It's simple -- these people aren't really journalists. They are simply paid to peddle propaganda, so that's what they do. Plenty of people are willing to sell out, so if they didn't do it they know somebody else would.
Another great read, Matt. Best $60 I ever spent. Thanks! (But we're all so fucked.)
It's amusing to read the comments. Anyone reading your writing or listening to Useful Idiots would know it's laughable to suggest you're a Trump supporter. Anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty would notice the legacy media have been completely co-opted by the ruling class or simply can't fathom how utterly compromised they've become by groupthink.
For example, a commenter here posits that the Don Jr./Trump Tower meeting is proof positive of Trump/Russian collusion without bothering to mention that the 'Russian' who attended that meeting was working with Fusion GPS and met with Glenn SImpson before and after that (brief) meeting. Given that Fusion/Simpson/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Steele/Danchenko were all working with Russians, doesn't that suggest that HRC/DNC and Perkins Coie were actively working with 'agents' of Putin's Russia?
I hate to keep saying this, but George Orwell was a prophet. This is exactly how the ministry of truth operated. They used journalist and ordinary citizens to promote propaganda and to spy other on other citizens. We are living in 1984.
"if you check enough boxes, you may not be able to post on Internet platforms, fly a plane, use credit services, buy advertising, go on dating apps, work in your chosen profession (or at all), or do any of a dozen other things." -- This sounds exactly like Communist China's social credit system.
Thank you so much, Matt. Beyond excellent. My question: how do I get my useful idiot friends - who either now write media propaganda or believe the media propaganda to which they subscribe - to read this and let it sink in that what they are doing and believing is the opposite of the virtuousness they believe they're defending? My theory, for what it's worth, is that they're terrified of the true reality of what's really going on and control their anxiety by being good little members of the totalitarian army, and executing the orders so nothing bad will happen to them. But maybe I'm granting them too much humanity.
Great read. I am not wading into the comments. Someone else commented, and I have commented in other threads, that it would be great to be able to edit/ mute/ curate cretinous voices off our individual screens after your articles (not off everyone's screen, just our own). Your article was super and spot on. The state is both necessary and the greatest potential evil. For those of us in the third estate (almost all citizens), free speech, and a free/ fearless/ engaged press to wield free speech on our behalf are our only defenses against increasing trespass from a self referential state getting ready to serve us all up at table and feast upon us like Goya's Saturn. Anyone who thinks white supremacists, climate change, or improperly regulated bathroom access are anywhere near the existential threat that an unmoored and rapacious state is... well, they misinterpreted the lessons of the most recent century, at a minimum. But I believe I restate your point, which you make elegantly as usual, and with facts. Thanks for that, Matt. Keep it up. BE
This piece is top shelf. It is why I subscribe. That being said, I am so sad. ". . . by the time reporters realize . . ." There is no "realization" forthcoming. These people are too busy being thought police rats and getting invited to Georgetown (or campus) lattes. There are a few out there keeping the flame alive; there are some of us listening. But, God! Can someone tell me why it was given up so easily? Was it the machines? People give up their personal info to get a coupon for something they don't need, they post 5,000 pics of themselves on-line to save 5,000 pics of themselves In The Cloud, they give up their home information so Alexa (or some entity) can turn on the outside light and start the vacuum cleaner. And they don't understand how valuable their speech is. Jesus. Maybe if they used it as much as their camera . . .
We need to start an alternative to the Pulitzers, Nobels, etc. They have sort of lost their seriousness. This article deserves a prize. Apparently if you win a prize, maybe people out there will pay attention.
"That’s not journalism, it’s a Crowdsourced Inquisition, and by the time reporters realize what they’ve signed themselves up for, it will be too late."
Except, in relation to this recent Glenn Greenwald piece:
... what if they know *EXACTLY* what they are doing so there can be no point at which they start "realiz[ing] what they've signed themselves up for," nor any point where they will decide things have gone too far even at a point that would be "too late."
It is hard not to imagine that with traditional mainstream media in such a terrible freefall that many of its participants have realized the only reliable way to save their hide (without attempting the admittedly difficult and scary job of cutting out on their own, such as via substack) is to just knowingly and willingly whore themselves out mind-body-and soul to the New Gestapo. As Glenn Greenwald showed in the linked article, that approach has proven to be a very effective way to guarantee a massive upward trajectory in one's "journalist" carrier time and time again.
The question is how you undo this? The current generation of journos seem to lack the inherent mistrust of officialdom that many journos from prior generations channeled into their work. Every abuse of power by a government organization has some banal bureaucratic explanation now that gets accepted at face value. There have always been journos who kissed up to power, but usually it was to individual politicians they were friendly with or some celebrities, not security state administrators. It just seems like there's almost nothing the government can do at this point that can torch its credibility with journos because it's one giant feedback loop of manufactured consent: individual journos (as people) are influenced by how the public feels about issues, yet the public gets their info from journos and social media orgs who set a narrative, which winds up reinforcing itself.
After I spent some time in the wapo article forums a few months ago, I would say the liberal media has a huge asset there in indoctrinated believers in the cause. I think those people would, with gusto, report anyone that has the temerity to have an opposing opinion. It's like a cult. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the agencies mentioned here tapped those forums to recruit an army of brownshirts.
Matt- be careful: Only a matter of time before they label or insinuate you’re a White Supremacist too.
Ever since last summer, starting with the lies after the Floyd murder followed by the denial or justification of the riots, we seem to be in a period of suspended disbelief.
Years from now (hopefully) people will look back at outstanding reporting by Matt to figure out what the fuck was actually going on?
Matt, you closed with this statement: "People like Brennan and Clapper must laugh themselves hoarse, to think they ever had anything to fear from this press corps."
This is along the lines I was thinking this entire piece. Voluntarily partnering with government investigative and intelligence apparatuses, media will be less likely (if likely at all) to report on other abuses (and there will be abuses) by those apparatuses. Let's say that the New York Times comes across an important story that Agency XYZ is engaging in troubling behavior in Country (or State) 123. Does the NYT make an editorial decision that pursuing that story would jeopardize its relationship with Agency XYZ, and the attendant prestige and feelings of importance?
That the question could even plausibly arise is reason enough for the media to steer clear of this kind of outsourced investigation.
Deep state elites secretly admire how effectively the CCP is able to exert control over the Chinese populous, and are adopting the same methods and tactics to try to control us. It is shocking to see so many in the MSM be active and willing participants in this effort.
Reporters Once Challenged the Spy State. Now, They're Agents of It
It's simple -- these people aren't really journalists. They are simply paid to peddle propaganda, so that's what they do. Plenty of people are willing to sell out, so if they didn't do it they know somebody else would.
Another great read, Matt. Best $60 I ever spent. Thanks! (But we're all so fucked.)
It's amusing to read the comments. Anyone reading your writing or listening to Useful Idiots would know it's laughable to suggest you're a Trump supporter. Anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty would notice the legacy media have been completely co-opted by the ruling class or simply can't fathom how utterly compromised they've become by groupthink.
For example, a commenter here posits that the Don Jr./Trump Tower meeting is proof positive of Trump/Russian collusion without bothering to mention that the 'Russian' who attended that meeting was working with Fusion GPS and met with Glenn SImpson before and after that (brief) meeting. Given that Fusion/Simpson/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Steele/Danchenko were all working with Russians, doesn't that suggest that HRC/DNC and Perkins Coie were actively working with 'agents' of Putin's Russia?
I hate to keep saying this, but George Orwell was a prophet. This is exactly how the ministry of truth operated. They used journalist and ordinary citizens to promote propaganda and to spy other on other citizens. We are living in 1984.
"if you check enough boxes, you may not be able to post on Internet platforms, fly a plane, use credit services, buy advertising, go on dating apps, work in your chosen profession (or at all), or do any of a dozen other things." -- This sounds exactly like Communist China's social credit system.
Thank you so much, Matt. Beyond excellent. My question: how do I get my useful idiot friends - who either now write media propaganda or believe the media propaganda to which they subscribe - to read this and let it sink in that what they are doing and believing is the opposite of the virtuousness they believe they're defending? My theory, for what it's worth, is that they're terrified of the true reality of what's really going on and control their anxiety by being good little members of the totalitarian army, and executing the orders so nothing bad will happen to them. But maybe I'm granting them too much humanity.
The Proud Boys are not the Klan, no matter how many times CNN tells us otherwise.
The notion that White Supremacists are running rampant as never before is a lie. It’s simply untrue.
My favorite part is where the media opts for increased credibility by hiring the guys who lied to Congress.
Great read. I am not wading into the comments. Someone else commented, and I have commented in other threads, that it would be great to be able to edit/ mute/ curate cretinous voices off our individual screens after your articles (not off everyone's screen, just our own). Your article was super and spot on. The state is both necessary and the greatest potential evil. For those of us in the third estate (almost all citizens), free speech, and a free/ fearless/ engaged press to wield free speech on our behalf are our only defenses against increasing trespass from a self referential state getting ready to serve us all up at table and feast upon us like Goya's Saturn. Anyone who thinks white supremacists, climate change, or improperly regulated bathroom access are anywhere near the existential threat that an unmoored and rapacious state is... well, they misinterpreted the lessons of the most recent century, at a minimum. But I believe I restate your point, which you make elegantly as usual, and with facts. Thanks for that, Matt. Keep it up. BE
This piece is top shelf. It is why I subscribe. That being said, I am so sad. ". . . by the time reporters realize . . ." There is no "realization" forthcoming. These people are too busy being thought police rats and getting invited to Georgetown (or campus) lattes. There are a few out there keeping the flame alive; there are some of us listening. But, God! Can someone tell me why it was given up so easily? Was it the machines? People give up their personal info to get a coupon for something they don't need, they post 5,000 pics of themselves on-line to save 5,000 pics of themselves In The Cloud, they give up their home information so Alexa (or some entity) can turn on the outside light and start the vacuum cleaner. And they don't understand how valuable their speech is. Jesus. Maybe if they used it as much as their camera . . .
We need to start an alternative to the Pulitzers, Nobels, etc. They have sort of lost their seriousness. This article deserves a prize. Apparently if you win a prize, maybe people out there will pay attention.
Seriously, thank you, Mr. Taibbi.
A great, if very upsetting piece.
"That’s not journalism, it’s a Crowdsourced Inquisition, and by the time reporters realize what they’ve signed themselves up for, it will be too late."
Except, in relation to this recent Glenn Greenwald piece:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand
... what if they know *EXACTLY* what they are doing so there can be no point at which they start "realiz[ing] what they've signed themselves up for," nor any point where they will decide things have gone too far even at a point that would be "too late."
It is hard not to imagine that with traditional mainstream media in such a terrible freefall that many of its participants have realized the only reliable way to save their hide (without attempting the admittedly difficult and scary job of cutting out on their own, such as via substack) is to just knowingly and willingly whore themselves out mind-body-and soul to the New Gestapo. As Glenn Greenwald showed in the linked article, that approach has proven to be a very effective way to guarantee a massive upward trajectory in one's "journalist" carrier time and time again.
The question is how you undo this? The current generation of journos seem to lack the inherent mistrust of officialdom that many journos from prior generations channeled into their work. Every abuse of power by a government organization has some banal bureaucratic explanation now that gets accepted at face value. There have always been journos who kissed up to power, but usually it was to individual politicians they were friendly with or some celebrities, not security state administrators. It just seems like there's almost nothing the government can do at this point that can torch its credibility with journos because it's one giant feedback loop of manufactured consent: individual journos (as people) are influenced by how the public feels about issues, yet the public gets their info from journos and social media orgs who set a narrative, which winds up reinforcing itself.
After I spent some time in the wapo article forums a few months ago, I would say the liberal media has a huge asset there in indoctrinated believers in the cause. I think those people would, with gusto, report anyone that has the temerity to have an opposing opinion. It's like a cult. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the agencies mentioned here tapped those forums to recruit an army of brownshirts.
Matt- be careful: Only a matter of time before they label or insinuate you’re a White Supremacist too.
Ever since last summer, starting with the lies after the Floyd murder followed by the denial or justification of the riots, we seem to be in a period of suspended disbelief.
Years from now (hopefully) people will look back at outstanding reporting by Matt to figure out what the fuck was actually going on?
Matt, you closed with this statement: "People like Brennan and Clapper must laugh themselves hoarse, to think they ever had anything to fear from this press corps."
This is along the lines I was thinking this entire piece. Voluntarily partnering with government investigative and intelligence apparatuses, media will be less likely (if likely at all) to report on other abuses (and there will be abuses) by those apparatuses. Let's say that the New York Times comes across an important story that Agency XYZ is engaging in troubling behavior in Country (or State) 123. Does the NYT make an editorial decision that pursuing that story would jeopardize its relationship with Agency XYZ, and the attendant prestige and feelings of importance?
That the question could even plausibly arise is reason enough for the media to steer clear of this kind of outsourced investigation.
The Deep State's coup d'etat of USA is written down in black and white. Thank you, US corporate media for guaranteeing this fait accompli.
Deep state elites secretly admire how effectively the CCP is able to exert control over the Chinese populous, and are adopting the same methods and tactics to try to control us. It is shocking to see so many in the MSM be active and willing participants in this effort.