The Insidious News Media Disinformation Campaign [UPDATED]

In hundreds, maybe thousands of ways, large and small, every day, the mainstream media advances its slanted narratives.

For example, I just saw this in a Times piece about the BBC:

[T]wo billionaire media moguls are hatching plans for 24-hour news channels that would be politically opinionated, bringing the model of Fox News to a market dominated by the BBC’s studied impartiality.

The Fox News model! Not, say, the MSNBC model, or the CNN model, or the CBS, ABC, NBC models of fake “objectivity” slanted Left that made Fox News necessary, or even the New York Times model, but the Fox News model, because that’s where the fake news comes from!

And the BBC is anything but impartial.

This next one is a classic. Here’s a Times piece supposedly “debunking” conspiracy theories pushed by the President making this argument:

In the same Fox News interview, Mr. Trump said he believed “some very stupid rich people” had been financing the racial justice protests that took place in Washington last week and around the country in recent months. The unsupported idea echoes claims spread online for months that George Soros, the billionaire investor and Democratic donor, was funding protests against police brutality. Mr. Soros has for years been cast as an anti-conservative villain by a loose network of activists and political figures on the right and has become a convenient boogeyman for many different conspiracies, including that he “owns” antifa and Black Lives Matter groups. Open Society Foundations, a philanthropic organization that Mr. Soros founded, has donated to Black Lives Matter in the past. But so have many other public figures, including Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Prince, just weeks before he died.

Do you see what the Times reporters Davey Alba and Ben Decker did there, abetted by an unethical editor? The President said “very stupid rich people,”which is true. They wrote that he obviously meant Soros, then they they debunk what they assumed he meant! Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Prince are still within in the President’s description, in his view, of “very stupid rich people.”

That’s just astoundingly dishonest and incompetent journalism.

Hundreds, maybe thousands of ways, large and small, every day…

UPDATE: Here’s another one. A headline at the Daily Caller:

“Fox News Corroborates Claim That President Trump Insulted Veterans, Fallen Soldiers and John McCain”

No! Fox news corroborated that the anonymous officials the Atlantic Monthly quoted about what the President allegedly said two years ago made the claim, that’s all. That doesn’t prove the President said any of it, or corroborate the claim by the un-named officials. He denies it; others who were with him deny it.

Fox saying it “corroborated” what Trump said is flat out false. If someone tells NBC I’m an anteater, and I deny it, then ABC talks to the same lunatic who says I’m an anteater and he repeats his accusation, did ABC corroborate that I’m an anteater?

20 thoughts on “The Insidious News Media Disinformation Campaign [UPDATED]

  1. “But so have many other public figures, including Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Prince, just weeks before he died.”

    These entertainers are likely some of the rich people President Trump was alluding to. But perhaps not. We don’t really know who he was alluding to, which makes “echoes claims” another way of saying “I am an anti-Trump zombie.”

    I bet Davey Alba and Ben Decker would be surprised to realize they were engaging in straight up Biden style racism because this report reminds of:

    “…poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids.”
    In this case Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and Prince are the “poor” kids.

    • First, I’m glad you are staying safe. Portland is a mess right now. I’m wondering how ANYBODY can assume “white kids” are never poor?

  2. I’m pretty sure that Trump doesn’t consider Soros stupid. So I’m pretty sure that Soros is not one of the “very stupid rich people” that Trump was referring to.

    • I would bet he is talking about all those CEO’s who are donating millions of (stockholder’s) dollars to BLM and other groups as part of their virtue signalling.

      Love him or hate him relative to his opposition Trump is looking like the parent dealing with a toddler’s tantrum.

      He should ask those CEO’s. If other CEO’s were committing economic suicide would you join them?

  3. I wish someone explain to me why some unconfirmed quote about the Viet-Nam war soldiers being suckers would have occurred during a visit to Europe commemorating D-Day. I don’t believe any Viet Nam era soldiers are buried there.

    As for McCain’s hero status. I tend to agree that McCain’s military service should be respected and admired but to elevate him above all other POW’s as a hero for not succumbing to an offer of special treatment is unfair to all the others who spent years in those tiger cages and unmercifully tortured but were never offered such an opportunity because they lacked propaganda potential . What of them? Why do we not raise all those young men who who spent a year or more battling an invisible enemy and squalid conditions Viet Nam where if the enemy did not kill you an infection would. Why are they not as much a hero as McCain? What of all the soldiers that lost toes and fingers to frostbite at the Chosen reservoir in Korea or at the Bulge during WWII? Why are they not heroes? The answer is they were doing what they were called to do. It was hell for them just as it was hell for McCain. The choice for McCain was not to sacrifice himself or put himself in harms way to save others, he did so because any other choice would have demonstrated cowardice in the face of the enemy.

    A hero by definition is humble and does not require constant adulation or even acknowledgement of the act that propelled him or her to that lofty status. We are constantly diluting the meaning of the word by conferring that status to every Tom, Dick and Harriet that does their job.

    John McCain had his faults but his petulance turned me against him.

    • FOLLOW UP:
      What exactly was the purpose of our involvement in Viet Nam? I know what we were told that it was to stem the rise of Communism in the world where countries in Asia would fall like dominoes if we did not intervene. If Communism will collapse upon itself because it is inherently flawed why do we need to hurry it along by killing people? You don’t win hearts and minds with coercion.

      Wasn’t it learned that General Westmoreland falsified data to show we were actually winning when in fact we were mired down in a quagmire that only benefitted the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about?

      Maybe we were all duped. Maybe we are still being duped. Maybe we were all seen as suckers by Kennedy and Johnson. Maybe politicians and the public have been being duped for years by guys with scrambled eggs on their hats and stars on their epilates whose retirement plans include running Lockheed Martin or Boeing or just sitting on boards as they collect millions for a few days work because of what they know about defense contracts.

      Maybe the smart parents were the ones that spirited their 19 year old’s off to Canada or paid their way to college and then on to Canada. I have no idea. However, those who served did so as patriots but even patriots can be suckered by politicians. I got suckered by Romney and McCain. I thought they were honest brokers of information until Trump forced them to expose themselves. I learned that integrity takes a back seat when someone challenges their power.

      Why are we still in Afghanistan after nearly 20 years? Why is it that modern warfare lasts for generations while a poorly resourced rag tag bunch kicked the British ass in far less time? How could we defeat two enemies, forcing them to unconditionally surrender at the same time in roughly the equivalent of one presidential cycle? Could it be that the wars prior to Korea were existential imperative while today profits from equipment and expended munitions help keep the defense industries highly profitable? One has to ask, with all the budget hikes to improve the military’s readiness along with the positive changes in services for veterans, why do all these Generals have an ax to grind with the President who sees war as wasteful. Could it be that their business is war and part of their mission is to keep the public believing that these never ending wars are beneficial because it keeps them all in business. Tell me General’s Matis and Kelly, which wars did you win to make you both experts on ending war?

      If I recall correctly John Kerry told school kids to work hard and study because if they don’t they will wind up in Iraq. Maybe, just maybe Kerry and Trump have something in common. They can see when war is a gross waste of blood and treasure. They just different ways of stating it.

      • I have often remarked that during the Revolutionary period, I thought we were unusually blessed with some of the finest minds and leaders and the British had to endure some of the worst.

        Perhaps Vietnam was a turning of the worm. Rather than asserting it was some sort of shadowy conspiracy, I think there is a simpler explanation. We didn’t win in large part because our military had stupid leaders who came up with one stupid strategy after another.

        A historical lesson: In 1940 the French and British could win individual tank battles because, well, they had some better tanks than the Germans. But the German strategy and their combined arms tactics meant that they were going to prevail in the overall battle. The French, while every bit as valiant as their forefathers, were not fighting the same war as the Germans.

        In Vietnam, the primary strategy appeared to be one of attrition: We will keep feeding young men into the meatgrinder and you’ll run out of them before we do. In some ways this was similar to Grant in 1864 and it worked for him, right? Well, it worked in 1864 because a)We were in an existential struggle for the survival of the nation and b)Atlanta. Without a spectacular and demonstrable victory, Lincoln might well have lost the election and then the strategy would have failed.

        In a democracy such as ours, ultimately you just cannot fight a long, hard war without the support of the people (and the army). In 1864, we knew what was as stake. The soldiers being fed into that meatgrinder knew exactly what was going to happen and, for the most part, volunteered to be fed in. In WWII we all knew what was at stake.

        If, in the 1960s our leadership had leveled with us and really told us what they thought we were fighting for and what they thought it would really take to win — they’d have had a lot better chance of keeping the country behind them. Certainly the army would have performed infinitely better if it had a good idea what it was fighting for and why. Of course, we would still have had to have generals who had some kind of clue how to fight and win that sort of war, but it would have been a start.

          • My allusion to the profit motive does not negate the possibility that stupid strategies were used to advance the financial and power lust motivations of a few. Getting people to accept stupid things is the hallmark of con artists.

            • Very true, but I think this is likely a situation where Hanlon’s Razor comes into play. Easier to posit incompetence than active malice. And isn’t it somewhat of a truism that a country’s military often approaches the next war as if it were fighting the last one?

              I also think Vietnam had lasting echoes in the military that are still reverberating. When you hear professional soldiers talk, they’ll say that the U.S. Army was virtually destroyed by the end of the Vietnam War — if the Soviets had attacked in the early 1970s, it’s likely they would have rolled right over us without breaking a sweat.

              The junior officers in Vietnam were the ones running the Army in the 1990s and 2000s, which I think accounts for a lot of the caution you see from the Pentagon. They didn’t ever want to again be in a position of fighting a war when their country turned its back on them. I cannot blame them, but it is likely an overreaction, albeit understandable.

              • DG
                If I accept your evaluation that incompetence rather than malice (profit motive) has caused long wasteful wars then I have to conclude that Kelly, Matis, and the rest of the generals who appear to be attacking Trump anonymously are doing so because Trump is exposing their incompetence which threatens their legacies. Therefore they must destroy him before he destroys them.

      • She admits to lying…that the quote was fake. Then she says it’s ok because it’s what he really means when he doesn’t say what she wants to him say…

        A fake quote to bolster a obviously timed hit piece by an unreliable journalist’s claim that “4 anonymous sources” said Trump did something bad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.