The media caters to a particular demographic, telling that demographic what it already believes — even when it is unverified or false. This pandering defines the coverage of the Trump-Russia saga.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Patrick Lawrence has a piece over on CN where he relates the experiences of a couple of Russian bureaucrats that were given a tour of the US by the State Department. At the end, the DoS minders asked the Russians what they thought. They said that back home, the Russian government makes sure that all the news was the same. Remarkably here in the US, it made no difference what city we were in, the news was all the same.
What kills me about the Trump/Russia fiasco is that it was so unnecessary. Donald J. Trump is just a New York City grifter. His leadership skills and executive skills are non-existent. His management skills were chaotic at best. There's a reason why he went bankrupt three times. One didn't need to make shit up to criticize Trump. The fact that his critics felt a need to do so tells you more about his critics than they've told you about him.
The war agenda is #1 as far I can tell. The proxy war was in the works from 2014, and the Dems in the House conflated the “Trump is a traitor” lie with the urgency to funnel billions in high-tech weaponry to Ukraine.
So much for your stating the obvious. History would tell anyone that. As for the Dems in the House: Don't they conflate everything with "Trump is a traitor" lie? Seems like SOP to me.
That specific language was used a lot when the Ukraine hearings were part of a bogus impeachment process. After that the term “traitor” was not heard much until the January 6 hearings. By then, I don’t sense that it was a propaganda ploy. Most of the Democrats and a few Republicans, and a little over half of the polled electorate believed that Trump was implicated by the legal findings.
That's what I found so astounding. If the Dems had just left Trump alone he would have imploded on his own. Because they kept attackng him, his base kept defending him, more and more strongly.
Like him or not, Trump become the 45th president of the U.S...and Hillary did not. Given your (no so inaccurate) characterizations, that was reason alone to make shit up.
Where I'd like to deviate with you is that you're inferring that there is a significant contingent of the American population that care to know more about his critics, than him. In fact, I believe that is the main reason he landed in the office to begin with. Further, I don't feel that sentiment has subsided.
Do you know what the Praetorian guard was? Originally, it was a contingent of Roman soldiers that protected the emperor. They then moved on to selecting the new emperor and installing him. You may know the Praetorian guard. Today they are known as the CIA, FBI, NSA and the rest of the alphabet soup of security state agencies. They are the ones that meddled in the 2016 and 2020 elections. IMSHO Donnie Murdo (that means danger mouse in Scottish Gaelic) got elected because he wasn't the corporate approved jerkwad that Three Names was and that was enough. I agree with you that there's a lot of people that don't want the corporate approved flack from [pick your approved party]. Here's a hint:
I cancelled my subscription to The NY Times almost 3 years ago after getting sick and tired of watching them interdigitate facts and editorial. The notion that alternative viewpoints need to be presented and alternative understandings of the facts was no longer seen. I had seen this trend developing well before the pandemic. Although I am no fan of Trump, the vicious and gratuitous libel with which Trump was publicly tarred and feathered made an impression on me, of long-standing progressive orientation, that journalism had lost its footing and was becoming a weaponized political tool. My uncle, the late David Laventhol, one of the great newspaper editors of our time, and who died several years ago would have wept to see the state of immoralism that has overtaken journalism, and our country in general. Shocking as the breaches of ethics and sound principles in governing not only journalism, but politics, medicine, education, and business, what is even more shocking is to see how many are willing to sell their souls for the sake of a buck or to curry favor with the rich and powerful. And then, just as horrifying, are those who are willing to look the other way and somehow claim that they are not morally responsible since they didn't commit the crime themselves, even while being aware of it being committed . We live in immoral times where the syphilitic powers of nature have been unleashed upon the world and we must hold onto our morals with all our might as they all that keep us from being sucked into the abyss of evil.
It isn’t new and it’s not going away. Before Trump was sullied with every last bit of fabricated nonsense, all of the mainstream outlets that had sparingly covered Bernie Sanders historic, unprecedented presidential campaign, slammed the lid tight by uniformly writing and stating how “angry” and unfit for the rigors of the WH Sanders was. He had campaigned his peers to a faretheewell, but was “unfit.” Polls from the DNC showed that he was going to defeat Hilary, and that he polled stronger against Trump than she had. That is how sophisticated propaganda is done. I think the propaganda against Trump was much cruder, like animal feces flung on a wall to see what sticks. The Dems were caught flat-footed. Not only did they not expect to lose the election, they had to distract the voters from the content of the leaked emails that implicated their leadership in election fraud. Motivation aplenty to make outrageous charges, ad nauseam.
Lol, is your middle name obtuse? Trump was a career grand-standing film-flam man before he found a political following by attacking Barack Obama as an illegal president with a fake birth certificate. So he was plenty dirty before the media dirtied him further with lies and false allegations.
What does good or "evil" have to do with the issue of shoddy journalism? That kind of speak is simply mindless religious dogma attached to political issues that have nothing to do with personal faith in a superhuman power. My only guess is you use "abyss of evil" in an attempt to give your comments a final element of gravitas. It doesn't.
I think Mr. Brody was just saying that shoddy journalism is an 'evil' as you have a misinformed public and propaganda from the govt. Neither of which is good for a functioning democracy. You realize that Good / Evil dichotomy can exist outside of organized religion right?
Actually, I was responding to what Mr. Brody wrote, not what you think he was saying. He wrote "...as they [are] all that keep us from being sucked into the abyss of evil".
Based on that, I stand behind my original comments.
Three additional points regarding your comments:
1. The government is not producing the propaganda. The Oligarchs are. Thus the shoddy journalism. That is the entire point of the original post.
2. Our government is based on a functioning Republic, not a functioning democracy.
3. What is "organized" religion with respect to the good/evil dichotomy?...and how is that different than within, say, disorganized religion? Once you go down that ridiculous road of religious dogma, it hard not to get lost in the irrational rhetoric. You appear lost.
1) And who donates to politicians? The oligarchs. Do you not think the government does the bidding of the oligarchs? The CDC exemplifies regulatory capture by big Pharma...everything was done by CDC to enrich big Pharma before and after COVID.
2) Our government is not functional...at all. So whether it is a republic or a democracy is a moot point. If I have to provide proof of this, you have been hiding under a rock the past couple of years.
3) Duh? Even avowed atheists would call a child rapist an evil person. How else would they describe that person? All of us have a sense of what is right and wrong. And yet I am the one that appears lost?
I would call a child rapist... a child rapist. I see no value in a republican society attaching religious dogma to the crime. If I were living strictly within the laws of a religious congregation or cult, then maybe the additional label would prove valuable. But I don't. I doubt you do, either.
BTW, our government is functioning. It may not be the way you or I like, but I try my best to change that. I suggest you do the same. Applying religious dogma to it won't help. Thomas Jefferson knew this...and established that valuable principle when he established the separation between the laws of the church and those of the state. While not directing stating that principle, it is arguably enshrined in the language of our 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you Chris for another excellent article on the current state of journalism in the US. I never voted for Trump but the hatred and derangement syndrome persists years after he has left office. I never understood this. My son is a journalism major and I told him he has a rough road ahead of him.
"The silence by news organizations that for years perpetuated this fraud is ominous. It cements into place a new media model, one without credibility or accountability. The handful of reporters who have responded to Gerth’s investigative piece, such as David Corn at Mother Jones, have doubled down on the old lies, as if the mountain of evidence discrediting their reporting, most of it coming from the FBI and the Mueller Report, does not exist.
Once fact becomes interchangeable with opinion, once truth is irrelevant, once people are told only what they wish to hear, journalism ceases to be journalism and becomes propaganda."
Ye when the same lying cabal of presstitutes sang from the Fauci-Pfizer hymnal smearing Great Barrington Declaration & calling the most published medical doctors in their fields "fringe".. pimping fluid shield exam masks to stop virus so small it needs a biosafety lab to handle etc even the NYT skeptics swallowed the BS, helped call for mandates and long lists of policies never successful except for implementing regimes that turn liberty into privileges given in exchange for compliance.
People watch news not for information but for confirmation. About the suggested measures to avoid the pandemic, I didn't care what the news outlets were telling. I did what the WHO and my physician recommended: get vaccines and use face mask.
I would be embarrassed today to have to admit that my job is journalism. It was a career choice that used to have some luster. But today, it is at the level of shyster or someone without a modicum of integrity.
I think ONE of the sources of the problem is that our education system has been taken over by radical activists and their early focus was to indoctrinate students into a specific ideology... and focused on the humanities disciplines that trains most journalists. It seems that this was by design.
Obviously cable news and then the Internet has caused a race-to-the-bottom for media-news organization desperation to capture and hold paying customers... but as Substack.com proves there has always been a market for open, varied and objective content that people will pay for.
No, the Trump-Russia lies that dominated the entire mainstream media and was promulgated by the actual government favoring Democrats... that was NOT just explained by news organizations wanting to capture customers. It is evidence that the we have a blob of power that is backed by a specific radical ideological viewpoint and most of the discipline of journalism has been indoctrinated in that radical ideological viewpoint as true believers. And as true believers the desired end can be made to justify almost any means.
The corruption of the media that has been made apparent by the lies of Trump-Russia collusion and the avoidance of reporting on the Hunter laptop and now the Twitter Files... and the ongoing denial by journalists that none of these things warrant much attention... well to just chalk that up to news organizations wanting to keep their base of customers happy... that does not sufficiently explain what is going on.
I agree. It has very little to do with keeping a base of happy customers. The only ones that need to be kept happy are the small group of oligarchs that bought these "news" outlets and wish to control the narrative. That means grinding out continuous propaganda that ignores, obfuscates, and re-characterizes the corruption they inflict regularly on the tax paying public. The railroad debacle in Ohio is only the latest example. These chemical and railroad companies are their own...and they will pay virtually no price at all for their negligence. Their "news" outlets print sob stories of how they have spent $6M+ addressing the issue. They've addressed nothing...and $6M is nothing to them.
Make no mistake about it, the quickly ballooning national public debt is evidence of the feeding trough at which these oligarchs feed. The only answer, I see, to rein in this criminality is the demand for the adoption of a federal balanced budget amendment; or some reasonably phased in version of such a constitutional spending provision. It's really simple: If there is no money to finance this criminality, it cannot continue to happen. It may be economically painful to work towards such a balanced budget provision, but that is the price of putting it off far too long. The alternative of continuing to ignore it is resulting in economic pain (rampant inflation) anyhow. Why wait? You may laugh at that solution...but that is what propaganda machine has been conditioning you to do--for decades. Ignore the laughter and get to work demanding it, now, of your government representatives.
If those Representatives ignore you (likely), then work to vote in ones that (eventually) won't. Don't expect it to happen overnight. Keep at it, and it will eventually come to fruition. That's how a functioning Republic works. If you think it doesn't, then be content to live in a dysfunctional one. You already know how that goes. I suggest you deserve better.
F Lee’s got it. It has been a long march to capture all the culture producing institutions, and especially higher education. People are no longer taught how to think they are taught want to think. I sincerely doubt the denizens of journalism will reflect much on this, their systematic failures. They are on the right side of history.
You are free to make up your own definitions, but I prefer a literary approach consistent with mutually accepted definitions of the English language. I believe Denizens occupy a space, not a role. Further, virtually all Homo sapiens have the capacity to practice journalism.
Space versus roll: I think Denizens works for both. The media is a space, it is called the fourth estate after all: estate is temporal by definition. The media are considered a pillar of functioning democracy. I think denizens is the correct word.
Journalism is full of pretension. Our author advises us that they are now mere lackeys. Denizens of journalism is a Pejorative , it hints at the grandiose pretensions.
I wish that in this piece, Chris had mentioned the system-wide blackout of Seymour Hersh's Feb. 8 report on the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Chris has probably commented on the MSM smothering of the Hersh report elsewhere (and I simply haven't seen it yet), but this blackout certainly seems to qualify as a prime example of the "Death Spiral of American Journalism."
By functioning default, perhaps. That could change at any time if the people decide to wake from their laziness and apathy and change that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding my breath on that inevitability--certainly given the array of propaganda forces at work to prevent that from happening. However, Substack forums, like this one, have a chance (albeit small one at this point) to change that. I think that possibility keeps a few, well heeled people up at night. I don't think that would be of the slightest of concerns if we truly had an established fascist government.
I admire your optimism -- despite of solid 70++ years of fascism, including at least three domestic president coups/assassinations - Kennedy, Nixon, Trump... ;-))
Kennedy, Nixon, CARTER, Trump. Carter brokered a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Obviously, he couldn't be allowed to have a second term. The genociders didn't want peace then, and they don't want peace now.
So what about the Pax Americana? I am no fan of the weapons and defense industries in this or any other country. Unbearable expense purposed toward machinery of death, in my opinion. But if the US pulls back from from maintaining international order, do you believe it will lead to world-wide harmony among nations? I don't.
As an analogy I'd use our police departments. Again, no fan here. I've had my own run in's with the law, and have family who've paid an incredibly steep price from law enforcement interactions. But I view them as a necessary evil, part of the price paid to live peacefully in society, and I offer them respect for that.
My point being, chaos is never far from the doorstep. The judicious use of power is needed to keep it at bay. As an American I'm certainly biased, but I see no other entity I'd be comfortable ceding that power to, at this time.
Pax Americana? surely many nations wronged by us don't want it. The gentlemen here, so well versed in history, could you please remind me who appointed us the supreme arbiter of world's order and when?
The US presence in Australia and its bases here are not bringing any harmony at all to the nation - making it a target when the US pushes and provokes war in this region.
Do you also believe in giving up your Constitutional rights as a "necessary evil" and part of the price to be paid to live peacefully in society? I certainly don't. I doubt Brianna Taylor, George Floyd, Anton Black, etc. would agree with you either. I also doubt they believed they were living in a peaceful society at the moment those rights were obliterated and they were murdered. That says nothing about the millions the U.S. military has slaughtered abroad in the name of "keeping the peace".
By the way, you don't need to "ceed the power" to anyone. In a functioning republic the power belongs to you. Apparently, as an American, you have been duly trained by the oligarchs (predictive programming at work here) to forget that fact. I haven't. And I take issue with any fellow American that has. It unnecessarily impinges on my ability to keep it.
To each their own. I'm aware of the danger of overzealous police. I've had a person close to me violently murdered by a gang of cops during a non-emergency call. So I understand the power they wield and the damage they can inflict. But that does not mean I have given up any of my own constitutional rights when police do their job of protecting citizens properly. My point is, without them we'd each be on our own, which would end badly for most of us. The same for international affairs. If the US does not exert its strength over the world order, I'm sure there are other powers happy to step in. But they may not be so amenable to our freedoms. Be careful what you wish for. Our country is far from perfect, and is certainly perverted by wealth. But it was the best yet to come along when it did, and we have guaranteed rights and freedom of expression that are not on everyone else's menu.
Your right; to each their own. Yours appears to be delusion.
There is, arguably, a large contingent of police force in the U.S. that has not been trained to respect the constitutional rights of its citizens, nor do they practice it. I believe the main reason for this unacceptable behavior is because of the legal precedent of qualified immunity being applied to the executive branch of our government. In short, they are treated as more equal than others. That affects everybody--including you. I believe that must end. You may wish to put up with that "necessary evil" in order to believe in your fantasy world of "guaranteed right and freedom of expression", but I am not that foolish.
BTW, the U.S. does not exert its strength "over the world order". With the dollar dictated (it should be treated as a privilage) as the global reserve currency by U.S. hegemony, they are the world order.
Yes, I agree that Americans have no monopoly on the Love of Peace and Freedom. What I think we do have is a relatively unique legal and civil structure that allows personal freedom to gather and to speak out that should not be taken for granted. I am not in any way pushing the line that the US is a perfect example of nationhood, to be idolized and promoted for all citizens of the world. What I am trying to express is the idea that for all its many faults, America is a damn sight better than the alternatives I see.
At some point I feel it wise to take a pragmatic view of world affairs, which leads me to ask, "who would do better?" If the US were to step back from its role of guarantor of peace and financial stability, who would step in? Off the top of my head, let's see... European Union? I mean, maybe? Perhaps an African Union? Unlikely. Brazil, India? Again, unlikely. Russia? Not for me thanks, although it seems a few of the commenters here might welcome that. China? Well, we may find out sooner than we'd like. Not my preference, though.
So then what? Are there other candidates I've missed? I'm pretty sure someone would be more than willing to assume that mantle. It's a little disheartening to see this community of commenters seeming to bad mouth the US in every respect. But I understand why. This country has done a fuck ton of bad, bad shit, in every corner of the globe. My point is, no one's perfect, power goes to people's heads and mistakes are made. I think the same type of bullshit will happen no matter who is running the show. At least here we have a certain degree of legally demanded transparency and accountability. It's not always easy to achieve, but at least it's in writing. I'm not sure the same can be said for other players in the game who might look to supplant us.
And that was dangerous in itself as it probably forced Trump to be hard-nosed with Russia to appease his critics. Folks continually forget that Russia has nukes...
Agreed but I wonder if the continual anti-Russia slant of the news forced him or his administration to treat Russia with contempt when it was not necessary. Seriously...as far as evil nations go...the US is way worse than Russia on so many different levels.
What folks are those? The same ones that have voted, or otherwise approved of, the Biden Administration giving the Ukrainians nearly $120B in military aid (to date) to fight a proxy war with Russia? This has been arguably more dangerous (certainly from a nuclear war threat) than any dealings Trump ever had with the Russians. The annual setting of the doomsday clock certainly didn't move from 100 seconds to 90 seconds this year without that in mind.
I meant all the people that 'support Ukraine' as they have no clue what they are advocating. Ukraine is not a US problem. Hell, we have a chemical spill in OH and Pete B. is nowhere to be found. Agree with you on the danger here...and this is all the US fault!
Yes, we are referring to the same people. But for different reasons. I don't think there is any evidence that Trump was hard nosed (forced or otherwise) with the Russians. Not so with the Biden administration.
I am thankful for Substack, because this is the only place you see criticism of the MSM by professional journalists. NY Times has become the political equivalent of the National Enquirer.
I have to say , I am somewhat surprised by your choice of networks and people that you feel , if I’m reading this correctly, have driven Media focus in a negative direction .
My understanding is that most Media is now owned by those people who tended to buy into Right aligned news bias .
While i think there is political ‘bend’ on both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.
I believe I’ve seen a strained attempt to believe and present news as equally truthful or not . But an effort to pretend Democracy is not being threatened by Trump and his followers.
It seems a little off to hold up these examples of CNN, MSNBC, as being antagonistic to Trump , because” they hated him”.
Perhaps they did hate him. Does that change that the man did seem to have a fondness for Dictators and Authoritarian leaders and their policies?
That he was a man with a major fondness of lies as opposed to truth telling.
I look at whats gone on with his blatant lying and that of his Fox News network .
This was contrived lying at its finest ( or worst).
Im sorry, I understand the truth in journalism is the point, but iI do not believe their was no collusion on the part of Trump and Putins Russia.
We heard him tell Russia to look for Hillary’s missing emails.
So perhaps he had some responsibility for this widespread belief that he had a major part in these
Impressions .Sorry , but the man attempted to overthrow the legitimacy of an election, because he didn’t win.
That was something i watched w my own eyes . When we speak of Rachel Maddow as a traitor to accurate journalism and no mention of Tucker Carlson .
It doesn’t make me believe this was a contrived effort to besmirch Trumps name .
But, perhaps revelation of what he presented himself as .
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice. It’s hard to believe that someone would know this and believe that this was all some kind of trickery.
I'm no Trump supporter, but you seem to equate indictments with convictions. They're not. An indictment is nothing more than legalese for an accusation. In this case, accusations that are baseless in fact. Some would call it bullshit. So, if you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it is bound to stick. In this case, a lot was thrown, and very little of it stuck...and none of it to Trump.
Yes, there may have been seven guilty pleas by political operatives as a result of years of wasted investigation and millions of tax payer dollars; a total waste of time if your talking return on investment of effort. Further, if you're holding this result up as success in proving Russian collusion in 2016 Presidential election fraud, than I think you're pissing in the wind, my friend. In my opinion, those guilty pleas (it should be pointed out these most of these were plea bargains-not jury convictions) were simply made by political operatives of the executive branch in order to clear most of the shit off the wall in an effort to allow the President to try to move forward with the political agenda he was elected to pursue. I believe that's why those guys are paid the big bucks...and that's politics. As for a thousand former federal prosecutors concluding a particular political opinion: so what. I see no evidence that anybody acted legally on their opinion. Certainly none of those one thousand political hacks filed charges themselves. It is the same as Congress holding hearings on any apparent breach of policy or law. Any conclusion is simply political fodder to be batted around for political points--unless there is legal action in the form of law enforcement (meaning both executive branch [charges] and judicial branch [convictions] involvement) or the passing of an eventual legislative bill. To my knowledge, no bills were passed as a result of the many Congressional hearings and special counsel investigations regarding Russia-gate. As far as law enforcement, it ultimately means nothing unless charges are referred to the Justice Department AND convictions are secured. To date, Trump was never charged and convicted of a crime by the Justice Department. You may wish that no to be so (and, like many, re-characterize it in an effort to appear so), but those are the bare facts. You will never change that. It's like an intent to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with all of us knowing (at least the ones that aren't delusional) that you can't have one if both ingredients aren't present. If you fall short with either ingredient you just end up with simply a peanut butter...or a jelly sandwich.
In other words, your claim of 37 indictments and one thousand opinions is simply political sensationalism vainly trying to prove the making of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--with both peanut butter and jelly not present.
I disagree with that analysis because it’s ignoring Paul Manafort and significant things like that. The fact that the Trump strategy of non cooperation was successful isn’t a sign of innocence.
It isn't a sign of guilt either. What "signifant things like that" are you referring to? Sounds like the typical vaguely fake news outlets have spewed on the topic since day one.
There’s the whole thing with sessions etcetera. The whole obstructionism that continued throughout I’m not interested in writing a book about it. The news has always been slanted and is controlled by plutocrats on all sides and always has been in this country for the most part. Is journalism worse now than in the past? I doubt it. It’s a lot noisier but that’s the way modern technologies have made it.
The problem is when you use the word "overthrow" interchangeably with the word"overturn". And you "watched this with your own eyes"? Wow. This is the essence of fake news...and I believe you facilitate the perpetuation of such ignorance.
I care far more about media lies to prop up US empire and ignore corporate power and wealth inequality and ignore/downplay the climate crisis and the plight of working class Americans.
This attack on media for Russia-gate is getting old by now.
Frankly, a lot of it is feeding exactly the fascist cultural tendencies Hedges writes so eloquently about.
And there is little linkage to how and why Democrats (DNC and Clinton campaign) manufactured this lie and how it is now being used to support a New Cold War.
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice. It’s hard to understand how that can be interpreted as proving Trump was part of a witch hunt and was undeniably innocent in the situation.
You posted, virtually, the same response earlier. What, do you monitor this forum to repeat talking points from your handlers? Or do you think repeating yourself makes your fiction more believable? What a second...wasn't that the concern of the original report by Chris? Get real.
There is no "New" Cold War. NATO has been in business, continually, since 1949. The premise for forming NATO has never been abated. Tactically, it continues to align forces against Russia expanding its empire. Strategically, it keeps the 'boggy man' premise alive,...and the military industrial complex humming with private pockets being well lined with tax dollars. With Ukrainian funding currently at astronomic levels, it continues to hum quite mightily.
With all due respect, Sir, believing that the Cold War was over and that a new one was just begun was part of your indoctrination. It was merely to create a false sense of urgency...and, thus, compliance. I urge you to resist the programming and put an end to the indoctrination.
You put false ideas and words in my mouth that I never expressed and wildly misinterpreted what I did write.
As my comment was topically directed to US MEDIA (the subject matter of Hedges piece), the "new Cold War" I was refereeing to is an obviously and quantifiably demonstrable vastly enhanced propaganda campaign. There are parallels in US foreign policy and US military policy and NATO.
None of that in any way states or implies that I naively think that the "Cold War was over".
Any time a statement is prefaced with the qualifier "with all due respect", get ready to be personally attacked and smeared.
Take you false claims of indoctrination and shove them where the sun don't shine, my friend.
I addressed the words you wrote...not the ones you meant to write. While you may wish your reference to be obvious, it wasn't. As for the garbage terminology ("quantifiably demonstrable", really?) you apply to it ex post facto, well, that's garbage too, in my opinion.
Further, I couldn't care less if you were addressing US Media. You posted on this forum. Since I am a dues paying member of this forum, I have a right to post... and will respond to your post accordingly. If you feel insulted, that is your problem; not mine. I apply the same old adage to you that I apply to other disgruntled posters: If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. Cheers!
Now you're just embarrassing yourself, Bill. I suggest you stick to your Wolfnotes content. It's, literally, safer for you there. I'm comfortable knowing that I'm not missing out on that content...and promise that I'll never subscribe. Otherwise, here, I'm free to call you out on your misrepresentation of facts anytime I like. Consider yourself bitten.
So where does the truth lay? I am just an armchair observer and admittedly ready to believe the worst about trump. That said, I'd like to know what those who have the fullest picture of his entanglements with Russia believe. It is hard for me to accept there is a neutral or arms length relationship there. The weight of circumstantial evidence is impressive, and I just can't wave away the smoke without thinking something is alight. His financial misfeasance leading to dependence on Russian money. His obsequiousness towards Putin, who does not seem like the type to ignore any possible forms of leverage over an opponent. Paul Manafort. St. Petersburg troll farms. DNC hacks. Internet influence operations and timely releases of information to help trump and hurt Hillary in 2016.
Is all of this nothing? There didn't need to be secret phone calls or encrypted communication between trump's campaign and Kremlin agents. They were working toward the same goal, and had enough tangential contact to know that, or so it seems to me.
Perhaps the mainstream media were too eager to see what their readers wanted to believe. But I don't think the sin of reportorial overreach should negate the possibility that something untoward took place. Which, surprise, surprise, greatly inflamed existing divisions within this country and led to the weakening of our overseas alliances. Who benefits more than Vladimir Putin from that state of affairs?
As I said up top, I'm interested in the truth. But I can't ignore the web of connections between trump and Russia because the NY Times may have been catering to fickle subscribers.
I think you can start with a Spencerian type of capitalism that cannot achieve necessary growth constancy without manufacturing enemies and committing to endless wars. When Gorbachev ended the USSR, and Soviet communism, the discussion about the “peace dividend” lasted a minute. Ten years later, we were told to believe that 22 Muslim zealots commandeered jumbo jets to take down two WTC towers. This was soon followed by the suspension of habeas corpus, the passage of the Patriot Act, which empowered our government to weaponize the term “terrorist,” and abide by no laws when charging an arrestee with that offense. Nineteen years in Afghanistan and Iraq, millions of anonymous murder victims later, and the war on terror was wearing American belief and understanding threadbare thin. And on cue, Russia is enemy #1 with a bullet. It’s a narrative with a wide chorus of minstrels, and only a few professionals left to tell the truth.
No, you're not. If you were, then you wouldn't write:
"There didn't need to be secret phone calls or encrypted communication between trump's campaign and Kremlin agents. They were working toward the same goal, and had enough tangential contact to know that, or so it seems to me. "
What you seem to be interested is developing opinion confirmation at any cost; even with that of the most fallacious and asinine reporting.
For example, "...need to be..." is a statement qualifier that infers fact. In this case a statement of fact that you couldn't possibly know about yourself, nor could very few others. What secret phone calls? If they were secret, how would you (or anyone else) know about them? What encrypted communication? If it was encrypted communication, how would you (or anyone else) know what the communication was comprised of? Much less that it illicit or illegal. Bottom line is you don't know. Nor does anyone else. Otherwise it likely would have been exposed by now---certainly by the Mueller investigation at the very least since Mueller would have been the one to refer charges to the justice department for illegal activity. He didn't. Do you even think to ask yourself about how some of the presses alleged statements could possibly be true? If you did, then you might not bother re-presenting them here--except maybe for the reason I conjectured above.
Moreover, you expose your cognitive dissonance regarding your own statement of fact by re-expressing this statement of fact as opinion---in the very next sentence. You say: "They were working toward the same goal, and had enough tangential contact to know that, or so it seems to me." So it seems to you? Really? What would you know about "enough tangential contact" to constitute a crime? Just a hunch? An opinion of an "armchair observer"? Well, just like those other "journalists reporting on the alleged Kremlin-Trump connection, your opinion appears to be just another asinine opinion...in my opinion. Like I would suggest to the Press, unless you have some real evidence to attached to an alleged crime, I suggest you do us all a favor and keep those asinine opinions to yourself.
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.
With just this information alone, I don’t understand how anyone can believe that he’s an innocent man that was a victim of a political witch hunt.
While I have to say that I was always suspicious of the claims that Trump was a Russian asset - some of the continuous river of attack against him - fuelled as much by his crassness as possible believability of mainstream US press - of course filled the cracks of any of my doubts. Gersh totally swept away any lingering doubts about the deceit of the media and "official" un-named sources. Just to-day I have read a mainstream news story on Syria which begins with a headline about President Assad's wife and Louboutin heels. Then a statement about the thousands of barrel bombs Assad dropped on quarters of his capital city - when it is known that they were dropped by the US-supported rebels and their so-called "white-helmet" agents - propaganda stories. And further on in the story of negatives - "claims a CIA agent who knows Assad" - no further context or attribution. The two named journalists (how embarrassing for their future careers - or not) for the story must have received the press release direct from the CIA or from the CIA's general dissemination point. Some years back Australia had a Foreign Minister called Julie Bishop. A lightweight "personality" who would do early morning jogs around important foreign capitals - somehow always being filmed by compliant press pausing during those jogging sessions outside famous brand-name shoe stores. All positive and glamour - our foreign minister with an eye for fashion. The same kind of "courtesy" but with a side-eye negativity - afforded President Assad's wife. I wonder what Joe Biden's wife is wearing - Nancy Pelosi, anyone? What of the US VP?
Chris you and Matt Taibbi often make a kind of "make journalism great again" argument, but I think it misses the point that the purpose of large news organizations was always to serve up propaganda that serves the interests of the most powerful factions in society. The particular model has changed over time, but in general, fundamentally, it was always about framing dominant public narratives. What you guys are concerned with is simply furniture rearrangement in the same room, same house. And truth was always disregarded/ignored when it contradicted the desired narrative of the publisher.
Americans used to know this, but forgot about it and are only now re-discovering it. In the early 19th century, dominant political factions overtly pushed their own newspapers, and the nature of these operations was largely understood by the public to represent only the views of those particular factions...readers sought them out in order to get the latest dish on what the powerful factions were thinking. The Gilded Age brought about the rise of oligarch-controlled news organizations, and they dramatically expanded the model of serving up (sometimes fabricating) hot-selling stories and competing for control of the largest audiences. The advent of WW1 brought about a huge increase (but not the beginning) in the use of mass media for peddling government propaganda and building support for war. Goebbels spoke admiringly of these very efforts as the inspiration for his Nazi propaganda machine. By WW2 the mass media was thoroughly under the thumb of the US government, who then became consolidated under the influence of a few broadcast TV networks and played the public like a fiddle...seeking large audiences was an artifact of strict control over (and limited number of) broadcast TV networks. The rise of TV also threatened newspapers, and they went through an early round of consolidation. This highly evolved propaganda machine, what you term the "old media," split up to serve more focused partisan audiences in the "new media" period (especially with the rise of cable TV), and the internet only put booster rockets on this evolution.
Today, the split of mass media into more focused partisan audiences is a return to the way things used to be, and has helped to reveal the fundamental nature of the propaganda machine. The public, cultivated to be brainwashed and embracing an intellectually infantile faith in "trusted sources," has been released naked into the wilderness, and they are struggling. Most are still trying to hold onto to something "trusted," following the split in dominant narratives. All we can do is hope that they will learn to be skeptical of everything, abandon the ridiculous notion of "trusted sources," and graduate from being babies on an information battlefield to more enlightened consumers and analysts of any and all "news." Helping them achieve information maturity is now our primary task...we should take up this cause in earnest.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Patrick Lawrence has a piece over on CN where he relates the experiences of a couple of Russian bureaucrats that were given a tour of the US by the State Department. At the end, the DoS minders asked the Russians what they thought. They said that back home, the Russian government makes sure that all the news was the same. Remarkably here in the US, it made no difference what city we were in, the news was all the same.
What kills me about the Trump/Russia fiasco is that it was so unnecessary. Donald J. Trump is just a New York City grifter. His leadership skills and executive skills are non-existent. His management skills were chaotic at best. There's a reason why he went bankrupt three times. One didn't need to make shit up to criticize Trump. The fact that his critics felt a need to do so tells you more about his critics than they've told you about him.
The war agenda is #1 as far I can tell. The proxy war was in the works from 2014, and the Dems in the House conflated the “Trump is a traitor” lie with the urgency to funnel billions in high-tech weaponry to Ukraine.
When has the war agenda not been #1 in the U.S.?
Yes, when indeed?
So much for your stating the obvious. History would tell anyone that. As for the Dems in the House: Don't they conflate everything with "Trump is a traitor" lie? Seems like SOP to me.
That specific language was used a lot when the Ukraine hearings were part of a bogus impeachment process. After that the term “traitor” was not heard much until the January 6 hearings. By then, I don’t sense that it was a propaganda ploy. Most of the Democrats and a few Republicans, and a little over half of the polled electorate believed that Trump was implicated by the legal findings.
That's what I found so astounding. If the Dems had just left Trump alone he would have imploded on his own. Because they kept attackng him, his base kept defending him, more and more strongly.
Like him or not, Trump become the 45th president of the U.S...and Hillary did not. Given your (no so inaccurate) characterizations, that was reason alone to make shit up.
Where I'd like to deviate with you is that you're inferring that there is a significant contingent of the American population that care to know more about his critics, than him. In fact, I believe that is the main reason he landed in the office to begin with. Further, I don't feel that sentiment has subsided.
Do you know what the Praetorian guard was? Originally, it was a contingent of Roman soldiers that protected the emperor. They then moved on to selecting the new emperor and installing him. You may know the Praetorian guard. Today they are known as the CIA, FBI, NSA and the rest of the alphabet soup of security state agencies. They are the ones that meddled in the 2016 and 2020 elections. IMSHO Donnie Murdo (that means danger mouse in Scottish Gaelic) got elected because he wasn't the corporate approved jerkwad that Three Names was and that was enough. I agree with you that there's a lot of people that don't want the corporate approved flack from [pick your approved party]. Here's a hint:
VOTE THIRD PARTY (didja hear that?)
I cancelled my subscription to The NY Times almost 3 years ago after getting sick and tired of watching them interdigitate facts and editorial. The notion that alternative viewpoints need to be presented and alternative understandings of the facts was no longer seen. I had seen this trend developing well before the pandemic. Although I am no fan of Trump, the vicious and gratuitous libel with which Trump was publicly tarred and feathered made an impression on me, of long-standing progressive orientation, that journalism had lost its footing and was becoming a weaponized political tool. My uncle, the late David Laventhol, one of the great newspaper editors of our time, and who died several years ago would have wept to see the state of immoralism that has overtaken journalism, and our country in general. Shocking as the breaches of ethics and sound principles in governing not only journalism, but politics, medicine, education, and business, what is even more shocking is to see how many are willing to sell their souls for the sake of a buck or to curry favor with the rich and powerful. And then, just as horrifying, are those who are willing to look the other way and somehow claim that they are not morally responsible since they didn't commit the crime themselves, even while being aware of it being committed . We live in immoral times where the syphilitic powers of nature have been unleashed upon the world and we must hold onto our morals with all our might as they all that keep us from being sucked into the abyss of evil.
It isn’t new and it’s not going away. Before Trump was sullied with every last bit of fabricated nonsense, all of the mainstream outlets that had sparingly covered Bernie Sanders historic, unprecedented presidential campaign, slammed the lid tight by uniformly writing and stating how “angry” and unfit for the rigors of the WH Sanders was. He had campaigned his peers to a faretheewell, but was “unfit.” Polls from the DNC showed that he was going to defeat Hilary, and that he polled stronger against Trump than she had. That is how sophisticated propaganda is done. I think the propaganda against Trump was much cruder, like animal feces flung on a wall to see what sticks. The Dems were caught flat-footed. Not only did they not expect to lose the election, they had to distract the voters from the content of the leaked emails that implicated their leadership in election fraud. Motivation aplenty to make outrageous charges, ad nauseam.
Are you saying trump was unsullied before the media began looking into his background?
I think he was primarily sullied by his real violations of most of the people with whom he transacted.
So the media didn't sully him. He came pre-sullied. The media was doing its job of trying to ferret out the dirt.
Lol, is your middle name obtuse? Trump was a career grand-standing film-flam man before he found a political following by attacking Barack Obama as an illegal president with a fake birth certificate. So he was plenty dirty before the media dirtied him further with lies and false allegations.
Not me pal. Your comment said the media sullied trump. As if! What's your middle name?
Syd: not sharp, dull. How can you possibly miss the meeting?
What does good or "evil" have to do with the issue of shoddy journalism? That kind of speak is simply mindless religious dogma attached to political issues that have nothing to do with personal faith in a superhuman power. My only guess is you use "abyss of evil" in an attempt to give your comments a final element of gravitas. It doesn't.
I think Mr. Brody was just saying that shoddy journalism is an 'evil' as you have a misinformed public and propaganda from the govt. Neither of which is good for a functioning democracy. You realize that Good / Evil dichotomy can exist outside of organized religion right?
Actually, I was responding to what Mr. Brody wrote, not what you think he was saying. He wrote "...as they [are] all that keep us from being sucked into the abyss of evil".
Based on that, I stand behind my original comments.
Three additional points regarding your comments:
1. The government is not producing the propaganda. The Oligarchs are. Thus the shoddy journalism. That is the entire point of the original post.
2. Our government is based on a functioning Republic, not a functioning democracy.
3. What is "organized" religion with respect to the good/evil dichotomy?...and how is that different than within, say, disorganized religion? Once you go down that ridiculous road of religious dogma, it hard not to get lost in the irrational rhetoric. You appear lost.
1) And who donates to politicians? The oligarchs. Do you not think the government does the bidding of the oligarchs? The CDC exemplifies regulatory capture by big Pharma...everything was done by CDC to enrich big Pharma before and after COVID.
2) Our government is not functional...at all. So whether it is a republic or a democracy is a moot point. If I have to provide proof of this, you have been hiding under a rock the past couple of years.
3) Duh? Even avowed atheists would call a child rapist an evil person. How else would they describe that person? All of us have a sense of what is right and wrong. And yet I am the one that appears lost?
I would call a child rapist... a child rapist. I see no value in a republican society attaching religious dogma to the crime. If I were living strictly within the laws of a religious congregation or cult, then maybe the additional label would prove valuable. But I don't. I doubt you do, either.
BTW, our government is functioning. It may not be the way you or I like, but I try my best to change that. I suggest you do the same. Applying religious dogma to it won't help. Thomas Jefferson knew this...and established that valuable principle when he established the separation between the laws of the church and those of the state. While not directing stating that principle, it is arguably enshrined in the language of our 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you Chris for another excellent article on the current state of journalism in the US. I never voted for Trump but the hatred and derangement syndrome persists years after he has left office. I never understood this. My son is a journalism major and I told him he has a rough road ahead of him.
if only the Demand for
Journalists trumped
that for steno-
graphers.
"The silence by news organizations that for years perpetuated this fraud is ominous. It cements into place a new media model, one without credibility or accountability. The handful of reporters who have responded to Gerth’s investigative piece, such as David Corn at Mother Jones, have doubled down on the old lies, as if the mountain of evidence discrediting their reporting, most of it coming from the FBI and the Mueller Report, does not exist.
Once fact becomes interchangeable with opinion, once truth is irrelevant, once people are told only what they wish to hear, journalism ceases to be journalism and becomes propaganda."
Ye when the same lying cabal of presstitutes sang from the Fauci-Pfizer hymnal smearing Great Barrington Declaration & calling the most published medical doctors in their fields "fringe".. pimping fluid shield exam masks to stop virus so small it needs a biosafety lab to handle etc even the NYT skeptics swallowed the BS, helped call for mandates and long lists of policies never successful except for implementing regimes that turn liberty into privileges given in exchange for compliance.
I save a lot of $$$ when I drop another subscription. Corn's reporting at Mother Jones was another instance. What happened to them all?
People watch news not for information but for confirmation. About the suggested measures to avoid the pandemic, I didn't care what the news outlets were telling. I did what the WHO and my physician recommended: get vaccines and use face mask.
"...even the NYT skeptics swallowed the BS...". The NYT has been the biggest purveyor of BS for decades.
I would be embarrassed today to have to admit that my job is journalism. It was a career choice that used to have some luster. But today, it is at the level of shyster or someone without a modicum of integrity.
I think ONE of the sources of the problem is that our education system has been taken over by radical activists and their early focus was to indoctrinate students into a specific ideology... and focused on the humanities disciplines that trains most journalists. It seems that this was by design.
Obviously cable news and then the Internet has caused a race-to-the-bottom for media-news organization desperation to capture and hold paying customers... but as Substack.com proves there has always been a market for open, varied and objective content that people will pay for.
No, the Trump-Russia lies that dominated the entire mainstream media and was promulgated by the actual government favoring Democrats... that was NOT just explained by news organizations wanting to capture customers. It is evidence that the we have a blob of power that is backed by a specific radical ideological viewpoint and most of the discipline of journalism has been indoctrinated in that radical ideological viewpoint as true believers. And as true believers the desired end can be made to justify almost any means.
The corruption of the media that has been made apparent by the lies of Trump-Russia collusion and the avoidance of reporting on the Hunter laptop and now the Twitter Files... and the ongoing denial by journalists that none of these things warrant much attention... well to just chalk that up to news organizations wanting to keep their base of customers happy... that does not sufficiently explain what is going on.
I agree. It has very little to do with keeping a base of happy customers. The only ones that need to be kept happy are the small group of oligarchs that bought these "news" outlets and wish to control the narrative. That means grinding out continuous propaganda that ignores, obfuscates, and re-characterizes the corruption they inflict regularly on the tax paying public. The railroad debacle in Ohio is only the latest example. These chemical and railroad companies are their own...and they will pay virtually no price at all for their negligence. Their "news" outlets print sob stories of how they have spent $6M+ addressing the issue. They've addressed nothing...and $6M is nothing to them.
Make no mistake about it, the quickly ballooning national public debt is evidence of the feeding trough at which these oligarchs feed. The only answer, I see, to rein in this criminality is the demand for the adoption of a federal balanced budget amendment; or some reasonably phased in version of such a constitutional spending provision. It's really simple: If there is no money to finance this criminality, it cannot continue to happen. It may be economically painful to work towards such a balanced budget provision, but that is the price of putting it off far too long. The alternative of continuing to ignore it is resulting in economic pain (rampant inflation) anyhow. Why wait? You may laugh at that solution...but that is what propaganda machine has been conditioning you to do--for decades. Ignore the laughter and get to work demanding it, now, of your government representatives.
If those Representatives ignore you (likely), then work to vote in ones that (eventually) won't. Don't expect it to happen overnight. Keep at it, and it will eventually come to fruition. That's how a functioning Republic works. If you think it doesn't, then be content to live in a dysfunctional one. You already know how that goes. I suggest you deserve better.
F Lee’s got it. It has been a long march to capture all the culture producing institutions, and especially higher education. People are no longer taught how to think they are taught want to think. I sincerely doubt the denizens of journalism will reflect much on this, their systematic failures. They are on the right side of history.
Is there a particular reason we should be concerned about the reflections of the "denizens of journalism" (as opposed to, say, journalists)?
I take that back denizens of journalism is correct, fancy but correct. So you prefer a more straightforward approach.
I thought it cleaver. There is no such species of Homo sapiens known as journalist. People occupy a role hence denizen, they reside in an occupation.
You are free to make up your own definitions, but I prefer a literary approach consistent with mutually accepted definitions of the English language. I believe Denizens occupy a space, not a role. Further, virtually all Homo sapiens have the capacity to practice journalism.
Space versus roll: I think Denizens works for both. The media is a space, it is called the fourth estate after all: estate is temporal by definition. The media are considered a pillar of functioning democracy. I think denizens is the correct word.
Journalism is full of pretension. Our author advises us that they are now mere lackeys. Denizens of journalism is a Pejorative , it hints at the grandiose pretensions.
I wish that in this piece, Chris had mentioned the system-wide blackout of Seymour Hersh's Feb. 8 report on the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Chris has probably commented on the MSM smothering of the Hersh report elsewhere (and I simply haven't seen it yet), but this blackout certainly seems to qualify as a prime example of the "Death Spiral of American Journalism."
In summary -- US is and has been for decades -- a fascist country
By functioning default, perhaps. That could change at any time if the people decide to wake from their laziness and apathy and change that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding my breath on that inevitability--certainly given the array of propaganda forces at work to prevent that from happening. However, Substack forums, like this one, have a chance (albeit small one at this point) to change that. I think that possibility keeps a few, well heeled people up at night. I don't think that would be of the slightest of concerns if we truly had an established fascist government.
I admire your optimism -- despite of solid 70++ years of fascism, including at least three domestic president coups/assassinations - Kennedy, Nixon, Trump... ;-))
Kennedy, Nixon, CARTER, Trump. Carter brokered a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Obviously, he couldn't be allowed to have a second term. The genociders didn't want peace then, and they don't want peace now.
I admire your opinion...despite a clear distortion of the facts.
The real reinstitution of the Soviet Union is in fact, NATO, the WEF, EU, UN led by the US
The truth was never the point. Nobody serious believed seriously in Russiagate
The point was to hamstring any moves by Trump to take a less confrontational stance vis-a-vis Russia.
"hamstring any moves by Trump"
Exactly. Like abolishing NATO and bringing German (and Korean) stationed US troops home. The first necessary steps to dismantling the empire.
So what about the Pax Americana? I am no fan of the weapons and defense industries in this or any other country. Unbearable expense purposed toward machinery of death, in my opinion. But if the US pulls back from from maintaining international order, do you believe it will lead to world-wide harmony among nations? I don't.
As an analogy I'd use our police departments. Again, no fan here. I've had my own run in's with the law, and have family who've paid an incredibly steep price from law enforcement interactions. But I view them as a necessary evil, part of the price paid to live peacefully in society, and I offer them respect for that.
My point being, chaos is never far from the doorstep. The judicious use of power is needed to keep it at bay. As an American I'm certainly biased, but I see no other entity I'd be comfortable ceding that power to, at this time.
Pax Americana? surely many nations wronged by us don't want it. The gentlemen here, so well versed in history, could you please remind me who appointed us the supreme arbiter of world's order and when?
The US presence in Australia and its bases here are not bringing any harmony at all to the nation - making it a target when the US pushes and provokes war in this region.
Every abuser claims to be protecting their victims, the world is mean and tough, and they're only doing this because they have to.
Do you also believe in giving up your Constitutional rights as a "necessary evil" and part of the price to be paid to live peacefully in society? I certainly don't. I doubt Brianna Taylor, George Floyd, Anton Black, etc. would agree with you either. I also doubt they believed they were living in a peaceful society at the moment those rights were obliterated and they were murdered. That says nothing about the millions the U.S. military has slaughtered abroad in the name of "keeping the peace".
By the way, you don't need to "ceed the power" to anyone. In a functioning republic the power belongs to you. Apparently, as an American, you have been duly trained by the oligarchs (predictive programming at work here) to forget that fact. I haven't. And I take issue with any fellow American that has. It unnecessarily impinges on my ability to keep it.
To each their own. I'm aware of the danger of overzealous police. I've had a person close to me violently murdered by a gang of cops during a non-emergency call. So I understand the power they wield and the damage they can inflict. But that does not mean I have given up any of my own constitutional rights when police do their job of protecting citizens properly. My point is, without them we'd each be on our own, which would end badly for most of us. The same for international affairs. If the US does not exert its strength over the world order, I'm sure there are other powers happy to step in. But they may not be so amenable to our freedoms. Be careful what you wish for. Our country is far from perfect, and is certainly perverted by wealth. But it was the best yet to come along when it did, and we have guaranteed rights and freedom of expression that are not on everyone else's menu.
Your right; to each their own. Yours appears to be delusion.
There is, arguably, a large contingent of police force in the U.S. that has not been trained to respect the constitutional rights of its citizens, nor do they practice it. I believe the main reason for this unacceptable behavior is because of the legal precedent of qualified immunity being applied to the executive branch of our government. In short, they are treated as more equal than others. That affects everybody--including you. I believe that must end. You may wish to put up with that "necessary evil" in order to believe in your fantasy world of "guaranteed right and freedom of expression", but I am not that foolish.
BTW, the U.S. does not exert its strength "over the world order". With the dollar dictated (it should be treated as a privilage) as the global reserve currency by U.S. hegemony, they are the world order.
Pardon me, the app was malfunctioning on my end. I inadvertently posted multiple times.
Yes, I agree that Americans have no monopoly on the Love of Peace and Freedom. What I think we do have is a relatively unique legal and civil structure that allows personal freedom to gather and to speak out that should not be taken for granted. I am not in any way pushing the line that the US is a perfect example of nationhood, to be idolized and promoted for all citizens of the world. What I am trying to express is the idea that for all its many faults, America is a damn sight better than the alternatives I see.
At some point I feel it wise to take a pragmatic view of world affairs, which leads me to ask, "who would do better?" If the US were to step back from its role of guarantor of peace and financial stability, who would step in? Off the top of my head, let's see... European Union? I mean, maybe? Perhaps an African Union? Unlikely. Brazil, India? Again, unlikely. Russia? Not for me thanks, although it seems a few of the commenters here might welcome that. China? Well, we may find out sooner than we'd like. Not my preference, though.
So then what? Are there other candidates I've missed? I'm pretty sure someone would be more than willing to assume that mantle. It's a little disheartening to see this community of commenters seeming to bad mouth the US in every respect. But I understand why. This country has done a fuck ton of bad, bad shit, in every corner of the globe. My point is, no one's perfect, power goes to people's heads and mistakes are made. I think the same type of bullshit will happen no matter who is running the show. At least here we have a certain degree of legally demanded transparency and accountability. It's not always easy to achieve, but at least it's in writing. I'm not sure the same can be said for other players in the game who might look to supplant us.
And that was dangerous in itself as it probably forced Trump to be hard-nosed with Russia to appease his critics. Folks continually forget that Russia has nukes...
To be fair, Trump was easily manipulated and susceptible to flattery so it probably wasn't all that hard.
Agreed but I wonder if the continual anti-Russia slant of the news forced him or his administration to treat Russia with contempt when it was not necessary. Seriously...as far as evil nations go...the US is way worse than Russia on so many different levels.
The hysteria certainly did nothing to help matters.
What folks are those? The same ones that have voted, or otherwise approved of, the Biden Administration giving the Ukrainians nearly $120B in military aid (to date) to fight a proxy war with Russia? This has been arguably more dangerous (certainly from a nuclear war threat) than any dealings Trump ever had with the Russians. The annual setting of the doomsday clock certainly didn't move from 100 seconds to 90 seconds this year without that in mind.
I meant all the people that 'support Ukraine' as they have no clue what they are advocating. Ukraine is not a US problem. Hell, we have a chemical spill in OH and Pete B. is nowhere to be found. Agree with you on the danger here...and this is all the US fault!
Yes, we are referring to the same people. But for different reasons. I don't think there is any evidence that Trump was hard nosed (forced or otherwise) with the Russians. Not so with the Biden administration.
I am thankful for Substack, because this is the only place you see criticism of the MSM by professional journalists. NY Times has become the political equivalent of the National Enquirer.
I have to say , I am somewhat surprised by your choice of networks and people that you feel , if I’m reading this correctly, have driven Media focus in a negative direction .
My understanding is that most Media is now owned by those people who tended to buy into Right aligned news bias .
While i think there is political ‘bend’ on both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’.
I believe I’ve seen a strained attempt to believe and present news as equally truthful or not . But an effort to pretend Democracy is not being threatened by Trump and his followers.
It seems a little off to hold up these examples of CNN, MSNBC, as being antagonistic to Trump , because” they hated him”.
Perhaps they did hate him. Does that change that the man did seem to have a fondness for Dictators and Authoritarian leaders and their policies?
That he was a man with a major fondness of lies as opposed to truth telling.
I look at whats gone on with his blatant lying and that of his Fox News network .
This was contrived lying at its finest ( or worst).
Im sorry, I understand the truth in journalism is the point, but iI do not believe their was no collusion on the part of Trump and Putins Russia.
We heard him tell Russia to look for Hillary’s missing emails.
So perhaps he had some responsibility for this widespread belief that he had a major part in these
Impressions .Sorry , but the man attempted to overthrow the legitimacy of an election, because he didn’t win.
That was something i watched w my own eyes . When we speak of Rachel Maddow as a traitor to accurate journalism and no mention of Tucker Carlson .
It doesn’t make me believe this was a contrived effort to besmirch Trumps name .
But, perhaps revelation of what he presented himself as .
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice. It’s hard to believe that someone would know this and believe that this was all some kind of trickery.
I'm no Trump supporter, but you seem to equate indictments with convictions. They're not. An indictment is nothing more than legalese for an accusation. In this case, accusations that are baseless in fact. Some would call it bullshit. So, if you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it is bound to stick. In this case, a lot was thrown, and very little of it stuck...and none of it to Trump.
Yes, there may have been seven guilty pleas by political operatives as a result of years of wasted investigation and millions of tax payer dollars; a total waste of time if your talking return on investment of effort. Further, if you're holding this result up as success in proving Russian collusion in 2016 Presidential election fraud, than I think you're pissing in the wind, my friend. In my opinion, those guilty pleas (it should be pointed out these most of these were plea bargains-not jury convictions) were simply made by political operatives of the executive branch in order to clear most of the shit off the wall in an effort to allow the President to try to move forward with the political agenda he was elected to pursue. I believe that's why those guys are paid the big bucks...and that's politics. As for a thousand former federal prosecutors concluding a particular political opinion: so what. I see no evidence that anybody acted legally on their opinion. Certainly none of those one thousand political hacks filed charges themselves. It is the same as Congress holding hearings on any apparent breach of policy or law. Any conclusion is simply political fodder to be batted around for political points--unless there is legal action in the form of law enforcement (meaning both executive branch [charges] and judicial branch [convictions] involvement) or the passing of an eventual legislative bill. To my knowledge, no bills were passed as a result of the many Congressional hearings and special counsel investigations regarding Russia-gate. As far as law enforcement, it ultimately means nothing unless charges are referred to the Justice Department AND convictions are secured. To date, Trump was never charged and convicted of a crime by the Justice Department. You may wish that no to be so (and, like many, re-characterize it in an effort to appear so), but those are the bare facts. You will never change that. It's like an intent to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, with all of us knowing (at least the ones that aren't delusional) that you can't have one if both ingredients aren't present. If you fall short with either ingredient you just end up with simply a peanut butter...or a jelly sandwich.
In other words, your claim of 37 indictments and one thousand opinions is simply political sensationalism vainly trying to prove the making of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--with both peanut butter and jelly not present.
I disagree with that analysis because it’s ignoring Paul Manafort and significant things like that. The fact that the Trump strategy of non cooperation was successful isn’t a sign of innocence.
It isn't a sign of guilt either. What "signifant things like that" are you referring to? Sounds like the typical vaguely fake news outlets have spewed on the topic since day one.
There’s the whole thing with sessions etcetera. The whole obstructionism that continued throughout I’m not interested in writing a book about it. The news has always been slanted and is controlled by plutocrats on all sides and always has been in this country for the most part. Is journalism worse now than in the past? I doubt it. It’s a lot noisier but that’s the way modern technologies have made it.
Patricia the culture warrior
The problem is when you use the word "overthrow" interchangeably with the word"overturn". And you "watched this with your own eyes"? Wow. This is the essence of fake news...and I believe you facilitate the perpetuation of such ignorance.
I agree with you. There are too many connections to ignore.
If you make ignorant connections, then, yes, I agree than those connections cannot be ignored by the ignorant.
I resent your implication and your tone.
That is your right. That, and $2.95, will get you a tall caffe latte at Starbucks.
And I suppose you consider your right to belittle anybody who disagrees with you.
I consider it my right to question. Feelings of belittlement are a matter of self perception.
I care far more about media lies to prop up US empire and ignore corporate power and wealth inequality and ignore/downplay the climate crisis and the plight of working class Americans.
This attack on media for Russia-gate is getting old by now.
Frankly, a lot of it is feeding exactly the fascist cultural tendencies Hedges writes so eloquently about.
And there is little linkage to how and why Democrats (DNC and Clinton campaign) manufactured this lie and how it is now being used to support a New Cold War.
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice. It’s hard to understand how that can be interpreted as proving Trump was part of a witch hunt and was undeniably innocent in the situation.
You posted, virtually, the same response earlier. What, do you monitor this forum to repeat talking points from your handlers? Or do you think repeating yourself makes your fiction more believable? What a second...wasn't that the concern of the original report by Chris? Get real.
I don’t have handlers, I’m a retired union ironworker. These ideas you have are absurd.
...and yours pathetically redundant.
There is no "New" Cold War. NATO has been in business, continually, since 1949. The premise for forming NATO has never been abated. Tactically, it continues to align forces against Russia expanding its empire. Strategically, it keeps the 'boggy man' premise alive,...and the military industrial complex humming with private pockets being well lined with tax dollars. With Ukrainian funding currently at astronomic levels, it continues to hum quite mightily.
With all due respect, Sir, believing that the Cold War was over and that a new one was just begun was part of your indoctrination. It was merely to create a false sense of urgency...and, thus, compliance. I urge you to resist the programming and put an end to the indoctrination.
You put false ideas and words in my mouth that I never expressed and wildly misinterpreted what I did write.
As my comment was topically directed to US MEDIA (the subject matter of Hedges piece), the "new Cold War" I was refereeing to is an obviously and quantifiably demonstrable vastly enhanced propaganda campaign. There are parallels in US foreign policy and US military policy and NATO.
None of that in any way states or implies that I naively think that the "Cold War was over".
Any time a statement is prefaced with the qualifier "with all due respect", get ready to be personally attacked and smeared.
Take you false claims of indoctrination and shove them where the sun don't shine, my friend.
I addressed the words you wrote...not the ones you meant to write. While you may wish your reference to be obvious, it wasn't. As for the garbage terminology ("quantifiably demonstrable", really?) you apply to it ex post facto, well, that's garbage too, in my opinion.
Further, I couldn't care less if you were addressing US Media. You posted on this forum. Since I am a dues paying member of this forum, I have a right to post... and will respond to your post accordingly. If you feel insulted, that is your problem; not mine. I apply the same old adage to you that I apply to other disgruntled posters: If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. Cheers!
You took my words completely out of context and made false, fact free, and absurd attacks. Bite me.
Now you're just embarrassing yourself, Bill. I suggest you stick to your Wolfnotes content. It's, literally, safer for you there. I'm comfortable knowing that I'm not missing out on that content...and promise that I'll never subscribe. Otherwise, here, I'm free to call you out on your misrepresentation of facts anytime I like. Consider yourself bitten.
So where does the truth lay? I am just an armchair observer and admittedly ready to believe the worst about trump. That said, I'd like to know what those who have the fullest picture of his entanglements with Russia believe. It is hard for me to accept there is a neutral or arms length relationship there. The weight of circumstantial evidence is impressive, and I just can't wave away the smoke without thinking something is alight. His financial misfeasance leading to dependence on Russian money. His obsequiousness towards Putin, who does not seem like the type to ignore any possible forms of leverage over an opponent. Paul Manafort. St. Petersburg troll farms. DNC hacks. Internet influence operations and timely releases of information to help trump and hurt Hillary in 2016.
Is all of this nothing? There didn't need to be secret phone calls or encrypted communication between trump's campaign and Kremlin agents. They were working toward the same goal, and had enough tangential contact to know that, or so it seems to me.
Perhaps the mainstream media were too eager to see what their readers wanted to believe. But I don't think the sin of reportorial overreach should negate the possibility that something untoward took place. Which, surprise, surprise, greatly inflamed existing divisions within this country and led to the weakening of our overseas alliances. Who benefits more than Vladimir Putin from that state of affairs?
As I said up top, I'm interested in the truth. But I can't ignore the web of connections between trump and Russia because the NY Times may have been catering to fickle subscribers.
I think you can start with a Spencerian type of capitalism that cannot achieve necessary growth constancy without manufacturing enemies and committing to endless wars. When Gorbachev ended the USSR, and Soviet communism, the discussion about the “peace dividend” lasted a minute. Ten years later, we were told to believe that 22 Muslim zealots commandeered jumbo jets to take down two WTC towers. This was soon followed by the suspension of habeas corpus, the passage of the Patriot Act, which empowered our government to weaponize the term “terrorist,” and abide by no laws when charging an arrestee with that offense. Nineteen years in Afghanistan and Iraq, millions of anonymous murder victims later, and the war on terror was wearing American belief and understanding threadbare thin. And on cue, Russia is enemy #1 with a bullet. It’s a narrative with a wide chorus of minstrels, and only a few professionals left to tell the truth.
"I'm interested in the truth."
Syd Griffin
No, you're not. If you were, then you wouldn't write:
"There didn't need to be secret phone calls or encrypted communication between trump's campaign and Kremlin agents. They were working toward the same goal, and had enough tangential contact to know that, or so it seems to me. "
What you seem to be interested is developing opinion confirmation at any cost; even with that of the most fallacious and asinine reporting.
For example, "...need to be..." is a statement qualifier that infers fact. In this case a statement of fact that you couldn't possibly know about yourself, nor could very few others. What secret phone calls? If they were secret, how would you (or anyone else) know about them? What encrypted communication? If it was encrypted communication, how would you (or anyone else) know what the communication was comprised of? Much less that it illicit or illegal. Bottom line is you don't know. Nor does anyone else. Otherwise it likely would have been exposed by now---certainly by the Mueller investigation at the very least since Mueller would have been the one to refer charges to the justice department for illegal activity. He didn't. Do you even think to ask yourself about how some of the presses alleged statements could possibly be true? If you did, then you might not bother re-presenting them here--except maybe for the reason I conjectured above.
Moreover, you expose your cognitive dissonance regarding your own statement of fact by re-expressing this statement of fact as opinion---in the very next sentence. You say: "They were working toward the same goal, and had enough tangential contact to know that, or so it seems to me." So it seems to you? Really? What would you know about "enough tangential contact" to constitute a crime? Just a hunch? An opinion of an "armchair observer"? Well, just like those other "journalists reporting on the alleged Kremlin-Trump connection, your opinion appears to be just another asinine opinion...in my opinion. Like I would suggest to the Press, unless you have some real evidence to attached to an alleged crime, I suggest you do us all a favor and keep those asinine opinions to yourself.
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.
With just this information alone, I don’t understand how anyone can believe that he’s an innocent man that was a victim of a political witch hunt.
Some people never learn
While I have to say that I was always suspicious of the claims that Trump was a Russian asset - some of the continuous river of attack against him - fuelled as much by his crassness as possible believability of mainstream US press - of course filled the cracks of any of my doubts. Gersh totally swept away any lingering doubts about the deceit of the media and "official" un-named sources. Just to-day I have read a mainstream news story on Syria which begins with a headline about President Assad's wife and Louboutin heels. Then a statement about the thousands of barrel bombs Assad dropped on quarters of his capital city - when it is known that they were dropped by the US-supported rebels and their so-called "white-helmet" agents - propaganda stories. And further on in the story of negatives - "claims a CIA agent who knows Assad" - no further context or attribution. The two named journalists (how embarrassing for their future careers - or not) for the story must have received the press release direct from the CIA or from the CIA's general dissemination point. Some years back Australia had a Foreign Minister called Julie Bishop. A lightweight "personality" who would do early morning jogs around important foreign capitals - somehow always being filmed by compliant press pausing during those jogging sessions outside famous brand-name shoe stores. All positive and glamour - our foreign minister with an eye for fashion. The same kind of "courtesy" but with a side-eye negativity - afforded President Assad's wife. I wonder what Joe Biden's wife is wearing - Nancy Pelosi, anyone? What of the US VP?
Chris you and Matt Taibbi often make a kind of "make journalism great again" argument, but I think it misses the point that the purpose of large news organizations was always to serve up propaganda that serves the interests of the most powerful factions in society. The particular model has changed over time, but in general, fundamentally, it was always about framing dominant public narratives. What you guys are concerned with is simply furniture rearrangement in the same room, same house. And truth was always disregarded/ignored when it contradicted the desired narrative of the publisher.
Americans used to know this, but forgot about it and are only now re-discovering it. In the early 19th century, dominant political factions overtly pushed their own newspapers, and the nature of these operations was largely understood by the public to represent only the views of those particular factions...readers sought them out in order to get the latest dish on what the powerful factions were thinking. The Gilded Age brought about the rise of oligarch-controlled news organizations, and they dramatically expanded the model of serving up (sometimes fabricating) hot-selling stories and competing for control of the largest audiences. The advent of WW1 brought about a huge increase (but not the beginning) in the use of mass media for peddling government propaganda and building support for war. Goebbels spoke admiringly of these very efforts as the inspiration for his Nazi propaganda machine. By WW2 the mass media was thoroughly under the thumb of the US government, who then became consolidated under the influence of a few broadcast TV networks and played the public like a fiddle...seeking large audiences was an artifact of strict control over (and limited number of) broadcast TV networks. The rise of TV also threatened newspapers, and they went through an early round of consolidation. This highly evolved propaganda machine, what you term the "old media," split up to serve more focused partisan audiences in the "new media" period (especially with the rise of cable TV), and the internet only put booster rockets on this evolution.
Today, the split of mass media into more focused partisan audiences is a return to the way things used to be, and has helped to reveal the fundamental nature of the propaganda machine. The public, cultivated to be brainwashed and embracing an intellectually infantile faith in "trusted sources," has been released naked into the wilderness, and they are struggling. Most are still trying to hold onto to something "trusted," following the split in dominant narratives. All we can do is hope that they will learn to be skeptical of everything, abandon the ridiculous notion of "trusted sources," and graduate from being babies on an information battlefield to more enlightened consumers and analysts of any and all "news." Helping them achieve information maturity is now our primary task...we should take up this cause in earnest.
Like the Nobel Peace Prize, do Pulitzers even mean anything anymore?
"I would kill to win a Nobel Peace Prize" anonymous. Not Obama
"The thing about peace prizes: once you win one, you don't bother trying to win another one" (Jimmy Dore re: Obama).