New York times retracts part of Russian hack claim

[Ace Pace]

Except, with all the shitting on Zero-Hedge, in this case they're right.

The WaPo's article is so far on the hyperbole scale of cyber security it's been routinely given as an example of shitty journalism on cyber subjects.

Maybe if the WaPo didn't hysterically push everything for max clicks, I could respect other things but considering on my subject matter they're so far wrong it's hilarious, why should I trust anything else they publish on fields I can't independently confirm?

[aerius]

For instance, this.

Your post saying MSM isn't credible cites Zero Hedge as a source? Why not run just to Info Wars while you're at it?

How about Snopes?
http://www.snopes.com/report-vermont-po ... n-hackers/
Is that fake news too?

You can shit on Zero Hedge all you want, and yes they're full of woo-woo when it comes to Fukushima radiation among other things, but in this case they're right.

[Simon_Jester]

Why bother quoting Zero Hedge in the first place if you could quote Snopes instead?

I mean, if you're going to sneer at other people for how the mainstream media is untrustworthy because they publish badly researched or hysterical stories... You have to yourself abstain from relying on sources that publish badly researched or hysterical stories.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Wild Zontargs]

For instance, this.

Your post saying MSM isn't credible cites Zero Hedge as a source? Why not run just to Info Wars while you're at it?

That's Zero Hedge quoting a "reputable" MSM source about the shitty headline. I remember when that came out, a bunch of tech/security sites covered it. It was an absolute shitshow of a headline. Some dumbass getting a work laptop NOT CONNECTED TO THE GRID infected with malware by browsing dodgy sites or some shit was spun as RUSSIAN SUPERHACKERS HACK GRID.

The official retraction:

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid

And "hacked" apparently means "infected" now. Yay.

[mr friendly guy]

I would consider the RT debunking of WaPO legitimate, not because I have some trust in it automatically, but because it provides evidence including screenshots.

The zerohedge looks like just a regurgitation of what RT produced.

[Exonerate]

I feel like some people are missing the broader point being made here, which is that media that is ostensibly the golden standard of reporting should be held to that standard. "Well, Trump is worse!" is a pretty low standard to beat. The fact that his cries of "Fake news!" have significant traction (or that he won) at all should tell you the media is facing a credibility problem.

Corrections are better late than never, but it would be best if they didn't have to be made in the first place. Moreover, people will latch into the first impression they get - I'll bet you a large portion of people only saw the initial RUSSIANS STEALING UR MEGAWATTS story and not the quietly issued correction afterwards. If I can preview and proofread this post on mobile, then the news organizations can take the time to carefully consider if what they are saying is accurate. They could've easily just said the report was endorsed by the ODNI, which oversees 16 intelligence agencies, but instead they overstated their case. It's funny to see people now insisting in a Rumsfeldian way that we should put up with news from the media we have, not the media we want, as if the only two possible choices are the NY Times or NY Post.

There's also more to media integrity than just pure truthfulness. During the run up to the Iraq War, they reported that Colin Powell said Saddam tried to purchase yellowcake, which was true... But failed to examine the underlying claim at all. How many of you think the media has improved since then? Incidentally, would anybody like to pull the string on where the claim that 17 intelligence agencies endorsed the report originated? Was it, perhaps, Clinton? How do news organizations decide what stories are worth reporting on? What is left out is often as important as what is left in.

By the way, the utility hack story gets even better: the malware is actually Ukrainian, not Russian. Want another example of WaPo getting it wrong? Remember when they played a story on fake news? Turns out Ukrainian propaganda was featured prominently in their reporting.

[Lonestar]

You can shit on Zero Hedge all you want, and yes they're full of woo-woo when it comes to Fukushima radiation among other things, but in this case they're right.

Shit man, Breitbart is sometimes right too, what's your point here? I should have taken the narrow chance that it isn't a bullshit "story" this one time?

And I sneer at ZH because it is frequently brought out in the prepper forums I frequent, by the same people who talk about the melting point of steel and birth certificates.

[Soontir C'boath]

You can shit on Zero Hedge all you want, and yes they're full of woo-woo when it comes to Fukushima radiation among other things, but in this case they're right.

Shit man, Breitbart is sometimes right too, what's your point here? I should have taken the narrow chance that it isn't a bullshit "story" this one time?

And I sneer at ZH because it is frequently brought out in the prepper forums I frequent, by the same people who talk about the melting point of steel and birth certificates.

Let's be real here, y'all dismissed the findings in the article just because it came from a bad newsite, not because you actually read the evidence and found it wrong.

If you didn't have time to do that, what makes you think other and possibly less educated people than yourselves would trust the MSM to disseminate news correctly the next time?

We're living in an era where people are no longer restricted to the usual (Edit: Or more appropriately NYT, WAPO, etc,) 60 Minutes or ABC Nightly News and as Exonerate stated, if they're not going to even bother being the golden standard of credibility why would anyone stay with them? Now they can find alternative newsites that suits the (even bullshit) narratives they would like to swallow, hook, line, and sinker instead of the shit the MSM would put out.

[Elfdart]

Let me correct you here. Trump doesn't "call out the media on their fuckups" he just says anything negative reported about him or his incompetent administration "fake news" with no real specification or elaboration. So eventually any news agency with credibility (being that they report facts, Trumps arch-enemy (well, that and the clap)) will eventually make a mistake, and then, because they are responsible and make it their mission to get things right, will admit they made an error and print a correction.

Trump gets away with it because the media has been shooting itself in the foot and killing its own credibility for years by pushing agendas & narratives, failing to check facts, and generally failing at its job which is to dig out the truth and report the fucking facts. Trump is an ass and the US public is dumb as rocks, but that doesn't change the fact that the US mainstream media is seen as a joke by damn near everyone outside the US. If Trump tried his BS against a reputable news agency he'd a)get laughed at by the public, and b)get his shit pushed in when the agency's journalists dig up every last bit of dirt on him and pushes it out to the public. Trump would either resign or be indicted so fast it wouldn't be funny.

Nothing demonstrates this better than the White House press. For as long as I can remember they've done little more than cough up whatever bullshit the spokesman shovels into their mouths, only once in a blue moon calling the White House on an obvious lie or embarrassing slip of the tongue. Trump is a practitioner of both the Big Lie (the bigger the lie, the less likely they are to call "bullshit!") and the time honored scheme of deny everything, admit nothing and make counter accusations. He's also a fucktard of such epic proportions that he makes Dubya look like Eugene McCarthy. But the press corps takes his abuse, where any self-respecting media would have boycotted the press briefing and put those reporters and camera crews to work covering something of substance, like digging up Trump's tax returns (which they should have done two years ago). Small wonder then that their reputation is in the shitter too.

[Simon_Jester]

I have to admit that at this point, the only reason for reporters to continue to attend White House press conferences is so that they can catch Sean Spicer in the next lie. Of course, catching Spicer in the next lie can itself be news; something like this happened with the Comey firing case. Trump himself telling everyone he decided to fire Comey over Russia investigations would have been somewhat less... explosive... if it hadn't been for his own representatives telling the press that the decision had nothing to do with Russia investigations the day before.

Let's be real here, y'all dismissed the findings in the article just because it came from a bad newsite, not because you actually read the evidence and found it wrong.

If you didn't have time to do that, what makes you think other and possibly less educated people than yourselves would trust the MSM to disseminate news correctly the next time?

The flip side of that is, if your criticism is that the mainstream media are unreliable, why undermine your point by using a source with a reputation for greater unreliability?

What, exactly, do good media sources look like in this day and age?

[Soontir C'boath]

The flip side of that is, if your criticism is that the mainstream media are unreliable, why undermine your point by using a source with a reputation for greater unreliability?

What, exactly, do good media sources look like in this day and age?

I didn't undermine my point at all.

I wrote in the end that "Now they can find alternative newsites that suits the (even bullshit) narratives they would like to swallow, hook, line, and sinker instead of the shit the MSM would put out."

Right now as far as many would be concerned, Breitbart and the like is just as good as the MSM if not better.

[Lonestar]

Let's be real here, y'all dismissed the findings in the article just because it came from a bad newsite, not because you actually read the evidence and found it wrong.

No shit? Why are you saying this like this isn't basically what I said?

If you didn't have time to do that, what makes you think other and possibly less educated people than yourselves would trust the MSM to disseminate news correctly the next time?

Mostly because MSM doesn't have shitty google ads about gold and links to screeds about the dangers of fiat currency on their websites.

[mr friendly guy]

Anyone see what's wrong with this picture? I am a little tired from night shift, but apparently Jimmy Dore says there is something wrong with this picture and that the NYT is really shit. I just can't figure this out.

In news just in, Russia apparently conquered Poland when I wasn't looking and Putin is now also the president of Poland.

Reminds me of the time when a CNN "terrorism expert" confused a picture of dildos with an ISIS flag.

[aerius]

Anyone see what's wrong with this picture? I am a little tired from night shift, but apparently Jimmy Dore says there is something wrong with this picture and that the NYT is really shit. I just can't figure this out.

I don't know. Putin got plastic surgery, looks 15 years younger, and he's also the leader of Poland? It's hard to tell, all those commies look the same anyway.

But seriously, that's Andrzej Duda, the president of Poland. And that's a Polish flag. What a bunch of goofs.