On The Media Of 'Russiagate' And Related Fake Stories
Last week Matt Taibbi, with access to Twitter's internal papers, debunked the fake Hamilton 68 propaganda dashboard that was used to create many stories about alleged Russian disinformation. I had done similar five years earlier but had no access to the original data. There were enough secondary indications to conclude that the dashboard was a sham. Still, have the case made with primary data is a valuable addition.
There has been no Russian influence or disinformation campaign.
Two days later the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) published a five part longread from an 18 month long investigation into the 'Russigate' drama and on how the media had cooked it up.
CJR's editor wrote the intro:
No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers. For Trump, the press’s pursuit of the Russia story convinced him that any sort of normal relationship with the press was impossible.For the past year and a half, CJR has been examining the American media’s coverage of Trump and Russia in granular detail, and what it means as the country enters a new political cycle. Investigative reporter Jeff Gerth interviewed dozens of people at the center of the story—editors and reporters, Trump himself, and others in his orbit.
The result is an encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history.
Gerth's, who is 78, is a longtime mainstream investigative reporter who has written for major media outlets. The result of his investigation is indeed encyclopedic, detailed and very damaging.
The four parts are in chronological order and I recommend to read them all to grasp the real extend of the media's failures.
- INTRODUCTION: ‘I realized early on I had two jobs’
- Chapter 2: The origins of fake news
- Chapter 3: A contested Pulitzer
- Chapter 4: Helsinki and the $3,000 Russian disinformation campaign
For those who do not have time to read the four lengthy pieces there is a Foxnews piece with a decent summary of their content.
Gerth ends his review with a personal afterword:
I’ve avoided opining in my more than fifty years as a reporter. This time, however, I felt obligated to weigh in. Why? Because I am worried about journalism’s declining credibility and society’s increasing polarization. The two trends, I believe, are intertwined.My main conclusion is that journalism’s primary missions, informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable, have been undermined by the erosion of journalistic norms and the media’s own lack of transparency about its work. This combination adds to people’s distrust about the media and exacerbates frayed political and social differences.
...
My final concern, and frustration, was the lack of transparency by media organizations in responding to my questions. I reached out to more than sixty journalists; only about half responded. Of those who did, more than a dozen agreed to be interviewed on the record. However, not a single major news organization made available a newsroom leader to talk about their coverage.
...
Most Americans (60 percent) say they want unbiased news sources. Yet 86 percent think the media is biased. The consequences of this mismatch are all too obvious: 83 percent of the audience for Fox News leans Republican while 91 percent of the readers of the New York Times lean Democratic.
...
Walter Lippmann wrote about these dangers in his 1920 book Liberty and the News. Lippmann worried then that when journalists “arrogate to themselves the right to determine by their own consciences what shall be reported and for what purpose, democracy is unworkable.”
I have the same concern that Gerth and Lippmann expressed.
The three main culprits of the Russiagate sham, the News Times, the Washington Post and CNN, have yet to report on the CFR story. The probably fear to admit that their reporting on Russiagate, which in itself created large parts of the story, was full of mistakes and omissions because of their partisan view.
I have written dozens of pieces of media criticism and on the media's failure. My concerns about systematic bias of, and 'official' influence on, media has steadily increased. False stories are a major ingredient for cooking up wars. The Hamilton dashboard, the Steele dossier and other Russiagate elements were likely invented for that larger purpose.
Objectivity in the media has been damaged. It is now threatened to become even worse. Leonard Downie Jr., a former executive editor of The Washington Post, has published an opinion piece that argues for even less objectivity.
Opinion Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust
Amid all the profound challenges and changes roiling the American news media today, newsrooms are debating whether traditional objectivity should still be the standard for news reporting. “Objectivity” is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. Journalistic objectivity has been generally understood to mean much the same thing.But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality. They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world. They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.
Having the news reported through the tinted glasses of an ever increasing number of 'identities' will not make today's generally bad media quality ny better.
It will only increase the problem of partisanship and bias that leads to a ever more disunited public.
Thinking about it: Who has an interest in that?
Posted by b on February 2, 2023 at 17:36 UTC | Permalink
next page »Thanks b, but was it really media failures or an orchestrated campaign to delegitimize Trump and neuter his presidency?
I have a feeling that we are in a Atlas Shrugged + 1984 + brave new world + mechanical orange.
Most likely in Atlas Shrugged as slowly it is all crumbling, and the reality distortion is becoming.... orwellian
Posted by: Hugo | Feb 2 2023 17:47 utc | 3
What I can not figure out is why the Establishment/Deep State went so nutso against Trump. Trump was not a radical change agent. Trump was basically a modest reformer.
What scared the Establishment about Trump so much that they'd went full scale color revolution against Trump ?
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
Sorry b, i disagree with your last sentences : rather than disunited, people under NATO warflags are overwhelmingly stunned into swallowing the same lies, fake narrative and MS propaganda. Where do you see any adverse bias across the medias (apart from your excellent but smallish bar and the rare likes) about Russia ?
Posted by: chb | Feb 2 2023 17:53 utc | 6
Thanks b. About 3/4 way through Gerth's piece and been following Twitter files etc...
As we all know, we're in this condition because the lust for money has consumed all of our institutions and systems.
And yet most folks will still go along to get along.
Cheers!
Posted by: gottlieb | Feb 2 2023 17:55 utc | 7
"Lippmann worried then that when journalists “arrogate to themselves the right to determine by their own consciences what shall be reported and for what purpose, democracy is unworkable.”
That's one of the reasons mass democracy is in fact unworkable and a proven historical failure: The mass media (along with most other system institutions) regards the people with contempt and therefore hates democracy as anything other than a sham.
The acceleration of the media now openly functioning as a Goebbels ministry, defending censorship in principle and functioning as aggressive censors in practice, and openly denouncing the entire good-civics concept of what "journalism" is supposed to be (as we see in the WaPo scribbler's quote above) is part of the imperial system's casting off the neoliberal facade of sham democracy and moving back to overt fascism.
Neoliberalism and classical fascism have been two species of the same genus, and the former always was a placeholder in preparation for the empire's reversion to the latter.
Posted by: Flying Dutchman | Feb 2 2023 18:06 utc | 9
I used to have a lot of friends who were Democrats and reasonably intelligent. Pretty much all of them knew at the origin of Russiagate that it was a steaming load of manure. Six years later not a one of them could care about what CJR says. Orange Man Bad has been cast in stone, they will be loyal to their tribe. The smartest ones will tell me they go with the story because of loyalty. But they are careful not to let the wife or kids hear that and most of them will no longer come within shouting distance of any who even might point out The Emperor has no clothes.
Facts do not matter.At all.
Posted by: oldhippie | Feb 2 2023 18:07 utc | 10
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
Because he couldn't be directly controlled by them, and despite his bellicose language tried to (however limply) to contain US interventionism
Posted by: Crypt | Feb 2 2023 18:13 utc | 11
#5, that’s an easy one. The Donald’s use of Twitter Na FB meant that became POTUS for a small financial outlay. Normally the MSM get serious income from the ads from each party, The Donald broke their business model, they can’t allow that to happen.
A significant amount of the inflation reduction act money spending is designed for MSM to ensure they remain supporters of the democrat line.
Posted by: Pipedream | Feb 2 2023 18:17 utc | 12
What I can not figure out is why the Establishment/Deep State went so nutso against Trump. Trump was not a radical change agent. Trump was basically a modest reformer.What scared the Establishment about Trump so much that they'd went full scale color revolution against Trump ?
This is a key observation. Trump was no threat to TPTB; they likely had much to gain. I can see two things that turned them against him:
1) He's too narcissistic or mentally ill or stupid to stay inside his assigned space: America's impotent Dad. Remember when he had the audacity to suggest just getting rid of America's current health insurance travesty--"health care as if run by the mafia", as Dave Anthony well observes--and just having the government give everybody healthcare? Don was quickly shuffled out of sight and had things explained to him. Never came up again. Maybe they thought he'd say something like that again and actually do something about it.
2) Simple appearances. Don is slimy, crooked, stupid, inept, bombastic. Just a terrible person. In practice, he's no different than any of the other creatures, or people forced to operate like creatures, in that terrible system. But he's saying everything out loud, and not using the soulless boilerplate pols are supposed to emit, to bore people and have them tune out. He drew undue attention to the slimy goings on.
I think 2 was the bigger problem. But even that they could turn to their advantage. By making Don a Hannah-Barberra villain, they can further polarize and seize up things so that they always get their way. It's working.
"pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth"
The truth used "to be out there" to be commented on, and its (mis)representation criticised. These days it's a personal 'truth' found in the inner feels of crybabies who ignore the public; cocooning themselves amongst like-minded groupthinkers.
Thanks b, excellent article.
Posted by: GT Stroller | Feb 2 2023 18:27 utc | 14
"The four parts are in chronological order and I recommend to read them all to grasp the real extend of the media's failures."
Failures? What failures? POSIWID - purpose of system is what it does. Worked perfectly if you ask me.
Posted by: comrade simba | Feb 2 2023 18:29 utc | 15
There is a growing fear in the imperial core of the global order finally being subsumed after 3 decades of geopolitical stagnation, which while not being addressed in any meaningful or systematic way has to be denied with total zeal.
Trump - who I will refrain from demeaning further for the sake of brevity - despite all of his shortcoming did recognize this at his core and did his best to hedge American bets on core allies and withdraw from the provinces where the legions found themselves overstretched. This in itself is a admission that it no longer is a global hegemon and a personal insult to the many scaled individuals slithering through the intelligence community.
If America is no longer exceptional, the crimes committed by said conspirators would lose all pretext of moral defence. America can be great and violent and terrible to these conspirators, but if it loses its grandeur it becomes as banal as the revolving door of juntas it trains.
Which is why America is certain to lose the next world-historical conflagration, it has to fight not only its direct enemies, but it own mindset and philosophy. I only hope that it collapses at a political entity before it fully falls to fascism.
Posted by: Crypt | Feb 2 2023 18:31 utc | 16
What scared the Establishment about Trump so much that they'd went full scale color revolution against Trump ?
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
Because Trump appeals to and is supported by populists. And nothing scares elites more...
Posted by: Spanky | Feb 2 2023 18:37 utc | 17
Instead of monopolizing the judgment seat, journalism should apologize in the dock.
Oscar Wilde
Posted by: Jose | Feb 2 2023 18:41 utc | 18
I don't think that the media relies on traditional advertising or want ad dollars anymore. I think they are paid by the ruling class to be propagandists and that is what they do.
Big Pharma's contributions are in the open and so are the results of that support from the media.
But there must be Deep State contributions as well. It's not difficult to draw the line between Jeff Bezos getting a CIA contract and the buying the Washington Post, but I do think that there are other outlets getting the same kind of support.
And definitely the three big social media corporations, Twitter (before Musk), Facebook and YouTube. How did they come into being providing a free product but their owners became millionaires? The ability of our ruling overlords to monitor public opinion provided by the social media corporations is no doubt priceless to them. And Google also provided them with information about what the citizens were researching.
But after Trump was elected our rulers decided that it was more important to censor free and open debate and discussion than to simply monitor it. And in 2017 the heavy hand of Big Brother started stomping down on the sharing of news and views shared horizontally among the citizens of the world. They openly pine for the days when every person got their "news" top down, spread through the media, whether people read it or had it beamed individually into every house and car radio. They talk about how having no ability to check with others as to the accuracy or morality of the topdown propaganda made for a more cohesive population. (For "cohesive" read "unquestioning").
Why our rulers hate Trump so much is another question. I assume it has something to do with his interference in the planned assault on Russia. Hillary Clinton was enthusiastically onboard with the plans. Trump, not so much. He kept talking about getting along with Russia. So they used Russiagate as a way to attack Trump AND to drum up hatred and fear of Russia among the Democrats and others afflicted with TDS.
If you wanted actual facts or dissident opinions before the internet and social media you had to go to newsstands in big cities that carried a variety of debunking official propaganda (sometimes years later) and opinion pieces in small magazines and newsletters.
Posted by: wagelaborer | Feb 2 2023 18:42 utc | 19
From the former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr.
"Objectivity" is defined by most dictionaries as expressing or using facts without distortion by personal beliefs, bias, feelings or prejudice. Journalistic objectivity has been generally understood to mean much the same thing.
But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.
How does this weak argument square with the revealed process whereby the majors (NYT in a recent example as written by a former editor) fix "the narrative" each day, deciding how to arrange coverage to reinforce the current talking points?
I wonder if the seeds of this lame excuse are in the New Journalism as exemplified by Hunter Thompson and Thomas Wolfe in the early 1970s. They, in particular Thompson, wrote from a very subjective point of view kept themselves in the story as opposed to "just the facts ma'am."
But it's absurd to claim that since "the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world" there is a valid reason to throw objectivity out the window.
If anything, knowing the ideological position of the particular medium (NYT, Washington Times, WSW, Epoch Times, Fox News ...) allows you to take their reporting with a grain of salt. Their editorial position.
How to do that when the individual reporter can use their various biases to color the story?
Downie's entire "argument" is a house of cards. Shameful.
Posted by: jonku | Feb 2 2023 18:48 utc | 20
In the interview, Lavrov mentions a special section of the MFA's website which warehouses ""Unreliable Publications": "Examples of publications that replicate false information about Russia" and has 259 listings as of today. I was unaware of this trove and have yet to explore it.
The thing is, I have no doubt that Putin and Trump (and Xi) share an understanding and mutual mistrust of the western Praetorians.
That being said, only fools would leave a paper trail for a conspiracy to be found, exposed, and used to completely paint DJT as a traitor.
So, in a way, Russiagate does more-or-less exist, but it is simply a "Gentleman's Agreement."
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Feb 2 2023 18:53 utc | 22
I suppose it is not shocking that Downie rose to a high level while lacking intellectual focus. It's totally fine to jump off with opinions and bias but you need to know the exact point you are jumping off from to maintain perspective. That's what basic journalism is for - to give us the facts so we know what is real and at what point we are supposing from.
Posted by: M.E. | Feb 2 2023 18:54 utc | 23
Back in the day, pre-1990, when I was a still daily consumer of printed news, there was a clear delineation of what was reporting and what was editorial commentary.
It is safe to assume now that everything is editorial. People will only pay now for the content that they like.
Posted by: Opport Knocks | Feb 2 2023 18:58 utc | 24
What I can not figure out is why the Establishment/Deep State went so nutso against Trump. Trump was not a radical change agent. Trump was basically a modest reformer.
What scared the Establishment about Trump so much that they'd went full scale color revolution against Trump ?
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
I believe that apart from Trump being considered an outsider by the traditional political elites, his biggest sin in their eyes was talking about issues in a way that was absolutely forbidden of anyone by those who direct policy and exercise real power in the national security agencies/deep state.
The biggest sin Trump committed in their eyes was to say positive things about Putin and openly suggest ideas like ‘why can’t we get along with Russia’ and ‘it’d be better for America if we had a good relationship with Russia’. Because for years prior to Trump appearing on the political scene, the plan to regime change Putin and bring Russia down had been simmering along until it boiled over with the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev. Russiagate was concocted to step up the anti Russia narrative and to more specifically attack and bring down Trump and ruin any chance of him being elected. But when Trump was elected against all odds it was the realisation of the deep state’s nightmare scenario so the campaign against him was kicked into overdrive as was the demonisation of all things Putin and Russian because under no circumstances would any softening of feelings towards Russia by the American general public be allowed to happen. The assassination of JFK is the prime example of what can happen to those who can seriously push back against the deep state. That’s my take on it!
Posted by: John G | Feb 2 2023 19:01 utc | 25
Well long before Russiagate Tom Engelhardt also wrote a large piece about the crumbling of journalism in the US. About the reasons and where it will lead. Having worked most of the time for US Media myself (video / photo) I must say, not only the media mainstream in the US but also in e.g. Germany including their think tank industry of profundity, their book publishers and their workers etc are all in line - like they have been 85 years ago.. When it comes to media in France, I better don't even start. Yes, the free world and its enemies is really a nice trick to fool it’s people.
Posted by: Alfapanda | Feb 2 2023 19:01 utc | 26
Why did the Establishment and its media mouthpieces go insane when the American people shoved Trump down their throats?
- Because that’s not the way the universe is supposed to work. The ”Professional/Managerial class” is supposed to do the shoving and the ”deplorable” plebes are supposed to do the swallowing. The delusional PMCs, with their participation trophies, believe themselves qualified to dictate reality to the ignorant masses, and it is an enormous insult to their egos and sense of entitlement that the masses didn’t obey.
- Because the Empire of Delusions is in a very delicate state. Color revolutions needed to be implemented and wars needed to be fought, and the Establishment didn’t have the time or inclination to get some carnival barker up to speed on his expected role. Trump’s win upended imperial plans that had been in the works for decades.
- Because the private sector side of the imperial Establishment had intricate plans for atomizing the domestic population and inoculating the deplorables against self-organization with ”identity politics”. Trump’s expected loss was to be a big part of those plans, smashing resistance to such nonsense as Critical Race Theory and cementing in place the replacement for Catholic “original sin” of racism, sexism and so on with which the Establishment could control the deplorables.
There is more, of course, but that is the core of why America’s Professional/Managerial class went insane with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and as you can see it actually had very little to do with Trump himself.
Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 2 2023 19:08 utc | 27
Thank b; I have often wondered when journalism/newspaper/television changed from reporting news to trying to influence it. I want to question if it coincided with journalists becoming wealthy by writing books about what they covered? Was it greed? A desire to move on to the big screen? Did this tilt so many toward journalism for profit from, "the news is the news, to "the story is what I say it is", "my boss wants this kind of embellishment", "I have to lie convincingly", to what we have today?
The deterioration seems to flow hand in hand with the more desperate needs of all workers to make ends meet.
Our standards as nations is what caused the decline. The people never complained when the standards for journalism disappeared. They still aren't complaining enough except out of outrage at single events.
Going back to having all journalism independent of all governmental activity might help us rewrite what is looking to be an unpleasant future. Lucky for us, Moon of Alabama is one of the few sites that demonstrates real journalism.
Posted by: Tard | Feb 2 2023 19:10 utc | 28
The real story here is that "Russiagate" was designed to ensure that the Ukrainian project-war against Russia in which, so far, there have been hundreds of thousands of casualties- was not derailed.
The campaign against Trump was just incidental, his reputation and power were simply colateral damage. The point was to ensure that the attack on Russia and the maintenance of US hegemony was ensured.
And the media was, and is, as much a part of the war as the 101st Airborne. In fact if the media were not doing its job there would be no 101st Airborne and certainly no deployment in Rumania.
This has been going on for a century now. It shifts its shape. One day it is an anti-communist crusade to protect church, family and property. The next day it is a crusade against church and family.
It doesn't matter. It is what it always was a campaign to protect capitalism from socially inspired change. And to protect Imperialism from the poorest people on earth-the poorest people the world has ever seen, the billions with life expectancy of thirty or less who work for less than subsistence, from countries whose land and mineral resources have been taken over by armed foreigners.
There cannot be a hell bad enough, fires hot enough or tortures cruel enough for those who tell these lies in order to ensure that evil can expand its grip.
We know that the war in Ukraine was planned and that every effort to prevent it from occurring was thwarted by Washington. The election of Trump, like the rise of Corbyn was a challenge which might have led to that most dreaded of all things in the ruling class-peace.
Hence Skripal, hence the Navalny nonsense, hence the mother of all, Russiagate.
There should be a bust of Hillary Clinton and a plaque explaining the role of MI6 and media in every cemetery in Ukraine and Russia. And a monument reminding all that these, the dead, are victims of imperialism.
Posted by: bevin | Feb 2 2023 19:15 utc | 29
Talking about “erosion” in “journalism standards” assumes the employees who shilled stories about a geopolitical enemy were ever engaged in “journalism”.
Posted by: natokraine | Feb 2 2023 19:15 utc | 30
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
The Deep State was afraid of Trump because the Deep State had no power over him. They couldn't blackmail him, because he knows where all of their skeletons are buried. They could not bribe him, because he's already a billionaire. They could not intimidate him, because his ego is too big.
Trump's opinion of foreign policy was especially egregious in the eyes of the Deep State: he did not want to start any new wars and wanted to end the ones the US was already engaged in when he entered office. This is why Michael Flynn was the first member of the Trump administration to be targeted and judicially destroyed by the Deep State: because he shared Trump's opinions and had both the institutional experience and influence to see them get implemented.
Why was Trump impeached in 2019? Because he slow-walked weapons transfers to Ukraine while at the same engaging the Ukrainians to dig-up dirt on the Biden family's corrupt business deals in Ukraine. The Deep State could give less of a shit about Trump's domestic policies, but he threatened their MIC money printing machine, so he had to go.
Posted by: Monos | Feb 2 2023 19:19 utc | 31
Spanky @17 "Because Trump appeals to and is supported by populists. And nothing scares elites more..."
Or deplorables as Hillary liked to call them.
Posted by: dh | Feb 2 2023 19:25 utc | 32
@Pipedream | Feb 2 2023 18:17 utc | 12
"The Donald broke their business model, they can’t allow that to happen." …
These goofballs of CEO's wanted to hold their investors, shareholders, but after 2001 the house of cards crumbled. Young graduates are more malleable and can express themselves more succinctly... This was going at the expense of quality, and declining quality led to a reduction in advertising revenue. Take a look at the page count of "Time" magazine from 1990 and then from 2008. There was no more advertising, so long b4 the beloved bad guy.
Posted by: Alfapanda | Feb 2 2023 19:26 utc | 33
Here, I must strongly with b's conclusion. Nothing revealed so far about shitstream media colluding with Big Tech and the Deep State to takedown Trump represents a failure - it is the system, the Cathedral, working as intended.
Posted by: Monos | Feb 2 2023 19:27 utc | 34
Anybody old enough to remember the pre-Reagan days knows exactly what's wrong with media today - consolidation. Back then there were over 50 independent media organizations, now there are 5. Reuters and AP are both owned by Rothschilds companies, vertical separation has disappeared and news/entertainment are one and the same whereas they used to be exclusive and the news side never made money.
Posted by: hedlykarok | Feb 2 2023 19:34 utc | 35
Thank you Barflies for your reasoned answers to my question. Good insights. Plenty to chew on.
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 19:44 utc | 36
good info and overview on it all b.. thanks...
one of the main reasons this war in ukraine is happening is built up on the same pack of lies and obfuscation... we can blame the usa and western media for this as well.. they have blood on their hands in this constant demonizing of russia which is baseless.. it could be argued that this cold war mentality - cold war 1 and now cold war 2 - serve the same interests who profit from war, but the ordinary people get screwed on a regular basis, and that would include the american people, but much worse - those countries like ukraine and etc that are suffering the direct consequences of nato and this ongoing russia boogie man bullshit...
Posted by: james | Feb 2 2023 19:59 utc | 37
is this post from 20 years ago? hate to break it to you, moon of marty mcfly, but the "media" has been crap for decades and anyone who believed a word out of their yuppie mouths after iraq deserves to be fooled. "people" who read the NYT or wapo don't care about facts; they just want affirmation of their western views from relatable fellow borgs like david brooks. none of this news will make a dent in their idiotic character armor as they'll just say:
sure, maybe they made some minor clerical errors in reporting that thing that still totally happened but anything to get rid of orange man bad was worth it! and besides, now we have a NEW reason to bitch and whine about that liturul hitlur putin so quit testing our 5 minute attention span!!!
these are "people" who buy NFTs and think a guy in a dress is a "woman". they don't care that their tesla is charged by fossil fuels or that their "world view" is fueled by mindless capitalism. they're slaves. give it up.
Posted by: the pair | Feb 2 2023 20:07 utc | 38
@Flying Dutchman | Feb 2 2023 18:06 utc |
Faulty conclusion.
You have never seen or experienced democracy. You have only known "representative democracy" which is to actual democracy as "christian science" is to actual science. Which is to say, no relationship at all, bar the coincidence of a letter sequence. In a democracy people themselves discuss and vote on issues of interest.Any other system, including representative democracy, is not actually a democracy but is intended to ensure that the wealthy and powerful maintain their wealth and power. Which is why the US founders created a Republic specifically intended to prevent democracy.
Building a democracy has been possible in the past in small communities which have thrived. Digital technology allows us to scale democracy to large numbers.
Posted by: Hermit | Feb 2 2023 20:07 utc | 39
if people's answer to the NWO/Soros 'great reset,' is Donald trump, then the great reset cannot happen fast enough.
just how much of a pair of Kang and Ang Siamese twins are Bill Clinton and Donald Trump?
it makes more sense to say that Trump "the populist billionaire real estate mogul self made casino swindler" was put into office (sic, not elected) to manage the covid bioweapon rollout, b/c when he said, "drink bleach," and "it's just the flu," America would listen.
cuz he's the populist. he even wrote a book. a book for we the people. and we all know how hard that is. writing. like trump, i get exhausted just looking at NYT headlines. b/c i'm a change agent.
Posted by: rjb1.5 | Feb 2 2023 20:27 utc | 40
B asks: "It will only increase the problem of partisanship and bias that leads to a ever more disunited public. Thinking about it: Who has an interest in that?"
Partisanship works well in the EU: the extreme-right is used with great benefit by the fake centre-left to create fear in voters and have them re-elect the same bankers' lackeys perpetually.
In the meantime, the EU is transformed into another US failed state. Tax heavens for the upper middle class; tax exemptions for the ultra-rich and the maxi profitable companies (but no, we don't 'subsidize' jobs); dismembering of working laws to allow a grey economy to settle (as in Uberization of all jobs).
Add to the mix the on-going break-up of universities and national research to be replaced by English-only academics (per EU laws, cf. Horizon programme, Marie Curie and ERC grants). Bringing in non-EU English-speakers made easy via the "associate countries" partnerships and the rule of "intra-European mobility" obliging researchers to move every 3 years to be allowed to compete in EU-based research jobs.
Sustainable?
Posted by: Mina | Feb 2 2023 20:28 utc | 41
Julian Assange is in jail because he told you the truth about Trump and the DNC.
HRC was scheduled to be the FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
She had endured Bill for decades, building a network, a power base.
She’d “tickled all the boxes”
Senator
Secretary of State
First Lady (de facto VP)
She knew how Washington worked.
She knew where the bodies were buried.
She recruited Trump
Wikileaks tells us he was the PIED PIPER candidate.
People hated Hillary.
But they were supposed to hate Trump more.
ANYONE BUT TRUMP
was the herding cry.
And he agreed. But midway through his campaign, he decided to play for real.
He decided he would become the 45th President of the United States of America.
That’s why he started telling the “scorpion and the frog” parable.
His “base” didn’t understand, but by then the razzzamsttazzzza of Showmen circus spruiking Trump was winning rockstar numbers to arenas.
The scorpion stings the frog midway through the ride across the water…
Why??? Because he’s a scorpion, and that’s his nature…
Trump couldn’t help but renege on the agreement.
Couldn’t help buy betray
Couldn’t help but steal.
That’s his nature.
That’s why “they” went after Trump to destroy him.
The “they” were the carefully cultivated media, celebrity “clever” “cool” people
And the rest just followed along.
Anyone not hating Trump became a target.
Who is “the deep state”? Someone like Clinton, whose spent and entire lifetime working in the system.
Posted by: Melaleuca | Feb 2 2023 20:29 utc | 42
btw, how can i know if my class, race, etc., create "bias" without something called "objectivity"?
i mean, inside i feel like a young athletic black lesbian who's into asians, but everyone else says i've got white male privilege. why do they keep oppressing me????
Posted by: rjb1.5 | Feb 2 2023 20:30 utc | 43
"Having the news reported through the tinted glasses of an ever increasing number of 'identities' will not make today's generally bad media quality any better.
It will only increase the problem of partisanship and bias that leads to a ever more disunited public.
Thinking about it: Who has an interest in that?"
Posted by b on February 2, 2023 at 17:36 UTC
Thank you, that question is the kicker: Who has an interest in promoting disunity and encouraging mistrust of the news media? And the answer, I would say, is, "Any and all groups that would like to replace our somewhat-representative system of government with a totalitarian government." That would include individual demagogues like Trump, some portion of the moralistic, social-engineering woke progressivist movement, the hard-right reactionaries who would like to see a Christian-fascist regime, and the MAGA movement. As Hannah Arendt pointed out in her landmark book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", a totalitarian government does not need to control the information available to the public, provided that it has already convinced the public that none of the available information is trustworthy. The triumph of cynicism! Or, in the present case in America, when the people are polarized into two groups, each of which does not believe that the other's news information is trustworthy, and where both of those groups are correct! Arendt also noted that movements are easier for the government to control because they have no coherent ideology and are willing to follow their leader in whatever direction, even if it's directly opposite the direction taken yesterday. All that's needed is to keep the movement moving.
Posted by: Clever Dog | Feb 2 2023 20:35 utc | 44
Melaleuca | Feb 2 2023 20:29 utc | 41
whatever. accept the false choice based on these fairy tales you tell yourself.
Posted by: rjb1.5 | Feb 2 2023 20:37 utc | 45
Melaleuca | Feb 2 2023 20:29 utc | 41
whatever. accept the false choice based on these fairy tales you tell yourself.
Posted by: rjb1.5 | February 02, 2023 at 20:37
the false choice of who was on the ballot in the first place.
there's no lack of evidence for what a complete human turd donald trump is. there is zero evidence to the contrary. but sure, make a hero out a totem of class conflict, a totem w/o any agency himself, a mere puff of wind, a ruling class fart noise.
Posted by: rjb1.5 | Feb 2 2023 20:43 utc | 46
Hermit | Feb 2 2023 20:07 utc | 39
"Faulty conclusion. You have never seen or experienced democracy. You have only known "representative democracy"..."
Perhaps with a more attentive reading of my remarks you'd notice I used the term "mass democracy", AKA any kind of mass electoralism, which is indeed a proven failure at everything it ever was alleged to do or from the point of view of any humanly beneficial measure.
I've pondered and written about direct democracy and what Isaiah Berlin called positive freedom here, elsewhere and at my own blog for all the years I was an anarchist as well as years before and after. And I wrote many places including here about the 1788 counter-revolution against the decentralized and more democratic Articles of Confederation for years before I recall seeing your handle or your repetitive posting of your schoolbook cliche definitions of political terms. So I think you can spare me what was already old hat to me decades ago. But please continue in your fantasies about how "digital technology allows us to scale democracy to large numbers." Yes, that sure doesn't have 100% of the evidence against it.
Humanity will not be voting its way out of this.
Posted by: Flying Dutchman | Feb 2 2023 20:43 utc | 47
Exiled; here's my take on it. Maybe it's too general.
They bought into a drama they had staged themselves when too many people were willing to give him a chance despite their idea of him being the worst of the candidates.
The reason that happened was in turn their self-awareness and fear of their own past.
Many who seek power are extremely scared people to begin with, and more so if they're people who use fear to "lead". When something they didn't expect happens their natural reaction is to freak out and go "full retard".
This of course also applies to Trump to at least some (lesser imo) degree, but finding that out for sure was worth it despite the disappointment. It seems clear in hindsight that it set them back at least four years and Biden hasn't worked to their plan either since he had already fallen apart and required much more attention and effort than I guess they anticipated.
Slightly OT I'm still wondering if there is or was anything to the "yellow shield" rumor (maybe US Military Police action, in no way connected to China) and if it is/was a coup or if it's something else (if anything at all). I thought the target was Biden but that seems very unlikely now.
Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Feb 2 2023 20:44 utc | 48
Trump appeals to and is supported by populists. And nothing scares elites more...
Posted by: Spanky | Feb 2 2023 18:37 utc | 17
Trump is supported by a lot of people - Half of the US and many more beyond, because they see he's better than the alternatives for all the reasons listed by: Monos | Feb 2 2023 19:19 utc | 31.
Also, because he told Killary she should be in jail on live TV.
Posted by: GT Stroller | Feb 2 2023 20:47 utc | 49
77th Brigade is an agent of change; through targeted Information Activity and Outreach we contribute to the success of military objectives in support of Commanders, whilst reducing the cost in casualties and resources.Our outputs are a fundamental part of the Army’s Integrated Action model.
Aside from the delivery and support of Information Activities and Outreach we have a role in planning and advising across the Army and wider Defence.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23286961.probe-look-77th-brigade-monitoring-uk-social-media-posts/
They came to my attention thanks to Dr. John Campbells You Tube channel
Posted by: Anne B | Feb 2 2023 21:03 utc | 50
since voting doesn't mean anything, people vote for themselves. people are attracted to trump b/c he represents their ideal self: a philistine gadarene pig.
there's nothing about him that is hidden (unlike HRC, who's hidden herself, to a degree, behind the bs called "public service" her whole life). there's no inconsistency with him. he doesn't secretly love kittens or tend the petunias. the US elected the worst of its trash to public office. because that's who we are.
Posted by: rjb1.5 | Feb 2 2023 21:05 utc | 51
GT Stroller | Feb 2 2023 20:47 utc | 48
sigh. let's not let one little thing reveal the truth.
israel.
there's not a photon's light worth of difference b/n those two black holes HRC and DT. they serve slightly different constituencies, who fight for positions of power, within the same system, the system that made them, that they exist to preserve.
i wouldn't want to sit at a dinner table between Hill and Don. who do you keep an eye on as they try to stab each other, these friends and allies and business partners?
Posted by: rjb1.5 | Feb 2 2023 21:19 utc | 52
Posted by: dh | Feb 2 2023 19:25 utc | 32
yeah, absolutely on purpose, and the shills in the media didn't fail, the executed their shill duties to the best of their ability.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Feb 2 2023 21:20 utc | 53
Posted by: Pipedream | Feb 2 2023 18:17 utc | 12
"Normally the MSM get serious income from the ads from each party, The Donald broke their business model, they can’t allow that to happen."
That sounds good and anybody who doesn't care about looking at the facts might actually believe that is true, but its not.
The Donald was a huge boon to political advertising:
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-CT531_cmopol_4U_20190604150335.png
The appearance of the Donald on the political scene not only greatly increase MSM political advertizing revenue, Trump and the hoopla surrounding him also greatly increased the eyeballs that were viewing MSM.
There is no doubt that digital media (the Internet) has siphoned off both viewers and ad revenue from traditional media, but there is no evidence that trend was changed by Trump. If anything the defeat of Trump in 2020 was a serious blow to the revenue of traditional media:
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FT_21.07.21_SOTNMKeyTakeaways_5.png
Posted by: jinn | Feb 2 2023 21:23 utc | 54
This is fabulous, and sorely needed. I can't get many of my friends to be believe the endless articles at Consortium News. That's said by various players including networks my friends love to be "Russian Disinformation."
We must be aware that we are sharing the room with Journalists, however, talking about other Journalists, who were clearly irresponsible at best, at least to declared principles.
Left out are other players such as intelligence agencies, who cooked up and pushed such stories. We can be sure they were involved, and have a pretty good idea what their goals were. War.
Posted by: Charles Peterson | Feb 2 2023 21:27 utc | 55
Btw on reading more comments (and again this is imo, I'm certain I must have missed things, it would be odd if I didn't) the plan for Hillary Clinton was Iran first and foremost (increased odds in Syria and Turkey), then I guess Ukraine and Transnistria. Then Russia when all those pieces were in place or succeeding/working, ultimately China with Hön Kön as the first bridgehead and Taiwan the second.
Some of it happened but it was all out of sync and failed. The blessed idiocy of it all is that they kept on keeping on despite it falling apart thus ensuring even more bits and pieces fell off and now they're about to lose all of Europe :)
"Politics" (more correctly "gangsterism") as an extension of war rather than the other way around. They imagined they were capable of being "elegant", they dreamt big (but incredibly shallow).
Good riddance no matter how (but it would be nice to have the least blood shed).
Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Feb 2 2023 21:30 utc | 56
2 reasons, neither so murky they need cloaked as deep anything- the Bush cabal, and the Clinton cabal. Interloper skates past the gatekeepers of demockracy due to celeb status, rude notoriety and a public long hungry for a Perotian outsider. that's all.
Posted by: NotEwe | Feb 2 2023 21:37 utc | 58
the low dollar media outlay attributable to Clinton boogyman strategy, putting the name Trump forward every other word and every story on "the news". they were right, they just couldnt see the boogyman in the mirror. everybody else did.
Posted by: NotEwe | Feb 2 2023 21:41 utc | 59
Gerth ends his review with a personal afterword:
I’ve avoided opining in my more than fifty years as a reporter. This time, however, I felt obligated to weigh in. Why? Because I am worried about journalism’s declining credibility and society’s increasing polarization. The two trends, I believe, are intertwined.
My main conclusion is that journalism’s primary missions, informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable, have been undermined by the erosion of journalistic norms and the media’s own lack of transparency about its work. This combination adds to people’s distrust about the media and exacerbates frayed political and social differences.
...
I don't mean to denigrate a renowned journalist but Gerth himself has been, for decades, part of the biased news sources that he is lamenting about in his review. In my own mind I turned off from trusting in the western MSM in 1989 during the Tiananmen demonstrations in China, as I for one picked out where the western MSM were instigating, lying, and even physically planting storylines. That was only the beginning. Since then, every narrative regarding China: Falun Gong; Xinjiang/Uyghurs; Tibet/Dalai Lama; Hong Kong Occupy Central; Hong Kong 2019 Riots; ...etc. were all figments of malicious propaganda against an entity who is considered an enemy in the minds of the collective western MSM, as well as collective western political sectors. Gerth himself was an enthusiastic participant in all of these.
Today we are witnessing blatant propaganda against Russia in western presstitute, but this is actually very recent, no older than 3-5 years. However, the gross propaganda campaign against China has been in play since 1989, along with massive funding to payoff terrorists/thugs to do violent deeds, both to create storylines to write about as well as to stir more chaos as part of the western bred color revolution. Having Chinese killing Chinese is the West's top priority-that's an understanding deeply entrenched in most western journalists' minds. Second choice is "other Asians" to be cannon fodders, hence the South China Sea shenanigans, Diaoyu Tai/Japanese Security pact, and Indian border conflicts. All along I've never read anything Gerth has written to expose the plots. The same is true regarding Iran, DPRK, Libya, Syria, et al.
And now, because the target of the presstitute happens to be Trump, one who is considered as one of his own kind, he has become pissed? Well,well, too bad!!!! To many of us, western reporters are just political players.
Posted by: Oriental Voice | Feb 2 2023 21:42 utc | 60
the usa is an engima defined by propagandists....
when the voters are mislead there is no election!
Posted by: paddy | Feb 2 2023 21:44 utc | 61
What scared the Establishment about Trump so much that they'd went full scale color revolution against Trump ?
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
In addition to other answers to your question, I will echo Gruff's 2nd bullet point. My further two cents are as follows...
Trump refused or was unable to wear the polite mask of Empire. He said the quiet parts out loud and threatened the greater system (including Dems, Repubs and deep state) with a crisis of (perceived) illegitimacy in the eyes of the PMC, but equally as important to Europeans. He went off message, even if sometimes more subtle than others; something Obama never did. The blob/establishment also viewed him as a destabilizing actor in its dealings with so-called allies (meaning vassal states) and "hostile foreign powers" (other than the Soleimani assassination which was cheered) and Trump refused to toe the blob's line.
But the establishment media basically created and fostered his candidacy from the beginning (more mentions in the MSM than Hillary or Bernie, hosted SNL, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" (grab 'em by the pussy), enjoying the rise in ratings, etc.), before somewhat turning on him in specific areas. Those areas were mostly comprised of Russiagate and Ukrainegate - i.e.; the Empire's primary foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. Trump also focused too much on China for them, and they hadn't planned to go so far down that route until Russia was dealt with.
All the other stuff about his business dealings, alleged corruption, etc. was just noise by that point. Trump was an annoying speed bump on the road to regime change in Russia by way of Ukraine. As the CJR piece points out, he made the mistake of (sarcastically) asking "Russia" to find the missing emails, which gave the MSM early ammo in their war on Trump - and one of the foundations of the utterly farcical Mueller inquiry.
Another reason the MSM really took a hard turn against Trump was his not-so-veiled appeals to American white nationalism and the easy clicks and views that kind of content generated in addition to Russiagate/Ukrainegate coverage by idiots like Rachel Madcow and CNN. Controversy sells, period.
Further, the Democrats and establishment are fine with border walls, putting kids in cages, separating families, etc. but you aren't supposed to talk about it out loud like Trump did. That shit is de-facto top secret.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Feb 2 2023 21:59 utc | 62
What scared the Establishment about Trump so much that they'd went full scale color revolution against Trump ?
Might have been Flynn and/or those connected in military intel who are rumoured to have supported his presidency following entrenchment of Administrative ('deep') State after Bush and Obama. The idea was to move back towards something more akin to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Obviously, within a week or so of inauguration they were outplayed and never got off the back foot their entire time. Trump never pretended to know all the ins and outs of DC but I suspect he thought that some of the people backing him did. It also looks like once Flynn was taken out and Sessions caved so early on that their team had no other weapons with which to push back. The entire Trump Administration was essentially castrated by mid-February 2017.
I find Trump's running as a Republican again baffling, given how the Party did nothing to prevent him being villified and then turfed out. Seems like pure controlled opposition at this point. Which of course perhaps was the case all along though the push-back he received does tend to favour the argument that he was a real threat and therefore not a controlled opposition poseur as many suspect.
=======================================
Thanks b, but was it really media failures or an orchestrated campaign to delegitimize Trump and neuter his presidency?
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 2 2023 17:47 utc | 2
At this point that seems like a distinction without a difference. The media 'failed' by allowing themselves to be infiltrated by and then serve Intelligence (if indeed they weren't run by them all along given their bankster ownership lineages from the get-go). But this has been largely the case since at least Deep Throat days when Agent Woodward suddenly arose as a journalist to help take down Nixon in what was essentially a CIA-run false flag. Therefore, we can just as well say that the media was doing its job by pushing the Russia-Russia lies to undermine the Presidency versus 'failing.'
The whole US Body Politic so corrupted at this point as to be beyond repair.
Posted by: jinn | Feb 2 2023 21:23 utc | 53
I think you said part of what I was trying to say more concisely. It was mostly all about the ratings (money).
And let us not forget, while I mentioned that Trump was a speed bump in their Ukraine/Russia plans, I didn't mean to say he was intentionally impeding or foiling any such plans, but rather that his 'impropriety' and willingness to deviate from the script on things like digging up dirt on the Bidens were perceived as threats to the mission. IOW Trump put a mean face on Empire when it's supposed to wear a nice one.
https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia-ada915b07f97
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Feb 2 2023 22:05 utc | 64
About Trump; I recall reading a conspiracy theory somewhere on one of the alternative media sites that due to the Army getting wind of this plan for war with Russia, decided they would meet with Trump to explain and outline in detail, the plans of the DNC. This is when he turned against the DNC for real... just paraphrasing the story, but it was along the storyline of real "patriots" watching traitors of the country pushing the nation to the abyss.
In any event, I find it interesting that he (Trump) was originally one of the first to state that 9-11 was not what it seemed to be from the outside, and that it was an inside job. This story had that video link in it, to the interview with DJT about the towers. Makes one think of crazy and zany plots, huh?
Posted by: Arcticman | Feb 2 2023 22:13 utc | 65
@wagelaborer | Feb 2 2023 18:42 utc | 19
The same oligarchs that own the commercial, industrial, medical, agricultural and financial sector and the political system also own the media. They pay whatever they like to the media they own, on behalf of the candidates they want, knowing that most of it is coming right back to them from the media companies they own, supplemented by all the contributions from individuals to politicians used for media campaigns, And then they deduct their "contributions" from their taxes.
Posted by: Hermit | Feb 2 2023 22:24 utc | 66
Arcticman | Feb 2 2023 22:13 utc | 64
Trump knew immediately that 3 buildings could not collapse in the way they claimed.
That’s why HRC was senator for New York.
To gatekeeper anything that could not be dismissed as wacko conspiracy “theories”.
Yes, there was a conspiracy.
The focus for 20+ years has been misdirected from WHO and WHY to “how?”
Find WHO then they can explain “how”
Posted by: Melaleuca | Feb 2 2023 22:24 utc | 67
I believe it is essential to point out that Walter Lippmann was an insider to the single most important Deep State Cabal of anglosaxons who took over the control of the US in Britains interest to a significant degree and in particular what regards the role of journalists as the propaganda mongers that we now know.
Simultaneously with the establishment of MI6 and MI5 in 1909 they launched an agenda with journalists as spooks or spooks as journalists.
Government by journalists as it were.
And Lippman was one in that crowd.
But like many of the intelligent and worthy participants in that Cabal he passes under the radar.
The trick is to, every know and then, make wise statements.
Worth quoting.
To pass for being among the good guys while in reality being an instrument for the dark forces which many of us would like to see the anglosaxon empire replaced by a multipolar world.
Carroll Quigley may not have used expressions like 'Cabal' to describe it but he did a great job in exposing it.
However so damaging is it for those who wish the anglosaxons to be seen as innocent, that it mostly goes unmentioned or is downplayed say for example by the critics of Bill Clinton bringing up that the latter praised Quigley and therefore by implication Quigley must have been bad.
I dont blame anglosaxons for being biased in their own favour.
But for the rest be warned.
And in particular dont be impressed by what some verbally talented people say or write for the record.
Look for the real truth.
Posted by: petergrfstrm | Feb 2 2023 22:44 utc | 68
@66 Melaleuca - The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration & 9/11 is a pretty good place to start figuring out who.
New Pearl Harbor - David Ray Griffin
Posted by: lex talionis | Feb 2 2023 23:00 utc | 69
Good discussion.
Seems to me the war on Russia was to be kicked off in 2016. Time was of the essence as China was pulling away, Russia was strengthening and the west is caught in the downward spiral of late-stage capitalism.
Trump, for whatever reason, threw a monkey-wrench in those plans. Maybe he just wanted to go after China first? Maybe he values his life and his family's well-being and doesn't want nuclear war? Maybe he is inept?
In any event, all the media lies were as much about working up hostility towards Russia as they were to taking down Trump.
It looks to me like his presidency might have bought China and Russia a very valuable few years to prepare.
Posted by: Haassaan | Feb 2 2023 23:10 utc | 70
As I try to keep a historical perspective, which only seems really accurate 20 years after the fact,
My sense is this started sometime in the early 70s when the MOU decided there was too much chaos and community and they needed to reassert control. This spawned the counter revolution of neoliberalism, new fearful entertainment, and tighter control of the media. This went smoothly along with a rightward move of the “liberals” with Bill Clinton, and consolidation of the msm in the 90s.
At the same time all of the social psychological media brainwashing techniques learned from earlier experiments during WWII were put into play via Madison Avenue to create a population of consumers and emotional thinkers. Additionally, continuing efforts were made to emotionally fragment society.
Rush Limbaugh prototyped hate radio in the 80s and 90s, followed by Rupert Murdoch’s creation of an identifiable political national news source. At the same time, funded by the Koch Brothers, a similar campaign was unleashed upon what little remained of the left via NPR.
The Dems became the party of the “middle class”, the working class was wooed by the right.
The big move was engineered by MICIMATT following 9/11 when they discovered they could control everyone with terror, fragmenting society, making everyone afraid of everyone else.
I recall news reports that the CIA planned to “weaponize” the media in the “struggle against terrorism” right after 9/11. This was when it became common practice for the MSM, as a matter of course, to misinform the public. Little did the populace realize the targets of this program were themselves, and they would be victims of the biggest psy-ops in history.
Both parties of the duopoly utilize tribalism to appeal to their targets, and maintain a mask of relevance.
Because of media consolidation all of the networks developed common narratives, dictated by the Deep State and the MOU, and tuned for the proper result.
Most American minds have been washed, rinsed, and triggered to react emotionally with little rationality, at the drop of a hat.
The good news is that certain segments of the population, such as the younger generation has started to distrust the media. Many of the younger people have just turned it off and have affirmed their desire to take care of each other.
Posted by: Michael.j | Feb 2 2023 23:16 utc | 71
The undermining of journalism and media in general is a feature. The financial/corporate plutocracy isn’t interested in democracy, nor any aspect of public life that furthers it. In fact if they can destroy journalism and by extension access to reality all the better. It’s a systemic problem and it’ll only get worse until it can’t any longer.
Posted by: Peter Fenton | Feb 2 2023 23:17 utc | 72
pretzelattack @ 52 I think Hillary miscalculated with that 'deplorables' comment. She came out alienating a lot of people who may have been sitting on the fence.
Posted by: dh | Feb 2 2023 23:41 utc | 73
Tom_Q_Collins wrote:
"Further, the Democrats and establishment are fine with border walls, putting kids in cages, separating families, etc. but you aren't supposed to talk about it out loud like Trump did. "
The reason you weren't supposed to talk about it is because it was perceived as un-popular. Trump made it popular.
Tom_Q_Collins wrote:
"IOW Trump put a mean face on Empire when it's supposed to wear a nice one."
Maybe you think that is what its supposed to wear, but its pretty obvious that the establishment is pretty happy to wear whatever face suits their needs. The problem is of course selling the image to the public. The beauty of Trump (as far as the establishment was concerned) is that if the public bought what he was selling then fine, if they didn't buy it then the establishment could deny they ever knew the guy. The public bought it which is why Trump will be president again in 2014.
It astonishes me that people think Trump (Mr Let's-steal-their-oil) is not a war monger.
Trump is the one who started the war in Ukraine by arming the nazis. Trump not only did that but he successfully got the entire left wing of the US political spectrum to get 100% behind the arming of Ukraine. (that is one point Caitlin Johnstone missed)
https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia-ada915b07f97
All of the things that Caitlin lists are things that Trump got away with effortlessly while Hillary would have never succeeded without having to overcome major opposition from her own supporters. And yet people still believe that Hillary in 2016 was what the establishment wanted.
What astonishes me most of all is that people who refuse to believe practically everything Trump says (and there are a lot of them folks) will instantly believe Trump when he says something like "I like Putin". Sheesh talk about idiots...
Posted by: jinn | Feb 2 2023 23:47 utc | 74
Mh, all of this is actually musing about something already dead. That get reported by the new elite of the public eye, persons like b and his gang of flies. There is a deep value in honesty and speaking out from the heart. By your kind of writing I am sometimes have the impression to be inside of you and sharing the emotions connected. This kind of fullness always guided mankind through history since the tribal days.
I watched five people past summer for a while, giving each other a pebble from mouth to mouth and talking about what they felt while chewing on it. Also this people just met before. But the commitment reminded me a lot of hanging in this bar.
It's all about how much time we spend with something or better being it. We have households of spare time and a giant industry is trying to monetize that. Keeping your attention into a corridor. We all look into the light while writing or reading it. Brains get into conjunction to compute an issue. What you think, what have this Tibetan monchs doing up 5000 meters for half a year catched by ice and mountain cliffs in a monastery heated from the 500 bodies?
Posted by: rico rose | Feb 2 2023 23:52 utc | 75
Posted by: dh | Feb 2 2023 23:41 utc | 71
true, there were some major miscalculations in that campaign, like continuing to spend a lot of money in California, which she had wrapped up, and not in Rust Belt states. I'm glad, she would have been a truly awful president.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Feb 3 2023 0:00 utc | 76
Posted by: jinn | Feb 2 2023 23:47 utc | 72
Trump wasn't president in 2014, and I think we've been supporting Nazis in Ukraine, and all over Eastern Ukraine for much longer than that.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Feb 3 2023 0:02 utc | 77
Since this off topic has come up yet again: my take on Trump is that he and Pompeous represent the literal NY mafia faction of US oligarchy (as distinct from the mafia in everything but name factions of the two parties)
NY Mafia (or New Yorkers in general) don't use polite language. They say it like it is. I don't know or care how he came to be in power but it had nothing to do with democracy. He did as much war mongering as every one else so its very tiresome to see people here at MOA spreading bullshit about him being the exceptional president. How very American to think so eh?
Virtue signalling 9/11 truth to a Truther voter base is not heroic. Jeez.
Trump is a thug, controlled by more powerful thugs. His murder of General Soleimani was classic TV mob style: he ordered the hit while eating dessert. Gross and Evil. Yet idiot US "Patriots' applaud him for it.
I totally agree with Caitlyn on Trump.
Posted by: K | Feb 3 2023 0:12 utc | 78
I don't like just the facts. I want to know what the reporter thinks about the facts. Hunter Thompson did that. Also, I want to know all sides of the story. Sometimes there is just a right side and a wrong side, but I want to know about the wrong side too. If only one side is shown I become suspicious that I'm reading propaganda. And, btw, it was Trump who called American media "the enemy of the people.
Posted by: Chas | Feb 3 2023 0:13 utc | 79
Speaking of takedowns of mainstream news, Miles has a recent report with lots of data showing the decline.
http://mileswmathis.com/tricer.pdf
You only have to read the first page and a half. The rest is just Miles ego stroking.
Posted by: Opport Knocks | Feb 3 2023 0:31 utc | 80
For balance, I used to read the New York Times morning report and some conservative sites. One day after a debate between Biden and Trump, the NYTimes reported "Biden did not say that he opposed fracking or the use of fossil fuels." Now, I had watched the debate and thought that was very close to what he had said, so I went back and found the video of the debate. Sure enough, Biden said clearly that he opposed the use of fossil fuels and that he would ban fracking.
I had been fed up with the Russiagate reporting that turned out to be one lie after another, but this story that was easily refuted was an eye-opener to me. At that point, I deleted my subscription to the Morning Report because it is not worth my time to have to check everything the NYTimes writes if they are going to tell lies.
Posted by: Belle | Feb 3 2023 0:33 utc | 81
Here in flyover country the state fair featured a band named "The Deplorables" in 2017. Yeah, that did not go over well.
For anyone interested, the Duran hosted Robert Barnes today and they had a long discussion about why populist Americans like Trump and the Deep State hates him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ztagziE3U&t=6011s
Posted by: wagelaborer | Feb 3 2023 0:42 utc | 82
K | Feb 3 2023 0:12 utc | 76
Trump ordered the assassination of Soleimani while eating desert….
Yep.
With Xi.
Who broke off to consult with translators to be 100000% sure he understood what Trump was saying.
Far from being impressed… Xi was revolted.
And has had nothing but the deepest disgust for Trump and the U$ since.
If anything put Xi and Putin together, it was this.
I don’t know if Putin and Xi authorise murders.
I think, actually no.
But if they do. They will never boast as if it’s a badge of honour or a mafismo macho threat.
Posted by: Melaleuca | Feb 3 2023 0:42 utc | 83
@Melaleuca | Feb 2 2023 20:29 utc | 41
Sanders was the original "pied piper" (search here for 'pied piper' 'pied piper' in the DNC leaks cache at WikiLeaks, with whom the Clinton campaign had an agreement giving them "leverage" (see e.g. Rondeau Sharon(2016-11-05). What kind of agreement existed between sanders and clinton Wikileaks Sanders Leverage Tweet. Postemail although later the DNC referred to a Pied Piper strategy for the Republicans (See e.g. Norton Ben (2016-11-09). How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately 'elevated' Donald Trump with its 'pied piper' strategy: An email released by WikiLeaks shows how the Democratic Party purposefully 'elevated' Trump to 'leader of the pack'. Salon.com.. Bill asked the Clinton's family friend Donald Trump to subvert the Republican campaign. Meantime Hilary, knowing nothing of this, arranged the Steele dossier, and certain that this could destroy Trump, "elevated Trump" to the "leader of the pack" in order to disrupt the Republican campaign. When Trump learned about the 'dodgy dossier', he was pissed off enough to break with the Clintons and run for real. When the murder of Seth Rich for leaking the DNCs dirty laundry, and the involvement of.the Clintons in originating the Steele Dossier and weaponizing the FBI, started to come out, both were submerged in the "Russia is hacking the DNC and interfering in the elections" confabulation and the surrounding Clinton-stoked furor. Some idiots were sufficiently stupid to believe it.
Here is what I said about this right after the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Clinton Bad.
Posted by: Hermit | Feb 3 2023 0:51 utc | 84
"What I cannot figure out is why the Establishment/Deep State went so nutso against Trump. Trump was not a radical change agent. Trump was basically a modest reformer."
"What scared the Establishment about Trump so much that they'd went full scale color revolution against Trump?"
Posted by: Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
------------------
If you think about it the answer should be simple: The stage was set for "President" Hillary Clinton to resume phase # 2 of the attack on Russia (and primarily Putin) that Obama/Biden initiated with the Maidan Coup in 2014.
Remember the media, the press, the Democrats, and most of the Republicans all though that Hillary was a shoe in for President in the lead up to the 2016 elections, and except for a few news outlets (FOX), they all had her back (remember the shock on SNL when Trump won?). The press and the media thought that they were helping Hillery by giving Trump the lion's share of the media attention, to the determinant of the of the other Republican candidates. While I was no fan of Trump or Hillary, it was clear to me what was going on.
When Hillery lost to Trump the Democratic neo-Cons and pro-war hawks in the State Department had to produce a plan "B" fast. Trump had a long business relationship with Russian Oligarchs and Putin as well, so he couldn't be trusted to sponsor "phase # 2" of the Democratic scheme against bring Putin to his knees and make Ukraine a NATO member. There were several benefits for pushing "Russia Gate (RG)," below are three.
(A) RG provided an opportunity to attack Trump for the next 4 years and reduce his chance to win another four-year term in 2020. I suspect that Hillary thought that she could run again in 2020; who knows? There probably wasn't enough time to think through all the possible implications, but we can be sure that Hillary was largely responsible for RG.
(B). The attacks on both Putin and Trump forced Trump to put some distance between the two presidents, and it prevented Trump and Putin from working to find a peaceful resolution to issues like the Donbass question. Clearly, the neo-Cons in the State Department, the FBI, and the Pentagon were supporters of the Obama/Biden anti-Putin scheme.
(C). Finelly, keeping Trump and Putin in the news using RG, the Dossier, and Hamelton 68, helped to develop an anti-Russian attitude among Americans and Western Allies, which would become a pro war attitude later.
As a side note, I did not support Trump for president in either election, and I wouldn't go near Hillary with a 10-foot pole (Haiti, Iraq, the coup in Honduras, Syria, and the destruction of Libia) I did support and vote for Bernie (reluctantly) in both primaries, but I did not vote for president in either elections.
Posted by: Ed | Feb 3 2023 1:11 utc | 85
pretzleattack wrote: "Trump wasn't president in 2014, and I think we've been supporting Nazis in Ukraine, and all over Eastern Ukraine for much longer than that."
Supporting with words maybe but the fear was that supporting the nazis with weapons would not look good and would trigger a negative response from US voters of all political persuasions. So how to sell yet another a war to the US public?
Trump started the war in Ukraine by providing weapons that were designed specifically for the purpose of killing Russians in the Donbass.
The beauty of Trump (as far as TPTB were concerned) is that if it didn't work they could always claim trump was a loose cannon and deny he was acting on their behalf. Before Trump the fear was that escalating the civil war in Ukraine by funding the nazis would trigger all out war with Russia. That did not happen in 2018 when Trump started providing lethal arms. Once that policy started the trick was to escalate that policy without creating a backlash from the left (the right would support Trump regardless). Ukrainegate solved that problem. Trump delayed the shipment of weapons for a few weeks and suddenly you had the entire left crying real tears because the Ukraine was not being allowed to kill Russians in the Donbass and the then the flood of weapons to Ukraine was assured.
https://twitter.com/ft/status/944898427959365632
Posted by: jinn | Feb 3 2023 1:30 utc | 86
Posted by: Melaleuca | Feb 3 2023 0:42 utc | 81
Interesting I did not know Xi was at the other end of that conversation. This makes it all the more disgusting.
How can certain people here not understand this about Trump? And let him off the hook for it.
Really the problem for Americans is that they are hung up on personalities instead of policy. Thank you Hollywood.
Agree that if Xi or Putin had to order political murders we will never know.
Posted by: K | Feb 3 2023 1:35 utc | 87
Posted by: jinn | Feb 3 2023 1:30 utc | 84
The US instigated the coup during the Obama administration. weapons are weapons; they kill people, the US gave the neonazis carte blanche to use them, precisely in order to provoke a war with Russia. the neocons and neolibs werent afraid that escalating in Ukraine would trigger an all out war with Russia, they seem to welcome it. face it, this is a bipartisan support of warmongering. that's Caitlin Johnstone's point, and i think she is obviously right.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Feb 3 2023 1:41 utc | 88
Posted by: Chas | Feb 3 2023 0:13 utc | 77
"And, btw, it was Trump who called American media "the enemy of the people."
Yeah, from his pulpit on Fox? Gimme a break. He's just another grub in a conga-line of filth stretching back to the civil war era.
Posted by: Jon_in_AU | Feb 3 2023 1:51 utc | 89
That's one of the reasons mass democracies is in fact unworkable and a proven historical failure: The mass media (along with most other system institutions) regards the people with contempt and therefore hates democracy as anything other than a sham.
Posted by: Flying Dutchman | Feb 2 2023 18:06 utc | 9
--------------------------
Mass democracy as opposed to what, limited democracy? Bourgeois (capitalist) democracy is a limited democracy. It is democracy for the few, the Ruling Class, the capitalist class. Only under socialism can mass democracy exist. The state only exists to serve the interest of the economically dominant class. This was true for all previous economic systems (slavery and feudalism) and it is true today.
All the discussions we have here on MoA are about the reality of human existence undemocratic or limited democratic states. That includes Russia and the United States.
Posted by: Ed | Feb 3 2023 1:52 utc | 90
Posted by: K | Feb 3 2023 0:12 utc | 76
---------------------------------------------
Posted by: Chas | Feb 3 2023 0:13 utc | 77
-------------------------------------------------
I agree with both of you concerning Trump. Still, let's not lose perspective. Biden is a war monger form hell and has always been during his whole career; and Bill and Hillary are the scum of the capitalist planet. Both parties serve the same masters, and this will continue until the working class in the capitalist world develops a class conscience.
To think that in the US we live under a constitution created by Slave Owners, for Slave Owners.
Posted by: Ed | Feb 3 2023 2:10 utc | 91
Damnit, I was logged into my work's VPN and left a comment that seems to have been disappeared. In it, I mentioned the insane militarism and faux patriotism on the final night of the 2016 Democratic National Convention. I only caught some of it because our TV at a condo we were renting between homes only picked up one channel and that is what was on while I cooked dinner or something. In any case, prior to Killary taking stage, I had to check myself that it wasn't a rerun of the Bush/Cheney Republican convention. Disgusting.
Posted by: jinn | Feb 3 2023 1:30 utc | 84
I'm not quite clear on what role you think Trump played in the ongoing, yearslong plans to weaken Russia by using Ukraine as a proxy. Trump wasn't president in 2014 during the "Maidan Revolution" (coup) and he wasn't around during the previous 2004 "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine nor the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in 2008.
I cited the Caityln Johnstone article because while I believe that the Democrats and their associated entrenched operatives in the so-called deep state thought Trump was going to deviate too far from the only script accepted in establishment Washington D.C. and possibly slow things down (which he almost did and led to the first impeachment attempt for an (idle) threat to withhold lethal aid to Ukraine) and/or use his time in office and the high level channels (and back channels) any American president would have with a western friendly Ukrainian regime to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and the democrats. The only thing I can think of in her list of 25 things Trump did to make things worse with Russia is pulling out of the treaty - I don't think the Democrats would have done that, but they certainly would have had a list of 50 terrible escalatory actions to compare to Trump's 25.
Personally, I despise Trump for two main reasons: 1) Indicting Julian Assange where Obama had refused and 2) Assassinating Gen. Soleimani in a naked attempt to provoke Iran into doing something that might justify US/Israel military action and a hot shooting war with that country. Trump apologists, of course, will spin those things as though Trump's hand was forced by the Pimpeous One, but of course he only needed a little bit of needling and was very enthusiastic about punishing Assange (it's in the transcripts of the hearings in London). But I also believe that everything Trump did with respect to Russia was guided by deep state interests as he had no reason to dislike Putin or make relations with Russia worse.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Feb 3 2023 2:22 utc | 92
".... One day after a debate between Biden and Trump, the NYTimes reported 'Biden did not say that he opposed fracking or the use of fossil fuels.' Now, I had watched the debate and thought that was very close to what he had said, so I went back and found the video of the debate. Sure enough, Biden said clearly that he opposed the use of fossil fuels and that he would ban fracking.
Posted by: Belle | Feb 3 2023 0:33 utc | 79
-------------------------------------------------
If all Biden did was lie about opposing fracking in the US, then he might have been a decent president relative to what we had for the last 40 years (+/-). Candidates say one thing while campaigning in primaries where the struggle is between different elements of the base, and often get tripped up while campaigning in the general elections with a larger base. And surely you know ALL politicians lie. We are still waiting for the money from Mexico to build that darn wall.
The biggest lie is often what they don't say in public. For example: Do you think Biden would be President today if he had announced, what he surely knew while he was running for president, that if elected he would start a war with Russin using Ukraine as a proxy army, that would cost billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars and possibly lead to WW3 and a nuclear holocaust? Of course not, not even with four years of Russia Gate and Steele's Dossier.
Posted by: Ed | Feb 3 2023 2:43 utc | 93
@ Exile | Feb 2 2023 17:52 utc | 5
Thanks to Exile for your great question leading to this wonderful discussion.
@ William Gruff | Feb 2 2023 19:08 utc | 27
Thanks to William Gruff for his excellent, articulate analysis here. Much appreciated.
@ bevin | Feb 2 2023 19:15 utc | 29
Thanks to bevin for his always informative, interesting, and astute comments, even if I don't always agree (just 95% of the time). This time, I particularly like, "There cannot be a hell bad enough, fires hot enough or tortures cruel enough for those who tell these lies in order to ensure that evil can expand its grip." This is over-the-top right-on. Here at MOA, there is a polite tendency, maybe enforced not to curse. However, bevin's sentiment here reflects my feeling exactly, that the neoliberal traitors/perpetrators/would-be rulers of the world really deserve punishment. Simply having them removed would not be enough.
@ K | Feb 3 2023 0:12 utc | 76
Your contribution also is worthy. Trump certainly is a flawed individual, and he was disappointing in office. I had kind of hoped -- against my better judgement -- for an American Julius Caesar who would completely overthrow the powers that be, but instead we got a kind of Marcus Licinius Crassus.
But it is not a matter of Trump the individual, for, as you say, individuals are not the main issue here. Rather, it is the effect that Trump had, which had nothing to do with any plans of his. Trump was a Hilary-Clinton-type Democrat, not even a Republican. He ran because he had nothing else to do and already had everything. He liked show business, as shown by his TV show. He didn't expect or plan to win. He didn't know much about foreign affairs; what he did know was conventional and simple. But he still aroused the inveterate hatred and ire of the establishment to the nth degree; they just went bananas over him, and that needs an explanation. Maybe someday someone will trace the exact trajectory and chronology of this story.
From my viewpoint, the main reason was that he released unvetted comments constantly to the world. As has been pointed out in many comments here, they especially hated his mildness/realism toward Russia, as when he said, "Russia is our competitor but not our adversary." Or elsewhere, where he equated US violence with the violence of others, saying something like, "Don't we do it too?" This threatened to break down the establishment's carefully-orchestrated narratives. And they could never be sure what he would say next.
The other thing was that, without any thinking or planning on his part, he completely trashed the Republican Party, to the extent it hasn't yet been able to return to its designated role in the system. That is because, like the pied piper, he led away the majority of the Republican voters, who had increasingly come to hate the establishment that has been increasingly oppressing them, to follow him no matter what. This threatened the duopoly, and the possibility existed that the equally disenchanted Democratic voters might find a Democratic version of Trump who would also upend the Democratic Party, and then what would the rulers and hacks do? Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders was not up to that role at all. It might have happened, maybe, if Tulsi Gabbard had caught fire; hence their hatred for her as well.
So the feel-good things that Trump did, all verbal and without any actual worthy enactments at all, included especially his savaging the media and the Republican politicians, completely humiliating courtier hacks like Rubio, Graham, and McConnell and actually driving Paul Ryan, the golden boy of the Republican Party, out of Congress. Since all the hacks are replaceable, this sadly did not really change things, but it made one feel justice was being served in a minor way.
Trump forced an overreaction by the establishment which let the genie out of the bottle and here, years later, they are still trying to stuff it back in. But why this overreaction, to go back to Exile's question, since Trump didn't really enact anything whatsoever that the neoliberal rulers were not OK with or aiming at anyway? Maybe it was not just Trump, but rather the situation that the rulers found themselves in, maybe because they have reached a dead end, they are especially sensitive about any threats or criticism and thus prone to overreact. This is covered above in Gruff's second point: Their system is fragile and is falling apart. Nonetheless, Trump has gotten his place in history as a catalyst of change, even without intending it.
Posted by: Cabe | Feb 3 2023 2:51 utc | 94
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Feb 3 2023 2:22 utc | 90
------------------------------------
Way to go Tom, that was an exceptionally good post and I agree with you 100%. I often wonder why working-class Americans sneer and growl at each other about Republican and Democratic Pary political issues when both parties serve the same ruling elites?
Posted by: Ed | Feb 3 2023 2:56 utc | 95
Nonetheless, Trump has gotten his place in history as a catalyst of change, even without intending it.
Posted by: Cabe | Feb 3 2023 2:51 utc | 92
mmm and then there is the possibility that he was and still is simply a distraction for both "sides" while the real power players do their business in the background.. He is the gift that keeps on giving, what an astute investment that was!
That was my first take on him back in 2016, that he was hired to do reality TV in the greatest show on earth because Americans have long since lost the ability to discern reality from what they see on TV.
Posted by: K | Feb 3 2023 3:07 utc | 96
Yesterday, I passed a Nissan Patrol 4WD with a big sticker "I identify as a Prius" (a Toyota Prius is a hybrid car with low emissions). I think that sums the identity genderisation discussion up nicely.
Posted by: a_reader | Feb 3 2023 3:29 utc | 97
@a_reader | Feb 3 2023 3:29 utc | 95
Like gender, which is a spectrum upon which most if not all humans are represented, the truck and the Prius are both on the spectrum of complicated, expensive, poorly performing and unreliable internal combustion engined vehicles.
Pretending that only extremes exist, or that there is no alternative, whether in gender or automobiles, is generally speaking, a mistake.
Posted by: Hermit | Feb 3 2023 3:50 utc | 98
Trump's real crime was that he made the Bush and Clinton families, the media and the political establishment look like incompetent, egotistic, corrupt idiots on television in front of hundreds of millions of people. He exposed them for what they are and for that he will forever pay.
Posted by: Bismarck | Feb 3 2023 3:55 utc | 99
After reading the article in its entirety I am bound to conclude that it will have no effect on the number of claims in the media that "Russia intervened on Trump's side in the 2016 election."
It is quite clear that nothing of the sort happened, but it was clear enough at the time when the hundreds of thousands or articles blaming Russia and Trump were appearing.
The truth is that for many years foreigners have been interfering in US elections. In 1940 Washington was full of British lobbyists, from Academics to dancing girls and bevies of 'models' sent there it charm the pants off the politicians and opinion leaders.
Since then almost any country- and there are lots of them- looking for favours from the US government has maintained lobbyists in Washington. Israel recycles large parts of the "aid" it gets from the US into political influence, which in turn yields even richer dividends. It is a political perpetual motion machine.
Then there are the UAE and Saudi Arabia and the list lengthens.
Russia which is still trying to recover from the social, economic and political chaos caused by the US imposed Yeltsin presidency, actually interferes very little. That this is so can be judged by the failure of any of the factions in Congress or out of it to oppose the proxy war the government has been waging. Where are the Fulbrights, LaFollettes, McGoverns of yesteryear?
The real failure of the US media is to put anything in an historical context, it destroys all political memory and treats its consumers with complete contempt.
Will Rachel Maddow stop blaming Putin for Hillary's defeat in 2016? Of course not. The matter is settled: there is no evidence for it, nobody will pretend that there is, the CJR article clearly shows that there never was. But that will make no difference. The Empire lives on lies and laughs at the fools who believe that truth is important. To power it is nothing.
Posted by: bevin | Feb 3 2023 3:56 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Somerville's 1990s book "How the News Makes Us Dumb" (short answer: because it's daily) should be a modern classic, though IMO he tried to be too "chatty" to reach a more popular audience.
Posted by: Death Of Wisdom | Feb 2 2023 17:41 utc | 1