A great Glenn Greenwald article on media coverage of the events of January 6th
It’s well worth reading the whole thing. An excerpt:
Condemning that [Jan 6] riot does not allow, let alone require, echoing false claims in order to render the event more menacing and serious than it actually was. There is no circumstance or motive that justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists…
Yet this is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, since that riot almost seven weeks ago.
Greenwald describes the timeline of media distortions of the event, and how the Democrats used the narrative to further then own ends, as well as the Times’ weak “retraction.” He also discusses a similar pattern of misleading MSM and Democrat information about “zip-tie man,” another story very useful to the left.
One would almost think the Democrats and the MSM work in tandem. And yes, that’s sarcasm – the “almost” part, that is.
I have covered these topics many times since January 6th. For a couple of examples please see this as well as this. Note also that both of these posts were written back in January. Even then there was plenty of evidence that the coverage was fishy, and that we actually had no idea how Sicknick had died. Anyone with curiosity and a computer could have discovered that many weeks ago, but few did.
And by “few” I include few on the right. Why did the right accept the narrative of the left, for the most part, ignoring the clues that were in plain sight that the story being told was at best incomplete and at worst false? It’s frustrating to me to know that it took so long for a corrective to occur. I understand why the left didn’t provide one, but I don’t understand why the more influential media outlets on the right (more influential than me, that is) didn’t pick up on the problems.
Far too many conservatives fall prey, time and time again, to the rush to judgement by the MSM over high-profile events (perhaps most notorious was NRO’s initial coverage of the case of Nicholas Sandman), seemingly content to parrot the false narrative promulgated by Democrats in Congress and by “progressives” on social media. Why this should be the case is less easy to determine, but perhaps the best explanation has to do with the fear of being castigated as racist or xenophobic or bigoted, i.e. being branded with the worst sin (our current “scarlet letter”) of which contemporary society can conceive.
@neo:I understand why the left didn’t provide one, but I don’t understand why the more influential media outlets on the right (more influential than me, that is) didn’t pick up on the problems.
Because they’re not “on the right” where it counts, would be my cynical answer: they’re part of “kayfabe”.
A less invidious way to put it is that the mainstream media for them is like water for a fish. So, not “on the right” in the way that counts, but this way of looking at it doesn’t blame them.
To pursue the metaphor perhaps beyond the point of usefulness, think of the right-leaning base as land mammals, the Left as fish swimming in the ocean, and the right-leaning media as aquatic mammals. Are they exactly like the left, no, but they have a great deal of interests, perspective, and lifestyle in common with the left.
I’m really thinking media of any kind is no different from show business like pro-wrestling, and over the last 50 years it has coopted national politics. Show business used to be one element of national politics but I think now that national politics is one element of show business.
j e:
I think one reason is that people on the right are afraid of making an error. I know that when I published those posts, considering that very few if any other people on the right were asking the same questions, I felt a bit nervous that I would turn out to be wrong and people would hold it over my head. So I was careful to add that maybe more evidence would emerge to prove me wrong. I think it’s hard to go against the prevailing narrative and be labeled a conspiracy nut or something of the sort.
I know it’s a crazy, whacky opinion but perhaps some of these people on the right could resist the urge to take to Twitter moments after some major event has happened. Many of them mock leftists for doing just this but they then fall into the same trap.
And the other side of the coin:
Protecting, and promoting, Biden at all costs…
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/where-hell-are-we-bidens-cnn-townhall-disaster-ignored-mainstream-media
(For which the media, with eight years of 24/7 practice during the Obama years, have Pravda-like proficiency.)
An excellent piece by Greenwald. (If there were more like him and Taibbi, we might be able to return to disagreeing without hating people.)
Sen. Ron Johnson has outraged the left by asking, very reasonably, why an “armed insurrection” didn’t appear to have any insurgents who were armed. As Greenwald points out, even the story about the zip ties has been debunked.
All this lack of information from authorities and lack of reporting makes one wonder just how bad it would be for Pelosi if the truth WERE reported. Did she want a riot that she could use, she thought, for political purposes? After the performances of the left over the past year, I don’t even think that idea of mine is too cynical. Now she’s trying to bury the truth in a politically-controlled “commission.”
Professional “conservatives” accept the liberal narrative because they read/watch/consume the exact same media as their liberal peers. It’s basically that simple. And the affect is enhanced now because I think a great many of these people genuinely do not read or watch ANYTHING that isn’t vomited up to them by their social media feeds. Anybody think, for example, that Andy McCarthy actually watches much Tucker Carlson?
Mike
MBunge:
But my point is that as far as I know even people like Tucker Carlson were not challenging it in a timely fashion. I believe that the first challenge Tucker mounted was on Feb. 10, after a piece appeared in something called Revolver that for some reason got a fairly large amount of attention. This was way late, IMHO, because it was possible to challenge it many weeks earlier if you did your homework.
I did my homework. Why didn’t he? He has lots more resources than I do, and he’s a smart guy.
That is a good piece. In all sincerity, Greenwald reminded me of neo’s writing in his thoroughness. Greenwald is very courageous and almost certainly will not back down. He has been just as outspoken about politics in Brazil, where he lives, and journalists who don’t carry the government’s water sometimes face painful consequences there. A brave and admirable journalist!
“Great article” is an understatement. I admired and respected Greenwald a great deal before reading this piece; my respect has just gone through the roof. He is a man of principle, and a highly intelligent, articulate and informed one, at that. I appreciate principled progressives far more than about 95% of the ‘conservative’ MSM commentators, who have little, if any, principle; let alone eloquence or intelligence (e.g. Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin and their ilk).
Because the so-called “right” objectively works for Biden against Trump, imho.
In the early days of the blogosphere when it was a lot smaller Glen Greenwald used to comment at Patterico and Ace of Spades with sock puppets, either himself or his partner.
Ah, we were all much younger then.
“There is no circumstance or motive that justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists…” Glen Greenwald
Once Greenwald accepts that they’re not journalists but rather propagandists, he’ll grasp the motivation that they believe justifies their dissemination of false claims. Greenwald fails to understand that for the left, the value of factual truth is in direct relation to the degree that it serves ideological ‘truth’. Facts that fail to serve, much less oppose ideological truth are… counterproductive.
Geoffrey Britain:
Oh, I think he understands very very well.
I believe he is being a bit subtle there, saying to them, “You hold yourselves out to be journalists but you’re not, you’re political hacks. If you actually were journalists worthy of the name, you wouldn’t lie like that.”
Good article by Greenwald. There are many questions about what actually transpired, but it’s plain to see that the MSM is over hyping it.
The incursion should not have happened because Republicans are the party of law and order. We are the really peaceful protestors. We don’t take the law into our hands. That it happened makes me suspicious of how it happened. That is, who the heck thought this was a good idea? Yes, I know the right has some people who want results and are not op[posed to violence, but you cannot win friends and supporters by breaking into a government building just because you are mad about election fraud. If you actually want to overthrow the government, you don’t do it without lots of firepower and a plan to actually take over and run the place. This incursion was not that. Not by a long shot.
That the Capitol Police were warned that there might be an incursion and their requests for reinforcements were rejected, seems mighty curious to me. Had they had the manpower and barricades they wanted, no one would have been able to get into the buildings. It would have been a riot, with some skirmishing but unsuccessful in breaching the buildings. Had that happened, there would not have been any support for the miles long, razor wire topped fence, and a National Guard deployment that has come about. It all looks very strange. Maybe my suspicions are wrong. I hope we get some answers from the 9/11 type commission’s investigation, but unless it’s bipartisan and done well, it may not provide the truth either.
In the meantime we have Neo who keeps asking good questions and getting some answers. Along with Glenn Greenwald, who writes about it as truthfully as he can.
Can we all start not accepting the liberal religion of globull warming Nka climate change and so -called green energy before it kills again? Is there any Republican who pushes back on this dangerous nonsense? Texas, Texas, has 25% wind power? How the hell did that happen?
In this day and age of the ubiquitous cell phone camera, the fact that there are no videos of the “beating death” of officer Sicknick at the time of the riot means that it didn’t happen. An event that dramatic would have been recorded by a bunch of bystanders and posted at all the usual social media sites. Nothing, nada, it didn’t happen and should have been flagged as fake news right away.
I do think that there was a significant Antifa presence. I watched a few of the videos and was struck by weird stuff like the rioter wearing a full tear gas mask painted red, stuff that was visible at the west coast Antifa riots. Of course the Democrats won’t investigate at all.
Journalists have always reported their agenda not simple facts. It’s just that in the past there were always multiple outlets with conflicting agendas so you could piece together some semblance of reality. That’s disappeared because there are far fewer papers and and all the major sources are the networks which are strictly totalitarian left.
I’ve been despairing when I see conservative after conservative coming out condemning the Jan 6 protest and laying responsibility at Trump’s feet. I’m not one to demand unflagging loyalty to the Party Line, that’s not the issue; that’s a Democrat game. It’s what I interpret as a key failing for the conservative population: Wanting to show decency by condemning something that violates basic decency, but being incidentally willing to include or direct collateral damage to the target selected by liberals. Trump didn’t cause the riot !
It drives me bonkers. For goodness’ sake, if you want to do that, at least put some kind of meaningful comparative data that scales your disappointment.
How many people died during BLM / Floyd / CHAZ / etc etc riots over the past year, compared to the Capitol, and where is the condemnation? How much property damage for any given riot, compared to the Capitol? How many injuries? How many cops targeted? Only by stimulating the conversational back-and-forth and arguing about it are we ever going to get to the bottom of what actually happened on the 6th. Because nobody in government is in any hurry to provide the data or the analysis.
I am not expert on analyzing videos, but this slick one claims to show the “riot” and Ashli Babbit shooting as scripted fake news:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/X2z9EatFeGIX/
The video footage does look quite fishy.
Here’s a shorter one, simply claiming that the shooting was fake:
http://republicbroadcasting.org/news/search-categories-anime-animation-arts-literature-auto-vehicles-beauty-fashion-business-finance-cuisine-diy-gardening-education-entertainment-gaming-health-medical/
And this (one less convincingly to me) claims to identify the shooter:
http://republicbroadcasting.org/news/redpilled-media-exclusive-us-capitol-special-agent-david-bailey-who-murdered-ashli-babbitt-is-a-brazilian-immigrant-and-black-lives-matter-militant-he-repeatedly-threatened-to-kill-trump-su/
Greenwald has acquired a (with some qualifications) Not-so-secret Admirer:
https://www.unz.com/article/hunt-for-the-great-white-speech-criminal/
For the present, maybe. I think we may safely assume that Lord Palmerston’s dictum about there being no permanent allies or enemies, only permanent interests must apply here :).
“But my point is that as far as I know even people like Tucker Carlson were not challenging it in a timely fashion.“
I would not at all be surprised if his bosses at Fox TOLD Tucker he couldn’t say anything about it.
Mike
MBunge – “I would not at all be surprised if his bosses at Fox TOLD Tucker he couldn’t say anything about it.”
Tucker right now is very careful about what he puts on the air. Now that Rush has passed the full force of the Techno Overlords will be focused on him. If he states something that is wrong or cannot be easily proven, then his bosses will dump him ratings or not. Look what they did to Lou Dobbs.
Mark Steyn in an interview on a podcast stated that Tucker is very well off and really doesn’t need the gig anymore. About 18 months ago he just decided “screw it, I am going to say what I want to say.” He realizes now that he has a large audience and influence so he wants to remain. He know he can state things that others don’t want him to say. So he is maintaining his program.
So he didn’t fall into the QANON trap like Hannity and others have. Thus he has more credibility.
I am Sparticus:
Good analysis and you didn’t have to speculate what Fox must be telling him. Limits of omniscience and all that.
neo,
If Greenwald is subtly making that point, he’s casting his “pearls before swine”. Their ideological committment absolves them of any guilt or remorse. Allowing them to instantly dismiss any subtle points because as “media activists” for the cause (how they see themselves) the end justifies whatever means are necessary.
What’s needed to deal with such as they is brutal honesty. Call them the liars that they are while immediately offering to the point relevant proof of their deceit.
The recent blowback Trump’s lawyer offered to the inane woman interviewer is a good example of what’s needed. Nothing less will do, as decades of attempts at reasoned persuasion have repeatedly demonstrated. Heap scorn upon them.
I am Spartacus,
…that Tucker is very well off and really doesn’t need the gig anymore.
Then how do you explain Anderson Cooper, Vanderbilt scion and heir to Gloria’s fortune, trudging to his chauffeured limousine every afternoon and heading to the salt mines at CNN’s studios? 🙂
Rufus T Firefly:
One of those things is not like the other. Character matters.
@Rufus:Then how do you explain Anderson Cooper, Vanderbilt scion and heir to Gloria’s fortune, trudging to his chauffeured limousine every afternoon and heading to the salt mines at CNN’s studios?
I second om. To a certain kind of person influence > money and to another kind celebrity > money.
If Cooper worked behind the scenes, sitting on the corporate boards his wealth and connections enable him to like Mitch McConnel’s wife, he might be richer and more powerful but he’d not be a celebrity.