Former Trump DHS official, now CNN analyst, Miles Taylor got caught blatantly lying on CNN's airwaves to host Anderson Cooper, but The Most Trusted Name In News™ doesn't mind at all.
I don't think think the first example is a good example. I mean everything you say is true but ostensibly at least this is an anonymous source covering up his identity, this surely could be considered legitimate.
Again *austensibly* but you don't make a clear attempt to debunk the premise: CNN hired a whistleblower who covered up his identity. As a result it comes across disengenious. As though you are suggesting that a source can't lie to protect their identity.
I don't get it. It would be like suggesting you shouldn't have published Snowden because he lied to his employer (not at all comparable, I know, but that is the argument that I think this article opens you to).
With all due respect, Glenn, we all have come to this realization. But no one talks about how society should address these issues. And that is what I would like serious and responsible journalists like yourself begin to address. Serious harm is being done by this systemic gaslighting of the American people. A conversation needs to be started about how to counter this in a meaningful and effective manner without sacrificing the protections of the First Amendment. My personal thoughts are is that entities that report "news" (based upon some reasonable legal definition) and that reach some threshhold audience are subject to higher legal standards for truthful reporting & honest contextualization of such reporting, with no limit on who can initiate such lawsuits, and damages set sufficiently high to incentivize lawsuit initiators to hold the gaslighters accountable.
Cut the cord. Give your dollars to Glenn, Matt, and other honest journalists. The corporate liars can’t survive without viewers. Hard to imagine a group of people more dishonest. “Fake news” - 45 was right again!
Glenn, your subscription system isn't working. I tried earlier & it claimed I'd paid, also I received a thanks email from you...But, they never asked for my credit card info to actually charge the $50. I need to pay up; you're more than worth it! Jean
One of the most disturbing recent trends to me is that, as you mentioned, these former heads of the security apparatuses are now high paid members of the media.
I'm not particularly optimistic about any outcome in this election, but one of my concerns is that these people are going to move back into government or continue in their media jobs as an arm of the state.
To be clear, John Brennan and James Clapper are both criminals. They have both committed violations of civil liberties (among other things) domestically and human rights abroad. Regardless of peoples political affiliations, regardless of who people want to win, I do not understand how people like this - operatives of the security state - can be held up as people that we should listen to or that should in any way be involved with the operation of our government. They, and their ilk, are disgusting, despicable human beings.
I hope I'm wrong and I hope things change, but I'm not optimistic about it. In my opinion what's likely to happen is that these Bush-era war criminals (including the cadre of neo-cons) will be welcomed back into the fold and nobody will bat an eye, because 'Trump has been defeated, so everything's great now'. There's already whispers of this with the new reports of Biden proposing GOP members for his cabinet.
I guess it wouldn't be surprising and it won't be anything new. But, it is depressing and I just wish that we had something else to look forward to.
I know this is kind of off topic, but I'm starting to feel some elation that what Glenn's done may start a movement. Seriously, how many ethical journalists are employed by newsrooms all over the country/world that try to live with the cognitive dissonance that the liberal corporate newsroom has instilled. I'm sure there's ton's of new journalism grad (though most writers on SM don't have journalism degrees) suckups ready to get those jobs, so nobody wants to step out of line as they're simply a commodity.
How do we start the new journalism model? The first step is to pledge an independence from political bias. Facts are facts and should be reported without subjective terms.
I'm helping a community college student with his writing. For a small research based presentation he HAS to use only 'reliable' sources of information: The NYT, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or NPR.org. To think that a college prof. thinks these places are legit is amazing. Luckily, yours truly is there to run interference.
I haven't ever had cable, so I never got hooked on CNN, though I have seen its content occasionally online.
That said, this reporting just adds to the huge stack of facts that basically tell us that the Main Stream Media is untrustworthy and a huge fraction of it is nothing more than propaganda, designed to manipulate us.
I have a lot of respect for your work, but this piece is kind of like saying that water is wet. Would love for you to report on big tech's censorship of anyone who dares to question official COVID narratives (including physicians and scientists). It is not healthy for a democracy to discourage scientific debate and discussions.
The state of journalism today is as credible as the tabloids were when I was growing up in the 60s-70s. The difference is that back then all but the extremely naïve knew it was BS. The difference is that now most believe what they are told.
I won't watch CNN anymore because they are both disingenuous and biased. And, they are not the only one. I've read entire articles in the NYTimes which were based entirely on disinformation. And the moderated comments, sometimes hundreds of them, discussing the various facets and details of the disinformation and often lauding the people who were described as participants in the (near imaginary) event. We are increasingly building a society based on falsehoods, much like the old Soviet Union which finally collapsed, in large part due to its duplicity.
I commend CNN for their transparency. People know what they are getting when they tune in and I sometimes watch it myself to determine what is not true. Those who saw Miles Taylor deny it on CNN got the inside scoop on the identity of Anonymous.
The skeptical will ask, "What if CNN mixes in the truth sometimes, just to catch people off guard?" This is over-thinking things. It might happen occasionally, but in general, CNN is one of the most reliable negative indicators out there.
I don't think think the first example is a good example. I mean everything you say is true but ostensibly at least this is an anonymous source covering up his identity, this surely could be considered legitimate.
Again *austensibly* but you don't make a clear attempt to debunk the premise: CNN hired a whistleblower who covered up his identity. As a result it comes across disengenious. As though you are suggesting that a source can't lie to protect their identity.
I don't get it. It would be like suggesting you shouldn't have published Snowden because he lied to his employer (not at all comparable, I know, but that is the argument that I think this article opens you to).
Love your work and wish you all the best
With all due respect, Glenn, we all have come to this realization. But no one talks about how society should address these issues. And that is what I would like serious and responsible journalists like yourself begin to address. Serious harm is being done by this systemic gaslighting of the American people. A conversation needs to be started about how to counter this in a meaningful and effective manner without sacrificing the protections of the First Amendment. My personal thoughts are is that entities that report "news" (based upon some reasonable legal definition) and that reach some threshhold audience are subject to higher legal standards for truthful reporting & honest contextualization of such reporting, with no limit on who can initiate such lawsuits, and damages set sufficiently high to incentivize lawsuit initiators to hold the gaslighters accountable.
thank God for Glenn and Matt... wisps of sanity in a maelstrom of unethical unprincipled garbage from the MSM
Cut the cord. Give your dollars to Glenn, Matt, and other honest journalists. The corporate liars can’t survive without viewers. Hard to imagine a group of people more dishonest. “Fake news” - 45 was right again!
Glenn, your subscription system isn't working. I tried earlier & it claimed I'd paid, also I received a thanks email from you...But, they never asked for my credit card info to actually charge the $50. I need to pay up; you're more than worth it! Jean
One of the most disturbing recent trends to me is that, as you mentioned, these former heads of the security apparatuses are now high paid members of the media.
I'm not particularly optimistic about any outcome in this election, but one of my concerns is that these people are going to move back into government or continue in their media jobs as an arm of the state.
To be clear, John Brennan and James Clapper are both criminals. They have both committed violations of civil liberties (among other things) domestically and human rights abroad. Regardless of peoples political affiliations, regardless of who people want to win, I do not understand how people like this - operatives of the security state - can be held up as people that we should listen to or that should in any way be involved with the operation of our government. They, and their ilk, are disgusting, despicable human beings.
I hope I'm wrong and I hope things change, but I'm not optimistic about it. In my opinion what's likely to happen is that these Bush-era war criminals (including the cadre of neo-cons) will be welcomed back into the fold and nobody will bat an eye, because 'Trump has been defeated, so everything's great now'. There's already whispers of this with the new reports of Biden proposing GOP members for his cabinet.
I guess it wouldn't be surprising and it won't be anything new. But, it is depressing and I just wish that we had something else to look forward to.
I know this is kind of off topic, but I'm starting to feel some elation that what Glenn's done may start a movement. Seriously, how many ethical journalists are employed by newsrooms all over the country/world that try to live with the cognitive dissonance that the liberal corporate newsroom has instilled. I'm sure there's ton's of new journalism grad (though most writers on SM don't have journalism degrees) suckups ready to get those jobs, so nobody wants to step out of line as they're simply a commodity.
How do we start the new journalism model? The first step is to pledge an independence from political bias. Facts are facts and should be reported without subjective terms.
Today, an amazing journalist died - Robert Fisk - he wrote and spoke about similar media issues - here is what he said nearly ten years ago https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2010/5/25/journalism-and-the-words-of-power
I'm helping a community college student with his writing. For a small research based presentation he HAS to use only 'reliable' sources of information: The NYT, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN or NPR.org. To think that a college prof. thinks these places are legit is amazing. Luckily, yours truly is there to run interference.
Superb article and this Substack platform is great. Wishing you much success and looking forward to reading more, even if we disagree.
I haven't ever had cable, so I never got hooked on CNN, though I have seen its content occasionally online.
That said, this reporting just adds to the huge stack of facts that basically tell us that the Main Stream Media is untrustworthy and a huge fraction of it is nothing more than propaganda, designed to manipulate us.
I have a lot of respect for your work, but this piece is kind of like saying that water is wet. Would love for you to report on big tech's censorship of anyone who dares to question official COVID narratives (including physicians and scientists). It is not healthy for a democracy to discourage scientific debate and discussions.
The state of journalism today is as credible as the tabloids were when I was growing up in the 60s-70s. The difference is that back then all but the extremely naïve knew it was BS. The difference is that now most believe what they are told.
I won't watch CNN anymore because they are both disingenuous and biased. And, they are not the only one. I've read entire articles in the NYTimes which were based entirely on disinformation. And the moderated comments, sometimes hundreds of them, discussing the various facets and details of the disinformation and often lauding the people who were described as participants in the (near imaginary) event. We are increasingly building a society based on falsehoods, much like the old Soviet Union which finally collapsed, in large part due to its duplicity.
I commend CNN for their transparency. People know what they are getting when they tune in and I sometimes watch it myself to determine what is not true. Those who saw Miles Taylor deny it on CNN got the inside scoop on the identity of Anonymous.
The skeptical will ask, "What if CNN mixes in the truth sometimes, just to catch people off guard?" This is over-thinking things. It might happen occasionally, but in general, CNN is one of the most reliable negative indicators out there.
Heck, lying when directed to is probably a job requirement, just one they don't advertise too often.