First, they came for Alex Jones, precisely because Alex Jones is a loon that nobody wants to be seen defending.
That said, if you think that this was limited to Twitter, then you are more naive than a four week old kitten whose eyes have barely opened.
Note how Big Tech took coordinated action to ban deemed Bad Actors. And you can be sure that similar mechanisms existed in MSM outlets to transmit the Party Line.
Twitter just happens to be the one where we have proof.
I'm waiting for the Twitter Files related to the Parler assassination, as I'm sure Twitter was deeply involved, as well as their censoring of any alternative positions on Global Warming.
I discovered Substack a little over a year ago with Matt Taibbi, which led me to Glenn, and then Bari Weiss and more recently Sasha Stone. I supplement them with Real Clear Politics and Krystal and Saager and find that I've totally eliminated corporate media. Yeah, RCP is CM, but they post two opposing views on current topics, which at least helps to fact check.
The last remaining CM that I've held on to, since I've been reading it since the 70s, is the WSJ, and there, I only read the Op/Ed.
It's always interesting to see how people have changed their reading habits and why. One comment on what you write, though. Sometimes there are more than two opposing views. In fact, sometimes the "two opposing views" framework is used to obfuscate, to hide the truth, to distract.
If everyone approached things the way you do, we'd all be in a much better place. Let's face it, those of us who seek out journalism such as that provided by Taibbi and Greenwald, for example, are making an effort that most people seem not to be doing.
Yep. An entire nation of reporters doesn't use the exact same wording for articles unless they're getting their talking points from a central source. Since it's 1/6, I'll use examples from that day: "deadly riot" (only protestors killed), "violent insurrection" (without guns), "innocent bystander" (Ray Epps, #1 instigator and the only one to get a puff piece in the NYT).
Obviously the guy on camera telling people to go inside the capitol is the victim of a conspiracy theory and the only 'good' 1/6 protestor in the world.
I saw on Twitter that Scott Horton @scotthortonshow - was suspended on Twitter
My belief is that Musk simply will not be allowed, is not allowed, to enact anything like "free speech" on Twitter as thought and opinion control is central to the deep state, the permanent government, in a managed democracy. To make that happen the deep state will stop at nothing. They're like that.
I think it would be good, when such statements are posted, especially when, as here, they are in the form of quotations, that there be a link to the source. If Casey indeed made the statement, I would want to be able to share it with others, with proper attribution.
The quote is debated,[8] but even critics like Mick West do not question that the answer given on Quora is coming from Barbara Honegger herself.[9][10] The circumstances of the early 1980s would also suggest that this has been said in such a fashion.[11]
"When the First Amendment was enacted, it was designed not to protect some special credentialed corporate priesthood called “journalists” but was instead designed to protect the act of journalism, which all citizens, regardless of your title, with a printing press or a pen, not only had the right to do but were more than capable of doing."
The growing realization that the legacy/corporate media is a gaggle of elitist, careerist whores sucking up to the powerful has made this truth more important than ever. The gigantic edifice of honesty that they were able to create thanks to their mythology and their huge audiences has been burned down. We are now witnessing a de-centralization of news, thank god.
Few remember when each little Podunk had its own newspaper or even when most major cities had two or more competing dailies. We have lived through the consolidation of news outlets and the homogenization of their content. Now they are being exposed as PR for the powerful and continue the self-destruction that began with their Trump hysteria.
We are returning to the spirit of the free press as it may have been envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, rejecting the "special credentialed corporate priesthood" and supporting via subscription some highly talented independent citizen writers and reporters like Mr. Greenwald here.
Wikipedia does not permit citations to Substack articles (like this one) because it is on the Substack platform and Substack is considered by Wikipedia to be self-published and thus cannot be cited.
The Wikipedia article mainly quotes major media sources if they are critical of the Twitter Files. Major media outlets have not written articles that look at the Twitter Files in the manner of the analysis here.
If anyone is interested in discussing the coverage of the Twitter Files at Wikipedia you can create an account and participate on the "Talk" page about the way the "Twitter Files" article is being developed:
Wiki is like Yelp. I know how to edit out the BS on a restaurant review, and how to do the same for a Wiki article. Wiki does provide great information on many topics, but is clearly biased on anything political, or any science (climate, COVID, Gender) that has become politicized.
I do the same, but not everyone does. Most people don't have the energy, or the time, or the inclination, to look behind a restaurant review, let alone journalism on substantive issues. So what you do, and how you approach both Yelp and Wikipedia is good. The problem is that so many others do not, and seem to be conditioned to look askance at anyone who says things that are outside the accepted boundaries of "polite discussion." (I am reminded of the last scene in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers.")
Kathleen Cook (see adjacent comment) has previously provided information, via links to the source, showing the efforts to suppress discussions concerning the "Twitter Files." It was very illuminating information, and disquieting. It suggests that there ought, some time soon, to be reporting on the "Wikipedia Files."
I was thinking the other day that Wiki could use competition, It would be quite a challenge, but I'm guessing you could copy a fair amount nearly verbatim and avoid copyright laws, and then open it up to more neutral editors. I don't believe Wiki wants to be neutral, even though they may state that publicly.
So, after Elon buys Substack, that can be his next project,
O yes. That's it exactly. If you get on the radar of someone like this, they can make your Wikipedia work quite difficult. One person working on the Twitter Files went to my talk page to me "explain to me" why I didn't know what I was doing.
You're to be commended for your commitment to this. I joined Twitter in November and find that I'm now overloaded with media input. I've pared my Substack subscriptions down to five, and after Breaking Points and Twitter, am having trouble keeping up.
I don't have the energy to climb the Wiki editing learning curve, and if I did, I would likely end up getting banned.
Oddly I used to have classes comparing and discussing the merits of Britannica and American and World Book..so that is why I am so intrigued by Wikipedia.
But you should try editing. Even if it is just a fact or two to get the hang of it!
But this only happens if unbiased people are discouraged. Initially Wikipedia did not even want an article on "Twitter Files" and the article was scheduled to be deleted. had there not been people giving reasons why it deserved to remain following it might have been deleted. So, please use your considerable expertise to help Wikipedia be better.
I ran a search for "Wikipedia climate change edit" on my browser's search engine. https://search.brave.com/search?q=wikipedia+climate+change+edit&source=desktop The result were a plethora of articles like "🌐 Join our climate change Wikipedia edit-a-thon" "🌐 African Climate Change edit-a-thon - Meta", "Wikipedia:Meetup/Online edit-a-thon on climate change - November 2020 - Wikipedia" This last was posted on Wikipedia itself. These were the top returns. Not nearly as prominent on Google. If I were going to trace the history of suppression of a diversity of allowed opinions, I would start with the history of the Climate Change debate, and it's rational being about saving the world. Such lofty goals justify pretty much any means. There are immense fortunes being being made, even by such as Elon Musk. The US government is handing out billions to fight the menace, and promote solutions. Lot to protect here. Failure of this narrative would endanger great international consortia, and immense money flows that are attempting to reshape the world.
O, that's a very insightful approach. The work to catch up on the influence of Wikipedia could be the subject of intense scholarship. It is a lot more complex than we realize.
No need to ride the rail, pretending these big-media folks are jealous of real journalists ("enraged that they were left out of the reporting").
Their jobs are CIA et al. Full stop.
Sure, they may not admit it, even to themselves, because their loved ones think they're putting their Columbia degree to good use. But deep down, they must know -- and they obviously are -- fully a component of the corporate security state.
Any emotions, apparent or actual, tied to denunciations of actual journalism are irrelevant. These are not independent actors. If they were, they wouldn't have their jobs. It's not a choice within the job; the choice comes before taking the job. Join the security state / CIA and pretend to be a successful journalist; or be a journalist and live in the margins and be treated like a pariah.
Indeed, why care about the personalities at all. Mr. Wurtzel would be Mr. Brown, or Ms. Jackson, or whoever if Mr. Wurtzel didn't take the job. It's not like Mr. Wurtzel is exercising any judgment that exceeds a GM factory worker putting rivets in cars.
Exactly. The play is called far above the pay grade of these 'reporters', who are just tasked with trying to push the narrative in the most pleasing way.
One of Smith's assertions is that President Trump's Attorney General William Barr knew that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic before the 2020 election, but instead of saying so, authorized a team of 80 FBI agents in the Baltimore office to work to suppress the laptop story on Twitter, and the MSM in general.
It rather confirms that there is no democracy nor any political parties. Trump's administration suppressing news that would help Trump get elected.
This is already indicated in the twitter files by the fact that James Baker III, for decades a historically sleazy Republican operative, has offspring slinging for the Democratic security state at Twitter.
I remember Nancy Reagan writing in her memoirs - "“Although Jim did a lot for Ronnie, I always felt his main interest was Jim Baker,” Mrs. Reagan says."
One of the many reasons that I read Glenn is to get a cogent synopsis of what the Wurtzel's of the world are saying as this saves me the pain of reading them myself.
It's been many decades since I had ANY trust in the MSM. Basically the same for western politics and I used to be a card carrying member of the NDP, in Canada; a very moderate social democratic party. I would contribute my time and treasure in ridings that were hopelessly conservative. I've been "declining my ballot"; a way of protesting the system that has absorbed and corrupted everything. I'm ashamed that I let AOC and Bernie Sanders fool me, even doing some phone banking for Bernie Sanders. I actually purchased a physical copy of Matt Taiibis book "Griftopia" and the title summs up, not just the US but the whole western world. The regulatory agencies, CDC, FDA, FAA, everything connected to the financial industrial complexes and the food industrial complexes and everything else are hopelessly compromised and corrupted. Everything is a lie and not Plato's Noble Lie, just corrupt self serving lies. Social can not function without a commonly held mythology and that's where we're heading. Compare western feckless corrupt leadership where everything getting worse for the working classes to Russia or China where everything is getting better for the working classes where the leadership is real and corruption is being reduced to us in the western world. Perhaps when the "free lunch" ends in the western world things may change for the better but I'm not hopeful.
I say that Obama was the best POTUS 40 years…but the measurement bar is so low as to be subterranean. I think the same of Jagmeet Singh, except for only 17 years. Chretien gained my grudging respect…but against Paul Martin.
St. Obama made Ukraine coup happen as well as Russia-gate immense hoax. Current tragedy and horror in Ukraine is one of many results. He was selected and elected by his organization - he was and id CIA operative (like his mother also).
A lot to digest but much better that anything "reported" by the general media. The entire industry has been exposed as a manipulative, lying organized group of disinformation specialists. Just wondering after Musk's purchase of Twitter what happened to that network of government/media censors operating on a daily basis to mislead and lie to the American public. Is the structure and bureaucratic organization still intact? Can and will they be called before an investigative committee to explain their roles in this trashing of the First Amendment and what if any violations of law were being carried out by taxpayer funded government drones? This onion will take some experts and considerable time to fully expose and understand. If the legacy media keeps up their smokescreen they like the buggy whip of old will fade into oblivion and be relegated to the dustbin of history.
If this can't happen because of government/media actions then the basis for American freedom will cease to exist and any revolution will be easily be explained and justified by those seeking to preserve the Constitutional Republic any means necessary. Politicians and their lack of integrity are then usual cause for any government to fall or be removed by aggrieved citizens. The clock is ticking let's hope the voters can reverse this dangerous course.
Unfortunately I have found Wikipedia to be a terribly run dishonest platform that allows distortion, outright lies and unfounded edits to too much of its material. They are a part of the media machine and don't seem to have much integrity. I supported them at one time but have found too many instances where they just outright misinformed or lied about some topic or another. Like Google search they are utilized to misdirect, misinform and generally push a POV that is part of a political ideology that supports censorship and outright banning of information not part of their agenda. In short they have become a running joke among serious people.
I, too, used to support Wikipedia with $50 donations until I realized that they scrub certain entries of ethnic, religious, familal identifying info on particular people. My last donation was $2.46.
It's not Wikipedia but the people who choose to be editors. If more people have a bias (even if undeclared) the article will be biased. Take me. I like to edit about libraries because I love libraries. When I read a news article about libraries, I sometimes add a citation. I don't cite everything I read. If you looked at my list of contributions you would think--boy howdy, this editor has a bias towards library positivity.
BUT editors are self-selected. No one tells me to do this. Same with political articles. I know it seems the articles are biased but that is because of who edits the articles. If commentors at Substack (most of whom are keenly astute and often include citations) would be Wikipedia editors, the narrative might be different.
Self-selected yes, but one must assume that many are in fact agents or at least true believers on one of their never-ending mission.
I once tried to edit an erroneous article about which I had personal knowledge, but to my dismay, the editors kept reverting it back to a demonstrable lie. In the end they simply wore me out.
My funniest experience was working on the Ian Fleming page. Fleming was a book collector and founded the long-standing journal, The Book Collector, AS IT SAYS ON THE JOURNAL WEBSITE: https://www.thebookcollector.co.uk/
I tried to add this fact to the Ian Fleming page, but it evidently went against the Fleming fans' image, so they deleted it over and over. I finally gave up and put the fact on the Book Collector Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_Collector
What I have found in pages like the one for Twitter Files is to hang in and keep making your point at the "Talk" page and sometimes it helps. For example, enough people said the Twitter Files page should exist when it was scheduled for deletion. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files
Editing public records by individuals requires a few important things. Integrity, knowledge and lack of a political agenda. Problem is way too many people in this day and age utilize anything and everything they can to push their personal agenda. Lack of integrity seems pretty widespread with politics being the driving force behind too many "editors" and less that accurate edits. Without some fact checking by the host platform it becomes a toxic stew of disinformation and outright lies masquerading as an encyclopedia. The idea behind Wikipedia seems well intended but the practice not even close to ideal. Open editing by anyone with a keyboard is just not feasible is the real world.
I think it is decent for nonpolitical topics. I did jump in on Twitter Files as I knew there would be a need for factual reporting, but it seems that just reporting they exist is not appreciated,
"The Advertising Model" = federally subsidized nonsense ads. The Universal Service Fund pays a network of shell telecom companies to deliver the fake ads under the guise of delivering "rural broadband" service. Once the money starts flowing regular, the working stiff journalists fall in line. The companies creating fake ads are compensated by the telecom shell companies for their content and the shell companies are subsidized based on how much content they deliver. Twitter and the other social media companies are getting their USF money from the fake ad creators. Everybody is getting a cut, no questions are being asked.
Someone should consider a Freedom of Information Act inquiry as to how many FBI agents were assigned to this, for each major news outlet, and what the legislative authorization for the expenditure was. Alternatively, if some reader actually had a tweet silenced, they might litigate, including forcing the disclosure of the name of the person who sent the suppression notice, so that the person may be sued.
First, they came for Alex Jones, precisely because Alex Jones is a loon that nobody wants to be seen defending.
That said, if you think that this was limited to Twitter, then you are more naive than a four week old kitten whose eyes have barely opened.
Note how Big Tech took coordinated action to ban deemed Bad Actors. And you can be sure that similar mechanisms existed in MSM outlets to transmit the Party Line.
Twitter just happens to be the one where we have proof.
I'm waiting for the Twitter Files related to the Parler assassination, as I'm sure Twitter was deeply involved, as well as their censoring of any alternative positions on Global Warming.
I discovered Substack a little over a year ago with Matt Taibbi, which led me to Glenn, and then Bari Weiss and more recently Sasha Stone. I supplement them with Real Clear Politics and Krystal and Saager and find that I've totally eliminated corporate media. Yeah, RCP is CM, but they post two opposing views on current topics, which at least helps to fact check.
The last remaining CM that I've held on to, since I've been reading it since the 70s, is the WSJ, and there, I only read the Op/Ed.
It's always interesting to see how people have changed their reading habits and why. One comment on what you write, though. Sometimes there are more than two opposing views. In fact, sometimes the "two opposing views" framework is used to obfuscate, to hide the truth, to distract.
Agree. Sabby makes that point that there is not always a right/left argument.
But RCP at least starts you off with the two traditional sides, and if it's something I feel is an important issue, I start researching from there.
If everyone approached things the way you do, we'd all be in a much better place. Let's face it, those of us who seek out journalism such as that provided by Taibbi and Greenwald, for example, are making an effort that most people seem not to be doing.
Why thank you! I'm just kind of curious, and hate cognitive dissonance.
I believe someone should be able to effectively debate either side of an issue if they want to opine on it, and I like to opine.
A very small percentage of opiners are capable of meeting that standard.
I'm not sure that 'opiners' is a word, but if it isn't, it should be.
So, what's with Blimbax?
Yep. An entire nation of reporters doesn't use the exact same wording for articles unless they're getting their talking points from a central source. Since it's 1/6, I'll use examples from that day: "deadly riot" (only protestors killed), "violent insurrection" (without guns), "innocent bystander" (Ray Epps, #1 instigator and the only one to get a puff piece in the NYT).
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/politics/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-ray-epps.html
--------
Obviously the guy on camera telling people to go inside the capitol is the victim of a conspiracy theory and the only 'good' 1/6 protestor in the world.
And just yesterday, Scott Horton.
Scott's sin is being antiwar.
"Crazy", I know.
New boss got told. "National security" "We know where your kids go to school"
Explain, please.
I saw on Twitter that Scott Horton @scotthortonshow - was suspended on Twitter
My belief is that Musk simply will not be allowed, is not allowed, to enact anything like "free speech" on Twitter as thought and opinion control is central to the deep state, the permanent government, in a managed democracy. To make that happen the deep state will stop at nothing. They're like that.
*Scott runs Antiwar.com
Why am I not surprised?
Because you are paying attention!
*^ this. All of this. Exactly. That’s why it isn’t being covered. Eventually someone will blow that whistle.
Operation Mockingbird has evolved over the years not gone away
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
And so it was.
I think it would be good, when such statements are posted, especially when, as here, they are in the form of quotations, that there be a link to the source. If Casey indeed made the statement, I would want to be able to share it with others, with proper attribution.
I agree. I was lazy.
The quote is debated,[8] but even critics like Mick West do not question that the answer given on Quora is coming from Barbara Honegger herself.[9][10] The circumstances of the early 1980s would also suggest that this has been said in such a fashion.[11]
https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/William_Casey
okay, thanks.
But but but that would be against the law!!?!
“When the law breaks the law, there ain’t no law” — Billy Jack
οὐ παύσεσθε ἡμῖν ὑπεζωσμένοις ξίφη νόμους ἀναγινώσκοντες: "Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords." - Pompey
This passing comment is extremely important:
"When the First Amendment was enacted, it was designed not to protect some special credentialed corporate priesthood called “journalists” but was instead designed to protect the act of journalism, which all citizens, regardless of your title, with a printing press or a pen, not only had the right to do but were more than capable of doing."
The growing realization that the legacy/corporate media is a gaggle of elitist, careerist whores sucking up to the powerful has made this truth more important than ever. The gigantic edifice of honesty that they were able to create thanks to their mythology and their huge audiences has been burned down. We are now witnessing a de-centralization of news, thank god.
Few remember when each little Podunk had its own newspaper or even when most major cities had two or more competing dailies. We have lived through the consolidation of news outlets and the homogenization of their content. Now they are being exposed as PR for the powerful and continue the self-destruction that began with their Trump hysteria.
We are returning to the spirit of the free press as it may have been envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, rejecting the "special credentialed corporate priesthood" and supporting via subscription some highly talented independent citizen writers and reporters like Mr. Greenwald here.
Yes! Journalism is an ACTION, not a profession!
Yes, the failure of major media outlets to cover the Twitter Files has resulted in it being very difficult to document the Twitter Files.
Wikipedia will be the platform most people will go for an overview.
Here is the Wikipedia article on the Twitter Files:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
Wikipedia does not permit citations to Substack articles (like this one) because it is on the Substack platform and Substack is considered by Wikipedia to be self-published and thus cannot be cited.
Also, most of the media that have covered the Twitter Files--are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia: HERE are Reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
The Wikipedia article mainly quotes major media sources if they are critical of the Twitter Files. Major media outlets have not written articles that look at the Twitter Files in the manner of the analysis here.
If anyone is interested in discussing the coverage of the Twitter Files at Wikipedia you can create an account and participate on the "Talk" page about the way the "Twitter Files" article is being developed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files
It is very helpful to review the "Talk" pages to understand the process.
I believe it is important to become experienced in editing Wikipedia as it is the #1 place the general public goes for information overviews.
Wikipedia strives for a NPOV (neutral point of view) but editors who are all volunteers must be there to work on the articles.
If you are not yet an editor at Wikipedia (an editor is anyone who edits, so anyone can be an editor) --Here is how to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction
Wiki is like Yelp. I know how to edit out the BS on a restaurant review, and how to do the same for a Wiki article. Wiki does provide great information on many topics, but is clearly biased on anything political, or any science (climate, COVID, Gender) that has become politicized.
I do the same, but not everyone does. Most people don't have the energy, or the time, or the inclination, to look behind a restaurant review, let alone journalism on substantive issues. So what you do, and how you approach both Yelp and Wikipedia is good. The problem is that so many others do not, and seem to be conditioned to look askance at anyone who says things that are outside the accepted boundaries of "polite discussion." (I am reminded of the last scene in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers.")
Kathleen Cook (see adjacent comment) has previously provided information, via links to the source, showing the efforts to suppress discussions concerning the "Twitter Files." It was very illuminating information, and disquieting. It suggests that there ought, some time soon, to be reporting on the "Wikipedia Files."
I was thinking the other day that Wiki could use competition, It would be quite a challenge, but I'm guessing you could copy a fair amount nearly verbatim and avoid copyright laws, and then open it up to more neutral editors. I don't believe Wiki wants to be neutral, even though they may state that publicly.
So, after Elon buys Substack, that can be his next project,
Energy, time, inclination.
Energy- Great point. Twitter Files gave me energy but on many topics I don't. There are editors who seem like they are 24/7.
Time- I work online and I have specific work to do but no time frame, so I have the time.
Inclination-Yes, I have seen lots of pages at Wikipedia that need work but am not inclined to do the research.
And I will add the capacity to keep on if they knock you down-- as they will-- citing rules and regulations. But these Twitter Files are so important.
And then there is "Phillip Cross"
https://sputniknews.com/20180516/cross-galloway-wikipedia-obsession-1064505256.html
O yes. That's it exactly. If you get on the radar of someone like this, they can make your Wikipedia work quite difficult. One person working on the Twitter Files went to my talk page to me "explain to me" why I didn't know what I was doing.
You're to be commended for your commitment to this. I joined Twitter in November and find that I'm now overloaded with media input. I've pared my Substack subscriptions down to five, and after Breaking Points and Twitter, am having trouble keeping up.
I don't have the energy to climb the Wiki editing learning curve, and if I did, I would likely end up getting banned.
Oddly I used to have classes comparing and discussing the merits of Britannica and American and World Book..so that is why I am so intrigued by Wikipedia.
But you should try editing. Even if it is just a fact or two to get the hang of it!
But this only happens if unbiased people are discouraged. Initially Wikipedia did not even want an article on "Twitter Files" and the article was scheduled to be deleted. had there not been people giving reasons why it deserved to remain following it might have been deleted. So, please use your considerable expertise to help Wikipedia be better.
Thank you for the thoughtful observations and information.
Thanks !!
Wikipedia is as penetrated by FBI spooks as Twitter -- see statements on that by Wikipedia founder....
I ran a search for "Wikipedia climate change edit" on my browser's search engine. https://search.brave.com/search?q=wikipedia+climate+change+edit&source=desktop The result were a plethora of articles like "🌐 Join our climate change Wikipedia edit-a-thon" "🌐 African Climate Change edit-a-thon - Meta", "Wikipedia:Meetup/Online edit-a-thon on climate change - November 2020 - Wikipedia" This last was posted on Wikipedia itself. These were the top returns. Not nearly as prominent on Google. If I were going to trace the history of suppression of a diversity of allowed opinions, I would start with the history of the Climate Change debate, and it's rational being about saving the world. Such lofty goals justify pretty much any means. There are immense fortunes being being made, even by such as Elon Musk. The US government is handing out billions to fight the menace, and promote solutions. Lot to protect here. Failure of this narrative would endanger great international consortia, and immense money flows that are attempting to reshape the world.
O, that's a very insightful approach. The work to catch up on the influence of Wikipedia could be the subject of intense scholarship. It is a lot more complex than we realize.
They're literally paid to not cover the stories, so they won't cover the stories. That's why journalism is being done on places like Substack instead!
They are being paid to make fools of themselves and they are earning every penny.
Corporate journalism has been captured just like all other white collar professions. All have to be rebuilt from scratch.
Corporate journalism(an oxymoron)…has always been that way.
No need to ride the rail, pretending these big-media folks are jealous of real journalists ("enraged that they were left out of the reporting").
Their jobs are CIA et al. Full stop.
Sure, they may not admit it, even to themselves, because their loved ones think they're putting their Columbia degree to good use. But deep down, they must know -- and they obviously are -- fully a component of the corporate security state.
Any emotions, apparent or actual, tied to denunciations of actual journalism are irrelevant. These are not independent actors. If they were, they wouldn't have their jobs. It's not a choice within the job; the choice comes before taking the job. Join the security state / CIA and pretend to be a successful journalist; or be a journalist and live in the margins and be treated like a pariah.
Indeed, why care about the personalities at all. Mr. Wurtzel would be Mr. Brown, or Ms. Jackson, or whoever if Mr. Wurtzel didn't take the job. It's not like Mr. Wurtzel is exercising any judgment that exceeds a GM factory worker putting rivets in cars.
Exactly. The play is called far above the pay grade of these 'reporters', who are just tasked with trying to push the narrative in the most pleasing way.
Lee Smith in Tablet magazine has a good description of the DOJ/FBI conspirators revealed by the Twitter files https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-the-fbi-hacked-twitter-lee-smith.
One of Smith's assertions is that President Trump's Attorney General William Barr knew that the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic before the 2020 election, but instead of saying so, authorized a team of 80 FBI agents in the Baltimore office to work to suppress the laptop story on Twitter, and the MSM in general.
This is huge, if true.
It rather confirms that there is no democracy nor any political parties. Trump's administration suppressing news that would help Trump get elected.
This is already indicated in the twitter files by the fact that James Baker III, for decades a historically sleazy Republican operative, has offspring slinging for the Democratic security state at Twitter.
I remember Nancy Reagan writing in her memoirs - "“Although Jim did a lot for Ronnie, I always felt his main interest was Jim Baker,” Mrs. Reagan says."
Thanks a lot !!!
FYI - a great interview with Rumble CEO on TC Today: "The Rise of Rumble"
What is "TC"?
Tucker Carlson
Thank you Mr. Greenwald for the depth you add to this important story.
How absurd it is, to have the media that passed off this as conspiracy theory, now call it "old news".
One of the many reasons that I read Glenn is to get a cogent synopsis of what the Wurtzel's of the world are saying as this saves me the pain of reading them myself.
Thanks Glenn!
It's been many decades since I had ANY trust in the MSM. Basically the same for western politics and I used to be a card carrying member of the NDP, in Canada; a very moderate social democratic party. I would contribute my time and treasure in ridings that were hopelessly conservative. I've been "declining my ballot"; a way of protesting the system that has absorbed and corrupted everything. I'm ashamed that I let AOC and Bernie Sanders fool me, even doing some phone banking for Bernie Sanders. I actually purchased a physical copy of Matt Taiibis book "Griftopia" and the title summs up, not just the US but the whole western world. The regulatory agencies, CDC, FDA, FAA, everything connected to the financial industrial complexes and the food industrial complexes and everything else are hopelessly compromised and corrupted. Everything is a lie and not Plato's Noble Lie, just corrupt self serving lies. Social can not function without a commonly held mythology and that's where we're heading. Compare western feckless corrupt leadership where everything getting worse for the working classes to Russia or China where everything is getting better for the working classes where the leadership is real and corruption is being reduced to us in the western world. Perhaps when the "free lunch" ends in the western world things may change for the better but I'm not hopeful.
Someone said, "In the U.S., the corporations control the government; in China, the government controls the corporations".
Just ask Jack Ma.
And in the end we got oh so photogenic but principle free Jagmeet Singh.
I say that Obama was the best POTUS 40 years…but the measurement bar is so low as to be subterranean. I think the same of Jagmeet Singh, except for only 17 years. Chretien gained my grudging respect…but against Paul Martin.
St. Obama made Ukraine coup happen as well as Russia-gate immense hoax. Current tragedy and horror in Ukraine is one of many results. He was selected and elected by his organization - he was and id CIA operative (like his mother also).
I have often said that Obama, "the candidate from Langley", was purpose-built to take the catbird seat.
A lot to digest but much better that anything "reported" by the general media. The entire industry has been exposed as a manipulative, lying organized group of disinformation specialists. Just wondering after Musk's purchase of Twitter what happened to that network of government/media censors operating on a daily basis to mislead and lie to the American public. Is the structure and bureaucratic organization still intact? Can and will they be called before an investigative committee to explain their roles in this trashing of the First Amendment and what if any violations of law were being carried out by taxpayer funded government drones? This onion will take some experts and considerable time to fully expose and understand. If the legacy media keeps up their smokescreen they like the buggy whip of old will fade into oblivion and be relegated to the dustbin of history.
If this can't happen because of government/media actions then the basis for American freedom will cease to exist and any revolution will be easily be explained and justified by those seeking to preserve the Constitutional Republic any means necessary. Politicians and their lack of integrity are then usual cause for any government to fall or be removed by aggrieved citizens. The clock is ticking let's hope the voters can reverse this dangerous course.
All you say is insightful. Please read my post about the need to work on these issues at Wikipedia. It takes some time, but you can make a difference.
Unfortunately I have found Wikipedia to be a terribly run dishonest platform that allows distortion, outright lies and unfounded edits to too much of its material. They are a part of the media machine and don't seem to have much integrity. I supported them at one time but have found too many instances where they just outright misinformed or lied about some topic or another. Like Google search they are utilized to misdirect, misinform and generally push a POV that is part of a political ideology that supports censorship and outright banning of information not part of their agenda. In short they have become a running joke among serious people.
I, too, used to support Wikipedia with $50 donations until I realized that they scrub certain entries of ethnic, religious, familal identifying info on particular people. My last donation was $2.46.
It's not Wikipedia but the people who choose to be editors. If more people have a bias (even if undeclared) the article will be biased. Take me. I like to edit about libraries because I love libraries. When I read a news article about libraries, I sometimes add a citation. I don't cite everything I read. If you looked at my list of contributions you would think--boy howdy, this editor has a bias towards library positivity.
BUT editors are self-selected. No one tells me to do this. Same with political articles. I know it seems the articles are biased but that is because of who edits the articles. If commentors at Substack (most of whom are keenly astute and often include citations) would be Wikipedia editors, the narrative might be different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction
Self-selected yes, but one must assume that many are in fact agents or at least true believers on one of their never-ending mission.
I once tried to edit an erroneous article about which I had personal knowledge, but to my dismay, the editors kept reverting it back to a demonstrable lie. In the end they simply wore me out.
My funniest experience was working on the Ian Fleming page. Fleming was a book collector and founded the long-standing journal, The Book Collector, AS IT SAYS ON THE JOURNAL WEBSITE: https://www.thebookcollector.co.uk/
I tried to add this fact to the Ian Fleming page, but it evidently went against the Fleming fans' image, so they deleted it over and over. I finally gave up and put the fact on the Book Collector Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_Collector
What I have found in pages like the one for Twitter Files is to hang in and keep making your point at the "Talk" page and sometimes it helps. For example, enough people said the Twitter Files page should exist when it was scheduled for deletion. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files
Not all of it. More people with different experience need to edit.
Editing public records by individuals requires a few important things. Integrity, knowledge and lack of a political agenda. Problem is way too many people in this day and age utilize anything and everything they can to push their personal agenda. Lack of integrity seems pretty widespread with politics being the driving force behind too many "editors" and less that accurate edits. Without some fact checking by the host platform it becomes a toxic stew of disinformation and outright lies masquerading as an encyclopedia. The idea behind Wikipedia seems well intended but the practice not even close to ideal. Open editing by anyone with a keyboard is just not feasible is the real world.
I think it is decent for nonpolitical topics. I did jump in on Twitter Files as I knew there would be a need for factual reporting, but it seems that just reporting they exist is not appreciated,
"The Advertising Model" = federally subsidized nonsense ads. The Universal Service Fund pays a network of shell telecom companies to deliver the fake ads under the guise of delivering "rural broadband" service. Once the money starts flowing regular, the working stiff journalists fall in line. The companies creating fake ads are compensated by the telecom shell companies for their content and the shell companies are subsidized based on how much content they deliver. Twitter and the other social media companies are getting their USF money from the fake ad creators. Everybody is getting a cut, no questions are being asked.
Someone should consider a Freedom of Information Act inquiry as to how many FBI agents were assigned to this, for each major news outlet, and what the legislative authorization for the expenditure was. Alternatively, if some reader actually had a tweet silenced, they might litigate, including forcing the disclosure of the name of the person who sent the suppression notice, so that the person may be sued.
Can't express how grateful for those like Glenn, Bari and Matt that promote real journalism. Alex also