Hacker News Reader

Comment by newacct583 | Hacker News Reader

Not a fan of this order. I'm no expert on the Seth Rich insanity, but my understanding is that this account was basically just a scam artist or prankster. It claimed some stuff, and then when the Fox reporter took the bait provided some fabricated documents.

This isn't a criminal suit. It's a civil thing having to do with Fox's behavior. And their failure to validate their sources and documents isn't really related to the original identity of those sources. I mean, we don't know who @whyspertech is, Fox certainly didn't know who @whyspertech was. No one knew. So why is it relevant for us to know now to determine whether or not Fox was at fault?

View on HN

The structural problem is that the impersonator's identity is irrelevant. Q himself, if revealed to be some kid in their parents' basement, would still be treated as a hero by the true believers.

I don't know how to cope with the knowledge that the system is so fundamentally broken that even simple facts are no longer able to be agreed upon. How can complex problems be addressed when truth is perceived to be entirely subjective?

Presumably they would like to know if there is a link between Fox and @whyspertech. What if @whyspertech was just a convenient 'anonymous' source for Fox?

I am less certain that Fox didn't know who @whyspertech was.

So why is it relevant for us to know now to determine whether or not Fox was at fault?

"Learning the identity of @whysprtech is necessary in order to confirm that @whysprtech was not in fact a FBI 'insider' or otherwise someone who had access to non-public FBI material," Benedict Hu wrote in a filing."

I see two faults. A prankster, who I believe should be uncovered, and that goes to the nature of anonymous communications in the commons, and I know its complex, and that the channels are not always "the commons" as we used to understand them.

And, it goes to Fox being a non-journalist non-news agency which should be de-listed in any structural sense, since they are incapable of displaying what true journalism is.

You seem to want to address the second. No problem, but I don't think that invalidates the first. I want to know who this is. I want to know who Q is. I want to know who the White House Deep Throat is. I am tired of anonymous sources.

Deep Throat was Mark Felt. This has been public knowledge since 2005.

And what lag from Nixon was this again? The rhetorical quality here, is that "eventually" isn't good enough. The dependency on inside behind-the-scenes is tainting journalism. Yes, they get deep inside knowledge. They also get fed a line.

You want to know so badly who deep throat is, that you can’t even be bothered googling??

Please, don't be literalist about the fact of who Deep throat is. The point was, the perpetuating (decades) lack of knowledge of who Deep throat was, and its effect on the news cycle and journalism.

What we need, is whistleblowers. Not deep throat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com