y va marquer wrote:
Jones you said:
"None of the intelligence agencies even attempt to provide evidence...."
Clearly not correct.
That the evidence is not convincing does not make your claim true.
Try the first sentence of my last post again. You can't put the label 'evidence' on a report this woefully inadequate to the standards you have to expect for an accusation this grave. That's like saying Trump has proven himself to be a great rhetorician because of his claims of having the best words ffs. My whole last post was basically explaining why that report is not evidence; I'd appreciate an explanation why I'm wrong instead of just declaring it evidence.
If your gripe is now that the Guradian didn't pick the report apart as opposed to just telling us that "The report was criticized by security experts, who said it lacked depth and came too late" and expected you to analyse the report yourself fair enough.
It's a short news article that informs of the existence of a report criticised by experts which purports to prove that Russian backed hackers hacked areas of the Democratic Party in 2016.
The article does not state anywhere that it is proof that Russian government-sponsored hacking groups actually did what the report claimed.
Note
"allegedly Russian government-sponsored hacking groups"
y va you have said yourself that you expect your journalists to stick to core journalistic principles and to take their time to check the facts they then spread. The article starts with a highly suggestive headline, which doesn't leave any doubt whether there actually has been a Russian hacking campaign. It continues by quoting the report itself as well as a Microsoft report (both dissected in the article I linked earlier).
Next there's a seven line paragraph which implicates five or six different hacking incidents, each time preceded by terms like "alleged", "apparently" and "supposedly". Not once did they bother cross-checking whether these claims are true; yet they are included in an article with the narrative that Russia is behind the DNC hacks.
One of, if not the, most important journalistic core principle is listening to both sides of a story. Where are voices like Carr's or former NSA high ranking officer William Binney who claim and explain how the US could easily provide intelligence on who was behind the hack (if there was one behind the leak) using XKeyscore and other software? Why is the Guardian which supposedly searches the truth content with being the FBI's mouth piece spreading their report, with the added fig leaf of quoting some twitterati expert critics who say the report comes too late, as if the point in time had any bearing on this story which has been running for months now?
