Tag Archives: Washington Post

Washington Post Names Drudge, Zero Hedge, & Ron Paul As Anti-Clinton “Sophisticated Russian Propaganda Tools” by Tyler Durden

It’s a disappointment that SLL did not make the list, but it probably would need a larger readership. We’ll get there someday. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

The desperate flailing of a mainstream-media struggling through the five stages of grief continues as no lesser unbiased foundation of the fourth estate than The Washington Post pushes ahead with its “fake news, blame the Russians” narrative for why their candidate failed so miserably.

Citing “two teams of independent researchers” (who surely have a substantial libel litigation provision) who found “Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery… echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal,” the Jeff Bezos-owned website names Drudge, Zero Hedge, and The Ron Paul Institute and countless other outlets among the “useful idiots” that true American patriots should be wary of.

“The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” said the executive director of PropOrNot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity with the Post.

“It was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump’s campaign.”

In the wake of the election, fake news and its spread on social media has come into the spotlight – for our latest thoughts on this topic please see our “thank you” notefrom last night.

President Obama denounced the attention garnered by false information last week, saying: “If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not … if we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems.” And as The Hill reports, a sophisticated Russian propaganda effort helped fuel the spread of fake news during the election cycle, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

To continue reading: Washington Post Names Drudge, Zero Hedge, & Ron Paul As Anti-Clinton “Sophisticated Russian Propaganda Tools”

Inside the Propaganda Matrix, by Justin Raimondo

Blaming Putin for any and all ills afflicting the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton has gotten much traction, but that’s not stopping them from doubling down. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

As I sat there wondering how to explain the latest twist in the US presidential election, this story popped up on my Twitter feed: Bank of America analysts claim there’s a 50% chance we live in a “Matrix reality simulation”.

Aha!

As I read, it all began to make “sense”:

“Top bank analysts claim there’s a 50% chance our world is a computer simulation and we’re all plugged into a Matrix-style virtual reality.

“And they also reckon if it’s true – then there’s no way we’ll ever find out about it.

“The Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch made the astonishing claim in a research note citing comments by top scientists, astrophysicists and philosophers….

“It said: ‘Many scientists, philosophers, and business leaders believe that there is a 20-50% probability that humans are already living in a computer-simulated virtual world. In April 2016, researchers gathered at the American Museum of Natural History to debate this notion.’”

There’s no need to debate this notion any longer, because there is indeed a way to discover whether it’s true. One merely has to read sports reporter Cindy Boren’s recent article in the Washington Post – a “respectable” newspaper – to confirm this theory as fact:

“Bennet Omalu, the forensic pathologist who has made the NFL so uncomfortable with his discovery of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in the brains of deceased players, suggests that Hillary Clinton’s campaign be checked for possible poisons after her collapse Sunday in New York.

“Omalu, whose story was famously told in the movie ‘Concussion’” made the suggestion on Twitter, writing that he advised campaign officials to ‘perform toxicologic analysis of Ms. Clinton’s blood.’

“The suggestion was greeted somewhat skeptically in the replies.

“But this is Omalu, whose credentials and tenacity are well known. He wasn’t giving up on Twitter, adding that his reasoning is that he does not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee who has expressed admiration for Putin.

“Putin, as The Washington Post reported, was implicated by a British inquiry in January in the poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB operative, in London in 2006.”

How in the name of all that’s holy did this article make it past the editors of the Washington Post? This is a question that one might ask if journalists were living in a rational universe – but are they? I would submit that the answer is an emphatic no.

Either the Matrix theory advanced above is correct, or – and this seems more likely – the media is so unhinged by TDS – Trump Derangement Syndrome – that “reporters” are no longer able to distinguish fantasy from reality. And it isn’t just the Post: the Boston Globe, not to be outdone in the irrationality sweepstakes, picked up the Omalu story and reported it with a straight face. Indeed, in an op ed for the Los Angeles Times, I made the argument that the media has dropped all pretense at objectivity and become an arm of the Clinton campaign, but there’s more to the story.

TDS seems to be a disease linked to yet another mass infection: the epidemic of Russophobia that seems to be sweeping the most “liberal” precincts of the country – with the epicenter in Washington, D.C. , and ground zero located at the precise coordinates of the Washington Post’s editorial offices.

To continue reading: Inside the Propaganda Matrix

Least Transparent Ever – Barack Obama Hasn’t Agreed to a Washington Post Interview Since 2009, by Michael Krieger

When even liberal organ The Washington Post complains about Barack Obama’s lack of transparency, you know there’s a problem. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration set a record for the number of times its federal employees told disappointed citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page requested under the Freedom of Information Act, according to a new Associated Press analysis of government data.

In more than one in six cases, or 129,825 times, government searchers said they came up empty-handed last year.Such cases contributed to an alarming measurement: People who asked for records under the law received censored files or nothing in 77 percent of requests, also a record. In the first full year after President Barack Obama’s election, that figure was only 65 percent of cases.

– From the post: Obama Administration Denied or Censored Information in 77% of FOIA Requests During 2015

New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan recently had some choice words for the liberal Potemkin Village that is President Barack Obama.

What follows are some excerpts from her cutting Washington Post op-ed, published yesterday.

After early promises to be the most transparent administration in history, this has been one of the most secretive. And in certain ways, one of the most elusive. It’s also been one of the most punitive toward whistleblowers and leakers who want to bring light to wrongdoing they have observed from inside powerful institutions…
On Monday, during a visit to Vietnam, the president spent some quality time with the media — in the form of Anthony Bourdain, the celebrity chef. A couple of years ago, he did a heavily publicized interview with the comedian Zach Galifianakis on the faux talk show “Between Two Ferns,” and last year he made a visit to podcaster Marc Maron’s garage for a chat about fatherhood and overcoming fear.

But his on-the-record interviews with hard-news, government reporters have been relatively rare — and, rather than being wide-ranging, often limited to a single subject, such as the economy.

Remarkably, Post news reporters haven’t been able to interview the president since late 2009. Think about that. The Post is, after all, perhaps the leading news outlet on national government and politics, with no in-depth, on-the-record access to the president of the United States for almost all of his two terms.

I couldn’t get anyone in the White House press office to address this, despite repeated attempts by phone and email — which possibly proves my point.

But a thorough study from Martha Joynt Kumar, a retired Towson University professor, describes the administration’s strategy. The president does plenty of interviews, she writes — far more than any other president in recent history. But these interviews are tightly controlled and targeted toward specific topics, and, it seems to me, often granted to soft questioners. (All of this is a major shift from a time when news conferences and short question-and-answer sessions allowed reporters to pursue news topics aggressively and in real time.)

There’s a more colloquial word for the above technique: propaganda.

More interviews, less accountability. Feet kept safe from the fire.

Meanwhile, on media rights generally, the Obama administration hasn’t walked its talk. It has set new records for stonewalling or rejecting Freedom of Information requests. And it has used an obscure federal act to prosecute leakers. It continued the punishing treatment of a National Security Agency whistleblower, Thomas Drake (dismaying new details have emerged recently in book excerpts by John Crane, a former Pentagon investigator), and threatened to send the New York Times investigative reporter James Risen to jail for his good-faith insistence on protecting his confidential source.

Incredible how quickly “Yes We Can” turned into…

Obituary For the Old-Line Press? by Robert G. Kaiser

The Bad News About the News by Robert G. Kaiser, the Brookings Essay

In 1998, Ralph Terkowitz, a vice president of The Washington Post Co., got to know Sergey Brin and Larry Page, two young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who were looking for backers. Terkowitz remembers paying a visit to the garage where they were working and keeping his car and driver waiting outside while he had a meeting with them about the idea that eventually became Google. An early investment in Google might have transformed the Post‘s financial condition, which became dire a dozen years later, by which time Google was a multi-billion dollar company. But nothing happened. “We kicked it around,” Terkowitz recalled, but the then-fat Post Co. had other irons in other fires.

Such missteps are not surprising. People living through a time of revolutionary change usually fail to grasp what is going on around them. The American news business would get a C minus or worse from any fair-minded professor evaluating its performance in the first phase of the Digital Age. Big, slow-moving organizations steeped in their traditional ways of doing business could not accurately foresee the next stages of a technological whirlwind.

Obviously, new technologies are radically altering the ways in which we learn, teach, communicate, and are entertained. It is impossible to know today where these upheavals may lead, but where they take us matters profoundly. How the digital revolution plays out over time will be particularly important for journalism, and therefore to the United States, because journalism is the craft that provides the lifeblood of a free, democratic society.

The Founding Fathers knew this. They believed that their experiment in self-governance would require active participation by an informed public, which could only be possible if people had unfettered access to information. James Madison, author of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, summarized the proposition succinctly: “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.” Thomas Jefferson explained to his French friend, the Marquis de Lafayette, “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed.” American journalists cherish another of Jefferson’s remarks: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Continue reading