I'm going to say something blunt about the Joy-Ann Reid story...

[brooklynite]

The notion that someone would hack her account to damage her reputation is silly. Why? Because (to be BLUNT) she's not that important a public figure. Yes I know people HERE like her, but let's be honest: other than occasionally appearing as a panelist on someone else's primetime show, she hosts a program on weekend mornings. I don't watch her. Most people don't watch her. Most MSNBC VIEWERS don't watch her. Why would anyone make her a target? If digital hacking is so easy, and "they" were so afraid of media voices, there plenty of others with larger audiences to target.

[TheSmarterDog]

1. She's sure important to SOMEONE.

All the evidence points to her not writing these posts. None of her followers remember them, none of her editors remember them, they don't match her expressed views at the time, they have no replies, she was on the air working when they were supposedly posted, they're not written in the same style as she used, they used different wording, etc etc etc.

This whole thing is a set up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=ioBhGmfYDKo

[sheshe2]

4. Thank you.

[EffieBlack]

16. Yeah, but besides that, got any other proof?

[mythology]

26. Given that she previously apologized for writing homophobic posts in that same time frame

it's kind of hard to claim that these newly found posts don't match her expressed views at the time.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/msnbc-s-joy-reid-apologizes-insensitive-lgbt-blog-posts-n826091

Is it possible that somebody has gone to a great deal of effort to fake it? Sure, but Occam's Razor suggests the simpler solution is correct. She says she has evidence that it was a hacker. Put it out there. They wouldn't have to name the specific person as her security investigator says he doesn't want to name names unless certain. But then let another security group take a look or provide some legitimate evidence. Saying you have proof but nobody else can see it, isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

[Blue_true]

48. So you post articles that are all opinion.

And when I finally get to the damning blog postings, all I see is a header under Reid's blog flag that says "Charlie, Charlie", but nothing else. I then read a series of snippets that have zero headers that indicate they are from her blog. Convincing case you put forward, not.

[padfun]

66. Occam's Razor is bullshit.

It is an excuse to use anything as being evidence. It is NOT a valid theory and assumes that everything is very simple, when it is usually quite complex.

Bullshit theory's to explain things is what Alex Jones is made of.

[OilemFirchen]

70. You want some Occam's Razor?

The very same Tweeter who discovered the Charlie Crist posts didn't see these much more damning ones until months later.

To which observation do you suppose William of Ockham would point as proof of his theory?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. Good point.

[Cha]

81. I imagine Joy will "put it out there" when

her TEAM gets their legal ducks in a row.

[mercuryblues]

139. If posts were uncovered in her blog

and these posts are in the same time frame, why weren't these posts also uncovered and reported on? They would have to of been there when the others were reported on and appear to be more inflammatory than the other ones.

The same person who found the others just recently "found" these ones? That alone sounds suspicious to me.

All her other posts have a very active comments section, but these recently found posts have no comments. Her followers and detractors commented on everything else, but did not take her to task for this?

The writing style differs from her other posts.


If something does not make sense, it is not true.

[Cha]

80. Grand.. you've put together more evidence

that I haven't seen!

Ooops on the.. she was on air when they were written TL.. hackers should be smarter.. glad they're dumbshits.

Link to tweet

[TheSmarterDog]

136. Just summarizing what you & the other good people of DU are doing.

[Cha]

138. Glad you did.. I hadn't seen

that time line before of her being on the air when it happened!

Thank you!

[MFM008]

121. Exactly

Anyone forget about Al Franken?
SETUP.

[BannonsLiver]

2. Couldnt agree more

She’s on every other Sunday on even numbered months when the moon is in the third house for an hour or two. There are literally dozens of people watching.

[Agschmid]

27. Shes on MSNBC every weekend, and is often the fill in host for prime time.

She is an important figure at MSNBC.

[BannonsLiver]

46. ...

[Agschmid]

134. I dont watch her, hell I dont even have cable.

But it’s not hard to figure out.

She’s on more often that you constructively contribute to a thread, that’s for damn sure.

[Sugarcoated]

94. Yep

She is indeed a thorn in Republican's side. She takes no shit and she's brilliant how she takes bullshitters down. Absolutely she's a target.

[CentralMass]

3. Good points. I dont watch her. I dont have cable.

[rickford66]

29. You could stream MSNBC on the machine you're using now.

[HopeAgain]

125. The problem with 24 hour news channels

is they make themselves the news. "Lets talk about ourselves instead of the ongoing dismantling of democracy, shall we?" I cancelled my cable TV almost a year ago.

[LexVegas]

5. Some of us non whites like her.

[TomSlick]

13. Some of us old white guys like her too.

[LexVegas]

14. ...

[H2O Man]

28. "

[Hekate]

39. Some of us old white ladies like her too. I like brainy women, & Joy qualifies. nt

[radical noodle]

76. I'm in the old white ladies cheer section for Joy

She's an awesome host and interviewer. She's also a dedicated Democrat.

[Pathwalker]

156. I'm right there with you, too.

Watch her EVERY weekend.

[Cha]

83. Some of us white little ol ladies

actually love her. lol

Lex

[appleannie1943]

127. Me too

[Amimnoch]

144. Some of us old gay white guys adore her.

And don't believe a word of this bullshit being posted about her.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. I hadn't heard of her until today.

Her story seems unlikely. Time, however, will tell.

[OilemFirchen]

7. Yeah.

Why wouldn't they go after one of the better known black female MSNBC hosts?

[Control-Z]

69. Name one of the other better known black female hosts

from MSNBC. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[OilemFirchen]

71. I believe that's my point. (n/t)

[Cha]

101. And, an excellent point it

is.

Joy is brilliant.. it doesn't matter that she's just on the weekends. Her voice gets heard on streaming, too.. her intelligence with facts is very persuasive.

[Control-Z]

112. Wow, that went right over my head.

I'm a tad embarrassed. There's just too much going on to process today.

[sheshe2]

8. Russia proves that it is easy.

If digital hacking is so easy, and "they" were so afraid of media voices, there plenty of others with larger audiences to target.

They hacked our elections.

[TheSmarterDog]

9. Thank you

That otherwise intelligent people can't see this is beyond me.

[sheshe2]

18. Anytime.

[Blue_true]

49. They see what they want to see, sadly. nt

[Sugarcoated]

96. Russian propaganda is very effective

sadly, for our country.

[uponit7771]

55. +1

[Retrograde]

10. Because she's a well-spoken, articulate critic of Trump and his ilk?

I don't watch her show (I don't watch any TV in the daytime) but from what I've seen of her sitting in for Maddow she comes across as the type of person the ultraright hates and fears: a Black woman who has her facts together and has access to a potentially large audience.

Going after Ms Reid is like trying to undermine a structure if you don't have heavy equipment at hand: you start chipping away at some key components and once you weaken enough the structure will collapse. Going after Maddow and O'Donnell is hard, so they're going after someone they think is more vulnerable.

Why does this remind me of the accusations against Franken last December?

[brooklynite]

11. "Why does this remind me of the accusations against Franken last December?"

The fact that they both apologized for their behavior?

“As someone who is not a member of the LGBT community I regret the way I addressed the complex issue of the closet and speculation on a person’s sexual orientation with a mocking tone and sarcasm. It was insensitive, tone deaf and dumb. There is no excusing it — not based on the taste-skewing mores of talk radio or the then-blogosphere, and not based on my intentions.”

"I feel terribly that I've made some women feel badly and for that I am so sorry, and I want to make sure that never happens again. And let me say again to Minnesotans that I'm sorry for putting them through this and I'm committed to regaining their trust."

[ecstatic]

42. Very similar situations: Franken apologized for the fake groping picture,

which opened the flood gates for a lot of crazy accusations. Reid apologized for blogs that questioned Christ's sexuality (because he was homophobic). Now her opponents and trolls who want to divide have swooped in and spoofed a bunch of blog posts. The posts sound like something a 12 year boy would write; but of course, when you hate someone, all common sense goes out the window.

[dalton99a]

72. +1

[GusBob]

12. I feel the same way about the hacking of DU on election night

This place was just not that important

And yet it happened

Someone with an ax to grind

[NatBurner]

63. this

du and joy are just practice for these fuckers

[Sugarcoated]

99. It's tactic to demoralize

[Scurrilous]

120. Yep.

The OP is ludicrous. It can happen to anyone.

[Marcuse]

15. Joy is must see TV. She should get her prime time show back.

[BannonsLiver]

17. Yes, there are literally dozens of people watching

[Sugarcoated]

98. That's the same response Fox Fake News people come back with

to put down other cable media outlets when they have nothing....it just sounds silly.

[BannonsLiver]

114. I couldnt care less.

[Sugarcoated]

118. Yes you do

apparently

[Garrett78]

19. I don't know if Reid was hacked or not, but I can certainly see why she would be targeted.

For starters, Reid has previously admitted to making some insensitive comments on the same subject, which enhances the believability.

Secondly, it can lead to infighting or the formation of wedges between key Democratic constituent groups.

Lastly, it serves as a distraction from Hannity, Trump, etc. (Why not target a different host? See above points.)

[brooklynite]

21. There would only be a wedge if there was a significant pro- and anti- Reid constituency...

I don't think there's one of either.

[Garrett78]

24. Not true. The potential wedge (even if it was merely a media invention) would be...

...between persons of color and LGBTQ persons. That's the nature of racism; Reid represents all Black folks, whereas there's no such thing as someone being representative of all white people. Not only that, but Reid is a woman. At a time when women are having some success at fighting back against systemic sexism, and at a time when several women are considered to be likely 2020 candidates.

And just like that a distraction and wedge is born.

Again, I don't know if Reid was hacked, but targeting her specifically would actually make a lot of sense.

[brooklynite]

33. Most people of color and most LGBTQ people have no idea who Reid is

[peabody]

40. So what?

She clearly is a liberal voice (and a more popular one than you think given all the people here that have spoken up to support her) so she certainty can be a target. Like some posters wrote: DU was hacked and we're not that important in the whole scheme of things. So if it happened to us, why would you think it couldn't happen to her?

[Cha]

102. Great point, peabody.. I was thinking

of that, too. We were hacked on Election Day 2016.. who knew we were so important!?

Same goes for Joy Reid..who is much more important than the OP lets on.

Mahalo

[peabody]

108. Thanks! It's disgusting

that some people seem to be taking joy in seeing her being taken down. With "lefties" like that, the Republicans have their dirty work done for them.

[Cha]

119. They have their own agenda.. starting with glenn greenwald..

for wanting to take down Joy Reid.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

44. And you know this how?

[Blue_true]

53. Yeah, that was a rather bold claim.

Does the person's spirit transit through the minds of black people during their sleep to see their thoughts?

[uponit7771]

56. Do you have any empirical evidence to back this claim up? tia

[Garrett78]

65. Again, that doesn't matter.

As I said, the nature of racism is to make one African American representative of all African Americans. And Reid is certainly not going to remain unknown.

The point in targeting Reid would be promoting a narrative that 2 Democratic constituent groups (Black folks and LGBTQ persons) are at war with one another. And to distract from the problems being faced by rival Fox News employees. Also, as I wrote before, Reid's apology for insensitive past comments lends believability to the story (even if there are many reasons to question the newly alleged Reid quotes).

There's no guarantee of success, but that's far more likely than the media basically ignoring this story. I can tell you which of the following I think is more likely:

A) Media briefly covers story of "Obscure TV host called out for making bigoted remarks."

B) Media and politicians promote false equivalency between problems faced by hosts of MSNBC and Fox. Media promotes narrative that Blue Wave at risk following infighting between key Democratic constituencies.

[Sugarcoated]

100. Very well said

[yardwork]

132. You're working hard to ignore the obvious here.

[FuzzyRabbit]

23. Divide and conquer!

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Reid is an important voice against Trumps and Republican's insanity. So even if only a few hundred thousand people watch her, her influence and example is important. You can bet other broadcasters are paying attention to her.

Therefore she must be silenced, or at least her voice weakened. And if they can get liberals to do it for them, so much the better.

Those who think her websites cannot be hacked should learn how the internet works. It is relatively easy, if you learn how. And you can believe that the Russians know how.

And to divide Democrats is easier than falling off a rock. Just put out a rumor that a Democratic candidate did or said something slightly wrong, even if it was years ago, many Dems will turn on them in an instant. Even if there is no evidence the Dem did it.

We have got to be more thoughtful, people. Just because something is on TV or on the internet does not make it true. Especially if something is on TV or the internet.

[Hekate]

45. What you said, FuzzyRabbit

Gods, are we Democrats easy to manipulate.

[Cha]

107. Thank You, FuzzyRabbit!

Excellent points.

[tulipsandroses]

20. She also has a huge online following

Her presence is not only on tv. Just saying

[JNelson6563]

22. It makes more sense

than believing DU was a target of Russian covert ops on election night.

[LeftInTX]

57. This

I think she may have written that stuff, but context is lacking.
Also, whoever exposed it, has it in for Joy. Probably someone from Fox.

[peabody]

25. Why would it matter if she was popular or not?

I don't care if she has one viewer or a million viewers. Someone who stands up to the Right should be embraced as we need all the voices we can get against this administration.

[Whiskeytide]

30. You may be underestimating...

... the power and the rarity of a genuinely progressive voice on TV.

She has pulled few punches when it comes to Trump. His base is full of 4Chan assholes who would masterbate over this “operation”. Add to that the fact that this could be seen strategically as pitting two of the dem party’s biggest and most influential groups against each other.... and it’s certainly possible she’s been targeted.

[ecstatic]

31. Your premise--which is that she's a nobody & nobody would waste time hacking--

is wrong. A LOT of people watch her, including some of trump's flunkies. BoBers HATE her. She has a lot of vocal enemies. And though it seems pointless to you, spoofing the archives is easily done.

From October 2017:

The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine is the largest modern web archive, preserving web content since 1996. We discover and analyze several vulnerabilities in how the Wayback Machine archives data, and then leverage these vulnerabilities to create what are to our knowledge the first attacks against a user’s view of the archived web. Our vulnerabilities are enabled by the unique interaction between the Wayback Machine’s archives, other websites, and a user’s browser, and attackers do not need to compromise the archives in order to compromise users’ views of a stored page. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our attacks through proof-of-concept implementations. Then, we conduct a measurement study to quantify the prevalence of vulnerabilities in the archive. Finally, we explore defenses which might be deployed by archives, website publishers, and the users of archives, and present the prototype of a defense for clients of the Wayback Machine, ArchiveWatcher.

https://repository.wellesley.edu/scholarship/158/

[Azathoth]

43. If you read that paper, spoofing requires the attacker to have access to the original server

(or another server that the archived pages link to) and also requires that said links in the originally archived contents have certain properties. It's a series of unlikely coincidences that make spoofing little more than a theory that stops at proof-of-concept. And it's also easily demonstrated once it's discovered -- a security expert could easily show how the archived version is being spoofed. Instead, this security expert chose to scrub the archive and thus remove any evidence of "spoofing."

[ecstatic]

60. Here ya go, in case you're interested. But it sounds like

you have made up your mind. No, I don't know the method used: whether it was through an attack on the wayback machine, or on blogger.com. However, I am 100% confident that Reid did not write those posts. People will believe what they choose (and it's always easy to assume someone is guilty based on stereotypes).

This article discusses 7 other vulnerabilities in the internet archive, in addition to the 4 referenced in the last link.

https://blog.dshr.org/2017/09/attacking-users-of-wayback-machine.html

And this will be my last post on the topic tonight!

[Azathoth]

75. Unlike you, I'm not 100% confident either way

But I think Reid's story is very unusual, for a variety a common sense reasons, including the OP's.

I find it unusual that a then-obscure radio host had her website elaborately hacked a decade ago, that she never noticed the long articles that were supposedly inserted under her name, and that the hackers just left that stuff there to wait for 12 years until someone finally started going back through her old blog posts now that she's a more well-known name.

I find it unusual that she scrubbed the archive of her site right after claiming she had been hacked, which is kind of like washing your entire house down with bleach right after claiming you saw someone else commit a murder there.

I find it usual that she has pointedly neglected to say exactly which articles were and were not hacked, almost as if she wants plausible deniability in the future to say "Well, I never actually claimed that specific article was hacked."

I find it unusual that her security expert doesn't seem to have a coherent theory of what happened: he talks about the website being hacked, then he mentions something about a "breach" at the Wayback Machine (an assertion for which there is no evidence and which employees at the Wayback Machine deny), then he starts talking about the screenshots of the archived pages being manipulated -- something which would be easy to prove or disprove... if he and Reid hadn't scrubbed the archived pages. (Incidentally, her expert never mentioned spoofing the archive. That seems to be something you've come up with.)

[uponit7771]

58. +1

[Azathoth]

32. And that's *now*. Almost no one knew who she was back in 2006 when she was allegedly hacked

[OilemFirchen]

64. Why do you continue to assert the hack was in 2006?

For all your pretense of technical prowess, that you don't understand this was alleged to be a recent hack is a bit gob-smacking.

[Azathoth]

74. From the statement: "At no time has Ms. Reid claimed that the Wayback machine was hacked"

If the archive wasn't hacked, then the page it archived had to have been hacked -- and it archived that page back in 2006.

This doesn't take advanced computer skills to understand.

[OilemFirchen]

77. It is their assertion that the blog was hacked.

They also assert that there may be a correlation between this hack and a breach at archive.org - the suggestion, apparently, that the blog hack replaced the stored image by exploiting the breach. Not a specific hack, and not a dozen years ago.

Nb: This is meant only to clarify the date. I make no assumptions as to the validity of the claim.

[Azathoth]

78. There is no evidence of a supposed "breach" at the Wayback Machine

and one of their employees has denied the claim in a blog posting. Moreover, the expert's statement specifically does not claim that the two are related; it just throws out the unfounded allegation about the breach, apparently to allow sympathetic people reading it to jump to their own conclusions.

In any case, they now appear to have dropped the talk about the archive being breached

And Nichols insisted that he nor Reid aren't suggesting that the Internet Archive or other archival sites were hacked.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/26/media/joy-reid-hacking-fbi-investigation/index.html

Reid's expert's statement doesn't read like any cyber attack analysis I've ever seen. It reads more like a lawyer trying to create reasonable doubt, throwing out different (and not necessarily consistent) theories and allegations.

[OilemFirchen]

85. Please cite the claim that the hack occurred in 2006.

That is, after all, your contention.

[Azathoth]

89. Yawn

I'm not going to explain how the Wayback Machine works. This is only a difficult concept for people who are motivated not to understand.

[OilemFirchen]

93. You've got nothing, then?

That's cool.

G'night.

[Azathoth]

95. I'm not the only poster pointing out the obvious to you

[OilemFirchen]

109. Why are you still arguing with me?

Am I keeping you awake?

[Azathoth]

113. Nice shift into baiting

I guess we know why you're here arguing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

84. Yeah, but those pages are in the Internet Archive. they were archived in 2006.

Some of them are ALSO in a separate web archive at the Library of Congress; they were archived around the same time. So either the blog was "hacked" over a decade ago, or the Internet Archive and Library of Congress archive were hacked. Or she actually made those posts and is lying about being hacked. (Option 3 is the most likely and simplest explanation.)

[OilemFirchen]

90. I specifically stated that I take no position as to the validity of their claim.

But at no time did they assert that the blog hack occurred in 2006. That's my interlocutor's assumption.

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. They have to be asserting it.

Because the claim that the blog was hacked is otherwise prima facie absurd, if the supposedly "hacked" content was archived over a decade ago.

[OilemFirchen]

103. I don't know what they're asserting.

It would appear that they're suggesting that the archived pages were replaced via exploiting a breach at archive.org. I guess.

There is a point to this, BTW. As implausible as their hack claim would appear to be, it's not impossible, and there are some curious anomalies worth investigating. We certainly don't have all of the empirical evidence at this point. However, an additional assertion that the blog was hacked in 2006 would make their pronouncements painfully embarrassing, wouldn't you agree?

[Spider Jerusalem]

105. Except they've said they aren't claiming that the archive was hacked.

And yes, it's flat-out impossible. Because the pages were archived, with timestamps of over a decade ago.

[OilemFirchen]

110. They also said that that the timestamps were altered.

Now why would they say that do you suppose?

[Spider Jerusalem]

111. They've made no such claim relating to the Internet Archive or LOC archive

[OilemFirchen]

115. That's right.

They claim that the blog timestamps were altered. Why would they make that assertion if the hack was a dozen years ago?

BTW, I'm off to bed. Others are apparently growing impatient.

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. That makes their assertions nonsense

because the relevant blog posts were archived over a dozen years ago, with timestamps of their archive date.

[Azathoth]

106. And once again

Nichols insisted that he nor Reid aren't suggesting that the Internet Archive or other archival sites were hacked.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/26/media/joy-reid-hacking-fbi-investigation/index.html

[Azathoth]

92. It doesn't matter to them

I've been told by Reid fans today that her blog was hacked, that the Wayback Machine was hacked, that the archive was spoofed, that the screenshots of the archive were faked, etc.

Her supporters neither know nor care what the actual story is or whether the logic is consistent. They just know she's totally innocent because "fuck you, that's why."

[Blue_true]

34. Why does the supposedly archived homophobic posts have no comments

whereas all her other archived blog posts have plenty of comments? Cut any BS and answer that question.

Joy Reid has been a pain in the side for the right and some that claim to be progressive. Despite your claims, her tweets get retweeted by lots of people, and she has become a powerful progressive voice.

[Hekate]

35. We are being ratfcked.Again.DU is "not that important" either, yet this site was mugged, vandalized

...and almost killed on Election Day 2016. Somebody sure thought it was worthwhile to do that.

Wake up, citizens!

[oasis]

61. +10000

[OnDoutside]

73. And by a number of posters who also went to take down Franken.

[berni_mccoy]

36. Shes being used as a practice target.

[HipChick]

38. Yup..they got Franken...they are going for bigger targets..

[BannonsLiver]

47. You think Joy Reid is a bigger target than a US Senator?

[Hekate]

51. Just as DU was

I'm not really holding out tremendous hopes for a Blue Wave, unless Putin decides it would be amusing to watch his orange pet doggy lose his mind and foam at the mouth. The US Congress, controlled by the most venal party in US history, continues to show zero interest in protecting our voting processes.

[TheDebbieDee]

37. You didn't learn anything about how the Russians

Meddled with public perception in the 2016 election season, did you?

Every left-leaning member of the MSM will have their Joy Ann Reid day, too...

[vercetti2021]

41. I'll support her no matter what

Not falling for this character assassination horseshit from the Reich wing. No one else should too.

[Hassler]

50. Wrong. Everyone in media who opposes Putin's puppet is important.

[rufus dog]

52. I vividly recall you supported Kirsten Gillibrand over Al Franken also

Seems to be that you don't want to give certain types of Democrats the luxury of innocent until proven guilty.

On a personal note, I dont' give a flying FUCK if you watch her or not. Because, and I want you to focus, this isn't about you.

[hlthe2b]

68. Figures

[R B Garr]

54. This is very naive and just flat out wrong.

There are plenty of hostile Bernie fans who are circulating petitions to get her fired. Jane Sanders made a nasty comment about Reid’s so-called “biased” reporting about Bernie, so there are plenty of people who want her silenced.

The petitions to have her fired have been posted here. They are both petty and vicious at the same time. Let’s not be naive.

[uponit7771]

59. +1

[hlthe2b]

67. ++++

[KT2000]

62. she is a tough interviewer

Like Franken, she will not let people brush her off or give silly non-answers. I am sure some of those interviewees may hold a grudge. I don't believe it is about largest audience but rather a likely racist who could not stand being challenged by a black woman.

[Tavarious Jackson]

79. I watch her. She is important to me....

But I'm nobody.

[pnwmom]

82. Remember how the reports about Al Franken trickled in? How do you know Joy Reid

won't turn out to be just the first -- but not the last -- person to suddenly have suspicious old posts turn up?

How do you know she isn't a test case? How do you know they wouldn't try again?

[iluvtennis]

87. I believe Joy!

[JI7]

88. not many people know about DU and yet you post stuff trying to convince people of stuff

[Cha]

104. Ikr

[chillfactor]

97. I enjoy watching Joy....

I enjoy her program on the weekends and other times when she fills in for other hosts.....she takes no shut from neocon talking heads.

[GeorgeGist]

117. Because it's devisive and ...

[Cattledog]

122. Why rob the corner Pizza parlor when there's a bank next door?

You target what you think you can get away with.

[NCTraveler]

123. When you hide in an elite bubble...

And can’t grasp the pettiness of your opposition...

https://mobile.twitter.com/HAGOODMANAUTHOR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Her voice has a further reach than your individual big donations.

Dripping elitism.

Such insignificance. Can you imagine how petty it would be for someone to hack a site like DU. Such things would never happen. From my perch I can assure you no one would ever be so petty.

[Lee-Lee]

126. Yeah, hacking and crime doesnt work like that

Hacking isn’t 100% successful. It’s more like 1%.

Hacker throws out whatever tool they are using to get into accounts. Phishing, social engineering, exploitation of know access problems.

Then 99% or more of the time it fails.

And every now and then they get lucky.

Imagine a thief is going down an alley and checking every door to businesses. They are all locked right, but suddenly he comes across one that has a door so lose in the frame when he pried just a little with a screwdriver it popped open for him. Turns out it’s as in the florist. Would you doubt the florist was really robbed because they didn’t rob the bank 2 doors down?

Same thing here. Assuming it isn’t real because there are “bigger fish” to hack would be assuming that they never tried on the bigger fish and this was who they got.

I’m not saying she was or was not hacked, just that your reasoning and logic saying this is why she wasn’t is not realistic.

[Mike Nelson]

128. Most people don't watch...

...Sean Hannity, either... the world has billions of people. Still, she has an important show on Saturday and Sunday. She frequently appears as a commentator. She challenges guests and is way too quick for any of them. Kellyanne Conway would melt...

...also, she is very important at MSNBC. She is in their new blanket MSNBC investigative reporters ad... NOTE: not all their hosts appear in this ad. Joy Reid may be "in talks" for an even higher profile.

...I've read the newest "blog" posts. They are not from the 1970s - they are relatively recent. Joy Reid would not be talking about how gross gay sex is... progressive people were not talking like that in this millennium. The comments attributed to her sound false. On the other hand, comments about Charlie Christ sounded like what people were whispering about, then, and she admitted them.

...this reminds me so much of Al Franken...

[kcr]

129. She's not that important?

Compelling argument. Nailed it.

[Blue_Adept]

130. I just want to know which side is going to be wearing the tinfoil hats by the end.

[yardwork]

131. To drive a wedge between African Americans and LGBT. And it's working.

Around 2010 or so, as you probably know, it was revealed from court filings that the right wing had been deliberately causing anger between two of the strongest, loyalist Democratic voting blocs - blacks and gays. It was revealed that all kinds of dirty tricks were played, including hiring trolls to cause trouble on Democratic boards like DU. And we saw that happen here.

Ten years later, we know that the dirty tricks are even more sophisticated. We know they stole an election.

Now, right on time, as the Democrats are picking up steam toward a blue wave, old blog posts of a highly respected black journalist are "discovered" and a really big deal is made of them. Why now?

[titaniumsalute]

133. In the grand scheme of things DU isn't that important

But someone took the time to hack the shit out of this site on election night and close it down.

[Adrahil]

135. Just a point here...

My wife is not an important public figure. Her social media was hacked.

She is a college lit professor. She had a conservative student who was also a bad student. He was making the claim that she gave him a bad grade because he is a conservative man (spite the fact that she had just hooded a conservative PhD student who was actually, ya know, good), and the little shit hacked her and posted fake posts making it look like she was biased against men and particularly conservative men.

She is not famous (outside her field), but he did it.

[FloridaBlues]

137. Evidently some people like her show #1 show for her time slot

[ehrnst]

140. Why would the FBI be involved if there was no evidence of what she claims?

Being a woman of color in the public eye, particularly one who talks unapologetically about progressive issues, has made her the target of many white men on both sides of the political spectrum.

That reality isn't "silly."

[brooklynite]

141. Why would the FBI be involved? Because she asserted that a crime occurred.

Whether their investigation supports that assertion is a matter for a later date.

[ehrnst]

142. So you are asserting that she would lie to involve the FBI.

To what end?

What shapes your opinion that she is willing to lie to the FBI?

[oberliner]

147. It is possible that she was a victim of hacking, and also that the blog posts were hers

[JustAnotherGen]

143. MSNBC's Joy Reid Leads Weekend Ratings Surge - March 30, 2018

Forbes Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2018/03/30/msnbcs-joy-reid-leads-weekend-ratings-surge/#5922534935d2

With an average total audience of 1.287 million, AM Joy easily outpaced CNN (838,000) for the quarter, the third straight with a total audience of more than a million viewers. Among viewers 25-54, the demographic coveted by advertisers, AM Joy took its first victory over CNN, with 265,000 viewers to CNN's 244,000.

MSNBC's strategy of extending breaking news--especially politics--to weekends, with live news until 9 p.m. on weekends, has begun to pay off. In February, according to data released by Nielsen, MSNBC's weekend ratings were up across the board compared to the same period the previous year--in some time slots way up. Saturdays from 10 a.m. to noon saw a jump of 25 percent, while CNN and Fox News saw declines. The increase from 10 a.m. through 2 p.m. on Saturdays was even bigger: up 34 percent

.

MSNBC finished first among total viewers every hour from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday, a spillover effect with huge potential as Donald Trump--and the Resistance movement he has inspired--ignore the "weekends off" tradition, and MSNBC devotes more resources to weekends, where network bosses clearly see a fight they can win

You need to step away from the 'Politics' and get into the Enterprise Business Environment. You've been very clear about what you ARE associated with/around.

I've been around 'other' things in particular the enterprise business environment.

Those numbers get advertisers - and she is a very BFD. In my last org chart - I would have wanted my product in that time slot.

[Cha]

146. Thank you for the report on Joy Reid's Rating Surge,

Gen!

She's "not important".. pfffft!

[Amimnoch]

145. for someone not that important, she sure has the spotlight..

and enough spotlight to warrant your own attention apparently.

[ehrnst]

149. Yeah, it sure grinds some people down to a nub

when people they don't like are successful.

Doesn't it?

[Malikshah]

148. I'll be blunt. Lots of claims here. Where are the numbers?

Or is this merely to stoke the fires so they burn brighter, hotter, and faster.

Shame on you.

[MrsCoffee]

150. And another OP that will not age well.

[onlyadream]

152. Disagree. Why was DU hacked in the last election? Nt

[ehrnst]

153. Yep. (nt)

[stevenleser]

155. Oops, didn't see your comment when I wrote mine, but spot on. nt

[stevenleser]

154. DU, as much as I am a fan, isn't that important either. Probably less important than Reid. Yet...

Someone thought DU was important enough to hack it and take it down on election eve right when posters could start talking about the results.

And it was obviously a very sophisticated attack.

[m-lekktor]

157. She really isn't all that, I agree. I see nobody discussing this anywhere besides here and DailyKos