If Sharyl Attkisson’s story can be taken at face value, it paints a picture of intolerable government intrusion. If the Congress isn’t all over this, what’s the cure?
If Sharyl Attkisson’s story can be taken at face value, it paints a picture of intolerable government intrusion. If the Congress isn’t all over this, what’s the cure?
For what it’s worth, I’m seeing a lot of skepticism in techie circles even from libertarians (like Timothy Lee).
I’m also noting skepticism of her claims by people disinclined to trust the Administration, fwiw. I don’tvcarecenough to read up on it, myself.
“To round out the revelations of ‘Number One,’ he informs Attkisson that he’d found three classified documents deep inside her operating system, such that she’d never know they were even there.”
Heh.
The story is so awful that it is almost impossible to accept at face value. It has a quality like 9/11 trutherism.
If things are really that bad, there is no cure. We are living in a dystopian novel.
That said, it is clear that some parts of the story are true, and quite awful, and that it is important to figure out which parts those are and what can be done about them.
Provoked a lot of skepticism among the computer science kids when we Skyped with them. She was not the only one writing critical stories about Benghazi, yet she got singled out for some reason. What makes her so special? Why can the NSA spy on everyone else, including other governments and (mostly) only get caught when someone speaks out, but she and her “experts” find it? Meh.
Steve
Arguing that a thing is not true because the speaker can’t imagine it’s true is a logical fallacy.
And arguing a thing is true when no verifiable evidence is provided is mere speculation.
Whether a person calls it “logical fallacy” or simply “mere speculation” allegations of undo government intrusion, overreach or wrongdoing should not be limply set aside without further investigation.
As far as Sharyl Attkisson’s experiences with her news agency, and/or trespasses by the government, I believe her reputation as an ethical reporter would give enough credence to explore her story further. In fact I don’t understand people’s reticence to at least consider the assertions being made by Attkisson, instead of instantly engaging in the type of skepticism that closes the door on believing it just might be factually accurate.
Journalists, other than Attkkison, have also logged their own complaints about the current administration’s lack of transparency, efficacy and honesty. The esteemed Bob Woodward has cautiously said if he were younger he would pursue the IRS story more fully. Both James Risen of the NYTs and James Rosen of FOX, have had freedom of the press issues with the DOJ and government entities. Then you have the example of Seymour Hersh, the journalistic hero of the Vietnam era who exposed the atrocities of My Lei, but who is now derided by the left for a similar unfavorable investigative critique on Obama’s foreign policy linking Turkey, Benghazi, Syria, Sarin in one unattractive package. Hersh has gone even further in blasting the media as well as this administration, during a recent Guardian interview, printed September 2013:
Apparently, Attkkisson is one of those rare outsiders who Hersh believes is desperately needed to be a non-biased messenger of the truth. But, look at the reception she gets when the focus of her articles are on the practices of a democratic president!
Uhh, apparently Attkisson is one of those journalists who lost her job and is self-promoting. I think the press is way too subservient. I would like to see them go after politicians a lot more, even Obama. I would also like to see them write books that seem believable. She has, by all accounts, failed to do so.
Steve