They didnt. They said both time, with a different point of view (different bias if you will), that this is too early to draw conclusion. Any rationnal person would do the same.
That depends on the conclusion. Concluding that something fishy is going on here, that's likely murder being covered up and that hard questions need to be asked of is rational. Assuming someone found dead with bruises on their neck without even a rope being mentioned killed themselves, and calling it a suicide from the get go, is not rational, it's not neutral, and accepting it without a peep is practically siding with killers, whoever they and their motives may be.
> Witness the mainstream media’s rush to tsk-tsk the deluge of social-media speculation in the aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody. Within hours of the story breaking, writers at mainstream outlets went patrolling the Internet for “conspiracy theories” to debunk, usually with that tone of superiority and self-satisfaction that so endears the blue-check Twitterati to the American public.
But hey, let's not rush to any conclusions, just to the gatekeeping -- let's just move on, if we never get back to this, no biggie either. That's not rational nor noble, it's just saying "not my problem".
1. People getting 2-3 narratives from mainstream news sources, one of which they believe, both of which are often false.
2. People getting 100 narratives from unknown sources, none of which they fully believe, a handful they think are plausible, most are false.
It's good to have everyone on the same page believing what is true, horrible to have everyone on the same page believing what is false. Given that the mainstream can't be trusted, I'll go with #2.
Am I getting a false dichotomy here? Why do we need false narratives at all in the mainstream news? It didn't used to be like that, and there is certainly some reason to expect falsehoods are not inherent and unsolvable.
Well, when the paper of record's take on the Epstein events is a "what, me worry?" level of incuriosity, I'd say there's a loooooooooooot of problems to be solved.
I’ve been arguing with people about this since it happened. Sure, there are a lot of people with incentives to kill Epstein, but if you say it’s murder, then you have to explain how the killer did it while he was in federal custody. Even Trump couldn’t do that without getting caught.
#ClintonBodyCount is particularly absurd, because I’m supposed to believe the Clintons had all these people killed, with no evidence pointing back to them. This doesn’t make sense in a reality where Trump can’t even keep one porn star quiet.
The simplest explanation is that he committed suicide, because he was prematurely let off suicide watch. Occam’s razor strikes again.
If this had happened to a prisoner in Russian custody who it was hinted might incriminate dozens of Putin-friendly oligarchs, you can bet that the NYT would have 50 reporters personally turning the cranks on the conspiracy mill.
The history of these agencies makes me think you are mistaken.
The people that can touch Iranian centrifuges connected to airgapped machines in hostile territory can't touch a prisoner in one of their own facilities?
What's the simple explanation for why he was not under constant surveillance when the whole world knew there was a huge risk he'd wind up dead before trial?
> There’s no way that man could have killed himself. I’ve done too much time in those units. It’s an impossibility. Between the floor and the ceiling is like eight or nine feet. There’s no way for you to connect to anything. You have sheets, but they’re paper level, not strong enough. He was 200 pounds — it would never happen. Could he have done it from the bed? No sir. There’s a steel frame, but you can’t move it. There’s no light fixture. There’s no bars. They don’t give you enough in there that could successfully create an instrument of death. You want to write a letter, they give you rubber pens and maybe once a week a piece of paper.
It's just as likely that he was murdered, and certainly more likely that he permitted to kill himself than that it just happened by accident.
Your explanation "he was prematurely let off suicide watch" requires an explanation. Why he was let off suicide watch? This is where many think that powers-that-be are involved.
> especially with corruption and conspiracy at the heart of our biggest national news stories (Epstein, the Mueller Report, mass shootings), and the platforms themselves functioning as petri dishes for outlandish, even dangerous conspiracy theories to flourish
Now the media uses the word "conspiracy" to try to delegitemize all media, sources, narratives and stories they disagree with. "Trump posts conspiracy theory on Twitter." "Without proof, Trump makes claims."
The NY Times pushed the biggest conspiracy of all: Russian collusion. Bombshell after supposed bombshell fell as the Times and CNN and other anti-Trump media braced us for the crushing outcome of that would come with the Mueller report. And then it turned out to be nothing. Zero.
It's really interesting to watch establishment media congeal around the notion that any speculation of foul play -- or indeed any deviation from the official line of "whoops he killed himself lol" -- is "baseless," to be placed in a category of "conspiracy theories" alongside chemtrails and reptilian overlords, a tragic consequence of the internet's proclivity to spread viral fake news, etc.
I mean, here you had a potential witness who we know may have had the goods on a member of the British royal family and a former U.S. Senator and state Governor, just from the slight trickle of documents that have made it out to the public (in addition to the Miami Herald reporter, we also have conspiracy nutbar Mike Cernovich to thank for that). Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had long associations with him. The source of his wealth is an utter black box, which suggests at the very least an absurdly rich benefactor, if not an extensive blackmail scheme or even support from some state actor. There's practically an entire army division's worth of people with their hands on the levers of power who may have had everything to lose if Epstein made it to trial. And Epstein himself was an unrepentant sociopath with delusions of grandeur who hardly fit the profile of a defendant who would off himself.
So far, all we've been told is that he was inexplicably not under 24/7 monitoring, that there may not even be conclusive video evidence of activity in and around his cell, and the body was taken to a hospital somewhere. And we're supposed to think it's just completely off-the-reservation crazy to cast doubt on the official narratives here? Even to think that maybe someone helped create the conditions at the prison under which it was even possible for Epstein to kill himself?
Literally half the world predicted this would happen in the first place! So color me a bit unconvinced that what the conspiracy theories really demonstrate is that the hoi polloi don't know how to distinguish fact from fiction on the internet. And if Bill Clinton didn't want to feature in those theories, well, maybe he could have not taken quite so many rides on the Lolita Express.
Of course, this is all coming from many of the same media sources which spent the first two years of Trump's presidency barking up the tree of secret Russian pee tape kompromat and Putin as the secret puppetmaster of Manchurian Candidate Trump.
Indeed they are poisoned: few ppl trust the mass media.
Because, honestly, as a jailer, how could you f up more than having Epstein hang himself? A man who, before he hung himself everone thought: “wouldn’t it be convenient if he got suicided?” Why did we think this way? Let’s see:
-Women who have credibly accused this man have also accused a Prince of the UK - a power structure that it’s known has shielded pedos for decades (BBC, Thatcher’s cabinet, liberal party leader).
- The sleaziest two presidents since Johnson (or maybe ever!) are involved with this asshole.
- His lawyer (Alan Dersowitch), one of the most important constitutional lawyers in the US, is accused to having been partaken in the abuse. A.D. has behaved quite bizarrely with his request to unseal and keep sealed court records.
- The original court case was sealed!
Also, a la Harvey Weinstein fiasco, everyone in his circle appear to have known about his peccadillos with children
Now he’s conveniently dead. And I’m supposed to prostrate at the NYT, who didn’t break this story, when they tell me there’s nothing to see?
An HN discussion around how information systems become poisoned could be great. Arguing about the specific conspiracy theories will lead to pointless flamewars. May I suggest engaging with the former?
Simply engaging the former grants TFA's argument that "poisoning of information systems" is indeed what is happening with the Epstein suicide, as opposed to sensible questioning of official narratives.
If I say "our information systems are poisoned by establishment media sources which converge on talking points like 'Epstein conspiracies are baseless' without even asking any basic questions about the events" is that in line with your suggestion?
Questioning official narratives by broadcasting your own unsubstantiated theories, made up from your armchair, is indeed poisoning the system.
The most reliable way to find out how someone was killed is to examine the body, talk to all the people the victim had contact with, etc. There's a whole profession devoted to doing that, and they're about to go into action. When they announce their findings, there'll be some real information upon which to base theories.
But at this point, any theory is baseless. The NYT is careful not to float any theories, as we should all be.
Since you are pointing the finger at me specifically, I will point out that nothing I've said so far is at all "unsubstantiated." Even if a thorough medical examination shows that Epstein did indeed kill himself without any outside assistance, the facts in this case are:
a.) Epstein's trial held the possibility of releasing extraordinarily incriminating details about dozens or even hundreds of wealthy & powerful figures,
b.) Given a.), huge swathes of people correctly predicted ahead of time that there was a risk Epstein would die before seeing the inside of a courtroom (this was widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" at the time),
c.) Epstein had already been found grievously injured and placed on suicide watch,
d.) Given b.) and c.), to not have Epstein under constant, redundant surveillance is "incompetence" of such a staggering extent that it suggests willful negligence,
e.) Given that Epstein's death probably marks a convenient clean break for many of the people mentioned in a.), it is entirely reasonable to raise the possibility that one or more of them with the power & influence to do so helped bring d.) about.
At this point, the processes which were at place in MCC and the decision-making which led to the lax monitoring of Epstein are far more important than any medical details surrounding his actual death.
>Simply engaging the former grants TFA's argument that "poisoning of information systems" is indeed what is happening with the Epstein suicide, as opposed to sensible questioning of official narratives.
Fine. Question the official narrative. But why are we allowed to do that, yet we mustn't dare to even engage with attempts to question the alternative?
Isn't is likely that both sensible skepticism and poisoning of the well are occurring?
27 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 83.0 ms ] threadhttps://nypost.com/2019/08/11/journos-debunker-mentality-rus...
> Witness the mainstream media’s rush to tsk-tsk the deluge of social-media speculation in the aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein’s death in federal custody. Within hours of the story breaking, writers at mainstream outlets went patrolling the Internet for “conspiracy theories” to debunk, usually with that tone of superiority and self-satisfaction that so endears the blue-check Twitterati to the American public.
But hey, let's not rush to any conclusions, just to the gatekeeping -- let's just move on, if we never get back to this, no biggie either. That's not rational nor noble, it's just saying "not my problem".
1. People getting 2-3 narratives from mainstream news sources, one of which they believe, both of which are often false.
2. People getting 100 narratives from unknown sources, none of which they fully believe, a handful they think are plausible, most are false.
It's good to have everyone on the same page believing what is true, horrible to have everyone on the same page believing what is false. Given that the mainstream can't be trusted, I'll go with #2.
But ya, pizza gate guy broke the Epstein story (honest, look at the court case on unsealing the proceeding records)
#ClintonBodyCount is particularly absurd, because I’m supposed to believe the Clintons had all these people killed, with no evidence pointing back to them. This doesn’t make sense in a reality where Trump can’t even keep one porn star quiet.
The simplest explanation is that he committed suicide, because he was prematurely let off suicide watch. Occam’s razor strikes again.
If this was an enemy of the US in a foreign jail would you feel differently?
The people that can touch Iranian centrifuges connected to airgapped machines in hostile territory can't touch a prisoner in one of their own facilities?
Seems unlikely.
> There’s no way that man could have killed himself. I’ve done too much time in those units. It’s an impossibility. Between the floor and the ceiling is like eight or nine feet. There’s no way for you to connect to anything. You have sheets, but they’re paper level, not strong enough. He was 200 pounds — it would never happen. Could he have done it from the bed? No sir. There’s a steel frame, but you can’t move it. There’s no light fixture. There’s no bars. They don’t give you enough in there that could successfully create an instrument of death. You want to write a letter, they give you rubber pens and maybe once a week a piece of paper.
It's just as likely that he was murdered, and certainly more likely that he permitted to kill himself than that it just happened by accident.
Now the media uses the word "conspiracy" to try to delegitemize all media, sources, narratives and stories they disagree with. "Trump posts conspiracy theory on Twitter." "Without proof, Trump makes claims."
The NY Times pushed the biggest conspiracy of all: Russian collusion. Bombshell after supposed bombshell fell as the Times and CNN and other anti-Trump media braced us for the crushing outcome of that would come with the Mueller report. And then it turned out to be nothing. Zero.
I mean, here you had a potential witness who we know may have had the goods on a member of the British royal family and a former U.S. Senator and state Governor, just from the slight trickle of documents that have made it out to the public (in addition to the Miami Herald reporter, we also have conspiracy nutbar Mike Cernovich to thank for that). Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had long associations with him. The source of his wealth is an utter black box, which suggests at the very least an absurdly rich benefactor, if not an extensive blackmail scheme or even support from some state actor. There's practically an entire army division's worth of people with their hands on the levers of power who may have had everything to lose if Epstein made it to trial. And Epstein himself was an unrepentant sociopath with delusions of grandeur who hardly fit the profile of a defendant who would off himself.
So far, all we've been told is that he was inexplicably not under 24/7 monitoring, that there may not even be conclusive video evidence of activity in and around his cell, and the body was taken to a hospital somewhere. And we're supposed to think it's just completely off-the-reservation crazy to cast doubt on the official narratives here? Even to think that maybe someone helped create the conditions at the prison under which it was even possible for Epstein to kill himself?
Literally half the world predicted this would happen in the first place! So color me a bit unconvinced that what the conspiracy theories really demonstrate is that the hoi polloi don't know how to distinguish fact from fiction on the internet. And if Bill Clinton didn't want to feature in those theories, well, maybe he could have not taken quite so many rides on the Lolita Express.
Of course, this is all coming from many of the same media sources which spent the first two years of Trump's presidency barking up the tree of secret Russian pee tape kompromat and Putin as the secret puppetmaster of Manchurian Candidate Trump.
Because, honestly, as a jailer, how could you f up more than having Epstein hang himself? A man who, before he hung himself everone thought: “wouldn’t it be convenient if he got suicided?” Why did we think this way? Let’s see:
-Women who have credibly accused this man have also accused a Prince of the UK - a power structure that it’s known has shielded pedos for decades (BBC, Thatcher’s cabinet, liberal party leader).
- The sleaziest two presidents since Johnson (or maybe ever!) are involved with this asshole.
- His lawyer (Alan Dersowitch), one of the most important constitutional lawyers in the US, is accused to having been partaken in the abuse. A.D. has behaved quite bizarrely with his request to unseal and keep sealed court records.
- The original court case was sealed!
Also, a la Harvey Weinstein fiasco, everyone in his circle appear to have known about his peccadillos with children
Now he’s conveniently dead. And I’m supposed to prostrate at the NYT, who didn’t break this story, when they tell me there’s nothing to see?
Ha!
If I say "our information systems are poisoned by establishment media sources which converge on talking points like 'Epstein conspiracies are baseless' without even asking any basic questions about the events" is that in line with your suggestion?
The most reliable way to find out how someone was killed is to examine the body, talk to all the people the victim had contact with, etc. There's a whole profession devoted to doing that, and they're about to go into action. When they announce their findings, there'll be some real information upon which to base theories.
But at this point, any theory is baseless. The NYT is careful not to float any theories, as we should all be.
a.) Epstein's trial held the possibility of releasing extraordinarily incriminating details about dozens or even hundreds of wealthy & powerful figures,
b.) Given a.), huge swathes of people correctly predicted ahead of time that there was a risk Epstein would die before seeing the inside of a courtroom (this was widely dismissed as "conspiracy theories" at the time),
c.) Epstein had already been found grievously injured and placed on suicide watch,
d.) Given b.) and c.), to not have Epstein under constant, redundant surveillance is "incompetence" of such a staggering extent that it suggests willful negligence,
e.) Given that Epstein's death probably marks a convenient clean break for many of the people mentioned in a.), it is entirely reasonable to raise the possibility that one or more of them with the power & influence to do so helped bring d.) about.
At this point, the processes which were at place in MCC and the decision-making which led to the lax monitoring of Epstein are far more important than any medical details surrounding his actual death.
Fine. Question the official narrative. But why are we allowed to do that, yet we mustn't dare to even engage with attempts to question the alternative?
Isn't is likely that both sensible skepticism and poisoning of the well are occurring?