No, No, No, a thousand times no. They should NOT publish just because they can. Buzzfeed was extremely irresponsible to publish the so-called Steele dossier. Assange was irresponsible. They need to act responsibly. Project Veritas was irresponsible. The benefit to society needs to far outweigh the strange allure of negativity, gossip and…
No, No, No, a thousand times no. They should NOT publish just because they can. Buzzfeed was extremely irresponsible to publish the so-called Steele dossier. Assange was irresponsible. They need to act responsibly. Project Veritas was irresponsible. The benefit to society needs to far outweigh the strange allure of negativity, gossip and reputational damage.
" if they ultimately decide not to publish the material, it would be a mistake on its face. It would defy longstanding journalist principles and feed conspiracy theories about pro-Trump media bias. And it glaringly conflicts with past practice. In 2016, all three publications were among the media organizations that published information hacked by Russian agents about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. " No, past practice was THE mistake. It is glaringly stupid to argue that repetition of "past practice" mistakes is justified simply because we did it before.
Good for the goose and good for the gander is not enough reason. Satisfaction of voyeurism DOES NOT make an item "newsworthy." Whether the laptop was "real" or not, NONE of it should have been published. To paraphrase Walz, much of the information being discussed in this article is/was none of our damn business.
A big difference between Hunter's laptop and a campaign's internal research. One was a private citizen whose private laptop was exposed. The Trump campaign materials are not personal, they are political and should be fair game.
No, No, No, a thousand times no. They should NOT publish just because they can. Buzzfeed was extremely irresponsible to publish the so-called Steele dossier. Assange was irresponsible. They need to act responsibly. Project Veritas was irresponsible. The benefit to society needs to far outweigh the strange allure of negativity, gossip and reputational damage.
" if they ultimately decide not to publish the material, it would be a mistake on its face. It would defy longstanding journalist principles and feed conspiracy theories about pro-Trump media bias. And it glaringly conflicts with past practice. In 2016, all three publications were among the media organizations that published information hacked by Russian agents about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. " No, past practice was THE mistake. It is glaringly stupid to argue that repetition of "past practice" mistakes is justified simply because we did it before.
Good for the goose and good for the gander is not enough reason. Satisfaction of voyeurism DOES NOT make an item "newsworthy." Whether the laptop was "real" or not, NONE of it should have been published. To paraphrase Walz, much of the information being discussed in this article is/was none of our damn business.
A big difference between Hunter's laptop and a campaign's internal research. One was a private citizen whose private laptop was exposed. The Trump campaign materials are not personal, they are political and should be fair game.