Media Tracker (3 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Why would he do that after he quit the Intercept because they tried to keep him from reporting on the Hunter Biden?

Who told you he quit the Intercept, because they tried to keep him from reporting on Hunter Biden?

There's always more than one side to a story:

Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept over 'editorial freedom'

Co-founder of news site accuses editors of seeking to censor article critical of Joe Biden

www.theguardian.com

“Glenn Greenwald’s decision to resign from the Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship,” Reed wrote. “Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor.”

The bolded part gives me insight into your views on censorship and media corruption.

None of us know how things went down between The Intercept and Glen Greenwald, but I do know that no professional writer who's getting paid by someone else ever gets to publish their work without editing input from a third party. It just doesn't happen.

I know this, because I'm a screenwriter and I have friends who have published books and write online content.

There are certain things that the corporate media...

Define corporate media? All media is corporate media, because all media is incorporated for the liability protection.

He might make more money at CNN or not depending on how much he makes at Rumble.

Rumble does not pay as much as any of the television news networks. It's not even close.

Or because the corporate media has little credibility left and not many people trust them anymore.

Yet millions still tune in to them? Does that really make sense to you that corporate media rakes in billions of dollars, because they don't have an audience that trusts them. Do you consider millions of people to be not many people?

Do you think he isn't getting paid enough from Rumble & the money he gets from his followers who pay the subscription to pay his bills and make a good living?

You seemed to have gotten my point backwards. Glen Greenwald absolutely is making money, because he's in it for the money, just like the "corporate media" you keep speaking of. Glen Greenwald is competing with other media outlets for money, so of course he's going to belittle his competition. It's what rival businesses do to each other.

 

[MT15]

Here is part of what GG has been up to after leaving The Intercept:

“Greenwald’s ex-colleagues at the Intercept say that he has lied about their work. Worse, they say, his attacks have helped stir an angry and dangerous reaction in right-wing circles, leading to harassment of some of the publication’s journalists — the very thing Greenwald accused the Intercept of inciting. In the wake of Greenwald’s criticism, the author of the Gab story was threatened and “doxed,” meaning his personal information was exposed online. It prompted the publication to assign a security detail to him and his wife.

Staffers suggest Greenwald, 54, is motivated by more than just psychic payback for his acrimonious divorce from the Intercept seven months ago. They say he is cynically fomenting controversy to attract subscribers to his online newsletter.

“I feel like Glenn has lost his moral compass and his grip on reality,” Betsy Reed, the Intercept’s editor in chief, said in an interview. “He’s done a good job of torching his journalistic reputation. He’s a huge bully.” (The Intercept has stood by its reporting).

Greenwald denies any motivation other than fairness. “They’ve been irresponsible,” he said in a phone interview from his home in Brazil. “They should be called on it.”

During an appearance last week on Laura Ingraham’s Fox program, Greenwald claimed that the Intercept had made the videographers targets of protesters by “dragging their faces into the light.” The story’s author, Robert Mackey, responded on Twitter that this was a curious charge to make, given that the videographers themselves appear semi-regularly on Fox and other conservative outlets to promote their work — and indeed preceded Greenwald on Ingraham’s show.”

So, he criticized a story that was accurate, which caused his “fans” to dox the author’s personal information leading to him having to have a security detail. All the while claiming that the story had made targets of the subjects, when the subjects were already appearing on Fox and other outlets regularly to promote their work. That’s just bull shirt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/greenwald-intercept-feud/2021/05/20/34732c92-b727-11eb-a5fe-bb49dc89a248_story.html

This is far from the only hypocritical thing he’s done. His previous employer is correct in that he has torched his reputation with everyone except his “fans”.

His “work” these days is not reliable, it is completely slanted and he’s a bitter angry man.

 

[SaintForLife]

Here is part of what GG has been up to after leaving The Intercept:

“Greenwald’s ex-colleagues at the Intercept say that he has lied about their work. Worse, they say, his attacks have helped stir an angry and dangerous reaction in right-wing circles, leading to harassment of some of the publication’s journalists — the very thing Greenwald accused the Intercept of inciting. In the wake of Greenwald’s criticism, the author of the Gab story was threatened and “doxed,” meaning his personal information was exposed online. It prompted the publication to assign a security detail to him and his wife.

Staffers suggest Greenwald, 54, is motivated by more than just psychic payback for his acrimonious divorce from the Intercept seven months ago. They say he is cynically fomenting controversy to attract subscribers to his online newsletter.

“I feel like Glenn has lost his moral compass and his grip on reality,” Betsy Reed, the Intercept’s editor in chief, said in an interview. “He’s done a good job of torching his journalistic reputation. He’s a huge bully.” (The Intercept has stood by its reporting).

Greenwald denies any motivation other than fairness. “They’ve been irresponsible,” he said in a phone interview from his home in Brazil. “They should be called on it.”

During an appearance last week on Laura Ingraham’s Fox program, Greenwald claimed that the Intercept had made the videographers targets of protesters by “dragging their faces into the light.” The story’s author, Robert Mackey, responded on Twitter that this was a curious charge to make, given that the videographers themselves appear semi-regularly on Fox and other conservative outlets to promote their work — and indeed preceded Greenwald on Ingraham’s show.”

So, he criticized a story that was accurate, which caused his “fans” to dox the author’s personal information leading to him having to have a security detail. All the while claiming that the story had made targets of the subjects, when the subjects were already appearing on Fox and other outlets regularly to promote their work. That’s just bull shirt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/greenwald-intercept-feud/2021/05/20/34732c92-b727-11eb-a5fe-bb49dc89a248_story.html

This is far from the only hypocritical thing he’s done. His previous employer is correct in that he has torched his reputation with everyone except his “fans”.

His “work” these days is not reliable, it is completely slanted and he’s a bitter angry man.

Ah, Betsy Reed. What a great source.

 

[MT15]

Ah, Betsy Reed. What a great source.

Once again, you post stuff about everyone you disagree with while completely ignoring what your favorites do.

You can find criticism of everyone if you go lookimg for it. Why don’t you address the hypocrisy that I posted about GG?

No, you would rather deflect and spin.

 

[SaintForLife]

Who told you he quit the Intercept, because they tried to keep him from reporting on Hunter Biden?

There's always more than one side to a story:

Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept over 'editorial freedom'

Co-founder of news site accuses editors of seeking to censor article critical of Joe Biden

www.theguardian.com

The bolded part gives me insight into your views on censorship and media corruption.

Betsy Reed. See my above post and it makes your comment about censorship ironic based on what Reed wouldn't let the Intercept report.

They were going to let him report on the Hunter Biden laptop, but only in a limited fashion and he had to remove all the parts about Joe Biden.

None of us know how things went down between The Intercept and Glen Greenwald, but I do know that no professional writer who's getting paid by someone else ever gets to publish their work without editing input from a third party. It just doesn't happen.

Greenwald founded the Intercept and he claimed editorial control was in his contract.

I know this, because I'm a screenwriter and I have friends who have published books and write online content.


Define corporate media? All media is corporate media, because all media is incorporated for the liability protection.

The media that's under corporate control.

Rumble does not pay as much as any of the television news networks. It's not even close.

I didn't claim it did. I also mentioned what he gets paid in subscriptions.

Yet millions still tune in to them? Does that really make sense to you that corporate media rakes in billions of dollars, because they don't have an audience that trusts them. Do you consider millions of people to be not many people?

Have you seen how corporate media viewership is in huge decline. They have lost the trust of most Americans except Democrats still hold them in high regard lol.

You seemed to have gotten my point backwards. Glen Greenwald absolutely is making money, because he's in it for the money, just like the "corporate media" you keep speaking of. Glen Greenwald is competing with other media outlets for money, so of course he's going to belittle his competition. It's what rival businesses do to each other.

What person who has a job isn't in it for the money?

 

[SaintForLife]

Once again, you post stuff about everyone you disagree with while completely ignoring what your favorites do.

You can find criticism of everyone if you go lookimg for it. Why don’t you address the hypocrisy that I posted about GG?

No, you would rather deflect and spin.

You can't dispute what he reports so you resort to character assassination.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You can't dispute what he reports so you resort to character assassination.

You literally just did the same thing re: Betsy Reed. LMAO

 

[MT15]

You literally just did the same thing re: Betsy Reed. LMAO

Completely zero self-awareness. A big goose egg, nada, none.

 

[MT15]

You can't dispute what he reports so you resort to character assassination.

I pointed out some criticism of his hypocrisy in the exact same situation YOU brought up. I didn’t pull up some unrelated criticism, like you do. You mentioned his leaving the Intercept with the spin he put on it. So I looked up the story from the other side and presented it.

Do you not agree it’s good to see both sides of an issue? Some of the criticism of GG is absolutely valid, BTW. He’s not perfect, far from it.

 

[SaintForLife]

I pointed out some criticism of his hypocrisy in the exact same situation YOU brought up. I didn’t pull up some unrelated criticism, like you do. You mentioned his leaving the Intercept with the spin he put on it. So I looked up the story from the other side and presented it.

Do you not agree it’s good to see both sides of an issue? Some of the criticism of GG is absolutely valid, BTW. He’s not perfect, far from it.

Considering it came from Betsy Reed and what the Intercept refused to publish and how she was responsible for Reality Winner being outed, she doesn't sound like a good source. You can feel free to believe her over Greenwald. I don't.

Did you see what the other co-founder of the Intercept said about Reed that I posted?

 

[MT15]

Considering it came from Betsy Reed and what the Intercept refused to publish and how she was responsible for Reality Winner being outed, she doesn't sound like a good source. You can feel free to believe her over Greenwald. I don't.

Did you see what the other co-founder of the Intercept said about Reed that I posted?

Reed wasn’t the only one quoted in that article. There are some extremely valid criticisms of GG. He has become hyper partisan and one-sided. He lied about the Intercept staff supporting democrats and Joe Biden, repeatedly. We can see how he has become vindictate and mean to the organization he founded because of his partisanship.

The Intercept didn’t refuse to publish him, they had legal concerns about the veracity of what he wanted to say, so they proposed to edit his piece to remove the unproven parts. What he wanted to say is still completely unproven today BTW. There still isn’t any proof of Joe having involvement in Hunter’s business dealings.

 

[SaintForLife]

Reed wasn’t the only one quoted in that article. There are some extremely valid criticisms of GG. He has become hyper partisan and one-sided. He lied about the Intercept staff supporting democrats and Joe Biden, repeatedly. We can see how he has become vindictate and mean to the organization he founded because of his partisanship.

The Intercept didn’t refuse to publish him, they had legal concerns about the veracity of what he wanted to say, so they proposed to edit his piece to remove the unproven parts. What he wanted to say is still completely unproven today BTW. There still isn’t any proof of Joe having involvement in Hunter’s business dealings.

All the things he wanted to publish about the Hunter Biden laptop were true and recently confirmed by the DOJ(all things you denied were true)

 

[MT15]

All the things he wanted to publish about the Hunter Biden laptop were true and recently confirmed by the DOJ(all things you denied were true)

Nope. He wanted to link Joe to the Hunter business dealings. The Intercept wanted to remove mention of Joe because it was and is unproven.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Betsy Reed. See my above post and it makes your comment about censorship ironic based on what Reed wouldn't let the Intercept report.

Did you personally sit in on any of the conversations that took place between Reed, Greenwald and the rest of The Intercept editorial staff? Were you copied in on any of their correspondence? No, you weren't involved at all.

You assume that Greenwald is telling you the truth, because he says things that you agree with. I don't assume that I know what was actually discussed between Reed and Greenwald. You've falsely convince yourself you actually know what happened. I admit that I don't know, because none of us can know. That's the difference between being biasedly subjective and objective.

My insight about your views on censorship are still spot on and not the least bit ironic. When the editorial staff of publication edits content they are going to produce, that is editing, not censorship.

You see it as censorship and corrupt, because Betsy Reed took a position that you don't agree with. That's the exact same mindset that Greenwald has. It's a close minded, bias confirming and self-centered mindset.

They were going to let him report on the Hunter Biden laptop, but only in a limited fashion and he had to remove all the parts about Joe Biden.

What had Greenwald specifically written about Joe Biden that The Intercept edited out? Did the parts about Joe Biden make claims that Greenwald couldn't verify?

One of the primary roles of editorial and legal staff is to make sure that what is published does not expose the publication to a potential libel lawsuit.

Greenwald founded the Intercept and he claimed editorial control was in his contract.

I know he founded The Intercept. If what he says about his contract is true, why did he just walk away? Greenwald doesn't seem like the type of person that would walk away if they had the legal upper hand, so I find Greenwald's contract claims to be dubious.

Why did he walk away when he could have legally invoked the editorial control that he alleges is contract gave him?

The media that's under corporate control.

All media is under the control of one corporation or another, therefore by your definition all media is corporate media. Why do you keep posting sources from corporate media if you think all corporate media is not credible?

I didn't claim it did. I also mentioned what he gets paid in subscriptions.

Which goes back to my point. Greenwald doesn't have the luxury of just saying what he believes. He's fighting for financial survival against bigger, higher profile competitors, so of course he's going to demonize his competitors to try to get whatever share of the market he can.

That's why he has to write sensationalized, controversial stuff and cater to conspiracy minded individuals. It's the only way he can get audience share. If can't compete writing reasonable, well sourced content. He has to go extreme. Greenwald wasn't always the extremists that he is today. I respect a lot of his early work. He put himself in a tough spot when he co-founded The Intercept and his work has suffered for it.

Have you seen how corporate media viewership is in huge decline.

No media viewership is not in huge decline. Their has been a substantial shift in where viewership takes place, mobile devices vs televisions and the internet vs broadcast & cable. Advertisers keep increasing how much they spend on advertising. Advertisers spend on a per viewer basis. They wouldn't be spending more money if there was a "huge decline in viewership."

They have lost the trust of most Americans except Democrats still hold them in high regard lol.

You should "lol" at your statement, because it's truly absurd. Greenwald glosses over the fact that FOX and OAN have a large share of news media viewership. That viewership is mostly Republican, not Democratic. Most, if not all, Republicans hold both of those corporate media outlets in high regards and as highly credible.

What person who has a job isn't in it for the money?

Again, this is precisely my point. You mistakenly assume that Greenwald is acting purely out of telling the truth. His primary motivation is to earn money. To earn money the way he has chosen to earn money, he has had to sacrifice journalistic integrity because everything he writes has to be more outrageous and enraging than the last thing he wrote.

He's no longer the investigative journalist he once was. He's strictly a shtick writer at this point. You like his shtick because it plays to your biases, so you see him as credible and you see anyone that disagrees with him, or you, as corrupt and not credible.

It's a given that you disagree.

 

[brandon]

It's shows how you are so easily propagandized by the corporate media. You either don't realize it or you don't care.

All it shows is that democrats are better at assessing the reliability of sources.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Paul Moore vividly remembers the Baltimore Sun in its heyday, not so long ago.

“More than 400 newsroom staff, six foreign bureaus and a 12-person Washington bureau,” Moore recalled. He was the Sun’s deputy managing editor (and, for a time, its public editor) until 2009. “We were a full-service newspaper, covering the country, the region and the world.” And winning multiple Pulitzer prizes for the quality of its aggressive, ambitious journalism.

Then came all manner of misfortune – a series of bad owners, the stunning downturn in newspaper economics and – just this week – the paper’s purchase by David D Smith, who runs Sinclair Inc, a Maryland-based media company that made itself infamous a few years ago when it ordered its local journalists in dozens of markets to repeat, word for word, the same rightwing “editorial” about fake news. The identical segments had a hostage-video vibe.


This wasn’t news; it was Trump-inspired propaganda, carried out with all the finesse of a bulldozer blasting into a Waterford crystal factory.

“Everyone I know who cares about the Sun is aghast,” Moore told me by phone this week after the sale became public.

That’s because they all know the answer to the question posed by Joshua Benton in Nieman Lab: “Is there something worse for a newspaper than being owned by Alden Global Capital?”

Alden, reviled in the industry for strip-mining newspapers all over the country, was the Sun’s most recent owner. The once-robust staff has shrunk to well under 100.

But it turns out that Alden has something going for it: its executives don’t care about the content. That’s terrible, on one hand, because they ruthlessly slash the number of journalists in order to maximize profit. But they generally don’t impose their politics on the newsrooms.

Now the even-worse alternative has arrived.


In a demoralizing three-hour meeting this week, Smith told Sun staffers he “has only read the paper four times in the past few months, insulted the quality of their journalism and encouraged them to emulate a TV station owned by his broadcast company”, reported the Baltimore Banner, the digital startup that competes with the Sun.

Several times he told the journalists he had “no idea what you do”.

But they know what he does. For instance, as Benton recalled, Smith met with Donald Trump in 2016 and assured him his reporters stood ready to help: “We are here to deliver your message. Period.” After the election, Sinclair brought in the former Trump aide Boris Epshteyn as its “chief political analyst” and the TV stations were ordered to broadcast Epshteyn’s rightwing commentaries during their local news segments.

As David Simon, the former Sun journalist who created the renowned HBO series The Wire, put it: “The Baltimore Sun is now owned by someone who has delivered a news product with a hard ideological premise and then tailors all coverage and editorializing to fit.”……..

Local newspapers are withering under destructive owners. We should worry | Margaret Sullivan

Huge swaths of the country have turned into ‘news deserts’, lacking credible journalism. I fear for the Baltimore Sun

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Nobody should believe anything said on Fox.

 

[MT15]

The respected NBC reporter who asked Stefanik about Trump’s defamation case was just barred from the Trump press pool.