Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

hypocrisy in the liberal media...



















Glenn Greenwald is at war with his former haunt… And Gus has been on the same page as Glenn. Glenn is under attack for being critical as all journalists should be.



His main “sin” for which he quit “The Intercept” was to expose Joe Biden and his dealings with Ukraine and his son being part of the “crookery". The Intercept refused to publish. We can see why there is trouble. Expose Biden as not being a saint and you end up with another four years of Trumpism. At large the “left” corporate media had been gunning against Trump since he was elected, for defeating their darling Ms Clinton… and for being against the deep state, which "runs things" in the USA.


The Corporate Liberal Media — the mouthpiece for the Democrats (in bed with the deep state) — thus had been unwilling to expose the sins of their fare (Biden, Ms Clinton, Obama...) because they could not face the bully mad Donald again. They made a choice to hide Joe's recent deceits (even to show him now, as having come to terms with his former sins and being “redempted” like Saint Paul) and piled editorialised and opinionated crap on Trump. The “liberal” media were afraid that not doing this, Trump would get another four years of the Presidency. Elections are funny beast. The Donald claims that the election were falsified. They might have been to a very small extend at the ballot box (every election suffers from such), but the mood of people can be manipulated. Most of what Trump had said about the “liberal” media is true: It had been slanted to achieve an outcome, not to expose the “truth”... (the same can be said of the right-wing media though)...


Glenn has been exposing this media hypocrisy, which to say the least, had been designed “not to rock the boat” and protect the new stream of social consciousness which is called the “woke” or such, in which freedom-to-be is great as long as you don’t say the opposite. Exposing this hypocrisy tends to take you in the right-wing arms of the Murdoch/Breitbart loonitude… or through the door of the asylum for the deranged… Despite its “good” intent, the woke has had stupid and dangerous moments that to some extend were far worse than the "storming of the Capitol" on Jan 6. Greenwald exposed this.


In regard to Jan 6, we know that the “liberal” media has been partisan to the point of fabricating stories that are used officially to denounce the Republicans. And Saint Pelosi is a clever devil at using these biblical-like manufactured fantasies. This is what Greenwald objects to. "Our" side is as disgusting as the other and unless the game of truth is cleaned-up, there is going to be some blood on the walls. The “liberal” media wants Glenn Greenwald’s blood because he has exposed their dirty socks.


And this is why the “liberal” media are somewhat meek about the Julian Assange situation. They won’t press, prod, push, expose the fact that Biden is a hypocrite, a bastard and an arsehole on this subject… Should they tackle the issue they will place a lot of caveat on the problem, to the point of rolling with the “national interest” to defend the indefensible while being simpatico.


And the same crap is going on with Russiaphobia and Sinophobia. On these subjects, the “liberal” media and the conservative media are rolling in the same shit...


We let Glenn tell his story:



On Monday, The Washington Post’s media reporter Paul Farhi contacted me to say that he had spoken with numerous editors and journalists at The Intercept, who voiced to him a wide range of personal and professional accusations about me. This was all in response to criticisms I had expressed about two recent Intercept stories. On Friday morning, The Post published Farhi's article about their attacks on me. 

Among other things, that Post article features The Intercept's ongoing attempt to depict me as mentally unwell in order to delegitimize my criticisms of their shabby journalism. It quotes the site's editor-in-chief, Betsy Reed, as saying I have “lost [my] moral compass and grip on reality,” echoing The Intercept’s prior claim that mounting anger at their organization is being fueled not by widespread revulsion over their increasingly unethical and politicized journalism but rather by my “unbalanced tweets.” The Post also quotes Reed as claiming that I have “done a good job of torching [my] journalistic reputation": liberal journalists, who only speak to and for one another, always believe that the primary if not sole metric of journalistic credibility is how popular one is among other liberal journalists. "He's a huge bully,” she added.

Depicting critics of liberal orthodoxies as mentally ill, rage-driven bullies, and shadows of their former selves, is a long-time tactic of guardians of establishment liberalism to expel dissidents from their in-group circles. A lengthy 2003 New Yorker smear job on Noam Chomsky headlined "The Devil's Accountant” — at the time when he was a rare and vocal critic of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy — described how Chomsky was once a credible voice but, sadly, has now "become increasingly alienated from the mainstream” because he "has no ideas to offer.” Chomsky's "thinking has grown simplistic and rigid,” the author wrote. She quoted Christopher Hitchens as saying that while he once admired Chomsky's stable ideology and noble commitment to principle, he is now going basically insane, describing his views of the war in Afghanistan as "the gleam of utter lunacy piercing through.” 

The article also claimed that while Chomsky's criticisms of Israel have alienated his liberal following, it has caused him to become popular in far-right anti-Semitic circles. That article also described Chomsky as an angry bully, prone to outbursts of rage against female colleagues to the point of making them cry, being humorless, and in general just plagued by mental pathologies which accounts for his unwillingness to accept liberal pieties. Sound familiar?



Read plenty more:



more from glenn...


From Glenn Greenwald:


In 2018, I compiled many of those personality-driven and mental health smears that had been weaponized back then against Chomsky because, at the time, other liberal outlets — such as The New Yorker and New York Magazine — were already using the same mental health and personality-based themes to expel me from the precincts of liberal decency due to my rejection of their Russiagate conspiracy theories, which had turned into a virtual religion, including at The Intercept. Both of those long profiles were devoted to a central theme: I refused to accept what everyone who is sane and mentally healthy could see — that Trump had colluded with Russia and Putin exercised some sort of clandestine control over Trump — because I had rage-based trauma from childhood that I never resolved. 

In 2012 and in the years after I frequently described how the same mental health themes were weaponized by liberal establishmentarians against Julian Assange: an incessant focus on the WikiLeaks founder's personality and alleged mental health pathologies to discredit his pioneering work. I've often noted that the reason the Nixon administration ordered a break-in of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst as a response to his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers was because depicting someone as psychologically unwell is the preferred method of power centers to distract attention away from valid critiques and to expel dissidents from their salons. The script which The Intercept and their liberal allies are using against me is an old, stale, and trite one.

All of this, quite obviously, is an attempt to distract attention away from The Intercept’s serious journalistic sins. It is also designed to personalize the anger which their behavior validly provoked onto me, to conceal the fact that numerous journalists across the political spectrum — not just me — reacted with disgust at what they did and what they are still doing.

One of the Intercept stories to which I (and many others) objected involved a fund-raising email sent by The Intercept to the public on May 4, in which they proudly boasted that they had obtained the full archive of private data on all users of the social media platform Gab. The Intercept vowed that they would use the data archive to target ordinary citizens, including QAnon conspiracy theorists and those who believe that the election was defrauded. Based on that promise, the email solicited donations from the public (why an outlet lavishly funded by the world's 73rd richest billionaire and which provides their largely unread writers and editors enormous, above-market salaries has to beg for donations from the public in the middle of a pandemic and joblessness crisis is, as I understand it, the subject of an imminent investigative exposé on their finances). Because I am not on their email list, I became aware of that Gab email only when a former senior Intercept editor forwarded it to me, furious that The Interceptwas now doing the work of the NSA and FBI by infringing privacy rights rather than protecting them: a core mission of the organization's founding.


The other Intercept story I criticized was an expensive, highly produced 20-minute video, narrated by former New York Times live-blogging reporter Robert Mackey, designed to vilify numerous journalists with small right-leaning news outlets who do the work that The Interceptwould never get near: namely, they report on what actually happens at Antifa protests. Why would a news outlet that has a $15 million/year budget, which works from a $3 million/year penthouse office on the 18th floor of a Park Avenue tower offering panoramic views of Manhattan, and which pays their senior employees annual salaries between $350,000 and $450,000, devote their vast resources to villainizing obscure, poorly paid video journalists who — unlike most Intercept reporters — do actually dangerous, on-the-ground reporting? Who is the "bully” in this situation?

The primary grievance which The Intercept is voicing in response to my criticisms of their work is the same one which liberal outlets now constantly try to weaponize in order to place themselves off-limits from criticism: namely, that by criticizing Intercept writers, I have “endangered” them — a dangerous and shabby standard which, like their liberal media brethren, they obviously do not apply to themselves. Why can The Intercept use a billionaire’s money to expose ordinary people’s Gab activities and produce a video smearing multiple journalists such as Townhall’s Julio Rosas and The Daily Caller's Jorge Ventura, but I and others cannot criticize them? Numerous other journalists and commentators, including Matt Taibbi and Jimmy Dore along with Fox News and the other news outlets whose journalists were smeared by The Intercept, along with the targeted journalists themselves, voiced the same criticisms I did. 

Despite the widespread criticism The Intercept has been receiving, I was contacted on Wednesday by The Daily Beast’s media reporter Lloyd Grove, who asked me to respond to a long list of accusations, smears and other attacks furnished to him by various Intercept reporters and editors — in order, again, to pretend that I was their only critic, driven by mental problems. These accusations conveyed by Grove were similar to the ones they fed to The Post. Now that The Post article is published, and knowing that one’s own views are never fully represented in articles written by other journalists, I’m posting below the full written exchange I had with Grove: his questions based on The Intercept’s accusations, followed by my answers. 

I do so not only to ensure that the full context of my answers is known, but also because this double standard which liberal outlets like The Intercept are trying to impose — they can attack, expose, smear or vilify anyone they want, but you can never criticize them without being accused of “endangering” their journalists — is an unsustainable and unethical double standard that is now pervasive in liberal journalism culture:




As I told Grove, much of what is motivating The Intercept's rage is their institutional failures. They lost an enormous chunk of their membership base when I resigned last October, which they have not come close to replacing. They have repeatedly sent out emails pleading for donations on the ground that their fund-raising efforts are falling woefully short. And despite their enormous budget and exorbitant salaries, virtually nobody reads that site outside of a couple of writers:

The Intercept’s audience size is humiliatingly small. I’ll bet any amount of money that the Intercept spends more dollars per reader than any media outlet in the west. Outside of my articles and those of a couple others, their traffic is and always has been vanishingly small. They think they do such great journalism but nobody reads it, because it’s nothing more than the same partisan tripe one finds at the New York Times, Vox, MSNBC or any other liberal/DNC-loyal /AOC-loving outlet. . . . 

The Intercept Brasil, which I founded in 2016, has 1/9 the budget that the Intercept US does and ⅛ the size of its staff, yet for many months, the Intercept Brasil produces more in raw traffic numbers than the entire Intercept US in raw numbers. That’s how few people read their work. It’s embarrassing.

Just to provide one illustrative example, the extremely expensive video they produced that attacked and endangered two working-class journalists of color who do the dangerous work of covering Antifa protests was one of their most-discussed pieces of journalism of the year, mostly due to how many people found it repellent. And yet even with that, the YouTube video — which has as many people who disliked it as liked it — did not even attract 10,000 views a full week after its initial publication. Most unpaid random YouTubers have a larger audience than that:


(youtube warning)


In sum, The Intercept is an outlet that is as lavishly funded as it is widely ignored. But their journalistic breaches still matter because of how much billionaire funding they receive and, more so, because the tactics they are using to render it inherently illegitimate to criticize them — lest you be accused of “endangering” them — have become commonplace among other liberal outlets. That is the tactic that merits the most attention.

Questions from The Daily Beast’s media reporter Lloyd Grove and my answers (links and tweets have been added and my answers were very lightly edited for clarity):

People at the Intercept are especially upset about your attacks on Micah Lee, which they say have resulted in doxxing and death threats on him and his wife. Here’s a quote from Micah: “Glenn and I have always disagreed on some things, but at least he used to have consistent principles and respect for basic facts. It’s disappointing and tragic that he’s gone so far off the deep end, from what seemed to be an honest and fearless journalist into a conspiracy-peddling pundit that spends all his time misleading people.”

Precisely because of my long work relationship and friendship with Micah -- which includes my reporting on the NSA archives, the Brazil archive and our work at the Freedom of the Press Foundation -- I would never have criticized him personally or even by name under any circumstances. When I co-founded the Intercept back in 2013, Micah was one of the first if not the first people we hired. That’s why I was so disappointed when he decided to start publicly criticizing me by name. After having chosen to do that to great applause from his liberal following, he -- like the Intercept generally -- wants to play the victim and whine about how he’s being persecuted for something that he himself did. 

Why did you target Micah, who by most accounts has been essential in your journalistic success, especially your reporting on Snowden and Brazil corruption?

See the answer above. I will also add that my original criticisms about the Intercept’s abuse of the Gab archive to target private citizens were based on the Intercept’s own description of how they intended to use the archive, set forth in a fund-raising email they sent to their entire email list. Because I’m not on their email list, I did not see that email until a former highly respected Intercept editor forwarded it to me, indignant that the Intercept was doing the work of the NSA/FBI and infringing rather than protecting the digital privacy rights of ordinary people: one of our original missions.


Read more:



activism versus vandalism...



In the year since George Floyd’s murder, conservative news outlets have endlessly hyped distorted stories about violence at Black Lives Matter protests. Key videos they used come from a tight-knit group of eight young journalists



THE SOUND OF glass breaking, on Inauguration Day in Portland, Oregon, was music to the ears of Julio Rosas, a young video journalist.

That’s because Rosas, who works for the right-wing website Townhall, specializes in shooting viral video of mayhem at left-wing protests. On this day, black-clad, anti-capitalist protesters were attacking a Democratic Party office, and Rosas managed to record them from close range without being spotted.

Within minutes of the vandalism, by a handful of activists who broke off from a small #J20 march, Rosas posted his video on Twitter, where it racked up over 1 million views.


Read more:


The story above is what Glenn Greenwald objects to. It sanitises the really bad side of the "woke" while piling dirt and fake stories on the "stormers" of the Capitol. There won't be any inquiries on the BLM ransacks and burning of cars because it was "not the intent"... while blah blah blah... Read from top.


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE TODAY ********************

fired for?...


In her first TV interview, we speak with Emily Wilder, the young reporter fired by the Associated Press after she was targeted in a Republican smear campaign for her pro-Palestinian activism in college. Wilder is Jewish and was a member of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace at Stanford University before she graduated in 2020. She was two weeks into her new job with the AP when the Stanford College Republicans singled out some of her past social media posts, triggering a conservative frenzy. The AP announced Wilder’s firing shortly thereafter, citing unspecified violations of its social media policy. “Less than 48 hours after Stanford College Republicans began to post about me, I was fired,” says Wilder. “I was not given an explanation for what social media policy I had violated.” Over 100 AP journalists have signed an open letter to management protesting the decision to fire Wilder, which came just days after Israel demolished the building housing AP offices and other media organizations in Gaza. Journalism professor Janine Zacharia, a former Jerusalem bureau chief for The Washington Post who taught Wilder at Stanford, says the episode is an example of how much pressure news organizations face on Middle East coverage. “I am very aware, perhaps more than most, to the sensitivities around the questions of bias and reporting on the conflict,” says Zacharia. “In this case it wasn’t about bias.”


Read more:


Read from top.


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW +++++++++++-------------------ή´Á†¨ˆÁØ∏ÔÔÓÓÓ©ÏΩš!~!!!!

the young idiots...


From Glenn Greenwald:


While I used my social media platforms to denounce the false accusations voiced by Uygur and Kasparian against Maté, none of this would merit an article or stand-alone commentary if not for the fact that the two weapons they chose — false accusations that someone is a paid Russian agent and exploited sexual harassment accusations — have become extremely commonplace in Democratic Party politics, liberal circles and U.S. politics more broadly. It is long past time — way past time — that these tactics be rejected and scorned by everyone regardless of ideology or personality preferences.

I decided to analyze and dissect this conflict not in order to narrate everything that happened here or to arbitrate who is right and wrong with respect to every disagreement these parties are having. Instead, it is worth examining because the way this nasty exchange unfolded provides such a vivid and illuminating case study of two metastasizing cancers at the heart of liberal discourse. Both of these weapons are ethically repugnant and corrupt — obviously so — yet somehow have become as common and accepted among Democratic Party followers as they are toxic and reprehensible.


See his video:



Yes when a show called "The Young Turks" (TYT) start to look like "The Young Turds" (same logo) while claiming to be "of the left" ("liberal and progressive"), you should discover the world is in trouble. Your honourable left-wing ethics have been thrashed in the bin of non-recyclable garbage.


We are told: "The Young Turks" was the first daily streaming online talk show, having begun airing in that format in 2006, with an official website on the internet and a channel hosted on YouTube. So far so good... Then the rubbish comes out: "The show provides in-depth coverage on politics regarding topics, events and other issues."... in depth? sure it sinks to a million fathoms not to surface again except in bubbles of insults and the occasional "fuck you!" to a decent left wing journalist who does not subscribe to the fake Young Turds conspiracies...


So Glenn Greenwald exposes the con that "whoever disagrees with the Pelosis, the Bidens, the Young Turds and anything that the Blinkens profess, IS A PAID EMPLOYEE OF THE Russians or an apologist for dictators. Of course the biggest dictators on the planet are the Saudis, but we won't mention them because the left in America needs them to fight the Russians and the Iranians... not mentioning fighting the Chinese in the north-east...


Go Glenn, go and fight the TYT bastards!


and please visit: 

August 5 2021…