that is because almost all owners of major news outlets are trump supporters
https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/
It’s literally 6 dudes controlling all of it
Obligatory "this is extremely dangerous to our democracy "
I used to post this but the wise army of keyboard warriors thought it was a conspiracy theory :)
Definitely not some looney theory of yours but this infographic is outdated.
I specifically notice the Time Warner issue. Sold off by ATT in ‘22
Different company now. Warner Bros. Discovery who’s CEO is currently David Zaslov.
It’s more probable that the DOJ told them to STFU, and their lawyers thought that was a good idea.
Really? They’re fine with releasing HRC’s emails but draw the line when it comes the the Republican campaign?
The article says this too:
Their decisions stand in marked contrast to the 2016 presidential campaign, when a Russian hack exposed emails to and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta.
So why would the DOJ tell them to keep quiet?
And why would self respecting journalists listen to them about this? Journalists aren’t supposed to let themselves just get strong armed by governments who don’t want them talking about certain things.
I think real journalists are in incredibly short supply, along with agencies willing to print what should be said. Think of all the ridiculous titles, pointless exaggeration, opinion, clickbait, and all the rest in popular media. Couple that with right wing billionaire media owners and getting the unvarnished truth becomes the exception and not the rule.
Literally none of the emails you just referenced were released by media outlets.
From the first link: “A previously secret trove of emails released Tuesday by the House Oversight Committee…”
From the second link: “The Florida Supreme Court ordered the release of 528 pages of emails sent between partisan political consultants and state officials…”
From the third link: “The email exchange between GSA officials and Harrison is one of more than 100 pages of emails and documents newly released by the GSA…”
The Clinton campaign emails were also published by Wikileaks. Once they were published, the media reported on them, but they had no hand in releasing them.
I wonder what happened to the guy that published those emails.
Ironically that’s poetically why they’re not releasing them. They already had their hand slapped once.
So why would the DOJ tell them to keep quiet?
Because, when the FBI investigates a crime, in this case a computer crime, they advise the witness, in this case the media, to keep everything confidential. They do this to not compromise their investigation.
And, media lawyers know that the use of stolen material exposes them to charges and law suits.
That didn’t seem to matter to them much in previous incidents.
These were leaked, it says they may have come from a hack, so the “crime” portion is even less defined than the previous releases like Clinton’s, which absolutely came from a hack but nobody seemed to care.
Wikileaks published first. Then US media wrote a story about their story.
I haven’t read anything reporting that. Do you have some news source that I don’t? Also, they would have been complete fools to ask the feds when they don’t need the feds’ permission to publish things.
Bigger question to me is why haven’t the hackers just uploaded the details to like pastebin or some other neutral data upload site ? That seems to have been what was done in the past and in turn given the media free reign to share the info
Someone has to publish and put it into the public domain like Wikileaks did. Of course, at that point they will be liable and be charged with using stolen material and sued. But, hey, take one for the team.
so what’s stopping “someone”? there are infinity minus one randos on the internet willing to host juicy hot leaks for whatever ulterior motives.
What happened to Julian Assange is what’s stopping someone. And he wasn’t even in the US.
Julian assange got off Scot free in the end
He spent over a decade imprisoned and pled guilty to something that’s clearly first amendment protected activity, I wouldn’t call that Scot free.
“First amendment”… ? So you think it’s fine to release information you know will lead to murder of innocent people, are warned repeatedly, you do it anyway, and that’s all fine.
And this is to say nothing of the women who credibly claim he raped them.
And this is where you’re supposed to link to a specific instance of anyone who got murdered due to the leaks, because that didn’t happen, he redacted the files to avoid this.
As for the ghosting charge, I agree he should’ve stood trial in Sweden for that.
I mean in the past hackers posted a lot of data online without getting caught…like the Ashley Madison hack for example. You don’t have to use a middleman journalist to post it
So, like Assange in the early days and not the unkempt vagrant we see at the end.
There is a difference between a “leak” and a “hack”… I think in this case, they say “leak” because it was someone from Trump’s team who released the info… maybe they don’t feel they can secure their anonymity if they post it directly online
It has become quite evident that much of the main stream media is for trump
Just look at who they are owned by. People just as weird as he is. Not the good weird though. The nasty kind.
Ironically becoming the fake news sources Trump has been screaming about since 2016.
You mean the ones that did publish leaked information on Hillary?
The circus gets more clicks than policy debate
Mainstream media is for drama. And Trump is a drama machine.
A Trump presidency is good for ratings and that’s all they care about
That’s a high-school level analysis.
The reality is that the media companies are small parts of much larger organizations that will benefit from Trump’s impact on worker rights, taxation, home ownership, environmental regulation, and more.
If Fox News team at a net loss of 2000%, it would still be worth it to Murdoch.
NBC is owned by Comcast, whose major shakers include JP Morgan, Vanguard, and more.
Or they didn’t want to give him persecution fodder so he can say the election is invalid because he was hacked
Oh wait… He is already saying that
With Trump and the current GOP, the corruption is in plain sight anyway. At this stage, you could dig up a thousand more incriminating dossiers and it still wouldn’t move the needle for the MAGhats.
Huh. The same ButterEmailz corporate media put their thumb on the scales, again?
Weird. I keep hearing about this alleged “liberal media”. Just where in the fuck is this supposed liberal media, anyway?
That’s the trick.
It’s time the leakers start releasing this information on the open Web if it the journalists don’t publish it
Well duh, you think the major media companies that own like 99% of all local news stations and constantly run fear mongering stories and give Republicans soft ball questions and a platform to speak on are really going to leak into against Trump?
Fucking Sinclair
Assange is now free. Just say’in.
The asshole actively aided the 2016 Trump campaign by releasing Hillary’s emails while refusing to release anything damaging to Republicans. What makes you think that he wouldn’t keep being a Russian puppet now?
It was meant to be sarcastic. I didn’t do the /s as an experiment
Poe’s Law is a law of the internet for a reason. Unless you indicate tone text alone can easily be mistaken for genuine opinion.
I think a lot of our rise of extremism is that on places like 4chan and 8chan the people who were being sarcastic and the people that weren’t assumed the people they were interacting with were in the same headspace they were, and further, as time went on the two positions became blended.
Poes law in name has been around for about as long as 4chan, but Nathan Poe was making an observation based on a Christian forum in a debate on creationism and before Poe made his observation and became the name of the law, Jerry Schwartz posted advising against using sarcasm unless you put something marking it as satire on Usenet in 1983. This effect was known well before 4chan, dating back to the days of Usenet.
If you don’t say you’re joking on the internet, someone will take something at face value without getting the joke.
For sure on all this. I more meant that our current meatspace lived reality is a result of this
Without the shared subtext of visible or audible tone, the text you write is the text we read.
Thanks Mr Obvious
Hey! I caught the sarcasm that time!
without the ‘/s’ ???
damn, u gud!!
/s
So it’s an experiment but poe’s law is obvious?
Quoth the raven, “Nevermore!”?
Then why were you experimenting? You seemed to needed to be told, considering you appeared to not know.
I wanted to find out if all those that were defending him before still are. So, I wrote something that could be taken a couple of ways to see which way would draw a reaction.
That too was non-obvious, thank you for clarifying.
I didn’t do the /s as an experiment.
tsk, tsk, tsk.
Are you NEW here?
lemmy rule #1.aaaa+
include ‘/s’ lest ye be dogpiled to oblivion
oh, /s
except he works for russia, just sayin.
Тссс, Борис!
“At least three news outlets were leaked confidential material from inside the Donald Trump campaign […] So far, each has refused to reveal any details about what they received.”
I kind of got the impression that AP was indicating they wouldn’t keep silent (after verifying the materials).
The discussion in the comments here is illuminating, though. I knew Wikileaks was a Russian mouthpiece, but I didn’t realize the website offered cover for reporting of other news agencies, so they could avoid legal liability for releasing things.
Would not be surprised if a random site spun up somewhere with these documents on them soon.I mean, I guess the difference is that Hillary’s emails were made public by wiki leaks, so media are like “who cares, it’s already public” but this time, it’s not public
That’s one difference, but the timing is another difference. Hillary’s emails were reported on quickly and extensively, yet these leaks were suppressed for 3 weeks. It’s not like those news outlets reported that they had information, and didn’t provide details, but rather they reported nothing at all.
But the whole thing is bizarre. If someone actually wanted to get information out there, they wouldn’t have gone to those news outlets. There are other newspapers that would have actually published stories. So I’m not sure what to make of the thing.
Let’s not forget that both the DNC and RNC were hacked in 2016, but only DNC material was leaked.
Totally a coincidence that trump campaign gets hacked and that data is not released again.
Another key difference is that the Trump administration charged Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents. In the past it was the leakers that would be prosecuted, but publishers weren’t because of the chilling effect on free press that would cause. Now we’re seeing that chilling effect in action.
Julian Assange had other things going on too. Like editing the stuff to make it as harmful as possible to the US. It would be very hard to make that case against the NYT.
No it wouldn’t with the new precedent and the espionage act. The espionage act only has to show that they did the action of publishing the leak. They don’t have to prove any sort of intent.
The thing is Assange’s charges were very much in the grey area. Him running around the world and going straight Russian mouthpiece covered any discussion of intent. As did his handling of the actual documents.
Intent clearly still plays a part. Because NYT, Guardian, and Der Speigel all published documents from Chelsea Manning as well. And yet only the guy who was working with the Russians got charged with espionage.
In fact there’s been several modern cases of leaking to the press, and the press have yet to be charged. Even when they refuse to name their source under subpoena. The fact is they are protected by first amendment protections. Assange breached those protections by clearly working for hostile foreign actors.
Intent can play a part in the attorneys discretion to bring forth the case. But the espionage act does not require intent.
Right so you clearly didn’t read a damn thing. You’re just going to stick to that in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Exactly
Send it to me. I’ll publish it. Problem solved.
By not printing any of it, they just create a talking point that there was nothing embarrassing to print. Thanks. That really helps us. Assholes.
Trump is financially advantageous. Our current economic model incentivizes outrage because it fuels engagement.
Trump is a money maker. That is why he is constantly in the spotlight. People are drawn to oddities and weirdos so they take full advantage and keep him in the spotlight by any means necessary. They won’t retire him until he’s dead. And even then, who knows.
Cowards. The lot of them.
“Leaks” to news outlets are how campaigns get shit published without paying for advertising.
for iran, trump is a much more troublesome potential potus than harris will be
Nobody has confirmed it was Iran. That was a statement from the Trump Campaign that got put into headlines without qualification.
