Media Suppression Accusations

There was a thread a couple of days where this user commented the same thing:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24571360As of this writing, the post from two days ago, as well as the post to which I am replying, are rather down-voted and nearing transparency. I can't imagine why some folks would be against this information getting out there. If this story proves untrue, it's

how would hear about this story unless you are personally friends with alex stamos or zuckerberg or sandenberg? I am all for skepticism but blanket rejection of responsible journalism seems like an over-reaction. the reporting of the new york times on facebook has been continuously borne out by events.

What is the significance of the headline? It seems like the editors are trying to play into popular stereotypes for clicks, because reading through the disclosure log, it seems like a straightforward process marred by some minor email/communication issues. No real attempt at "suppression/censorship", as the headline implies. What am I missing?

This story os everywhere BBC, NYT etc. Pretending there is a media blackout undermines credibility.

I hate when journalists steal headlines and don't add any meaning/life to a story. The actual piece is from Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/07/edward-snowd...

Garbage story, the Intercept addresses it well: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/14/sunday-times-r...

> Case in point, this article they might publish.As an NYT subscriber, I'm very concerned by this, but I think it's ironic that people skeptical of the media because they don't wait to get facts right are so willing to jump to the conclusion that Scott's account is the full story. I'm inclined to believe Scott, but just as a remotely plausible hypothetical: there's also been rumors of a hit piece floating around for a few days[1]. Maybe they uncovered somethin

No kidding! How sad is it the entire time I was reading this I kept looking back at "Bloomberg" and was thinking to their other reporting like the server spying that they never did explain.The National Enquirer may be more reliable than Bloomberg at this point.

I agree with all you said but it seems that you misunderstood what I was trying to convey (or I what you were trying to convey)I'm saying Bloomberg the publication is likely right about the story because they are taking a stand that hurts Bloomberg the persons presidential aspirations. They wouldn't have ran it unless it really was something.

It's entirely possible that both parties you mention could be corrupt. The concern of the article is that a large chuck of the entire news industry is trying to bury the story because they want to the election to go a certain way, which makes them just as despicable as the remaining chunk of the news industry. Remember how Tara Reade was handled? Me too.