Is the media blackout on DNC leaks acceptable?

[klnOmega]

This is a separate issue than the DNC leaks themselves. All of the US mainstream media has proven themselves entirely unreliable and untrustworthy. Neither Fox, MSNBC, and CNN have an article up covering the DNC leaks, despite them trending more than 2 days now. The closet you get is the Powell leak, which is a separate leak from a separate hacker, and really doesn't contain anything other than Powell's opinions on peoples.

The DNC leaks name Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox as DNC shills who meet with DNC staffers to discuss "hit pieces" on people.

How on earth are we supposed to believe that our media is anything other than state run propaganda going forward?

 

[Fawlty]

Pay for Play emails is literally the lead story on CNN, right at this fucking minute. It's also just under the headline on Fox.


PISS. OFF.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Pay for Play emails is literally the lead story on CNN, right at this fucking minute. It's also just under the headline on Fox.


PISS. OFF.

Salty..............Fawlty


This is from the other day

"I can't tell you what is on the emails (DNCLeak) or I will be fired"

Media coverup

 

[klnOmega]

Pay for Play emails is literally the lead story on CNN, right at this fucking minute. It's also just under the headline on Fox.


PISS. OFF.

No its not. Link if you disagree.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Lol @ salty fawlty

 

[BVG]

Since you are all voting for them...I guess you accept it so yeah?

 

[Space]

The upper echelons of media, along with many others, have been exposed this election cycle.

Neither NYTimes nor Washington Post have anything about the hacks on their front pages right now. They do however have articles like "When A Crackpot Runs for President" and "Donald Trump, Scam Artist" on full display.

The only reason to read them anymore is if you're a leftist and you need a safe space echo chamber.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Your media's a bit of a joke, to be honest. Stop paying attention or giving a shit about it as anything but what it is: entertainment.

 

[ineverpost]

Wow it's almost like they are a for profit business and not under any obligation to provide you ethical journalism.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Lol @ salty fawlty

Haha! Let's make it a thing!

 

[spin]

State run, no. Interest run, yes.

Btw, so are the hackers

 

[InvestigatorIL]

Pay for Play emails is literally the lead story on CNN, right at this fucking minute. It's also just under the headline on Fox.


PISS. OFF.

This is correct. I woke up this morning to them talking about it as well on CNN

 

[drstrangelov]

I don't know, the most recent leak doesn't have the best headline grabbing stuff to report. It's not a blackout if the story isn't ready to report immediately. The fact that Colin Powell's emails are generating headlines indicates that there isn't a clear blackout, and also that the leak doesnt include a bombshell that's easily presentable for the buzzfeed crowd.

 

[klnOmega]

I don't know, the most recent leak doesn't have the best headline grabbing stuff to report. It's not a blackout if the story isn't ready to report immediately. The fact that Colin Powell's emails are generating headlines indicates that there isn't a clear blackout, and also that the leak doesnt include a bombshell that's easily presentable for the buzzfeed crowd.

The chart showing campaign donations and ambassadorship appointments is digestable and damning.

 

[panamaican]

Is it acceptable? That entirely depends on your opinion on the the purpose of the leaks and if you want to reward the hackers.

If you think that foreign entities trying to influence our elections is irrelevant then it's unacceptable for the media to not report this stuff once it's out - after they've verified the validity of the info being reported. If the stuff is valid then people might want to know more and the news is the first place they'll learn anything. Not everyone has time to surf the less known and infinitely more biased sites that will report on it.

If you're concerned about foreign entities trying to influence our elections then it's the right decision not to direct more coverage to the leaks. They hack this stuff to get it into our news cycle and influence our voters. If you don't cover it, which isn't the same as actively hiding/discrediting it, then you reduce the ability of the hackers to reach their goal. This removes part of the incentive to keep hacking.

Personally, I lean towards the 2nd position but I can understand the 1st.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I don't know, the most recent leak doesn't have the best headline grabbing stuff to report.

Neither is Pepe the Frog but that didn't stop them

 

[drstrangelov]

The chart showing campaign donations and ambassadorship appointments is digestable and damning.

Is it though? The ones I saw were just names and donations, you'd need dates to go with the donations and appointments for it to present well, and that might be available, as well as a willingness to essentially lie to make it stand out from the existing conversation about money in politics.

Not that it's not interesting, it is, I'm just not sure how to use the information to honestly inform the public, and have them absorb it. It's a little tougher job than reporting a kitten fashion show, though hopefully somebody's up to the task.

 

[TheStruggle]

Is it acceptable? That entirely depends on your opinion on the the purpose of the leaks and if you want to reward the hackers.

If you think that foreign entities trying to influence our elections is irrelevant then it's unacceptable for the media to not report this stuff once it's out - after they've verified the validity of the info being reported. If the stuff is valid then people might want to know more and the news is the first place they'll learn anything. Not everyone has time to surf the less known and infinitely more biased sites that will report on it.

If you're concerned about foreign entities trying to influence our elections then it's the right decision not to direct more coverage to the leaks. They hack this stuff to get it into our news cycle and influence our voters. If you don't cover it, which isn't the same as actively hiding/discrediting it, then you reduce the ability of the hackers to reach their goal. This removes part of the incentive to keep hacking.

Personally, I lean towards the 2nd position but I can understand the 1st.

If you are stupid enough to buy the DNC's spin that 'Russia' is against Clinton and wants her to lose this might make sense. But is it surprising that the same group who are getting their dirty secrets revealed are trying to spin the blame on someone else so people keep believe their bullshit? I highly doubt the left would feel this way if 'Russia' was hacking things about the RNC right now. As far as the media goes, they have completely exposed themselves as in the tanks for Clinton and the democrats and this isn't even up for a debate. They know Clinton is on the defensive and is losing so they will not focus on any story to make her look worse.

 

[panamaican]

If you are stupid enough to buy the DNC's spin that 'Russia' is against Clinton and wants her to lose this might make sense. But is it surprising that the same group who are getting their dirty secrets revealed are trying to spin the blame on someone else so people keep believe their bullshit? I highly doubt the left would feel this way if 'Russia' was hacking things about the RNC right now. As far as the media goes, they have completely exposed themselves as in the tanks for Clinton and the democrats and this isn't even up for a debate. They know Clinton is on the defensive and is losing so they will not focus on any story to make her look worse.

The left wouldn't feel this way if "russia" was hacking the RNC, I agree with that. And the RNC would have a problem with the hacks if "russia" was hacking them. I don't know what point that makes - people getting hacked don't like it but their opponents probably do. I think that's obvious.

But I would feel the same way about if the media should cover it and the acceptability of said coverage. And it's not the DNC's spin that Russia is doing this. Plenty of tech firms in this space think there's a strong likelihood that Russia is behind it to some extent. I'm in no position to argue if that's true or not but it's certainly not just the DNC saying it.

It also doesn't change the underlying question fo whether or not media coverage is acceptable. I laid out the 2 arguments for and against. People will fall in one or the other. Either it doesn't matter who's behind the hacks and their motivations or it does matter.

 

[sloppypie]

Haha! Let's make it a thing!

Are you fucking children. Maybe when you can post things that aren't gossip, right wing blogosphere bullshit or dive into conspiracy theory / failed religious litmus tests, then you can talk from a position of moral superiority.

Until then, you sound like a bunch of cans fuckingn rattling in a dumpster.