Most of the people who read SST are way to the left of me politically so I know they will not like my opinion on media allegiance because they think it is a good idea to do whatever one can to damage Trump.
I will not support either HC or DT in the coming election.
Nevertheless I must say that the media elites (except Foxnews) are actively campaigning for Hillary, the ultimate establishment candidate while at the same time campaigning against Trump. The glee with which media people pounce on any available gaff of Trump's and then spin it to death is sadly apparent.
We no longer have anything like a neutral press in the US. What we have is an ideologically driven propaganda machine. pl
Well, ya. I’m glad people are finally figuring this out – just ask any Sanders supporter if they think the media is pro-Clinton. She’s their go-to gal. She’ll rep anyone who pays her fee. And so will they. It’s the kind of corruption that caused the reformation and the inquisition and generations of conflict. Why we choose to be ruled by the worst among us is mysterious to me.
Some of you may be interested in investigating the concept of the ‘Cathedral’ that was developed on the Unqualified Reservations blog.
It’s Chomsky turned on his head.
I am one of those who is “way to the left of you”. Nevertheless, I have always enjoyed reading your website and have gained much insight from the time I spend doing so.
You may find it amusing, but I keep the bookmark to your site listed under my “Anti-War” category. It is a category that I created when Bush The Younger began his wars. Of all the sites that I listed under this category, yours is the only one still up and running. I hope it will continue to do so for a long time to come.
As for the upcoming election, I would have voted for Bernie Sanders, or Jim Webb (had he been able to pull off a miracle).
As it is now, I will vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party in what I have decided will be my last presidential voting endeavor. In the future I will only vote in my local, small town, upstate New York elections (where by the way, in spite of my left leaning political view, I almost invariably vote Republican).
My father who died at the age of eighty-five (six years ago), stopped voting entirely after voting for Richard Nixon for a second term. After that vote, he decided that the country might be better of without his vote.
Sorry, for the ramble, but please keep up the good work on this site, as long as you are willing and able.
Colonel, that may not be obvious to die hard HRC partisans but I think it is to everyone else who pays any attention at this point.
I am anti-war in principle but unwilling to surrender to true evil. pl
There is a movement “Progressives against Clinton Dynasty” and most of them will vote for Jill Stein or other 4th candidate or write in Sanders. Some will even vote for Trump but can not admit it in their own social circle, except close friends, for fear of reticule.
I will largely agree with this, but with the caveat that it was the intense media coverage of Trump (all Trump, all of the time), including the coverage of his gaffs, that helped him win the primary.
In the early decades of our Republic, we had a proliferation of newspapers and journals. Even if they were not “objective,” which they often were not, the sheer number of publications created a climate of genuine public debate. I remember marveling that there were, at one time, a dozen daily newspapers in Brooklyn, New York alone. Better that there is no pretense of objectivity or neutrality than faking it, as Col. Lang so correctly characterizes MSM/The Borg today.
Way to the left of you Col. Lang and completely agree with your assessment of the media. Enjoy your blog and the discussions.
Thanks for making the point that the corporate media are actively campaigning against Trump.
When one has Hank Paulson, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Armitage, et al endorsing the Borg Queen and George Will reregistering as an independent it is clear the Borg is quickly closing ranks. We are witnessing big money, big media and the entire political and financial elite using all their resources to scare the American people on a Trump presidency. Today, Paul Singer, a very successful hedge fund manager and a financier of GOP candidates stated we’d have a depression if Trump is elected. This is reminiscent of the scare tactics of Cameron, Osborne and the Remain campaign during the recent Brexit referendum in Britain. I can really empathize with the English who withstood the scaremongering and voted to make a statement of their disgust with their establishment that had sold them down the river.
I haven’t voted for the duopoly in decades, but I may vote for The Donald this November as the stakes could not be more stark. IMO, the election of the Borg Queen will usher in a triumphalism of the Borg. With the full backing of the duopoly establishment, a social engineering project that we’ve never seen will be unleashed to eviscerate the remaining shreds of constitutional republicanism. And of course the ziocons will strut, as they take the US military into many more confrontations around the world with unknown consequences.
If, on the other hand despite the media assault, the fully paid “ground game” and the most intense propaganda of fear, enough voters in Nevada, Florida, Ohio and Virginia pull the lever to reclaim their sovereignty over the Borg, it would be epic. A shot that will ring around the globe to inspire people to assert their sovereignty over the elites. I believe we Americans are entering a pivotal moment in our history. If we miss this chance at a peaceful rejection of the Borg, it will create the space for extremist demagogues who will incite violence as the method of redress.
I think the establishment media sees Trump as unreliable. He doesn’t really think through his positions, relies too heavily on the fear drummed up over domestic terrorism, and in the end, his position papers seem to have been lifted from the Republican party platform. I don’t have any confidence that he’ll be any less reckless than Hillary Clinton. The scariest thing about this government is that the politicians truly believe that they can do anything they want domestically if they can get a war and get the media to push up their poll numbers like GHWB, Both GWB and HRC have said words to that effect.
You’re in good company, I support Bernie Sanders & Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein also since they have same policies -and Colonel Lang mentioned he supports Bernie Sanders too (great minds think alike).
Since I was trained as scientist, I go by empirical evidence & scientific data instead of ideology so instead of reading mainstream propganda news, I read Colonel Lang’s site & German NATO military officer B’s site http://www.MoonofAlabama.org
–both of them give the straight up answer opposite the mainstream propganda that pushed for 2003 Iraq War, Libyan War, & Syria War
Thus, for foreign policy/news, the best analyst sites by military intelligence officers are Colonel Lang (as well as B -he was German NATO military officer daily intel site wwww.MoonofAlabama.org ) who give deeper insight &
behind-the-scenes analysis instead of the propaganda mainstream newsmedia
For economic policy/news that also gives the straight up answers/analaysis opposite the erroneous mainstreasm propaganda, I read
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com because Norman goes by empirical data/evidence also & has been correct in his years of economic predictions & analysis -he
chief economist at Thomas James & regularly on Bloomberg, CNBC, FoxBusiness, etc giving correct analysis while debating mainstream commentators who were clueless because they spout outdated gold-standard based economic myths
Col, I know you arent an economic determinist, but I also know that you do not ignore the role that financial & economic forces play in the lives of individuals, groups, institutions and corporations. The media that I know-of is an equal opportunity manager of theatrics that drive victory in the competition for eyeballs (aka ad revenue). We are witnessing a battle to over-blow the easy & exciting tilt between the bitch and the asshole. Sure, the NE media elites are considered “liberal” (whatever that means anymore) but they arent exactly worldly philosophers. Heck, they arent even journalists. I have been fortunate to know some in the TV news biz in DC who have uniformally described how much distrust and real personal animosity Hill & the Media have for one-another.
I see more intellectual laziness and shallow careerism than I do ideology among them. I see them salivating for a political ratings-breaking Battle Royale, not a competition of ideas. You may be giving them too much credit.
Colonel, this reader most probably has been tilted to your left on politics, but with regard to the US’ MSM doing everything they can to damage Mr. Trump, I a long time democrats supporter, completely agree with you, IMO most of commentators here on SST including this reader on this regard feel the same as you do, including how you feel about voting in this coming elections.
As another way to the left of the colonel I am acutely aware that the MSN is pro hillary all the way. It is so bad I resent their anti-Trump bias and,at an emotional level, find myself rooting for him. If he could only begin to stop saying stupid stuff!
“A new report released this week by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far. The study was based on an analysis of news statements from CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.”
“Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising.
Donald Trump has gotten the equivalent of nearly $3 billion in free advertising since last May, according to the latest statistics from the firm mediaQuant, blowing away rivals in both Parties”.
Trump is being Trump, it’s hard to report on Trump, with out going negative. If you fact check him, you are going negative. If you report what he said, negative. If you report on his past, negative.
The only way of “reporting” on Trump, with out going negative a lot of the time, would be to engage in stenography.
“The Donald’s whoppers have turned the media focus from gaffes—the fuel of election coverage past—to lies. Michael Kinsley applauds—but wonders if it will matter.”
It really doesn’t matter one way or another, most peoples “minds” were made up a long time ago on both Hillary and Trump,
And Trump had an easy Media ride through the Primaries.
ya, most people are anti-war & are fine with bombing/droning ISIS –it’s the neocon wars of choice bombing Syria or Libya, regime-change policies overthrowing other countrie’s govs, & ‘no fly zones’ vs. Russia that most of us object too.
According to surveys, Ron Paul & Bernie Sanders have the most support among the military because they’re not for using the US military for imperial wars of choice overthrowing other countrie’s govs using propaganda of fake WMDs hoax in Iraq or false flag chem attacks in Syria
My brother was captain in US Army (2 tours in Iraq), cousin was combat medic in 173rd Airborne US Army in Afghan (2 tours in Afghan),& I was US Air Force 4 year ROTC scholarship (I declined though when my 20/800 vision disqualified me from being pilot)
I mostly lurk here. But yes, I am far to your left, a Sanders supporter who will vote for Clinton as the lesser evil compared to Trump and yet I agree with you about the press. As divadab said above, this was obvious to all us Sanders supporters during the primaries. It’s true on other subjects as well–I read this blog and others precisely because it is one way to escape the propaganda system.
Colonel IMO the leading MSM supporter of HRC is CNN, which is Clinton News Network
IF we actually had a free and neutral press, the fact that AG Lynch spent 30 minutes in a private meeting, on her plane, with Bill Clinton, would be front page news. It’s not. We might as well throw a fair and neutral criminal justice system out the window, along with the press.
I like what I call your true conservative believes and understand you as anti-war especially as to the way it is practiced now. You would probably call me way to your left.
I will support Trump in the general, voted Bernie and still support him. Hillary is evil in her criminality and needs to be stopped.
Can you recall an era when the U.S. media were even remotely neutral in anything? Why bother with the myth of media objectivity?
I am not happy with our choices, but I have to say I have never seen anything like this election cycle and Their Media’s behavior. I mean, Richard Nixon got better press than Trump is getting – and that’s saying something.
Here’s what I have noticed:
When Trump speaks, they feature his voice, but often cut off either the beginning or end of a statement to present it in the worst possible light.
With Clinton, they show you video of her speaking, but often have a voice-over provided by a far more attractive woman with a more pleasant tone, who tells the viewer what the candidate is saying.
Of course, unless you are prepared to dig a little deeper into who “they” are and what their agenda is, this is all sort of beside the point. So long as an anti-American 5th column controls our screens, almost everyone over the age of 50 is going to be gaslighted – as they have been their entire lives.
Fortunately, people under 35, despite the ideological training they have received, understand almost intuitively that nothing on a screen is ever objective, and that they are constant targets of manipulation. This is one reason why Sanders did so well with them against Clinton: whatever his policy positions, he was utterly authentic, and this was obvious. Clinton is obviously calculating constantly, and never says anything that has not been tested on focus-groups.
I fully believe that the MSM is backing Hillary. They are businesses and Trunmp isn’t good for business. Not that it matters any more. He blew his brains out with the call to end NAFTA the other day. The money in the Republican party will never get behind him now.
A symptom of minority rule.
I read SST to keep my sanity about the wars the U.S. is fighting and the nearly trillion dollars a year it spends to fight them. All at a time when you are just as likely to be killed by a bullet fired by a fellow civilian in the U.S. as you are to be killed in a car accident. A statistic, just like the amount of money spent on “defense”, that has no parallel in the civilized world.
If being in favor of strict gun control makes me a Leftist, so be it. But you know as well as I do that nearly every French male hunts and yet about 300 people a year get killed by guns in France, half of them committing suicide. Yes, recently there have been terrorist attacks, but arming the population doesn’t seem to prevent that.
As you know I am a self identified FDR Democrat – but I agree with you more often then not , and certainly the MSM is totally in the bag for Mrs Clinton ..
I fully agree with your assessment of the MSM. This is a terrible sign of the rotting of American democracy, when the media actively — and on an unprecedented scale — seeks to manipulate the election, presumably with guidance or assent from the owners of the media oligopoly. And I say this as a long-time activist of the left.
I greatly appreciate this site and the comments section for bringing together intelligent and open-minded people from across the political spectrum and around the world.
I would like to give credit to Tyler for pointing out almost a year ago here that the MSM would do everything they could to drag Hillary Clinton’s carcass across the finish line.
I’m glad the Sanders and Trump campaigns are making so many masks drop.
I remember (I think – getting older) in the last election you were a moderate Clinton supporter. I mention that only to point out your ability to change your mind with new evidence. You did it with Libya too. It is, sadly, a rare gift but one that is particularly crucial for anyone in the intelligence business. As I near my own retirement, I’m troubled by the number of people, particularly in senior leadership positions, who are the opposite of you – people who are assimilated into the borg collective and cannot change their mind until force to the knife’s edge.
I always voted on the basis of foreign policy because that is where Presidents can act with greater authority. On that basis I also cannot vote for either HC or DT and will likely vote for Johnson or another third party candidate depending on who makes the ballot here in Florida.
Sir, What you say has been increasingly obvious over the past several months. The Borg has cleansed media outlets – in the Stalinesque fashion – to where now it is now populated only by assimilated drones; excepting Fox News.
The certainty of a Trump victory that I had savored since last fall is beginning to dissipate as a result.
The only way for a non-Borgist to have a shot is to utilize the internet effectively. That may not even be enough.
IMO, if Trump does not succeed, we will be stuck with absolute Borg rule until our last gasp as a nation. It’s now or never. He’s not the best candidate by any measure, but he’s all we have. That or Comey, but I’m rapidly losing faith in Comey too.
As yet another “to the left of (you),” allow me to say that H Clinton supporters fall more accurately into the Neoliberal category rather than any ‘real’ Left category. I come here to obtain a sane, level headed analysis of the foreign policy of America. You fulfill that need. Keep going as long as you feel comfortable doing the blog. I for one, appreciate all of your hard work.
Colonel so far up to last comment I read tonight @11:14EST all your bloggers, readers, commentators support your assessment of US media and coming General election, if we didn’t agree with your thinking, there was no reason to hang in here. I for one would like to think I know the difference between SST and Huffington post , I hope you will have more confidence on us, your readers.
For analysis on current events I read this blog and b’ but IMO the comments on this blog have much higher quality due to your hand on control and comments, IMO. Thank you for doing this.
IMO, in this coming general election for presidency of the USA, we all will have 4 choices on how and who to vote or not. Based on My Own Opinion, I will try to outline the 4 choices we can have and what significance they may have. I welcome your opinion, since it can help make up one’ mind.
1- Is to vote for Hillary, IMO that is to go with the flow and media current and jump on the band wagon.
2- Is to vote for Trump, if you are not a true Trump supporter or base republican voter, this means a vote to reduce the chances of Hillary becoming POTOS, which is anybody but Hillary.
3- Is to vote for Bernie or any third part choice, IMO all voters in this group know that their vote is a protest vote on the 2 choices in front of them but not against the system that produces only 2 possibility for presidency, so they are supporting the system but not only possible choices that the system produces. So they know they are wasting their vote but they still support the system.
4- Is the group that intends to seat home and not to vote, this group IMO are disconnecting and not believing in the system anymore, and no longer have any confidence in the system, they no longer believe system will produce or allow a candidate that is not pre-vetted by the Borg to become elected. So they rather not to participate.
I was in 1st group on 1980 and I voted for Reagan , I am in the second group in this election, I was never in the 3rd group, I was in 4th group in last 3 elections.
You’re ranting and worried about a delusion.
30,000 gun deaths/yr. 20,000 of those are suicides. another 2,000 are police or private citizens shooting in self defense (AKA justifiable homicide). of the 8,000 to 9,000 murders committed with guns each year, the majority are criminal on criminal.
Try to get it right, please. If you’re not suicidally inclined or a gang banger your odds of being killed by a gun are miniscule.
Take your pick, it’s either Trump or a century of oppressive rule by the globalist oligarchs/Deep State schemers/ethnocentric neocon over-class. If Trump is taken down– and the elites/globalists are working 24/7 on this– enjoy the unbridled cheap labor, open borders, massive surveillance, affirmative action, endless deficit spending, constant invasions and bombings of third world countries (Operation Clean Break 6.0), deferential treatment of big finance and banks, et al.
And once Trump is no longer in their way, they can return to their machinating and hating on Russia and Putin. And of course this same crowd will work the Deep-State military-industrial complex, which feels it would benefit economically from a new Cold War.
If you don’t vote for Trump you’re supporting the demonic work of the global elites, if even by default.
Btw, I’m sure you’ve already seen this Foreign Policy piece:
“It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses”
The Brexit has laid bare the political schism of our time. It’s not about the left vs. the right; it’s about the sane vs. the mindlessly angry.
BY JAMES TRAUB* JUNE 28, 2016
*(Traub grew up rich and went to Harvard).
P.L.! IMO your post your honest opinion and accurate. Clearly the polls are almost worthless. The polling I find of most interest is that of HRC and DT unfavorables. This election season is a highly explosive one for that reason. And I mean explosive.
Check legal and other definitions of the term Riot and Civil Disorder! Summer 2016 may well be memorable for many of the wrong reasons.
And the real failure of the MSM babbling heads IMO remains their displayed ignorance and incompetence. Why does MSM continue to fail to reveal which commentators are paid for by them?
I always voted on the basis of foreign policy because that is where Presidents can act with greater authority.
That’s why I am voting for Trump. I believe as Stephen Cohen does that the only rational candidate who will work to keep us out of WWIII is Trump. Bernie’s foreign affairs savvy was half-baked. Clinton’s is irresponsible. She’s a legacy burner, not a leader.
(From Canada), I’ve watched a bit of the FoxNews and CNN on TV. But I don’t fully read U.S. Newspapers, just links to stories. I have to agree that the media has had it in for Trump from the beginning, but also that Trump has been awfully bad at media relations. He has no twinkle in his eye. The media know that, and goad him. They framed him as a “joke” candidate early on, and if there is one thing about the media is that they rarely admit any error, or allow any self-examination.
But the campaign has barely begun, and there will be platforms for the candidates to debate. There has been very little examination of Clinton’s or Trump’s policies.
It’s quite possible that the soap opera we are seeing today is just the default media story due to a lack of more substantive political content. And that will change as the campaign moves on. Don’t expect an apology or reflection by the media on the shambles they’ve made of it so far, but they may just change their narrative.
An unscientific survey, but of the people that replied regarding left/right of Colonel Lang, everyone replied they think they’re further to the left than the Colonel. What is it with all these lefties following Sic Semper Tyrannous? Maybe the Colonel is further left than he thinks.
David S wrote: “. It is a category that I created when Bush The Younger began his wars”. I think you are letting the media, our elites, and most of our citizens off far too easily. It was ‘our’war. The people (majority, anyway) not only supported it, they cheered it on. For a while. Till things started getting hot…and then (many) jumped off. i.e. Hillary
The media is nowhere near as Liberal as it is made out to be but this is irrelevant as the issue in this election is not Left vs. Right. The faux populist Trump represents no revolutionary threat to overthrow the established order but is far too egomaniacal, spontaneous, and unpredictable to be properly controlled. He is therefore feared by both the Right and Left wings of the establishment and thus the fix is in for Hillary.
Sir, I too have noticed the extreme media bias. Mr. Trump, for ago his natural buffoonery, is on a hiding to nothing. If he says something foolish it is derided. And if he says something sensible and intelligent it is twisted and then derided. HRC however can threaten to impose a non fly zone in Syria, and it’s ignored. She can offer the kids of the rich a break on their student loans and it is praised. And she can say she opposes TPP, while the DNC filed with her proxies refuses to rule it out in the policy platform. It will require an extra ordinary exercise of bravery from the American people to ignore the propagandists and vote their mind. I say good luck to them but I’m not optimistic.
Originalism, states rights, and what amounts to isolationism are what I favor. Is that “left” for you? pl
Almost all of the media coverage of Trump was negative. Trump won because of his policies in regard to trade, immigration and foreign affairs. Good reason almost all politicians have identical policies in these areas, they are deeply unpopular so the people can’t be given a choice.
What I find odd about the US is there seems to be no diversity amongst the press. In Britain our newspapers range across the ideological spectrum, and in fact the right wing papers are more widely read (Daily Mail, Daily Express, Telegraph, even Murdoch’s neocon Sun and Times). The Leave campaign won the Brexit vote as they had sufficient support from the papers and a sufficient number of front line politicians joined the campaign, despite the all out fear mongering for Remain by the establishment (which suffered from diminishing marginal returns as it went on).
Trump seems to hanging on in there, the business end of the campaign is still months away, Remain was well ahead until the final weeks. Impressed to see Trump has picked up Dan Dimicco as his senior trade advisor, Chinese won’t like that. All about a good team for a novice like Trump who intends a hands off Presidential style.
BTW, Colonel Lang,
One of the reasons why your readership has a more ‘left’ readership is because I regularly cite & link your website as reference in foreign-policy sites & Facebook discussion/debate groups, which lead to editors
Tom Hickey & Mike Norman
regularly featuring & linking to your analysis at their evidence-based economics news site http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com , which is one of the largest MMT sites (you can see that on your trackback or referral links on your web traffic report under web administrator tools)
I post your site on both ‘right’ & ‘left’ groups & websites but the ‘right’ groups mostly dismiss anything that is anti-neocon & wasn’t pro-Iraq War, pro-military intervention so they rarely if ever read your link I post
the ‘left’ groups are more willing to read & consider the anti-neocon posts & click the links I post
The Borg will not tolerate ANY dissent from the party line. Unless you’re an established gate keeper (Thomas Freidman, etc) you’re not allowed to question orthodoxy, and even then only after it starts gaining traction on the acela cocktail circuit.
Both Sanders and Trump have not only questioned the Borg orthodoxy but have vocally, publicly challenged major planks in the neo-liberal order.
I consider myself pretty jaded but i’ve been literally stunned by how unanimous and how ferocious the Democratic Party and a lot of their kool-aid drinkers went after Bernie Sanders, ditto for Trump on the republican side. The Democratic primary looked like something out of a banana republic. The DNC didn’t just put their fingers on the scales they dropped an anvil on the Hillary side.
The MSM and other established “neutral” parties have done the same. The moment Sanders/Trump started challenging central planks in the neo-liberal order the gloves came off and any semblance of neutrality went out the window.
Now that it’s a race between the borg queen and Trump it’s even worse. Of course the borg may be outsmarting themselves, as usual, as the Brexit result happened after similar elite carping, scaremongering, and general douchebaggery.
Both Bernie Sanders & Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein’s foreign policy is anti-neocon, non-interventionism, anti-regime change
They also support states rights in the state’s abilities on gun laws & marijuan legalization, decriminalization
Bernie Sanders & Green Party Dr. Jill Stein are thus more ‘left’ than the DLC Democratic Party under Clinton & Obama (they are ‘centrists’)
“Originalism” has 2 sections of the Constition where it mentions the gov promoting the General Welfare as well as promoting the Sciences and the Arts (which thus encourages investment on green energy & other scientific endeavors, GI Bills, healthcare, education & other things that improve the general welfare & standard of living of the US
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
and again in the American Constitution, Article 1 — Section 8:
“Section 8, Article 1 of US Constitution
“1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
to borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
That’s typical from the Harvard KSG. That whole school is full of very smart people saying very dumb things. They’re pretty much ground zero for Obama’s neoliberal draft pool. The R2p gals, Ashton Carter, etc. All KSG alumni. Doug Feith gave a speech their to a standing ovation, so that should tell you everything you need to know.
KSG’s main recruiting goal is finding people who can take brain bursting amounts of cognitive dissonance, internalize it, and continue to pump out new and interesting formulations for maintaining whatever the latest borg status quo is. Prime example being Michael Ignatief, the KSG alumni and human rights lawyer who endorsed the use of torture during the Bush years.
This isn’t a torture debate question, it’s the issue of a HUMAN RIGHTS lawyer advocating the use of torture. That kind of cognitive dissonance is prime KSG material. Come to think of it I’m shocked Hillary/Obama haven’t tried to lure him back away from Canada to work the diplomatic circuit in Syria and Ukraine…
On ‘left’ and ‘right’.
Sometimes these notions make obvious sense. At other times, they don’t.
Someone – unfortunately I cannot remember who – suggested that what you got with the Clintons was a kind of alliance of Goldman Sachs and ‘Black Lives Matter’.
(Although he and she forgot the Israelis and Saudis pulling the puppet strings, sometimes in different directions, at the moment it seems in harmony.)
Traditional ‘left’ and ‘right’ distinctions don’t seem quite to apply.
And then, there are words whose meaning seems to become more opaque, the more you look at them.
So, what does ‘multiculturalism’ actually mean?
Or indeed ‘liberal’?
Is Francis Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ notion ‘liberal’?
And what about today’s ‘New York Times’?
The question is raised rather sharply by a piece by the former ‘religion editor’ of ‘Newsweek’, Kenneth L. Woodward, entitled ‘Church of the “Times”’, published in ‘Commonweal’ magazine back in 2010.
(See https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/church-%E2%80%98times%E2%80%99 .)
Just listened to an exchange between Peter King (R/NY)and Joe Scarborough (faux bubba/immigrant to NY) King was asked to talk about IS threats. He is the head of the House committee on terrorism. Having dealt with that, Joe pressed King to repudiate Trump’s statement last night on O’Reilly’s show that there are thousands of Syrians coming into the US who are unvetted. King said that the number is 4800 and that they are not well vetted. Joe changed the subject. pl
fascinating, EA. Have to save the link. … Deserves more attention, at least mine.
More generally: I guess, the thing that puzzled me most in the post 9/11 US universe was, what felt like a peculiar “Gleichschaltung” of media. … objectivity? … comment is free, facts are sacred???
And notice, I never read Manufacturing Consent. I respect Chomsky, but I struggled enough for my taste with him as far as linguistics are concerned.
To put it into some type of nutshell: a biological basis of the human language? … acknowledgment, I was never seriously interested in the topic.
My inner objections no doubt had weak intellectual foundations, random choice: Do we have enough data and research to compare e.g. the brain of an African Grey Parrot with the human brain? From an evolutionary perspective on biology and language? Why does the African Grey Parott imitate every single specific human voice so well …? Do you know?
Less random, could some theses lie in wait for a proof precisely because they cannot be challenged by science at their time?
along the same nitwit lines: could it be that you only need to throw a theory into the ring, ideally while prominent, to make sure the crowd follows, in the desire to prove you right?
David, I looked at Anti-War, if the site made you choose the category, sometimes too in that time.
“yours is the only one still up and running. I hope it will continue to do so for a long time to come.”
I couldn’t tell. But is that so?
I wouldn’t know. But strictly we may have stumbled across similar links then.
My reason for remaining here instead of under a pure “Anti-War” label, may have to do with the fact, that I exactly on anti-war realized I may not be a solidly orthodox anti-war type of person.
“But you know as well as I do that nearly every French male hunts …”
Where on Earth did you dig up this unsubstantiated statement?
I think the readership being here has less to do with left or right that it does with being pro-sanity. We go where sanity prevails, and we delight in the rigorous eviction when insanity intrudes.
You’ll notice that there is no mention in FP of him being at CFR nor do they ever mention how walls work out for our “best ally in the Middle East” nor how many refugees did they take? I believe that counts as “propaganda” outlet.
well, he is rational and open-minded. knows how to distinguish sources from content (& process from structure… individual behaviors from groups / institutions) insists on good manners & a bit of decorum along with freedom of speech. runs a pretty tight ship while allowing commenters to be themselves. these are old-timey liberal traits, so that’s appealing to classic liberals. given the extremist tenor of this election cycle (“she’s evil!” / “he’s a racist-fascist”) it’s a blessing there are forums like this at all. I think it is because he reviews posts before publishing them – this is a private venue.
I would like to see our polity appreciate liberalism & conservatism as useful analytical tools or points of context rather than personal attributes or end-states. I think it might make America great again if we pursued consensus-making & compromise moreso than partisan purity. To those who are super-sensitive about Hillary, l suggest a more historical pov… both parties have industrialized, commercialized our politics. They must be broken-up to effect change (in whatever direction one desires). It just so happens the GOP is imploding first. Absent national insurrection, it is unlikely they’d both go out in sync, doncha think? So, let’s see what comes of a new conservative movement while Hillary is pres. If she’s as bad as her worst critics worst fears, the implosion of the Dem party is assured. I think the nation can survive 4 of her years, if thats what it takes to pull down another political party long past its shelf life. Does being a bit of an optimist on this score make me an idealist? Perhaps a little optimism in the dark wouldn’t be too terrible.
I had the same reaction, specifically to Krugman’s vicious attacks on Sanders and his supporters. It was naive of me, but back in January I expected Krugman to be relatively fair in the contest between Sanders and Clinton, I expected him to support Clinton, but never dreamed he would be so hackish about it. I had almost forgotten how nasty he had been towards all anti- globalization protestors in the late 90’s– unlike fellow liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz, Krugman refused to grant any legitimacy to anything any of the protestors said. After Stiglitz came out saying the protestors were partly right, Krugman softened. But in the past several months, he has been acting the way I remembered him acting in the late 90’s, this time towards Sanders. In Krugman’s world, Clinton and her supporters are right about everything and Sanders and his supporters are at best deluded and at worst pure evil. He has permanently shattered his credibility as far as I’m concerned.
The media has been an arm of the Democrat party since the 60’s.
Each campaign, it just gets moe flagrant.
There hasn’t been a “free” press in this country for a loooong time.
Maybe I don’t have the foreign policy or military chops that a lot of readers have here, but I can surely see the direction this country has headed under Bush- Obama- and a possible Clinton Redux administration.
I don’t like it. I wasn’t born into such a country nor do I want to live in such a future.
As far as this old boy is concerned, the only real choice is Trump. All along he opposed the middle east wars and that is enough for me.
The gaffes don’t mean squat to me, his actions do.
Colonel, I’ve enjoyed your site for many years. While most of my votes over the last 50 years or so have been to the left, I voted for George Bush over Bill Clinton, and my choice was based on character. When Bush held a House seat from Houston, he voted for one of the early civil rights bills and he lost the next election. That showed me some of his character. When Bill Clinton was running for President and was being assailed for some of his infidelities, he left the campaign trail to show how tough on crime he was and change the subject by returning to Arkansas to supervise the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a man so retarded he asked for the dessert from his last mail to be saved for later. We don’t know what an elected official will confront, so character is important to me.
The other value that most informs my politics is the simple belief that every human, no matter their affiliation(s), should be equally valued. Too many of our politicians think that some group has less value than their own, leading to discriminatory policies, and needless wars that cost the lives of so many innocents.
Agree completely. It’s been eye opening as to who actually walks the walk and who just pays lip service when things are easy (like Krugman).
With a lot of these people I wonder if they’re actively auditioning for roles in a Hillary administration. Elizabeth Warren turns my stomach at this point.
I’m done with the Democrat party. The Republicans lost me with the cult of personality during the Bush/Cheney years. The Democrats lost me under Obama. But the DNC, Hillary, and Democratic party behavior during this primary pushed me from “lost me” to “actively hate with a passion, want to burn them down, and sow them with salt.”
With the Republicans I just parted ways, with the Democrats its become personal.
I am probably one of those on this blog who is to the left. I too think the media treatment of Trump is shamelessly biased. That coverage is basically anti-working class, and pro-globalization.
I think the old dichotomy between liberal and conservative isn’t as useful as it once was. Liberal dems have completely abandoned the old FDR labor-friendly roots, while traditional Main Street repub conservatives are marginalized within their own party by the neocons.
And of course those repub neocons are welcomed by their fellow dem neocons.
I thin the loss of those liberal or conservative tags is good. It makes people focus on the merits of positions.
what does that mean:
I could guess, but I better don’t. Aircraft somewhat suggest periphery? From a nitwit perspective.
Well, I tried to explain to some of my friends, no matter if coverage is negative or positive, it gets you attention. In the arts, its a standard. Or become a standard, maybe, over a certain period of time.
But yes, I heard the argument too, that he got a lot of free coverage based on that. May have saved him a lot of money. If I may take a slightly polemical turn here: (may have saved him) a lot of money in the maybe not quite as efficient PR/Marketing field, as it’s merchants want to pretend.
The US angle of Murdoch celebrates the Brexit as pure democratic victory in the Wall Street Journal. Admittedly only read one article, and it was, as far as I recall, a British contributor. You hear the same argument from the nationalist factions in the EU. The ultimate success of democracy.
Even if one has serious concerns about Europe, while as I do, basically supports its founding vision, one can get a little dizzy nowadays.
Harper, I wish I had quoted “objectivity” above.
I stumbled across a brilliant article in the early times after the “changing-event” targeting objectivity. Forget, graduate Columbia School of Journalism. Maybe? Or that was simply how I tried to find it again, and failed.
The French hunt for truffles.
Colonel — You are right in your general point about the current bond between Clinton and the MSM (I think of this primarily as a temporary, until the election anti-Trump manouver). But how then do you account for all the anti-Hillary stories in the New York Times in the early days of the primary campaign, both news stories and lots of snarky “psychological” stuff from columnists Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins? (All of that anti-Hillary material in the Times BTW was not at all from a pro-Sanders point of view — the Times’ negative coverage or virtual non-coverage of Sanders was a much-remarked-upon near scandal for a while.)
My guess is that in the NYT specifically, and in much of the media in general, there is a good deal of lingering resentment towards Hillary on overlapping fronts — female journalists of the “professional female” sort who can’t stand the sort of woman they think Hillary is (e.g. the virtually nutso Dowd and the the somewhat less nutso Collins) and are devoted to coming up with disparaging novelistic “psychological” scenarios about her; male journalists of more-or-less ordinary sorts who don’t like the sort of woman they think Hillary is and who also, in some cases, detect, dislike, and even fear her likely Borg Queen role and policies; and (both the gist of the overlap and close to primary IMO) all those journalists of both sexes who deeply resent all the forms of Clintonian bullying and arrogance toward them and their profession that they’ve met with over all these years.
Decisions no doubt have been made by media “leaders” who live above the level of the journalists in the field, and these decisions currently prevail by and large; but mark my words, Hillary will be turned on by the MSM somewhere down the road and perhaps will even be torn to pieces by it. I know this beast and/or these beasts and its/their inclinations and appetites; I lived and worked among them for almost thirty years. The troops in the field will follow orders from above up to a point, but eventually the scorpion will sting to death the frog (or was it the rabbit?) on whose back he was crossing the river because, as the scorpion said to the frog or rabbit as they both began to drown, “It’s in my nature.”
My nom de blog comes from more than handedness. I come here because I respect your areas of expertise, experience and willingness to call ’em as you see ’em. It has been a long time since MSM has been good. Especially since 9/11 it has been a sycophantic mouthpiece for propaganda.
Trump is bizarre, equally bizarre is the idea that Clinton is somehow a “lesser evil”. Although our choices may vary this fall, like you I will never vote for either one.
Thank you for this site. SST and its active community help make for a more informed public. Hope you enjoy your time in Frednecksburg.
I will vote for Jill Stein, too. I don’t believe the MSM is left of center, look what it did to Al Gore and Gov. Dean. Donald Trump is just too bizarre.
Colonel — A possible P.S.
Re-reading your original post here, when you write “We no longer have anything like a neutral press in the US. What we have is an ideologically driven propaganda machine,” I would say instead that the primary ideology of the U.S. press, especially on the level of those who actually cover and/or bloviate about political and social news, has to do not so much with the policies of any party or candidate but with the self-identity and supposed “rights” of the press itself. That the press is, or wants to think of itself as and be treated as, a legitimate Fourth Branch is its primary ideology, snd this ideology perhaps understandably seems to grow more adamant as the economic foothold/survival of U.S. journalism becomes more tenuous. This, if true, is not to contradict your primary point but to suggest that what we have here is a bit more of a witches’ brew than the idea of the media simply going in the tank for Clinton because it supports her policies and fears the advent of Trump.
“Faux bubba” – perfect description. Also, Rep King as head of the House Committee on Terrorism is ironic, considering his previous support of and ties to the IRA back in the day. He used to raise money for the IRA through NorAid- something that would be a crime under present Federal laws which were not in effect then. And the IRA was waging war against the UK, our closet ally.
Clinton is talking about launching a Libya-style war against Syria and possibly Russia and Iran. Can Trump be more dangerous then that? A way around the “lesser evil” trap is through vote pairing. A Trump voter agrees with a Clinton voter to vote for a third party candidate. This way you can vote for a third party ticket without feeling you have contributed to a greater evil victory. This idea is discussed at http://www.votepact.org.
I’m not voting for Trump either, but for the record, I agree: the media are obviously in the bag for Hellary and are actively dog-piling Trump.
And people here think I am some sort of upjumped whippersnapper. Thank you.
Larry Kart et al
I do think that there is some measure of snobbery about Trump gross behavior and coarseness, but the main thing seems to me to be the belief on the part of your former colleagues to believe that they should control the process by influencing the people. pl
“Faux populist”. Yeah, he’s just been saying the same things on trade and immigration since the eighties but he’s a fake.
lmbo some of you goofs.
The grotesque and incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq was the creation of the elite and sold to a hurting and shocked populace by a full-court press of the propaganda apparatus. It was only “our” war in the sense that it was foisted on us. And not resisted by the calculating and corrupt like Hillary Clinton. “I made a mistake” in voting for the Iraq invasion is a disingenuous and unacceptable excuse for her warmongering, which continued through her Sec State term to her policies today.
As far Sanders supporters are concerned, the reaction (at least in the groups I frequent) to MSM attacks on Trump are NOT “well, unfair, but needs must to get Mussolini defeated.” We’ve seem (we’re seeing) this wild, patrician indifference to democratic norms (I don’t say “journalistic norms” because I used to be one, and no such thing) applied to Sanders (Corbyn too in UK), so we’re very unamused seeing it applied to Trump. Whole thing in fact acts in reverse, making us wonder whether Trump might mean some of what he says after all, since so many of the worst people are lining up against him.
In this sense the Trump/Brexit parallel is rather exact. For an under-5 minute summary, I’d recommend SST readers take a moment to watch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg
Ok, that’s why.
I wished for a second it was the institution I stumbled across sometimes in 2011. But it isn’t and I didn’t save a link, neither make some notes. Observing media has become quite competitive between left to right nowadays. … But the institution I stumbled across did not rely on any type of work-outsourcing.
“The data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in collecting and coding news content. Media Tenor’s coding of print and television news stories is conducted by trained staff members who visually evaluate the content. Computer-based coding is less reliable and is not used in Media Tenor’s research. Coding of individual actors (e.g., presidential candidates) is done on a comprehensive basis, capturing all statements of more than five lines (print) or five seconds (TV) of coverage for a given actor.”
Media Tenor, Creating Perception:
But interesting task force network:
Also interesting. As far as I can see, there seems to be only one publication that isn’t linked under publications. And also the only one that deals with “objectivity”. But that’s not exactly the paper I would like to read again. At least it seems. … Why is it still listed? As a warning?
Reedy, Margie. Cable News Goes to War: Is Objectivity a Casualty? 2003
Yes, doesn’t look worth taking a closer look. Although maybe. Simply not me, since my time is limited.
I got only a slice of the news, it seems. Not from a comparative level, only concerning Trump.
It’s their bosses (or some of them) who “believe that they should control the process by influencing the people.” My sense is that my former colleagues and their descendents are a) fairly cynical about their own, or their bosses, ability to do that; and b) are far more invested in their own selves/identities within the widely shared identity of their group. Yes, this can dovetail to some degree with attempts to control the process by influencing the people, but these attempts I think are significantly modified and perhaps even defused by the “measure of snobbery” among the group to which you accurately pointed. In fact, one could argue that for a good many journalists of whatever background, the right to think of oneself in somewhat snobbish terms (one is, after all, by virtual fiat on the “inside” of a good many things) — this in relation to the people (or “people) one ostensibly addresses– is the defining term of one’s personal contract with the profession.
One sees this at a slight distance from the media’s anti-Trump campaign in all the handwringing/fingerwagging journalistic assessments of Brexit, in which the actual phrase “these people” or worse is often used to characterize Brexit supporters — this as the writers ponder the failure to effectively influence the Brexit supporters to vote otherwise. My point is that you can’t by and large successfully influence people for whom you have implicit contempt — people of all stripes and backgrounds pretty readily detect that attitude and don’t care for it one bit.
On a personal note, I came to journalism rather late in life, in my mid-30s, and thus was not that susceptible to its intoxicating blend of romance and cynicism, but I do recall how seductive it was to be able regularly introduce myself as “Larry Kart from the Chicago Tribune” and find tha otherwise closed doors would often swing open. One knew what the underlying tradeoff was — access in return for publicity or the like — but to feel that one’s own personal doubts about button-holing the powerful and famous could be erased simply by flashing one’s journalistic credentials….
I do have problems with his self-celabratory poses. Maybe as a result I have problems with his voice? Not always but sometimes.
How do you like Trump’s British voice-over:
Would it be anti-American, if I started to ponder if America could be the most perspicuous winner versus looser society? One side no doubt is the American Dream. Ok, alternatively, a winner takes it all society?
News of Immigrants – Is this Justice?
Tyler: You will have a field day with this one.
Yes, besides the site you specifically mentioned, links to posts from Sic Semper Tyrannis often appear at Naked Capitalism (as an aside, also posts from b’s Moon of Alabama, too). I see posters from that site often putting in an appearance here, obviously attracted by the solidity of the analysis offered by Col. Lang and his guest posters.
I value Col. Lang’s brand of conservatism, which stands in marked contrast to that bastardized swill offered up by the “cuckservatives”, unworthy pretenders to the conservative tradition.
As you might surmise from my posting name, I accept the value of states’ rights under our federal structure of governance. This doctrine is troublesome to those who would arrogate all powers to the federal government, and who also not so secretly wish to enforce cultural uniformity across the nation in furtherance of mandating their vision of the bounds of “acceptable thought and discourse”. My, how very totalitarian of them on both counts, don’t you think? This is not so very different in spirit from the response of the EU elites to the Brexit vote, and the rumblings of discontents from citizens of various European nations under their authoritarian sway. To that point, I drop in this link to a post over at CounterPunch by Diana Johnstone:
Rousseau gone off the rails, it would seem to me, in its embrace of social engineering by Those Who Know Best.
I read the article that you linked, and I’m not much persuaded. Here’s why:
– The article appears to count stories as negative for Hillary when the articles say that Bernie is doing better than expected and Hillary worse. That’s mere fact, not negative reporting.
– The article conflates coverage during primaries with Hillary’s current “nominee-in-fact” status. The article, which draws data from a period beginning in early 2015, says that there has been “heavier accountability for the Democratic nominee”, based on reporting before she was the nominee. Even the Kennedy School can shade things a little.
The article focuses on negative issues coverage. One of the strongest legitimate arguments against Hillary has been her questionable judgment and she and Bill’s record. I used to like Bill a lot, and still find him charming.
Near the end, the article says that the tide of coverage is shifting in Hillary’s favor since it became Clinton versus Trump. Yes. Massively so.
From the article: “the greatest asset as a candidate will be her opponent.” Sad thing to say about someone who’s been in the public eye for a quarter century.
The article says that there is now a concerted media effort to debunk Trump’s lies and do you bunk some of his statements. Good. I’m not aware of any substantial present effort to scrutinize Hillary’s circumstances or record. For example, a comparison with other presidential candidates who were under criminal investigation while they were running, (Eugene Debs ran while in prison, but he was a socialist.) Or the extent of influence peddling in re the Clinton foundation.
“20/800 vision” means I see at 20 feet what others normally see at 800 feet.. without glasses or contacts, I’m legally blind because everything beyond 2 feet is a blur (can’t even read the dashboard or speedometer if I was driving without contacts/glasses)
Back then in the 1980s, you needed better than 20/70 vision to be a jet pilot & PRC, LASIK surgery was not yet approved for Air Force pilots (nowadays, PRC,LASIK is only approved for Air Force pilots if done at certain military’s premier hospitals & you are allowed up to 20/200 vision)
Here’s the latest requirements for Air Force pilots & crew:
But it is not about nationalism, but about sovereignty.
Will you say that swiss are nationalist ?
I would say that Hilary Clinton is a cross between Goldman Sachs and Dick Cheney, but that´s redundant: Dick Cheney is a cross between Goldman Sachs and himself.
Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney v 2.0
Can´t get much worse than that.
I always figured you as being more pro-peace than anti-war.
My experience, and I am of a newer vintage than our host, is that the ground has shifted during my lifetime and most who share my party affiliation have views I don’t remotely share. Left and right don’t really describe much these days when no monarchists or Marxists are to be found, and libertarians are not anarchists but monopolists in Silicon Valley living in fortresses of patent law.
When they left home on the Mayflower, signed the Declaration, fought in the revolution, I don’t think my ancestors were left or right, but I guess they were pretty radical. As are anyone today who attempts to see the world as it is, and find this committee a tonic, or provides the salon in which it congregates.
Thanks for the link. There is a similarity between the votes in the USA for Donald Trump and for a Brexit in the UK. Colonel Lang is correct there is a media propaganda campaign ongoing. Labeling these voters as racists is part of it. Also, there are the omissions. The dots aren’t connected by the media. This is not a “black helicopter” liberal conspiracy although there are the global elites who are running things who have utter contempt for workers, freeloaders and democracy. Rather, it is the reversion back to the old fashion scam of the aristocracy and their 5% savants milking the little people of everything they have. “Another day older and deeper in debt. I owe my soul to the company store.” The decline of the middle class will continue until they refuse to take it anymore. This is not right or left issue except in the sense that a return of FDR’s New Deal Capitalism and a government by and for the people would be less violent than a revolution like the earlier ones in England, France or Russia.
…I know this beast and/or these beasts and its/their inclinations and appetites; I lived and worked among them for almost thirty years. The troops in the field will follow orders from above up to a point, but eventually the scorpion will sting to death the frog (or was it the rabbit?) on whose back he was crossing the river because, as the scorpion said to the frog or rabbit as they both began to drown, “It’s in my nature.”
Since I know of your background in journalism at the venerable and conservative newspaper in Chicago, you bring up an interesting point of view.
I am most interested to hear from you a narrative of a specific event from the past.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
The DNC is committing institutional suicide, having pretzelized the nomination rules to ensure Hillary’s coronation. Hearing the AP call the Dem nomination for Hillary — on the very night before the California primary! — was my ‘Rubicon’. The AP and the MSM should have been hauled into court for election tampering; their timing was a manipulative disgrace that only solidified my sense that ‘the fix is in’.
As someone upthread said, this is an election like no other.
For a Trump/Brexit parallel see the Archdruid
“..sold to a hurting and shocked populace”. You are breaking my heart. This, to a people that took Pearl Harbour, relatively speaking, in our stride and went to work. “foisted” on us indeed. Anyone with a hour to kill on google, at that time, could have been provided with about 100 reasons why this war was nonsense and bound to end poorly. Indeed, in the precise way it ended up. The division of Iraq into warring sects. And what this “division” was going to mean for Iraq’s neighbors…and a wider world. Like Brando said to Steiger in On the Waterfront, ‘it was you Charlie, it was you’.
It was “us”. And the sooner we admit it…and it is always terribly painful and traumatic to admit it (you have a lot of veterans out there, and their families, saying, ‘what did I suffer for? This result?’, the better. We are not only NOT going to admit it, we are most likely going to validate–make President– one of the most war like, and cynical, supporters of the Iraq War. Ponder the implications of that breath of denial. A nation cannot suffer a strategic defeat, on this scale, our worse defeat perhaps, in history, and then turn around and reward the political class that brought us the defeat. Not without paying a significant price.
I’m at the point that it wouldn’t bother me if Trump beat Clinton. I’m voting for Sanders or Jill Stein. Someone needs to tell Trump that if he picks Newt Gingrich as his running mate he has no chance of victory. My mother left the GOP because of that clown.
That’s a line from one of my favorite Tennessee Ernie Ford songs, well-remembered from seeing him perform it on the black and white TV back when I was just a wee little guy.
True then, true now.
Probably the most egregious specific journalistic event of this sort that I witnessed at the Trib (though it’s a bit outside the political realm we’ve been talking about) was its multi-part series crusade against Robert Gallo, Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of the AIDs virus. Mounted by a former NYT investigative reporter named John Crewdson (based on appearance and demeanor, his nickname was “Blutto”), this crusade (which The Trib hoped would win a Pulitzer prize; it was the most extensive series the paper had ever run) claimed that Gallo had not discovered the virus but instead had stolen it from a team of French scientists who also had been working on the problem. Wthout doubt, Gallo (to mix metaphors) had sharp elbows and cut some corners, but that’s pretty much the way it often is in science (see the behavior of Watson and Crick re: DNA for one of many examples).
Two of my friends at the Trib were veteran science writers (one of them later would win a Pulitzer himself for his articles on gene therapy), and they urgently tried to warn the editors in charge (including the actual editor of the paper) that Crewdson’s anti-Gallo crusade was in error about some key facts and also more or less embarrassing to anyone who knew how high-powered scientists tended to operate (though the series also was in tune with any number of anti-science, anti-bureaucratic, anti-academic bees that long had buzzed around in the paper’s ideological bonnet). These veteran science writers were then told that they should shut up on this subject or they would or lose their jobs. In the event, Crewdson’s series did not win a Pulitzer.
Oddly enough, this episode dovetailed with an earlier one that also involved AIDs-related matters. The Trib had recently imported (this was in the early 1980s, IIRC) several supposedly top-notch reporters (e.g. Crewdson) and editors from Abe Rosenthal’s New York Times. A hardcore homophobe, Rosenthal had decreed when the AIDS epidemic (or what you will) hit that this was a “gay disease” and would get minimal coverage from the NYT because (this was not spoken of this openly of course) these immoral people are getting what they deserved for all their immoral behavior. Others, however, saw the advent of AIDS again, in more or less medical terms, as a burgeoning epidemic whose dimensions were not yet known or knowable, and felt that it should be covered accordingly.
In any case, whatever the Trib’s pre-existing ideology in such social-moral areas was, it enthusiastically adopted the Rosenthal “let’s turn our backs on these perverts; they’re getting what they deserve and good riddance” approach to AIDS coverage that its newly arrived former NYT reporters and editors had brought with them. The particular incident I have in mind involved the then editor of the features section. Randy Shilts’ pathbreaking book on the AIDS epidemic “And the Band Played On” was on the best-seller list, Shilts was on a tour to promote it, and the Trib’s features editor set up an interview with Shilts, which would have been SOP for the author of almost any book that was leaping off the shelves and also had a clear-cut newsy aspect to it. The features editor was then told from above that the interview would have to be cancelled because the Trib was not going to give more space to this vile topic than it absolutely had to, especially to the author of a book that among other things pointed out how much of the media and many public officials had sat on their hands or worse when the facts of AIDS began to emerge. The cancellation of the Shilts interview stood.
I’m sure that there are many more overtly political journalistic events stored somewhere in my memory of my 25 or so years at the Trib, but these are the two that come to mind right now and the details of which I can vouch for directly — because of my friendship with the science writers and the features editor who were involved. Further, what they told me about what was going on in these instances, they told me when these things were going on — not well after they happened.
I don’t understand people in effect electing Clinton because they can’t bring themselves to vote for her opponent. This does not make sense to me.
Am assuming (wishfully thinking) the Newt business is just media vassals fucking with we the people and/or with Trump. Expect someone to name Tom Cotton just to see what he says.
A truly interesting story. I recall reading it and will try to reread if I can find it in the Tribune archives (as I am a subscriber). Who was the publisher at the time?
Also, I’m surprised about the NY Times assertions. I had been a daily consumer of the Times since its newsprint was distributed nationally in the early 80’s (didn’t care for the WSJ, so I guess that shows my position on the political spectrum). It was reading about the “mysterious disease that afflicts gays, hemophiliacs and Haitians” in the NYT that introduced me to the AIDS issue.
I believe that another more recent example, and I wonder whether you concur, is the controversy with the ‘Innocence Project’, wrongful conviction movement, Anthony Porter, Jon Burge; formerly initiated at Northwestern University journalism school. This seems to be a news item that has been recently accused of malfeasance.
Please note that I make this observation as a supporter of law enforcement (minus the military gear)
Otto von Bismark would be considered “left” in America-today’s manufactured political landscape.
Two pieces about how pervasive the effects of Rosenthal’s homophobia were at the NYT when he was managing editor — in general and in terms of the lack of coverage of the AIDS epidemic (until Rosenthal retired).
If those pieces seem at all tendentious, I can assure you that what they say about Rosenthal and the NYT was fairly common knowledge among many journalists on many papers at the time. There’s nothing that journalists like to talks about more than the behind-the-scenes crap that that’s going on at their paper and at other papers.
I know of the kerfuffle over Northwestern U. and the Innocence Project but don’t know enough to come down on one side or the other or even to be sure what the sides actually are there (there may well be more than two or even three sides to it now) .
I’ll have to check on who the Trib’s editor and publisher were at the time of Gallo series, though I doubt whether the publisher would have been involved in it that much or at all.
BTW, in case anyone who read my initial reply to Ramojus is curious, I, and the two science writers and features editor I mentioned in that post are all straight, as they say. I feel somewhat silly in saying that, but there are some conspiracy-minded minds on SST, and why not set them to rest?
TBF it was already done. Trump said he looked forward to working with Cotton in the future. So no.
To answer your first question: a lot of virtue signalling.
The editor of the Tribune at the time of the 55,000-word John Crewdson series on Robert Gallo was Jack Fuller (who recently passed away), though there may have been some overlap with Fuller’s predecessor Jim Squires. The publisher of the paper at the time was John Madigan.
Turkey, Bangladesh and we’re next again? Not a thing would shock me.
was thinking this was the Borg pulling a Predator Pee Deterrent type maneuver.
but flippancy is the first phase of denial.
WTF is Rumsfeld doing in Caucasus and Central Europe.
The past 48 hrs CNN says sources say no charges against HRC. FBI Director begins his announcement today with “No one knows what I am about to say”…..I call whitewash and BS… No charges recommended… she broke laws but no charges because ignorance or even feigned ignorance is an excuse. The FBI is now confirmed as a Borg tool of “governance”.