The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby JackRiddler » Fri May 15, 2020 2:12 pm

.

Taibbi by e-mail, though I'm sure it's also on his substack.


Democrats Have Abandoned Civil Liberties
The Blue Party’s Trump-era Embrace of Authoritarianism Isn’t Just Wrong, it’s a Fatal Political Mistake

Matt Taibbi


May 15

Emmet G. Sullivan, the judge in the case of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is refusing to let William Barr’s Justice Department drop the charge. He’s even thinking of adding more, appointing a retired judge to ask “whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”

Pundits are cheering. A trio of former law enforcement and judicial officials saluted Sullivan in the Washington Post, chirping, “The Flynn case isn’t over until a judge says it’s over.” Yuppie icon Jeffrey Toobin of CNN and the New Yorker, one of the #Resistance crowd’s favored legal authorities, described Sullivan’s appointment of Judge John Gleeson as “brilliant.” MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said Americans owe Sullivan a “debt of gratitude.”

One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious, i.e. that Sullivan’s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to say Sullivan’s move could “could create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants.”

Sullivan’s reaction was amplified by a group letter calling for Barr’s resignation signed by 2000 former Justice Department officials (the melodramatic group email somberly reported as momentous news is one of many tired media tropes in the Trump era) and the preposterous “leak” of news that the dropped case made Barack Obama sad. The former president “privately” told “members of his administration” (who instantly told Yahoo! News) that there was no precedent for the dropping of perjury charges, and that the “rule of law” itself was at stake.

Whatever one’s opinion of Flynn, his relations with Turkey, his “Lock her up!” chants, his haircut, or anything, this case was never about much. [Indeed: the "case" was a distraction from the guy's actual dirt. Extended to Trump and the GOP-Trump regime, it's like 1000 times the dirt that was camouflaged by the #Russiagate nonsense.] There’s no longer pretense that prosecution would lead to the unspooling of a massive Trump-Russia conspiracy, as pundits once breathlessly expected. In fact, news that Flynn was cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller inspired many of the “Is this the beginning of the end for Trump?” stories that will someday fill whole chapters of Journalism Fucks Up 101 textbooks.

The acts at issue are calls Flynn made to Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December 29th, 2016 in which he told the Russians not to overreact to sanctions. That’s it. The investigation was about to be dropped, but someone got the idea of using electronic surveillance of the Kislyak calls to leverage a case into existence.

In a secrets-laundering maneuver straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook, some bright person first illegally leaked classified details to David Ignatius at the Washington Post, then agents rushed to interview Flynn about the “news.”

“The record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known in the press,” is how Deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe put it, euphemistically. “We wanted to sit down with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were.”

A Laurel-and-Hardy team of agents conducted the interview, then took three weeks to write and re-write multiple versions of the interview notes used as evidence (because why record it?). They were supervised by a counterintelligence chief who then memorialized on paper his uncertainty over whether the FBI was trying to “get him to lie” or “get him fired,” worrying that the White House was “playing games.” After another leak to the Washington Post in early February, 2019, Flynn actually was fired, and later pleaded guilty to lying about sanctions in the Kislyak call, the transcript of which was of course never released to either the defense or the public.

Warrantless surveillance, multiple illegal leaks of classified information, a false statements charge constructed on the razor’s edge of Miranda, and the use of never-produced, secret counterintelligence evidence in a domestic criminal proceeding – this is the “rule of law” we’re being asked to cheer.

Russiagate cases were often two-level offenses: factually bogus or exaggerated, but also indicative of authoritarian practices. Democrats and Democrat-friendly pundits in the last four years have been consistently unable to register objections on either front.

Flynn’s case fit the pattern. We were told his plea was just the “tip of the iceberg” that would “take the trail of Russian collusion” to the “center of the plot,” i.e. Trump. It turned out he had no deeper story to tell. In fact, none of the people prosecutors tossed in jail to get at the Russian “plot” – some little more than bystanders – had anything to share.

Remember George Papadopoulos, whose alleged conversation about “dirt” on Hillary Clinton with an Australian diplomat created the pretext for the FBI’s entire Trump-Russia investigation? We just found out in newly-released testimony by McCabe that the FBI felt as early as the summer of 2016 that the evidence “didn’t particularly indicate” that Papadopoulos was “interacting with the Russians.”

If you’re in the media and keeping score, that’s about six months before our industry lost its mind and scrambled to make Watergate comparisons over Jim Comey’s March, 2017 “bombshell” revelation of the existence of an FBI Trump-Russia investigation. Nobody bothered to wonder if they actually had any evidence. Similarly Chelsea Manning insisted she’d already answered all pertinent questions about Julian Assange, but prosecutors didn’t find that answer satisfactory, and threw her in jail for year anyway, only releasing her when she tried to kill herself. She still owes $256,000 in fines, not that her many supporters from the Bush days seem to care much.

The Flynn case was built on surveillance gathered under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a program that seems to have been abused on a massive scale by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

After Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations about mass data collection, a series of internal investigations began showing officials were breaking rules against spying on specific Americans via this NSA program. Searches were conducted too often and without proper justification, and the results were shared with too many people, including private contractors. By October, 2016, the FISA court was declaring that systematic overuse of so-called “702” searches were a “very serious fourth Amendment issue.”

In later court documents it came out that the FBI conducted 3.1 million such searches in 2017 alone. As the Brennan Center put it, “almost certainly… the total number of U.S. person queries run by the FBI each year is well into the millions.”

Anyone who bothers to look back will find hints at how this program might have been misused. In late 2015, Obama officials bragged to the Wall Street Journal they’d made use of FISA surveillance involving “Jewish-American groups” as well as “U.S. lawmakers” in congress, all because they wanted to more effectively “counter” Israeli opposition to Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. This is a long way from using surveillance to defuse terror plots or break up human trafficking rings.

I can understand not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn, but cases like this have turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets over the civil liberties implications of Cheney’s War on Terror apparatus – into defenders of the spy state. Politicians and pundits across the last four years have rolled their eyes at attorney-client privilege, the presumption of innocence, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to counsel and a host of other issues, regularly denouncing civil rights worries as red-herring excuses for Trumpism.

Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul Manafort or Trump himself. In the process, they’ve raised a generation of followers whose contempt for civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent. Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the response to the Covid-19 crisis, where the almost mandatory take of pundits is that any protest of lockdown measures is troglodyte death wish. The aftereffects of years of Russiagate/Trump coverage are seen everywhere: press outlets reflexively associate complaints of government overreach with Trump, treason, and racism, and conversely radiate a creepily gleeful tone when describing aggressive emergency measures and the problems some “dumb” Americans have had accepting them.

On the campaign trail in 2016, I watched Democrats hand Trump the economic populism argument by dismissing all complaints about the failures of neoliberal economics. This mistake was later compounded by years of propaganda arguing that “economic insecurity” was just a Trojan Horse term for racism. These takes, along with the absurd kneecapping of the Bernie Sanders movement, have allowed Trump to position himself as a working-class hero, the sole voice of a squeezed underclass.

The same mistake is now being made with civil liberties. Millions have lost their jobs and businesses by government fiat, there’s a clamor for censorship and contract tracing programs that could have serious long-term consequences, yet voters only hear Trump making occasional remarks about freedom; Democrats treat it like it’s a word that should be banned by Facebook (a recent Washington Post headline put the term in quotation marks, as if one should be gloved to touch it). Has the Trump era really damaged our thinking to this degree?

My family is in quarantine, I worry about a premature return to work, and sure, I laughed at that Shaun of the Dead photo of Ohio protesters protesting state lockdown laws. But I also recognize the crisis is also raising serious civil liberties issues, from prisoners trapped in deadly conditions to profound questions about speech and assembly, the limits to surveillance and snitching, etc. If this disease is going to be in our lives for the foreseeable future, that makes it more urgent that we talk about what these rules will be, not less, yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don’t understand why.

Thanks for subscribing to Reporting by Matt Taibbi. This post is public, so feel free to share it.

© 2020 Matt Taibbi
PO Box 720263, San Francisco, CA 94172
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15057
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby JackRiddler » Sat May 16, 2020 9:57 pm

Another great entry-point retrospective summary as of the latest research, with Maté on the Halper/Taibbi show.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqaEBw9Ev0
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15057
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby Elvis » Sun May 17, 2020 9:13 am

JackRiddler wrote: Maté on the Halper/Taibbi show.


The three of them together made this worth watching, thanks.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6598
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby stickdog99 » Sun May 17, 2020 5:48 pm

JackRiddler » 17 May 2020 01:57 wrote:Another great entry-point retrospective summary as of the latest research, with Maté on the Halper/Taibbi show.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqaEBw9Ev0


Maté and Taibbi have somehow ascended to the ranks of Most Courageous Journalists in the USA simply by conservatively reporting the patently obvious on Russiagate.

Jimmy Dore belongs in this group as well, but for the past few months his "reporting" has consisted mostly of his patting himself on the back.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby JackRiddler » Sun May 17, 2020 7:22 pm

Unfortunately Jimmy Dore's show declined radically in recent months. Really doesn't bother to inform himself generally about subjects and contexts any more, and it shows.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15057
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby Spiro C. Thiery » Mon May 18, 2020 3:53 am

To be fair, he might be (because of his politics a less popular version of) one of those "just a comedian a la Jon Stewart who shouldn't have to be informing anyone about any of this" kind of guys. To be unfair, his schtick is annoying. The constant interruption of what he's critiquing for no other reason that to mug a little longer, not making any additional points or saying anything particularly funny or cutting. Journalistically, this method commits the sin of contextual omission more often than not.

JackRiddler » Today, 01:22 wrote:Unfortunately Jimmy Dore's show declined radically in recent months. Really doesn't bother to inform himself generally about subjects and contexts any more, and it shows.
Seeing the world through rose-colored latex.
User avatar
Spiro C. Thiery
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby SonicG » Mon May 18, 2020 4:18 am

Spiro C. Thiery » Mon May 18, 2020 2:53 pm wrote:To be fair, he might be (because of his politics a less popular version of) one of those "just a comedian a la Jon Stewart who shouldn't have to be informing anyone about any of this" kind of guys. To be unfair, his schtick is annoying. The constant interruption of what he's critiquing for no other reason that to mug a little longer, not making any additional points or saying anything particularly funny or cutting. Journalistically, this method commits the sin of contextual omission more often than not.

JackRiddler » Today, 01:22 wrote:Unfortunately Jimmy Dore's show declined radically in recent months. Really doesn't bother to inform himself generally about subjects and contexts any more, and it shows.


I kinda stumbled across comedy podcasts when they were first starting 13-14 years ago, after getting embarrassingly into Lost and Lost podcasts, and Jimmy Dore's was one of the first. He would occasionally get into politics with basically the same left progressive stance. Do you know Graham Elwood? He is also an LA-based comedian who did a long-running movies podcast, very focused on mainstream Hollywood stuff. Graham goes much deeper into the Five Eyes and Epstein stuff, and I also do find him more well-informed than Jimmy Dore. It is interesting to see him come to the realization of how much influence the CIA et al have over Hollywood movies, especially his beloved superhero movies - so hopefully he will soon drop any reference to that adolescent bs...

https://www.youtube.com/user/grahamelwood/videos
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1230
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby JackRiddler » Mon May 18, 2020 5:10 am

Elwood's been on the Dore tour and indeed seems much better informed and generally curious on the whole than Dore.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15057
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby Spiro C. Thiery » Mon May 18, 2020 5:32 am

Elwood is the only reason I'd ever look in Jimmy's direction at this point, but I prefer him unfiltered.
Seeing the world through rose-colored latex.
User avatar
Spiro C. Thiery
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby JackRiddler » Mon May 18, 2020 11:00 am

But on second read this had me laughing, and I assure you I will be stealing it, uncredited! (Stop, thief! Stop!)

stickdog99 » Sun May 17, 2020 4:48 pm wrote:Maté and Taibbi have somehow ascended to the ranks of Most Courageous Journalists in the USA simply by conservatively reporting the patently obvious on Russiagate.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15057
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby liminalOyster » Mon May 18, 2020 6:07 pm

Ben Smith’s NYT Critique of Ronan Farrow Describes a Toxic, Corrosive, and Still-Vibrant Trump-Era Pathology: “Resistance Journalism”
Glenn Greenwald

May 18 2020, 11:01 a.m.

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ RECENTLY HIRED media columnist Ben Smith, who spent the previous nine years as editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed as it grew into a media behemoth, did something Sunday night that very few other U.S. journalists would be willing to do: He published an unflinching and sometimes scathing critique of former-MSNBC-daytime-host-turned-widely-beloved-New-Yorker-star-investigative-reporter Ronan Farrow.


Farrow’s work in exposing Harvey Weinstein as a serial predator earned him celebrity, wealth, adoration in liberal circles, and — along with two New York Times reporters whose work on Weinstein was crucial — a Pulitzer Prize. His multiple appearances on late-night entertainment talk shows, his family lineage (he is the son of actors Mia Farrow and Woody Allen or, according to his mother, perhaps Frank Sinatra), his bestselling book, his New Yorker perch as star reporter, his marital engagement to former Obama speechwriter and current Pod Save America co-host Jon Lovett, and his telegenic appearance have all cemented Farrow’s status as one of the country’s most untouchable and lucrative media commodities. Few journalists have the stature or courage to criticize his work, especially in the pages of the New York Times, but Smith did exactly that in paragraph after paragraph of a long critique that seriously called into question the reliability and even integrity of Farrow’s reportorial methods.

Smith’s critique of Farrow’s journalism raises complex questions that are not easy to assess, and that critique is already receiving its own criticisms. Much of that particular debate depends on how one views the unique journalistic challenges of #MeToo reporting (though one of the most embarrassing mistakes Smith flags was unrelated to sexual assault claims: Farrow’s breathless and ultimately misguided allegation that the Trump administration destroyed records involving former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, a “blockbuster” revelation mindlessly and predictably hyped by MSNBC’s prime-time on-air personalities). I admire much of what Farrow has done over the last several years in battling corporate media outlets, particularly NBC and MSNBC, to get stories about powerful factions published, but I’ll leave the assessments of Smith’s specific critique of Farrow’s reporting to others more steeped in the specifics of those debates.

What is particularly valuable about Smith’s article is its perfect description of a media sickness borne of the Trump era that is rapidly corroding journalistic integrity and justifiably destroying trust in news outlets. Smith aptly dubs this pathology “resistance journalism,” by which he means that journalists are now not only free, but encouraged and incentivized, to say or publish anything they want, no matter how reckless and fact-free, provided their target is someone sufficiently disliked in mainstream liberal media venues and/or on social media:

[Farrow’s] work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives.

That can be a dangerous approach, particularly in a moment when the idea of truth and a shared set of facts is under assault.

In assailing Farrow for peddling unproven conspiracy theories, Smith argues that such journalistic practices are particularly dangerous in an era where conspiracy theories are increasingly commonplace. Yet unlike most journalists with a mainstream platform, Smith emphasizes that conspiracy theories are commonly used not only by Trump and his movement (conspiracy theories which are quickly debunked by most of the mainstream media), but are also commonly deployed by Trump’s enemies, whose reliance on conspiracy theories is virtually never denounced by journalists because mainstream news outlets themselves play a key role in peddling them:

We are living in an era of conspiracies and dangerous untruths — many pushed by President Trump, but others hyped by his enemies — that have lured ordinary Americans into passionately believing wild and unfounded theories and fiercely rejecting evidence to the contrary. The best reporting tries to capture the most attainable version of the truth, with clarity and humility about what we don’t know. Instead, Mr. Farrow told us what we wanted to believe about the way power works, and now, it seems, he and his publicity team are not even pretending to know if it’s true.

EVER SINCE DONALD TRUMP WAS ELECTED, and one could argue even in the months leading up to his election, journalistic standards have been consciously jettisoned when it comes to reporting on public figures who, in Smith’s words, are “most disliked by the loudest voices,” particularly when such reporting “swim[s] ably along with the tides of social media.” Put another way: As long the targets of one’s conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven — even false — attacks on such people, while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby frauds.


It is this “resistance journalism” sickness that caused U.S. politics to be drowned for three years in little other than salacious and fact-free conspiracy theories about Trump and his family members and closest associates: Putin had infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy; Trump officials conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election; Russia was attacking the U.S. by hacking its electricity grid, recruiting journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers, and plotting to cut off heat to Americans in winter. Mainstream media debacles — all in service of promoting the same set of conspiracy theories against Trump — are literally too numerous to count, requiring one to select the worst offenses as illustrative.


Adam H. Johnson
@adamjohnsonNYC
Glenn Beck 2009 + Maddow 2019 is the greatest crossover event in history

Embedded video
3,722
4:26 AM - Jan 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,211 people are talking about this


In March of last year, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi — writing under the headline “It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD” — compared the prevailing media climate since 2016 to that which prevailed in 2002 and 2003 regarding the invasion of Iraq and the so-called war on terror: little to no dissent permitted, skeptics of media-endorsed orthodoxies shunned and excluded, and worst of all, the very journalists who were most wrong in peddling false conspiracy theories were exactly those who ended up most rewarded on the ground that even though they spread falsehoods, they did so for the right cause.

Under that warped rubric — in which spreading falsehoods is commendable as long as it was done to harm the evildoers — the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the most damaging endorsers of false conspiracy theories about Iraq, rose to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, while two of the most deceitful Bush-era neocons, Bush/Cheney speechwriter David Frum and supreme propagandist Bill Kristol, have reprised their role as leading propagandists and conspiracy theorists — only this time aimed against the GOP president instead of on his behalf — and thus have become beloved liberal media icons. The communications director for both the Bush/Cheney campaign and its White House, Nicole Wallace, is one of the most popular liberal cable hosts from her MSNBC perch.



Exactly the same journalism-destroying dynamic is driving the post-Russiagate media landscape. There is literally no accountability for the journalists and news outlets that spread falsehoods in their pages, on their airwaves, and through their viral social media postings. The Washington Post’s media columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable — recounting how one of the most reckless Russigate conspiracy maximialists, Natasha Bertrand, became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial trash (she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic); MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it; and Mother Jones’ David Corn played a crucial, decisively un-journalistic role in mainstreaming the lies of the Steele dossier all with zero effect on his journalistic status, other than to enrich him through a predictably bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further.

Wemple’s post-Russiagate series has established him as a commendable, often-lone voice trying — with futility — to bring some accountability to U.S. journalism for the systemic media failures of the past three years. The reason that’s futile is exactly what Smith described in his column on Farrow: In “resistance journalism,” facts and truth are completely dispensable — indeed, dispensing with them is rewarded — provided “reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices.”

That describes perfectly the journalists who were defined, and enriched, by years of Russiagate deceit masquerading as reporting. By far the easiest path to career success over the last three years — booming ratings, lucrative book sales, exploding social media followings, career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives — was to feed establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about Drumpf and his White House. Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic standards was completely irrelevant. Responsible reporting was simply was not a metric used to assess its worth.

It was one thing for activists, charlatans, and con artists to exploit fears of Trump for material gain: that, by definition, is what such people do. But it was another thing entirely for journalists to succumb to all the low-hanging career rewards available to them by throwing all journalistic standards into the trash bin in exchange for a star turn as a #Resistance icon. That, as Smith aptly describes, is what “Resistance Journalism” is, and it’s hard to identify anything more toxic to our public discourse.

PERHAPS THE SINGLE MOST SHAMEFUL and journalism-destroying episode in all of this — an obviously difficult title to bestow — was when a national security blogger, Marcy Wheeler, violated long-standing norms and ethical standards of journalism by announcing in 2018 that she had voluntarily turned in her own source to the FBI, claiming she did so because her still-unnamed source “had played a significant role in the Russian election attack on the US” and because her life was endangered by her brave decision to stop being a blogger and become an armchair cop by pleading with the FBI and the Mueller team to let her work with them. In her blog post announcing what she did, she claimed she was going public with her treachery because her life was in danger, and this way everyone would know the real reason if “someone releases stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow.”

To say that Wheeler’s actions are a grotesque violation of journalistic ethics is to radically understate the case. Journalists are expected to protect their sources’ identities from the FBI even if they receive a subpoena and a court order compelling its disclosure; we’re expected to go to prison before we comply with FBI attempts to uncover our source’s identity. But here, the FBI did not try to compel Wheeler to tell them anything; they displayed no interest in her as she desperately tried to chase them down.

By all appearances, Wheeler had to beg the FBI to pay attention to her because they treated her like the sort of unstable, unhinged, unwell, delusional obsessive who, believing they have uncovered some intricate conspiracy, relentlessly harass and bombard journalists with their bizarre theories until they finally prattle to themselves for all of eternity in the spam filter of our email inboxes. The claim that she was in possession of some sort of explosive and damning information that would blow the Mueller investigation wide open was laughable. In her post, she claimed she “always planned to disclose this when this person’s role was publicly revealed,” but to date — almost two years later — she has never revealed “this person’s” identity because, from all appearances, the Mueller report never relied on Wheeler’s intrepid reporting or her supposedly red-hot secrets.

Like so many other Russiagate obsessives who turned into social media and MSNBC/CNN #Resistance stars, Wheeler was living a wild, self-serving fantasy, a Cold War Tom Clancy suspense film that she invented in her head and then cast herself as the heroine: a crusading investigative dot-connecter uncovering dangerous, hidden conspiracies perpetrated by dangerous, hidden Cold War-style villains (Putin) to the point where her own life was endangered by her bravery. It was a sad joke, a depressing spectacle of psycho-drama, but one that could have had grave consequences for the person she voluntarily ratted out to the FBI. Whatever else is true, this episode inflicted grave damage on American journalism by having mainstream, Russia-obsessed journalists not denounce her for her egregious violation of journalistic ethics but celebrate her for turning journalism on its head.

Why? Because, as Smith said in his Farrow article, she was “swim[ing] ably along with the tides of social media and produc[ing] damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices” and thus “the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness [were] more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives.” Margaret Sullivan, the former New York Times public editor and now the Washington Post’s otherwise reliably commendable media reporter, celebrated Wheeler’s bizarre behavior under the headline: “A journalist’s conscience leads her to reveal her source to the FBI.”

Despite acknowledging that “in their reporting, journalists talk to criminals all the time and don’t turn them in” and that “it’s pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect your sources,” Sullivan heralded Wheeler’s ethically repugnant and journalism-eroding violation of those principles. “It’s not hard to see that her decision was a careful and principled one,” Sullivan proclaimed.

She even endorsed Wheeler’s cringe-inducing, self-glorifying claims about her life being endangered by invoking long-standard Cold War clichés about the treachery of the Russkies (“Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for disposing of people they find threatening.”). The English language is insufficient to convey the madness required to believe that the Kremlin wanted to kill Marcy Wheeler because her blogging was getting Too Close to The Truth, but in the fevered swamps of resistance journalism, literally no claim was too unhinged to be embraced provided that it fed the social media #Resistance masses.

Sullivan’s article quoted no critics of Wheeler’s incredibly controversial behavior — no need to: She was on the right side of social media reaction. And Sullivan never bothered to return to wonder why her prediction — “Wheeler hasn’t named the source publicly, though his name may soon be known to all who are following the Mueller investigation” — never materialized. Both CNN and, incredibly, the Columbia Journalism Review published similarly sympathetic accounts of Wheeler’s desperate attempts to turn over her source to the FBI and then cosplay as though she were some sort of insider in the Mueller investigation.

THE MOST MENACING ATTRIBUTE of what Smith calls “Resistance Journalism” is that it permits and tolerates no dissent and questioning: perhaps the single most destructive path journalism can take. It has been well-documented that MSNBC and CNN spent three years peddling all sorts of ultimately discredited Russiagate conspiracy theories by excluding from their airwaves anyone who dissented from or even questioned those conspiracies. Instead, they relied upon an increasingly homogenized army of former security state agents from the CIA, FBI, and NSA to propound, in unison, all sorts of claims about Trump and Russia that turned out to be false, and peppered their panels of “analysts” with journalists whose career skyrocketed exclusively by pushing maximalist Russiagate claims, often by relying on the same intelligence officials these cable outlets sat them next to.


Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald
That NBC & MSNBC hired as a "news analyst" John Brennan - who ran the CIA when the Trump/Russia investigation began & was a key player in the news he was shaping as a paid colleague of their reporters - is a huge ethical breach. And it produced this:

Embedded video
3,386
7:46 PM - Apr 1, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,598 people are talking about this


This trend — whereby diversity of opinion and dissent from orthodoxies are excluded from media discourse — is worsening rapidly due to two major factors. The first is that cable news programs are constructed to feed their audiences only self-affirming narratives that vindicate partisan loyalties. One liberal cable host told me that they receive ratings not for each show but for each segment, and they can see the ratings drop off — the remotes clicking away — if they put on the air anyone who criticizes the party to which that outlet is devoted (Democrats in the case of MSNBC and CNN, the GOP in the case of Fox).

But there’s another more recent and probably more dissent-quashing development: the disappearance of media jobs. Mass layoffs were already common in online journalism and local newspapers prior to the coronavirus pandemic, and have now turned into an industrywide massacre. With young journalists watching jobs disappearing en masse, the last thing they are going to want to do is question or challenge prevailing orthodoxies within their news outlet or, using Smith’s “Resistance Journalism” formulation, to “swim against the tides of social media” or question the evidence amassed against those “most disliked by the loudest voices.”

Affirming those orthodoxies can be career-promoting, while questioning them can be job-destroying. Consider the powerful incentives journalists face in an industry where jobs are disappearing so rapidly one can barely keep count. During Russiagate, I often heard from young journalists at large media outlets who expressed varying degrees of support for and agreement with the skepticism which I and a handful of other journalists were expressing, but they felt constrained to do so themselves, for good reason. They watched the reprisals and shunning doled out even to journalists with a long record of journalistic accomplishments and job security for the crime of Russiagate skepticism, such as Taibbi (similar to the way MSNBC fired Phil Donahue in 2002 for opposing the invasion of Iraq), and they know journalists with less stature and security than Taibbi could not risk incurring that collective wrath.

All professions and institutions suffer when a herd, groupthink mentality and the banning of dissent prevail. But few activities are corroded from such a pathology more than journalism is, which has as its core function skepticism and questioning of pieties. Journalism quickly transforms into a sickly, limp version of itself when it itself wages war on the virtues of dissent and airing a wide range of perspectives.

I do not know how valid are Smith’s critiques of Farrow’s journalism. But what I know for certain is that Smith’s broader diagnosis of “Resistance Journalism” is dead-on, and the harms it is causing are deep and enduring. When journalists know they will thrive by affirming pleasing falsehoods, and suffer when they insist on unpopular truths, journalism not only loses its societal value but becomes just another instrument for societal manipulation, deceit, and coercion.

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/18/ben ... ournalism/
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby cptmarginal » Wed May 20, 2020 9:37 pm

New NYPD press officer co-wrote The Intercept Russiagate story that landed source in prison

Image

The Intercept published a story that landed Reality Winner in prison, burning its third source. That article was co-authored by Richard Esposito, an embedded police reporter who is now the NYPD’s top spokesperson.

By Ben Norton - May 20, 2020

A co-author of a controversial report at The Intercept that landed its source in prison now works as the head of the New York Police Department’s press office.

The former journalist, Richard Esposito, had embedded for a long period inside the NYPD, developing close ties to US police agencies that were clear before The Intercept chose to work with him. However, the news website apparently did not see Esposito’s cop-friendly behavior as disqualifying or even suspicious.

Esposito and his longtime friend and colleague, Matthew Cole, a full-time reporter at The Intercept, were co-authors of a 2017 report on National Security Agency allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. The reporters disclosed sensitive information to US government agencies, which led to the outing of their confidential source, former NSA contractor Reality Winner, and her eventual imprisonment for five years.

Although this scandalous story was the only piece Esposito published at The Intercept, he was somehow assigned an official company email address as well as an author page that has since been removed from the website without explanation.

The same duo, Esposito and Cole, played an integral role in the arrest and imprisonment of another source, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, several years before they worked with The Intercept.

The Intercept’s record of burning sources extends well beyond Reality Winner. In 2018, former FBI agent Terry Albury was sentenced to four years in prison, after he leaked documents to the news website exposing the police agency’s widespread racism and anti-Muslim surveillance practices. One of the co-authors of the reports exposing the FBI, Cora Currier, remains an editor at The Intercept. The other co-author, Jenna McLaughlin, went on to work with CNN, Foreign Policy, and Yahoo News.

Next, in 2019, former NSA official Daniel Hale was indicted by a grand jury for allegedly leaking documents, also apparently to The Intercept. He faces up to 50 years in prison.

The troubling pattern raises serious questions about why sources of The Intercept, Richard Esposito, and Matthew Cole keep getting burned. Is it mere carelessness on the part of the reporters, or have US government agencies played a role?

[...]


Continued at link
cptmarginal
 
Posts: 2634
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby Elvis » Thu May 21, 2020 12:43 pm

Crowdstrike is an NPR funder, I just heard an ad (the 15 second blurbs NPR reads).
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6598
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby Grizzly » Thu May 21, 2020 11:45 pm

^This is my complete lack of surprise....
If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 3003
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri May 22, 2020 7:30 pm

Elvis » Thu May 21, 2020 12:43 pm wrote:Crowdstrike is an NPR funder, I just heard an ad (the 15 second blurbs NPR reads).


Crowdstrike does not appear among their lists of sponsors on NPR's 2018 or 2019 annual reports. Is it possible they were referring to an earlier report focused upon Crowdstrike; there have been several?
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests