Zhi Zhu 🕸️
@ZhiZhu@newsie.social  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
Text from article (edited for length): D’Souza positions Objection as a good-faith effort to reform journalism. For him, it’s a new watchdog out to patrol those other watchdogs that he believes have lost their way. Yet, notably, he wouldn’t name a single example of accountability-oriented reporting of which he does approve, saying he has concerns about the “entire enterprise.” Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification. Objection dings journalists who utilize them under almost all circumstances, except some reporting involving minors and national security. Yet he’s OK with Objection clients secretly funding adjudications, as Thiel did with Gawker. He notes that “there’s a risk of retribution” for his platform’s customers, before citing the Streisand effect, a media phenomenon in which attempts to suppress or censor information can unintentionally draw far more public attention to it. (This is where I’ll note that Sackler, who either didn’t think or care to cloak his identity when filing his “objection,” didn’t respond to my inquiry for this coverage.) .... D’Souza is concerned about what he views as the affliction of journalism on the powerful.
Text from article (edited for length): D’Souza positions Objection as a good-faith effort to reform journalism. For him, it’s a new watchdog out to patrol those other watchdogs that he believes have lost their way. Yet, notably, he wouldn’t name a single example of accountability-oriented reporting of which he does approve, saying he has concerns about the “entire enterprise.” Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification. Objection dings journalists who utilize them under almost all circumstances, except some reporting involving minors and national security. Yet he’s OK with Objection clients secretly funding adjudications, as Thiel did with Gawker. He notes that “there’s a risk of retribution” for his platform’s customers, before citing the Streisand effect, a media phenomenon in which attempts to suppress or censor information can unintentionally draw far more public attention to it. (This is where I’ll note that Sackler, who either didn’t think or care to cloak his identity when filing his “objection,” didn’t respond to my inquiry for this coverage.) .... D’Souza is concerned about what he views as the affliction of journalism on the powerful.
Text from article (edited for length): D’Souza positions Objection as a good-faith effort to reform journalism. For him, it’s a new watchdog out to patrol those other watchdogs that he believes have lost their way. Yet, notably, he wouldn’t name a single example of accountability-oriented reporting of which he does approve, saying he has concerns about the “entire enterprise.” Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification. Objection dings journalists who utilize them under almost all circumstances, except some reporting involving minors and national security. Yet he’s OK with Objection clients secretly funding adjudications, as Thiel did with Gawker. He notes that “there’s a risk of retribution” for his platform’s customers, before citing the Streisand effect, a media phenomenon in which attempts to suppress or censor information can unintentionally draw far more public attention to it. (This is where I’ll note that Sackler, who either didn’t think or care to cloak his identity when filing his “objection,” didn’t respond to my inquiry for this coverage.) .... D’Souza is concerned about what he views as the affliction of journalism on the powerful.
Zhi Zhu 🕸️
@ZhiZhu@newsie.social  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
1
Zhi Zhu 🕸️
@ZhiZhu@newsie.social  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
Text from article: Objection assigns a human investigator — at the $2,000 price tier, a college graduate; for $10,000, a former CIA or FBI agent — to gather evidence, which is displayed as exhibits. In my case, just about all of it appeared to be extraneous documentation, like incorporation paperwork for Sackler’s firm, which seemed irrelevant to the matter at hand. Then it prompts a group of AI models (including the name-brand ones such as Claude, ChatGPT and Grok) to act as its jury, analyzing the evidence. D’Souza promises that conclusions will be transparent: “We expose all the math that underpins what we do.” Once Objection issues an adjudication, satisfied clients can pay an extra fee to promote the finding “so it engages with the disinformation as it spreads through social media,” D’Souza says. “What I know from the Gawker litigation, having dealt with not just Hulk Hogan but dozens of other parties who felt like they were aggrieved by the media, is that they actually don’t want a financial remedy. What they want is a moral victory. Most of them just want a PDF that they can send to their investors and their family which says, ‘I did not go to Epstein Island.’ “
Text from article: Objection assigns a human investigator — at the $2,000 price tier, a college graduate; for $10,000, a former CIA or FBI agent — to gather evidence, which is displayed as exhibits. In my case, just about all of it appeared to be extraneous documentation, like incorporation paperwork for Sackler’s firm, which seemed irrelevant to the matter at hand. Then it prompts a group of AI models (including the name-brand ones such as Claude, ChatGPT and Grok) to act as its jury, analyzing the evidence. D’Souza promises that conclusions will be transparent: “We expose all the math that underpins what we do.” Once Objection issues an adjudication, satisfied clients can pay an extra fee to promote the finding “so it engages with the disinformation as it spreads through social media,” D’Souza says. “What I know from the Gawker litigation, having dealt with not just Hulk Hogan but dozens of other parties who felt like they were aggrieved by the media, is that they actually don’t want a financial remedy. What they want is a moral victory. Most of them just want a PDF that they can send to their investors and their family which says, ‘I did not go to Epstein Island.’ “
Text from article: Objection assigns a human investigator — at the $2,000 price tier, a college graduate; for $10,000, a former CIA or FBI agent — to gather evidence, which is displayed as exhibits. In my case, just about all of it appeared to be extraneous documentation, like incorporation paperwork for Sackler’s firm, which seemed irrelevant to the matter at hand. Then it prompts a group of AI models (including the name-brand ones such as Claude, ChatGPT and Grok) to act as its jury, analyzing the evidence. D’Souza promises that conclusions will be transparent: “We expose all the math that underpins what we do.” Once Objection issues an adjudication, satisfied clients can pay an extra fee to promote the finding “so it engages with the disinformation as it spreads through social media,” D’Souza says. “What I know from the Gawker litigation, having dealt with not just Hulk Hogan but dozens of other parties who felt like they were aggrieved by the media, is that they actually don’t want a financial remedy. What they want is a moral victory. Most of them just want a PDF that they can send to their investors and their family which says, ‘I did not go to Epstein Island.’ “
Zhi Zhu 🕸️
@ZhiZhu@newsie.social  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
Text from article (edited for length): D’Souza positions Objection as a good-faith effort to reform journalism. For him, it’s a new watchdog out to patrol those other watchdogs that he believes have lost their way. Yet, notably, he wouldn’t name a single example of accountability-oriented reporting of which he does approve, saying he has concerns about the “entire enterprise.” Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification. Objection dings journalists who utilize them under almost all circumstances, except some reporting involving minors and national security. Yet he’s OK with Objection clients secretly funding adjudications, as Thiel did with Gawker. He notes that “there’s a risk of retribution” for his platform’s customers, before citing the Streisand effect, a media phenomenon in which attempts to suppress or censor information can unintentionally draw far more public attention to it. (This is where I’ll note that Sackler, who either didn’t think or care to cloak his identity when filing his “objection,” didn’t respond to my inquiry for this coverage.) .... D’Souza is concerned about what he views as the affliction of journalism on the powerful.
Text from article (edited for length): D’Souza positions Objection as a good-faith effort to reform journalism. For him, it’s a new watchdog out to patrol those other watchdogs that he believes have lost their way. Yet, notably, he wouldn’t name a single example of accountability-oriented reporting of which he does approve, saying he has concerns about the “entire enterprise.” Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification. Objection dings journalists who utilize them under almost all circumstances, except some reporting involving minors and national security. Yet he’s OK with Objection clients secretly funding adjudications, as Thiel did with Gawker. He notes that “there’s a risk of retribution” for his platform’s customers, before citing the Streisand effect, a media phenomenon in which attempts to suppress or censor information can unintentionally draw far more public attention to it. (This is where I’ll note that Sackler, who either didn’t think or care to cloak his identity when filing his “objection,” didn’t respond to my inquiry for this coverage.) .... D’Souza is concerned about what he views as the affliction of journalism on the powerful.
Text from article (edited for length): D’Souza positions Objection as a good-faith effort to reform journalism. For him, it’s a new watchdog out to patrol those other watchdogs that he believes have lost their way. Yet, notably, he wouldn’t name a single example of accountability-oriented reporting of which he does approve, saying he has concerns about the “entire enterprise.” Among other criticisms, D’Souza dismisses the value of anonymous sources, believing they are discrediting, no matter the justification. Objection dings journalists who utilize them under almost all circumstances, except some reporting involving minors and national security. Yet he’s OK with Objection clients secretly funding adjudications, as Thiel did with Gawker. He notes that “there’s a risk of retribution” for his platform’s customers, before citing the Streisand effect, a media phenomenon in which attempts to suppress or censor information can unintentionally draw far more public attention to it. (This is where I’ll note that Sackler, who either didn’t think or care to cloak his identity when filing his “objection,” didn’t respond to my inquiry for this coverage.) .... D’Souza is concerned about what he views as the affliction of journalism on the powerful.
3
ProPublica
@ProPublica@newsie.social  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago
3
The Intercept
@theintercept@journa.host  ·  activity timestamp last week
Zhi Zhu 🕸️
@ZhiZhu@newsie.social  ·  activity timestamp 7 days ago
Meme, plain white background with black text: Some say that journalists should strive to be “neutral” I disagree. I think journalists should strive to be truthful — like a witness in a trial who is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Stating a truth that will be used to determine someone’s guilt or innocence is rarely a “neutral” act, but it is a necessary one. When remaining “neutral” is used as an excuse to avoid stating uncomfortable truths — truths that might offend the powerful or the public — that is not journalism. That is cowardice. Watermark: ZmemeZ
Meme, plain white background with black text: Some say that journalists should strive to be “neutral” I disagree. I think journalists should strive to be truthful — like a witness in a trial who is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Stating a truth that will be used to determine someone’s guilt or innocence is rarely a “neutral” act, but it is a necessary one. When remaining “neutral” is used as an excuse to avoid stating uncomfortable truths — truths that might offend the powerful or the public — that is not journalism. That is cowardice. Watermark: ZmemeZ
Meme, plain white background with black text: Some say that journalists should strive to be “neutral” I disagree. I think journalists should strive to be truthful — like a witness in a trial who is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Stating a truth that will be used to determine someone’s guilt or innocence is rarely a “neutral” act, but it is a necessary one. When remaining “neutral” is used as an excuse to avoid stating uncomfortable truths — truths that might offend the powerful or the public — that is not journalism. That is cowardice. Watermark: ZmemeZ
Home Login