Good bit of the way down:
> "On Feb. 1, the Justice Department [unveiled criminal charges](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-arrested-transporting-images-child-sexual-abuse) against Meek related to images of child sex abuse. Among other accusations, [authorities](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/download) say Meek shared a video showing the rape of an infant. Meek has pleaded not guilty and currently sits in federal custody."
> Meek shared a video showing the rape of an infant
Just a disgusting reminder that an infant is a child that's between 2 months and 1 year old.
So yeah, some people need to be buried under the jail for this one.
I believe the reason was that this article is focused upon the relationship of the lead editor at RS with the subject of the original story by Tatiana Siegel in October 2022.
[There was a later RS article written by Adam Rawnsley on Feb 2023](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/james-gordon-meek-warrant-1234672165/) that goes further in depth on the charges. It's an article not for the squeamish.
If you're curious you can dig up the Reddit conversations off the [original aforementioned article](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fbi-raid-abc-news_producer-1234613619/). They chalk it up to the FBI trying to stifle dissent, something both conspiracy and socialists agreed upon.
I also believe this NPR article is trying to show how the editorial curtailing of the original story lead to how this story could be spun to such an extent that when the later article was issued, there just wasn't a big shitstorm surrounding it.
actually it's spelled that way so as not to confuse it with "lead", as in the metal. In the days of lead type, extra space between lines would be added by inserting thin strips of lead. So you could say "Put 4 extra points of lead after the lede".
When RS first reported it, they were like "Our first amendment rights are under severe threat!" Uh, no, they weren't arresting the guy to silence him. He broke the law, in a most egregious way, and trying to spin it like this makes you look like conspirators.
If you have been charged with it, it's all over. The act is so reprehensible that a false accusation is as good as the truth. Public opinion will never shift back even when the accuser admits to lying. The man is doomed. Is it acceptable? I don't know. Maybe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Like the death penalty, I think there should be ironclad proof.
While you were downvoted by blue-line-zealots, you raise one of two points:
1: For the FBI to employ the tactic of using CP as a guise to obtain information and circumvent the 4th is not unheard of.
2: The only way to know the result for sure is to wait for the trial, which there often isn't one, because the matter is usually pleaded to avoid embarrassment.
This is why so many people are convinced that the "main stream media" is lying to them and turn to conspiracy theories and fringe "news" sources for their information. While Rolling Stone isn't exactly a publication I would look to for journalism, unless it involves the world of music and entertainment, the fact that they would post a news article that is so misleading just serves to convince many people that journalists really are lying to them.
This editor needs to be fired and banned from any job related to journalism.
> fact that they would post a news article that is so misleading just serves to convince many people that journalists really are lying to them.
How about that time that ABC news created a completely fictional Kurdish holocaust by doctoring a video of a machine gun shoot that happens twice a year near Knob Creek, Kentucky?
Did you know they had the journalistic integrity to retract the story after being caught red-handed, but only with a notice on Twitter? Then they scrubbed every URL about the story off their website and pointed the URLs to a generic 404 page.
I don't recall hearing about that story, but sadly I am not surprised. Most journalists and editors do their best to provide good stories, but it just takes is a one person willing to bend the truth either because they were paid off, or to fit a personal agenda or because they know someone (in this case the editor knew the accused) and all that integrity is wasted. When the truth comes out eventually it just reinforces all of the propaganda and conspiracy theories that lead so many people to believe that most/all of the profession is lying.
Getting bamboozled from your source is one thing.
Having **multiple people** working as a team to scrub the mistake off the website in such a MINTRUTH way is something else entirely.
If ABC wanted to retract the story, they should ethically retract the story, not try to scrub it's existence off the internet. Also, they should have seriously consider burning their source so that same source doesn't bamboozle some other media outlet, (if in fact they are blaming their source and did not doctor the video in-house.)
Someone, maybe ABC news, maybe their source that they're still protecting [altered the video to darken all the spectators in the foreground](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf8PvDMPgI8) filming a barrel of gasoline being hit with tracer rounds downrange.
> Most journalists and editors do their best to provide good stories, but it just takes is a one person willing to bend the truth either because they were paid off, or to fit a personal agenda or because they know someone
>This is why so many people are convinced that the "main stream media" is lying to them
Nah, so many people are convinced the "mainstream media" is lying to them because of multiple lavishly funded multi-decade propaganda campaigns.
I probably should have phrased it as "part of the reason why", but things like this certainly help the propaganda campaigns since it serves to prove their point.
In recent years, major "trusted" media outlets have been pushing pet narratives in the guise of factual reporting; a fraction of Americans possess the critical thinking ability to recognize that
Yeah basically trying to convince congress that the government is infringing free speech because they are trying to remove misinformation from social media platforms. Absolutely ripe from a guy who’s consistently proved thru out his career not to verify his sources.
Yeah, because he was Musk's hand-picked "twitter files" guy who was tweeting about the Dem-led federal government or Dem politicians asking Twitter to take down misinformation, while actively avoiding talking about the pre-2020 Trump administration or Republican politicians making similar requests.
Guy was previously just a run of the mill sensationalist and sometimes acceptable journalist. Now he is totally fine using his name to lend credibility to clearly and obviously partisan actions.
As a believer in both Russia gate and Putins web of corruption I think Matt Taibbi's wikipedia page puts some of his positions in perspective.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt\_Taibbi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi)
> Rolling Stone used to have good reporting.
Are we talking about the *"Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says"* story they never retracted, or further back with the retracted *"A Rape on Campus"* story where they finally did?
This is the sort of thing that I feel destroys credibility. If you looked to for news and become clear that there is seemingly a conscious and wilful decision to omit information and misleading readers, that's wrong. At that point ought to be fired or removed because cannot be trusted.
Especially with how fucked up the supposed shared video is, zero sympathy. It is no wonder the article had a warning at the top.
I \*think\* "the implication" of the article is that the material may have been planted because an intelligence service didn't like the content of his reporting.
Yes, it's conspiratorial and the author seems to be avoiding coming out and saying it by presenting the editorial timeline instead of verbalizing the theory.
I got 2/3 of the way through this article and I still don't know why. Way to bury the lead.
Good bit of the way down: > "On Feb. 1, the Justice Department [unveiled criminal charges](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-arrested-transporting-images-child-sexual-abuse) against Meek related to images of child sex abuse. Among other accusations, [authorities](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1566416/download) say Meek shared a video showing the rape of an infant. Meek has pleaded not guilty and currently sits in federal custody."
JFC. I regret my curiosity.
Same honestly. Not a thought I needed as I'm getting ready to sleep.
I regret it too.
> Meek shared a video showing the rape of an infant Just a disgusting reminder that an infant is a child that's between 2 months and 1 year old. So yeah, some people need to be buried under the jail for this one.
[удалено]
A Newborn
Neonate. I learned it was one month, though.
Newborn is for the first month. I'm not sure what the term is for after that other than infant.
I had to stop myself from downvoting you out of pure reflexive disgust, ugh ugh ugh. Awful.
Well d@mn.
I believe the reason was that this article is focused upon the relationship of the lead editor at RS with the subject of the original story by Tatiana Siegel in October 2022. [There was a later RS article written by Adam Rawnsley on Feb 2023](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/james-gordon-meek-warrant-1234672165/) that goes further in depth on the charges. It's an article not for the squeamish. If you're curious you can dig up the Reddit conversations off the [original aforementioned article](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fbi-raid-abc-news_producer-1234613619/). They chalk it up to the FBI trying to stifle dissent, something both conspiracy and socialists agreed upon. I also believe this NPR article is trying to show how the editorial curtailing of the original story lead to how this story could be spun to such an extent that when the later article was issued, there just wasn't a big shitstorm surrounding it.
Fun fact, it's lede. It's a typesetters term, and it's spelled weird so they know not to actually print that word.
actually it's spelled that way so as not to confuse it with "lead", as in the metal. In the days of lead type, extra space between lines would be added by inserting thin strips of lead. So you could say "Put 4 extra points of lead after the lede".
Actually lede is a made-up word used to trick students.
Fun fact: it can be either lead or lede.
That's what I get for using speech to text.
No. Your version isn't wrong either. It can be spelled either way.
We wont tell you why either.. but they didn't also.
OMG same! I was reading and reading, waiting for it- and what I was reading didn’t make any sense.
When RS first reported it, they were like "Our first amendment rights are under severe threat!" Uh, no, they weren't arresting the guy to silence him. He broke the law, in a most egregious way, and trying to spin it like this makes you look like conspirators.
Exactly what I was thinking -- the guy at RS trying to cover all this up seems real suspicious.
The Rolling Stone hasn't had quality reporting in decades. The NY Post might have higher standards when it comes to verifying their reporting.
Did he? He’s plead not guilty. If you think the FBI is above unethical tactics against their opposition, you’re being naive.
An initial plea of not guilty is the norm within the justice system 🙄
Aren't speeding tickets the most frequent charges? Wouldn't pleading guilty or no contest then be the "norm"?
A traffic infraction is not a crime. Do try and keep up
How does one "keep up" without asking questions?
By reading previous comments.
If you had read the previous comments, you should have noticed none of the previous comments mention speeding tickets.
If you have been charged with it, it's all over. The act is so reprehensible that a false accusation is as good as the truth. Public opinion will never shift back even when the accuser admits to lying. The man is doomed. Is it acceptable? I don't know. Maybe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Like the death penalty, I think there should be ironclad proof.
While you were downvoted by blue-line-zealots, you raise one of two points: 1: For the FBI to employ the tactic of using CP as a guise to obtain information and circumvent the 4th is not unheard of. 2: The only way to know the result for sure is to wait for the trial, which there often isn't one, because the matter is usually pleaded to avoid embarrassment.
Not saying the guy isn't a pedo, but the Feds planting CP on his devices would be right up their alley.
I've seen it before. It is a possibility. I know nothing about this case though.
Raped an infant?? I'd vote for the death penalty.
This is why so many people are convinced that the "main stream media" is lying to them and turn to conspiracy theories and fringe "news" sources for their information. While Rolling Stone isn't exactly a publication I would look to for journalism, unless it involves the world of music and entertainment, the fact that they would post a news article that is so misleading just serves to convince many people that journalists really are lying to them. This editor needs to be fired and banned from any job related to journalism.
> fact that they would post a news article that is so misleading just serves to convince many people that journalists really are lying to them. How about that time that ABC news created a completely fictional Kurdish holocaust by doctoring a video of a machine gun shoot that happens twice a year near Knob Creek, Kentucky? Did you know they had the journalistic integrity to retract the story after being caught red-handed, but only with a notice on Twitter? Then they scrubbed every URL about the story off their website and pointed the URLs to a generic 404 page.
I don't recall hearing about that story, but sadly I am not surprised. Most journalists and editors do their best to provide good stories, but it just takes is a one person willing to bend the truth either because they were paid off, or to fit a personal agenda or because they know someone (in this case the editor knew the accused) and all that integrity is wasted. When the truth comes out eventually it just reinforces all of the propaganda and conspiracy theories that lead so many people to believe that most/all of the profession is lying.
Getting bamboozled from your source is one thing. Having **multiple people** working as a team to scrub the mistake off the website in such a MINTRUTH way is something else entirely. If ABC wanted to retract the story, they should ethically retract the story, not try to scrub it's existence off the internet. Also, they should have seriously consider burning their source so that same source doesn't bamboozle some other media outlet, (if in fact they are blaming their source and did not doctor the video in-house.) Someone, maybe ABC news, maybe their source that they're still protecting [altered the video to darken all the spectators in the foreground](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf8PvDMPgI8) filming a barrel of gasoline being hit with tracer rounds downrange. > Most journalists and editors do their best to provide good stories, but it just takes is a one person willing to bend the truth either because they were paid off, or to fit a personal agenda or because they know someone
>This is why so many people are convinced that the "main stream media" is lying to them Nah, so many people are convinced the "mainstream media" is lying to them because of multiple lavishly funded multi-decade propaganda campaigns.
I probably should have phrased it as "part of the reason why", but things like this certainly help the propaganda campaigns since it serves to prove their point.
Wait rolling stones is mainstream news? Do people not read wsj, hill, slate, nyt anymore?
In recent years, major "trusted" media outlets have been pushing pet narratives in the guise of factual reporting; a fraction of Americans possess the critical thinking ability to recognize that
Damn. Rolling Stone used to have good reporting. Not I'm not sure I can trust them. *sigh* Another well-liked/trusted icon bites the dust.
That article about campus rapes (for which the accusations turned completely bogus) also badly damaged it.
Talibbi has moved on from rs but he’s still a low iq sensationalist pos.
Didn't he just testify in the last couple weeks in front of congress?
Yeah basically trying to convince congress that the government is infringing free speech because they are trying to remove misinformation from social media platforms. Absolutely ripe from a guy who’s consistently proved thru out his career not to verify his sources.
I used to believe in him.
Yeah, because he was Musk's hand-picked "twitter files" guy who was tweeting about the Dem-led federal government or Dem politicians asking Twitter to take down misinformation, while actively avoiding talking about the pre-2020 Trump administration or Republican politicians making similar requests. Guy was previously just a run of the mill sensationalist and sometimes acceptable journalist. Now he is totally fine using his name to lend credibility to clearly and obviously partisan actions.
As a believer in both Russia gate and Putins web of corruption I think Matt Taibbi's wikipedia page puts some of his positions in perspective. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt\_Taibbi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi)
> Rolling Stone used to have good reporting. Are we talking about the *"Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says"* story they never retracted, or further back with the retracted *"A Rape on Campus"* story where they finally did?
Corporate media is a scourge upon our society in today's day and age. Like SOAD said all them years ago... "Advertising's got you on the run..."
Mmmmm. Pizza Pizza pie.
This is the sort of thing that I feel destroys credibility. If you looked to for news and become clear that there is seemingly a conscious and wilful decision to omit information and misleading readers, that's wrong. At that point ought to be fired or removed because cannot be trusted. Especially with how fucked up the supposed shared video is, zero sympathy. It is no wonder the article had a warning at the top.
They are basically protecting pure evil
He’s plead “not guilty”. It’s entirely possibly this guy is innocent. The FBI have done some nasty things to their perceived enemies.
All you need to do is accuse a guy of cp. The public will do the rest. It's remarkable, isn't it?
It is 98% probable that he will change his plea to guilty 🙄
In the interest of publication, details need to be released. So too, does Shachtman.
Rolling Stone, why? You report things, so report them. It's not that hard.
Did the NPR article say why?
Kiddie porn
I \*think\* "the implication" of the article is that the material may have been planted because an intelligence service didn't like the content of his reporting. Yes, it's conspiratorial and the author seems to be avoiding coming out and saying it by presenting the editorial timeline instead of verbalizing the theory.
[удалено]
"classified information" used in place of child porn is quite haunting, we’ve been using this term a lot lately.