SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A President Trump thought bubble about the U.S. and Russia collaborating on cybersecurity matters has been dismissed by National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers:
National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers on Saturday rebuffed the prospect for a U.S.-Russia cyber unit, a proposal which has been greeted with incredulity by several senior U.S. lawmakers and which President Donald Trump himself appeared to back down from after initially indicating interest.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by hacking Democrats' emails and distributing online propaganda to help Trump win the election over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
[...] Asked whether it was a good idea to set up a cyber security cell with the Russians, Rogers told the annual Aspen Security Forum: "I'm not a policy guy here. .... I would argue now is probably not the best time to be doing this."
But there's more:
In unusually passionate and stark terms, the head of the nation's top spy agency made clear on Saturday in Colorado that he will stand up to anyone -- even the president of the United States -- who asks him to use the U.S. intelligence community as a political prop. "We are not about particular viewpoints. We are not about particular parties. We just can't work that way," National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers said at the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado.
[...] Although Rogers has refused to publicly discuss his private conversations with Trump, he has previously vowed to keep politics out of his agency's work. But his remarks today at the annual gathering of senior officials, reporters and others tied to the U.S. intelligence community were noteworthy in their intensity and passion. Punctuating each word -- one by one -- the U.S. Navy admiral said, "I will not violate the oath that I have taken in the 36 years as a commission officer." Rogers' face hardened and his voice cracked as he added: "I won't do that."
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:29PM (6 children)
It continues to boggle the mind that people don't scrutinize articles now as a matter of course. This is an unprecedented era of spin and it's more important than ever to check sources. Especially the fancy graphs that prove a suspicion in too clean of a way which seem to a real fad right now on twitter to copy and paste. I don't know about you but I can simply not trust the spin in any capacity anymore one way or the other. Nor is it reasonable to me that people can then have a "favorite outlet".
Yet you're going to have people that see what you said about CNN and go "yeah you're right!" but then if you replace it with Fox, MSNBC, BBC and so on and so forth the assumption will immediately be that you favor one. Height of stupidity to associate a news outlet with someone's character or one's own identity. In short, I assume this is also why russian news is "at least" as reliable at this point. Even though to me it's about as reliable as buzzfeed.
I am feeling less guilty for being vastly underexposed to the news outlets themselves during this election and what has ensued all the time. And less embarrassed for getting my presidential statements from goddamned twitter.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:15PM (5 children)
I think the fact that you can get your presidential statements from Twitter is, in large part, why the media is starting to go crazy. The media's only real purpose, previously, was to deliver information. Press access to the president, for example, was something that was mutually beneficial. The press needed information to encourage people to buy their newspapers. Politicians needed a way to get their message out to their constituents and encourage support for their other ideas. It was perfectly symbiotic. But now a days the entire world is connected. You can view the president's own words, just seconds after he writes them - from anywhere in the world, for free. Breaking news and events are covered on social media with people giving personal accounts and interactively discussing their experience and what's going on. The media there constantly asking for permission to reprint or reproduce what the first hand accounts are providing is becoming just increasingly quaint - and the market that needs this sort of media 'exposition' is continuing to shrink.
So what is the purpose of the media now a days? This is why I think that interjected opinion, bias, political pandering (or smearing), clickbaiting, and so on are becoming more the rule than the exception. The media, in its traditional form, has become increasingly obsolete. And I don't think people entirely grasp incredibly revolutionary a change this is. The media had, literally for centuries, a rock solid monopoly on information. And this monopoly enabled them to have an effectively endless fountain of money. And in a period of less than 20 years - this was all completely destroyed. There are families that have been profiting off of this system on time scales that start to get into the centuries. For instance the Ochs-Sulzberger has owned the New York Times since 1896 and still own about 88% of the shares that determine operational control (arbitrarily labeled class b in the case of the NYT).
This change to the information space is literally destroying dynasties. I think sometimes people just view things in terms of the worker or corporate employee - without realizing that the real ownership and control goes to the people behind the scenes. And these people are most benefited in times of surplus but also most negatively affected by times like today. And that, I think, is why the media is going down more like a decapitated chicken than with anything resembling grace and dignity. These aren't just regular businesses slowly going under. These businesses represent entire dynasties. And those dynasties are dying.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:07PM (4 children)
Trump loves to troll. Everytime he releases an inane statement on Twitter or otherwise, it's as if he's saying "jump," and when he does the mainstream media says, "how high?"
Either way, he wins. When he tweets his fans get hyped and admire his bravery and honesty, as well as his spitting in the face of the status-quo. If he stops tweeting, that's less ammo for his detractors to use and they will have to go back to their tired phoney-baloney Muh Russia narrative instead of actually reporting on real news.
Remember, those yellow-journalist snake bastards were all saying that Trump was finished, and that 90% of Americans were going to vote for Hillary. They went all-in betting everything they had and lost spectacularly, and from that point there was nowhere else to go but down. Might as well make as much noise as possible while doing so. And good for them. The more shit they spout, the more they push more and more mainstream news consumers into independent media.
Thanks, fellas!
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:31PM (3 children)
The way you guys stroke your dicks for Trump makes me think a different Trump besides the one I know got elected. This [pinimg.com] is the Trump I know. Real non-status quo and brave. But keep strokin'
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:49PM (2 children)
My god I'm tired of this site. I really don't know who's worse now. The cocksuckers who I can practically hear the slurping from, or the ones who think it's less shameful than the people begging for Obama to come back or the ones that call Clinton "madame president" on twitter.. You're all pathetic. And here I thought it was ambivalent trolling.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:54PM
Humans are stupid, retarded scum. Now that we've established that, I'm afraid there's nowhere better for you to go other than the underground.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 24 2017, @01:02AM
Sounds like you need a hug. AKA an "arm wall".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]