They are not defending the constitution in any way. All they care about is whatever happens to be their particular agenda at a particular point in time which may coincide with constitutional interests.
I’m not referring to your local beat reporter but rather your journalists with renown who bask in the power they feel they have and aren’t shy to wield their symbolic swords.
The ones that people are typically frustrated with but get the most clicks from 'their' side, are the ones that have an idea for a story, write the conclusion first, and then only include facts that fit that conclusion. Alternatively they discard an article if the facts overwhelmingly disagree with their original conclusion.
YMMV
Today, the MSM is literally fake news that conforms to leftist/DNC dogma. See my other post in this thread for why.
You can see this in the common use of narrative keywords like "no widespread election fraud" and "insurrection" across multiple MSM media properties. Everybody knows there is always election fraud (voters moving to another state and voting in their old state is considered voting fraud by the FEC), but inserting "widespread" in the phrase makes it easy to keep moving the goalpost.
https://youtu.be/l8pkCZBjgrk?t=252
Where we hear about the CIA deep state in its long attempt to thwart Donald Trump, even before his election. Just part of the story of Greenwald leaving the Intercept.
Accoring to Greenwald, the conspiracy goes deep. There is now a full union with the Democrats, the CIA, the Bush-Cheney operatives, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street. Also that the CIA, DOJ, FBI and NSA, have infiltrated news media.
Hunter Biden had zero relevant experience to be a member of the board to a Ukrainian oil company during a conflict with Russia that had huge oil assets at risk. It seems obvious to me that they paid him to have access to his father (then VP to Obama).
The same was true when the Clinton Foundation received tens of millions in donations during the ramp-up to the Syrian civil war while Clinton was the Sec of State. Clinton emails released confirmed weekly meetings with the Saudi Foreign Minister at the same time. It seems obvious that the State Dept & CIA participation in arming rebel groups was facilitated through the conversations had.
...and I don't mean to pick on Democrats. John McCain was part of that effort. I'm sure if we look closely, we'll find a "core establishment" group that holds members of both parties.
...and, arguably, both cases above were in the interests of the US.
It's complicated. A world power with big adversaries cannot operate transparently, so I would not expect the public to be told everything. On the other hand, it would be reassuring if there were private mechanisms whereby this "deep-state club" self-regulates to ensure that these covert actions at least benefit the US, and do not simply enrich those politicians taking cash. ...or maybe that does exist in some form and we just are not aware?
That corruption exists on both sides - this is understood by pretty much everyone who isn't wildly partisan. That there is both legal (meaning that it does break specific laws but is instead privilege accessible by those in circles of power) and illegal corruption, likewise.
In the case of Hunter Biden, he is just reaping the benefits of being close to power. This isn't illegal - ex-presidents go on the talk circuit to tutor people in how to handle specific situations or to discuss events they have encountered. One would think that Hunter Biden would have received a masterclass in power politics through his father having been VP for 8 years. Her certainly would have met a lot of people over the years who could help him in the real world. This is not illegal, this is just one of the privileges of privilege.
Privilege is human nature. There is no mystery club - you are just either inside the tent or outside the tent. This does not mean we should not break it down, or tear it up, but it is also not illegal to hang out with people who are like you and who get you.
The problem with Greenwald's pieces are that he conflates this with obvious, illegal corruption. He claims it to be illegal - which is is not - and conflates it with actual corruption... but only on one side of politics. He seems to see himself as a maverick, a lone-wolf, but then whines that no one is there to support him, and all the legitimate papers decry or ignore him.
Greenwald is either unwell (and who isn't these days) or is trying to wedge himself into the role of the "reasonable" right-wing partisan. If it is the first, I hope he recovers, if the second, I hope he goes down in flames. The world needs fewer partisans.
Then the internet came and commoditised facts. New facts are disseminated immediately across social media. Open Google News and you can find thousands of articles covering the same event.
Suddenly, just reporting facts was no longer a viable business. Being a newspaper of record was no longer economically viable. Only the news media that shifted to reporting opinions, outrage, and entertainment survived.
NYT was fading into irrelevance up until mid-2016, it is now more relevant than ever: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NYT/
This resurgence was driven by a conscious shift to peddle tribal propaganda: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-great...
> Greenwald, a former lawyer who, in 2013, was one of the reporters for a Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the Guardian on Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the National Security Agency, is a longtime critic, from the left, of centrist and liberal policymakers and pundits. During the past two years, he has further exiled himself from the mainstream American left by responding with skepticism and disdain to reports of Russian government interference in the 2016 Presidential election. On Twitter, where he has nearly a million followers, and at the Intercept, the news Web site that he co-founded five years ago, and as a frequent guest on “Democracy Now!,” the daily progressive radio and TV broadcast, Greenwald has argued that the available evidence concerning Russian activity has indicated nothing especially untoward;...
> ... Greenwald has tried to cut back on social media. “My No. 1 therapeutic goal is to reduce my Twitter usage,” he said...
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwal...
> Think about that: to a CNN reporter, evidence-free assertions from the U.S. security state are tantamount to “confirmation.” That they really do think this way is nothing short of chilling.
On the other hand, the laptop produced by Guliani (of which how he got it is weird) is taken as absolute gospel by Greenwald.
I mean, question both sides at least??
Graham notes upfront: "Remember that while the email is validated, the context isn't. It's possible this reflects a secret meeting to conspire with Vice President Biden. Or, it's possible the guy attended one of the many Washington D.C. social functions whereby people shake hands with politicians and exchange pleasantries. As Richelieu is claimed to have said 'Give me six words by the most honest of men and I'll find something to hang him by'. Give me an email dump from the most honest of persons, and I'll pull one out of context to hang them in the court of social media."
Since no side disputes the authenticity of what's in the laptop, there's no reason for Greenwald to do so.
The one-sided burrying of the story from tech and media at the time though (and this new BS faux-reporting coming up now), would be hugely problematic if it wasn't standard practice by now...
What do you mean "taken as gospel"? The laptop exists, the source of the emails confirmed. Is any of it meaningful or evidence of corruption? Who knows.
>"Derkach, Kilimnick, and their associates sought to use prominent US persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to US officials and audiences..."
Now, I don't know if any of this is true or not...
In fact, I don't know any of these people...
But that's not the point!
You see, as an amateur linguist (I know, "keep the day job!" <g>), I am always on the look out for new buzzwords, new catch phrases, new lingo...
Before this article (or more specifically, the quoted retweet), I had never seen the words "launder" and "narrative" used adjacently (or very close to adjacently), that is, "launder their narratives".
Phrasing those two concepts in language more succinctly, one gets:
"Narrative Laundering"
Which is my (linguistic!) takeaway from this article...
So, that term -- is going into my 2021 lexicon!
"Narrative Laundering"
(It sort of fits alongside such other words/terminology as "Fake News", "Making Mountains Out Of A Molehills", "Memory Hole", "De Minimis", "Much Ado About Nothing", "Revisionism", "Damnatio Memoriae", "Conflation", etc.)
"Media trust hits new low"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26508039
(I don't think that article itself is very good, but the HN discussion is interesting.)
If you watch interviews with former US leftists who became centrists and spoke out about burning downtowns, deplatforming, etc. they all had to find new careers.
It’s completely impossible there could be a disinformation campaign on such a pedestrian political campaign. /s
Fox reporters claimed to have obtained the hard drive, then lost it due to conspiracy from the delivery company, then found it, and now refuses to show the contents because Hunter Biden is a down and out man, and it's so sad to kick a remorseful man trying to turn his life around.
This is the story according to Fox, and specifically Tucker Carlson — that we cannot see the evidence because Tucker Carlson feels sorry for Hunter Biden's low fortunes.
> As this false claim went massively viral, conservative journalists — and only they — began vocally objecting that the report made no mention whatsoever of the Hunter Biden laptop, let alone supplied proof for this claim.
Greenwald basically invalidates his own argument a few sentences later where he describes how there actually were other journalists such as Chris Hayes who objected to the description of the report. And, again stated by Greenwald, Patrick Tucker himself came around, deleted his initial tweet and posted a clarification.
And just as an aside, the "conservative journalists" cited by Greenwald work for the Daily Caller, described by Wikipedia [1] as:
> The Daily Caller has published false stories on multiple occasions. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. Until 2018, the website had also published articles by white supremacists such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow.
I also find it laughable that he characterizes some journalists as minions of the "liberal corporate media" but The Daily caller, founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, is somehow home to harmless independent "conservative journalists". That Glenn Greenwald tries to sell me journalists of a white supremacist outlet as trustworthy and truthful is not really a good sign in my book.
So while I agree that the initial tweet by Patrick Tucker lead to a falsehood being spread on social media I just can't follow Glenn Greenwald's take of seeing this as a coordinated misinformation operation.
Glenn is ok. What he describes is a real problem.
I still consider it disingenuous to hide Daily Caller journalists behind the label "conservative".
For example, make the story about where the laptop came from, and avoid as much as possible the fact POTUS son has incriminating photos and videos (and more?) of himself in the hands of our foreign adversaries.
I wonder if that might also be due to the previous president repeatedly referring to them as "the enemy of the people".
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-cal...
Like if I said "the current president of the United States 's family name is Bidden" then that's as false as "Santa Clause's middle name Elvis, is in tribute to his mother's favourite singer".
But you could argue that there's measures by which one is more true than the other.
In this case, these "lies" all seem to be vaguely within shouting distance of the truth, and his repetition of the accusation seems a bit lawyerly in its specificity. In fact, a fuzzy definition of "lie" could well suggest that his statements are further from the truth than the ones he's criticizing.
