Glenn Greenwald has published the damning article that was censored by his own creation, The Intercept, which was originally designed to address “rising concern about press freedoms in the United States and around the world,” and “ to support independent journalism.” You can quickly see why he resigned.
An excerpt, as the reporter concludes:
The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.
A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.
As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”
What’s going on here? The smoking gun email above appears to be genuine, but there is still a news media blackout on the story, and your Deranged Facebook friends are still going to sniff that this is just another Russian trick, and that the Trump campaign and Fox News are spreading lies. The handling of the story is, it is at this point fair to say, a direct, open, indefensible attempt by the vast majority of the news media to decide the winner of the Presidential election based on who journalists prefer to see elected.
Over at Althouse, who also links to Greenwald’s article, one commenter writes,
We’re seeing an entirely unprecedented, coordinated effort to suppress story in an attempt to influence an election. I wouldn’t have thought that this level of attempt at suppression would be likely to ever happen in the modern USA just a few years ago. I guess I’m still not cynical enough.
And for what? Because the Orange Man is Bad? He’s so bad that these fools are willing to throughout any pretense of journalistic integrity? Burn the last of all their credibility? Have they ever stopped and asked if it’s really worth it? What did Trump do to them that they’ve reached such a low state?
If a large portion of our electorate is specifically misinformed through the conspiracy of government agencies and a sympathetic press such that relevant information regarding the laws and legislators and that these laws and legislators work specifically to deny rights and freedoms to me can I say then that I am disenfranchised through the actions of these entities? Can I say that my vote is nullified by the vote of someone who was purposely misinformed and thus voted against what they might otherwise have voted for?
So, though I have the ability to vote and am fully informed, my vote is made moot by the vote of another who was duped into voting opposite of me. Can I then say that I lack representation since the government works specifically to deny me my voice through manipulation of the process?Is there any issue more dangerous to the continuation of our republic than the active suppression of truth, aided and abetted by the most influential and powerful forces in the country? Do we not have an obligation to prevent that usurpation of our rights?