Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I just lost a long response. Frustrating as hell. Shorter version. When speaking of election meddling I conflated in my own mind any action in which the U.S. tried to determine or at least strongly influence another country's choice of leadership. The Monroe Doctrine said we run the western hemisphere and we will run it our way. President Carter expanded that declared right to the Middle East because of our perceived dependence on its oil. The neocons declare it for the whole world.  Justifying the resultant interferences and getting our electorate behind the various aggressions has required some lying. The lies have been effective enough for their purpose at the times they were told and usually only discovered as lies later, usually years later while at the ime when we are busy listening to the latest justifications for the contemporary aggressions.  Parry's article outlines one organized and well funded method our government has used to get us to "believe". It appears to me to be good reporting. It is worth actually reading. 

I wish I had not misdirected my own blog post with the link in my first comment but I still intend to add further links here as time passes rather than at "In the News". But, in reference to that link, In this Fox News clip we can see James Woolsey and Laura Ingraham react when Woolsey gives the very same answer to the question that we see in the underlined sentence in the NYT article. Woolsey has been in a place to know the honest answer to the question. He gives the stock answer they want us to believe but we see the answer in a context not available in a written account where the "tell" could be edited or simply unseen. He says we only interfered for very good reason but he cannot keep a straight face and the second time he says it they both crack up. It is the "Only for very good reason" part of his answer that tickles their funny bones. I don't think anyone will miss the joke. The bit I refer to starts at the 4:35 mark. 

Yeah, what the fuck, dude. I posted the resume that includes a couple of Army officer collaborators on the article to demonstrate that his ideas and attitudes might represent a line of thinking in the echelons of military brass. Certainly didn’t mean any endorsement of his predictions on how we will need to fight in the near future, that future being now considering the publication date. I called it a dystopian vision. I attempted to draw attention to the attitudes expressed and fully expected anyone reading the essay to find them disturbing, not because I believe that where he spouts his ideas means they don't even need to be noticed or acknowledged.

 Yeah, I usually post something that I at least mostly support just like everyone does and maybe should have added a disclaimer, but if you read the essay did you really think that I was promoting his attitude towards the rest of the world and how we would need to act to maintain our position in it? The jerk would have us believe that militaristic domination can be maintained forever. That is a common belief apparently, you seem to hold it too. 

 I have a pile of old passports also and agree that they don't [necessarily] mean a thing but this guy went to those places studying how to carry on a war there among the local people, as his [perverted IMO] point of view sees them. That aint the way I travel and when I do it isn't the way I look at the people around me.   

 But does Taibbi ever once address whether Hamilton 68 is relatively accurately tracking foreign meme bots? Of course not.

He spends seven paragraphs discussing Hamilton 68, its methods, and its associates. Any organization which included Bill Kristol should have whatever they are selling looked at very closely before buying, IMO, but maybe when he is part of what you support his record of stupidity, lying, and dissembling in the project of constant war mongering should be ignored.   

 Here isa link that was also included in Taibbi's article.

Fake News, something's not true so nothing is true, and then he slings this net far and wide to pretend he said something intelligent. Did he actually address thise Russian indictments? Oh, he didnt, did he -

That is an ironically funny statement in a revealing way. You very commonly look for one thing in an article when you choose to attack it for whatever reason, often/usually with more spleen than information, so as to discredit everything in the article. Along with the Russian indictments that he didn't mention are an infinite number of other things he also did not mention. The things he did mention are  what an honest response would discuss. 

Nothing in the rest of your article addresses the article at all but does, IMO, mindlessly reinforce by demonstration what Taibbi's article actually talks about.  

AA. the article mentioned Breitbart in a provocative sub-headline and then once again in the final paragraph. The article is not about comparing MSNBC to Breitbart, it is about MSNBC ignoring a very important topic. It is about what the headline says; "In Run-Up to Vote to End Yemen War, MSNBC Remains Totally Silent" The single sentence in the body of the article which mentions Breitbart is:

It’s extra disconcerting that MSNBC is being outflanked from the left by Breitbart, which has covered efforts to end the war a dozen or so times—likely for cynical, nativist reasons.  

In context, the placing Breitbart to the left of MSNC is based totally on the number of times that the respective sites gave any coverage to the story. Every bit of the rest of the article is about MSNBC's almost total lack of coverage of what many consider to be an important topic and one certainly worth at least some coverage.  Fair [and I] believe that during the time that MSNBC tallied 143 segments on Stormy Daniels they could have given some tiny amount of coverage to a devastating war that depends on the U.S. and so is one that the U.S. is actually in a position to stop if they so chose.   To criticize the article as if its point was to compare MSNBC with Breitbart is to show a complete missing of the point, IMO. 

 If you really are interested in foreign policy, you are in the wrong place on cable TV news  in general.

I don't depend on cable for anything but I believe that it is an important source of news for a great number of people and a powerful influence on their opinions.  That makes noticing what they cover, and how they cover it, worth the noticing. 

You care about foreign policy and war being covered in video "broadcast" form? you're gonna have to subscribe to a specialty niche channel on Hulu or something.

My link was not to a video broadcast but  sometimes I do link to one of several that I follow. Video broadcast form has some advantages over print along with some shortcomings when it comes to sharing what they offer. They take longer than reading and there is seldom a transcript that allows quoting thru copy and paste but I feel sure you would agree that there is important nuance that can be observed watching a speaker that is unavailable, or at least harder to convey in print.  Can you recommend any niche channel that you feel offers good perspective on FP?  

You can't make most people care, Lulu. Not a mass market in any society, ... ...

It seems pretty easy to make a hell of a lot of Democrats "care" about what the Republicans are doing and vice a versa while they can find it easy to "not care" about mistakes or cynically wrong choices that their own party of choice have made. MSNBC and Fox are the most obvious examples.