Journalism isn't about "demanding verification" it's about getting it for yourself, and waiting until you have it before writing an article.
Also, him saying "false story" is, itself false, because the the facts are objectively true. Officials did say what they were quoted as saying, and the NYT changed the headline shortly after publishing the story, which is (like it or not) common practice in the industry. Glenn was party to it himself while at The Guardian.
It's just "weird" to me that there's a faction of people out there who don't believe that Russia infiltrated the DNC, and I think it's because they're politically motivated to not believe this to be the case.
There's never been such an ignorance driving security news before. It's alarming and completely out of left field.
It's equally unfathomable to me that there are people who take the Russia/DNC story as fact, even when no concrete evidence has been presented. That WaPo tries to throw fuel on the fire with by exaggerating a small morsel of truth (see: "RUSSIA HACKS U.S. POWER GRID") is even more concerning.
edit: Since you edited your original post - I would want to see the same report that Obama saw, the one that led his administration to go so far as saying Putin was "personally involved" in orchestrating the attack. Redact sensitive info/sources as necessary.
Anything less makes it ludicrous to accuse a nuclear superpower of cyber warfare.
Define weird. Unless you just want to suggestively italicize some words and winkwinknodnod
I am pretty skeptical about the extent of direct Russian governmental involvement in the hacking of the DNC and Podesta's email account given the paucity of evidence. It would seem far more likely that Putin's regime turns a blind eye to certain activities either originating in or passing through their domain, as long as the target falls within certain parameters.
Don't get me wrong, I think a certain amount of firm resolve is due to be shown to Russia now and in the future, but I think there are many valid reasons for that without needing to invent them.
> I am pretty skeptical about the extent of direct Russian governmental involvement in the hacking of the DNC and Podesta's email account given the paucity of evidence.
I'm sorry, but what? There is a preponderance of evidence, way more than is usually available for such things.
What piece of evidence is missing? What would convince you?
Why?