I haven't been able to avoid hearing about Ben Shapiro, but I have been able to avoid paying attention to him. Nothing I have heard suggests that I have missed anything by not paying attention to him.
Ultimately, it might be murder. Based on what we know so far -- and we know about as much as we can reasonably expect this early -- that's not the way to bet unless someone gives you big odds. But maybe something will turn up that increases the likelihood that it was murder. Maybe something will turn up that will prove it was murder. Some people, though, will never be satisfied. The absence of evidence will be proof of just how brilliantly the murder conspirators pulled it off.
The problem is, an unsourced rumor came out that the tape was f****d up and we haven't seen the footage yet. Of course, we wouldn't see the footage this early in any investigation, no matter whether it was straight and by-the-book or corrupt and conspiratorial, and it would be a spectacular journalistic coup if anyone could get the no doubt small number of people who have seen the footage to talk. Getting anyone to leak the footage itself would be so close to impossible that it doesn't merit estimating the probabilities. Some time in the not too distant future, we will either know (or see) what the tape shows, if anything, or know that something is amiss, and react as we see fit. But in the meantime, wankers gotta wank.
Now Veronica, you can't go spoiling everyone's fun like that. What am I saying? You won't spoil anyone's fun. As Yogi Berra once said: "Some people, if they don't already know, you can't explain it to them."
One of my fantasies is to start a cable talk show in which I spend most of my time explaining why I don't have an opinion yet on Burning Issue X, and am willing to wait for more information -- and, by implication, why viewers ought to do the same. I don't suppose it would last long, but it might be fun for a while.
So back to my earlier question: where do you think news comes from? If you can't get people who know to tell you and stand by what they say, you can't publish. The very source you cite shows how hard that is.
Well, that's impressive. I was making Harvey Weinstein jokes in the 1970's, when he and I were in college together. When did someone actually have something publishable?
Many years ago, the New York Daily News had a Washington Bureau Chief, the late Lars-Erik Nelson, who had a nasty habit of deflating stupid commenters with facts and reason. During the early '90s, he was on one of the early-morning gabfest shows and someone called in explaining in great detail one or the other of what passed for Clinton scandals, and ranting about how the media were ignoring it. Remember, this was before the internet, blogs, and what-have-you. Nelson let the caller rant on for a while, then mildly replied: You seem remarkably well informed. Where did you get your information? Did you dig it up yourself? Do you have agents looking into things like this for you?
By now, the point was painfully obvious, but the caller still didn't get it. He sputtered on a while, then hung up.
Well, most of us look to the news to find things out that we don't already know. We know what we don't know. Just pointing out that we don't know what we already know we don't know doesn't strike me as much of a contribution. If you think a restatement of the obvious makes an article that repackages the work others have done to get us as far as we are with what we do know good and not restating it makes an article bad, well, there's no accounting for tastes.
Where do you think news comes from? It comes from reporters getting people who know something to talk. Who knows something? Officials, that's who. Some officials put out public statements. Some have to be run down and cajoled into revealing stuff not ready for public dissemination. The Times piece you forwarded is based on three unidentified officials with knowledge that the reporters got to tell them very interesting information that was not a press release or public handout. And the one you "said was good," the New York piece, didn't rely on "officials said" because it didn't do any original reporting about Epstein's apparent suicide. (Some of the reaction stuff may have been original reporting, but not the factual information about Epstein's death.) It summarized what other reporters reported, much of it based on what officials said.
Now you're just mailing it in.
I'm not giving them any benefit of the doubt. I'm just watching what they are, in fact, doing now, rather than insisting that they are (and, because of my priors, must be) falling down on the job -- an insistence that looks more and more ridiculous as more and more revelations pile up.
Is there a point at which we should say “hey, journalists haven’t really done a good job investigating this”?
Yes. When they've had the kind of time it normally takes to develop a story like this and they aren't getting anywhere. Right now, they have already uncovered some good stuff and the body is still warm. If that changes, there will be reason to worry. But for now, I prefer to look at the facts as they are uncovered rather than give vent to suspicions that they won't be uncovered, which look less well-founded every day.
Now if you want to talk about whether the Acosta/Epstein story got the coverage it needed, have at it.
Again, the platitudinous generality no one disputes. Who here, or anywhere, as far as I can tell, denies that there are a lot of unanswered questions that will, eventually, need to be answered? And as far as attitude goes, patience is a lot better than flapping your wings and ruffling your feathers because you don't have all the answers RIGHT NOW and chirping about people falling down on a job that, to all appearances, they are vigorously pursuing, with new revelations every news cycle. Like the post below.
We must always remember that we don't know these people. They are marvelous talents who do marvelous things. They may even employ the wealth and fame they have gained from exercising their talents to do great good in the larger world. But whatever we think we know about them as private human beings is an artifact of public relations and hero worship. While I prefer to think well of people until I have some reason to believe otherwise, I have been too frequently surprised to be surprised anymore.
The New York piece is a fine summary of what had previously been reported, and it is useful to have everything in one place, but it doesn't tell us anything about Epstein's apparent suicide that we hadn't already read elsewhere. I agree that it's a good piece of work, within the limits of the type of piece it is, and it is responsible journalism, not whining about how the blue meanies haven't yet told us everything we want to know RIGHT NOW and that therefore .... well, what? So I like it. What I don't understand is why, given your stated objections to what you seem to believe the press isn't doing, you like it.
No, not yet. Obviously, there will be a point, but that will depend on what other information comes out, how fast it comes out, and whether there is some reason that all that would come out and the tapes information wouldn't. That may not be exact enough to satisfy you, but, as Kazzy said earlier, the world does not run the way you want it to.
As far as I can tell, TMZ hasn't "tackled" it. They've passed on a rumor. And the idea that no one else is looking into it, perhaps without success so far, is pure supposition. I expect that whatever the situation is with the cameras will come out at some point. I doubt if anyone who actually knows now will leak it, and I won't hazard a guess as to when either someone finds a source that will leak or it comes out officially. But at some point in the near future, as the investigation continues, we will either know or know that we don't know.
If anything good comes of this, it may be some public interest in the generally and systematically deplorable state of our prisons, an issue that has heretofore been politically suicidal to broach. It would almost be funny if the impetus for such interest was the death of perhaps the least sympathetic inmate in the federal prison system.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Ben Shapiro Works Those Feelings”
I haven't been able to avoid hearing about Ben Shapiro, but I have been able to avoid paying attention to him. Nothing I have heard suggests that I have missed anything by not paying attention to him.
On “Epstein Dead”
There may turn out to be such people. If so, have fun arguing with them.
"
Ultimately, it might be murder. Based on what we know so far -- and we know about as much as we can reasonably expect this early -- that's not the way to bet unless someone gives you big odds. But maybe something will turn up that increases the likelihood that it was murder. Maybe something will turn up that will prove it was murder. Some people, though, will never be satisfied. The absence of evidence will be proof of just how brilliantly the murder conspirators pulled it off.
"
The problem is, an unsourced rumor came out that the tape was f****d up and we haven't seen the footage yet. Of course, we wouldn't see the footage this early in any investigation, no matter whether it was straight and by-the-book or corrupt and conspiratorial, and it would be a spectacular journalistic coup if anyone could get the no doubt small number of people who have seen the footage to talk. Getting anyone to leak the footage itself would be so close to impossible that it doesn't merit estimating the probabilities. Some time in the not too distant future, we will either know (or see) what the tape shows, if anything, or know that something is amiss, and react as we see fit. But in the meantime, wankers gotta wank.
"
Now Veronica, you can't go spoiling everyone's fun like that. What am I saying? You won't spoil anyone's fun. As Yogi Berra once said: "Some people, if they don't already know, you can't explain it to them."
"
One of my fantasies is to start a cable talk show in which I spend most of my time explaining why I don't have an opinion yet on Burning Issue X, and am willing to wait for more information -- and, by implication, why viewers ought to do the same. I don't suppose it would last long, but it might be fun for a while.
"
So back to my earlier question: where do you think news comes from? If you can't get people who know to tell you and stand by what they say, you can't publish. The very source you cite shows how hard that is.
"
Well, that's impressive. I was making Harvey Weinstein jokes in the 1970's, when he and I were in college together. When did someone actually have something publishable?
"
And how did they find out about them?
"
And how did you find out about them?
"
Many years ago, the New York Daily News had a Washington Bureau Chief, the late Lars-Erik Nelson, who had a nasty habit of deflating stupid commenters with facts and reason. During the early '90s, he was on one of the early-morning gabfest shows and someone called in explaining in great detail one or the other of what passed for Clinton scandals, and ranting about how the media were ignoring it. Remember, this was before the internet, blogs, and what-have-you. Nelson let the caller rant on for a while, then mildly replied: You seem remarkably well informed. Where did you get your information? Did you dig it up yourself? Do you have agents looking into things like this for you?
By now, the point was painfully obvious, but the caller still didn't get it. He sputtered on a while, then hung up.
"
Well, most of us look to the news to find things out that we don't already know. We know what we don't know. Just pointing out that we don't know what we already know we don't know doesn't strike me as much of a contribution. If you think a restatement of the obvious makes an article that repackages the work others have done to get us as far as we are with what we do know good and not restating it makes an article bad, well, there's no accounting for tastes.
"
Where do you think news comes from? It comes from reporters getting people who know something to talk. Who knows something? Officials, that's who. Some officials put out public statements. Some have to be run down and cajoled into revealing stuff not ready for public dissemination. The Times piece you forwarded is based on three unidentified officials with knowledge that the reporters got to tell them very interesting information that was not a press release or public handout. And the one you "said was good," the New York piece, didn't rely on "officials said" because it didn't do any original reporting about Epstein's apparent suicide. (Some of the reaction stuff may have been original reporting, but not the factual information about Epstein's death.) It summarized what other reporters reported, much of it based on what officials said.
Now you're just mailing it in.
"
Check your own posts. You're taking all the fun out of this.
"
I'm not giving them any benefit of the doubt. I'm just watching what they are, in fact, doing now, rather than insisting that they are (and, because of my priors, must be) falling down on the job -- an insistence that looks more and more ridiculous as more and more revelations pile up.
"
Is there a point at which we should say “hey, journalists haven’t really done a good job investigating this”?
Yes. When they've had the kind of time it normally takes to develop a story like this and they aren't getting anywhere. Right now, they have already uncovered some good stuff and the body is still warm. If that changes, there will be reason to worry. But for now, I prefer to look at the facts as they are uncovered rather than give vent to suspicions that they won't be uncovered, which look less well-founded every day.
Now if you want to talk about whether the Acosta/Epstein story got the coverage it needed, have at it.
"
Again, the platitudinous generality no one disputes. Who here, or anywhere, as far as I can tell, denies that there are a lot of unanswered questions that will, eventually, need to be answered? And as far as attitude goes, patience is a lot better than flapping your wings and ruffling your feathers because you don't have all the answers RIGHT NOW and chirping about people falling down on a job that, to all appearances, they are vigorously pursuing, with new revelations every news cycle. Like the post below.
On “This One Really Hurts”
We must always remember that we don't know these people. They are marvelous talents who do marvelous things. They may even employ the wealth and fame they have gained from exercising their talents to do great good in the larger world. But whatever we think we know about them as private human beings is an artifact of public relations and hero worship. While I prefer to think well of people until I have some reason to believe otherwise, I have been too frequently surprised to be surprised anymore.
On “Epstein Dead”
The New York piece is a fine summary of what had previously been reported, and it is useful to have everything in one place, but it doesn't tell us anything about Epstein's apparent suicide that we hadn't already read elsewhere. I agree that it's a good piece of work, within the limits of the type of piece it is, and it is responsible journalism, not whining about how the blue meanies haven't yet told us everything we want to know RIGHT NOW and that therefore .... well, what? So I like it. What I don't understand is why, given your stated objections to what you seem to believe the press isn't doing, you like it.
"
So now we get the platitudinous generality predicted earlier.
"
Can you give me a timeframe?
No, not yet. Obviously, there will be a point, but that will depend on what other information comes out, how fast it comes out, and whether there is some reason that all that would come out and the tapes information wouldn't. That may not be exact enough to satisfy you, but, as Kazzy said earlier, the world does not run the way you want it to.
"
As far as I can tell, TMZ hasn't "tackled" it. They've passed on a rumor. And the idea that no one else is looking into it, perhaps without success so far, is pure supposition. I expect that whatever the situation is with the cameras will come out at some point. I doubt if anyone who actually knows now will leak it, and I won't hazard a guess as to when either someone finds a source that will leak or it comes out officially. But at some point in the near future, as the investigation continues, we will either know or know that we don't know.
"
Sadly, you're probably right.
"
And one of the things I’m kinda hoping for on the part of the media is a display of competence.
You can have "display" or "competence." You've made your choice, the rest of us have made ours.
"
If anything good comes of this, it may be some public interest in the generally and systematically deplorable state of our prisons, an issue that has heretofore been politically suicidal to broach. It would almost be funny if the impetus for such interest was the death of perhaps the least sympathetic inmate in the federal prison system.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.