Topic: The Newsweek Journo (Read 2526 times)

Do you mean this context?
Now face to face, with two police officers as witnesses, Nakamoto's responses to my questions about Bitcoin were careful but revealing.
......

"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection."

After eating his lunch and sitting down with the reporter and a copy of the story Nakamoto said that one key piece of evidence from the story, in which he is confronted about his involvement with Bitcoin and responds, “I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it”, was incorrect, as he was only referring to his work in engineering

When told by reporters that "the founder of Bitcoin says 'what'", Dorian is on record as having replied: "what?"

If that's not proof then I don't want to be right.

Thought so.  

I am not asking you to "disprove" my assumption as to why she was detained and banned from the UK.
I was asking why YOU believe she was banned from the country?

And no, you didn't state your own assumption as to why she was detained. All you said was this:


First of all, they (the government) don't need a "trumped up reason" to detain or ban someone. They have laws that say they can do what the hell they want, without giving a reason!

Second, as already mentioned the "nefarious activity" that you are mentioning was a big story of child abuse that hundreds of journalists from the UK and other countries reported on, so why then specifically target her?

My question is WHY you think they didn't want her in the country, if it had nothing to do with her sleazy irresponsible journalism?

let's take a snapshot of your trolling rubbish:

- because she was banned for 2 years you wouldnt put it past her to take something out of context (link to her article saying it was due to her on site investigation in Jersey- not for poor ethics). Her plight is backed by BBC, The Guardian etc etc. Dumb troll is dumb

- There is no link between Miranda and Goodman even though you provided an article that linked their experiences with UK Border / Customs

- Goodmans reporting 'had nothing to do with national security or anything of that nature': no shit, see when I wrote "Goodman was investigating some nefarious activities on the British isles" I didnt say national security.

But anyway, you don't come across as very bright.

My premise is that she was banned because she was investigating a story in Jersey that someone did not want her to continue with. Miranda's story sets a precedent as does the general journalistic environment at the moment which paints journalists as traitors/terrorists etc.

But anyway, you don't come across as very bright.

My premise is that she was banned because she was investigating a story in Jersey that someone did not want her to continue with.

Miranda's story sets a precedent as does the general journalistic environment at the moment which paints journalists as traitors/terrorists etc.

This is becoming absurd.

You're asking me to disprove your completely made up speculation.

And anyway I've already written my own assumption as to why she may have been detained - from the article you linked.

Go back and read my post and read the article.

/ End thread

/ End thread

Seems Goodman was investigating some nefarious activities on the British isles and was detained for a similarly trumped up reason.

Miranda was detained because of his connections with one of the most wanted men in the United States (Snowden), so it is obvious to everyone why he was detained! That is what governments do, detain people that they believe are a threat to national security in some way!

As far as we know Goodman was not researching or writing on anything related to national security or anything of that nature. She was researching a story on child abuse that hundreds of other journalists in the UK were also reporting on.

The UK border agency has a record of foreign persons (from MI6) that are not welcome in the UK for one reason or another, (i.e Mike Tyson because of his rape conviction and other violent crimes).

If MI6 had information about a news reporter that has access to big outlets like Newsweek, and is known for sleazy harmful reporting where she "hangs innocent people out" (as in her latest story just published), is it not likely that would be the reason for her exclusion order?

I ask again, if you do NOT believe this is why she was detained and refused entry to the UK what do you believe the reason was?

You made the unfounded assumption she was banned due to poor ethics. Ha!

Yes, the land of Fleet Street, The Sun, The Daily Mail and countless red tops is going to ban a lady with a visa from entering because she is a poor journo. Actually I dont know of anyone being banned from a country for being poor at their job (although I could propose a few).

can you imagine the conversation - sorry Ms, i read an article where you took a quote out of context. Not acceptable in our fine land. You're barred! 2 years!!! No soup for you!

I mentioned Miranda because he was similarly held at the border for his connection to a journalist who was exposing some very nasty crimes committed elements of the British GOvt. Just like Goodman was detained when investigating a rather sordid story.

You posted a link that 'links' Miranda / Goodman: they both were subject to similar treatment from UK Border patrol.

Do you not read what you write?

There is no link between Miranda and Leah McGrath Goodman, or Glenn Greenwald for that matter. In fact I don't think they ever had any contact at all, or at least not before Goodman was detained at the UK border, as Miranda was detained after Goodman and Goodman only found out from the Wallstreet Journal.

So I don't understand why you are even mentioning Miranda's detention in regards to Leah McGrath Goodman's?

Leah McGrath Goodman was detained whilst heading to the Channel Islands to supposedly do her "investigative journalism" on a legitimate story about child abuse. A story that all the major UK newspapers were reporting on! It had nothing to do with national security or anything of that nature.

So if the reason for Leah McGrath Goodman's detention and 2-year exclusion order from the UK was NOT due to her sleazy ethics as a journalist, why do you suppose she was detained and prohibited from entering the UK?

Gee, at least do some cursory reading first.

Miranda was held because he is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the journo who was in contact with Edward Snowden in the releasing of the NSA trove. The UK held him on a terrorism linked reasoning for 9 hours.

Seems Goodman was investigating some nefarious activities on the British isles and was detained for a similarly trumped up reason.

O/T This is the environment that governments, industry and the media have decided to create. The NSA revelations are the biggest stories probably in the information age (And, they are a reason why people should adopt bitcoin)

Leah McGrath Goodman was banned from entering Britain for 2 years, (most likely due to her poor ethics as journalist), so I certainly wouldn't put it past her to take that response out of context in order to further her career:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcgrath-goodman/david-miranda-uk-detention_b_3844480.html

Yeah I am sorry I give the benefit of the doubt to the person and not the reporter. Media is only after the story, and if that means they have to make up some stuff to do it, they will.

Do you mean this context?
Now face to face, with two police officers as witnesses, Nakamoto's responses to my questions about Bitcoin were careful but revealing.
......


"I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it," he says, dismissing all further queries with a swat of his left hand. "It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection."



If Goodman has taken this out of context it would be nothing short of deliberate dishonesty and severely unethical. Perhaps the witnesses could verify, or a tape exists.

The AP video says that he was talking about government work when saying this.

The quote that has been taken out of context? The one where he doesn't mention Bitcoin at all? That one?

This will probably be unpopular but I'm going to trust the journo on the reporting of Dorian Nakamoto.

First though, I think she was wrong to a) contact him under the pretence of being interested in something model train related, and b) to publish his house & number and his license plate.

But reading up on her, she is a experienced, senior journalist and while journalism has basically been in decline over the past decade, good investigative reporting never goes out of fashion. If she has fabricated this, her career will be shot. Knowing the likely interest in the story, so too will the editor, the legal department and Newsweek itself. And, if untrue she owes the Nakamoto family a massive apology (that will probably be paid in $$).

I read that she worked on the story for two months which suggests it wasn't some poorly researched throwaway national Enquirer piece.

Mainly though:

The whole article is centred around DSN's alleged quote. If this quote is legitimate, as Goodman has claimed it is, then there really should be little doubt. It provides and admission, context and knowledge of Bitcoin. It would directly contradict DSN's later statement that he'd never heard of it until his son told him about it a few weeks earlier.

Im not going to go into the personal stuff about DSN, but those are my impressions, however misguided.

Funny too that there was never this much hullabaloo about the New Yorker piece or the other articles that have outed 'Satoshi'.

*puts on armour*