undefined | Better HN

0 pointsosterbit23y ago0 comments

I just want to point out that some of the statements in your comment seem to be presented as facts when they are actually heavily disputed.

> "a cartel of traditional and social media companies worked with the FBI and intelligence agencies to push a false narrative (the fake Steele dossier, paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign)"

- while there are differing opinions on the veracity of this claim, it's important to consider the potential implications if it were true. If it were true, it would suggest that the President was compromised and had a conflict of interest between his personal vs the national interest, which is a serious concern.

- Additionally, there are many other instances where the President's conflicts of interest have been on display, such as his actions in Helsinki and his use of the presidency to enrich himself and his associates.

> "and to suppress a major story about corruption by a Presidential candidate (Hunter Biden's laptop)"

- It's worth noting that this claim was heavily promoted by the Trump campaign and lacked substantial evidence.

- And even if the worst version of these claims were true, they would be minor in comparison to other serious allegations against the former President, such as the Zelensky quid pro quo and the use of taxpayer dollars to benefit his businesses.

-- (I'd also add to the broader discussion that)

- While it's true that Western media has made mistakes and increased the spread of divisive content, the narratives about China and Russia are often rooted in solid ideological (or at least mostly self-consistent) principles, such as anti-authoritarianism and free speech.

- The real issue with our media, in my opinion, is its role in amplifying domestic right vs. left divisiveness, which weakens the United States in the world, and is tearing our society apart.

0 comments

smsm423y ago

The fact the FB and twitter worked with intelligence and politicians to suppress dissent is not some opinion, it's a documented confirmed fact. Denying the facts is not "opinion" , it's just lying. Same for Hunter laptop BTW- they had the ultimate evidence, the laptop itself. FBI had it, and lied about it. That's a fact. We didn't know it's a fact back in 2020, but now we do. So let's not pretend as there are some matters of opinion here - there are facts, and there are lies.

kelipso3y ago

> the narratives about China and Russia are often rooted in solid ideological (or at least mostly self-consistent) principles, such as anti-authoritarianism and free speech.

Please. It's rooted in competition and antipathy, us vs. them. Let's not kid ourselves.

lockhouse3y ago

What I stated is true.

The Dossier is a fake, and it was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The FBI also reached an agreement to pay Cristopher Steele $1 million to continue work on the dossier. Apparently this deal was scrapped and the payment never went through, but again, this is pretty disturbing that it went that far.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossie...

Also, the Hunter Biden laptop has been confirmed to be authentic and not Russian disinformation. The story was originally broken by the NY Post, but it was heavily suppressed by other media outlets and the NY Post’s social media accounts were blocked, as were those of pretty much anyone that attempted to share the story. The Intelligence community worked pretty much in lockstep to discredit the laptop as Russian disinformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers...

(Yes, I know Wikipedia, but the only sources that really reported on it are Conservative-leaning media outlets like NY Post, Fox News, and Daily Wire, so I thought Wikipedia would be considered a bit more neutral.)

osterbit2OP3y ago

thanks for providing those sources, but I still think it's important to acknowledge that the claims you made are heavily disputed

what you stated were your conclusions (which may or may not be true):

- that the dossier was paid opposition research is not disputed, what is disputed is the veracity of its contents. Nothing in the link you shared suggests it was confirmed fake. In fact, many of the claims made in the dossier have been corroborated by subsequent investigations.

- On the other hand, while the the Hunter Biden laptop (also opposition research) has been authenticated, the veracity of the claims made about it are still in question, and many media outlets declined to run the story due to a lack of supporting evidence.

- Another difference to highlight is that Christopher Steele was an experienced professional who followed standard journalistic practices to protect his sources, etc., whereas Rudy Giuliani's handling of the Hunter Biden laptop (to put it very lightly) has been criticized as unprofessional and lacking in evidence.

- I'm not saying that bias in media coverage doesn't exist, but news organizations have a responsibility to verify stories with evidence before publishing them. It's also worth noting that the burden of proof is higher for claims that are "difficult to verify, yet easy to fake" (So it's not surprising that some stories are given more attention than others depending on the strength of the evidence supporting them)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse