This special report hoped to make a list of all the editors' notes and retractions that would be needed because of the #TwitterFiles. The problem turned out to be too big to count
Big fan here, so take this in the spirit. I'm in the ad business and I see the video as a great potential "stand alone" YouTube commercial to sell the public on the whole idea of disinformation using Hamilton 68 on MSNBC as a way in. The problem is the video as produced is singing to the choir. To be effective it NEEDS a short introduction explaining what Hamilton 68 is (was) and why it matters. Now, unless you're a Racket insider like me, you'd have no idea what the point of the exercise is. I think you guys are understandably a little too close to the material. Either keep the video as is as a funny joke to insiders, or make the story clear up front with a :30 "explainer" so it can have an impact on someone who is open to the message but is short on background. Respectfully and thankfully...
Thank you Orfalea, This is a stellar example of useless, lazy, and completely unreliable reporting by stupid journalists. Did anybody do any checking into Hamilton 68? No. They just said “Oh, cool. This makes my job easy. I can simply report what Hamilton 68 says.
These Matt Orfalea videos are so effective for exposing the relentless nature of today's media driven propaganda campaigns. This information control, censorship industrial complex however, is completely abusive, utterly corrupt and relentlessly gas-lighting the American people. How can we stand for it? It is literally destroying the country.
Why couldn’t Trump sue MSNBC and other outlets about the Steele Dossier and other Russia linked items, ala dominion with fox? What killed fox was the discovery that turned up the internal thoughts. What would discovery of MSNBC folk turn up? I feel judge on fox suit lowered the standard to hold a news agency accountable. Would enjoy Matt analyzing this, or talking to a lawyer who can break down how the MSM can be held accountable legally for all their hoaxes.
“The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving an opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor’s opinion is and slavishly adopt it”--Mark Twain
Hate to say it Matt, but much beyond those of us here, nobody cares. It's just easier to not care, and we live in a world of easy. Most people won't even care when it's their turn for the gulag. They won't even notice as long as there's reliable wi-fi.
Maybe Maddow has convinced herself that she is truth-telling.
Andrew Marr sure did.
Marr: “This is what I don’t get, because it suggests that - I mean I’m a journalist - people like me are self-censoring.”
Chomsky: “No, not self-censoring. You’re, there’s a filtering system, that starts in kindergarten, and goes all the way through, and it’s not going to work 100% but it’s pretty effective. It selects for obedience, and subordination, and especially I think… [Marr: So stroppy people won’t make it to positions of influence] There’ll be behavioural problems. If you read applications to a graduate school you’ll see that people will tell you, he’s not, he doesn’t get along too well with his colleagues, you know how to interpret those things.”
Marr: “I’m just interested in this because I was brought up like a lot of people, probably post-Watergate film and so on to believe that journalism was a crusading craft and there were a lot of disputatious, stroppy, difficult people in journalism, and I have to say, I think I know some of them.”
Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”
Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
From Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard commencement address:
“The press, too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word “press” to include all the media.) But what use does it make of it?
Here again, the overriding concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no true moral responsibility for distortion or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to the readership or to history? If they have misled public opinion by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, even if they have contributed to mistakes on a state level, do we know of any case of open regret voiced by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No; this would damage sales. A nation may be the worse for such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. It is most likely that he will start writing the exact opposite to his previous statements with renewed aplomb.
Because instant and credible information is required, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors, and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be refuted; they settle into the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, and are then left hanging? The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to the nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan “Everyone is entitled to know everything.” (But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.)
Hastiness and superficiality—these are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century and more than anywhere else this is manifested in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press; it is contrary to its nature. The press merely picks out sensational formulas.
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives?
There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the totalitarian East with its rigorously unified press: One discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole (the spirit of the time), generally accepted patterns of judgment, and maybe common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Unrestrained freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership, because newspapers mostly transmit in a forceful and emphatic way those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and that general trend.”
I've said this in the comments of YouTube, but I'll say it here - the way this video is edited is not going to change any one's mind.
If the goal is to preach to the choir and feel morally superior while alienating everyone who doesn't already agree, it succeeds.
If the goal is to correct errors and fight government disinformation, it utterly fails. The MSNBC stan will see the complete lack of respect here and turn it off.
I'd prefer you changed people's minds. But I would never show this video to someone in order to change their mind.
At some point, one has to conclude that the MSM is intentionally and consciously being dishonest.
Great job as usual Matt Orfalea.
You need to get to the hospital to get a stomach pump asap though.
That much Maddow can be lethal!
I don't always agree with you guys, but what you're doing is incredibly important--keep up the great work.
Awesome work, Matt Orfalea. Now can you please do their COVID lies? Or would that require too many decades to compile?
Big fan here, so take this in the spirit. I'm in the ad business and I see the video as a great potential "stand alone" YouTube commercial to sell the public on the whole idea of disinformation using Hamilton 68 on MSNBC as a way in. The problem is the video as produced is singing to the choir. To be effective it NEEDS a short introduction explaining what Hamilton 68 is (was) and why it matters. Now, unless you're a Racket insider like me, you'd have no idea what the point of the exercise is. I think you guys are understandably a little too close to the material. Either keep the video as is as a funny joke to insiders, or make the story clear up front with a :30 "explainer" so it can have an impact on someone who is open to the message but is short on background. Respectfully and thankfully...
Thank you Orfalea, This is a stellar example of useless, lazy, and completely unreliable reporting by stupid journalists. Did anybody do any checking into Hamilton 68? No. They just said “Oh, cool. This makes my job easy. I can simply report what Hamilton 68 says.
Even the scripted network shows got in on the covid mania! The 2020 era of network television will not age well.
3 pieces of content from Matt today. Tell me you are pissed off, without telling me you are pissed off.....
These Matt Orfalea videos are so effective for exposing the relentless nature of today's media driven propaganda campaigns. This information control, censorship industrial complex however, is completely abusive, utterly corrupt and relentlessly gas-lighting the American people. How can we stand for it? It is literally destroying the country.
Why couldn’t Trump sue MSNBC and other outlets about the Steele Dossier and other Russia linked items, ala dominion with fox? What killed fox was the discovery that turned up the internal thoughts. What would discovery of MSNBC folk turn up? I feel judge on fox suit lowered the standard to hold a news agency accountable. Would enjoy Matt analyzing this, or talking to a lawyer who can break down how the MSM can be held accountable legally for all their hoaxes.
“The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving an opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor’s opinion is and slavishly adopt it”--Mark Twain
Hate to say it Matt, but much beyond those of us here, nobody cares. It's just easier to not care, and we live in a world of easy. Most people won't even care when it's their turn for the gulag. They won't even notice as long as there's reliable wi-fi.
Maybe Maddow has convinced herself that she is truth-telling.
Andrew Marr sure did.
Marr: “This is what I don’t get, because it suggests that - I mean I’m a journalist - people like me are self-censoring.”
Chomsky: “No, not self-censoring. You’re, there’s a filtering system, that starts in kindergarten, and goes all the way through, and it’s not going to work 100% but it’s pretty effective. It selects for obedience, and subordination, and especially I think… [Marr: So stroppy people won’t make it to positions of influence] There’ll be behavioural problems. If you read applications to a graduate school you’ll see that people will tell you, he’s not, he doesn’t get along too well with his colleagues, you know how to interpret those things.”
Marr: “I’m just interested in this because I was brought up like a lot of people, probably post-Watergate film and so on to believe that journalism was a crusading craft and there were a lot of disputatious, stroppy, difficult people in journalism, and I have to say, I think I know some of them.”
Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”
Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
From Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard commencement address:
“The press, too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word “press” to include all the media.) But what use does it make of it?
Here again, the overriding concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no true moral responsibility for distortion or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to the readership or to history? If they have misled public opinion by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, even if they have contributed to mistakes on a state level, do we know of any case of open regret voiced by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No; this would damage sales. A nation may be the worse for such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. It is most likely that he will start writing the exact opposite to his previous statements with renewed aplomb.
Because instant and credible information is required, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors, and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be refuted; they settle into the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial, and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, and are then left hanging? The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to the nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan “Everyone is entitled to know everything.” (But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.)
Hastiness and superficiality—these are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century and more than anywhere else this is manifested in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press; it is contrary to its nature. The press merely picks out sensational formulas.
Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, exceeding that of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Yet one would like to ask: According to what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the Communist East, a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has voted Western journalists into their positions of power, for how long a time, and with what prerogatives?
There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the totalitarian East with its rigorously unified press: One discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole (the spirit of the time), generally accepted patterns of judgment, and maybe common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Unrestrained freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership, because newspapers mostly transmit in a forceful and emphatic way those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and that general trend.”
I've said this in the comments of YouTube, but I'll say it here - the way this video is edited is not going to change any one's mind.
If the goal is to preach to the choir and feel morally superior while alienating everyone who doesn't already agree, it succeeds.
If the goal is to correct errors and fight government disinformation, it utterly fails. The MSNBC stan will see the complete lack of respect here and turn it off.
I'd prefer you changed people's minds. But I would never show this video to someone in order to change their mind.
Watching this video I start to understand why beheading is a source of justice in some cultures.
Perfect use of the clown horn throughout.