27 Comments

Matt, any advice on how a concerned citizen can obtain accurate reporting of current events. I hate to sound like a 4th grader, but I’m looking for facts not bull shit from a propaganda machine for any political team

Expand full comment

As critical as Matt has been of the media, I don't think he goes near far enough. The awfulness of the media is staggering. The right wing media is jingoistic and condescending, and the left caters to outrage junkies who use imaginary insults as launching pads for tirades about Hitler, white nationalism, and the KKK, with the idea of destroying "enemy" lives and businesses. A sick version of Don Quixote.

That so many have the same question as you probably indicates there is no answer.

Expand full comment

good luck, let me know if you find something

Expand full comment

It's a failed state department and intelligence coup.

There is no nice way to say it. the press was complicit, repeating "leaked" information from FBI sources.

Leaked implies an accidental release of info. This was deliberate.

I'm telling you... the political power in this country was too busy stuffing it's faces in the greedy trough to be manning the helm, and while they were asleep at the wheel, dreaming about god-knows-what decadence the human mind can dream of, Trump hijacked their own propaganda arm and played them all.

Now, look at the shit we have to deal with.

Most people are "just OK" with a corrupted political system that they know is bought and paid for, so long as the cart stays upright. The cart is precariously sitting atop a heap of crap though, and the pinnacle is too narrow to support it.

It's coming down eventually.

Yecch.

Expand full comment
founding

If we didn't have the internet and Twitter, it would have worked. In the days before a candidate or official could speak directly to the people (Twitter), when people relied very heavily on a closed set of news sources, it would have worked. But now, when media tries to spin a story and yet allows me to see through their spin by attaching a video of what Trump actually said, they lose 90% of the time.

Expand full comment

Seriously.

It would have.

Cough... JFK...

Expand full comment
founding

"There are two big possibilities: either Solomon’s report is wrong somehow, and the nature of Kilimnik’s relationship with the United States government has been misrepresented, or he’s right and this tale at the “heart” of the Mueller probe has been over-spun in an Everest of misleading news reports. " Gee, it's so hard to think of which to put my money on, given that Downer turned out to be a friend of the resistance, Vesselnitskaya is a business partner of Glenn Simpson, and on and on.... it's hard to shock me given everything we've seen over the past 2-3 years, but it just keeps unfolding better and better.

The funniest part is how everything Trump and Nunes were decried as being untouchables for saying turns out to be true eventually. Yet so many people still hold the same opinion of Nunes because they were fed that opinion and are parrots. If you look back, the guy did nothing but help paint a transparent picture.

Expand full comment

Matt Taibbi wrote: "We’ve gotten to the point where news editors and producers are more like film continuity editors — worried about maintaining literary consistency in coverage"

Example from today's news...

NY Times headline: "Mexico Agreed to Take Border Actions Months Before Trump Announced Tariff Deal"

First sentence: "The deal to avert tariffs that President Trump announced with great fanfare on Friday night CONSISTS LARGELY OF [emphasis mine] actions that Mexico had already promised to take in prior discussions with the United States over the past several months, according to officials from both countries who are familiar with the negotiations."

In this case, the continuity was: Trump's tariff idea did nothing, did nothing, did nothing, just like we have been telling you would happen. The NYT/CNN/et al can't admit that the "consists largely of" points didn't require the arm-twisting; it was the OTHER points.

Do they think people can't see through this? Do they think lawyers and computer programmers are just going to gloss over "largely consists of"? The job of copy editor sure has devolved in that past few decades.

Expand full comment
founding

I think they do think people can't see through this. The reason and the explanation is the Dunning-Kruger effect. Basically, it's when you lack the competence to recognize your incompetence. Lacking self-awareness, you just keep doing what you're doing.

Expand full comment
founding

Here's one interesting aspect of the D-K effect from Wikipedia: "As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others." So, the media folks, who presumably are capable people but fooling themselves, have a misconception about others - i.e., they think that the people at large are stupid enough to believe them.

Expand full comment

Hmmm. When it comes to reporters, I wouldn't be too quick to rule out the possibility of internal illusion... (excepting Matt, of course)

But I suppose you are right in your assessment. Granting that, if I were writing in a diary, I still would know "largely consists of" means "most, but not all." I could not think of it any other way. So, if the reporters grasp that with the same ease, they are intentionally deceiving the public.

How do they sleep at night?

Expand full comment

Smugly. They sleep smugly.

Expand full comment

Also, they refer to themselves using hashtagResistance. If I were a prosecutor I'd be seeking anti-terrorism charges from an organized attempt to defraud the public on behalf of or in alliance with the nasty players who tried to set Drumpf up so they wouldn't lose their jobs. A non-establishment politician who poses a threat to their rigged game of global conquest? They weren't having it, and neither were the top dogs in media.

It's criminal.

Expand full comment

Yes... in those "flyover" states they love to pillory.

It's racist to make fun of uneducated black people, or Asians, or Latinos, but it's totally acceptable to make an entire Hollywood movie about a redneck whose family ditches him at the Grand Canyon and then, in his white trash saga eventually fucks someone who he thinks may be his sister... and when he realizes it's NOT his sister, she has to say, "Fuck your sister" to get him off. Joe Dirt... Not really funny but executed as comedy, so the people all laugh.

To them, it's totally OK to openly make fun of poor white people, "Wal-Mart people", but that joke isn't funny anymore. I used to laugh, too. Then, I started thinking that if you replaced Joe Dirt with LeeeRoy Jenkins, or an Asian laundry stereotype, people would shit their pants in outrage.

Nope... the message is that if someone eats the Red Pill they are to be cast aside and made a mockery of -despite that they are fellow citizens of your own country, and that the ruling class doesn't really care about the east/left coast city dwellers, either. They just want everyone hating each other while they keep the global imperialist expansion project for the Wall St. and Pentagon Emperors going.

Expand full comment

They're playing to their preferred audience... the one with Blue Brand loyalty.

Selling Orange Man Bad is all the NYT has -selling objective and actual news would drop those profits back down to where they were before 2016.

The show MUST go on for them and for FoxNews, because they've painted themselves into a corner by marketing to subjective audiences that, at this point, won't buy anything else.

They consume the news they want to see/hear/read and anything else just falls off their radar.

Pepsi wouldn't suddenly market a red can version called, "Poca-Cola", and Coca-Cola wouldn't make a blue can version called, "Bepis".

Plus... if they start reporting what is actually going on, (the non-military coup attempt,) there would probably be repurcussions.

The players involved are still actively trying to unseat a president.

If he isn't immune to the police state, how could a chief editor or CEO of a newspaper make it through that gauntlet?

No, they know what side their bread is buttered on.

Expand full comment

Well, if recent history is any indicator, they WILL gloss over it, and even when they fall flat on their faces, they'll continue to lie and bury it under the already-overstuffed carpet.

They're human beings... and they've been played as such.

Expand full comment

Suggested (perhaps too clunky title): "Not Even a -Gate"

Expand full comment

"What’s amazing about Konstantin Kilimnik—the supposed Russian meddling link between Trump/Manafort and the Kremlin—is that spent nearly a decade in Moscow working for @IRIglobal, USG-funded regime change/foreign meddling op.

From 1995 to 2005, he was an *American agent.*"

5:01 PM - 11 Jan 2019

https://twitter.com/yashalevine/status/1083861407077199872

Expand full comment
founding

Good stuff thanks for sharing!

Expand full comment

Matt, aren’t you seriously considering returning to Russia as an immigrant. You’re surely entitled to asylum as a persecuted real journalist

Expand full comment

I am so grateful to you for this considered and thoughtful essay on the Kilimnik story.

Expand full comment

Great post here Taibbi. I never cease to be amazed at the details you recall from other reporting on this, or ability to outline them in a cohesive way. You must have a little corkboard with strings flying everywhere, don't you?

Expand full comment

FWIW, Larry Johnson of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) had a post about how Solomon may have fumbled what Klimnick's role was as an "source" of the State Department. (You'll this it is not written as a defense of the Mueller Report.)

' Konstantin Kilimnik was not a special State Department source. He was a routine contact. Solomon is correct is pointing out that the Mueller team portrays contacts with Kilimnik as nefarious and potentially illegal. That is just another example of the fraud and shoddiness that is the Mueller Report.

A genuine Foreign Service Officer aka FSO (i.e., someone who has taken passed the Foreign Service exams and been appointed to the State Departmnet) serving in a U.S. Embassies overseas do not recruit nor run "confidential" human sources. That is the work of the CIA and the DIA. Foreign Service Officers meet with foreign citizens and they do so without having training in conducting clandestine meetings and using clandestine methods to communicate.

Almost all meetings between a FAO and a foreign "source" occur at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate or at some public diplomatic function, such as a reception. The FSO does not set up "secret" meetings.

...

Solomon is skirting the real story--there was nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about Kilimnik communicating with a U.S. Embassy official. There also was nothing wrong about Kilimnik communicating with Manafort and passing along information received from Manafort. Manafort was not dealing in classified information or intel that was proprietary to the U.S. Government. Nor was he getting paid by the Russians (though that would not have been illegal either) to collect U.S. intelligence.

Foreign Service Officer Kasanof did what any state department officer working in the Political Section of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev would do--he obtained non-classified information form Ukrainians with access to information and key personnel and communicated that back to main State. Normal work for real U.S. diplomats.

The real heart of the matter is that the Kilimnik/Kasanof communications were ignored by Mueller. Nothing that Paul Manafort was passing on to Kilimnik was illegal or inappropriate.

Solomon wastes a lot of ink trying to paint Kilimnik as some sort of super secret "State Department source." Talking to a person like Kilimnik is routine and quite normal for a FSO working out of the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. Their reports on a conversation with Kilimnik would be classified as either Confidential or Secret. A really sensitive contact (and Kilimnik was not that) would get an additional caveat, such as EXDIS, which would limit distribution inside State Department. Kilimnik is really not that special. He had no formal position with the Ukrainian Government and only was offering his own well-informed opinion. That kind of information does not qualify as "sensitive" intelligence. '

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/06/john-solomon-gets-it-wrong-on-kilimnik-by-larry-c-johnson.html

Expand full comment
founding

good info! Solomon, true to form. Overwrought. Directionally on target. Just the facts without overinterpretation are damaging enough. The media should follow that logic covering Trump, as well... you could hurt him a lot more with honest reporting!

Expand full comment
founding

I have previously made similar comments in Matt's substack here about Solomon's reporting. One, that it needs to be read as potentially biased or a bit overwrought. Two, that it is nonetheless credible, sources tend to be accurately quoted and treated, and facts tend to be facts. Third, that it's complete bullshit that the rest of the staff on the Hill not agreeing politically with what Solomon's stories show should mean that they force his stories to be treated not as journalism but as freaking op-eds. And that's at the Hill, which still has a lot of credibility overall. It's a sad state of affairs!

Check out the Hill's other Ukraine stories by Solomon, including direct video interviews of Ukrainian sources - you can't spin those, and it's eye-opening stuff.

Check out

Expand full comment
founding

to clarify, that should be "staff AT the Hill" meaning the media outlet. Which I was surprised to see has a print format in Congressional offices (not sure where else they distribute).

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
founding

Ha, they don't realize that that time spent in Russia is an asset to Matt - in seeing how goofy some of this is (and in knowing people in Russia who can help him see that). Masha G. has same type of perspective/insight.

Expand full comment