The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism

[Neven]

[Rob Dekker]

It looks like it's not just CNN's ratings that are up.

Trump has been best for Fox News, with ratings going through the roof :

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/october-2018-ratings-fox-news-channel-averaged-more-viewers-than-cnn-and-msnbc-combined/382598

October 2018 Ratings: Fox News Channel Averaged More Total Viewers Than CNN and MSNBC Combined

FNC was +25 percent in total prime time viewers, +16 percent in total day viewers, +13 percent in the prime time demo, and +3 percent in the total day demo vs. October 2017. The network actually averaged more viewers across the 24-hour day in Oct. 2018 than it did in Oct. 2016, which was the month before a presidential election.

FNC marked 28 consecutive months as the No. 1 basic cable network in total day with nearly 1.7 million total viewers for the month of October 2018, and the 5th consecutive month as the most-watched basic cable network in prime time with more than 2.8 million total viewers, according to Nielsen data. The No. 1 ranking in prime time is impressive considering how sports-driven the month of October is. But this news cycle is unlike any other we have seen.

Trump has been great for the media business, fake or not 

I think it is because Trump turned the presidency into a TV reality show.

[Neven]

I think it is because Trump turned the presidency into a TV reality show.

Absolutely, and the media helped him achieve it. That's why it's so important to separate the wheat (policy) from the chaff (personality), and realize the mainstream media is not going to do it for you. Because its goals do not align with those of the majority of the American population.

[Rob Dekker]

I think it is because Trump turned the presidency into a TV reality show.

Absolutely, and the media helped him achieve it. That's why it's so important to separate the wheat (policy) from the chaff (personality), and realize the mainstream media is not going to do it for you. Because its goals do not align with those of the majority of the American population.

To separate the wheat (policy) from the chaff (personality) is not so easy. With Trump it all blurs into some melting pot of actions.

For example (since we are on the journalism thread) the recent withdrawal of the press pass for Jim Acosta.  Was that a policy decision or a personality decision ?

On the economic front, same thing. For example, the trade war with China. Is that policy or just his bullying personality ?

And how about the insults against these three African American journalists ? Was that personal, or was it part of his policy of putting minorities down ?

You see ? Not so easy to find the boundary of where Trump's statements and actions are personal and when it's part of his policy.

I think Trump even does not know where the boundary is.

He is just constantly shooting from the hip.

[Rob Dekker]

Marcus Kolga presents the Magnitsky Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalist to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat. Eliot dedicates the award to all those who contribute, big or small, to Bellingcat.

[Neven]

I've replied to your questions in the Trump presidency thread, Rob.

[vox_mundi]

Why the 'P' word — propaganda — might be best for what we're seeing on our TV screens
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-propaganda-fake-news-tv-culture-20181116-htmlstory.html

The “P” word.

It’s a pivotal part of the story on Donald Trump’s camera-lit path to the White House. The media, of course, rarely if ever uttered the taboo term on air, even as demonstrators shouted it at cameras during women’s marches and scrawled it across protest signs they brandished outside the White House.

But here we are, two years in, tiptoeing around The Word That Cannot Be Said. Let’s just call it what it is: Propaganda.

The state-sponsored spread of deliberate misinformation is not a “half-truth,” “distortion of reality” or “the president’s loose relationship with the facts,” as many a mainstream news correspondent and pundit have said. It’s also not “a bold truth” or simply “The Truth” as many voices on the right have asserted.

Democracy relies on people being informed...A society [with] their own set of facts is absolutely devastating.

Stephan Lewandowsky, cognitive scientist

... Propaganda is something most of us read about in history class and wondered how people were so easily duped. Certainly they saw through such obvious attempts to manipulate? Its use dates back well before Nazi Germany and Cold War Russia and stretches up to present-day China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. It arrives in the form of fake Facebook accounts created abroad and meant to influence our elections, or surveillance video from a Turkish embassy where Saudi operatives sought to cover up a murder by posing as their victim.

It’s the mark of a country we never wanted to be: a nation that divides its own people and pits them against one another. And it never ends well.

... Orwellian state messaging has even permeated the TV series we binge for entertainment. Shall we be terrified by “The Man in the High Castle” or “The Handmaid’s Tale” tonight, honey? We’ve also been desensitized by reality TV, the modern-day answer to the documentary, where scripted moments of drama are an acceptable and almost expected part of serialized “reality.”
_____________

Judge orders Trump administration to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass

[Martin Gisser]

The state-sponsored spread of deliberate misinformation is

... only one side of the coin. For example, are shows like Alex Jones InfoWars state-sponsored? Nope (except you want to believe in an Alex Jones style conspiracy theory).
Is the spread of fake news on Facebook etc. state-sponsored? The sources might be, e.g. a Russian troll factory (which is oligarch sponsored, to be precise). But the disinfo is spread by the consumers themselves via Facebook sharing. I have studied more than enough folks (from left to right polit spectrum) who soak up the ridicu-lousiest Facebook garbage like sponges and spread it. Like the proverbial sh.. hitting the fan. They could as well delight in cat videos or study original sources (e.g. interviews, science shows, etc.) -- But nope, instead they spread stuff like e.g. Pizzagate (Hillary Clinton owning a pedophilia ring). And many of these propaganda multipliers aren't even stupid. Look no further than the polit threads of this very forum.


--------------------
P.S.: Here is an extreme shocking example of what this mass self-delusion can lead to. Luckily constrained to a Mexican village. Not state-sponsored, but started by two sick individuals. It shows that this other side of the coin is older than mass media and the term "propaganda". There have been witch hunts before Facebook and WhatsApp...

Two men burned to death by mob over WhatsApp rumour
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/two-men-burned-to-death-by-mob-over-whatsapp-rumour/news-story/4983092e4b22e88c8967a725e2c73318


Even more shocking, there are the Rohingya people in Myanmar. The first Fakebook genocide, incited by propaganda seeded by some (not all) evil Buddhist clergy (state religion), no less, against this Muslim minority. Eagerly spread via Facebook sharing.

Things are getting pretty scary...

EDIT finished.

[Red]

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/11/16/fact-checking-the-establishments-fact-checkers-how-the-fake-news-story-is-fake-news/
                                                   excerpt:
As a result, the meaning of the expression has been redefined to discredit any news from a political viewpoint that challenges the status quo. The media’s strings have been pulled by a modern equivalent of the C.I.A.’s Operation Mockingbird influence campaign during the Cold War which appears to have been resurrected for its sequel.

[Rob Dekker]

Through its tireless work of often unpaid members, Bellingcat has become what liberals once hoped Wikileaks would become. A platform to advance transparency to global politics in a digital age.

https://eurabist.com/2018/11/16/move-over-wikileaks-there-is-a-new-sheriff-in-town/

Remember WikiLeaks, the initiative led by Julian Assange that shook the world by publishing 1000s of leaked U.S. embassy cables back in 2010? The group that once had the promise to bring transparency? Eight years later and it has been made redundant by Bellingcat, as the latter fulfilled the promise of what WikiLeaks was hoped to achieve for global politics in a digital age.

Difference between Wikileaks and Bellingcat is that Wikileaks is closed sourced (sources undisclosed), and Bellingcat is open sourced (sources wide open for anyone to check).

That makes Bellingcat much more transparant and trustworthy than Wikileaks, and in many ways the opposite.

[Neven]

I've said a couple of weeks ago that I would give my opinion on Bellingcat one last time, after watching a recent documentary a couple of times for work. Might as well do it here.

What I came away with, is that it's a tragic story. Mind you, it wasn't presented as such. It was a documentary that promoted the hero story, of ordinary people just like you and me, who do the things the media or the police should be doing, but don't. It fits in well with that sentiment in consumer culture that anybody can become a hero or a celebrity, like we see exemplified in the immensely popular talent shows on TV.

Bellingcat is simply a pawn in a geopolicital game that is all about money, corporate access, weapons sales and so on. I've seen enough of Eliot Higgins now (but I had already strong suspicions after reading through his Twitter feed), to know that he has a huge ego and narcissistic tendencies. The way he licks his lips, the way his eyes twinkle, when talking about all the media attention he receives, or how intelligence agencies and governments are interested in his work. He is simply in it for the fame, and perhaps the money as well. The same, to a lesser extent, goes for Christiaan Triebert. They're running with this for all they're worth, there's not much ideology or idealism involved.

The others on the team that are presented in the documentary, are mostly nerds (Aric Toler is a perfect example), who get a kick out of doing the geolocation stuff. And rightly so, it's pretty cool what they're doing. But it's very one-sided, and they all have clear biases. One Syrian guy is obviously anti-Assad, and so is mostly interested in collecting and archiving evidence of war crimes perpetrated by the government. That's fine, but it shouldn't be presented as some objective, neutral endeavour, because it isn't. The other two (older) guys have a clear anti-Russia bias, one being ex-Finnish military, the other a German who used to work for the Stasi.

All of this is fine. The problem I have with it, is the implication that what they do, is objective, neutral, evidence-based, transparent, and so on. Some if it is, some of it isn't. Normally, this wouldn't get much attention, like most of what most bloggers do. The reason it does get attention, is because Bellingcat serves the purpose of promoting narratives that people will no longer accept from mainstream media. And the driving force behind Bellingcat, Eliot Higgins, is very eager to fill this niche, in exchange for fame (and probably money). His early embrace with the Atlantic Council and his bragging that a weapons manufacturer was interested in hiring him, attest to this fact. It's a small, but powerful movement that has a hand in a lot of the stories that promote neocon warmongering. From FusionGPS to Propornot, from CrowdStrike to the Magnitsky Prize, it would be quite easy to draw up an organigram, where Bellingcat also plays its role. 

Now, why is this a tragic story? It has all the hallmarks of a tragedy. There's the tragic anti-hero Higgins, who is presented as a hero thanks to his connections, rather than his work (which also relies heavily on connections he wouldn't normally have). And the thing with tragic characters is that it usually doesn't end well for them. In the best case, Higgins gets exposed for what he is. In the worst case, something bad happens to him that serves the propaganda purposes of one of many players in the story, be it the GRU or the NSA or MI6, or whatever.

In a TED talk, I saw Higgins talking about how open-source investigations can be used to 'influence the powerful, challenge the powerful, and hold the powerful to account'. Bellingcat is not doing that. The most powerful organisation in the world is the US Pentagon. If Bellingcat really was about speaking truth to power, 90% of what they'd be doing, would be focused on American empire. It's not. If it would be, if these guys would be real heroes, they'd be withering away like Assange, in some cell or embassy. The fact that they aren't, the fact that they aren't smeared by mainstream media, means they are doing things that the powers that be approve of, things that further the goals of powerful interests.

It's not going to do much good over-all, and it's not going to end well. I feel sorry for everyone involved with Bellingcat, especially for those who are unselfish and mean well. It's a tragic story.

[Neven]

And let me pre-emptively add:

I'm sorry, Rob. I know this disappoints you, and enrages you even, but this is simply how I see it. I'm looking for things that promote peace to find ways out of the mess we're in, and Bellingcat is not it.

[Rob Dekker]

Yes. It's very disappointing.

I respect your opinion, but do not understand why you believe all that you write about them.

On the bright side, since Bellingcat has the facts on their side, I think I stick with them.

[Neven]

I may change my mind, and I'm not against open source journalism per se. If it weren't for Higgins, I'd be more enthusiastic about Bellingcat, even though it's surrounded by a lot of hype.

[Rob Dekker]

I may change my mind, and I'm not against open source journalism per se. If it weren't for Higgins, I'd be more enthusiastic about Bellingcat, even though it's surrounded by a lot of hype.

I understand, Neven. Like a good wine, some things take time to appreciate.

There is no doubt in my mind that open source journalism will proliferate into wider media since it complements investigative journalism so nicely.

You already see that with the NYT analyzing the Douma Chemical attack using open source data.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/25/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-douma.html

And the BBC with their open source investigation of the Cameroon killings.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-45599973/cameroon-atrocity-finding-the-soldiers-who-killed-this-woman

Open source journalism, using publicly available evidence, is a natural extension to investigative journalism that is already part of good traditional journalism, now taking advantage of the vast amount of information that people post on-line.

So I think you will be proven wrong, and open source journalism will be extremely successful in reconstructing the truth about many events investigated.

Regarding Higgins, I really don't understand what he ever did wrong to you.

[TerryM]

As one who was interacting with Higgins prior to the birth of Bellingcat, I can assure you that he doesn't age particularly well.
Higgins didn't invent "open source journalism", nor was he well regarded by those that had been it for some time prior to his arrival on the scene. His problems in early 2014 were a milder version of those that still seem evident almost 5 years later. He then and now rejects out of hand any information that doesn't agree with his preconceived scenario. Then and now proving Russian guilt was far more important than discerning the truth. Then and now he has major problems in accepting that the facts were are not what he assumed that they would be.


While these traits might be advantageous to a propagandist, or a Dick Chaney style of political operative, they are off putting during any attempt at conversation, and are poison to any group attempting to discern the truth through rigorous peer review and consensus.


Higgins' insistence that his own interpretation of a photo carries more weight than the eye witness testimony of those on the ground didn't begin on the pages of Bellingcat. While I don't recall any episodes where he was accused of doctoring photographic evidence, he was often called out for accepting very suspect interpretations as being factual, and for insisting that his interpretation was correct even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was not.


I hope the documentary devotes some time to Eliot's formative period, when he was learning Geo-Location and the fundamentals of Open Source Journalism.


Terry

[Rob Dekker]

Same Script: RT and Maduro on Migration

Russia’s state-funded media amplifying Venezuelan government’s stances on contentious regional issue

https://medium.com/dfrlab/same-script-rt-and-maduro-on-migration-8182446537b3

International media have extensively covered the Venezuelan migration crisis that has plagued millions over the past few years, with correspondents weighing in from border towns across Latin America. But while United Nations figures affirm 2.3 million people have left Venezuela since 2015, one outlet has prioritized reports of a few thousand that have decided to come back to the country. The outlet is Actualidad RT, the Spanish-language version of the Russian-funded television network.

While the majority of international analysts attribute the crisis is in large part a result of the failed economic policies of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Maduro himself tends to attribute the crisis to external factors. Actualidad RT sides with the Venezuelan government’s narrative on the mass exodus of Venezuelans fleeing hardship.

[sidd]

Parts 3 and 4 of leaked video of undercover Israeli ops in USA

https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-final-episodes-al-jazeera-film-us-israel-lobby/25896

parts 1 and 2 at

https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

Here is the Bellingcat documentary : "Bellingcat - Truth in a post-truth world".

https://joop.bnnvara.nl/videos/terugkijken-idfa-documentaire-bellingcat-truth-in-a-post-truth-world

Neven, did you do the translation to Dutch on this film ?

[Neven]

Yes, and the Dutch to English.

[Rob Dekker]

I'm about halfway through the documentary, and I must say that I think your translation from English to Dutch is pretty good.

Professional work, which does not show your personal opinion about Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins that you are venting on this forum.

Which makes it ever so strange that you hold that very negative opinion in the first place.

[Red]

The title by itself is either bad journalism or maybe warming us to the idea of such a geo-engineering scheme?
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years

 https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/?utm_source=reddit.com

[Neven]

I'm about halfway through the documentary, and I must say that I think your translation from English to Dutch is pretty good.

I've become better at translating to English than to Dutch, but luckily, there's always an editor to polish the work.

Professional work, which does not show your personal opinion about Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins that you are venting on this forum.

Which makes it ever so strange that you hold that very negative opinion in the first place.

I can separate these things, and it was obviously an interesting project to work on.

But the documentary reinforced the negative opinion I already had. Higgins is toxic.

[Rob Dekker]

But the documentary reinforced the negative opinion I already had. Higgins is toxic.

Well, if even the documentary itself did not change your opinion about Higgins, then I don't think anything I say will. So I won't even try any more.

[sidd]

Taibbi on implications of Assange indictment, and the ambivalence of the press:

"a lot of press people seemed to approve of Wikileaks only insofar as its “radical transparency” ideas coincided with traditional standards of newsworthiness."

"Newspapers always seemed to want the site’s scoops, without having to deal with the larger implications of its leaks."

"Wikileaks briefly opened a window into the uglier side of our society, and if publication of such leaks is criminalized, it probably won’t open again."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/

sidd

[Red]

After Taibbi published his article, he spent a couple hours on Twitter explaining to Democratic Party loyalists over and over and over and over again that the charges Assange is facing almost certainly have nothing to do with the 2016 WikiLeaks publications, and rather relate to much earlier publications of a far more classified nature than a few Democrats’ emails. He had to do this because Russiagate conspiracy theorists have been shrieking that it’s #MuellerTime ever since news broke about the sealed charges, and now you’ve got the strange scene of liberals everywhere cheering on a Trump administration agenda which threatens to cripple the free press they claim to be protecting from the very administration that they are cheering for. The concept that the prosecution of someone they’ve been trained to hate has nothing to do with the thing they hate him for is inconceivable from within the walls of the binary narrative matrix that these people have become trapped in by establishment manipulators like Jamali.
Taibbi’s essay wraps up with the words, “Americans seem not to grasp what might be at stake. Wikileaks briefly opened a window into the uglier side of our society, and if publication of such leaks is criminalized, it probably won’t open again.”
He’s right. They don’t grasp it. Here’s hoping they do before it’s too late.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/newsweek-employed-spy-explains-to-us-why-assange-should-be-prosecuted-4cb319533633

[Red]

A senior Saudi prince cast doubt on the reported CIA finding that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last month, saying the agency could not be counted on to reach a credible conclusion.

"The CIA is not necessarily the highest standard of veracity or accuracy in assessing situations. The examples of that are multitude," Prince Turki al-Faisal, a senior member of the royal family, told journalists in Abu Dhabi on Saturday.

The prince, a former Saudi intelligence chief who has also served as ambassador to the United States, said the agency's conclusion that Iraq possessed chemical weapons before the US invasion in 2003 showed it could be unreliable.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/saudi-prince-turki-cia-trusted-khashoggi-181125060414841.html?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

[Rob Dekker]

Amnesty International organized this open source investigation of the US - led bombing campaign on Raqqa. This campaign removed ISIS from the city, but also cost many civilian lives.

Now you can contribute yourself to the investigation of what happened in detail in to each building Raqqa, and when :

https://decoders.amnesty.org/projects/strike-tracker

This is a huge undertaking which is only 2% complete at this time, despite the contribution of already more than 1,500 contributors.

You can become a contributor too, and help reveal the magnitude of the devastation in Raqqa that the US led coalition caused.

[Red]

Charles Koch Is Funding Rightwing, Pro-Trump Media, New Disclosure Reveals

Newly disclosed tax forms show that the billionaire industrialist’s foundations have increased their funding of conservative outlets while also ramping up support for First Amendment groups.
Charles Koch foundations donate to media organizations

The Charles Koch Foundation (CKF) and the Charles Koch Institute (CKI) increased their funding of media and media-adjacent organizations in 2017. Nearly all direct grants to news outlets went to conservative magazines and websites.

Recipient   Donor   2017   2016   2015   3-Year Total
-TOTAL-      $2,454,274   $1,846,334   $778,054   $5,078,662
American Society of News Editors Foundation   CKF   $80,000   $0   $0   $80,000
American Spectator Foundation   CKF   $84,282   $0   $4,800   $89,082
American Spectator Foundation   CKI   $6,000   $0   $0   $6,000
Daily Caller News Foundation   CKF   $959,502   $946,127   $610,302   $2,515,931
Daily Caller News Foundation   CKI   $20,000   $12,000   $18,200   $50,200
Free Think Media   CKF   $96,533   $0   $0   $96,533
Media Coalition Foundation   CKF   $60,000   $0   $0   $60,000
Mercury Radio Arts   CKF   $41,906   $0   $0   $41,906
Moving Picture Institute   CKF   $422,750   $0   $0   $422,750
Moving Picture Institute   CKI   $30,000   $19,079   $0   $49,079
National Freedom of Information Coalition   CKF   $10,000   $0   $0   $10,000
National Review Institute   CKF   $0   $16,626   $11,626   $28,252
RealClearPolitics   CKF   $8,000   $0   $0   $8,000
Reason Foundation   CKF   $267,875   $744,876   $122,926   $1,135,677
Reason Foundation   CKI   $65,000   $21,000   $10,200   $96,200
Saturday Evening Post Society   CKF   $71,400   $0   $0   $71,400
Saturday Evening Post Society   CKI   $24,000   $0   $0   $24,000
Student Free Press Association   CKF   $77,900   $65,000   $0   $142,900
Student Free Press Association   CKI   $6,000   $0   $0   $6,000
The Poynter Institute   CKF   $70,000   $0   $0   $70,000
TheBlaze   CKF   $7,500   $0   $0   $7,500
Young Voices   CKF   $45,626   $21,626   $0   $67,252
Young Voices   CKI   $22,000   $0   $0   $22,000

Chart: Alex Kotch/Sludge   Source: IRS tax records posted online by CKF and CKI   Get the data   Created with DatawrapperCharles Koch foundations donate to media organizations
The Charles Koch Foundation (CKF) and the Charles Koch Institute (CKI) increased their funding of media and media-adjacent organizations in 2017. Nearly all direct grants to news outlets went to conservative magazines and websites.

Recipient   Donor                                                  2017              2016       2015    3-Year Total
-TOTAL-                                                               $2,454,274 $1,846,334 $778,054 $5,078,662
American Society of News Editors Foundation   CKF   $80,000      $0               $0      $80,000
American Spectator Foundation   CKF                           $84,282       $0             $4,800      $89,082
American Spectator Foundation   CKI                             $6,000      $0                $0        $6,000
Daily Caller News Foundation   CKF                          $959,502   $946,127   $610,302   $2,515,931
Daily Caller News Foundation   CKI                            $20,000     $12,000     $18,200      $50,200
Free Think Media   CKF                                            $96,533             $0             $0      $96,533
Media Coalition Foundation   CKF                                    $60,000             $0             $0      $60,000
Mercury Radio Arts   CKF                                            $41,906             $0             $0      $41,906
Moving Picture Institute   CKF                                  $422,750             $0             $0    $422,750
Moving Picture Institute   CKI                                    $30,000     $19,079             $0      $49,079
National Freedom of Information Coalition   CKF            $10,000             $0             $0      $10,000
National Review Institute   CKF                                            $0     $16,626     $11,626      $28,252
RealClearPolitics   CKF                                                      $8,000             $0             $0        $8,000
Reason Foundation   CKF                                     $267,875   $744,876   $122,926   $1,135,677
Reason Foundation   CKI                                            $65,000     $21,000     $10,200       $96,200
Saturday Evening Post Society   CKF                            $71,400             $0             $0       $71,400
Saturday Evening Post Society   CKI                            $24,000             $0             $0       $24,000
Student Free Press Association   CKF                            $77,900     $65,000             $0     $142,900
Student Free Press Association   CKI                              $6,000             $0             $0         $6,000
The Poynter Institute   CKF                                            $70,000             $0             $0       $70,000
TheBlaze   CKF                                                              $7,500             $0             $0         $7,500
Young Voices   CKF                                                     $45,626     $21,626             $0        $67,252
Young Voices   CKI                                                     $22,000             $0             $0        $22,000

Chart: Alex Kotch/Sludge   Source: IRS tax records posted online by CKF and CKI   Get the data   Created with Datawrapper
https://readsludge.com/2018/11/21/charles-koch-is-funding-rightwing-pro-trump-media-new-disclosure-reveals/?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

[TerryM]

A good and bad example of journalism wrapped up in one story?

https://www.rt.com/news/444995-assange-manafort-wikileaks-guardian/

The Guardian's story of Manafort's visits to Assange changes as Wikileaks ups the ante.

What's happened to what had once been a reasonably reliable newspaper?
Terry

[TerryM]

Assange saves his companion from threatened incatsuration.

https://www.rt.com/news/445009-assange-sends-embassy-cat-away/

Terry

[Neven]

Luke Harding is the Guardian's David Rose. Here's an interview with him last year:



Craig Murray weighs in:

The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding of the Guardian.

(...)

Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage.

Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.

[Martin Gisser]

But the documentary reinforced the negative opinion I already had. Higgins is toxic.

Well, if even the documentary itself did not change your opinion about Higgins, then I don't think anything I say will. So I won't even try any more.

Rob, this is a hopeless case. Neven is poisoned. After this I give the most pessimistic prognosis.

So, after a long barrage of ridicu-lousy ad hominems at Higgins, I tried hard to find any alleged toxicity in the docu - even if irrelevant to his work (Einstein also had toxic aspects...).

What I saw is just a normal nerd. I met dozens of the Higgins type in IT industry. Yes, many I don't want to ever meet again. And yes, nerds can be "tragic figures" (quoth Neven or Terry) ... -- Yet they still can do excellent work! (Neven's subtitling of the docu is perhaps an example...) But Higgins obviously is above average nerd. He has worked at his social skills and personality. I would even not reject him for a software project which requires serious team skills (i.e. professional transcendence of pride, prejudice, personal neuroses, math trauma, wannabe scientism, ...).

Well, I skipped a few minutes that were neither English nor German and a few other parts I only listened to while doing kitchen cleanup. Where did Higgins "lick his lips" in pride? Where is any hint at him being a toxic personality (beyond relics of typical nerd persona)?

--------------

Anyhow, the real fun here is just beginning, with Mueller's end game. Awaiting a barrage of ridicu-lousy Russian propaganda...

I'm giving up on this poisoned swamp of disinformation and its chief активные мероприятия alligator Neven.

(Well, maybe when Mueller is finished Neven might change mind - but I doubt. I sense the same psychopathology as with climate deniers.)

[Neven]

(Well, maybe when Mueller is finished Neven might change mind - but I doubt. I sense the same psychopathology as with climate deniers.)

I might certainly change my mind, if, after two years of endless xenophobe shrieking, I finally get to see some real, hard evidence, instead of 'sources say' or 'the CIA/NSA say'.

But even if the hard evidence is there, we won't see it. Because a) We would have seen it by now, and b) your hero, Robert Mueller, is part of the swamp, just like Trump is. When TPTB tell Mueller to back off, he'll back off. That's when people like you, in disbelief and disappointment, will seamlessly switch to some conspiracy theory that explains why your hero didn't deliver. But it will be so massive and pushed so hard by corporate media, that instead of 'conspiracy theory' it will be dubbed 'establishment truth, as determined by really smart, objective people' (automatically including Martin Gisser, of course, because he's a math genius).

There's no more tick-tock because the battery has run out, but we'll see what happens. It's all smoke and mirrors, and in the meantime, the neolib/neocon system remains unchanged and stronger than ever (because invisible). When all of this is over, we'll have lost another 2-8 years. But the mountain of concentrated wealth will have doubled in size again.

[ASILurker]

Chris Hedges asks: "The question is this, should this information have remained hidden from the American public and I would say that if you argue that you can't call yourself a journalist."

[Rob Dekker]

(Well, maybe when Mueller is finished Neven might change mind - but I doubt. I sense the same psychopathology as with climate deniers.)

I might certainly change my mind, if, after two years of endless xenophobe shrieking, I finally get to see some real, hard evidence, instead of 'sources say' or 'the CIA/NSA say'.

Bellingcat has published hundreds of articles and reports, and not once did I see them claim "sources say" or "CIA/NSA say".

So your vendetta against Bellingcat is entirely unfounded.

[Rob Dekker]

But the documentary reinforced the negative opinion I already had. Higgins is toxic.

Well, if even the documentary itself did not change your opinion about Higgins, then I don't think anything I say will. So I won't even try any more.

Rob, this is a hopeless case. Neven is poisoned. After this I give the most pessimistic prognosis.

So, after a long barrage of ridicu-lousy ad hominems at Higgins, I tried hard to find any alleged toxicity in the docu - even if irrelevant to his work (Einstein also had toxic aspects...).

What I saw is just a normal nerd. I met dozens of the Higgins type in IT industry. Yes, many I don't want to ever meet again. And yes, nerds can be "tragic figures" (quoth Neven or Terry) ... -- Yet they still can do excellent work! (Neven's subtitling of the docu is perhaps an example...) But Higgins obviously is above average nerd. He has worked at his social skills and personality. I would even not reject him for a software project which requires serious team skills (i.e. professional transcendence of pride, prejudice, personal neuroses, math trauma, wannabe scientism, ...).

Well, I skipped a few minutes that were neither English nor German and a few other parts I only listened to while doing kitchen cleanup. Where did Higgins "lick his lips" in pride? Where is any hint at him being a toxic personality (beyond relics of typical nerd persona)?

Indeed Martin. Higgins has not even hinted at being "toxic". In fact, Higgins and Bellingcat in general has been absolutely flawless in all their investigations in finding out the TRUTH about events investigated. There has not been a single instance where they were proven wrong.

I have asked Neven why he believes so negatively about Higgins, and the best thing he came up with was that Higgins is advising the Atlantic Counsel, who Neven said is "war mongering".
So I asked for an example article of the Atantic Counsel "war mongering", but Neven came up empty handed.

So, Neven has no evidence to sustain his negative opinion of Bellingcat or the Atlantic Counsel for that matter.

But he doesn't change his opinion, so I gave up.

I'm giving up on this poisoned swamp of disinformation and its chief активные мероприятия alligator Neven.

I don't blame you.

It's gotten pretty bad here with Neven behaving as a paid Russian troll, and Terry, Zizek, three Lurks, a Red and a whole bunch of other posters constantly posting from RT and from Russian propaganda websites from the propornot.com list.

I myself am thinking of trowing in the towel as well.

It's kind of useless posting anything reasonable on this forum, since you are being attacked (mostly ad hominem) right away by these pro-Russian trolls here, and nobody listens to reason, and nobody changes their mind even if you present a perfect logical argument sustained by empirical evidence.

I think I now understand why AbruptSLR gave up posting on this forum.

[ASILurker]

Chris Hedges video from 17:22 (corrected text)

JL: Well the Vault 7, that thing really set off the hysteria at the CIA. They'd spent billions of dollars developing this and they lost control of it. This was a bunch of things in there obviously but the main points were how they could use a TV to spy on us at home etcetera.

But especially this Marble program that was discussed which was where the CIA had spent billions over years to develop where they could go into metadata on a hack and put in fingerprints / socalled of "other actors", for example in Iranian, Farsi I should say, in Russian and Arabic etc to make it look like somebody else did that hack. This was really a key one.

But it was blown, they lost control of it, and then it was given to WikiLeaks and they published it. This was a huge embarrassment to the CIA.

But in general, in regard to what you were saying, the crimes that they have committed, people who are still alive today working in our Government running things, he is a direct threat to them. Because he's doing what a journalist is supposed to do!

Most of our journalists are not doing this in corporate media anymore - to expose what they're up to - and of course throughout history any ruling circles are gonna blame a foreign hostile power, or blame the media like they did during Vietnam, they blame the media for losing the war etc

So we've got this whole thing on steroids now, that he's like the enemy number one. And yet WikiLeaks won't stop incidentally, even if they get him, but they want to make an example of him and they want his sources and that's why it's not a fantasy I think he could be ill treated as well.

CH: But he's not an American. He shouldn't be subject to the Espionage Act. He's not bound by any law that I know of to protect American secrets. What's the legal basis?

JL:  Well that's a good point. If he were on US soil doing this you would be obviously. If you go to
another country you break their laws they can arrest you but this was done from abroad. But you know US has had this extraterritorial jurisdiction going on for years now and all sorts of things, so they just they run it this way, they think they're running the whole world anyway, well much of it.

CH: Well it began with extraordinary renditions of Muslims (Afghanistan etc) who were not American citizens,  and of course all of us who were speaking out about it said then: "They are not going to stop. You've created a precedence by which dissidents are next.", and this of course is exactly that. 

JL: This is the major example of what's happened.

Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_14588467.html

But why oh why would anyone care?

[Red]

It is welcome that finally there has been a little pushback, including from leading journalists, to the Guardian’s long-running vilification of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks.

Reporter Luke Harding’s latest article, claiming that Donald Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly visited Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London on three occasions, is so full of holes that even hardened opponents of Assange in the corporate media are struggling to stand by it.

Faced with the backlash, the Guardian quickly – and very quietly – rowed back its initial certainty that its story was based on verified facts. Instead, it amended the text, without acknowledging it had done so, to attribute the claims to unnamed, and uncheckable, “sources”.

The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-11-28/guardian-vilification-julian-assange/?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

[SteveMDFP]

The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-11-28/guardian-vilification-julian-assange/?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

The Guardian may well be mistaken in their article, while not necessarily meaning that the editors acted in bad faith.  There have been a number of examples of reputable journalists being duped into running erroneous stories in order to discredit the journalist:

Did Someone Plant a Story Tying Paul Manafort to Julian Assange?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/28/paul-manafort-julian-assange-222694

"Rather than being the bombshell smoking gun that directly connects the Trump campaign to WikiLeaks, perhaps the report is something else entirely: a disinformation campaign. Is it possible someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists? . . ."

If the story is in error, I find this scenario far more plausible than presuming the journalists and editors chose to fabricate a story, an action that would torpedo their personal careers.

[TerryM]

 I find this scenario far more plausible than presuming the journalists and editors chose to fabricate a story, an action that would torpedo their personal careers.

I suppose believing that the editors of a major newspaper are grossly incompetent, rather than grossly biased might be comforting, but it's still evident that their past and future scribblings should be ignored. The Guardian needs a new editorial team whether the present team is venial, or merely incompetent.


Terry

[Neven]

Again, Luke Harding is The Guardian's David Rose. He has a record of shoddy work and is clearly a mouthpiece for the establishment. This is not a mistake or a coincidence, this is the poison of Russiagate.

[sidd]

Guardian debacle and walkback is reminiscent of the WaPo propornot walkback.

sidd

[Neven]

From the Guardian article:

A separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency and seen by the Guardian lists “Paul Manaford [sic]” as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions “Russians”.

Okay, that's enough, Rob Dekker and Martin Gisser are on board. Anybody denying the veracity, nay truth, of this article, is a paid Russian troll. Show the evidence that proves the opposite (No, that doesn't count. That doesn't count either. Neither does that. See, you have no proof. Putin loses).

Science!

[TerryM]

Assange has a very hard row to hoe in front of him. I'm at a loss trying to recall any journalist that has risked more, or delivered more.


When JA faces Haspel's interrogators will his fellow countrymen, his fellow journalists finally notice that one of their own is in enemy hands? Will the worlds newspapers even hint that this was his fate?
Where is the outrage? When did the press decide that the truth was not fit for publication? When did the comfort of the powerful become more important than delivering the truth to the masses?


The asylum's newspapers are in the hands of the inmates. Read at your own peril.
Terry

[sidd]

Wait, what ? The evil Russians did meet the evil Assange, and if they didn't, they set up a con to discredit the Guardian, so in either case, evilitude of Russians is established ?

That kinda thinking takes you places. Crazy places.

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

Okay, that's enough, Rob Dekker and Martin Gisser are on board. Anybody denying the veracity, nay truth, of this article, is a paid Russian troll. Show the evidence that proves the opposite (No, that doesn't count. That doesn't count either. Neither does that. See, you have no proof. Putin loses).

Science!

Ah! Such a perfect example of "projecting".

I've never discarded any evidence you put forward, Neven. The problem is that you don't present much evidence at all. Mostly just fact-free opinions and Jimmy Dore conspiracy theories.

You DO on the other hand consistently discard evidence if it is from a source that dares to speak out against your beloved Putin.

Like Bellingcat, Browder, the UK, the US, the EU, Mueller, the Dutch Safety Board, the MH17 JIT and anyone else who still uses rational thought and evidence based reasoning to reach conclusions about what its the TRUTH.

If you think we are done using evidence to expose Russian lies, then I'm sorry to disappoint you, because :

[sidd]

Modarresi at middleeasteye on history, first as tragedy and then as farce.

Middle Eastern oil rich nation ? Check.
Crazy, brutal killer as dictator ? Check.
US support as counterweight to Iran ? Check.

Bonesaw, Saud ? No, Hussein, Iraq.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/why-bin-salman-modern-day-saddam-must-go-340485853

sidd

[Rob Dekker]

Modarresi at middleeasteye on history, first as tragedy and then as farce.

Middle Eastern oil rich nation ? Check.
Crazy, brutal killer as dictator ? Check.
US support as counterweight to Iran ? Check.

Bonesaw, Saud ? No, Hussein, Iraq.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/why-bin-salman-modern-day-saddam-must-go-340485853

sidd

Finally some movement against Trump's love affair with Saudi Arabia :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/pompeo-mattis-to-brief-senate-on-saudi-arabia-khashoggi-and-yemen/2018/11/27/ee4e36c0-f28a-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html?utm_term=.53a877fcf350

The Senate on Wednesday delivered a historic rebuke of Saudi Arabia and President Trump’s handling of the fallout over journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s killing last month, as a decisive majority voted to advance a measure to end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

The 63-to-37 vote is only an initial procedural step, but it nonetheless represents an unprecedented challenge to the security relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The vote was prompted by lawmakers’ growing frustration with Trump for defending Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s denials of culpability in Khashoggi’s death, despite the CIA’s finding that he had almost certainly ordered the killing.

[Rob Dekker]

Okay, that's enough, Rob Dekker and Martin Gisser are on board. Anybody denying the veracity, nay truth, of this article, is a paid Russian troll. Show the evidence that proves the opposite (No, that doesn't count. That doesn't count either. Neither does that. See, you have no proof. Putin loses).

Science!

Ah! Such a perfect example of "projecting".

I thought you were leaving?

No.
I said that you ain't seen nothing yet :

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2272.msg182606.html#msg182606