MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Glenn Greenwald's take on the media allegations of Trump's collusion with Russia.
"Over and over, major U.S. media outlets have published claims about the Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false — always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources that these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false. "
Comments
by NCD on Tue, 06/27/2017 - 11:35pm
As in virtually all punditry on the net, Greenwald is attempting to present a case in a way that brings the reader to agreement with his conclusions. In this case, as usual, he lays out a bunch of dots and then connects them to create the picture in his reader’s mind that he believes represents reality. I think we all agree that there is an abundance of punditry on the net based on bullshit and twisting or spinning of the known facts and often with outright lying. I don’t see that as the case here but maybe you do. Is that right? If so, can you give an example in the piece at hand? You opined here at Dag as The Intercept was being established and before it had ever published anything, that it would be a useless source because Greenwald was associated with it. Your bias on that issue is on display once again. You do not dispute a single thing out of the many examples that were offered as supporting evidence in the article. What you in fact do is offer a link in which you, by proxy, call Greenwald an asshole. Maybe he is, but so what if he has produced valid dots that paint an accurate picture that is worth our seeing? Yes, that last part can be debated fairly but not with ad hominem crap dismissal. The author of your link boasts proudly of lowering the level of political discourse and the comments that follow show how very successful she is among most who responded but I don’t see anything that can be learned there except that there are lots of
assholespeople reading her who satisfy themselves and some others by vociferously lowering the level of political discourse to that displayed the blog owner.Hat-tip to PP for linking to an article at The Observer. With that endorsement of the site we can be confident that The Observer is validated as a reliable source and that it is worth our time to read and to give some credence to. Here is what they have to say on the same subject that Lurker offered up, presumably because he saw it of some value beyond fodder for knee-jerk jerkery.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 12:41pm
Greenwald says:
Sorry but Greenwald is a self righteous blowhard, and likely on Putin's payroll.
by NCD on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 12:54pm
Yeah, they found an angry response indicative of frustration. He should have restrained himself, but I can see where his angry frustration comes from.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 1:25pm
FWIW, just one person: I never get an sense of anger from Greenwald's writing, but I often get a sense of calculated arrogance. Which seems to be quite common among those who went to NYU law school as he did, so maybe it's not his fault, just nobless oblige, listen my children to what I say...must admit that the examples I have met in person seem to have no clue about how irritating their manner is...
by artappraiser on Thu, 06/29/2017 - 12:43am
It seems that corrections were made to the stories in question. The stories do not mean that Russia did not attempt to hack the election.
James O'Keefe is a guy with questionable methods. A crony interviewed an Atlanta based health editor for CNN and got some snippets that sound interesting. But given O'Keefe as a source, the comments from "CNN" cannot be trusted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont-see-in-okee...
I find nothing that makes me link Russia did not hack the election. Trump makes himself look guilty by failing to tell government agencies to pull out all stops to protect the election system.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 1:01pm
I see no claim that Russia is in fact innocent.
I see nothing to make me think that that is the intended message of the blog by Greenwald.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 1:33pm
O'Keefe is not the one making the pertinent comments, he is the one asking the questions. His credibility is of no importance in this case unless he has a chance to edit and alter or spin the content of the answer.The credibility of the journalist answering is what needs questioning in this case since he is the source of the news. I cannot access Thr W.P. but here is a blog by Jonathan Turley which includes a video which appears to be unedited.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 1:57pm
The CNN guy had no tie to the Russia investigation. He comments hold no value.
Edit to add:
What is the name of the person doing the interview?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 2:50pm
The CNN guy is working within CNN as a reporter. That puts him in a position to know something about CNN culture as well as its management and what they expect and what they demand of their journalists. But maybe he is full of it. Maybe he will get fired.
I see that it was not O'Keefe who did the actual questioning but rather one of his employees. What difference does that make? Would the answers have even less credibility if asked by O'Keefe himself? Would they somehow gain credibility if they had been asked by someone else? Maybe you for instance?
On a related point, I started to make a snarky remark how the latest ransomware attack has been shown to have originated in Ukraine and so that is definitive proof that Poroshenko is totally responsible. I have already been proven wrong. I just heard on the radio that Russia did it. Of course they did. The reporter said there was no proof but there is high confidence according to anonymous sources. Of course there is.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 4:20pm
O'Keefe is a known liar. Anything that comes out of his shop has to be verified by an outside source. Trump is a known liar. Republicans are known liars. The media sucks. Intelligence agencies lie. Skepticism is wise. I'll wait until other sources back up O'Keefe's nonsense. He is not trustworthy. Knowing the interviewer is important to assess his credibility. The health guy is based in Atlanta, not D.C. Corporate cultures vary even within a corporation.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 4:44pm
Oh come one lulu you are really stretching the truth here. CNN is a huge organization with many divisions. Contrary to right wing spin it employs conservatives to liberals. This producer was in the medical division. I wouldn't trust the medical reporters to know squat about Russia just as I wouldn't trust the experts on Korea to instruct me on getting regular prostate exams. When I want good information about the middle east I go to Informed Comment to see what Juan Cole has to say. I wouldn't trust him to tell me about heart disease. In such a large organization I doubt that reporters know much about the inner workings of other divisions. I worked at a large computer company and I knew very little about the inner workings of other parts of the company. I'm absolutely certain that no one suggested that in their next report on prostate exams they work in some Trump/Russia angle for the ratings.
The fact is that even brain surgeons, however famous they may be, can hold stupid ideas on fields outside their study. For example Dr Ben Carson believes the Egyptian pyramids stored grain. An ridiculous assertion that no archeologists would agree with. Yet you want to trust some medical reporter about the CNN Russia investigation what he was certainly never in a meeting where the plans and goals were discussed among the reporters working on the story.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 7:01pm
Kat, what "truth" do you see me stretching when I say that a producer in a news dept. of CNN knows something about the news dept. at CNN? Your comment is the ironical ridiculous stretch.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 10:09pm
Reading a comment and responding to the ideas in that comment was never your strength. All I really can do is cut and paste from my comment to see if repetition is a useful technic to reach your brain.
To that I'll add that this medical reporter was based in Atlanta while those working on the Russia story are all based in DC or New York. You act as though CNN is some little mom and pop store where every employee knows each other and they all know the needs and goals rather than a multi-state and multi-country organization where most of the players only know those in their division working on the same projects. It's simplistic interpretation but you've never shown much interest in dealing with complexity.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 06/29/2017 - 1:39am
WTF, Lulu? O'Keefe is a sociopathic liar who tries to set up the enemy from every side. Do I give a fuck whether O'Keefe asked or answered questions? He tried to set up for slander the CNN reporter in a boat a few years back, he slandered ACORN out of existence. It's not whether he asks or answers - he's framing it in the worst way and then will re-edit to make it more slanderous. O'Keefe is a criminal and was convicted for partisan lies, after which he was hired by Trump to commit more partisan atrocities in the name of "new (gotcha) journalism" / dirty tricks and yet you're still going to bring up his rat ass name around here as some kind of reference? Get fucking real.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 5:06pm
Yeah, what the fuck is right.
I didn't introduce the slimy scumbag O'keefe or his minion to the conversation. I responded to a comment about the tape and said, in affect, that it appears that Bonifield actually intended to say what we heard him say and that even though he was talking to a representative of a scumbag operation, what he actually said appears to be what he actually meant. I am aware that O'Keefe tries to set people up and as a tactic twists the truth and tells lies. In this case there is no reason I have seen to believe that Bonfield said anything in the video that was taken out of context in a way intended to distorted what he meant to say. Apparently CNN management doesn't either.
Here is CNN standing by their man Bonifield. They do not say that he was misquoted or that his answers were edited in a way so as to mislead the viewer as to his real opinions. They do not say that he is not in a position to know what he is talking about. They do not suggest that one of their news dept. producers does not know anything about what management wants or why it wants it. Bonfield's Linkedin page lists his various positions at CNN as: Field producer, CNN Health; Senior producer, CNN Health; Producer, CNN Health; Tape Producer, CNN Health; Associate Producer, CNN Health; Associate Producer, CNN U.S. – Morning and Dayside Programming; CNN Media Coordinator; CNN Feeds Coordinator; and CNN Video Journalist.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 11:11pm
I didn't read the thread close enough, but still you say:
which I find rather horrifying, since we know O'Keefe is happy to set up his questions in a "do you still beat your wife" kind of tilted playing field (or to update to O'Keefe's level of mendacity, "did you ever come clean about axe-murdering your wife?" So no, he doesn't need access to post-edit - anything he touches in any form likely has shit all over it.
As for the referenced Observer piece, the dumbfuck doesn't realize that more and more of the Steele Dossier has been validated over the last 6 months, and it wasn't that the Dossier was ever presented as completely true - it was a compilation of intelligence at various levels of validation that the press had largely sat on for the previous 6 months until Buzzfeed did us all a service by having the balls to get it out there to consider.
It's pretty ballsy of Sainato @ the Observer to reference a Dec 1 story on Russian fake news as "debunked" when a month later the DNI released a declassified report describing exactly that, with more stories & evidence piling up since. Asshole - Sainato published this *yesterday*? Fuck him, and scratch Observer off the trusted list. Fake and dishonest news - 2 sides of the same coin.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/29/2017 - 5:31am
Thanks for the link to The Observer. Is this connected to the English Sunday paper also called The Observer?
by Lurker on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 1:05pm
Don't know but I doubt it because I scrolled around on the sight trying to find out and could find nothing to indicate that they are.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 1:19pm
No, The Observer is ironically Jared Kushner's ex-paper, now run by his brother-in-law who seems to hate him and Trump, thus a possibility of non-Trump-idealizing material appearing.
As for my "endorsement" of The Observer, no, I did not endorse it. I presume we are all adults here and will read articles for the facts or fictitiousness/fabrications they represent. I happened to have met the author of the Observer piece, but even that doesn't let me know he's not a loon. Read everything with caution and dissect details actively.
I link to a lot of information, some dodgier than others. I've linked to Louise Mensch, whose claims of sealed indictments Preet Bharara calls "bullshit", but I still think she has a few items worth considering (e.g. Catfishing Weiner) even as she runs her Twitter feed more like a cross between American Idol and Netflix's chick series "13 Reasons Why". I've linked a ton to WaPo and NYTimes, and they've made huge bonehead mistakes and rather unforgivable biased "exposes" and never managed to report say Trump Casino's $10 million fine or did report pre-election that supposedly the FBI *wasn't* investigating Trump no way. I think there's 1 guy at Inquisitor who I like, even as Greenwald went from a once fave to a never-read.
In short, Caveat Lector, especially Hannibal.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/28/2017 - 4:10pm
My immediate reaction which I now cannot get out of my mind
8 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
19 Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.
I want to say: thanks to everyone at CNN for doing the brave and honorable thing after a mistake. Pooh on those trying to make some kind of hay of it. Quit the pile on for points for political, monetary, fame or some other gain. Instead proudly say: this is what our profession does when they make a mistake.
by artappraiser on Thu, 06/29/2017 - 12:31am
Oh, this one too just came to mind:
by artappraiser on Thu, 06/29/2017 - 12:46am
The reason people don't accept O'Keefe's interview as valid is because everything that he produced before this from ACORN to Planned Parenthood has been debunked. Accepting O'Keefe's video snippets has been followed by the video version presented falling apar
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 06/29/2017 - 9:42am