Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday April 30 2018, @10:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-internet-is-forever dept.

Joy Reid, an MSNBC host, apologized in December for "homophobic content" on a "now-defunct blog". This month, a Twitter user found similar material by using Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, although robots.txt is now in effect. This time around, Reid blamed hackers (archive) for inserting these posts into the blog, before admitting that it could not be proven (archive) that the blog had been hacked/manipulated:

Joy Reid, the MSNBC host who accused hackers of inserting homophobic posts into her now-defunct blog, said on Saturday that while she continued to deny having written the offensive language, security experts could not conclusively say her blog was breached. "I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things, because they are completely alien to me," she said on her morning show, "AM Joy." "But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me." She hired a cybersecurity expert to see if her former blog had been manipulated, she said, but "the reality is, they have not been able to prove it."

The posts containing the offensive language, which Mediaite wrote about on Monday, said that "most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing" and that "a lot of heterosexuals, especially men, find the idea of homosexual sex to be ... well ... gross." They also allegedly showed Ms. Reid arguing against legalized gay marriage and criticizing commentators who supported it, including Rachel Maddow, who is now one of Ms. Reid's colleagues at MSNBC.

The Internet Archive responded to claims that its database might have been manipulated:

This past December, Reid's lawyers contacted us, asking to have archives of the blog (blog.reidreport.com) taken down, stating that "fraudulent" posts were "inserted into legitimate content" in our archives of the blog. Her attorneys stated that they didn't know if the alleged insertion happened on the original site or with our archives (the point at which the manipulation is to have occurred, according to Reid, is still unclear to us).

When we reviewed the archives, we found nothing to indicate tampering or hacking of the Wayback Machine versions. At least some of the examples of allegedly fraudulent posts provided to us had been archived at different dates and by different entities.

We let Reid's lawyers know that the information provided was not sufficient for us to verify claims of manipulation. Consequently, and due to Reid's being a journalist (a very high-profile one, at that) and the journalistic nature of the blog archives, we declined to take down the archives. We were clear that we would welcome and consider any further information that they could provide us to support their claims.

Also at CNN.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 30 2018, @02:03PM (2 children)

    You appear to misunderstand science. You see, when someone goes and proves something with actual data, you have to prove why they're wrong or find a critical flaw in their methodology if you disagree. This study wasn't a thirty year study on a third of the population but its methodology was quite passable for the sample size it did have.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday April 30 2018, @02:27PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 30 2018, @02:27PM (#673739) Journal

    You appear to misunderstand science.

    While it may be so, I doubt it.

    You see, when someone goes and proves something with actual data, you have to prove why they're wrong or find a critical flaw in their methodology if you disagree.

    I don't disagree, I only use the facts that I have available. Yes, availability (and the lack thereof**) is a big factor.
    And your "Trust me" doesn't help with facts.

    but its methodology was quite passable for the sample size it did have.

    Passable (=acceptable but only barely so) for you. And even you cast a shadow over the representativeness of the sample.

    ---
    ** (damn'd. The twin.<name>.is is still not resolving)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @06:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @06:12AM (#674057)

    You appear to misunderstand science

    They certainly misunderstand what p-hacking is (reporting a p value != p-hacking).