The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

[Jerky]

Unless you're going to be super nit-picky and say that the words "peer review" can solely and exclusively be used to mean the process by which academic research papers published in academic journals are vetted by other academics, and that those words can NOT be used to describe an award decided upon by one's peers in a given industry, then I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about what reasonable people can reasonably call "peer review leading to industry recognition" (which is exactly what happens with the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the body that determines journalistic and daytime Emmy Awards).

industry recognition and peer review

How exactly do you see these two things as related?

[liminalOyster]

But you've been fiercely defending Rachel Maddow against the charge she's "intellectually dishonest." That is something quite specific that academic peer review (far and away the most common colloquial meaning of the term as best I can tell) is designed to regulate. IMHO you're basically appropriating the term to suggest the Emmys provide a similar form of (intellectual/scholarly) regulation but then naming me nitpicky for calling it out.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

It's been a long time since objective journalism, unfettered by network influence (and the corresponding need for ratings/'captive viewers'), graced the TV sets.
I'm sure Maddow raises some astute/worthwhile points; I don't watch much cable TV, but I've seen/heard her enough times to appreciate her delivery, her intelligence, her presentation.

That said, she's on a network fucking news channel. She's compromised and part of a mechanism that generates content catering to their respective demographic, sponsors, and ratings system. Money is the primary driver: it is the network's GOD, and by extension, her GOD.

Status quo peddlers -- that's what's on TV.

Enjoy your Emmy-award winner, but don't try to convince (some of ) us that she's a journalist by pointing to some establishment contrivance trophy.

Today's (uncompromised) journalists are rarely -- if ever -- heard, let alone given their own show, on a major network platform, of course. There are no Emmy, or often any other, awards for them to brandish; their merits are instead measured by the integrity of their words.

[Rory]

Christ. The zomgRussia!! Fakenewz, doesn't even have a 24hr shelf life these days.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10- ... -fake-news

[seemslikeadream]

Suzie needs to stick to the facts of the story instead of going after a guy on twitter....why would she do that?

cause facts are not fun


from Bloomberg

Dutch Spied on Russian Group Linked to 2016 U.S. Election Hacks
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tion-hacks

from ZNET

Dutch spies tipped off NSA that Russia was hacking the Democrats, new reports claim
http://www.zdnet.com/article/dutch-spie ... rts-claim/

from Reuters

Dutch intelligence agency spied on Russian hacking group: media
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-neth ... SKBN1FE34W

oh btw Kim Dotcom is a massive fraud

---Barrett Brown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deZfsFw4NoU

Pursuance Project
Published on Dec 10, 2017

The Pursuance Project severed ties to Suzie Dawson, head of the New Zealand Internet Party, and removed her from our private development server on Friday evening after she publicly accused our lead developer of "menacing" her via a sarcastic tweet asking her whether it was ever okay to criticize Julian Assange. After consulting with our other core contributors, I had her immediately removed from the chat server, a move that she's characterized as putting her in danger for reasons that are unclear. Here's an explanation of the circumstances for those who care.

Why Suzie Dawson was removed from Pursuance

When passionate people work on important projects, tempers can flare. Unfortunately, this can lead to organizational problems which are insurmountable, and action must be taken in order for the project as a whole to proceed. On Friday, things spun out of control between Suzie Dawson, head of the Internet Party of New Zealand, and our own chief developer, Steve Phillips. As a result of the escalation, Ms. Dawson has been removed from Pursuance-related chats and groups. She has requested that her PMs be sent to her, and we are contacting the various people she messaged and suggesting they comply (since we don’t have those messages).
Here’s Barrett discussing the issue on Sunday.

In addition, he remarks:
We obviously don’t usually kick people off, but I have a responsibility to those who are volunteering heavily on the project not to put them in a position where they can be subjected to that sort of allegation, which can obviously damage a person’s ability to work.
Those tweets are all public so anyone can see and decide for themselves what to make of them.
One of the good things about the actual platform of Pursuance is that people can self-segregate into groups of people they’re entirely comfortable with while still reaching out to other groups that may have different values and collaborating on limited aims, without having a bunch of people with fundamental disagreements being placed into a position where they’re going to fruitlessly argue.
We wish Suzie and the Internet Party of New Zealand well, and are continuing to work to bring Pursuance to fruition one safe, encrypted step at a time.
UPDATE: Oh, Julian, put the phone down. Assange has accused us of having removed Ms. Dawson because she supports Julian Assange, which is untrue. No one has ever been removed from Pursuance for supporting anyone at WikiLeaks.
https://pursuanceproject.wordpress.com/ ... pursuance/

please get a grip Suzie about the Clinton uranium thing ..in the words of Rory

Christ. Fakenewz

Suzie Dawson: Campaigning from Moscow
https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/prog ... rom-moscow

Mr Brown is a damn good writer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksq6eNBO5v0

The Strange Case of Barrett Brown
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36601&p=640563&hilit=Barrett+Brown#p640563

Barret Brown Sentenced to 63 Months In Prison For a Link
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38734

I'll go with Barrett Brown

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Is Accused of Endangering Whistleblowers
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29320&start=390

WikiLeaks: Why is the Freedom of the Press Foundation cutting ties with Julian Assange?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29320&start=390

[JackRiddler]

have we completely abandoned the concept of industry recognition and peer review?

I think it probably depends on the individual.

No, in this case, it depends on the industry. Whether awarded to its straight entertainment products or for products from the entertainment divisions that happen to be labeled as "news," the corporate media's internal industry awards are no more an indicator of genuine merit or quality than the Oscars are for movies. Which is to say, sure, sometimes the little gold figurines are given to worthy actors, and sometimes or generally not. But these decisions are almost always made on the basis of industry internal politics, and almost never have anything to do with an independent, soul-searching, wearying assessment of actual merit and quality.

Also, they hand out literally hundreds or thousands of Emmys a year, including for daytime soaps and talk, for reality TV and local cable too, so it's little more than a series of industry promotional events and schmoozefests. In our present context, it's utterly laughable to be using this in defense of a news anchor. Rachel Maddow and every other TV talker is to be judged solely on the shit she does, in her case the trash she talks, and not on the basis of the "awards" she accumulates.

Noting that she also accumulates a salary exceeding something like ten million dollars a year is infinitely more relevant. She is not your friend. Back when I finally stopped watching her show, it was for the wide-eyed week-long pimping of the MIC's own annual industrial exhibition and patriotic brainwash in New York City, a.k.a. "Fleet Week." And that was back when the war of aggression on the people of Iraq was still being directly conducted by U.S. forces, and the main perpetrators for that particular complex of war crimes were still in office. I figure the next time I'll have anything to say about this person will be if and when she predictably joins the Praise GWB bandwagon. Or has she already?

.

[Elvis]

The TRUTH here is that anyone who at this point is STILL poo-poo'ing claims of Russian malfeasance and criminality

There you go again, attibuting to me ideas that I never wrote. I don't take your arguments seriously because you do that constantly.

You say you have a degree in philosophy; I believe it because you know and regularly employ all the usual fallacies in your arguments.


Emmy awards? Yeah, and Kissinger won the Nobel Peace prize (he really did, you know).


Journalists actually DIE exposing the nefarious deep politics of the U.S. regime. What's your point? Oh right—you were implying that I deny any Russian criminality. Plus, based on that straw man, which I never, ever said or even implied (nor believe), you suggest that I might be "dangerously mentally incompetent" (a favorite phrasing of yours when you don't have anything better).

Who the fuck are you even talking about here?!

You, babe!


.

[Elvis]

Nah. She's not all that scripted, or it wouldn't take so long to fail to make a point.

LOL.. point taken. Yet she adheres to a partisan outline that may as well be a script. I think she means well.

[JackRiddler]

Nah. She's not all that scripted, or it wouldn't take so long to fail to make a point.

LOL.. point taken. Yet she adheres to a partisan outline that may as well be a script. I think she means well.

Only the fewest don't mean well, or come to believe they mean well, once they have spent long enough doing bad things. It's usually a competitive advantage.

That's what makes so fascinating the success of Trump as an honest villain, an open sociopath who doesn't bother with affecting a conscience, doesn't even care if he remembers his own line when dealing with his rubes, since he has learned that at least for the central purposes of a) fooling the marks and b) enraging the enemies, attitude and projection matter, mere words do not. The success of it, I mean: that is the fascinating part, not so much the used-car-dealer personality that most people see right through and yet it still works.

[liminalOyster]

MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow Sees A “Russia Connection” Lurking Around Every Corner Aaron Maté for the Intercept (April 2017)

[American Dream]

Isn't the liberal/Dem connection to Russia-involved conspiracy narratives functioning as a major straw man around these parts? I mean you can like and/or dislike the politics represented by Hillary Clinton, Rachel Maddow et al but that's rather a different question than that of specific facts regarding covert Russian involvement in U.S. elections, media etc. as well as allegations of larger conspiracies to manipulate U.S. public opinion and political power.

[seemslikeadream]

now that there is proof of Russian hacking into the DNC who cares how many corners there are?

even though there are plenty of corners

corners ... spider webs call it what you want

NRA getting money from Russia is another corner

anyone want to list any reporting Maddow has done that was false?


1. Trump and Putin, via Administration Officials


2. Trump and Putin, via Michael Flynn


3. Trump and Putin, via Campaign Advisers

4. Trump and Putin, via Paul Manafort

5. Trump and Putin, via Business Ties

6. Trump and Putin, via Felix Sater

7. Trump and Putin, via Trump Family Members

[Rory]

"Facts"

"Proof"

Shits gotten decidedly fakenewz around these parts

[seemslikeadream]

only around the parts of your brain...Mr. No Facts

[Burnt Hill]

Maddow is one of the few that don't disgust me at some point or another. She does bore me to tears some days though and I cant get through her show.
When I was paying attention to her early this year, she was right on - Good sources well presented, paying attention to what Trump was doing and not so much what he ways saying - which was horrifying enough in itself - but a distraction from worse things going on.

She presents as a champion for the liberal cause of course, that in itself does not make her partisan.

Nah. She's not all that scripted, or it wouldn't take so long to fail to make a point.

LOL.. point taken. Yet she adheres to a partisan outline that may as well be a script. I think she means well.

Could as well be said that she is true to her convictions and works for a media group that supports her POV.