|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
More on NSA
As predicted, the lawsuits are starting against the phone companies. This first one is against verizon, for 50 billion dollars. Yes, billion with a 'b'.
The suit, filed Friday by two New Jersey lawyers on behalf of all Verizon subscribers, contends the phone records collection - first reported by USA Today on Thursday - violates the Constitutional right to privacy and federal law. I have no sympathy. |
14 Comments:
Both Verizon and BellSouth say the USA Today story was bogus.
Previously, the EU issued a statement that the "Secret Prisons" story seems to have been false.
The media appears to be hopelessly stricken with BDS.
2:56 AM, May 17, 2006
Well, you'll believe anything then.
9:36 AM, May 17, 2006
On one side, you have clear plain statements from someone in a position to know. On the other side, you have the MSM's "anonymous sources."
12:01 PM, May 17, 2006
And on that first side, a vested interest in lying. Don't forget that point - it biases their statements just a teeny bit.
12:12 PM, May 17, 2006
Dear Anon,
Good point but follow it through. The MSM has a vested interest in creating hysteria because it sells papers. (It isn't surprising that they get caught lying repeatedly.)
At this point, Verizon's vested interest is not to say anything that could get used to impeach it at trial. By making a blanket statement of fact, they have to be confident in their innocence because they are going against their legal interest.
2:41 PM, May 17, 2006
Guys, remember, this is giveupblog. We're not big fans of arguing with conservatives here. Our only objective is to remind the world of the train wreck that is modern Republicanism, rational argument doesn't work on the 29 percenters. If it did, they wouldn't be in the 29 percent.
Our philosophy: the only thing that will change people's minds about Republicanism is experiencing it. 29 percenters aren't going to believe anything ill of Bush until this administration's policies hit them where it hurts. Don't bother trying to change anyone's mind, only experience fixes 29 the percenters.
After all what is the argument here? That USA today is fabricating the biggest story they've covered in years? They have a vested interest in "lying"? Where is the proof that they lie repeatedly? Unless this is a reference to hacks like Judith Miller who aren't really liars, but just gullible stenographers for this administration. If it turns out this story was fabricated out of thin air, it will be the most amazing hoaxing of a news organization ever. That's harder to believe than the idea this administration is lax on the civil liberties front.
Then look at the statements released by the companies. Verizon comes out and says the article was wrong but won't deny the program existed, and if you read the fine print, they only deny supplying local calls and wireless, but make no mention of MCI, which they had acquired, and would be the relevant supplier of the information. Bellsouth also denies involvement but again won't deny sharing records with the NSA (instead they specifically deny sharing "bulk" records rather than "any"). Both companies were given an opportunity to comment to the USA today authors and refused to deny the allegations, then wait for a lawsuit to emerge, now they're backpedalling. Then you have Qwest's story about the NSA contacting them and the other major companies, refusing to contact the FISA court, and Ashcroft, in the hospital, refusing to approve the program. The FBI admits it is checking reporters' phone records to plug leaks, while using the patriot act to secretly probe the records of over 3500 people. Then, the most damning thing of all, Bush comes out and all but confirms the existence of the program! He assures us he's not listening to our calls, he doesn't deny the massive data collection, and then they release a memo saying it's ok for the phone companies to lie about the program. Then Orrin Hatch accidentally confirms the program exists exists, but only after Bill Frist got on Wolf Blitzer and accidentally confirmed the program!
What's the 29 percenter response? USA Today is fabricating, just making it all up. All these Senators and Presidents are just confused by the bright lights. It's the biggest journalistic hoax since the reports of the Spanish sinking of the Maine.
The disconnect from the rational world is pretty stunning. Don't bother people, it's hopeless. I'm not trying to be a dick Jim, but really, there's just no arguing with 29 percenters.
1:38 AM, May 18, 2006
"Where is the proof that they lie repeatedly?"
CNN: Operation Tailwind
NBC and the General Motors truck with the firecracker in the gas tank
Newsweek and the fake Hitler's diaries
The New Republic and the stories by Stephen Glass
The Boston Globe and Patricia Smith
The New York Times and Walter Durante
The Washington Post and Janet Cooke who got a Pulitzer Prize for her fake story.
The AP and Christopher Newton (who invented over 40 non-existent people and organizations before being caught).
The New York Times and Jayson Blair
USA Today and Jack Kelley who had been fabricating stories for over 13 years before USA Today noticed.
The Boston Globe and the fake "GI rape" photographs.
Diana Griego Erwin of the Sacramento Bee who, for over a decade, fabricated people and quotes without any editors noticing.
The New York Times and its front-page interview with the completely bogus Ali Shalal Qaissi, supposedly of Abu Graib fame.
I'll have to look at your collection of additional info on the NSA story but observation of reality does show that the MSM has a long and rich history of fake stories.
4:03 AM, May 18, 2006
Not impressed.
Every field has it's frauds. Even science does, Huang Woo Suk being just the most recent example. It doesn't mean all scientists are liars and it doesn't mean if you read an scientific article you don't like the authors are liars. Despite all the press bad scientists have gotten this year because of this guy, I still trust most of what I read in journals, because most science is honest (if not always correct).
You have examples of about one or two total fabrications from the press every few years. Considering that literally hundreds of thousands of articles, news shows, etc., are published every year, that's not such a bad rate. We're all humans here, you're going to have greed and stupidity and dishonesty, even among the best institutions. You try hard to keep the Jason Blairs out, but in a culture with honor codes and trust like in science or journalism, a smart fraud can work the system. But that doesn't mean every single story out of the press is a lie, or even remotely likely to be a lie.
I also doubt given the scrutiny this article would generate that they would have the balls to just fabricate. I also find it interesting that both Frist and Hatch accidentally admitted the existence of the program, so, now I'm pretty convinced. This thing is real, how extensive it is will be whats debated.
10:56 AM, May 18, 2006
"Every field has it's frauds. Even science does"
Science journals require peer-review before publication. News reporting has nothing like that. Most scientific work builds on previous work. If the previous work was faked, it would be exposed. Contrast this with the MSM's "anonymous sources" stories which appear in large number because they are near impossible to prove false.
"You have examples of about one or two total fabrications from the press every few years."
Some of the examples involved fake stories at the rate of one a week for over a decade. Further, I was only hitting the highlights of the most infamous scandals. I wouldn't have time to write and you wouldn't have time to read a full list.
If you want a list of more recent and admitted false stories just google, for example, on "embarrassing correction" or similar.
"given the scrutiny this article would generate"
Some of the examples, CNN and Time's Operation Tailwind for example, were also the top stories of their time.
"The FBI admits it is checking reporters' phone records..."
The FBI has been checking phone records ever since phone records were invented. It is standard law enforcement procedure.
For background, have you looked up the Echelon Program?
12:05 PM, May 18, 2006
Lots of news agencies have peer review. That's why fraud is relatively uncommon, that's what editors, fact checkers and even other reporters are used for. That was what was so shocking about Stephen Glass, at the New Republic their peer review of articles was something they were extraordinarily proud of. Before any article was published all the writers would go through it, they would go through multiple rounds of fact-checking, checking the journalists notes, sources, and research, and still Glass managed to slip by this process by repeatedly citing his notes which were just fabricated. In the end with professions like this, there is going to have to be some trust. A fair amount of my observations are in the form of notes, and one can only hope if someone comes along after me they'll be able to replicate what I do from them. Journalists are in the same boat, fact-checking and reviews of notes will only eliminate so much fraud.
If USA today has fabricated this story they deserev to go down, hard. The phone companies would have every right to sue their pants off, and own the damn newspaper. Those are pretty high stakes. But what you are suggesting is that fraud is so widespread in journalism that you don't trust anything. Yeah, you cite a couple of total frauds who wrote bullshit every week, but do you think people like that are that common? Very few people can pull off that level of high-functioning sociopathy.
Further, whether or not the press has problems, two high-ranking senators have accidentally confirmed the program exists, and Bush still refuses to deny they've created such a database. He'll only deny they listen to phone calls.
Finally, the FBI listens to phone calls, yes, Echelon is scary, but listening to reporters phone calls is especially bad. Journalists actually have a higher level of protection over their records which usually requires special permission from the AG or a court to allow them to be divulged. Fitzgeralds' attempts to get Judith Millers phone records were blocked after all. It will be impossible to have a free press if confidential sources, who may be whistleblowers in corporations, the government, or wherever are unable to trust they can confidentially talk to reporters.
And yes whistleblowers are a good thing, they keep the government honest and deserve protection.
7:56 PM, May 18, 2006
"they would go through multiple rounds of fact-checking, checking the journalists notes, sources, and research"
Do you have any evidence that that is real?
In all those news scandals, can you remember a case where they fired a "fact-checker"? When Jayson Blair was exposed at the NYT, they fired Blair and the editors who hired Blair. I don't remember any fact checkers being fired or even criticized.
The Thornburgh-Boccardi report details CBS News procedures. There was no mention of procedures for fact-checkers in multiple rounds or even in one round and any duty for them to go over any notes or sources.
"Echelon is scary"
If the Echelon reports were true, then the current stories are relatively minor and certainly not a BusHitler scandal. If the anonymous sources on Echelon were lying, why believe the anonymous sources now?
One or more foreign governments reportedly had recordings of Clinton-Monica phone sex calls (presumably giving them a nice negotiating advantage). One doubts that they needed warrants or the cooperation of Verizon. It is quite possible that the NSA monitoring, whatever it does, uses the same methods and the USA Today story about BellSouth cooperating or being "under contract" to the NSA is entirely bogus.
"whistleblowers"
If higher-ups weren't listening, honest genuine whistleblowers with classified info could easily have talked to cleared congressmen. They didn't.
These "whistleblowers" and reporters helped Al Queda improve procedures to avoid detection and ultimately kill more people. For this, they deserve prison (but they won't get it).
1:44 AM, May 19, 2006
Whistleblowers leading to al Qaeda deaths, now there's an unfounded assertion. Unless we're talking about Abu Ghraib, which admittedly was bad for Americans, but even so, it is better that was exposed and dealt with rather than festering under the surface with no attempts to stop it. Because of Abu Ghraib we have the McCain torture bill, which is pretty kickass (unless bush chooses to believe he can ignore any law he likes as his signing statement suggests). Without people exposing the fact we were torturing people, it would never have stopped, not to mention all the instances of environmental whistle-blowing, whistleblowers at the cigarette companies (or rather at their lawyers offices), Mark Felt, etc. We've found out a lot of important shit, that we deserved to know about over the years from whistle-blowers, and good for them. They are the bravest among us.
Anyway, this is a pretty fruitless argument to continue. You deny the existence of fact-checkers, well, if you like apply for a job as one at TNR, or read the wikipedia entry that even mentions TNR and Glass, or even this story from a fact checker at TNR after glass and how they're even more psycho about fact checking as a result of the betrayal.
To sum up. You're point of view of the press is simply paranoid. If a few examples of fraud lead you to believe everything is fraud, there is nothing I can do to help you. Clearly, this has also become an issue of if you don't want to believe it, it's also fraud. Or the now long debunked myth of the liberal MSM. Guess what, they're really not that liberal, that's just what Rush says. I'm a liberal and these guys are so far to the right they make me queasy. Besides, you've got Fox news, the Moony papers, the Murdoch papers, and 90% of talk radio. Get over it, it's a myth.
12:31 PM, May 19, 2006
Here's an even better article on glass, TNR and fact-checking. They had a stringent system at TNR, maybe not like the New Yorker's, but this author just comes to the conclusion, if a fraudster is outrageous enough, they can manage to dupe just about any system. In the end, you just have to trust all humans aren't evil.
But he was a fool who, nevertheless, got around what was even then a fairly stringent system. A truly clever person intent on cheating could have gone on for much longer. One of the games I like to play – something that both helps improve my skills and makes me despair at ever making our system airtight – is to concoct scenarios in which a given ‘fact’ could be created. Going beyond fabricated notes, I imagine how companies can be faked, documents cooked, important sources rendered conveniently anonymous. It’s something akin to Leibniz’s ‘omnipotent demon,’ and my verdict, depressingly, is that I will almost always lose. What keeps me going, though, is the knowledge that our writers are neither omnipotent nor demonic. And it’s ultimately what every magazine – even ones with immaculate fact-checking systems – does as well each time it publishes an article. I doubt any writer I have ever worked with was lying, about even a minor point. But Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and a rogue’s gallery of other journalistic frauds assure me that not every author will always be as trustworthy.
12:41 PM, May 19, 2006
I agree with your Clay Risen article but I put the emphasis on different points where he writes:
"The New York Times, like most big dailies, doesn't have the resources or time to check every article..."
"Glass didn't figure out weaknesses in a broken system, because the system wasn't broken. It never worked in the first place"
"It's only when the lies became extravagance, when not a single item in the story was true, that Glass got caught. Glass wasn't a genius. He was a fool."
There is a journalist's ideal (an impeccable product that results from many layers of fact-checking) and the journalist's reality (writing about fields in which they have no background with minimal budgets and hard unforgiving deadlines).
"You're point of view of the press is simply paranoid. If a few examples of fraud lead you to believe everything is fraud,"
Complete distortion.
"I'm a liberal and these guys are so far to the right."
Correct: The MSM is to the right of you. (Being to the right of you doesn't make them right-of-center, though.)
4:10 PM, May 19, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home