RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:23 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
Glenn Greenwald on Trump-Russia Probe: Be Skeptical of Spy Agencies with History of Lying & Deceit

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/1/2/g ... ssia_probe

This interview was very interesting to me because it truly explains why distrust in the media created a title of Fake News to the mainstream media.

Quote:
GLENN GREENWALD: So, I think it’s—yeah, so I think it’s worth remembering how dramatized CNN presented the story as being. They really did present it as kind of the smoking gun that would bring down the Trump presidency and, once and for all, prove collusion. And then, shortly after, both MSNBC and CBS said that they confirmed the story independently, and were on air for hours doing the same thing. It was by far the biggest story of the day, being pointed to as evidence that Trump actually did collude with the Russians through WikiLeaks, because what CNN said was that there was an email sent from an unknown person to Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., offering them access to the WikiLeaks archive, to the archive of emails that WikiLeaks didn’t publish but had pointed to, before WikiLeaks actually made them public, suggesting that the Trump campaign was given special early access to this archive of emails that had been hacked, and thus proving collusion.

...

So, CNN and CBS and MSNBC were forced to admit their story was false, because The Washington Post got a hold of the email and showed that it was false. But what they refused to do is what journalists demand every day that other people do, that other companies and corporations do, that government officials do, which is provide transparency about their mistakes. To this day, CNN refuses to say who these sources were who gave them the wrong date, how it is that they all got the date wrong, innocently, in good faith. Was it a deliberate attempt to deceive the public?

And that’s what erodes trust in media outlets, which is: When they clam up and hide behind corporate and lawyer statements and refuse to provide basic transparency about their own behavior, how do they then have credibility to turn around and demand transparency from government institutions and officials or from corporations, when they refuse to provide it themselves? And to me, to date, that is the most disturbing part of this story, is that it’s not just a huge mistake, it’s not just a huge mistake that’s been one in a long series of similar mistakes all geared toward the same political agenda, which is to inflate the Trump-Russia story; it’s their refusal to explain what happened, how they made such a monumental mistake, and whether they were deliberately misled or whether it was some kind of bizarre coincidental accident that multiple people all made at the same time.


Another point that followed was how thoroughly discredited journalist from the past pop up on shows. How sick this is.

BTW, one may not like Greenwald's views but he is certainly not discredited as a journalist.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
I am skeptical of the FBI, CIA, and NSA. This means I checked out whether there is independent evidence that supports their claims of Trump-Russiagate. There is.

CNN did correct the story.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/media/c ... index.html

CNN corrected its story at 3:45 p.m. ET. A network spokesperson said that as soon as the network had reviewed its reporting and independently confirmed that the story was wrong, it moved to correct it. CBS News also corrected its story.

[snip][end]

They admitted the email was sent on September 14th, not 4th, and that reporting was erroneous. They said the 4th date came from two anonymous sources. It is possible the whole thing could have resulted from a typo, an accidentally deleted 1 before the 4. That does happen. Yes, it changes the significance, as the 4th date would have made this email come before the public release on the 13th, whereas the 14th was later. Greenwald asking about an intent to deceive the public is merely speculating.

At the end of the day, of course, the error on this date, while affecting the significance of one email sent from Wikileaks to the Trump org, doesn't make other connections erroneous or irrelevant.

Finally, as to Greenwald's credibility ...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

Greenwald was one of three speakers at the 2014 YAL (Young Americans for Liberty) National Convention; the other two were Ron and Rand Paul. (*)

[snip]

It's important to remember he has no particular expertise in (irony) technology, foreign policy, the military, or the intelligence service. Anyone with IT knowledge just scoffs at the stuff he writes, but people who know just a bit don't know enough to poke holes. Which doesn't mean he can't report on these topics, but actual reporters fill the holes in their knowledge with expert sources. Greenwald's only source was Snowden and the documents he provided. He relied on no one else, and filled a lot of the holes with insinuation. None of this is to say the NSA story wasn't—and isn't—pertinent. But Greenwald's coverage caused more problems than it needed to.

[snip]

This happens a lot in Greenwald's "reporting"—insinuating more than he can actually prove. (**)

[snip]

As an attorney, Greenwald zealously defended a murderous white supremacist and secretly recorded eyewitnesses, an action which was found to be unethical by the court. That's right, he wiretapped them.[48]

[snip]

He defended Citizens United, to much progressive confusion.[50][51] Glenn would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of a major party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.”[8]

[snip]

He supported Oath Keepers, a far-right militia who believe, among other things, that Barack Obama is a card-carrying communist, the U.N. is going to put troops on American soil, and US cities will soon be turned into concentration camps under FEMA.[54] The Oath Keepers were well-known within the libertarian movement, and whilst Greenwald isn't one (at least not of the "right"-libertarian persuasion), he has published within those channels when it suited him before.

[snip]

Greenwald originally supported the Iraq War and, though he condemned his original opinion of the war, he has since proceeded to deny he ever supported the war.[62] He has also tried to make up for his prior support for Western intervention by being consistently anti-intervention, no matter how uninformed his opinion is.[63]

[snip][end]

(*) Yes, I know, it's endlessly debated how much Glenn supported Ron Paul in 2012. I know he denies he actually "supported" him at all. But was clearly happy to go up on the YAL stage with him and his son in 2014 (YAL is the youth arm of this country's [Right-]Libertarian Party: same one which ran a Koch brother for Prez). I also know that it is a FACT that while he gushed in 2012 over what he loved about Paul, he totally ignored and refused to mention his connections to racist newsletters and white nationalist groups.

Image

(**) He just did it again with regard to the CNN mistaken date story.

Can we question Glenn Greenwald's credibility? Yes, Virginia, we can and should.

Doesn't mean I would ignore everything he says. I happen to agree that I too am sick of MSNBC retreading people (usually neocons) like Bill Kristol or Max Boot just because they are anti-Trump and accept Russiagate.

Fortunately, Trump-Russia is not based entirely on their beliefs or opinions either. 'Cuz I don't trust those guys either.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
On Wikileaks & Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks ... _influence

In September 2016, the German weekly magazine Focus reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion and said Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive details about what WikiLeaks publishes before publication.[271] The Focus report followed a New York Times story that suggested that WikiLeaks may be a laundering machine for compromising material about Western countries gathered by Russian spies.[272]

[snip]

In April 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted criticism of the Panama Papers, which had among other things revealed Russian businesses and individuals linked with offshore ties (Vladimir Putin's associates had as much as $2 billion in offshore accounts).[276][261] The WikiLeaks Twitter account tweeted, "#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and [George] Soros". (*)[21] Putin would later go on to dismiss the Panama Papers by citing Wikileaks: "WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs of the U.S. are behind this.”[21] According to the New York Times, both Assange claims are substance-free: "there is no evidence suggesting that the United States government had a role in releasing the Panama Papers."[277] Assange also falsely asserted that the Panama Papers gave Western figures a free pass, when the leaks in fact reported on a number of high-profile Western politicians, including UK Prime Minister David Cameron.[261]

In 2012 when WikiLeaks began to run out of funds, Assange began to host a television show on Russia Today, Russia's state-owned news network.[278] Assange has never disclosed how much he or WikiLeaks were paid for his tv-show.[278]

After President Trump's National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn resigned in February 2017 due to reports over his communications with Russian officials and subsequent lies over the content and nature of those communications, WikiLeaks tweeted that Flynn resigned "after destabilization campaign by U.S. spies, Democrats, press."[279][280]

[snip]

In May 2017, cybersecurity experts stated that they believed that groups affiliated with the Russian government were involved in the hacking and leaking of e-mails associated with the Emmanuel Macron campaign; these e-mails were published on Pastebin but heavily promoted by WikiLeaks social media channels.[215][216][217]

[snip]

In August 2017, Foreign Policy reported that WikiLeaks had in the summer of 2016 turned down a large cache of documents containing information damaging to the Russian government.[261][283] WikiLeaks justified this by saying "As far as we recall these are already public...WikiLeaks rejects all information that it cannot verify.[284] WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere".[261] Whereas news outlets had reported on some contents of the leaks in 2014, the information that news outlets reported on was less than half of the data that was made available to WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.[261]

In October 2017, it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica, a company working on behalf of the Trump presidential campaign, had contacted Wikileaks about missing Hillary Clinton e-mails and the possibility of creating a searchable database for the campaign to use.[285][286] After this was reported, Assange confirmed that Wikileaks had been approached by Cambridge Analytica but had rejected the approach.[285][286] Wikileaks did not disclose what the subject of Cambridge Analytica's approach was.

[snip][end]

There's also the links between Wikileaks and Roger Stone ... and Nigel Farage. For a "left wing" group they work with or defend a lot of right wingers and repeat a lot of right wing bullshit. Attacking Soros like so many right wingers do is just nonsensical.

You would think Wikileaks would run with something like the Panama Papers ... odd they didn't want to because some of the implicated parties were Putin & other Russian oligarchs.

Funny, that.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:43 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
Yes, as I said:

Quote:
BTW, one may not like Greenwald's views but he is certainly not discredited as a journalist.


Glenwald, you, or I don't have to be IT experts to report facts. If there are facts , not opinions, and they are presented, I am sure we will all accept them. The investigation has led to money laundering and giving false testimony. We will all see what else there will be when they have finished the investigation.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
It is a fact that CNN mistakenly reported the date of the Wikileaks email as being the 4th instead of the 14th.

That they did so (or their sources) with a deliberate intent to deceive is an opinion. One for which I've seen no evidence or facts, yet.

I absolutely agree in differentiating fact from opinion, including Greenwald's.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9879
Who's Glenn Greenwald??? I haven't known who he is for a very long time.


However I don't think the fact that I don't know him amounts to his having been discredited as a journalist as TheFox is insisting it hasn't.

Train wheels rotate in journals, and a journalist inspects and packs the journal hot boxes with wadding and grease, I expect this Greenwald I don't know could do that and I would support that. We need people doing that. It's kind of an important thing along the road.

We don't want the damn trains falling off of the tracks as they rumble by. That's what eventually happens if journalists aren't minding the journals, packing the hot boxes with wadding and grease.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:43 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
It is a fact that CNN mistakenly reported the date of the Wikileaks email as being the 4th instead of the 14th.

That they did so (or their sources) with a deliberate intent to deceive is an opinion. One for which I've seen no evidence or facts, yet.

I absolutely agree in differentiating fact from opinion, including Greenwald's.

Quote:
both MSNBC and CBS said that they confirmed the story independently


Nothing unusual about that, you say?

You could just attribute it to sloppy journalism, but CNN made such a deal about the story, you would think they would have checked first. No, MSM DOES have an agenda, and they will doggedly stick to it come hell or high water. It's all about sticking to the narrative and sweeping fact under the rug. It is just too hard to explain it any other way.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Last edited by TheFox on Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:21 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9879

You could just attribute it to sloppy journalism, but CNN made such a deal about the story, you would think they would have checked first. No, MSM DOES have an agenda, and they will doggedly stick to it come hell or high water. It's all about sticking to the narrative and sweeping fact under the rug. It is just to hard too explain it any other way.


That's a suppressed correlative Fox. You've redefined a plausible alternative, sloppy journalism, as being "just to hard to explain" as thus that plausible alternative is made impossible.

That doesn't necessarily mean you're argument "MSM DOES have an agenda" is wrong, but it does mean your argument is illogical and sloppy journalism does still remain as a plausible alternative to "MSM DOES have an agenda."

;) I wouldn't want to see any of that illogical "sticking to the narrative and sweeping fact under the rug."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:31 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
Nothing unusual about that, you say?


Unusual in what sense? That two outlets used the same two erroneous sources? It happens.

Quote:
It's all about sticking to the narrative and sweeping fact under the rug.


It's so weird you don't notice when Greenwald is doing this also. Mainly because he can be a bit egregious about it.

Excelsior.

Here's an example:

WHAT GLENN GREENWALD GOT WRONG ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
https://www.theusconstitution.org/text-history/1511

This is, of course, the Constitutional Accountability Center taking him to task over his argument that Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) is defensible on 1st amendment grounds.

(You do know he did do that - right?)

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:57 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805

Unusual in what sense? That two outlets used the same two erroneous sources? It happens.



It's so weird you don't notice when Greenwald is doing this also. Mainly because he can be a bit egregious about it.

Excelsior.

Here's an example:

WHAT GLENN GREENWALD GOT WRONG ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION
https://www.theusconstitution.org/text-history/1511

This is, of course, the Constitutional Accountability Center taking him to task over his argument that Citizens United vs. FEC (2010) is defensible on 1st amendment grounds.

(You do know he did do that - right?)

Good. You got the sense. If you are not surprised, I'll tell you, I'm not either because I'm used to hearing the lies and deceit.

It is not unusual for sloppiness on some scale, but on some stories at least some of the (propagandist - whoops I mean journalists) would check the source.

At least I expect better.

Carrying on your visceral side about Glenn isn't surprising either.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
Carrying on your visceral side about Glenn isn't surprising either.


I don't ignore the flaws or biases his devotees do. For that, I do not apologize.

THE TOP 5 EXAGGERATIONS BY GLENN GREENWALD ON NSA
https://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/20 ... ld-on-nsa/

On CNN, Glenn Greenwald said the following…
“There is a massive apparatus within the United States government that with complete secrecy has been building this enormous structure that has only one goal, and that is to destroy privacy and anonymity, not just in the United States but around the world,” charged Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for the British newspaper “The Guardian,” speaking on CNN. “That is not hyperbole. That is their objective.”

[snip]

In one of his many rounds to the gullible media, he talked to NPR and said the following…
The National Security Agency is currently devoted to the objective of creating a worldwide surveillance net that allows it to monitor what all human beings are doing and how they’re behaving and interacting with one another.

[snip]

And the number 1 exaggeration is……drum roll please……this little gem from his appearance on Morning Joe where Mika dared to challenge him.
The objective of this is to enable the NSA to monitor EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION AND EVERY SINGLE FORM OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR!

[snip][end]

Yep. Neither hyperbole, nor distorting facts to fit a narrative. :roll: :rw) :twisted: :lol: :ugeek:

I would suggest places of treatment for clinical paranoia.

P.S. I'm not suggesting the NSA didn't overstep or overreach its authority or mission ... but these claims are nonsensical. The NSA has neither the desire nor the resources to be the Illuminati.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
You know whose lying and deceit really gets my goat? Julian Assange's.

For that, I will turn to that establishment organ, the Intercept. (Glenn Greenwald is not the only person who writes for it.)

Julian Assange’s Hatred of Hillary Clinton Was No Secret. His Advice to Donald Trump Was.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/15/wik ... y-clinton/

THE REVELATION THAT WikiLeaks secretly offered help to Donald Trump’s campaign, in a series of private Twitter messages sent to the candidate’s son Donald Trump Jr., gave ammunition to the group’s many detractors and also sparked anger from some longtime supporters of the organization and its founder, Julian Assange.

One of the most high-profile dissenters was journalist Barrett Brown, whose crowdsourced investigations of hacked corporate documents later posted on WikiLeaks led to a prison sentence.

Brown had a visceral reaction to the news, first reported by The Atlantic, that WikiLeaks had been advising the Trump campaign. In a series of tweets and Facebook videos, Brown accused Assange of having compromised “the movement” to expose corporate and government wrongdoing by acting as a covert political operative.

Brown explained that he had defended WikiLeaks for releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee, “because it was an appropriate thing for a transparency org to do.” But, he added, “working with an authoritarian would-be leader to deceive the public is indefensible and disgusting.”

He was particularly outraged by an Oct. 21, 2016 message, in which Assange had appealed to Trump Jr. to let WikiLeaks publish one or more of his father’s tax returns in order to make his group’s attacks on Hillary Clinton seem less biased. “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” the Assange-controlled @Wikileaks account suggested. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with.”

As Brown pointed out in another tweet, it was all-caps exasperating that Assange was in this case “complaining about ‘slander’ of being pro-Trump IN THE ACTUAL COURSE OF COLLABORATING WITH TRUMP.”

[snip]

It is not surprising that Brown felt personally betrayed by Assange, since, as he explained on Facebook Tuesday night, “I went to prison because of my support for WikiLeaks.” Specifically, Brown said, the charges against him were related to his role in “operations to identify and punish members of the government and members of private companies that had been exposed by Anonymous hackers of my acquaintance, via email hacks, as having conspired to go after Assange, to go after WikiLeaks.”

That sort of activism, dedicated to making public secret wrongdoing, Brown argued, is very different from “colluding with an authoritarian presidential campaign backed by actual Nazis while publicly denying it.”

“Plainly,” he observed with bitterness, “the prospect of a Clinton in the White House was such an unimaginable nightmare scenario that all normal standards of truth and morality became moot and it became necessary to get people like Sebastian Gorka into the White House to establish order.”

[snip]

For Brown, and others who have been critical of Assange for using the platform of WikiLeaks to fight his own political and personal battles, his secret communication with the Trump campaign was damning because it revealed that he had been functioning more like a freelance political operative, doling out strategy and advice, than a journalist interested in obtaining and publishing information, concerned only with its accuracy.

James Ball, a former WikiLeaks volunteer who has described the difficulty of working for someone who lies so much, was also appalled by one post-election message to Trump Jr., in which WikiLeaks suggested that, as a form of payback, it would be “helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to DC.”

That request for payback, on December 16, 2016, came three weeks after Trump’s father had called on the British government to make his friend Nigel Farage its ambassador. “This should be it, game over, end of it, for anyone who tries to suggest Assange looks out for anyone except himself,” Ball observed on Twitter. “That’s his cause, and plenty of good people have been played, badly.”

[snip]

One steadfast Assange ally was Kim Dotcom, founder of the shuttered file-sharing site MegaUpload, who helped fuel a conspiracy theory that the DNC emails had not been hacked by Russia, but provided to WikiLeaks by a young Democratic staffer named Seth Rich, who was subsequently murdered. Alluding to another entirely unsubstantiated allegation — that Clinton had once suggested killing Assange in a drone strike — Dotcom said that the WikiLeaks founder was merely part of a crowdsourced political operation that had successfully defeated the greater evil.

[snip]

WHILE WIKILEAKS HAS undoubtedly facilitated the release of information that is both true and important, it is Assange’s Trump-like willingness to traffic in such unsubstantiated rumors, conspiracy theories, and innuendo not supported by evidence that undermines his claim to be a disinterested publisher, not a political operative.

This willingness to traffic in false or misleading information was very much in evidence during his work on behalf of Trump, and it is a consistent feature of Assange’s advocacy for other people and causes.

During the final week of the Brexit campaign last year, Assange tried to undermine the credibility of a witness to the savage murder of a pro-European Union member of parliament, Jo Cox. In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Brexit supporters like Assange were concerned that a wave of sympathy for the murdered MP could sway the vote. So they set out to contest evidence that the killing had been politically motivated.


[snip][end]

There's so much else in this article that shows Julian Assange to be the tool he is.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:47 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
When controversial people openly give their opinion, that is not lying nor deceitful.

Don't be naive to think that America is not feed propaganda. It has a long recorded history.

The Biggest Secret: James Risen on Life as a NY Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/1/5/t ... s_risen_on

How Woodrow Wilson's Propaganda Machine Changed American Journalism

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180963082/

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
I was opposed to the Bush NSA's warrantless wiretapping, too. Risen wrote a pretty good book on abortion in America. I recommend it.

As for Woodrow Wilson -- yeah, never been my favorite Democratic president.

OK. Back to Assange. I ask a question (I have many times). Do you have the answer? WHY DID ASSANGE MEET WITH NIGEL FARAGE? None of his apologists seem to have an answer.

When Nigel Farage met Julian Assange
Why did Ukip’s ex-leader want to slip in unnoticed to meet the WikiLeaks chief at the Ecuadorian embassy?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... an-assange

[snip]

Robert Mercer, the billionaire hedge fund owner, bankrolled the Trump campaign and his company, Cambridge Analytica, the Observer has revealed, donated services to Leave.EU. If this issue forms part of the Electoral Commission investigation, this isn’t just a case of possibly breaking rules by overspending a few pounds. It goes to the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. Did Leave.EU seek to obtain foreign support for a British election? And, if so, does this constitute “foreign subversion”?

What did or didn’t happen on 9 March may perhaps reveal clues to understanding this. To unravelling the links between WikiLeaks, the UK and the Trump administration – an administration embroiled in ever deeper connections to the Russian state. Between Trump – whose campaign was funded by Mercer and who came to power with the help of the same analytics firm now under investigation for its work with Leave.EU – and Brexit.

And 9 March was the day that all these worlds came together – when the cyber-libertarian movement that Assange represents collided headfirst with the global rightwing libertarian movement that Farage represents. When Nigel Farage tripped down the steps of the Ecuadorian embassy – a visit that he did not expect to be photographed or documented – a beam of light was shone on a previously hidden world: a political alignment between WikiLeaks’ ideology, Ukip’s ideology and Trump’s ideology that is not necessarily just an affinity. It is also, potentially, a channel of communication.

David Golumbia, an associate professor at Virginia Commonwealth University in the US who has studied WikiLeaks, describes it as “the moment when the lines suddenly become visible”. He says: “It was like the picture suddenly came into focus. There is this worldwide, rightwing, nationalistic movement that is counter to the EU, and this is present in the US and Europe and Russia, and we are just starting to understand how they do all seem to be in communication and co-ordination with each other.”

In many ways, it wasn’t a surprise. There are clear ideological similarities between Assange and Farage. They have both been regulars on RT, Russia’s state-sponsored news channel. They have both been paid – indirectly by the Russian state – to appear on it. Ben Nimmo, a defence analyst with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, points out that Farage has voted systematically in favour of Russian interests in the European parliament. “There is very, very strong support for the Kremlin among the far right in Europe. And Farage is squarely in that bloc with the likes of the Front National in France and Jobbik in Hungary.”


[snip][end]

Image

They are laughing at you.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:34 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
While ProfessorX stays off subject about two laughing geniuses, I would like to know how this is related to media lies and deceit.

The media appears to like making money of this idiot Trump, while he makes the news they will ride the story for all it is or is not worth.

Does Julian Assange have a bias, obvious to me he does. Doesn't hide it. So, lets look at lies and deceit by him, and see whether he is a significant influence over American media. You can't. I think, you are deflecting the subject and creating a distraction.

The media is what I am commenting on. As I have said, it has lost my respect and with a growing number of people it has lost its credibility.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
Which people?

Image

Image

Not on the chart, but the top source is from Pew Research. The last diagram is referring to 24 sources including CNN, MSNBC, PBS/NPR, etc.

What the findings are, are that liberals/Democrats and conservatives differ in trust of the media, but that liberals tend to get their news from a wider range of sources, which, I would say, is good.

It's good, because all media outlets retain, at least for now, human reporters and journalists with biases, capacities for error, and as I've said, editors and publishers with agendas. I do think their main agenda is selling papers and getting advertisers and profits for their shareholders. Also, BTW, of course you will not see burning hostility toward corporations, since most news organizations are corporations. Getting your news from a variety of sources helps correct for these problems.

If you're trying to convince me that NBC, CBS, NYT, etc. are all some Hive Mind controlled by the Illuminati who tells them what to print/show/air - no I do not believe that.

P.S. the 4th/14th mistake noted above may have been committed by multiple outlets, but was corrected once other outlets found the mistake. That's how a media ecology should work.

One more chart:

Image

That thing in the middle really, really worries me. :(

I'm not saying the NYT is perfect - far from it - but shit, gang, if you trust Trump's WH more than it - Houston, we have a humongous problem.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:35 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
You want to say that it is all innocent, but it's not. Bernie was blacked out on purpose.

Also, according to the charts you showed, there is reason to worry about the media's trustworthiness. I am saying nobody should trust the American media. Even the weather is political.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:58 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9879
Image
That thing in the middle really, really worries me. :(

I'm not saying the NYT is perfect - far from it - but shit, gang, if you trust Trump's WH more than it - Houston, we have a humongous problem.


Hang onto your hat X. Read what it says and then turn that into the multiple choice question they asked. It says:

Americans trust Trump's white house more than the national political media to tell the truth.

The question asked was:

For telling the truth do you trust more:

A) The White House

B) The National Political Media


The reason I did not include "Trump's" in the White House option A) making it Trump's White House is because Morning Consult clearly did not. After all 12% of Democrats went with that White House answer.



There's a further point to make here, what in hell is this "The National Political Media" thing?

It's not the New York region's New York Times, it's not any of the regional news papers spread out across America, those aren't National things, it's got to be something National, it would be my best guess it's something with talking heads found on TV.

It might have horns, and be found on TV. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:09 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16312
Some Saint Glenn story on "lying and deceit" posted by the guy who voted for Jill Stein.

:problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:19 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
Media "innocence". Well, see, here's what I actually think.

If you look at the Republican primaries, there's no doubt about it -- out of the 16 lawn gnomes Trump got more coverage than any of the rest of them. You can easily spot this trend. Now, was this because "the media" wanted Trump to win, agreed with him the most? I would have my doubts, as he was lambasting the media and talking about toughening libel laws and all that crap in the primaries. They can't have liked what he was saying from that perspective. Was it a plot against Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz, John Kasich? But the thing is, we don't have to speculate. Many of the media moguls said themselves they covered all of Trump's events and rallies because he said things that were awful, controversial, shocking, sort of like a NASCAR wreck, and most importantly, generating ratings. You don't have to see them all as participating in an intentional plot to see why this happened. BTW, Trump knew it then and he knows it now, the guy is a Reality TV celebrity, he knows the game. He said himself recently that they want him running in 2020 because they need his numbers and ratings. (Not because they like him as POTUS or what he's saying.)

Here's my point -- I'm not saying that system is "innocent". It's also why TV Nooz spends so much time on celebrities like the Kardashians. Or why the famous adage "if it bleeds it leads" remains true. Whether we want to get to bird's theorem or not, there is only one reason why they do so many celebrity and true crime stories. PEOPLE WATCH. THEY GET RATINGS. THEY SELL SOAP POWDER. STEP 3: PROFIT FOR SHAREHOLDERS. All I'm saying is you don't need to know more than that to understand why "the media" does what it does.

I would also add that, yes, Lefties are not wrong that the media are not anti-corporate, because usually they rely on other corporations for advertising revenue, have other corporations on their executive boards, worry about lawsuits from other corporations, and are corporations. Beyond that, I think they overthink things.

No, CBS, NBC, and ABC, or any of the cable outlets, do not meet in a room and reach a common agreement on what they will or won't cover. That model is wrong. I only say that because research has been done on it, and things don't work that way.

As to declining media trustworthiness -- well, data require explanation. So why is it, as you can clearly see, conservatives distrust "the media" more than liberals? Could it have something to do with RW talk celebrities like Limbaugh et al. telling them not to trust or listen to anything but them and Faux? The interesting thing is LW talk radio does not do the same thing. That's why it's another false equivalency to say LW talk and RW talk "are the same". Randi Rhodes tells her listeners TO READ newspapers. TO READ The New York Times. TO LISTEN to PBS NEWSHOUR. Not just to listen to her and just to MSNBC (though the latter may have to do with grudges she has against most on the network, but I digress.) Finally, more importantly, we have a SCROTUS who regularly calls "the media" "fake news" and the point is we're not just talking about Wolff's book (where he may have somewhat of a point) but any journalistic outlet that prints anything negative about his administration.

Clearly, that's having an impact. On his base, anyway.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:01 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
Sorry, but I haven't the time right now to fully respond, ProfessorX.

I have a big problem with it. It covers very well the accepted answer we always get. But, think about it and see if you have something more to add.

I will get back to answer you.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16312
You want to say that it is all innocent, but it's not. Bernie was blacked out on purpose.

Also, according to the charts you showed, there is reason to worry about the media's trustworthiness. I am saying nobody should trust the American media. Even the weather is political.


Bernie wasn't blacked out. Bernie is famously not part of the D party yet his faithful flock think battering-ramming him through the D party is going to benefit them, and the D party rightfully kicked this down. I was on-board with it myself until it was clear about what too many of his followers are; happily that happened before my state's primaries.

Meanwhile, some of you guys are still fighting the primaries while there is a bona-fide fascist in high office.

"The media" is just another Emmanuel Goldstein, with Donald Trump launching the same complaints as some of you. At the same time, Gateway Pundit and Infowars now have White House press credentials.

Think about that for a moment. Gateway Pundit and Infowars now have White House press credentials.

So exactly what "media" are you talking about?

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10721
Location: Sunny South Florida
Let me be clear --- Bernie was under-reported on compared to Hillary Clinton. I've seen studies that prove it.

BTW, that was also true of Martin O'Malley, and, incidentally, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. Now I know. Maybe with those last two guys you figure it was appropriate. :D Seems like most folks figure it was appropriate for O'Malley too. Dunno why.

The interesting thing is, Clinton was given more coverage than anyone else in the primary. BTW -- more positive coverage, and more negative coverage. She had far more name recognition, and of course, the flip side, as we all know, far more baggage, scandals real or perceived, some carried over not from her own actions but her husband's.

Was Bernie under-covered? Yes, and so was everyone in the primary not named Clinton. It was not a plot against Bernie, not per se.

BTW, during the time the primaries were occurring, this I find to be the most interesting thing, Trump DURING THE PRIMARIES got more coverage than Clinton DURING THE PRIMARIES.

I suspect if anybody on the Democratic side was willing to do wild, train wreck stunts that would attract more ratings, any of them would have gotten more coverage.

If you're asking me do I think Trump received lots of help from the media during the primaries AND the general in terms of the coverage he got - yep. He kept bragging he couldn't be bought because he didn't have big contributors. Well that was a lie (the Mercers). Plus toward the end the Koch Networks were working for him too. But he knew he could brag about that because, due to his antics, he got the value of millions of dollars of free airtime he wouldn't have to buy with campaign ads. ... as a circus ringmaster. Also, it's clear his strategy was to work social media (Twitter & Facebook) instead ... and BTW a guy named Bob Mueller is still looking into some questions of outside (Russian troll) help with that.

Please note I am not saying this is a good thing about the media. It just is.

You may, in fact, be stuck fighting the last war rather than the current one, if by "media" you don't include social media like Facebook and Twitter. And are sticking to print and broadcast.

Did Mark Zuckerberg have an agenda? Well, again, I think his agenda was to take the cash of Facebook advertisers and run, even if they sent their donations in from strange Eastern European addresses. Ari Melber on MSNBC has been very critical of Mark -- and I think that's a good thing.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:52 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3805
I believe I understand you, ProfessorX. Essentially, you fault the corporate media for being greedy and not complicit. I don't believe that, and you probably don't completely believe that either.

Now you can see from the James Risen interview that both the media and the government were to blame.

How the NY Times & U.S. Government Worked Together to Suppress James Risen’s Post-9/11 Reporting

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/1/5/h ... government

We live in a Orwellian world with a deep state more than you want to admit. I posted this video before, which explains it pretty clearly.
Noam Chomsky on the 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/15/ ... _5_filters

So, I think we should accept it and undertand that. I think the media has a responsibility to serve the public news that is not manipulated to serve themselves. I'm sure you agree.

Guess what...
George Orwell’s ‘1984’ Is Suddenly a Best-Seller
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/book ... trump.html

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:26 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16312
We live in a Orwellian world with a deep state more than you want to admit


:roll:

Really?

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group