Hunter Walker

Hunter Walker

@hunterw.bsky.social

Investigative Reporter @ TPM | Author | Words In: The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine, The Atlantic Send me a secure message on Signal: hunter.07 https://linktr.ee/hunter_walker

173K followers2.3K following27.1K posts

This would have been a major story lasting multiple news cycles if it came from a Cabinet official or member of Congress in any party in any other modern era. Today, it's one of so many incidents of blatant racism.

Chris Hayes@chrislhayes.bsky.social

It’s just so appalling and enraging how casual and commonplace this has become. I’m out of words.

In case you wonder why I ever randomly start posting about how we have to respect and support trans people it's because shit like this makes me viscerally angry.

Aaron Rupar@atrupar.com

Tim Scott calls Annie Andrews "tranny Annie"

We cannot allow slurs and hatred like this to be normalized in the public discourse. It has consequences for everyone. Also, standing up for trans people is just the right thing to do.

It is maybe my bias but I tend to think a lot of movies would be made better if serious journalists consulted on them.

PJ Rodriguez@pjrodriguez.bsky.social

It is true that the movie might mistakenly make people think she’s innocent. But it’s also difficult to interrogate an inveterate liar. (And I suspect the film is partially about this challenge.)

Like I can't tell you how much stuff I watch about the politics or crime world where I am just like ... no! that's not how that works!! One small fee to an actual expert could go a long way in a lot of places.

Civil War and the election episode of Succession are things that stand out to me as getting this really right. I know Obama admin folks consulted on Succession. I don't know who did on Civil War but the scenes of violence at the WH and Downtown DC viscerally took me back to 2020-21

Yeah I watched more than a few people who are smart and knew a bit about the case come away thinking he was trying to inject some doubt over how much she really knew. I could have had a similar reaction without having done the whole podcast.

Jeremy Ross@hotdogsaresandwich.bsky.social

Chatting with some law students about it the other day and they (highly educated!) were like “I knew nothing about this, I kind of felt bad for her.” There’s a bit of a true crime drama cult brewing for those experiencing the facts for the first time w/this film.

100% - and that's fine with audiences that have all the details but it could have been genuinely harmful for folks coming to this colder

Jared Yates Sexton@jysexton.bsky.social

I think that’s the weakest part by far. I think, unintentionally or intentionally, it was as good an encapsulation of the sociopathic nature of and altered reality that tech oligarchs live within as possible. But the facts were obscured for narrative tension.

Films - that are hours long! - can do more than one thing! It's worth asking why this left things at least a bit sympathetic and ambiguous. Also - an exploration of lying and her character would have been obviously better with watching her more clearly pressed as she unfolded her central lie.

This post is unavailable.

Like - it would have been cool if he was even a fraction as dogged about pushing Holmes on her narrative as he was about pilot communication in the cockpit or recreating Alligator Lounge. Come on folks.

Anyway, I know people absolutely love Nathan Fielder now. I get it. I have a freaking Summit Ice jacket and rated this movie highly. But even as a fan I don't think there's any serious or legit argument it wouldn't have been better if there was a bit more clear and detailed info about her fraud.

For argument's sake, let's say he truly couldn't have pressed her more. It's his movie. He could have easily presented facts that more clearly exposed her in title cards or other scenes/interviews.

Dave Lee@davelee.me

Funny, I thought the opposite -- there were several early scenes where Fielder brought up things that risked killing the project dead. I think a lot of doc makers would have made sure they had the whole film before one final "tough" sit-down.

I mean ... even if were exploring the nature of lying, I think it's better to more clearly expose it than to be ambiguous. I also think anyone who didn't know much about this case could have gotten a kind of bad understanding of it.

This post is unavailable.

I was dying. And I love how he lets silence build and deadpans questions. I am sure his general style could have accomodated a little more pushback on her specific, documented lies.

Fat Guy@fatguynaltlcoat.bsky.social

As a normie I thought he should've asked more questions about the fraud. I can imagine journalists wanted to jump out of their seats to ask questions.

Yeah. I also think they were perhaps worried about losing proximity to ger if they pushed too hard. In my experience, you can maintain while being a bit more specific and I love seeing people answer truly tough qs.

MGT@pseudofootball.bsky.social

I think Fielder made a conscious decision to make entertainment at the expense of education for better and worse

Also Stat is fantastic whenever I read them and I would definitely have a sub if I needed to be up on the medical/health space even a little bit more than I am.

Hunter Walker@hunterw.bsky.social

I am loathe to post something I haven't read fully due to a paywall but I am glad to see this amid the accolades for this movie. I liked it but I was also frustrated Fielder did not ask her more specific questions over very clear lies.

I am loathe to post something I haven't read fully due to a paywall but I am glad to see this amid the accolades for this movie. I liked it but I was also frustrated Fielder did not ask her more specific questions over very clear lies.

STAT@statnews.com

“'You Can See Everything' is a hilarious, thrilling, fascinating, beautiful piece of art. What it certainly is not is a documentary, and it’s dangerous to pretend that it is,” writes Theranos whistleblower Tyler Shultz. https://bit.ly/4Bk2nDJ

There were so many obvious followups to press Holmes on, particularly as she claimed her whole thing was about what the machine theoretically could do. They already said they were doing it! They lied about where blood was going!

I know lots of this just from listening to the pod and reading WSJ. I can't imagine he didn't do basic research so it was almost like this was a weird artistic choice. I actually think you could have gotten even more spectacular footage pressing her.

Hunter Walker reposted

Replying to @brianbeutler.bsky.social

Republicans simply asserted Trump won to make huge changes to the constitutional order. It was a ruse. Yet everybody acted as if it were true. Now voters are poised to repudiate self-dealing fascism. Do Dems really want to say it was about something more trivial? www.offmessage.net/p/wheres-the...

I would not personally do this unless we had that understanding in advance or made a new agreement. This is maybe the case with Bob but it's still a weird topline for book promotion in an era when we need trust

Alex Campbell@superhighme.bsky.social

Serious question. should an anonymous source expect confidentiality after their death ? What is the journalistic standard ? I have always thought that after you passed it was ok to reveal that kind of thing.

It could be fine, I guess, if he made explicit new agreements with people or they OK'd this for after death, but it's still a decidedly weird look that gave me the reflexive heebie jeebies

This post is unavailable.

One reason you should send me tips and leaks is that I promise to never, ever do this. My Signal is hunter.07 and the links to my email are in my bio!

Hunter Walker reposted

Replying to @davidkurtz.bsky.social

It’s hard to entertain those competing impulses, but the truth is the attack on the midterms is both dangerous and ridiculous, like Trump himself.