For the second time in a year, the FBI came to my home yesterday after I published the so-called manifesto of the man charged with killing two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington.
Not a single mainstream media outlet has published the text because, as they claim, the FBI hasn’t confirmed its authenticity. But the real reason is simple. The media just doesn’t want to publish it. And the FBI doesn’t want the media to think it can
These are those 11 questions (from the email I’ve reproduced below):
- When did he first encounter the manifesto?
- How did he first encounter the manifesto?
- Did he receive any instruction from the source of the manifesto about how to disseminate it?
- Does the system or platform from which he received the manifesto capture metadata concerning the transfer of the manifesto?
- Did he make any edits or changes to the manifesto?
- Was this his first and only interaction with whomever submitted the manifesto?
- Has anyone else submitted any other documentation regarding this incident?
- Did his receipt of the manifesto predate the attack?
- Where else, if anywhere, did he disseminate the manifesto?
- Does he have any knowledge of where else the manifesto was published or shared?
- Why does he think he was the one who received the manifesto?
Other than the questions implying the FBI is entertaining an outlandish theory that I conspired with the shooter, the others seem pretty straightforward and routine.
But there’s a Trump administration dimension to all of this. The administration has many times publicly warned about shadowy, unseen forces that it believes are bankrolling everything from Tesla vandalism to the college protests. That tone from the top, labeling seemingly everything terrorism, tells personnel that the gloves are off and more aggressive work in the field is now permissible.
Get ready to hear that I’m impeding the investigation, giving people a roadmap to the “sources and methods” that are used to catch terrorists, or whatever reason the national security state soundboard offers up for why the public isn’t allowed to know things.
lemmy.world/news removed this post because they agree with the FBI.
As mentioned in the removal notes visible in the public modlog, your post was removed because it was a blog site (rule 2, 6), not a news site. [email protected] only allows news sites. I can't speak for the other members of the mod team, but if coming from a news site, I wouldn't have problems with the manifesto being published.
Thank you. I see too many questionable opinion sites being offered up as news.
You define news as anyone who obeys by FBI censorship.
Thank you for proving my point.
No, but I certainly don’t include a substack blog with all articles that are clearly opinion pieces / blogs in the definition of a news article.
I am not saying that having or airing an opinion is bad, I just say that it isn’t what the news community is for.
And there’s a grey area, and I would love to debate you on that, but I don’t think this website falls anywhere close to that area.
Out of curiousity, if the veracity of this 'blog' is confirmed in the facts that this reporter was approached by FBI following his reporting of a manifesto, and mainstream 'approved' sources simply are not covering, how is this any less news? What is your ideal recourse for this to not be posted in [email protected] if it is not merely an opinion piece?
It's inherently an opinion piece. The writing is in the first person and he gives his opinions and views about things. I have nothing against the article, I would even say he is doing great writing and very important work, but it's not a news article.
I'm open to you changing my mind about this btw, I didn't do the removal, but I still would probably have done the same in this case. So if I'm wrong about this, I would like to know.
It's fully factual reporting on a reporter who published a verified manifesto getting harrassed by the FBI. Including voice memos and emails. There is nothing "opinion" about the article except the last paragraph which states the consequences of this government harrassment.
Wow. The only NEWS site which publishes the manifesto and dares to give an explanation about the shooting instead of screaming antisemitism, is "not news"
I guess a journalist is someone who repeats America government propaganda. And a news site is a website which publishes American government propaganda.