Must be a slow news day if we're resorting to Kicking The Media.
As for the DoJ story, The Dispatch is reporting on it from the perspective of one of their writers who worked in the Trump DoJ, Sarah Isgur:
"In order to investigate anyone, you’re going to pull their toll records, meaning who they called, the numbers that they spoke to at the time you think the leak happened. So let’s say in that one-week period for this House staffer that they were investigating, they pulled 100 phone numbers that he interacted with in some way, that his cell phone interacted with. You’ve just got a bunch of 10-digit numbers David, you don’t know who they belong to. You don’t know what these numbers are. He could be calling for pizza. So what you do is you go to Apple and you say, ‘Here’s a subpoena, we need the account information for these 100 phone numbers,’ in order to figure out who is useless on that list, right? And if you are a House staffer, it is not surprising that two of the numbers that you might have called are members of the House."
More over at the Advisory Opinions podcast[1].
As much as I'd like to jump on the "Orange Man Bad" bandwagon with respect to the DoJ story (and boy, do I love opportunities to to disparage Trump!), this is one where I'm keeping my powder dry until we learn more about the subpoenas. The fact that Sessions, Barr, and Rosenstein are all denying any knowledge seems to be significant, especially with respect to Barr, who previously went to the mat for Trump for sillier things than this during his tenure.
As for the newsworthiness of Trump's re-ascension in August, I think that story is fair game, if only for the facts that significant numbers of Americans have been sucked into the newest grift and that we have a former President so ignorant of how our government works that he's publicly convinced he'll both be back and welcomed with open arms. For all the crap that I heard from family reciting right-wing media's claim that Obama was secretly planning to stick around for a third term (memory-holed alongside Operation: Jade Helm), spending some time on Trump's delusion doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Granted, I'd rather see CNN get back to more international reporting and leave the conspiracy stuff to Maddow, et al, but what bleeds leads.
As for crime reporting, as a resident of Chicago, there's no shortage of local[2] or national reporting[3] on our bounce-back in violent crime, so I think that Media-wise, we're set on that front. Also, as for your "Atlanta homicides are up 60% over 2020" and similar comparisons, keep in mind that a more useful comparison may be with 2019, given how weird a year 2020 was. I'm having a hard time finding news stories that include that comparison (again, "what bleeds leads"), so maybe The Racket can set a good example when it comes to crime-level comparisons in non-pandemic years. :-)
Note that in the comments on Isgur's podcast, folks point out that you wouldn't ask Apple for information about phone numbers - you'd ask the carriers - so the anonymity of a 10-digit phone number may not be relevant here, as opposed to the anonymity of an iCloud address. This weakens her point a bit, but I'm still waiting for more details before ranking this one on the Scandal Scale.
Sounds like Sarah agrees with me. It’s about ratings. She gives them a “meh” pass. I was more triggered by it. We definitely agree on the DOJ story. Need more info on that.
We need more details for sure, but I'm also okay with ongoing reporting of the story, not from a "let's get Trump" angle, but rather from the angle of the massive data surveillance state that's arisen with proliferation of smartphones and services like E-911[1]. The story's useful if only for educating Americans about how much data third parties hold about them, and to what extent third parties will compromise privacy in order to make buck[2] or comply with authorities[3].
I hope that there's more to this story, or at the very least, the newfound possibility that this data can be requested without one's knowledge for YEARS lights a fire under Congress's rear to do something about it. (Personally I'm a fan of European-style private property rights[4] over one's personal data with the right to inquire how it is used and shared, and the ability to have it deleted, but that's a whole other topic.)
Even if this ends up being a "nothingburger" for Trump, if it incentivizes lawmakers to put into place protections that prevent them from being surveilled in this way by future administrations, that will likely end up being a win for all of us.
So in other words, the media is quoting what actual people said, and they’re “desperate” and at fault for doing so?
Are they biased unless they say what we want, when we want, and how we want it to be said?
I won’t be consumed with hating on the media. It’s kinda old. And I’m actually grateful for an imperfect entity of thousands of people trying to expose anything and everything they can. They sometimes get it wrong. They usually get it right. But they’re doing the hard work you and I won’t or can’t do. They’re generally more connected than you and I. And they have more checks and balances than you or I.
I call them out when I sniff BS, but I defend the monolith that conservatives constantly bash when it doesn’t confirm or conform.
Come on. Trumps political machine is trying to stir things up. And Flynn did actually call for a coup. Quoting what they and everyone says in between is not feeding a false narrative or trying to inflate their ratings. It’s just reportable.
Sometimes you’re doing to the media what you accuse them of doing to trump.
Must be a slow news day if we're resorting to Kicking The Media.
As for the DoJ story, The Dispatch is reporting on it from the perspective of one of their writers who worked in the Trump DoJ, Sarah Isgur:
"In order to investigate anyone, you’re going to pull their toll records, meaning who they called, the numbers that they spoke to at the time you think the leak happened. So let’s say in that one-week period for this House staffer that they were investigating, they pulled 100 phone numbers that he interacted with in some way, that his cell phone interacted with. You’ve just got a bunch of 10-digit numbers David, you don’t know who they belong to. You don’t know what these numbers are. He could be calling for pizza. So what you do is you go to Apple and you say, ‘Here’s a subpoena, we need the account information for these 100 phone numbers,’ in order to figure out who is useless on that list, right? And if you are a House staffer, it is not surprising that two of the numbers that you might have called are members of the House."
More over at the Advisory Opinions podcast[1].
As much as I'd like to jump on the "Orange Man Bad" bandwagon with respect to the DoJ story (and boy, do I love opportunities to to disparage Trump!), this is one where I'm keeping my powder dry until we learn more about the subpoenas. The fact that Sessions, Barr, and Rosenstein are all denying any knowledge seems to be significant, especially with respect to Barr, who previously went to the mat for Trump for sillier things than this during his tenure.
As for the newsworthiness of Trump's re-ascension in August, I think that story is fair game, if only for the facts that significant numbers of Americans have been sucked into the newest grift and that we have a former President so ignorant of how our government works that he's publicly convinced he'll both be back and welcomed with open arms. For all the crap that I heard from family reciting right-wing media's claim that Obama was secretly planning to stick around for a third term (memory-holed alongside Operation: Jade Helm), spending some time on Trump's delusion doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Granted, I'd rather see CNN get back to more international reporting and leave the conspiracy stuff to Maddow, et al, but what bleeds leads.
As for crime reporting, as a resident of Chicago, there's no shortage of local[2] or national reporting[3] on our bounce-back in violent crime, so I think that Media-wise, we're set on that front. Also, as for your "Atlanta homicides are up 60% over 2020" and similar comparisons, keep in mind that a more useful comparison may be with 2019, given how weird a year 2020 was. I'm having a hard time finding news stories that include that comparison (again, "what bleeds leads"), so maybe The Racket can set a good example when it comes to crime-level comparisons in non-pandemic years. :-)
[1] https://advisoryopinions.thedispatch.com/p/doj-lawmaker-subpoenas-explained
[2] https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/05/28/lightfoot-chicago-summer-violence/
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/us/rising-crime-homicides-mayors.html
Note that in the comments on Isgur's podcast, folks point out that you wouldn't ask Apple for information about phone numbers - you'd ask the carriers - so the anonymity of a 10-digit phone number may not be relevant here, as opposed to the anonymity of an iCloud address. This weakens her point a bit, but I'm still waiting for more details before ranking this one on the Scandal Scale.
Your objectivity is refreshing
Sounds like Sarah agrees with me. It’s about ratings. She gives them a “meh” pass. I was more triggered by it. We definitely agree on the DOJ story. Need more info on that.
We need more details for sure, but I'm also okay with ongoing reporting of the story, not from a "let's get Trump" angle, but rather from the angle of the massive data surveillance state that's arisen with proliferation of smartphones and services like E-911[1]. The story's useful if only for educating Americans about how much data third parties hold about them, and to what extent third parties will compromise privacy in order to make buck[2] or comply with authorities[3].
I hope that there's more to this story, or at the very least, the newfound possibility that this data can be requested without one's knowledge for YEARS lights a fire under Congress's rear to do something about it. (Personally I'm a fan of European-style private property rights[4] over one's personal data with the right to inquire how it is used and shared, and the ability to have it deleted, but that's a whole other topic.)
Even if this ends up being a "nothingburger" for Trump, if it incentivizes lawmakers to put into place protections that prevent them from being surveilled in this way by future administrations, that will likely end up being a win for all of us.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/dear-fcc-enhanced-911-location-services-could-endanger-americans-privacy
[2] https://www.vox.com/recode/22325420/t-mobile-verizon-att-ad-targeting-data
[3] https://www.wired.com/story/fcc-fines-wireless-companies-selling-users-location-data/
[4] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-access-request-under-gdpr-karbaliotis/
Agreed. But the coup stuff is just ratings clickbait.
No argument there.
"You won't believe this One Weird Trick that Donnie used to get his old job back!"
So in other words, the media is quoting what actual people said, and they’re “desperate” and at fault for doing so?
Are they biased unless they say what we want, when we want, and how we want it to be said?
I won’t be consumed with hating on the media. It’s kinda old. And I’m actually grateful for an imperfect entity of thousands of people trying to expose anything and everything they can. They sometimes get it wrong. They usually get it right. But they’re doing the hard work you and I won’t or can’t do. They’re generally more connected than you and I. And they have more checks and balances than you or I.
I call them out when I sniff BS, but I defend the monolith that conservatives constantly bash when it doesn’t confirm or conform.
Come on. Trumps political machine is trying to stir things up. And Flynn did actually call for a coup. Quoting what they and everyone says in between is not feeding a false narrative or trying to inflate their ratings. It’s just reportable.
Sometimes you’re doing to the media what you accuse them of doing to trump.
Think about it.
They’re quoting each other Ed.