Journalism 101: on Russiagate
You’re probably all heartily sick of Russiagate. I know I am. But it’s incredibly important, and most people are unaware of the details. What’s more, plenty of Democrats still think that Trump was colluding with Russia and probably always will think that. A lie – especially one promulgated by a major party and the press, as well as the intelligence community – not only gets halfway around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on, but it burrows into people’s minds and is recalcitrant to change.
Those who spread the Russiagate lie were and are well aware of that phenomenon. They count on it.
But if you want to delve deeper into the details, there’s a very in-depth piece on the subject in the Columbia Journalism Review (of all places). It’s a four-parter and it’s long. I’ve only read a small fraction of it, but so far it seems pretty good. I think that perhaps it’s the sort of thing one could recommend to a die-hard “Trump is Russia’s puppet” type of person. After all, the CJR isn’t exactly Fox News.
I do plan to read it in its entirety, but I’ve been so very busy lately I haven’t had a chance.
“I think that perhaps it’s the sort of thing one could recommend to a die-hard ‘Trump is Russia’s puppet’ type of person.”
There is nothing I might recommend to “a die-hard ‘Trump is Russia’s puppet’ type of person,” other than a civil parting of ways, at least until the topic has changed to something innocuous — if such a topic even exists any more.
The NEED to believe is made up of several parts: It justifies being anti-Trump even though that’s a visceral issue. It can derail a discussion of real issues–nobody wants to continue after it’s broached. It makes the believer feel good. And, in a sense, under pressure by the Bad Guys, which reinforces the feeling of virtue.
While I think it’s useful and justified, valuable. It’s wasted on the Believers. If they didn’t see the scam for what it was, as it fell apart piece by piece, finding it all in one place isn’t going to help.
Today Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn dropped their weekly podcast during which they discuss this. I recommend it. Interesting and entertaining, as is usual with these guys. I read portions of the CJR drop but, frankly, I have trouble reading their so called “insights” having recognized the lie from the start.
T-Rex:
Do you have a link for that?
https://www.racket.news/p/atw-episode-24-all-the-presidents#details
and of course in the face of such excellent journalism, the Rolling Stone and its minions weigh in quickly to dismiss the very idea that Trump didn’t have a deep, meaningful conspiratorial relationship with the Russians all along. Balderdash! Russian Puppet!
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/02/columbia-journalism-review-jeff-gerth-trump-russia-the-media/
It has Matt Taibbi boiling mad. He’s sounding more and more red-pilled by the day.
Neo: Here is the link:
https://www.racket.news/p/atw-episode-24-all-the-presidents#details
although it’s a subscription to hear the whole broadcast, usually the first 30 minutes or so is free. It is very much worth while.
Ah david corn snorfle
For the believers, the fact that it was all a lie is a feature. Same as Senator Reid’s fabrication about Romney’s taxes. No regret. “It worked didn’t it.” Just like the bragging about the collusion to screw Trump in the fall of 2000.
Hubris. They not only believe. They KNOW they are better, smarter, morally superior and entitled to rule. Lenin’s definition of morality works for them.
Lying, stealing and cheating are morally good when done by their side. Crime is something Republicans do. The Democrat voter (the believer) doesn’t care and will never care. The only point in asking them to read it is to offer them an opportunity to marinate in the joy of how it worked and to celebrate.
Related (“Hamilton 68”):
“By Exposing Hamilton 68, The ‘Twitter Files’ Proved The Deep State Is A Weapon Aimed Directly At You;
“What else is the U.S. government using to monitor its citizens while mobilizing against domestic targets who have done nothing wrong?”—
https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/03/by-exposing-hamilton-68-the-twitter-files-proved-the-deep-state-is-a-weapon-aimed-directly-at-you/
H/T Blazingcatfur blog.
(Gotta LOVE that “Hamilton” touch. “Federalist Papers” for the post-post-modern era? Sheesh…)
@ stan > “The only point in asking them to read it is to offer them an opportunity to marinate in the joy of how it worked and to celebrate.”
Like the celebratory post on how they “fortified” the 2020 election, essentially admitting that the Republican charges were correct, but hey – nothing illegal-illegal, and what’s ethics anyway?
The Russia gate phony-baloney line was initiated by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and would have gotten nowhere had the DOJ, FBI and CIA not carried the ball to a compliant media, social media elites and members of Congress (e.g., that lying SOB Schiff , just to name one) seeking to destroy Trump.
Is it a crime for Federal agencies to promote dis-information to bring down a president and to interfere, via the dissemination of disinformation, in a presidential election?
If so, what crime is it?
Is it treason?
Anybody know?
Regardless, IMHO, nobody will go to jail even though many involved should be hanged by the neck.
Oh
https://twitter.com/BaldingsWorld/status/1622271230710530049
I read the whole thing a few days ago and found it unimpressive. There’s a little self-reflection there, but even considering the whole piece is supposedly about journalistic failure from the beginning, you’d think the tone wouldn’t remain so anti-Trumpish, considering his anti-press stance had been justified from the beginning.
The conclusions are what put me off to the piece. At face value they’re relatively milquetoast, not damning. Accounting for the fact that it was probably mostly finished awhile back, the absence of the Twitterfiles and how the media participated in the con and were then silent after the revelations make this analysis woefully incomplete, and its conclusions a joke.
“…a joke.”
Would appear so….
“Panel that awarded Pulitzers for Russiagate stories mum after scathing exposé on reporting failures”—
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/media-slammed-bias-columbia-journalism-review-following-fallout
Key phrases:
‘…The 19-member Pulitzer Prize board for 2017-2018 was comprised of various journalists, professors and writers, including several current or former staff members of the New York Times or Washington Post.
‘ “Just The News” reached out to 13 members of the panel to find out if the CJR exposé had prompted second thoughts about the Russiagate prizes. Neil Brown, president of the Poynter Institute had an auto reply set, saying he was out of the office, while Steve Coll, former dean of Columbia Journalism School, had an auto-reply saying he is on sabbatical. None of the other board members replied.
‘ In response to a request for comment on the CJR series, Pulitzer Prize Administrator Majorie Miller wrote, “Due to pending litigation regarding these matters, I am not able to comment on the story.”
‘After the Pulitzer board initially stood by its Russigate awards, former President Donald Trump — the central target of the narrative, which grew out of opposition research commissioned by his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton — filed a defamation lawsuit against them in December, following a request to reconsider the prizes.
‘ The board had reportedly agreed to conduct a review, but concluded, “No passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.” [Emphasis mine; Barry M.]…
‘…Just the News reached out to the New York Times and Washington Post for general comment on the CJR story and the status of their Pulitzer Prizes. The Post responded with the following statement:
‘ “We are proud of our coverage of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign, including our stories that were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for furthering the nation’s understanding of this consequential period,” Vice President of Communications Shani George declared. “We approached this line of coverage with care and a great sense of responsibility. On the few occasions in which new information emerged that caused us to reexamine past reporting, we did so forthrightly.” [Emphasis mine; Barry M.] ‘
Short version: We can—WE MUST—lie, fabulate, prevaricate, misrepresent, cover up, jettison our professional pledges and responsibilities, yea even BREAK THE LAW…because the MORAL IMPERATIVE is that Donald Trump MUST BE STOPPED.
Maybe not such a joke…
I know small footsteps who else is even willing to broach the subject woodward meekly mewed but did no big public protest
Took most of up till this hour of day ( off and on) to read that, it was like reading a short book.
Don’t think anyone mentioned in article was first I heard of them, the story is not new nor any of the actors unknown.
But though long shows how the Russian collusion was gaslight to a multi year daily story and has 0 truth in it. Many still to this day believe its true.
Ends with the two tier justice system letting off the actors in this drama but nailed Trump supporters to the wall.
I do not know what a “quintessential poet” looks like, Neo. Schwartz looks like Joe Average in the photo.
Now that objectivity is being tossed out the window, and subjective advocacy is the order of the day for journalists, the dynamic of the Russia-Gate, Twitter Files, and @Hamilton68 phenomena are all representative of modern advocacy journalism, and consistent with its ethos. The ‘story’ has now been moved out of the spotlight and put in service to the story-teller, just an extension of the narcissistic age of ‘famous for being famous’. Now it’s all about the journalist – and the censor.
But the question is, who will now buy the story? Progressives in the Age of Trump bought the story thinking it was real, and not knowing any different – or rather believers bought the the CNN / NBC / etc version, while conservatives bought into the business model that supported more objective viewpoints, supported by more traditional journalism. These viewpoints are still biased, but grounded in objective observations and facts.
Will people still buy into the Fake News business model, thinking it’s Real? Will they buy into it, knowing it’s fake? To buy into it, knowing it’s fake is to accept that your beliefs are being shaped in service to a narrative, whose direction can shift with any change in the political winds. Are people that susceptible? For example, we know that HandsUpDon’tShoot and BLM had a good run – what about now?
jeff gerth investigated whitewater, which was inconvenient for dems, thats why a whole cottage industry was developed, gene lyons being among them, ken starr was made a scape goat, for practices we later condemned about epstein, he was one of the first , along with judith miller, the work of al Queda, as well the whole wen ho lee debacle (which also had to be spiked, because reasons) as with the Thompson report,
“What about now?”
People will CONTINUE TO believe what they WANT to believe.
Even as “Biden” & friends will try to—CONTINUE TO—carefully craft, and relentlessly push, the Narrative that will enable them to do this—this is where all the extraordinary lying and, especially, the “24/7 HATE” come in real handy…
…until they simply cannot believe it any longer (IOW, until that German-cities-are-reduced-to-rubble / Russians-at-the-Gates-of-Berlin moment is finally reached).
When that moment is reached, there will be—one hopes—an eye-opening “coming to terms”, a bang-em-up catharsis, a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus epiphany.
If we’re lucky.
Actually, one hopes that it won’t have to come to all that. But that seems increasingly unlikely given the huge scope of dishonesty and evil that the Democrats are trying to push through, in conjunction with the “Great Reset” and all who are committed to that series of atrocities…whose goal is to save the world…and humanity.
(Now where have we seen that before…?)
One shudders to think that P.T. Barnum (or should that be Abraham Lincoln?) may have, in fact, been wrong.
https://abrahamlincolnassociation.org/you-can-fool-all-of-the-people-lincoln-never-said-that
I am not tired of Russiagate.
But I am tired of both, those who know the truth but are tired of Russiagate, and I tired of those who don’t know the truth.
Trump’s immediate family and his Campaign Manager literally met with Russians in NYC who were offering election assistance on behalf of their government in June 2016. Not a witch hunt if the shoe was on Hillary’s foot and not a witch hunt on Trump’s.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377
On 3 June 2016, at 10:36, Rob Goldstone (publicist) wrote:
Good morning
Emin (Agalarov, Azerbaijani businessman and singer-songwriter) just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras (Agalarov, Azerbaijani-Russian businessman and public figure) this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone
On 3 June 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr wrote:
Thanks Rob I appreciate that,. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summers. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don
On 6 June 2016, at 12:40, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Hi Don
Let me know when you are free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary info – you had mentioned early this week so wanted to try to schedule a time and day Best to you and family Rob Goldstone
On 6 June 2016, at 15:03, Donald Trump Jr wrote:
Rob could we speak now?
d
On 6 June 2016, at 15:37, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Let me track him down in Moscow
What number he could call?
On 6 June 2016, at 15:38, Donald Trump Jr wrote:
My cell thanks
On 6 June 2016, at 15:43, Rob Goldstone wrote:
OK he’s on stage in Moscow but should be off within 20 minutes so I am sure can call Rob
On 6 June 2016, at 16:38, Donald Trump Jr wrote:
Rob thanks for the help.
D.
On 7 June 2016, at 16:20, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Don
Hope all is well
Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.
I believe you are aware of the meeting – and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?
I assume it would be at your office.
Best
Rob Goldstone
On 7 June 2016, at 17:16, Donald Trump Jr wrote:
How about 3 at our offices? Thanks rob appreciate you helping set it up.
D
On 7 June 2016, at 17:19, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Perfect… I won’t sit in on the meeting, but will bring them at 3pm and introduce you etc.
I will send the names of the two people with you for security when I have them later today.
best
Rob
On 7 June 2016, at 18:14, Donald Trump Jr wrote:
Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law (Jared Kushner) and me. 725 Fifth Ave 25th floor.
On 8 June 2016, at 10:34, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Good morning
Would it be possible to move tomorrow meeting at 4pm as the Russian attorney is in court until 3 i was just informed.
Best
Rob
On 8 June 2016, at 11:15, Donald Trump Jr wrote:
Yes Rob I could do that unless they wanted to do 3 today instead… just let me know and ill lock it in either way.
d
On 8 June 2016, at 11:18, Rob Goldstone wrote:
They can’t do today as she hasn’t landed yet from Moscow 4pm is great tomorrow.
Best
Rob
And nothing came of Don Jr’s meeting with Vesilnitskaya. She didn’t offer any dirt on Clinton (which Putin certainly had; Hillary used her unsecure email to contact Obama while in Russia so the Russians would have hacked it).
Clinton did use a Russian spy to create the dossier, the whole basis of Russia!Russia!Russia!. And FBI hired the Russian spy, I suspect to hide him from any oversight or FOIA, by making him a “classified source”.
And manafort listened and said they got nuthin furthermore that outfit was involved with fusion gps work against browder
Greg craig and company fixed a legal case in convicted and they avoided being convicted so were weber and podesta who manafort was the middle man for
OK Don and Miguel, they met with Russians with the stated intent of obtaining election help on behalf of a foreign government but you say, since none was obtained, this was a great big nothing. Certainly insufficient for the FBI to investigate, despite Russia being a country that has nuclear weapons aimed at USA, i.e. not a friendly or allied regime, right? The possibility that we could elect a candidate indebted to Russia should not have concerned them.
I hope you’ll keep that standard in mind as the Republicans in the House of Representatives launch their own investigations, but I suspect you will not. I suspect that if the candidate in this episode were Clinton, not Trump, you’d have a completely opposite take. For my part, I want the people we pay in the FBI and other intel agencies to do their jobs. When it comes to protecting our country from the likes of Vladimir Putin, a ‘former’ intel officer himself, they must be on the highest alert irregardless of whose feelings get hurt. Trump isn’t special and neither is Biden or Clinton in this regard.
that was publically available info, on their site, hillary funded kulkovo village, which was the main hub for technical service including the fsb, small irony, a whole passel of oligarchs that funded her campaign through the foundation, like the gazprom money that helped shut down the pipelines that made this war possible (handed to biden schumer pelosi et al) lets leave out uranium one that handed a critical concession to russia, I could go all day, pointing out how the dems compromise this country, serving foreign powers china russia qatar et al,
I suspect that if the candidate in this episode were Clinton, not Trump, you’d have a completely opposite take.
No, I wouldn’t. It’s a nothingburger either way. Clinton actually had the dossier created by a Russian spy. I actually don’t much care about that, but I care very much that the FBI used it to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump, and that they themselves also hired the Russian spy, probably to hide him as a “source”.
Related:
“China Balloon – A Layered Scandal”—
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/02/06/china_balloon__a_layered_scandal__148823.html
H/T Powerline blog.
And of course the media are ALL OVER IT.
The 4 parts are barely worth reading. Not quite whitewashing, but graywashing.
Media lies are sort of noted, but not clearly identified before the later, sometimes years later, excuse is added to mitigate any negative judgement.
Plus what was done in 2016 & 2017 is often added to with later notes that aren’t clearly dated but make the timeline extremely jerky. Deliberately so, I think, so one is left with a jumbled mess rather clarity about media dis-information.
Many reporters and editors are quoted as still proud of their work, as being accurate.
Trump was right – it was Fake News.
Clickbait. Good for their demonization purposes.
The Dem Party, and the many media & college Dem decision makers, are far far more like the Nazis, or the Stalin (or Pol Pot) Communists, than freedom loving Americans.
It’s a GREAT start, maybe 3 out of 10, after years of zero, nada.
Republicans should be laughing at Democrats who “believed in the Russia Hoax”. Note that it Hoax is better than “Russiagate”; and few remember that Nixon resigned because of the illegal leaking by #2 FBI guy, Mark Felt (Deep Throat).
Too many Dems believe that if the cops don’t convict them, it was “legal”. Part 4 notes one minor plea of guilty and 2 indictments with acquittal by Durham – implying the FBI did almost nothing wrong.
All 4 Federal FISA judges who approved of the spying on Trump should be impeached.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/02/06/columbia_journalism_review_russiagate_post-mortem_is_a_good_start_148821.html
He’s a bit angry, as am I.
” Will people still buy into the Fake News business model, thinking it’s Real? Will they buy into it, knowing it’s fake?”
To answer that, I give you WWE, and all the other ‘rasslin’ (to distinguish it from the legitimate sport of wrestling) shows out there. A not insignificant portion of the populace accepts fakery in sports. How many of them will accept it when they feel that their government supplied rice bowl is supported by it? I believe 2020 answers that.
Tom,
On the FISA judges: I recall thinking that when Nunes and Schiff had their “dueling memos” the judges knew (as fact) which one was correct. At the time we heard nothing from them.
Then, later, a IG gave his report on the FBI lying. Only then did the FISA court speak up and tell the FBI to “stop lying”.
But the court would have known much earlier.
It’s obvious the FISA court is complicit.