April 24, 2019

"[I]t’s shocking to see national media voices after the release of Robert Mueller’s report patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves for a three-year faceplant..."

"... they must know will haunt the whole business for a long time.... There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing.... Reporters are going to insist all they did was accurately report the developments of a real investigation.... They’ll also claim they didn’t spend years openly rooting for indictment and impeachment via wish-casted predictions disguised as reporting and commentary, or denouncing people who doubted the conspiracy as spies and Putin apologists, or clearing their broadcast panels and op-ed pages of skeptics while giving big stages to craven conspiracy-spinners like Malcolm Nance and Luke Harding.... Reporters should be furious about being fed these red herrings.... But they’re not mad, which makes it look like a case of intentional blindness, in which eyes and ears were shut among other things because the Trump-Russia conspiracy tale made a ton of money. Media companies earned boffo ratings while the Mueller probe still carried the drama of a potential spectacular ending, with blue-state audiences eating up all those 'walls are closing in'  hot takes.... News audiences were betrayed, and sooner or later, even the most virulently Trump-despising demographics will realize it and tune us out. The only way to reverse the damage is to own how big of a screw-up this was...."

From "The Press Will Learn Nothing From the Russiagate Fiasco/The inability to face the enormity of the last few years of errors will cost the news media its credibility, even with blue-state audiences" by Matt Taibbi.

Of course, the media won't say they were wrong. They have a self-interest in portraying themselves as having done everything right. And notice that Taibbi is only appealing to their self interest! The news audiences may "realize" how bad the media are "and tune us out." The idea that the media should be neutral, ethical, and professional is only a means to the end of keeping the audience.

101 comments:

Mark O said...

If it has done nothing else, Twitter has revealed these media darlings to be inane, uneducated, sloppy, and profoundly in love with themselves.

Media did not survive Twitter.

Fernandinande said...

As H.L. Mencken almost said, "A newspaper is a device for selling advertising."

rhhardin said...

The media are reassuring their audience, not the public at large. The click people.

mockturtle said...

No one with even half a brain believed the MSM anyway. Those with less will continue to believe them.

Shouting Thomas said...

The NY Times told us, in its famous front page article a couple of years ago, that it was abandoning all standard ethical practices of journalism in respect to covering Trump’s candidacy.

Abandon, they did. What’s the surprise?

Flagrant lying by The NY Times, The New Yorker and their allies was deliberate, a problem rather more difficult to solve than the one Taibbi presents.

mccullough said...

It’s always about The Narrative to comfort The Faithful.

Perhaps Rolling Stone is trying to be better now after paying out millions for its made up UVA frat rape story.

Lucid-Ideas said...

In other news...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/22/pulitzer-prize-administrator-defends-process-after/

Ya Know? People ask if these people in media are 'tone-deaf'. They hear fine. They really do they just don't care. Their response is effectively to paraphrase,

"Well sure we give each other awards. Sure we pat each other on the back. That's what these organizations are for. Why don't you go and make one for yourselves...you little darlings!"

Fernandinande said...

"Skin a chimpanzee, and it would take an autopsy to prove he was not a theologian." -- printed in a newspaper without permission from the chimp.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The hack-D press won't let go because they bought into their own schemes and lies. They invested in their meal ticket, and are ALL Hillary Clinton at this point.

Rachel Maddow IS HILLARY CLINTON

John Brennan IS HILLARY CLINTON

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Media companies earned boffo ratings while the Mueller probe still carried the drama of a potential spectacular ending, with blue-state audiences eating up all those 'walls are closing in' hot takes.... News audiences were betrayed, and sooner or later, even the most virulently Trump-despising demographics will realize it and tune us out. The only way to reverse the damage is to own how big of a screw-up this was...."


NEVER
GONNA
HAPPEN

JAORE said...

"The Mueller report makes clear reporters were sold wolf whistles over and over..."

And are lined up again today hoping to buy more.

Dave Begley said...

MSM will be forced to cover the indictments of McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Lynch et al.

That will be real news.

It will be funny watching the MSM acting as defense counsel right up to the guilty verdicts.

Lucid-Ideas said...

It really speaks to the entire and fundamental power structure as it has been effectively re-worked Post-WWII.

Tyler Cowen, the economist on his blog (marginalrevolution.com) has talked about it constantly as 'post-meritorcratic'.

These people got where they are and stay where they are on the basis of highly-complex and interwoven relationships completely and utterly divorced from the simplicities of 'correctness' and 'consequences'. It just doesn't matter to the. Does it work? Doesn't need to...the system of 'relationships' works and that's all that matters. Consequences? The system of 'relationships' and being excluded from it is the only consequence that has any leverage.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this ends badly. What they did to Trump is a symptom of a much deeper structural rot, not the cause. This ladies and gentleman, is what kills civilizations.

These people represent an unelected and unaccountable 5th column of modern global society, destroying them from within being the only effective way, hence the vitriol for the orange-outsider.

Temujin said...

I'm sorry, did you say something, Matt?

Swede said...

If they do anything, it will be years from now.

That's their M.O.

15 years from now we may hear some "maybe we should have been more skeptical about blah blah blah".

They're terrific at admitting past mistakes, loooooooong after they made them, and then forgiving themselves for it.

It's a coping mechanism perfected by leftists to keep them from sitting in parked cars in their garages with the motor running.

Bay Area Guy said...

Taibbi is spot on.

We're are dealing with delusional political wackos, who just happen to be journalists.

Remember when CNN & MSNBC put Michael Avenatti on their shows 147 times over a 2 month period? Remember when CNN promoted Avenatti to run for President against Trump?.

Where is Avenatti now? Down the memory hole, never to be mentioned again.

I am reminded of the 70s song, "If Loving You is Wrong, I Don't Wanna be Right."

For these idiots, it's "If Hating Trump is Wrong, I Don't Wanna Be Right."

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The leftwing press rage and revenge after Hillary lost is never-ending and never-apologizing machine.

Russian STOLE the election from Hillary and that's all there is to it.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Brennan and Hillary belong behind bars.

Lucid-Ideas said...

As seen on Facebook,

Media then: "Oh you're just being paranoid!!!"
Us now: "Turns out paranoia is just reality on a finer scale...."
Media then: "Conspiracy theory lunatics!!!"
Us now: "We learned by watching you dad...we learned by watching you."

These people cry about 'increased violence against journalists'.

I. have. no. sympathy.

Some people hit the bottom of their own grave, and keep digging....

gspencer said...

So the American Pravda turned out to be just like the Original Pravda.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Noted: Tiabbi will never be able to write for hack DNC WaPO or hack NYT ever again.

Nonapod said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

As we've seen, the immediate effects of the Mueller report have been greatly reduced veiwership for CNN and a smaller reduction for MSNBC. I don't know if the print media (NYT and WaPo) and internet sites (Huffpo) have seen a reduction, but I assume there may have been.

Unfortunately I suspect that those reductions will only be temporary. There's still a lot of money to be made from Trump hate. The media just has to find new angles, invent a new conspiracy theory, and the veiwers, readers, and clicks will return. Right now all they have is the wholely irrational impeachment hopes to discuss. That's not really enough to fully bring back their audiences. Realistically speaking impeachment just seems highly unlikely to all but the most self deluded. But sooner or later they'll find something. It just has to have the thinnest veneer of credibility.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Yes - the irony is the America press(D) morphed into Pravda.

MadisonMan said...

Market Forces, however, cannot be overlooked. CNN ratings tanking. I wonder how the WaPost/NYTimes/LATimes revenue stream will be affected.

Shane said...

If they've lost Matt Taibbi...

Ken B said...

I will buy Taibbi's book, Hate Inc. It comes out this fall.

Richard Fagin said...

Brian Stelter, Jim Acosta, Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow are still on the air notwithstanding loss of audience. Matt Taibi complaining about the media's supposed loss of credibility therefore seems to be virtue signaling rather than self-reflection. "See, we DO recognize what a mistake the whole thing was..." and then they double down on stupid.

AMDG said...

Taibbi is a left wing loon, but he is an honest one.

Derek Kite said...

This is like when Catholic priest is found to have been diddling a kid. Change your ways? Are you kidding!

They will double down and go even harder left.i don't believe anything they say anymore, they are utterly unreliable.

What i find more interesting is watching those who depend upon the media. The Republicans have slowly come around to the realization that they can ignore them as a political force, but i don't think the Democrats have come to the same realization, meaning that the buzz and noise they create as campaign strategies don't work, and even worse can create a sense of something that isn't real or representative.

The worst thing to happen to them is our exposure to journalists directly. The gate keeper function in fact was to keep journalists in a pen like animals that they are, and straining their pronouncement through a couple layers of editors was a protection for them. Give them twitter and we find them as profoundly silly.

Kevin said...

Hey, is that a correct use of the term, "enormity?" That's a rarer sighting than the collusion evidence.

Bay Area Guy said...

Taibbi is a left wing loon, but he is an honest one.

I gotta respectfully dissent. He may be left-wing (so is Greenwald), but the fact he is so honest on this important issue, and cutting so hard against the grain of his delusional left-wing peeps, that I feel obligated to give him serious props.

CJinPA said...

Of course, the media won't say they were wrong. They have a self-interest in portraying themselves as having done everything right.

This became starkly apparent with the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax of 2006, in which FIVE institutions failed:
Journalism
Academia
Judicial
Political
Religious

ALL of them worked to demonize and incarcerate college kids accused of a rape that never occurred. The DA was disbarred, but otherwise, the rest got off without a scratch. And the media spent not one second reflecting on what it had done.

Wince said...

Well, the media will have the chance to decide what turning their "skepticism switch" to "On" means when it comes to Barr's investigation of the events and actions leading up to this whole mess.

tcrosse said...

Thanks in part to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 media ownership is in fewer and fewer hands. Oddly enough, this is something Al Franken was arguing against, which might explain the trap door that suddenly opened under his feet. Is it too paranoid to imaging a small cabal of billionaires controlling the discourse?

PB said...

I am reminded of the story of The princess and the pea which does seem kind of appropriate because all of those news people breathlessly going on about collusion and Russia as if they were constantly having the vapors

Mattman26 said...

From Glenn Reynolds' USAT piece this week, quoting Walter Russell Mead in 2017:


If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing:
► Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could
► Blocking oil and gas pipelines
► Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
► Cutting U.S. military spending
► Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran
That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things may or may not be good policy for the United States, but anybody who thinks this is a Russia appeasement policy has been drinking way too much joy juice.
Obama actually did all of these things, and none of the liberal media now up in arms about Trump ever called Obama a Russian puppet; instead, they preferred to see a brave, farsighted and courageous statesman.


daskol said...

And notice that Taibbi is only appealing to their self interest! The news audiences may "realize" how bad the media are "and tune us out." The idea that the media should be neutral, ethical, and professional is only a means to the end of keeping the audience.

Taibbi is no fool and he’s also experienced in building an audience for an entrepreneurial publication. He’s eaten the lunch of complacent, credentialed journalists before, although it seems to eat at him that these elite institutions have actually grown their audiences lately. So he’s predicting their decline, which even if self-serving is probably (hopefully) also accurate.

gilbar said...

That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things

Explains PERFECTLY why the lefts on the MSM NEED to have him destroyed
There IS Russian Collusion
But it's not with Trump; it's Against him

Bay Area Guy said...

As an aside, Taibbi begins his good article with this paragraph:

On February 15, 2016, the National Review took unprecedented action. In an all-out plea to Republican voters to stop Donald Trump before it was too late, the magazine enlisted 22 of the right’s most prominent voices to band together and throw support elsewhere, to save the party.

This NR editorial, in my view, was the biggest political faceplant in a century. It sought to stop Trump, but instead guaranteed his nomination. Telling GOP voters to vote against Trump, didn't tell them who to vote for. They followed this advice, and splintered their vote among Jeb, Carson, Rubio, Christie, Kasich -- which allowed Trump and his loyal 30% to maintain his lead in the primaries and ultimately win the nomination.

Later on, NR endorsed Cruz, but it was too late.

That NR editorial at the time convinced me of two things:(1) Trump would win the nomination, and (2) Conservatives were really stupid on politics.

But since NR inadvertently helped elect Trump, who has done a great job in office, I guess I gotta say, Thank you!

bagoh20 said...

Remember when the Huffington Post announced they would stop covering Trump as a serious candidate? That was funny stuff. They were so cute - just adorable.

William said...

I was raised and educated in the Catholic faith. I have no animus against the Church. That said, it doesn't appear that bishops have been effective or even interested in investigating the abuses of the clergy. It's not just Church bureaucrats who are interested in protecting their own.......Still, it must be admitted that the Church fathers are agreed that it's wrong to rape kids whilst our blessed media is unwilling to admit that their reporting on the Covington and Duke students was in any way immoral.......The Church is further along in acknowledging their mess than the media. Not that the Church is particularly far along in their acknowledgement, but they're willing to admit that criticism of the Church is not immoral. The media still claims that attacks on them are attacks on the first amendment and that their only motivation is a quest for the truth. It's a bad look when investigative reporters appear so clueless.

Anthony said...

Meh, this isn't anything new in history. Just the same old stuff people with power have been doing for literally millennia.

Humperdink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James K said...

Julia Ioffe: "One of my main conclusions from them #MuellerReport so far is that the vast majority of *reporting* on Trump and Russia was extremely accurate."

The media's response reminds me of the Monty Python "Just a flesh wound" scene.

walter said...

EDH said...
Well, the media will have the chance to decide what turning their "skepticism switch" to "On" means when it comes to Barr's investigation of the events and actions leading up to this whole mess.
-
Doesn't look like Matt is quite ready for that.
He makes mention of panels and such without mentioning Scowlface Brennan?
Thinking Obama admin and its carryovers are culpable might be beyond his comfort zone.

RK said...

Julia Ioffe: "One of my main conclusions from them #MuellerReport so far is that the vast majority of *reporting* on Trump and Russia was extremely accurate."

For example, they usually, but not always, spelled Mueller's name correctly.

daskol said...

Technically speaking Ioffe is not wrong. They accurately reported the slanderous innuendo and outright falsehoods propagated by deep staters and other sources, and major publications accurately echoed the reporting of lower tier publications when the govt operatives couldn’t place their items directly into the mainstream news. The indictment Themis of the whole institution of modern political journalism, which Ioffe makes implicitly in defending the reportage of the last few years. It’s absolutely terrible at uncovering truth and highly susceptible to manipulation, even when the reporting is “accurate.” She’s making a stronger case against the media than Taibbi.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"We're are dealing with delusional political wackos, who just happen to be journalists."

But delusional wackiness is unquestionably mainstreamed in the Democrat party. That being the case, the journalists are managing the neat trick of being wacko (in their beliefs) and rational (in giving their audience what they want) at the same time.

James K said...

Remember, the NYT stock price has more than doubled since November 2016. So they are evidently providing their wacko readership with something they really want. As does professional wrestling.

daskol said...

The WWE doesn’t pretend to be real. But then such pretensions only matter anymore to people who take NYT and it’s ilk at their word: there’s a generational divide there.

narciso said...

taibbi is allowed to get one thing right every six months, his latest hot take concerns pentagon funding that our Robert cook was touting,

JPS said...

Well, strictly speaking, their reporting was pretty accurate - in the carefully qualified way Daskol lays out above.

It was the speculation, analysis, and innuendo, making up the vast majority of their coverage, that may have missed the mark just a bit.

Sam L. said...

The media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dem party. Telling the truth is against their principles.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Apparently one of the few honest, eyes-wide-open journalists in the entire world works for Rolling Stone.

This should shock the sensibilities of the MSM but they’re too busy having cognitive dissonance attacks and cannot be bothered right now.

walter said...

Highly selective reporting can be "accurate".

Big Mike said...

Taibbi would be a tough credible if he didn’t write for a scandal rag most famous for a major l, and easily refuted, hoax about rape at UVa.

Alex said...

Political partisanship in the media

The parties created an internal communications system designed to keep in close touch with the voters.[19]

The critical communications system was a national network of partisan newspapers. Nearly all weekly and daily papers were party organs until the early 20th century. Thanks to the invention of high-speed presses for city papers, and free postage for rural sheets, newspapers proliferated. In 1850, the Census counted 1,630 party newspapers (with a circulation of about one per voter), and only 83 "independent" papers. The party line was behind every line of news copy, not to mention the authoritative editorials, which exposed the "stupidity" of the enemy and the "triumphs" of the party in every issue. Editors were senior party leaders and often were rewarded with lucrative postmasterships. Top publishers, such as Schuyler Colfax in 1868, Horace Greeley in 1872, Whitelaw Reid in 1892, Warren Harding in 1920 and James Cox also in 1920, were nominated on the national ticket.


So given the rich American history of politically partisan media, why is everyone so hysterical about 'media bias' since around 1995? It's like being in Rome c. 40CE pining for the old 'good' Republic that never existed.

Alex said...

Isn't what people are banging on about on this blog essentially hallucinating an American 'ideal' past that never exited?

Have to give credit to Scott Adams for stirring the pot on this thing.

Birkel said...

Game plan the thing if you are AG Barr. Which group of people or entities would you think most likely to break? Which people or entities have the greatest exposure - and thus least willingness to cooperate - versus the people with limited exposure who might easily cooperate. Then cross those people with the associated resources available to mount respective defenses. Then, assign values to the same players across a multi-front propaganda campaign to undermine AG Barr's own credibility.

Therefore, I would think the reporters who bribed federal officials would be the first set of targets. They have felony exposure that could be bargained away to secure more important targets. They could be ruined professionally but are unlikely to receive institutional support (in my opinion) from the news sources they represent because that implicates the source itself. Therefore funds will be limited against a active DOJ. Finally, ruining the credibility of the MSM would advance the cause of justice by removing the "air cover and artillery support" the MSM normally provides to ideological fellow travelers on the Left.

Finally, bribery cases are not complicated as a matter of law. The evidence is almost undoubtedly easy to obtain. And the defenses will be few.

If I'm correct, then AG Barr is serious about excising corruption from the federal government.

walter said...

Back on 1/17/17:
An open letter to Trump from the US press corps

bleh said...

Although there's a lot of denial, one positive development is that more Democrats and media types are coming around to the view that Russia could have purposefully set all this up by disseminating disinformation on the chance that Trump won. They already were disseminating (true) bad information about Hillary, who they thought was likely to win, to make the American people aware of her corruption, and thus to damage our faith in government. Why not also dirty up Trump while dirtying up Hillary?

The Steele dossier was a phenomenal opportunity and a masterstroke. It probably worked better than expected. Not only did Hillary obtain false, salacious material that she could leak, but the disinformation caused an overeager Obama administration to misbehave in an effort to harm Trump both before and after the election. It's sort of unbelievable how much they stoked our political divisions and how much rot has been exposed in our "cherished" institutions in government and the media.

So Democrats are increasingly acknowledging that they were duped by the damned Russians, and I think that's a good thing. Now if only they'd go the extra step and think about why Russia thought the Democrats and most of the media could be so easily duped.

Sebastian said...

"But they’re not mad, which makes it look like a case of intentional blindness"

Why should they be mad? They were and are willing tools. So?

"News audiences were betrayed"

How so? No one to the right of LLRs believed anything the MSM said, and LLRs and anyone to their left eagerly consumed the lies, truth be damned. They are happy being fed lies. They wallow in it.

"sooner or later, even the most virulently Trump-despising demographics will realize it and tune us out"

Why? Progs control the MSM, they provide the key audiences, they don't give a damn about truth or neutrality or any of Taibbi's or Althouse's petty bourgeois sensitivities.

bleh said...

I wonder if there will be any serious interest or scrutiny about whether Fusion GPS had some involvement in arranging the infamous Trump Tower meeting. I also wonder if Glenn Simpson can expect to be arrested on FARA charges or worse before this is all done.

jeremyabrams said...

I found it notable that Maddow lost 500,000 viewers after the Mueller report indicated no collusion. Those were the people who were most betrayed. They were open-minded, but happened to believe what they were being told. But they were also sane enough to realize that Mueller's clean bill of health indicated that Maddow had been, let's just say not disinterested and objective.

Birkel said...

bleh:
See my above.
Fusion GPS will get burned if any reporters are charged with bribery.

wild chicken said...

But as conservatives found out in 2016, news audiences over time lose trust in news organizations that tell them what they want to hear politically, but get the substance of things wrong

I don't know what he's talking about here. All I remember is conservative media jumping on the Trump train because that's where their audience was.

And how could NR influence voters? I used to subscribe but their readership is tiny.

wild chicken said...

Blogger is being nice today.

walter said...

(off in RS sidebar, informed Dan Rather! is interviewing older rock stars: www.axs.tv/the-big-interview/)

buwaya said...

The "Russians" had nothing significant to do with any of this. No doubt they were meddling in the election, but that all seems to have been pro forma, as any great power would have done. What the Chinese, the British, the Saudis, the Qataris, the Germans, the Israelis or the the Mexicans did does not seem to be an issue, though at least four of these are likely to have meddled far more, certainly in terms of expenditures and no doubt political financing.

It was not Russian intelligence that commissioned the Steele report (it was the Democratic Party law firm of Perkins Coie that contracted with Fusion GPS). Steele certainly got material from Russians, but the Russians did not initiate this. One can imagine the amusement in Moscow when the information request from Steele came in.

It was not Russians misusing the Steele report re FISA.

It was not the Russians that had created the US deep state, or corrupted the Federal Government system.

It was not the Russians directing the US MSM propaganda campaign, and the constant American cultural warfare (though their communist predecessors had a hand in starting it 70+ years ago).

This all was organically American.

Big Mike said...

And notice that Taibbi is only appealing to their self interest! The news audiences may "realize" how bad the media are "and tune us out." The idea that the media should be neutral, ethical, and professional is only a means to the end of keeping the audience.

I think that the current crop of (alleged) journalists is so deeply embedded in extremist left-wing bubbles that the possibility that there even is a neutral reality that differs in any significant way from their perceived “truth” simply doesn’t compute.

Bilwick said...

They're "liberals," s0 they're State-cultists. Cultists will almost never admit they're wrong.

FullMoon said...


I don't know what he's talking about here. All I remember is conservative media jumping on the Trump train because that's where their audience was.

Interesting, because I remember all of Fox news Special Report rolling their eyes, making jokes, and laughing at Trump.

Brett Baier, Krauthammer and the rest did not take him seriously at all. Haven't watched much in over a year but occasionally see snippets of Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith anti-Trump reporting or interviews.

etbass said...

"If I'm correct, then AG Barr is serious about excising corruption from the federal government."

When I see a special prosecutor appointed, or a Federal grand jury convened, then I will START to believe that some serious action against the deep state is underway. Everything else is just fluff designed to keep us restless cons placated until we fugedaboudit.

etbass said...

I am waiting for Trad Guy's 48,000 indictments, or some such.

Kirk Parker said...

Althouse,

"The idea that the media should be neutral, ethical, and professional is only a means to the end of keeping the audience."

So... where's the "RHHARDIN WAS RIGHT!!!!!" label?

Achilles said...

byways said...

This all was organically American.

As organic as the globalist movement gets.

There are always people who put themselves above others and do not wish to share in common anything with those around them. They just want power.

These people were born here but they are not Americans.

gblanch said...

I disagree with the use of the word "enormity" in the title of the article.
Don't you?

bleh said...

The "Russians" had nothing significant to do with any of this.

I get what you're saying here, but I disagree. The Russians who fed disinfo to Steele were at least a "but-for" cause of this. We can't know precisely what their motives were or what they thought they would accomplish. Personally I have a hard time believing they weren't trying to hurt Trump in the press and also foster more paranoia and partisan divisiveness. I think they were also looking ahead to a Manchurian candidate scandal involving Trump and the resulting investigations that would engulf us. They may or may not have anticipated the U.S. government's spying apparatus being deployed against Trump. And they probably didn't think this story would last this long. Trump firing Comey like he did and getting Mueller appointed was his little contribution to our great national madness.

We got played by the Russians and it probably didn't even cost them very much. Just pay a few "Kremlin-linked" sources to peddle bullshit to Steele and voila.

narciso said...

It's full zinoviev, a false document designed to topple an emerging regime that challenged their interests

Bay Area Guy said...

If I'm correct, then AG Barr is serious about excising corruption from the federal government.

I hope so, but not banking on it.

I also hope that all these whining Democrats slandering Barr continue to pokes him like a bear. The bear has some serious assets. Huber may not be doing anything, but Barr has the means to force the issue, if necessary. The famous redacted FISA opinion chastizing the FBI for letting private contractors spy, plus the famous redacted FISA application to spy on Carter Page, plus any analysis the FBI did to confirm or reject the bullshit Steele Dossier won't be redacted to him.

He will see almost the entire picture.

He will also have some pull on how Horowitz' IG report plays out.

So, Yes, Dems, keep poking the bear.

narciso said...

The Comey firing (by Rosenstein's recommendation) was a tripwire, it was done next with Horowitz for mccabe.

narciso said...

The prigozhin ads were contracted through Facebook, the other elements are not identifiably or Russia (Ukrainian malware)
OR FSB

narciso said...

Remember Larry Johnson who confirmed the surveillance:

https://mobile.twitter.com/alimhaider?lang=en

Chuck said...

Did Matt Taibbi ever point out specific news stories that contained specific errors? I know he posted a whole bunch of seemingly clever/ironic hyperlinks. I didn't click on any of them.

I like this line from Taibbi: "So, yay journalism! You were more truthful than Donald Trump, at times. This is like being proud of beating a fish at Boggle."

narciso said...

It means security service operative:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/meet-americas-siloviki-11556058809

narciso said...

Here's one example at how omission alters the truth.

narciso said...

The email where peskov turns down this supposed approach by Cohen

narciso said...

That's just one of many examples,

Churchy LaFemme: said...

narciso said...

Here's one example at how omission alters the truth.


This one was very zen, then you had to go and break it by posting an actual example next :-)

narciso said...

yes, well that has been the complaint here:

narciso said...

I tried including the snippet, but it's attached to all the other stories, references et al,

daskol said...

Chuck, the media reporting was accurate in a way very similar to the way that you raise valid questions requesting substantiation of common sensibly obvious things. Certain philosophically minded memoirists had the right idea of how one might substantiate the existence of a chair for such people.

daskol said...

The difference between reporting, analysis and advocacy have long been blurred. What’s perhaps been different these last two and a half years is that Trump made prominent members of the media proud to declare their mission as something higher than effectively reporting on events. We don’t have to substantiate that with examples because they stopped pretending and straight up said that this era was no time for objective or disinterested reporting. They joined the resistance, a calling higher than trying to getting the facts straight and the perspective squared away.

daskol said...

The fact of Matt Taibbi being an exemplar in this era is damning in itself.

narciso said...

the prompting by partisan actors,


https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

narciso said...

I know it's Rupert pupkin, but people still consider it a thing:


https://www.weaselzippers.us/418777-former-ag-michael-mukasey-calls-out-chris-cuomo-for-misleading-coverage-of-mueller-investigation/

madAsHell said...

American 'ideal' past that never exited?

Never exited?? An Obama voter was finally right!!

walter said...

Chuck! with his one myopic takeaway.

Sam L. said...

I have not been able to trust the media for some years, and do not expect to be able to do so as long as I live.

Drago said...

walter: "Chuck! with his one myopic takeaway."

Leftists are usually incapable of being anything other than myopic.