Subject: Fauci, Anthony (NIH/NIAID) [El Fri, 6 Mar 2020 03:49:45 +0000 Haskins, Melinda (NIH/NIAID) [El Selgrade, Sara (NIH/NIAID) [E);Crawford, Chase (NIH/NIAID) [E];Conrad, Patricia RE: Please review: House Oversight Letter on Coronavirus Diagnostics I do not understand why you are asking me to "review" this. I
@Phil
-
- Jul 2020
-
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
-
in other words, the subjects
Or just fact checking, you know. And, by the way, if you remove your spin for just a second... it could be that they are given improper due in the first place. In which case, contra your foremost observation that news is ‘not PR’, they are seeking balance and fairness.
-
The division between the Grey and Blue tribes is often rendered in the simplistic terms of a demographic encounter between white, nerdily entitled men in hoodies on one side and diverse, effete, artistic snobs on the other. On this account, one side is generally associated with quantification, libertarianism, speed, scale, automation, science, and unrestricted speech; the other is generally associated with quality, progressivism, precaution, craft, workmanship, the humanities, and respectful language. Alexander, in another widely circulated essay, published in 2018, has popularized an alternative heuristic—a partition between what he calls “mistake theorists” and “conflict theorists.” Mistake theorists, he writes, look at any difference of opinion and conclude that someone must be making an error. They reckon that when the source of the mistake is identified—with more data, more debate, more intelligence, more technical insight—the resolution will be obvious. Conflict theorists are likely to look at the same difference of opinion and assume that no mechanism will provide for a settlement until incompatible desires are brought into alignment. The former tend to believe that after we sort out the problem of means, the question of ends can be left to take care of itself. The latter tend to believe that the preoccupation with means can serve to obscure the real issue of ends. Mistake theorists default to the hope that we just need to fix the bugs in the system. Conflict theorists default to the worry that what look like bugs might be features—and that it’s the system that has to be updated
this sounds interesting. Can I get a hold of the original essay?
-
(The obvious irony—that people like Graham nevertheless feel free to write off the entirety of “the media” on a similarly invidious basis—seems lost on many of them.
You think you’re making a smart point. But the one ‘gimme’ you start with and never really touch in throughout this piece, is that media like the times is critical in the most ‘neutral’ way. You play up Silicon Valley institutions but play down media institutions.
-
de-anonymize him
is there not a connection? Also, if there is no risk ethical issue, why does the New Yorker not do the same? Also, when you point out his identity can be uncovered with "minimal research" you fail to recognise that a large institution "de-anomizing" somebody is not the same as a individual doing such
-
Metz’s experience and standing would assure a subject, especially at the beginning of a process
Ok, so you get that its strange...but you don't ask why? Unless it is a fake white flag?
-
no self-respecting journalist
unless that journalist does not respect the person
-
- Oct 2019
-
outline.com outline.com
-
lawless, legality dwindles into an only semi-effective tool against him.
Again,
-
Since the president cannot be indicted, he will never be heard in court; since the president will never be heard in court, it is unfair even to present evidence of crimes that will never be litigated.
The shift in concept from 'bad things' to 'crimes' is sneaky. A moment ago the president had done 'bad things' which, as it happens, were unfortunately not criminal. But now the term 'crimes' seems to be metaphorical for the immoral (but legal) actions of the president. Whether or not it was intentional, it seems to indicate a carelessness on behalf of the writer. Further evidence that the writer is speaking from the perspective of metaphorical crimes (misdeeds) comes from the sub-heading 'Be political, not legal'. I think this does a fine job of honestly representing the writers perspective yet this is also what allows us to adjudicate that his different use of the word crime is misleading.
-
President Trump has never focused on anything longer than the time it takes to gulp down a Filet-O-Fish.
A joke which is clearly an intended exaggeration. Nothing necessarily devious, though.
-
criminal
Is there such a distinction between a 'loyal' and 'disloyal' criminal in this instance? Or is it merely the doubling of connotatively negative words in order to doubly color the readers intepretation black?
-