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
Maddow is just continuing a long tradition in the press, and that's lying their asses off.
“Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
I've witnessed some news in the making and then read about it later. It's always shocking to see how wrong they get it.
"They should realize that a Government which has decided on embarking on the hazardous and terrible enterprise of war must at the outset present a one-sided case in justification of its action, and cannot afford to admit in any particular whatever the smallest degree of right or reason on the part of the people it has made up its mind to fight. Facts must be distorted, relevant circumstances concealed and a picture presented which by its crude colouring will persuade the ignorant people that their Government is blameless, their cause is righteous, and that the indisputable wickedness of the enemy has been proved beyond question. A moment's reflection would tell any reasonable person that such obvious bias cannot possibly represent the truth. But the moment's. reflection is not allowed; lies are circulated with great rapidity. The unthinking mass accept them and by their excitement sway the rest. The amount of rubbish and humbug that pass under the name of patriotism in war-time in all countries is sufficient to make decent people blush when they are subsequently disillusioned." - Ponsonby
This was penned in 1929, almost a century ago.
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" - The more things change, the more they stay the same eh?
Orwell was a great writer, no doubt about it. Read his telling of going to a British public school as the token poor student. (Public school in Britain was opposite what it sounds like; it’s where rich people sent their kids in preparation for going to Eton and the like.)
Chris Hedges had that same experience in the USA, rubbing shoulders with Rockefellers as the scholarship student. He got in trouble for his effective activism.
they are getting it right as far their sponsors are concerned. But Orwell is arguing here that the lying by the Fascist news men achieved a new low, more outrageous and shameless in '39 than before. I think whatever unvarnished unbiased truth there has been its due entirely to the intelligence and quality of the guy reporting.
I had an Orwellian experience with the NYT just a few days ago. They carried a story almost entirely relying on a Ukranian official who said that Russia had been lying fir years about Ukranian military units shelling civilians. Now I don’t know the truth about the specific village they were talking about in the currrent conflict, but I linked to a Human Rights Watch report and in a second comment to an Amnesty International report from 2014-2015 where they specifically said that both sides, including the Ukranian military, were shelling civilians.
My note was very polite. They didn’t print it. I sent it again with two links instead of just the HRW link. They didn’t print it. I sent another link merely telling people they could find these reports. They didn’t print it.
They did print people who explicitly took a pro Russian side, which I don’t do, but they did not print a piece like mine with links that explicitly disproved their article. They posted other comments during the hours I kept submitting mine.
This is memory hole stuff. We aren’t supposed to know that both sides committed atrocities back in 2014-2015. And most of the other commenters were completely ignorant of this. I have little sympathy for them— they could look things up. But the NYT didn’t want them to suspect anything.
I used to post on a political section of a physics web site. They had a rule that all political statements had to cite sources. In reality you could say anything that was a repetition of whatever was on television. If your info contradicted that then it didn't matter how good your sources were.
I got banned. I suspect that having solid sources made me more of a threat. I realized later that most physicists are employed in weapons research.
Ukraine has been committing ongoing genocide by artillery in the Donbass since the coup as documented by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, a remarkable admission by a group later discovered not only not to be a neutral observer but actively sharing eastern Ukrainian positions with the Nazis.
You are repeating Putin’s talking points. He has taken the bit of accurate information that there is a small group on neonazis in Ukraine (much like there are neoNazis in the U S) and used that to claim the whole effort of Ukraine to protect their country is driven by Nazis. Let’s not forget that Putin invaded Donbas
Shouldn't we also not forget the Soros backed Maidan revolution and the part the U.S. played in a blatant coup and unwarranted meddling in Ukraine and it's democratic elections? Let's not forget that Obama basically started this war and he's still pulling the strings, behind the scene.
What is it with you guys and Soros and you claim liberals have Trump Derangement Syndrome?
And Obama did not start this war. In 2014 Putin invaded Donbas and Crimea and Obama did exactly what people on this thread seem to want Biden to do: nothing, just let Putin have his way,
Maybe you should look into Soros and his Open Society Foundation. As well as the CIA-backed National Endowment for Democracy. They go hand in hand. And look up the many color revolutions they've pulled off, worldwide....yellow, rose, green, orange, but don't quote me. Look 'em up yourself and don't settle for ignorance. See, where we have information backing our claims, you have nothing but TDS. But take heart, there is a cure.
I agree with your concern with suppression of viewpoints. However, consider how many French civilians died from allied shelling during WWII. Sadly, it is the reality of large scale warfare. My understanding is that it isn't a war crime unless it is unnecessary or disproportionate to a legitimate military objective.
What the human rights groups said is that both sides were guilty of indiscriminate fire into civilian areas.
I tend to think war and war crimes go together and to paraphrase Chomsky ( yeah, he isn’t perfect), there are always lawyers present to argue that whatever our side does is just, etc…. I just want honest reporting about the fact that both sides shell cities. It probably is normal in war. But it is reported as a terrible war crime when one side does it and denied or excused when the other side does it.
One would think that supposedly educated people could see this, but what Orwell wrote in “Notes on Nationalism” seems like a timeless truth. People have an amazing ability to avoid knowing about the atrocities committed by the side they support.
I agree completely. Probably a quibble. I also agree completely with Sherman, who wrote "war is hell." War is entirely an atrocity. Sadly it is in some circumstances a necessary one. Sherman's leadership helped end slavery. Ukraine's war helps to deter Russia's program to reassert a Soviet style control over the components of the former USSR and, potentially, Eastern Europe.
For context, let’s remember that in 2014 Putin invaded Dombass and Crimea. There may well have been shelling of civilians by both sides but Russia was invading and Ukraine was defending
For context you are a paid troll and a serial liar. The NATO analyst for Ukraine openly acknowledges Russia did not invade the Donbass in 2014. Canada has a new program perfect for people like you.
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.”
mmm, no, not exactly, but I basically think Chomsky should've stuck to linguistics. He's too much of a statist to have any coherency in his political writings. I can't take his politics seriously given he's gone from denouncing"manufactured consent" to being one of the manufacturers.
Nowhere did I say that I endorse everything Chomsky ever said or wrote. Hell, I have quoted Goering for truth (in particular on getting the populace behind a war), and I am as far as one can get from a national socialist.
The German MIC which eventually put Hitler in power, many of whom later wanted him arrested or killed (but could never pull the trigger, and many of these plotters were executed later) talked about replacing him with Goering (who was open to peace).
War Presidents always go insane (must be a requirement to wield that Power). It's not limited to Germans.
I never said you endorsed him either! I didn't mention you in my response, just Chomsky. I feel you. Chomsky is interesting to quote because he has forever nominally been anti-censorship and "manufactured consent."
OK so Noam Chomsky drank some of the omnipresent Kool aid, he's paid his dues. Now Harris and DeGrass and other "intellectuals", that's another matter.
It's how the consent is manufactured - anyone who disagrees doesn't get promoted. The ones who tell the bosses what they want to hear has a bright future.
The difference being that Carlson represents an existential threat to the Uniparty and the Elites behind all this bullshit. Lemon is a punchline at best. An inconsequential blip whose absence no one will notice.
Carlson did a rant against Pharma and their government advertised, taxpayer funded, vaccine experiment. Go against Pharma and that'll get a guy removed real quick. They are nasty buggers.
I think it's more accurate to say that their salaries depend on them not understanding what they are doing, and so they don't.
It's not much different then how I manage to type away on my Mac, which was built by slaves, and the profits of which are pumped into lobbyists to prevent positive social change.
Well the other thing is their careers depend on them having been groomed by the right schools (including of thought) and self-selected through their full belief in the American Exceptionalism propaganda that we are all swimming in from the time we are first shown a coloring book as children. IOW, censorship in the USA isn't like previous totalitarian societies; journalists and personalities know inherently which viewpoints will get them promoted and which will end any chance they have of a promising career in mainstream "legacy" media.
Without a doubt! Everybody seems to dance around the obvious - there is a boatload of money to be made misleading the public with sensationalism. Fox News has been doing it for decades! I wonder how much money MSNBC made spewing all that crap in Matt Orfalea's vid? So, how do you get people to stop tuning in? It only makes sense that as long as MSNBC and others can profit from their current game plan, they will continue to play that way.
Everyone but people with terminal TDS, loyal DP followers, and leftists has abandoned the MSM (anyone else getting sick of acronyms?). I think they've gone all in as propagandists for the regime in order to maintain enough viewers to remain on air, on top of the fact that there's a pipeline from the Ivies to major media outlets and they all share the same lack of ethics and intelligence.
You're hitting on a point I've been curious about for awhile. What if corporations can make huge money just off of the list of people you named, for instance? The bigger picture is, what if companies can get rich producing products that only "niche types" will consume, or those with substantial resources can afford? What if say, GM's cheapest car cost $80k? That would preclude an entire segment of Americans from owning a new car. Get my drift?
Yes--the affluent are led down the garden path because all consumer goods are marketed as "environmentally friendly" and therefore more expensive, out of the reach of the working class who are left to scab together beaters like the Cubans do, only to get busted for emissions violations.
I think we see this with groceries--I'd like to compare the prices of Whole Foods, say, and a Publix or Safeway or Jewel. The "organic" designation is another example of consumer goods with inflated prices marketed to the affluent woke. The message seems to be, "If you can't afford [insert high-priced product here], tough shit. You like Wonder Bread and Miracle Whip and muscle cars anyway, you knuckle-walking losers."
Possibly it was current before. I noticed it finally with "60 Minutes". Their premise was to tell news as a story. If an interview conflicted with the storyline, out with or attack that interview. Does anyone expect me remember Alar? I've not watched it for years, but I understand that it is still making money.
“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
I just mentioned the book, "Falsehood in Wartime" by Brit MP Arthur Ponsonby. In it he documented the falsity of the many lies told by the allies in WWI.
Those lies were used to trick young men into leaving their farms in Manitoba, or the coal mines in Canso, to go "fight the Hun" because they "crucified one of our boys with bayonets!". That never happened of course, but no matter as it worked. Those kids willingly marched into the German guns.
Today of course the Germans are our friends, until they are not. Wash, rinse, repeat.
""Last week a large number of Canadian soldiers, wounded in the
fighting round Ypres, arrived at the base hospital at Versailles. They
all told a story of how one of their officers had been crucified by the
Germans. He had been pinned to a wall by bayonets thrust through his
hands and feet, another bayonet had then been driven through his
throat, and, finally, he was riddled with bullets. The wounded
Canadians said that the Dublin Fusiliers had seen this done with their
own eyes, and they had heard the Officers of the Dublin Fusiliers
talking about it." ("The Times," May 10, 1915. Paris Correspondent.)
"There is, unhappily, good reason to believe that the story related by
your Paris Correspondent of the crucifixion of a Canadian officer
during the fighting at Ypres on April 22, 1923, is in substance true.
The story was current here at the time, but, in the absence of direct
evidence and absolute proof, men were unwilling to believe that a
civilized foe be guilty of an act so cruel and savage.
"Now, I have reason to believe, written depositions testifying to the
fact of the discovery of the body are in possession of British
Headquarters Staff. The unfortunate victim was a sergeant. As the
story was told to me, he was found transfixed to the wooden fence of a
farm building. Bayonets were thrust through the palms of his hands
and his feet, pinning him to the fence. He had been repeatedly stabbed
with bayonets, and there were many puncture wounds in his body. I
have not heard that any of our men actually saw the crime committed.
There is room for the supposition that the man was dead before he was
pinned to the fence and that the enemy, in his insensate rage and hate
of the English, wrecked his vengeance on the lifeless body of his foe."
It's scary to think about what we accept as the agreed upon history of the world. I'm at the "question everything" stage and I realize I should've started a long time ago. It's a young person's endeavor, for sure. Thank you for all of your references and links. It helps a lot.
You're welcome. I learned long ago that most of the histories, what I was taught in school, saw on my tv and in the hollowood films, these were all false or distorted.
I was taught, for instance, that Colombus was a hero explorer, and not the human monster (even for his time) who loved to torture, kill and enslave the native peoples that he encountered.
Do not read this unless you have a very strong stomach.
For me, believe it or not, it was in High School in suburban South Chicago. I did a short paper noting large discrepancies in the way history was reported by different writers. Unfortunately, so many years have passed that I can no longer remember either the historical event concerned or the specific sources about which I wrote my critique. Not important, I guess. The important thing however is that it taught me,, at a very early age how dangerous it can be to take statements of 'fact' at face value. Reading George Orwell's 1984 thereafter completed the job.
That's awesome it started so early for you. I also read 1984 in high school (junior year, 1986), and while I found it very interesting, I was still too young to fully appreciate its cautionary message. I doubt many of today's high schools are churning out critical thinkers with a healthy dose of skepticism wrt media and government propaganda, sadly.
Was it a specific event around that time (like 9/11) that made you start questioning news coverage? For me it was around the 2008 financial crisis, when I also stumbled upon an awesome media watchdog called FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). That really opened my eyes to the fact that we must question ALL mainstream media.
For me it was an article in RAMPARTS called The Myth of the Hué Massacre by Gareth Porter in 1975. "Wait! That's not what my teevee says. . . That's not what TIME magazine is telling me!"
Many decades later Porter and I became mutuals on Twitter where he is still truth telling.
Oh yeah for I like all of them except Horton, only because I don't recognize the name. I was just reaching back to what I consider "Old School" dudes who actually went into the war zones. Hedges has, not sure about Hersh or Horton, but Mate's at least been to Syria once or twice (and been pilloried as an Assad stooge by the mainstream media).
I was very happy the day Gareth followed me on Twitter, it really felt like I had come full circle. He rt'd me a few times, we talked some. Those days are over now, as I have been unpersoned.
I think it was in grade 8 when they took us all into the gym and showed us this really weird b/w film, it was not reefer madness. I remember a guy smoking a 'muggle' who then turned into a gorilla. Later he shrank down and went for a swim in a vase of flowers. I remember thinking, "Wow, that looks like fun!" I was of course disappointed when actually did try it a year or so later. "That's it?"
Acid of course, far surpassed vase swimming...
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand. And a Heaven in a Wild Flower. Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand. And Eternity in an hour." - William Blake
It really started in earnest with the way 9/11 was covered. I've always been anti-war/anti-empire, but the few days following the plane hijackings I was a regular ranting Islamophobe Arab hating military loving idiot, ranting to my parents and friends that we needed to destroy the whole Middle East in response. I even tried to enlist in the USAF as an officer/pilot so I could go over there and do it myself. Thankfully the recruiter must've been super busy because I never got a call back. I'm guessing they wanted grunts anyway and not officer candidates. But I was actually in financial dire straits after graduating college a few years prior and struggling with student debt, car payments and rent so I likely would have joined if they actually called me.
I woke up from that stupidity on my own, and went in the complete opposite direction during the runup to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The media coverage of the latter was simply jingoistic one-sided bullshit and the first time I could recall the near total exclusion of any anti-war voices allowed on TV or in print. I knew about alternative journalism sites and I fact checked everything I saw on NBC or the NYT and realized they were lying their asses off about nearly everything. I wrote letters to the editor, called my Congresspeople, and would explain to anyone who'd listen what the real situation over there was. This was when I first discovered Scott Ritter, FWIW. Thank God for sites like YellowTimes.org and people like Phil Donahue too.
But yeah, that's when it happened, so I was prepared for Obama and knew better than to vote for him in 2008 after he quickly reversed his promise to hold the telecoms accountable for participating in the warrantless eavesdropping on innocent American citizens. I also followed the financial collapse closely and leaned heavily on sites like Naked Capitalism, Glenn Greenwald at Salon, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone (and his books), Wall Street on Parade.
I should note that Greenwald initially supported the Iraq invasion but changed his mind and became one of the Bush administration's (and the media including Fox) biggest critics. That was when I became a real fan of his work.
Oh, P.S. I have also been a contributor to FAIR since the early 2000s and have several of their t-shirts (they send them to you for donating).
Cool story! I protested against the war outside the US Embassy here in Ottawa. There were marine snipers on the roof. We had about 2000 people, not enough. Power wants most to agree with their lies, and their wars, but if they don't? They don't care.
The Embassy here is a literal fortress, I watched them build it. We wanted them to build it on the outskirts in case of a truck bomb or whatever, but they simply refused and built it very close to Parliament. Hard to do tempest attacks if you are too far away.
Yes. The only reason I didn't participate in any direct action protests is that I was living in a dusty West Texas town where nobody was much bothered by the coming oil boom cycle. But that (and Occupy Wall Street) are when I realized that if they can't violently crush dissent in the streets, the media can just ignore and minimize it at the same time as they push whatever war or warlike action that the USG is engaging in. Worked out perfectly for Obama. I don't think there were many protests over Syria or Libya - in fact liberals were cheering for it by that point.
There was nothing here about Syria or Libya, both of whom we helped bomb. RCAF F-18s killed 27 civilians in Syria. That was not even reported in Canada, I got that from the Pentagon ffs.
Canadians are like little children for the most part.
I gotta go back to nam, unfortunately. And from what I've learned from others that served in Korea, it was the same fucking thing. Russia got nothing onus when it comes to a lying press.
The US has no memory of history. When we slaughter, maim and displace peoples, we quickly move on. Other nations don't. And our State Media is a major part of that. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
One of the questions asked in that study was, How many Vietnamese casualties would you estimate that there were during the Vietnam war? The average response on the part of Americans today is about 100,000. The official figure is about two million. The actual figure is probably three to four million. The people who conducted the study raised an appropriate question: What would we think about German political culture if, when you asked people today how many Jews died in the Holocaust, they estimated about 300,000? What would that tell us about German political culture?
And if you ask how many 100s of thousands of Laotians and Cambodians died during the Vietnam War, people look at you blankly. Most don't know why we have Hmong communities in Minnesota and Vietnamese communities in Louisiana; everything is independent, disconnected from our actions in the collective American mind. Most don't know about the "domino almost falling" in Indonesia, and our support (typical) for dictator Suharto and his genocides, notably East Timor. As Yemen shows it never ends.
When I point out that Afghanistan was a secular Muslim country when JFK visited, on the cusp of the Soviet bloc, but with women holding decent jobs, going to University, and even wearing Western (Soviet) dress, people act as if the Taliban and terrorism has always been a part of the country. Osama bin Laden was Our Hero when he was brought in to fight the Russians on behalf of his CIA handlers, with Saudi money and Pakistani support. It is comical/ tragic when our politicians claim they were in Afghanistan to help women/ girls; we destroyed those women's lives and society INTENTIONALLY and put them under a rigid, ultraconservative theocracy.
We must question all media not just all main stream media. What good is it to question MSM only to become completely, uncritically accepting of an alternate source.
Absolutely. I consider there to be 3 main categories of media: mainstream (aka legacy, corporate-owned), alternative (mainly funded by think tanks, foundations, NGOs), and independent (funded solely by individual members/subscribers). So, the first 2 are obviously funded by institutions with a goal of shaping/manufacturing a specific narrative that benefits them, rather than the public. By contrast, I have found truly independent journalists/outlets (i.e. not beholden to any special interests, funders, powers) to be the most trustworthy, as their main mission is to tell not only the rest/other side of the story the mainstream intentionally omits, but also the contradictory (i.e. correct/actual) version of events. One need only witness the way they're attacked, dismissed and censored by the Establishment to know they're reporting the truth.
I still think you need to consult all three types of sources. Consult, not necessarily accept. If you know the corporation or NGO behind the source you can judge accordingly. But I don’t think using only independent sources is the way to go. Just on substack there are people with opinions all over the spectrum. A person can go with Matt Taibbi or Michael Moore or Dan Pfeiffer. There is a real danger that people will pick their independent media source based on what they want to hear. How does that lead to learning the truth?
Yes, that and their coverage on the transgender and other woke issues has been extremely disappointing, so I don't follow their coverage of those topics (which appear to be from newer writers). But I do still think they're on the "right side of history" wrt foreign policy, on which their veteran writers still report.
I recall quite clearly hearing the whole premise of Hamilton 68 when it first came up and tapping out from ever believing anything the foolish people were going to say. It was so transparently a manufactured propaganda tool that I never even thought twice about it.
Hand up -- I believed that kind of thing at the time. I had never paid much attention to the news up until then and thought, "how could this many reporters all be wrong?"
Hey now. Not caring about politics is pretty healthy. I wonder how this info is going to get around to people who don't pay for substack (the vast majority).
It's a challenge that this type of propaganda is so effective. I have a fortunate knack for reading between lines but recognize the challenge we all face.
The answer, sadly, is that they are willfully wrong.
Effective mind control, that works on the majority of people, is now proven science.
“Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms – elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest – will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial – but Democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.” - Aldous Huxley
Maybe we need to vaccinate people against certain phrases... like "official X has been briefed that" is code for "it's not true but we told him someone claims it is so we can get the claim in a headline".
I used to listen to Maddow back in the air america days. She used to call herself "Dr. Maddow" then. I recall her begging for phone calls on the midnite shift.
I don't even recognise her anymore, totally different person.
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...
I agree... and add the Nunes memo. Folks might miss the fact that media is mildly (?) implying that an elected Congressperson is an ally of Russia, or whatever those accusations were.
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.
actually the journalists are the opposite of lazy incompetent & unreliable. they are energized, driven & know they are lying for power & prestige within their social circle. They are evil, not incompetent.
Sue: as a journalism graduate, I concur with your description of today’s “journalists.” Lazy, incompetent and dishonest. They are willing purveyors of disinformation and outright lies. Anything to advance the progressive agenda they slavishly advocate.
Do you ever wonder what these cretins think is going tohsppentothemif they win their desire for communism? Do they think they are going to all have a lofty perch to gaze down upon us unwashed masses? They seem to be trying to force us to war. Do they understand how badly that will go for them? I don't think they do.
What I noticed was how nearly every commercial emphasized how important being together was....even while they were keeping us apart. The subtle messaging was "do what we say and you can be together again!"
There is a profile for those who are still masked, but it can not be stated without incurring wrath. Can't say what is not permitted without going down an endless rabbit hole.
I still wear a mask when I have symptoms even if I test negative for covid. I just think it is good manners not to inflict my cold symptoms on other people.
It’s a double edged sword... if your immune system is never challenged then it ceases to be on alert. It’s why this fad of having hand sanitizer within arms’ reach at all times, hanging off kids book bags, etc ever present to dispense a squirt is counter productive imo. I grew up in Europe and vividly remember cleaning the dirt out of my finger nails with my teeth. Somewhere in between is the right balance. Again, in my opinion.
I read something by a New York City au pair. She said the rich kids who grew up in germ free apartments all had allergies. The immune system finds something to fight.
Polio, appendicitis, tonsillitis, stomach ulcers have all been attributed to the better hygiene industrialized nations now have. You have to wonder about the increased autoimmune diseases. Most Covid deaths were not directly due to the virus, but rather an over-arching immune response (why glucocorticoids were the most effective single treatment).
(I attribute autism to plasticizers, but pure speculation at the moment. But when a disease suddenly becomes prominent, you have to look for what has changed.)
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.
I wondered the same thing. Surely outlets like CNN, MSNBC, all the broadcast networks, PBS... hell, ALL the mainstream/legacy outlets have MUCH more going on behind-the-scenes with as many false/fraudulent stories as they put out on the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Russiagate, covid, Ukraine, etc.
“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.
I see it in a few of my college friends and some family members. They’re not even big lefties, just lifelong Dems.
Two dynamics:
1) standard joes who bought in and promulgated all this to their own friends and family for years don’t want to admit they were taken in wholesale by lies, and/or
2) same people will dismiss/discount/cynically view all of this as - wait for it - more Russian “disinformation” (*Of course* Taibbi and those other “so-called journalists” would promote this! They’re all working for Elon! And he’s *probably* working for the Russians!”)
When desirable lies (that support my worldview) are fungible as social currency, the hand that offers actual truth gets batted away.
Not saying don’t keep up the incredibly important work here - it’s worth all the sweat - just saying this is what it’s facing, even outside the beltway.
Correcting constant repetition of lies (propaganda) requires constant repetition of truth. And about three years of it.
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.
I imagine many ppl who bought into this stuff when it was aired have selectively forgotten just how ridiculous it got. Such a person will indeed prolly feel off-put when they see this, as would anyone reminded of past foolishness. But they’ll prolly keep it in mind the next time, so they aren’t made to look a fool again.
Ie the goal here is less to change minds - plenty of content elsewhere on the site for that - than to get ppl to use theirs.
And putting aside rhetoric the video is an artistic masterpiece which has its own merit.
And this edit, like all of Matt's edits, appears to be more concerned with dunking on people rather than changing their minds.
Can you imagine someone who has been swallowing MSNBC's BS for the last decade watching this and thinking, "Oh my god, I really have been taken for a ride!"
Or do you think they'll watch twenty seconds of it, turn it off, and complain about the BernieBros being obnoxious?
I mean, I AGREE with it, and I think it's smug and infuriating. So what's the point? Other than some smug self-congratulation and a rousing circle-jerk?
At some point, one has to conclude that the MSM is intentionally and consciously being dishonest.
Maddow is just continuing a long tradition in the press, and that's lying their asses off.
“Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
I've witnessed some news in the making and then read about it later. It's always shocking to see how wrong they get it.
Every utterance regarding Ukraine has been a lie from the legacy press. Not one bit of truth to be had.
Check out, "Falsehood In Wartime" by a British MP named Arthur Ponsonby where he details the many lies told, and believed by most, during WWI.
Link is here: http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050824i/ponsonby.pdf
"They should realize that a Government which has decided on embarking on the hazardous and terrible enterprise of war must at the outset present a one-sided case in justification of its action, and cannot afford to admit in any particular whatever the smallest degree of right or reason on the part of the people it has made up its mind to fight. Facts must be distorted, relevant circumstances concealed and a picture presented which by its crude colouring will persuade the ignorant people that their Government is blameless, their cause is righteous, and that the indisputable wickedness of the enemy has been proved beyond question. A moment's reflection would tell any reasonable person that such obvious bias cannot possibly represent the truth. But the moment's. reflection is not allowed; lies are circulated with great rapidity. The unthinking mass accept them and by their excitement sway the rest. The amount of rubbish and humbug that pass under the name of patriotism in war-time in all countries is sufficient to make decent people blush when they are subsequently disillusioned." - Ponsonby
This was penned in 1929, almost a century ago.
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" - The more things change, the more they stay the same eh?
“ Wag The Dog”.
Yes, thanks, I make that point often.
Yes, homage to Catalonia, a lesser known but critically important Orwell text.
I love the play on words between "retailing" and "re-telling"
Orwell was a great writer, no doubt about it. Read his telling of going to a British public school as the token poor student. (Public school in Britain was opposite what it sounds like; it’s where rich people sent their kids in preparation for going to Eton and the like.)
Chris Hedges had that same experience in the USA, rubbing shoulders with Rockefellers as the scholarship student. He got in trouble for his effective activism.
I do too, but despite having read and reread this text many many times, I totally missed it! Thanks!
The full text is here: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/looking-back-on-the-spanish-war/
Reminds me of Michael Corleone's interpretation of the stability of the Cuban government in front of Hyman Roth...
they are getting it right as far their sponsors are concerned. But Orwell is arguing here that the lying by the Fascist news men achieved a new low, more outrageous and shameless in '39 than before. I think whatever unvarnished unbiased truth there has been its due entirely to the intelligence and quality of the guy reporting.
Yes. It has been going on forever. They just took off the masks after Trump because to them, he justifies any action no matter how authoritarian.
I had an Orwellian experience with the NYT just a few days ago. They carried a story almost entirely relying on a Ukranian official who said that Russia had been lying fir years about Ukranian military units shelling civilians. Now I don’t know the truth about the specific village they were talking about in the currrent conflict, but I linked to a Human Rights Watch report and in a second comment to an Amnesty International report from 2014-2015 where they specifically said that both sides, including the Ukranian military, were shelling civilians.
My note was very polite. They didn’t print it. I sent it again with two links instead of just the HRW link. They didn’t print it. I sent another link merely telling people they could find these reports. They didn’t print it.
They did print people who explicitly took a pro Russian side, which I don’t do, but they did not print a piece like mine with links that explicitly disproved their article. They posted other comments during the hours I kept submitting mine.
This is memory hole stuff. We aren’t supposed to know that both sides committed atrocities back in 2014-2015. And most of the other commenters were completely ignorant of this. I have little sympathy for them— they could look things up. But the NYT didn’t want them to suspect anything.
I used to post on a political section of a physics web site. They had a rule that all political statements had to cite sources. In reality you could say anything that was a repetition of whatever was on television. If your info contradicted that then it didn't matter how good your sources were.
I got banned. I suspect that having solid sources made me more of a threat. I realized later that most physicists are employed in weapons research.
Ukraine has been committing ongoing genocide by artillery in the Donbass since the coup as documented by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, a remarkable admission by a group later discovered not only not to be a neutral observer but actively sharing eastern Ukrainian positions with the Nazis.
You are repeating Putin’s talking points. He has taken the bit of accurate information that there is a small group on neonazis in Ukraine (much like there are neoNazis in the U S) and used that to claim the whole effort of Ukraine to protect their country is driven by Nazis. Let’s not forget that Putin invaded Donbas
Shouldn't we also not forget the Soros backed Maidan revolution and the part the U.S. played in a blatant coup and unwarranted meddling in Ukraine and it's democratic elections? Let's not forget that Obama basically started this war and he's still pulling the strings, behind the scene.
What is it with you guys and Soros and you claim liberals have Trump Derangement Syndrome?
And Obama did not start this war. In 2014 Putin invaded Donbas and Crimea and Obama did exactly what people on this thread seem to want Biden to do: nothing, just let Putin have his way,
Maybe you should look into Soros and his Open Society Foundation. As well as the CIA-backed National Endowment for Democracy. They go hand in hand. And look up the many color revolutions they've pulled off, worldwide....yellow, rose, green, orange, but don't quote me. Look 'em up yourself and don't settle for ignorance. See, where we have information backing our claims, you have nothing but TDS. But take heart, there is a cure.
Rout out your cunt, you CIA shitstain.
you really think that's a cogent response, Sevender? It makes you sound like a psychotic.
I agree with your concern with suppression of viewpoints. However, consider how many French civilians died from allied shelling during WWII. Sadly, it is the reality of large scale warfare. My understanding is that it isn't a war crime unless it is unnecessary or disproportionate to a legitimate military objective.
What the human rights groups said is that both sides were guilty of indiscriminate fire into civilian areas.
I tend to think war and war crimes go together and to paraphrase Chomsky ( yeah, he isn’t perfect), there are always lawyers present to argue that whatever our side does is just, etc…. I just want honest reporting about the fact that both sides shell cities. It probably is normal in war. But it is reported as a terrible war crime when one side does it and denied or excused when the other side does it.
One would think that supposedly educated people could see this, but what Orwell wrote in “Notes on Nationalism” seems like a timeless truth. People have an amazing ability to avoid knowing about the atrocities committed by the side they support.
I agree completely. Probably a quibble. I also agree completely with Sherman, who wrote "war is hell." War is entirely an atrocity. Sadly it is in some circumstances a necessary one. Sherman's leadership helped end slavery. Ukraine's war helps to deter Russia's program to reassert a Soviet style control over the components of the former USSR and, potentially, Eastern Europe.
For context, let’s remember that in 2014 Putin invaded Dombass and Crimea. There may well have been shelling of civilians by both sides but Russia was invading and Ukraine was defending
More than 2/3 of Crimeans are ethnic Russians, and have been for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
Jack F. Matlock, former US Ambassador to Russia, (1987-1991): https://jackmatlock.com/2022/11/there-must-be-a-negotiated-settlement-with-russia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Matlock_Jr.
https://usrussiaaccord.org/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
For context you are a paid troll and a serial liar. The NATO analyst for Ukraine openly acknowledges Russia did not invade the Donbass in 2014. Canada has a new program perfect for people like you.
If anybody tried to be honest, they would be shown the door and we all know it.
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.”
http://scratchindog.blogspot.com/2015/07/transcript-of-interview-between-noam.html
Chomsky... idk... talk about a guy who lost any remaining creditibility by going all in for the vaxx apartheid. Sam Harris + senescence=Chomsky
So if someone is wrong about one thing, or they say something that you disagree with, you just write them off? The man is giant.
mmm, no, not exactly, but I basically think Chomsky should've stuck to linguistics. He's too much of a statist to have any coherency in his political writings. I can't take his politics seriously given he's gone from denouncing"manufactured consent" to being one of the manufacturers.
Hilarious.
Chomsky is great. He's wrong on 9/11 and he's wrong on the vax, probably other things too.
Nobody's perfect.
Nowhere did I say that I endorse everything Chomsky ever said or wrote. Hell, I have quoted Goering for truth (in particular on getting the populace behind a war), and I am as far as one can get from a national socialist.
The German MIC which eventually put Hitler in power, many of whom later wanted him arrested or killed (but could never pull the trigger, and many of these plotters were executed later) talked about replacing him with Goering (who was open to peace).
War Presidents always go insane (must be a requirement to wield that Power). It's not limited to Germans.
I never said you endorsed him either! I didn't mention you in my response, just Chomsky. I feel you. Chomsky is interesting to quote because he has forever nominally been anti-censorship and "manufactured consent."
"Nominally"?
Which books have you read?
Chomsky is a fraud.
So you claim.
Now prove it.
OK so Noam Chomsky drank some of the omnipresent Kool aid, he's paid his dues. Now Harris and DeGrass and other "intellectuals", that's another matter.
Fake intellectuals.
It's how the consent is manufactured - anyone who disagrees doesn't get promoted. The ones who tell the bosses what they want to hear has a bright future.
We saw that yesterday- Tucker Carlson (though they did get Don Lemon right).
Don Lemon is out because he put himself above his masters.
Tucker is out because he put America ahead of them.
That's a beautiful thought. And very true. Thank you.
The difference being that Carlson represents an existential threat to the Uniparty and the Elites behind all this bullshit. Lemon is a punchline at best. An inconsequential blip whose absence no one will notice.
Carlson did a rant against Pharma and their government advertised, taxpayer funded, vaccine experiment. Go against Pharma and that'll get a guy removed real quick. They are nasty buggers.
Exceedingly vengeful
Happened just yesterday at Fox
I think it's more accurate to say that their salaries depend on them not understanding what they are doing, and so they don't.
It's not much different then how I manage to type away on my Mac, which was built by slaves, and the profits of which are pumped into lobbyists to prevent positive social change.
Well the other thing is their careers depend on them having been groomed by the right schools (including of thought) and self-selected through their full belief in the American Exceptionalism propaganda that we are all swimming in from the time we are first shown a coloring book as children. IOW, censorship in the USA isn't like previous totalitarian societies; journalists and personalities know inherently which viewpoints will get them promoted and which will end any chance they have of a promising career in mainstream "legacy" media.
Can there be any doubt?
Maddow is many things but for sure she can do an analysis.
So why doesn't she?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Yes, it is! :)
Money
So depressing because she isn’t dumb. I suspect she doesn’t want to alienate her friends.
Without a doubt! Everybody seems to dance around the obvious - there is a boatload of money to be made misleading the public with sensationalism. Fox News has been doing it for decades! I wonder how much money MSNBC made spewing all that crap in Matt Orfalea's vid? So, how do you get people to stop tuning in? It only makes sense that as long as MSNBC and others can profit from their current game plan, they will continue to play that way.
How do you get people to stop tuning in?
Everyone but people with terminal TDS, loyal DP followers, and leftists has abandoned the MSM (anyone else getting sick of acronyms?). I think they've gone all in as propagandists for the regime in order to maintain enough viewers to remain on air, on top of the fact that there's a pipeline from the Ivies to major media outlets and they all share the same lack of ethics and intelligence.
You're hitting on a point I've been curious about for awhile. What if corporations can make huge money just off of the list of people you named, for instance? The bigger picture is, what if companies can get rich producing products that only "niche types" will consume, or those with substantial resources can afford? What if say, GM's cheapest car cost $80k? That would preclude an entire segment of Americans from owning a new car. Get my drift?
Yes--the affluent are led down the garden path because all consumer goods are marketed as "environmentally friendly" and therefore more expensive, out of the reach of the working class who are left to scab together beaters like the Cubans do, only to get busted for emissions violations.
I think we see this with groceries--I'd like to compare the prices of Whole Foods, say, and a Publix or Safeway or Jewel. The "organic" designation is another example of consumer goods with inflated prices marketed to the affluent woke. The message seems to be, "If you can't afford [insert high-priced product here], tough shit. You like Wonder Bread and Miracle Whip and muscle cars anyway, you knuckle-walking losers."
Possibly it was current before. I noticed it finally with "60 Minutes". Their premise was to tell news as a story. If an interview conflicted with the storyline, out with or attack that interview. Does anyone expect me remember Alar? I've not watched it for years, but I understand that it is still making money.
Correct, because if it’s not dishonesty then they are all stupid A/F.
Operation Mockingbird is alive and well.
"one has to conclude that the MSM is intentionally and consciously being dishonest"
Or lazy and stupid. Likely all three.
ya think?
Why are there so many who don't?
“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
Are there only a few narratives allowed to circulate, that you are only allowed to pick from? Who's informing me of the world I know nothing about?
"Are there only a few narratives allowed to circulate, that you are only allowed to pick from?"
How about one narrative? Promulgate it or else. That seems to be the plan. Disagreement is allowed only on social issues, where hostility is fostered.
"Who's informing me of the world I know nothing about?"
Uh...Matt Taibbi?
He's certainly doing his part, but it's a big world out there.
Few read books anymore.
I just mentioned the book, "Falsehood in Wartime" by Brit MP Arthur Ponsonby. In it he documented the falsity of the many lies told by the allies in WWI.
Those lies were used to trick young men into leaving their farms in Manitoba, or the coal mines in Canso, to go "fight the Hun" because they "crucified one of our boys with bayonets!". That never happened of course, but no matter as it worked. Those kids willingly marched into the German guns.
Today of course the Germans are our friends, until they are not. Wash, rinse, repeat.
""Last week a large number of Canadian soldiers, wounded in the
fighting round Ypres, arrived at the base hospital at Versailles. They
all told a story of how one of their officers had been crucified by the
Germans. He had been pinned to a wall by bayonets thrust through his
hands and feet, another bayonet had then been driven through his
throat, and, finally, he was riddled with bullets. The wounded
Canadians said that the Dublin Fusiliers had seen this done with their
own eyes, and they had heard the Officers of the Dublin Fusiliers
talking about it." ("The Times," May 10, 1915. Paris Correspondent.)
"There is, unhappily, good reason to believe that the story related by
your Paris Correspondent of the crucifixion of a Canadian officer
during the fighting at Ypres on April 22, 1923, is in substance true.
The story was current here at the time, but, in the absence of direct
evidence and absolute proof, men were unwilling to believe that a
civilized foe be guilty of an act so cruel and savage.
"Now, I have reason to believe, written depositions testifying to the
fact of the discovery of the body are in possession of British
Headquarters Staff. The unfortunate victim was a sergeant. As the
story was told to me, he was found transfixed to the wooden fence of a
farm building. Bayonets were thrust through the palms of his hands
and his feet, pinning him to the fence. He had been repeatedly stabbed
with bayonets, and there were many puncture wounds in his body. I
have not heard that any of our men actually saw the crime committed.
There is room for the supposition that the man was dead before he was
pinned to the fence and that the enemy, in his insensate rage and hate
of the English, wrecked his vengeance on the lifeless body of his foe."
http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/archives/texts/t050824i/ponsonby.pdf
It's scary to think about what we accept as the agreed upon history of the world. I'm at the "question everything" stage and I realize I should've started a long time ago. It's a young person's endeavor, for sure. Thank you for all of your references and links. It helps a lot.
Napoleon, who not only saw a lot of history, but made some hisself, said, "History is a lie agreed upon."
You're welcome. I learned long ago that most of the histories, what I was taught in school, saw on my tv and in the hollowood films, these were all false or distorted.
I was taught, for instance, that Colombus was a hero explorer, and not the human monster (even for his time) who loved to torture, kill and enslave the native peoples that he encountered.
Do not read this unless you have a very strong stomach.
https://www.revolt.tv/article/2021-10-11/109820/the-truth-about-christopher-columbus-massacre-of-indigenous-caribbean-peoples/
Ya think?
You think?
For me that point was in 2001/2002. I'm sure for others it was earlier and for some, later.
For me, believe it or not, it was in High School in suburban South Chicago. I did a short paper noting large discrepancies in the way history was reported by different writers. Unfortunately, so many years have passed that I can no longer remember either the historical event concerned or the specific sources about which I wrote my critique. Not important, I guess. The important thing however is that it taught me,, at a very early age how dangerous it can be to take statements of 'fact' at face value. Reading George Orwell's 1984 thereafter completed the job.
That's awesome it started so early for you. I also read 1984 in high school (junior year, 1986), and while I found it very interesting, I was still too young to fully appreciate its cautionary message. I doubt many of today's high schools are churning out critical thinkers with a healthy dose of skepticism wrt media and government propaganda, sadly.
They have to spend too much time preparing the kids for standardized tests
Was it a specific event around that time (like 9/11) that made you start questioning news coverage? For me it was around the 2008 financial crisis, when I also stumbled upon an awesome media watchdog called FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). That really opened my eyes to the fact that we must question ALL mainstream media.
For me it was an article in RAMPARTS called The Myth of the Hué Massacre by Gareth Porter in 1975. "Wait! That's not what my teevee says. . . That's not what TIME magazine is telling me!"
Many decades later Porter and I became mutuals on Twitter where he is still truth telling.
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/huemyth/mythofhuemassacre.pdf
The precursor to that though, was what I was taught about cannabis in junior high. Then I tried some. It was all lies.
Gareth Porter, John Pilger and Robert Parry are some of my favorite journalists and war correspondents/critics.
For sure! Hedges is good too, I love Scott Horton, Greenwald, Galloway, Maté,
Alex Christoforou, Blumenthal, Hersh . . . and some others.
Oh yeah for I like all of them except Horton, only because I don't recognize the name. I was just reaching back to what I consider "Old School" dudes who actually went into the war zones. Hedges has, not sure about Hersh or Horton, but Mate's at least been to Syria once or twice (and been pilloried as an Assad stooge by the mainstream media).
I was very happy the day Gareth followed me on Twitter, it really felt like I had come full circle. He rt'd me a few times, we talked some. Those days are over now, as I have been unpersoned.
Ah yes, Gareth Porter. Big fan.
“One puff, and you’re hooked.”
I think it was in grade 8 when they took us all into the gym and showed us this really weird b/w film, it was not reefer madness. I remember a guy smoking a 'muggle' who then turned into a gorilla. Later he shrank down and went for a swim in a vase of flowers. I remember thinking, "Wow, that looks like fun!" I was of course disappointed when actually did try it a year or so later. "That's it?"
Acid of course, far surpassed vase swimming...
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand. And a Heaven in a Wild Flower. Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand. And Eternity in an hour." - William Blake
It really started in earnest with the way 9/11 was covered. I've always been anti-war/anti-empire, but the few days following the plane hijackings I was a regular ranting Islamophobe Arab hating military loving idiot, ranting to my parents and friends that we needed to destroy the whole Middle East in response. I even tried to enlist in the USAF as an officer/pilot so I could go over there and do it myself. Thankfully the recruiter must've been super busy because I never got a call back. I'm guessing they wanted grunts anyway and not officer candidates. But I was actually in financial dire straits after graduating college a few years prior and struggling with student debt, car payments and rent so I likely would have joined if they actually called me.
I woke up from that stupidity on my own, and went in the complete opposite direction during the runup to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The media coverage of the latter was simply jingoistic one-sided bullshit and the first time I could recall the near total exclusion of any anti-war voices allowed on TV or in print. I knew about alternative journalism sites and I fact checked everything I saw on NBC or the NYT and realized they were lying their asses off about nearly everything. I wrote letters to the editor, called my Congresspeople, and would explain to anyone who'd listen what the real situation over there was. This was when I first discovered Scott Ritter, FWIW. Thank God for sites like YellowTimes.org and people like Phil Donahue too.
But yeah, that's when it happened, so I was prepared for Obama and knew better than to vote for him in 2008 after he quickly reversed his promise to hold the telecoms accountable for participating in the warrantless eavesdropping on innocent American citizens. I also followed the financial collapse closely and leaned heavily on sites like Naked Capitalism, Glenn Greenwald at Salon, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone (and his books), Wall Street on Parade.
I should note that Greenwald initially supported the Iraq invasion but changed his mind and became one of the Bush administration's (and the media including Fox) biggest critics. That was when I became a real fan of his work.
Oh, P.S. I have also been a contributor to FAIR since the early 2000s and have several of their t-shirts (they send them to you for donating).
Cool story! I protested against the war outside the US Embassy here in Ottawa. There were marine snipers on the roof. We had about 2000 people, not enough. Power wants most to agree with their lies, and their wars, but if they don't? They don't care.
The Embassy here is a literal fortress, I watched them build it. We wanted them to build it on the outskirts in case of a truck bomb or whatever, but they simply refused and built it very close to Parliament. Hard to do tempest attacks if you are too far away.
Yes. The only reason I didn't participate in any direct action protests is that I was living in a dusty West Texas town where nobody was much bothered by the coming oil boom cycle. But that (and Occupy Wall Street) are when I realized that if they can't violently crush dissent in the streets, the media can just ignore and minimize it at the same time as they push whatever war or warlike action that the USG is engaging in. Worked out perfectly for Obama. I don't think there were many protests over Syria or Libya - in fact liberals were cheering for it by that point.
There was nothing here about Syria or Libya, both of whom we helped bomb. RCAF F-18s killed 27 civilians in Syria. That was not even reported in Canada, I got that from the Pentagon ffs.
Canadians are like little children for the most part.
Thanks for the detailed response. Glad to know another FAIR supporter!
I gotta go back to nam, unfortunately. And from what I've learned from others that served in Korea, it was the same fucking thing. Russia got nothing onus when it comes to a lying press.
The US has no memory of history. When we slaughter, maim and displace peoples, we quickly move on. Other nations don't. And our State Media is a major part of that. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
One of the questions asked in that study was, How many Vietnamese casualties would you estimate that there were during the Vietnam war? The average response on the part of Americans today is about 100,000. The official figure is about two million. The actual figure is probably three to four million. The people who conducted the study raised an appropriate question: What would we think about German political culture if, when you asked people today how many Jews died in the Holocaust, they estimated about 300,000? What would that tell us about German political culture?
Noam Chomsky
And if you ask how many 100s of thousands of Laotians and Cambodians died during the Vietnam War, people look at you blankly. Most don't know why we have Hmong communities in Minnesota and Vietnamese communities in Louisiana; everything is independent, disconnected from our actions in the collective American mind. Most don't know about the "domino almost falling" in Indonesia, and our support (typical) for dictator Suharto and his genocides, notably East Timor. As Yemen shows it never ends.
When I point out that Afghanistan was a secular Muslim country when JFK visited, on the cusp of the Soviet bloc, but with women holding decent jobs, going to University, and even wearing Western (Soviet) dress, people act as if the Taliban and terrorism has always been a part of the country. Osama bin Laden was Our Hero when he was brought in to fight the Russians on behalf of his CIA handlers, with Saudi money and Pakistani support. It is comical/ tragic when our politicians claim they were in Afghanistan to help women/ girls; we destroyed those women's lives and society INTENTIONALLY and put them under a rigid, ultraconservative theocracy.
Wonder what we will do to Ukraine? And Taiwan?
We must question all media not just all main stream media. What good is it to question MSM only to become completely, uncritically accepting of an alternate source.
Absolutely. I consider there to be 3 main categories of media: mainstream (aka legacy, corporate-owned), alternative (mainly funded by think tanks, foundations, NGOs), and independent (funded solely by individual members/subscribers). So, the first 2 are obviously funded by institutions with a goal of shaping/manufacturing a specific narrative that benefits them, rather than the public. By contrast, I have found truly independent journalists/outlets (i.e. not beholden to any special interests, funders, powers) to be the most trustworthy, as their main mission is to tell not only the rest/other side of the story the mainstream intentionally omits, but also the contradictory (i.e. correct/actual) version of events. One need only witness the way they're attacked, dismissed and censored by the Establishment to know they're reporting the truth.
I still think you need to consult all three types of sources. Consult, not necessarily accept. If you know the corporation or NGO behind the source you can judge accordingly. But I don’t think using only independent sources is the way to go. Just on substack there are people with opinions all over the spectrum. A person can go with Matt Taibbi or Michael Moore or Dan Pfeiffer. There is a real danger that people will pick their independent media source based on what they want to hear. How does that lead to learning the truth?
Agreed. But FAIR has been co-opted by Blue Anon. They were and still are on board with the Covid scam.
Yes, that and their coverage on the transgender and other woke issues has been extremely disappointing, so I don't follow their coverage of those topics (which appear to be from newer writers). But I do still think they're on the "right side of history" wrt foreign policy, on which their veteran writers still report.
“At some point”……that conclusion was reached years ago to anyone paying attention.
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!
Aw man, you missed out on the best part ;)
I recall quite clearly hearing the whole premise of Hamilton 68 when it first came up and tapping out from ever believing anything the foolish people were going to say. It was so transparently a manufactured propaganda tool that I never even thought twice about it.
Hand up -- I believed that kind of thing at the time. I had never paid much attention to the news up until then and thought, "how could this many reporters all be wrong?"
Good for you man! It's not easy to rouse from a deep, drugged sleep.
Hey now. Not caring about politics is pretty healthy. I wonder how this info is going to get around to people who don't pay for substack (the vast majority).
Well at least the video isn't pay-walled ;)
It's a challenge that this type of propaganda is so effective. I have a fortunate knack for reading between lines but recognize the challenge we all face.
The answer, sadly, is that they are willfully wrong.
Effective mind control, that works on the majority of people, is now proven science.
“Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms – elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest – will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial – but Democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.” - Aldous Huxley
Maybe we need to vaccinate people against certain phrases... like "official X has been briefed that" is code for "it's not true but we told him someone claims it is so we can get the claim in a headline".
I used to listen to Maddow back in the air america days. She used to call herself "Dr. Maddow" then. I recall her begging for phone calls on the midnite shift.
I don't even recognise her anymore, totally different person.
Phd's are not Doctors.
Doctors cut out cancers.
Phd's cause them.
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?
I would love to see that, too. But yes, that would be more of a documentary-length video.
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...
I agree... and add the Nunes memo. Folks might miss the fact that media is mildly (?) implying that an elected Congressperson is an ally of Russia, or whatever those accusations were.
100% agreement from the same perspective.
Totally agree. Sent this to a few people and had to explain hamilton68 first.
Probably be banned on U -Tube, I suspect.
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.
actually the journalists are the opposite of lazy incompetent & unreliable. they are energized, driven & know they are lying for power & prestige within their social circle. They are evil, not incompetent.
This argument can certainly be made, based on the evidence they themselves have provided us with.
Sad to say, you might be right.
Sue: as a journalism graduate, I concur with your description of today’s “journalists.” Lazy, incompetent and dishonest. They are willing purveyors of disinformation and outright lies. Anything to advance the progressive agenda they slavishly advocate.
Do you ever wonder what these cretins think is going tohsppentothemif they win their desire for communism? Do they think they are going to all have a lofty perch to gaze down upon us unwashed masses? They seem to be trying to force us to war. Do they understand how badly that will go for them? I don't think they do.
No, neither did the SRs and Mensheviks in Russia, and, later, the old Bolsheviks themselves. Nothing new here.
Well there is one difference. We can shoot back, effectively.
I should hope it never comes to that, but this is the very reason I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. And no, I am not some 'gun nut'.
I guess I am. I build them. I guess that makes me a nut.
Even the scripted network shows got in on the covid mania! The 2020 era of network television will not age well.
I loved the TV commercials for Eharmony where the couple on a date are masked.....
That's hilarious!
What I noticed was how nearly every commercial emphasized how important being together was....even while they were keeping us apart. The subtle messaging was "do what we say and you can be together again!"
“ but only if you get vaccinated so you can survive the long winter of death and doom” or whatever that bullshit was.
There is a profile for those who are still masked, but it can not be stated without incurring wrath. Can't say what is not permitted without going down an endless rabbit hole.
I still wear a mask when I have symptoms even if I test negative for covid. I just think it is good manners not to inflict my cold symptoms on other people.
It’s a double edged sword... if your immune system is never challenged then it ceases to be on alert. It’s why this fad of having hand sanitizer within arms’ reach at all times, hanging off kids book bags, etc ever present to dispense a squirt is counter productive imo. I grew up in Europe and vividly remember cleaning the dirt out of my finger nails with my teeth. Somewhere in between is the right balance. Again, in my opinion.
I read something by a New York City au pair. She said the rich kids who grew up in germ free apartments all had allergies. The immune system finds something to fight.
Polio, appendicitis, tonsillitis, stomach ulcers have all been attributed to the better hygiene industrialized nations now have. You have to wonder about the increased autoimmune diseases. Most Covid deaths were not directly due to the virus, but rather an over-arching immune response (why glucocorticoids were the most effective single treatment).
(I attribute autism to plasticizers, but pure speculation at the moment. But when a disease suddenly becomes prominent, you have to look for what has changed.)
Yes, show everyone how much better than us you are, and how you are afraid to breath the same air as us normies.
“Like” for anyone who references Waltzing Matilda.
3 pieces of content from Matt today. Tell me you are pissed off, without telling me you are pissed off.....
just getting his work out before the 6am raid & charges of violating the espionage act for reporting reality.
God help us!
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.
Maybe it's time to tip them over. Physically. Take them apart piece by piece.
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.
Yes, I think discovery on some of this might be interesting.. one way or another.
I wondered the same thing. Surely outlets like CNN, MSNBC, all the broadcast networks, PBS... hell, ALL the mainstream/legacy outlets have MUCH more going on behind-the-scenes with as many false/fraudulent stories as they put out on the Iraq war, Afghanistan, Russiagate, covid, Ukraine, etc.
He wouldn't be able to prove the malice part of defamation. /joke
“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.
People literally don't have the time to care either as they have to "put food on their families".
On that note food is cheaper in Russia and Ukraine than it is in America or in my country, Canada.
I think it’s way beyond not caring.
I see it in a few of my college friends and some family members. They’re not even big lefties, just lifelong Dems.
Two dynamics:
1) standard joes who bought in and promulgated all this to their own friends and family for years don’t want to admit they were taken in wholesale by lies, and/or
2) same people will dismiss/discount/cynically view all of this as - wait for it - more Russian “disinformation” (*Of course* Taibbi and those other “so-called journalists” would promote this! They’re all working for Elon! And he’s *probably* working for the Russians!”)
When desirable lies (that support my worldview) are fungible as social currency, the hand that offers actual truth gets batted away.
Not saying don’t keep up the incredibly important work here - it’s worth all the sweat - just saying this is what it’s facing, even outside the beltway.
Correcting constant repetition of lies (propaganda) requires constant repetition of truth. And about three years of it.
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.
Ridicule is a potent weapon
Really? I'm sure it makes you feel good about yourself, and I'm equally sure it will do nothing to effect positive change.
Your surety is unrelated to reality.
You are entirely correct. That other swine is swinish and dull.
Yes, you being a smug prick has definitely made me see your way of thinking.
Well then, I've proven my point with little effort!
9-0.
Glad my point wasn't lost on you.
The point is not to root out the entrenched, might as well try to talk sense to a full-on cult member, but to reach the undecided.
Indeed. And move the needle of the entrenched a bit to the other side.
I imagine many ppl who bought into this stuff when it was aired have selectively forgotten just how ridiculous it got. Such a person will indeed prolly feel off-put when they see this, as would anyone reminded of past foolishness. But they’ll prolly keep it in mind the next time, so they aren’t made to look a fool again.
Ie the goal here is less to change minds - plenty of content elsewhere on the site for that - than to get ppl to use theirs.
And putting aside rhetoric the video is an artistic masterpiece which has its own merit.
It will be a classic.
The question is, "Do you want to change minds? Do you want to have an impact, or be irrelevant?"
I'd prefer to change people's minds.
It's comedic and isn't there always truth in comedy? You can't change people's minds overnight, but you can certainly get them to start thinking.
Not by insulting them.
And this edit, like all of Matt's edits, appears to be more concerned with dunking on people rather than changing their minds.
Can you imagine someone who has been swallowing MSNBC's BS for the last decade watching this and thinking, "Oh my god, I really have been taken for a ride!"
Or do you think they'll watch twenty seconds of it, turn it off, and complain about the BernieBros being obnoxious?
I mean, I AGREE with it, and I think it's smug and infuriating. So what's the point? Other than some smug self-congratulation and a rousing circle-jerk?
Yes, I can. I watched MSNBC a long time..until the 2016 election and then I stopped.
Name one time that has ever worked.
LOLZ.
Definitely on the right track.
Watching this video I start to understand why beheading is a source of justice in some cultures.
Perfect use of the clown horn throughout.