[Shank]

> Funny how media coverage of this issue misses no chance of mentioning Russia and nobody else, not even possible suspects.

There are parts of the intelligence community that know with confidence who the true attacker is. Even if they had no idea they were being exploited, there are many ways to perform post-mortem analysis when you're, e.g., the NSA. So, someone has 100% confidence, or close to it.

In terms of what the media says: typically, they report on off-the-record remarks from officials and leaks. That's just how the game is played. It's an unfortunate byproduct of everyone wanting to tell, but nobody wanting to be caught telling. The value of Reuters and AP is that they typically do enough due diligence on their own sources to make sure that they're not just spouting nonsense. "Top of the food chain" sources like them are very regularly correct, but fallible.

[roywiggins]

The secretary of state has said as much, and pointed at Russia. Sure, he could be lying, but given the president's reflexive defense of Russia, that would be a weird lie to go with. If anything, it's an admission against interest, which strongly suggests to me that this is the assessment of the relevant security agencies.

[chris_wot]

Trump said it was China

[WarOnPrivacy]

Trump said a thing and China was one of the words in that thing.

[akadruid1]

Don't forget the "intelligence" community is paid to find Russian spooks hiding everywhere. The 2014 JP Morgan hack was blamed on Russian state backed hackers[1]. We know now that was pure speculation and not NSA inside knowledge, since some time later a small criminal gang were successfully prosecuted for it. Apparently they were running a pump-n-dump scheme. 1. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/08/28/russia-jpmorga...

[scoot_718]

> Russian state backed hackers

> small criminal gang

They're the same picture.

[jjk166]

> In terms of what the media says: typically, they report on off-the-record remarks from officials and leaks. That's just how the game is played.

This isn't how the game is supposed to be played and is a symptom of the erosion of the media's journalistic integrity. Anonymous sources can tell you where the bodies are buried, but you still need to dig up the bodies. One would think if you're going through all the trouble to track down three different sources who are both competent and trustworthy to comment on who the government suspects, that you'd take the opportunity to ask a follow up question like "why do you think it was them?" Yeah, everyone wants to be the first to break a story, and real investigation is a lot harder than tabloid journalism, but that's the job, or at least that's what it used to be.

[_kbh_]

And herein lies the problem, anyone who actually knows who it is, is not going to tell you how they know. The intelligence that was used to discover who the attacker, is much more valuable than the information of who the attacker is. The best you'd probably get is 'classified sources/methods/intelligence'.

[jjk166]

And anyone who doesn't know can give you just as much information. If you don't substantiate the rumor, it remains an unsubstantiated rumor.

[netsharc]

But media can just add ", person X says" at the end of a sentence and then the burden of proof is no longer with them. They can report that "Obama is born in Kenya, President Trump claims" and, hey, they're reporting the true fact that Trump claimed something...