clubgop wrote:Is this is what is left of investigative journalism? Track down who said some shit we don't like? Or is that all journalism ever was?
There's a question that probably deserves its own thread.
As the National Review article puts it:
It initially struck me as strange that CNN, “The Most Trusted Name in News,” would devote resources to unmasking some troll, when millions more of them exist, dwelling in caves throughout cyberspace. It’s the equivalent of studying the family tree of one of the mice that live in my walls — who cares?
. . . Thus, Kaczynski decided to embark on a mission to identify this filthy prole. Like an overzealous college resident adviser who smells marijuana emanating from the woods, he decided that someone needed to pay for these broken rules — that justice must be served. Except instead of a meeting with the school disciplinary board, the man behind these tasteless Internet posts would be threatened with a life of perpetual unemployment and total shame. . .
One incident does not define an industry, but I'm hard pressed to think of any recent investigative journalism that hasn't been some extension of an exercise in trying to punishing one's enemies. In business there's a trap that failed CEOs often fall into when trying to push for an acquisition. A good CEO will cautiously read the fundamentals of another business and search for corporate synergies that might justify paying takeover prices. Bad CEOs will decide upfront they want to takeover company ''X", then ignore any data indicating that doing so might be a bad idea. Call it confirmation bias at the corporate level.
Seems like today's media companies are suffering from the same tunnel vision. They have their worldview, they have their narrative, and they will relentlessly pursue whatever course they believe strengthens that narrative even to the point of national embarrassment. And, like bad CEOs, when their actions ultimately result in failure and embarrassment they're completely gobsmacked as to how everything fell apart.
NRO posting
Holy fuck show your age much? The fringe right has been at war with them for years and they have been reduced to begging for donations now after telling white working class people should just die already.
Nobody click this shit. It's literally the Bill Kristol of neocon publications and needs to die in a trucking.
Ah no, National Review is down the line conservative not neocon not paleo. it splits that baby quite well. You are thinking of the Weekly Standard, a publication literally ran by Bill fucking Kristol.
CNN has reported that it has confirmed the identity of the creator of the controversial video that shows President Trump taking down someone with the CNN logo for a head. ...
What is curious is that CNN has withheld the creator's identity while making a thinly veiled threat that it will release his name if he posts anything CNN finds disturbing or offensive. That is an odd role for a news organization. The news media do not usually put citizens on probation for exercising their free speech.
...
The Trump video by the Reddit user was a typical satire on contemporary political events. It is not even clear whether it was meant as a celebration or a criticism of Trump. It simply swapped out the face of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO Vince McMahon with the CNN gif.
It was the exercise of free speech. It was also news. While posting such a video on Reddit is not surprising or noteworthy, it took on an entirely new character when Trump reposted it. He has waged an intense war against the news media and CNN in particular. That makes the original poster's identity newsworthy.
CNN, however, stated that it has decided to withhold his name … for now. He is a private citizen, the network said, who apologized, took down the offending posts and said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
The last statement is particularly jarring. It sounds like CNN is putting a citizen on a type of media probationary status — threatening to reveal his name if it deems any posting as constituting “ugly behavior.” It puts a news organization in the position of monitoring free speech and deciding whether to ruin someone if he crosses some ill-defined line with CNN. It is the antithesis of what a news organization is supposed to be about.
If the man’s name is news, CNN can choose to publish it or not publish it. In reality, he is news only because his videotape was snatched from obscurity and paraded to the world by the president of the United States. It is the Internet equivalent of being hit by lightning. If the man posts an anti-media comment or gif, will CNN then declare it news and post his name? It is not clear how long this probationary period will run, let alone the standard for distinguishing between free speech and ugly speech.
Nor is there a clear rationale behind a media probationary status. Journalists will often withhold the names of sexual assault victims or minors. However, they don't threaten to reveal those names if they fall to meet the news organizations' expectations or standards in future conduct. Indeed, even when juries reject sexual assault claims, CNN continues to protect the names.
In this case, CNN is behaving like a media censor. The president arbitrarily selected this man and his gif. Now CNN appears willing to arbitrarily punish him.
It is the threat of future disclosure that is so concerning and dangerous. News is not supposed to be a weapon to be brandished to induce good conduct by organizations like CNN. Free speech and free press go hand in hand. Indeed, many reporters are protected more under the former right than the latter in legal controversies. Once a news organization becomes the manager of free speech, it becomes a menace to the free press.
wow yeah aint nobody gonna top that one