- Reaction score
- 18,698
- Points
- 1,160
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,023
- Points
- 1,040
So I am seeing that certain files that were released can actually be unredacted if you download them and use a simple python script, due to how those PDF's were created.
I am going to refrain from linking anything just to be safe, but they're in the wild now for the curious.
I am going to refrain from linking anything just to be safe, but they're in the wild now for the curious.
- Reaction score
- 10,946
- Points
- 1,040
Yes, that Schellenberger.
Supposing Nordhaus's opinions of Schellenberger having odd beliefs about UFOs and J6 and censorship (Schellenberger co-investigated the "Twitter Files" with Matt Taibbi) to be true and not inflected by Nordhaus's own politics, they are irrelevant to the facts. I put up a link to Schellenberg's X post because it was a convenient summary of facts I already knew from other reading.
Moskowitz on X
Also Moskowitz
The second post is particularly interesting. "We didn't get an interview" is not the same as "we didn't get a response".
- Reaction score
- 37,763
- Points
- 1,210
Poor quality redaction by adding layers to a PDF is a tale as old as time.
(Or at least as old as the PDF standard)
- Reaction score
- 26,515
- Points
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 6,135
- Points
- 1,260
Is that an opinion, or do you have sources?
- Reaction score
- 18,698
- Points
- 1,160
There's the point.
You decided to discredit Alfonsi's credibility by a post from Schellenberger who himself is problematic. But we don't know the actual facts in the Publix matter because it was never addressed in depth because before the report his people ran for cover. The fact that Publix and various Florida Republican shills objected after the fact is par for the course.
The actual point here is that Alfonsi does have a solid reputation as an investigative reporter covering decades. Schellenberger is irrelevant. You're trying to deflect from the factual situation behind the 60 minutes story by an oblique ad hominin attack on Alfonsi. That's typical MAGA strategy.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,278
- Points
- 1,260
A military does not get to make those decisions. When you join, you don’t join with the freedom to pick which wars you will support.
The ineptitude is amazing.
- Reaction score
- 18,698
- Points
- 1,160
I don't know about the police field but in the law one, two and a bit decades ago the search for a software solution that would really, really redact an electronic document permanently was a major issue. At the time there were several solutions that did redaction but could still be compromised.
I would have thought that by this time that there would be a foolproof tool and that DoJ would have it widely deployed.
- Reaction score
- 3,741
- Points
- 1,190
Redact the document with whatever tool you chose, then take a screen capture of the image of the redacted document. How is it that complicated?I don't know about the police field but in the law one, two and a bit decades ago the search for a software solution that would really, really redact an electronic document permanently was a major issue. At the time there were several solutions that did redaction but could still be compromised.
I would have thought that by this time that there would be a foolproof tool and that DoJ would have it widely deployed.
Acrobat Pro does it easily and reliably. My best guess is they never got rid of the Optical Character Recognition layer after they blacked out using whatever tool they used.I don't know about the police field but in the law one, two and a bit decades ago the search for a software solution that would really, really redact an electronic document permanently was a major issue. At the time there were several solutions that did redaction but could still be compromised.
I would have thought that by this time that there would be a foolproof tool and that DoJ would have it widely deployed.
The most hilarious case would be if someone just highlighted the text and gave it a black background to match the characters.
Either way, no excuse for failing something this spectacularly.
- Reaction score
- 18,698
- Points
- 1,160
It's not. It's time consuming and somewhat impractical from a business point of view where larger numbers of documents need to be dealt with especially if many of them are paper and need digitizing and Batesing in the first place.
- Reaction score
- 10,946
- Points
- 1,040
Opinion. There is no authoritative source for credibility of journalists. Either you read them, or you don't.
Weiss is one of the handful of prominent people in media pressured by peers to either conform to their political preferences or move on, in this case at the NYT. The incident reflects badly on them, not her. I can guess that her subsequent financial success at Substack, her departure from leftist hive mind conformance, and particularly her new job have all antagonized the politically active left in US media. (I'm only guessing about the first; the latter two have been openly expressed by people who don't like her.) Leftists like to control institutions; they've gotten used to controlling institutions; they object to change.
I expect people who object to her and what they figure will be shakeups at CBS to fight back. Fighting back includes creating controversy where they can. The controversy they're trying to gin up here is that she's somehow in the pockets of the Trump administration.
If Moskowitz told his story straight, he dead-ended the juiciest angle of a story ("pay-to-play") people had undoubtedly been working on for a while and for which the frame had already been decided. Denied an opportunity to interview him and thus edit/splice a version of his story to suit themselves, they went ahead anyways. People should worry more about the credibility of anyone involved in that, particularly the senior-most.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,023
- Points
- 1,040
I looked into it further, the python script was just to automate the process (because there are thousands of files). You can manually highlight the redacted text and paste it into a new document and if it's one of the effected ones, voila. Trump's name appears over 600 times now.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 20,945
- Points
- 1,260
Let me guess - he’s going to rename Christmas
- Reaction score
- 10,946
- Points
- 1,040
You don't know they "ran for cover". Why not take a charitable view and concede Moskowitz's version - he was busy? Why is it so tiresomely customary to characterize conservatives/Republicans as having discreditable motives for not submitting to the games media journalists are well-known to play (eg. creative video editing of interviews; offering very short time-to-deadline for responses in order to provide an excuse for ignoring that which could not reasonably be provided)? Some of Schellenberger's views may be flaky, but flaky isn't dishonest.
Why is it not equally possible to take an uncharitable view the other way? Context: during COVID, people played politics. One of the prominent political duels was NY vs FL (ie. how the Cuomo and DeSantis administrations were dealing with COVID). Democrats and Democrat supporters tended to look for reasons to praise Cuomo and denigrate DeSantis. On balance of probability, common sense suggests institutions heavily controlled by Democrat supporters might make up weak reasons to hack away at DeSantis.
Now Weiss is in a similar position. Democrat supporters make up excuses to hack away at her. Why should their claims be more acceptable than hers? If all she does is delay - either gets what she wants from the WH or accepts that nothing is forthcoming - and proves her position, would a reasonable person believe her or them the next time something happens?
The actual point is that Moskowitz cast grave if not fatal doubt on the main angle of her story shortly before it was due to air. The reporters are making allegations. They already had one stated set of contrary facts from someone in an authoritative position to know. I submit it was their duty to find evidence to dismiss those facts, if any existed.
No-one should hide behind "Republican shills objected...par for the course". "Denial is evidence of guilt" was one of the stupidest things to emerge from identity politics. WTF - if non-anonymous assertions by people at the centre of responsibility are dismissable, there's nothing a journalist can't "prove". That's "make up your own evidence" territory.
"I have allegations."
"Here is what actually happened."
"You might reasonably be expected to deny it, so your denial is meaningless. I am inferring from appearances. My allegations stand."
It is not a mere ad hominem attack; it is crucially relevant. A journalist, like a witness, is anchored on credibility. An incident of discreditable conduct removes credibility.
- Reaction score
- 7,330
- Points
- 1,360
I've also read somewhere that you can copy & paste some of the files to get around the redactions. Someone must have been in a hurry ....
Meanwhile, while POTUS47 continues to forge ahead in "restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship," some goodies new management in Washington doesn't want out there have been slipping out (for a bit, anyway) ....
Pulled '60 Minutes' segment surfaces on web with Canadian broadcaster's branding
A segment of the American news program "60 Minutes," pulled by CBS News prior to its U.S. airing, began circulating online Monday with the branding of Canadian broadcaster Global TV.
60 Minutes episode on brutal El Salvador prison, pulled from air by CBS, appears online
Segment that Bari Weiss had removed provides in-depth look at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo prison
www.theguardian.com
- Reaction score
- 10,946
- Points
- 1,040
It turns out that proper redaction is time-consuming and maybe a little bit difficult.
Didn't get everything out on time - scandalous.
Might have over-redacted - scandalous.
Withdrew some released stuff for (review? do the reasons even matter to critics?) - scandalous.
Incompetent redactions - scandalous.
Only the fourth one is truly scandalous (potential release of some of that which was to be protected). But the sum of all this suggests there is no counterfactual practical scenario in which all of the necessary, and only the necessary, redactions could be made on time and securely in accordance with the legislation. So what we have is what we always have - news cycle after news cycle of excuses for manufactured outrage. Scandals, all the way down. Kobayashi Maru as usual.
Didn't get everything out on time - scandalous.
Might have over-redacted - scandalous.
Withdrew some released stuff for (review? do the reasons even matter to critics?) - scandalous.
Incompetent redactions - scandalous.
Only the fourth one is truly scandalous (potential release of some of that which was to be protected). But the sum of all this suggests there is no counterfactual practical scenario in which all of the necessary, and only the necessary, redactions could be made on time and securely in accordance with the legislation. So what we have is what we always have - news cycle after news cycle of excuses for manufactured outrage. Scandals, all the way down. Kobayashi Maru as usual.
- Reaction score
- 10,946
- Points
- 1,040
A bit more.
Axios on the brouhaha, including the text of Weiss's memo.
Again the "didn't provide an interview" game was played.
"Two sources familiar with the situation said the administration did provide comment from different departments in response to inquiries from "60 Minutes" journalists, but that their comments were not included in the draft of the segment first shown to Weiss on Thursday afternoon."
Axios on the brouhaha, including the text of Weiss's memo.
Again the "didn't provide an interview" game was played.
"Two sources familiar with the situation said the administration did provide comment from different departments in response to inquiries from "60 Minutes" journalists, but that their comments were not included in the draft of the segment first shown to Weiss on Thursday afternoon."