Tag Archives: MSM

Why Journalism is Going Extinct

Posted on by
Reply

By Peter Van Buren

Source: We Meant Well

Is journalism going extinct? asks The Atlantic in an article of roughly the same name. The numbers are deadly: the grimmest news was from the Los Angeles Times, the biggest newspaper outside of the east coast. The paper announced it was cutting 115 people, more than 20 percent of its newsroom. In June of last year the Times previously dropped 74 people from its newsroom. Some 2,900 newspapers closed or merged since 2005. Sports Illustrated is in trouble. The Washington Post, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, NPR, Vice, Vox, and BuzzFeed, among others, have shed hundreds of journalists over the past year, including the author of the Atlantic article himself. Job losses among print, digital, and broadcast-news organizations grew by nearly 50 percent during 2023.

The reason for all this professional carnage according to the article? Something something the Internet something something digital advertising revenues blah blah social media.

One proposed solution calls for “direct and muscular government intervention” and legislation forcing Facebook and others to pay for “news” they feature off sources such as the New York Times. Yet, as journalist Glenn Greenwald asked rhetorically, “Will there ever come a moment when liberal journalists who work for corporate outlets, and who are being completely consumed by layoffs and financial failures and audience indifference, ask whether there’s anything they’ve done to contribute to the profession’s failure?”

The answer of course is no, no one is going to ask but Glenn. Somewhere along the way (we’ll tag it as the beginning of the first Trump campaign of the modern era) journalism lost all pretext of objectivity and decided to devote itself fully toward advocacy. It is clear now the public wants accurate reporting, not advocacy, but never you mind, the media elites on each coast know better what you need. As long as the MSM traffics in falsehoods people will disappear from their audiences.

Let’s look at one almost silly example: did Donald Trump says people should drink bleach to kill off Covid?

No, Donald Trump did not suggest that people should drink bleach to kill off Covid. However, during a White House briefing in April 2020, Trump did make comments about the potential use of disinfectants and ultraviolet light to treat the virus. His remarks were widely criticized because they seemed to suggest the possibility of injecting or ingesting disinfectants, which would be extremely harmful. The media, however, would not be stopped, making the bleach thing into a meme, handing it off to Late Night, then picking it up again throughout the 2020 presidential campaign.

Twelve months after the supposed statement, to keep things alive, Politico wrote “One year ago today, President Donald Trump took to the White House briefing room and encouraged his top health officials to study the injection of bleach into the human body as a means of fighting Covid. It was a watershed moment, soon to become iconic in the annals of presidential briefings. It arguably changed the course of political history.” “For me, it was the craziest and most surreal moment I had ever witnessed in a presidential press conference,” said ABC’s chief Washington correspondent.

A year after the “fact” it is bad enough the media could not accurately report what was said but how about some four years later, twice in recent New York Times articles, on January 24 and on January 29, 2024 (“oblivious or worse, peddling bleach as a quack cure.”)

The thing is Trump never said people should drink or inject bleach; knowing what he said is as easy as listening to what he said. Here it is in its entirety: “So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too. It sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.” It was obvious Trump was talking via example, hypothetically in that hyperbolic style of his. It takes a selfish media mind to roll all that into an admonishment to the suffering American people to drink a poisonous substance but that’s what happened. Even four years later.

There are so many other example which persist in the media as untruths, exaggerations, or something evil done by other presidents but uniquely ascribed to Trump. Think that he wrenched children from their parents at the border into concentration camps, that he denounced fallen soldiers as suckers, and that he incited a bloody insurrection to overturn an election, and still peddles the Big Lie to the point where he is supposedly Constitutionally ineligible to run for president.

Journalism is at a crossroads at best (it may have already crossed into the abyss.) The old models of reader -supported or advertising-supported media no longer are sturdy and seem still to apply only to a few giants like the New York Times. Americans’ trust in the mass media’s reporting matches its lowest point in Gallup’s trend line, largely because of Democrats’ decreased trust (the Republicans were lost an election or two ago, see Russiagate, though independents still lead the two parties in lost trust.) Just 7 percent of Americans have “a great deal” of trust and confidence in the media, and 27 percent have “a fair amount.”

Meanwhile, 28 percent of U.S. adults say they do not have very much confidence and 39 percent have none at all in newspapers, TV, and radio. Social media is still the least trustworthy sector, while simultaneously being one of the most read/seen. The declines for the MSM have been steady since peaking in 1977 at about 70 percent trust levels. It has gotten worse since Trump but you can’t blame it all on him. It’s the media’s own fault.

The loss of trust is because of a perception the MSM is biased. Some 78 percent of conservatives think the mass media is biased, as compared with 44 percent of liberals and 50 percent of moderates. Only about 36 percent view mass media reporting as “just about right”. A September 2014 Gallup poll found that a plurality of Americans believe the media is “too liberal.”

Half of Americans in a recent survey indicated they believe national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting. The survey goes beyond others that have shown a low level of trust in the media to the startling point where many believe there is an intent to deceive. Asked whether they agreed with the statement that national news organizations do not intend to mislead, 50 percent said they disagreed. Only 25 percent agreed.

The pattern is pretty clear: as long as the MSM is a significant source of misinformation never mind out-and-out lies, the people’s trust in it will continue to fall. We’ve reached a breaking point where many people believe the media intends to deceive. That distrust is entirely a self-own by the media, and finds itself expressed in the most direct terms. People literally are not buying what the MSM is selling.

War Propaganda Intensifies as US Mainstream Media Calls for War on Iran to Stop the “Axis of Resistance”

Posted on by
1

By Timothy Alexander Guzman

Source: Silent Crow News

Remember when the mainstream media especially FOX News was calling for an attack on Iraq because Saddam Hussein and the Bath Party was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)?  FOX News was the main cheerleader for the US and its European allies to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein.  To be fair, CNN and MSNBC and other news outlets were also cheerleading for war, but FOX News was clearly, the loudest voice.  Today, FOX News is at it again with other right-wing media networks who have been also calling for the US and its allies to bomb Iran to stop the Axis of Resistance that includes Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraqi resistance groups and now Yemen, with the Houthi rebels who have been launching missile attacks against Israeli and Western commercial ships in the Red Sea in support of Gaza. 

Fox News senior strategic analyst, who a former General with the US Army, Jack Keane, a war hawk who served as an advisor to manage the US occupation of Iraq and a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.  Keane is also chairman of AM General, a heavy vehicle and automotive manufacturer that produces military Humvees for civilian and military use.  Recently, Keane spoke on FOX News regarding the 60 + strikes conducted by US and British fighter aircraft on Yemen.  The main points he made on the FOX network was that US and its British allies already had their targets pinpointed due to Centcom, the US central command, “they were likely tracking the Houthis were trying to hide some of this capability for the last few days.  But we got excellent surveillance there, and likely we will, we are able to determine whether they are moving a lot of this, they will finish the assessment, believe me, I think if there is capability there, that is still significant, we should reattack and then we got to remind ourselves what’s really happening here.” 

Keane went on to say that Iran is “the center of gravity”, therefore it must be attacked to stop its proxies in the region:

The center of gravity for the aggression in the Middle East that we’re experiencing is Iran. We have said this time and time and time again, and to deter the proxies themselves by hitting them will not be sufficient.  We have got to go after Iran themselves by hitting them will not be sufficient.  We have got to go after Iran, they are, as I mentioned, the center of gravity, Centcom has a table of targets that they have provided to the administration in how to go about doing that comprehensively to shut down their support for these proxies that has got to be high on our list.  And what that really means Brian, we have got to re-set the strategy in dealing with Iran in the region and admit the fact that this thing has failed.  When they came in, they removed the Trump sanctions.  Iran’s flush with oil money now, as a result of it, they went after the nuclear deal.  That failed    

Keane is not the only psychopath who wants World War III, another frequent quest on FOX News, Lindsey Graham who is South Carolina’s Republican Senator and a Pro-Israel activist was quoted in a FOX News article, ‘Lindsey Graham calls for warning Iran of retaliation if Hamas escalates, tells ‘Squad’ to ‘shut the hell up’ reported that the “South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham castigated the far left’s “appeasement” of Iran’s regime, which he said has not prevented attacks by Hamas against Israel, telling the Palestinian-friendly “Squad” contingent in Congress to “shut the hell up.”  On America Reports, a show produced by FOX News, Graham said that “The only way you’re going to keep this war from escalating is to hold Iran accountable. How much more death and destruction do we have to take from the Iranian regime? I am confident this was planned and funded by the Iranians.”

Sounding like a far-right Israeli politician, Graham also said that “Hamas is a bunch of animals who deserve to be treated like animals” he added that “Israeli forces should use this opportunity to invade Palestinian territory and “dismantle” the militant group.”  Graham used the Hitler comparison to the Hamas’ resistance as “an effort to kill Jewish people on par with that of former German Chancellor Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.” 

In 2005, a few years after Iraq was already invaded and destroyed, Pew Research found that FOX News was more biased in reporting on the war in Iraq than CNN and MSNBC, “measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air” and that “the news channel was also decidedly more positive in its coverage of the war in Iraq, while the others were largely neutral. At the same time, the story segments on the Fox programs studied did have more sources and shared more about them with audiences.”  This does not mean CNN and MSNBC is innocent nor any better on the lead-up to the war on Iraq, but FOX News is surely on the frontline when it comes to war propaganda. 

Iran is the ultimate prize for the neocons in Washington and Israel.  Israel wants to get the US military into another war but this time to attack Iran.  They are using the mainstream media that they control to gain support from the US population who are clueless about what is happening in the Middle East.  FOX News is a major part of the propaganda machine, so they will continue to call for another major war to appease their Zionist masters in Israel. 

In an article published in 2003 by The Guardian that was correctly titled, ‘Their Master’s Voice’ on Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX News said that “you have got to admit that Rupert Murdoch is one canny press tycoon because he has an unerring ability to choose editors across the world who think just like him.”   It goes on to say how much influence Rupert Murdoch, who is a neocon at heart, has in his media empire:

Murdoch is chairman and chief executive of News Corp which owns more than 175 titles on three continents, publishes 40 million papers a week and dominates the newspaper markets in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. His television reach is greater still, but broadcasting – even when less regulated than in Britain – is not so plainly partisan. It is newspapers which set the agenda

What was Murdoch’s agenda during the war in Iraq? In an interview in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, one of the newspapers that Murdoch owns, said that “We can’t back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam…I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it.” He was also asked about another war criminal-at-large and former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair:

I think Tony is being extraordinarily courageous and strong… It’s not easy to do that living in a party which is largely composed of people who have a knee-jerk anti-Americanism and are sort of pacifist. But he’s shown great guts as he did, I think, in Kosovo and various problems in the old Yugoslavia”

Fox News is cheerleading for another war but this time against Iran who is not Iraq.  Iran has the capabilities to hit every US base in the Middle East especially those in Iraq and Syria. It has a formidable military that is ready to defend their territorial integrity. If the US and their Israeli counterparts decide to attack Iran, rest assured, the entire Middle East would erupt and they would support Iran and that will be the end of all US bases in the region and possibly, the end of a 75-year-old occupation of Palestine.      

FOX News has supported every war, it has supported every assassination of foreign military and political leaders, and it has supported every regime change operation on all corners of the globe.  There is nothing “Fair and Balanced” with FOX News and their paid propagandists who basically work for Military arms manufacturers, major corporations, the right-wing part of the American and European political establishment and of course, Israel. 

This is dangerous war propaganda all over again, we can call it, Iraq 2.0., but this is much worse because this coming war will involve many countries and resistance groups, especially those in the Middle East.   

Something Lost, Never to Be Found Again

Posted on by
Reply

Defeat in Ukraine may be but one part to an accumulation of western ‘defeats’. Defeat in Israel would strike at the very core of U.S. political being.

By Alastair Crooke

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

A strange ennui and distracted attention envelops the West today.

Hat-tip to Simplicius’ Bones of Tomorrow, in which he reflects on a Culture that has become debased; its lures that used to trap us into the ‘Myth of the West’ lie withered, as patently false idols. The dimming fire has squandered any sense of ‘magic’ in the guttering West, or indeed of hope to recoup this something ‘lost’. It is the wistful realisation that – as it stands – the myth is never likely to offer anything of lasting value again.

The figments of a utopian future once promised, nonetheless continue their seductive hold on our psyche, but only on attention-hopping, hypnotic touch-screens. Cultural touchstones crumble around us like rotting edifices one after another. Yet, we are too distracted to take real notice, or to absorb the significance. Counter ‘currents’ in the shadows gleefully applaud.

Where we stand now is where we’ve always stood – in the quicksands of time. A passing of the guard; one world fading, deep into the slow, declining burnout phase, the natural process of decay and renewal, whilst taking us forward towards some next, still-to-sprout, green shoots. A sense of something lost and never to be found again, which we all endure these days.

The ‘Elect’ though, have deliberately raised the stakes. They do not want to ‘let go’. They have determined that, with the western train wrecked on its own cultural ‘wall’, the ‘End of Time’ story of convergence on a common future is ‘over’ too.

And along with it, the claimed western mandate to dictate the ‘direction forward’ is over also.

Beneath the gimcrack and baubled veneer, the western meta-narrative “from Plato to NATO, that superior ideas and practices whose origins lie in ancient Greece, and have been transmitted down the ages so that those in the West today, are the lucky inheritors of a superior cultural DNA” has transpired to be nothing more than the faded tinselry of hollow narrative.

This is the deep fear of western political leaders – they know the ‘Narrative’ to be a fiction. Nonetheless, they go on telling it to themselves, despite knowing that our era has been made increasingly and dangerously contingent on this meta-myth. Absent the Myth, they sense, the western project, and western prosperity, could disintegrate utterly.

The ‘Elect’ hoped that the dredged-up, chimeric dreams of material prosperity and western savoir faire could still prop the Myth ‘aloft’, but only (and only if) the West possessed the better narrative. The right narrative was everything. It had to outmatch and outshine the ‘clunky narratives’ of adversaries. This deceptive covenant had to endure at all costs, lest the baubled veneer of the Myth come undone.

So the narrative ‘factory’ is put hard to work. The kinetic war in Ukraine is settled in an evident and overwhelming Russian victory – albeit without it yet being ‘over’. Of course not: Ukraine was but one single battlescape in the wider struggle to force the ‘Rimland’ (the Atlanticist world) to accept an agreed upon frontier between it and the ‘Heartland’ (Russia, China and their Asian depth), and gracefully to renounce its claim to exceptionality in determining our global future.

The MSM media therefore is abuzz with analysis of how to define a ‘western win’: Is it possible to ‘flip’ the narrative of Ukraine, they ponder, to being ‘another’ western win? They want to continue to feed Ukraine into the grinder – to persist in the fantasy of ‘total win’: “There is no other way than a total win – and to get rid of Putin … We have to take all risks for that. No compromise is possible, no compromise”.

Call the Ukraine conflict a ‘stalemate’, and insist that it represents a ‘defeat’ for Putin and a ‘win’ for Biden, since Russia was unable to seize the whole of Ukraine (falsely imputing this to have been Moscow’s objective, from the start). This approach is thought rather ‘cool’ by western analysts: Frame the narrative of a ‘win’ and ensure that from top-to-bottom of society, all adhere to the correct narrative without demur.

But this is little more than a simple projection from the YouTube ‘influencer’ culture, by which random individuals earn ‘street cred’, (and lots of cash), by curating slick narratives – whether about fashion, or political events. It may work insofar as the addled western public is concerned, but it has limited traction beyond western cultural tinselry.

The flaw when ‘flip-narratives’ are weaponised geo-politically, however, is that propaganda which is so divorced from a reality that is evident simply is not a winning narrative (except in the most fleeting of ways). Plainly said, it leads to the self-isolation of its authors.

The glee with which evident western ‘reverses’ seemingly can be narratively ‘flipped’ by Intelligence ‘leaks’ propagating rank lies to support a narrative has become a contagion amongst western intelligence services. Yet rather, this ‘deceptive covenant’ is a poisoned chalice.

If the West had any remaining sense, it would concentrate more on setting a ‘narrative of western defeat’ in Ukraine, rather than promulgating yet another rotting ‘narrative of victory’.

Why so?

Because a wise leadership would be preparing its people for defeat. Unlikely and false stories of glory on the battlefield come back to bite the perpetrators, as (metaphorically) the wounded and dead return to contradict visibly the tale of victory.

The West, by contrast, is still fed on stories of western leadership, election, innate qualities and exceptionalism. Put simply, this ‘influencer’ fad signally is failing to help westerners cope with the tectonic shifts occurring across the globe. Its peoples are wholly unprepared for the ‘Winter that is Coming’.

Yet, the purveyors of ‘winning’ hug themselves in sheer glee as their ‘flipped’ delusions are relayed through a compliant MSM.

Childish propaganda and lying however will only serve to make the new era all the more painful. A ‘narrative of defeat’, told with integrity, by contrast, is one that helps a people to understand how a particular crisis arose and came to afflict them. It should also signal a way forward. In Iran this was understood: ‘Ashura’ gave the key to understanding the pain and crisis Iranians had been enduring, and the Mahdi signalled a future that lay beyond immediate crisis.

The need for a return to an integrity of messaging is all the more pressing as attempts to repair one reversal, with a false narrative – inverting realities to achieve the putative ‘win’ – will only lead to further losses.

Deceit is exposed in the instant. Trust takes a decade to build. Does the West really believe it can recoup in this way? Nobody beyond their authors believes these western Intelligence narratives, post- Ukraine. They are now tainted for the long run. In the end, military facts are more powerful than political waffle.

There is another factor at play here too. EU spokesman on foreign affairs, Peter Stano, when asked this month by TASS about the Ukrainian missile strikes on the Russian city of Belgorod, resulting in over two dozen civilian casualties, said: “Regarding the specific incident in Belgorod, no information that comes from Russia can be considered trustworthy”, the spokesman added, accusing Moscow of “constant lies, manipulation and propaganda”.

Here lies the dark underside to ‘Win Narratives’ that become unyoked from the facts on the ground: The EU spokesman is compelled to affirm the mandatory narrative of Ukraine’s “right to defend itself … from aggression” – but then to nix anything and everything that Russia may say.

Put plainly, ‘win narratives’ kill empathy; they kill active listening and understanding. Diplomats are supposed to practice deep listening. If what they hear jars with what they expect, or want to hear, they are supposed to listen harder, and try to run-down what it is that lies out-of-sight, behind what they hear, so to understand what was intended, and to better understand their interlocutor. The West does not practice this now.

People often ask why is there so little empathy evident today? Why do states talk past each other? Why are channels of communication jammed? Well, that’s why: Flipped narratives based on easily exposed untruths.

Yet the western defeat in Ukraine may be but one part to an accumulation of western ‘defeats’. Defeat in Israel, for one, would strike at the very core of U.S. political being – too close to the quick to be lightly brushed aside. And there may be more hurts to come in the Middle East.

Just to be clear: the spinning of a fabric of delusion, unfaithful to the granular truth lurking beneath, ultimately hurts its authors. It leaves people disorientated, insecure, kicking at the loose gravel of the past, rummaging for some understanding of the crashing defeat, for which they are wholly unprepared.

The risk is then of a nation being swept off-course to ultimate catastrophe by the romance of ‘winning’ slogans such as ‘together we will win’ (heard all across Israel today): “Anyone who has studied German history and watched Goebbels’ career, sees what a dangerous instrument propaganda is – one that can lead to a [catastrophic] national loss of way.”

American State Propaganda: A Thought Experiment

Posted on by
1

In a tyrannical dictatorship, the press is operated by employees of the government. In a Free Democracy™️, the press is operated by employees of the oligarchs who operate the government.

By Caitlin Johnstone

Source: CaitlinJohnstone.com.au

The New York Times has published another CIA press release disguised as news, this time aimed at whipping up paranoia toward anyone who criticizes the US proxy war in Ukraine.

The article is titled “Putin’s Next Target: U.S. Support for Ukraine, Officials Say”. Its author, Julian E Barnes, has written so many New York Times articles with headlines ending in the words “Officials Say” that we can safely assume the primary reason for his continued employment in that paper is because empire managers within the US government have designated him someone who can be trusted to print what they want printed. This designation would make him a reliable supplier of “scoops” (read: regurgitations of unevidenced government claims) for The New York Times.

“American officials said they are convinced that Mr. Putin intends to try to end U.S. and European support for Ukraine by using his spy agencies to push propaganda supporting pro-Russian political parties and by stoking conspiracy theories with new technologies,” Barnes writes.

Of course the report never gets any more specific than that, and of course the “American officials” Barnes cites promote their unevidenced assertions under cover of complete anonymity.

“The American officials spoke on the condition their names not be reported so they could discuss sensitive intelligence,” Barnes writes.

The only named source cited in the article is a CIA veteran named Beth Sanner, who says that “Russia will not give up on disinformation campaigns,” but adds that “we don’t know what it is going to look like.”

And that’s really the whole article right there. Putin is going to be using his spy agencies to promote political parties and messages which support ending the practice of pouring billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, but nobody knows what that will look like exactly, so we all have to just be sort of generally distrustful toward anyone who doesn’t think it’s a swell idea to perpetuate a horrific war with potentially world-ending consequences, because they might be part of an unspecified Russian influence operation.

We saw a similar report from CNN a few weeks ago, in which the public was warned that Russia’s FSB is working to convert westerners into mouthpieces for Russian propaganda using methods so sneaky and subtle that those westerners wouldn’t even know it’s happening. Again, details were extremely vague and the only obvious response to the information provided is for everyone to just get really paranoid toward anyone saying anything that doesn’t support current US foreign policy toward Russia.

As a thought experiment, imagine what it would look like if the CIA or some other agency wanted to advance US information interests by making the public distrustful of any people or information which go against US strategic objectives. Try to imagine some of the things they might say or do. 

Do you imagine it would look much different than what we’re seeing currently? Feeding trusted mainstream news reporters extremely vague stories about the Kremlin trying to deceive people into opposing the longstanding agendas of the US intelligence cartel, using online media and social subversion? Can you think of a more effective way to help shore up trust in your preferred narratives and sow distrust in narratives you do not prefer?

Here’s another one: imagine a state media outlet for a tyrannical dictatorship. Think about how its news stories are made, how it would often take orders from the government on what to report and what not to report, and how all its printing or broadcasting would always align with the information interests of that government.

Now ask yourself: in what material way is that reporting different from these CIA press releases we’re seeing from outlets like The New York Times and CNN? In both scenarios the government is feeding the media information it wants printed, and in both scenarios there will be consequences if the media don’t obey. In our hypothetical dictatorship those consequences might be more severe, but in our real life scenario the consequences are no less real. 

If Mr Barnes had refused to work on this story, he would have lost his “scoop” and it would have been given to someone else, perhaps at a competing outlet. If Barnes ceased uncritically reporting unevidenced assertions from anonymous government officials, his prominence in the mainstream media would quickly fizzle, and his career would dry up. If The New York Times ceased functioning as a reliable outlet for the credulous printing of unevidenced government claims, then the government agencies who’ve been elevating the paper to prominence with their artificial “scoops” can take those hot stories to another competing outlet and let them get the subscriptions and the glory.

In both scenarios, the government is able to get its propaganda messaging printed as hard news reporting. In one scenario the reporter reports what the government wants because they work for the government, in the other scenario the reporter reports what the government wants because that’s the only way to have a career in media outlets that are owned and controlled by the plutocrats who benefit from the political status quo the government is premised upon. The only major difference is that in our hypothetical dictatorship, the public probably knows it’s being fed propaganda, and is therefore more likely to take what they’re being told with a grain of salt.

In a tyrannical dictatorship, the press is operated by employees of the government. In a Free Democracy™️, the press is operated by employees of the oligarchs who operate the government. In both cases you’re getting state propaganda, but in one of them the propaganda is disguised as objective news reporting.

‘Al-Aqsa Storm’ Operation: Far-reaching Geopolitical Implications

Posted on by
Reply

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Source: GlobalResearch.ca

A major conflict is beginning in Palestine. On October 7, Hamas launched a military operation against the Israeli occupation forces. Using missiles, drones and paragliders, Palestinian soldiers managed to surprisingly attack Israeli troops and advance through occupied territory, liberating many areas. Tel Aviv responded with a declaration of war and several brutal attacks on civilian areas in Gaza, however, the Jewish State’s forces still appear unable to expel Palestinian soldiers from their occupied territory, with Hamas advancing rapidly.

In addition to territorial disputes, the attack seems to have direct religious reasons. Palestinians call the assault “Al-Aqsa Storm Operation“, referring to the famous Al-Aqsa Mosque, an important Islamic holy site. Jewish militants have frequently attacked the site and extremist religious groups have pressured the state to demolish the Mosque and build a Jewish temple in the region. The constant desecration of Al-Aqsa appears to have been a red line for Palestinian Muslims.

The surprise effect of the Hamas attack shocked Israeli authorities and Tel Aviv’s supporters around the world. Hamas’ ability to destroy the illegal siege imposed by Zionist forces was seen as a historic defeat for Israel. Furthermore, many experts are criticizing the intelligence capabilities of the Jewish State after the start of the battle, as the country’s spy forces were inefficient in predicting Palestinian moves and taking preventive measures against Hamas, which is a militia, not a regular national army, therefore having much more limited resources than Israeli Defense Forces.

Immediately after the start of hostilities, many videos and images began to be shared on social media showing the violence of the clashes. Many of these images are spread out of context, mainly by the Western pro-Zionist propaganda machine. Anti-Palestine activists accuse Hamas of murdering civilians, while anti-Zionists claim [erronously] that all those killed are military targets – even though some of them are unarmed. It is important to remember that in Israel military service is mandatory for almost all citizens (including women), with most of the Gaza borders’ settlers being actually military, even if they were eventually killed or captured while off duty.

Israel’s reactions were harsh. Netanyahu declared a state of war and ordered a series of bombings against the Gaza Strip.

Hundreds of Palestinian civilians died, non-military facilities were destroyed, and a severe blockade is being imposed on any type of food, energy or water supply. The retaliation, did not prevent Hamas’ advance into the occupation zone. There is still a strong presence of Palestinian troops and an absolute Israeli inability to expel them. Furthermore, thousands of Israeli citizens are leaving the country, creating an unprecedented crisis.

Around the world, reactions to the escalation were as expected. Most Arab and Islamic countries have expressed support for the Palestinian resistance, but without committing to direct military cooperation. The Collective West has voiced support for Israel, with the US, EU, UK and their allies harshly criticizing Hamas, which they consider a “terrorist group”. On the other hand, Russia and China called for an immediate ceasefire and emphasized the importance of recognizing a Palestinian State as an existential condition for peace in the Middle East.

Washington is moving significant extra military aid to Tel Aviv. The Jewish State already receives 3 billion dollars in military assistance annually from the US, but with the escalation of hostilities, the tendency is for this assistance to increase substantially. Obviously, this will have a severe impact on the proxy war against Russia, as it will be impossible for the US to continue backing two high-intensity conflicts at the same time. The pro-Israel agenda is unanimous among American politicians, bringing together Republicans and Democrats much more cohesively than Ukraine, which many conservative politicians dislike. So, it is most likely that Kiev will be progressively “abandoned” by Washington as the crisis in Palestine worsens.

However, it is unlikely that American aid will automatically be a “game-changer” for Israel. There will be many local reprisals as Iran will certainly exponentially boost its participation in the conflict and send weapons and irregular troops to help the Palestinians. Furthermore, Hezbollah from Lebanon and some Syrian military units are also on combat readiness and could openly enter the conflict if it escalates. Iran also controls Houthi dissidents in Yemen, who could also take part in hostilities. So, instead of an “easy” military effort, with systematic killing of civilians and territorial expansionism (as seen on other occasions), this time, Israel may be facing a serious security crisis, putting its very existence at risk.

To avoid this disastrous scenario, the right thing to do for Tel Aviv is to stop territorial expansionism and the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. The Jewish State needs to respect international law and start thinking seriously about returning its borders to the limits of the 1948 UN plan – with possible changes, as long as they are negotiated with the Arabs under mutually beneficial circumstances. Aggressive policies of apartheid and territorial annexation, as well as desecration of Islamic religious sites, will only result in more conflicts.

However, Tel Aviv seems not only committed to the most extreme wings of Zionism but also shows a willingness to act as an American proxy against Iran in the Middle East, which brings very negative expectations. If Israel chooses the path of war, it could become a “new Ukraine”.

Did Hamas Attack Civilians or Fanatical Zionist Settlers?

Posted on by
1

Israel’s fanatical settlers are responsible for countless attacks on Palestinian civilians.

By Kurt Nimmo

Source: Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics

Now that the USG will help Israeli with its long-anticipated attack on Iran—the Secretary of War, Lloyd Austin, has ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean—we can expect “Iraq has WMDs” style propaganda in surfeit.

For instance, the “influencer” Hananya Naftali. According to his website, “Hananya has been working for Prime Minister Netanyahu in his digital team for the past 5 years.” He also “served” in the IDF and “fought Hamas during the Gaza War in 2014.”

As an “influencer,” Mr. Naftali needs your attention, thus absurd hyperbole.

“More than 700 Israelis were murdered. So much blood of innocent civilians has been spilled. May God avenge their blood. #IsraelUnderAttack,” he tweeted.

The tweet included a graphic that declares, “More Jews were murdered on October 7th, 2023, than on any other single day since the Holocaust.”

Of course, there is no information beyond Israeli war propaganda to confirm or dispute this claim. It should be a given that a state preparing for war will manufacture outrageous propaganda to make its case, no matter how fallacious and untrue.

The settlements said to be targeted by Hamas include:

Kissufim. This is a kibbutz, part of the so-called Shalom bloc. It was established by a Zionist youth movement in 1951. It is a gateway to the Gush Katif collection of illegal Zionist settlements.

Nahal Oz. Originally a military base, this “settlement” was established by Israeli Nahal soldiers, as part of an effort to establish illegal Zionist settlements.

Re’im. This settlement was established in 1949 by the Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation, part of the Palmach (Pelugot Hamahatz), a terrorist organization aligned with the Irgun, the Lehi, and the Haganah, all perpetrators of Zionist violence and terror. Irgun was run by Revisionist Zionism founder Ze’ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini and fascism.

Sderot. The Palestinian village of Najd was wiped off the map to make way for this city of Zionist colonialists. More than 30,000 Israelis live there.

In addition, several other kibbutzim and settlements established on ethnically cleansed Palestinian land were overtaken by Hamas.

In the tidal wave of pro-Israel news following the Hamas “invasion,” there is virtually no mention of the fact these settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a long list of United Nations resolutions.

Israel’s fanatical settlers are responsible for countless attacks against Palestinian civilians. The violence is especially acute in the West Bank.

In 2021, Michael Lynk, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, said that settler violence was “ideologically motivated and primarily designed to take over land but also to intimidate and terrorize Palestinians.”

In Jerusalem, under orders of an ultra-nationalistic Israeli government, numerous Palestinian homes have been demolished to make way for settlers. The Netanyahu regime declared illegal West Bank settlements are a “top priority.”

In other words, Hamas was “invading” illegal settlements where armed settlers live and enjoy impunity from prosecution for crimes of violence against Palestinians. This has been Israeli policy, under Labor and Likud regimes, for some time.

But if you watch or read war propaganda news, you are told Hamas are “animals” killing and terrorizing innocent Israeli citizens. The fact of the matter is, right or wrong (and violence against unarmed civilians is always wrong), Hamas was in effect attacking armed vigilantes condoned and supported by the Israeli government.

Fauci and the Hagiographical Style of American Journalism

Posted on by
Reply

By Justin Hart

Source: Brownstone Institute

Norah O’Donnell has known Dr. Fauci and his wife for ages: “How are you guys?” she starts her interview with Dr. Fauci for InStyle Magazine where Fauci posed for the most hubris-exuding photo of the pandemic.

“With all due modesty, I think I’m pretty effective!” – Dr. Anthony Fauci, July 2020, InStyle Magazine

This was 3 years ago this past week:

Norah’s husband, Chef Geoff, owns the Georgetown restaurant, “Deluxe Hospitality” She admits in her opening that Dr. Fauci and his wife, the bioethicist, Dr. Christine Grady, are frequent patrons there.

“… these days mostly for takeout.” O’Donnell chuckles.

Revisiting this horrible puff piece you can’t help but see the obtuseness of the leader of the pandemic policy in stark relief.

First, as always, the man is incapable of actual reflection:

NO: What have we done wrong?

A F: You know, that’s almost an unanswerable question. There are so many possibilities. I don’t like to phrase it in the context of what we’ve done wrong, as opposed to let’s take a look at what happened and maybe we can have lessons learned.

Showing once again that Dr. Fauci (in July 2020) believed that we did NOT lock down hard enough:

If you look at the European countries, they shut down about 90 to 95 percent of the country. Whereas when we shut down, the calculation is that we shut down about 50 percent. So, put all of those factors together, I can’t say we did anything wrong, you know, but certainly we’ve got to do better.

Lambasting any move to “re-open” he continues: “What we need to do now is to learn the lesson of what happened with the recent surges. We’ve got to pause in the opening and maybe even take a step back in our phases…”

Pushing masks was a high priority for the man who months earlier admitted in an email that they don’t really do anything:

As we try to proceed, we need to really take seriously the issue of wearing masks all the time and not congregating in bars. I think we can stop that by just closing them, because they are certainly an important mechanism of this spread. Keep distances, wash hands, avoid crowds, wear a mask … I think if we diligently do those things, we can turn this around.

Norah asks him about the “noble lie” he told around masks (which is just ridiculous parsing):

NO: It’s been recently reminded to us by the White House that you advised against people wearing masks in public, and, of course, that was due to the surge because the concern was about saving PPEs for medical professionals. Do you regret that comment?

A F: No. I don’t regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct.

I’m always struck as to the casual and flippant manner in which Dr. Fauci proscribed the policies. Here he is continuing to defend his noble lie and pushing masks with assertions that STILL have no science behind them – in fact, quite the opposite.

And also, it soon became clear that we had enough protective equipment and that cloth masks and homemade masks were as good as masks that you would buy from surgical supply stores.

The plan to vaccinate millions was already in place as this comments affirms:

By the beginning of the year we should have the first tens of millions and then hundreds of millions of doses. That being the case, I would think we could vaccinate a substantial portion of the population as we get into 2021 — if the vaccine is safe and effective.

The the hubris really kicks in:

NO: And how long do you see yourself at the NIAID?

A F: I don’t see any termination within the near future because I judge [my career] by my energy and my effectiveness. And right now, with all due modesty, I think I’m pretty effective.

Norah turns to Mrs. Fauci (Dr. Grady):

NO: Let me ask you, Chris, as a bioethicist, what do you make of this moment we’re in, when even a mask has become more of a divisive issue?

CG: Well, I would say that masks shouldn’t be divisive. It’s a relatively easy way to protect one’s self and others. And so for public health reasons, I think everybody should do it. From an ethical perspective there is always this tension between what you ask people to do that feels like a restriction of their liberty and what is required for public health. And in this case, it seems like a slam dunk. It’s not restricting liberty much, and it’s very helpful for public health.

She goes on to lament how “unfair” it all seems to her:

when he gets criticized, it feels unfair to me because he is working so hard for the right reasons.

NO: What feels unfair?

CG: That people are looking for things to criticize — I mean, for anything. They are making things up. They are not putting into perspective the contribution that he is making.

A curious aside, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Grady’s first encounter began with a lie – seems kind of appropriate if you’ll forgive my commentary on that.

CG: [laughs] I had just come back from spending two years with Project Hope in Brazil and came to work at the NIH. There was a patient, Pedro, on the unit at the time who was Brazilian and didn’t speak English. One day he asked me if I could speak to his doctors about sending him home because he really wanted to go home. So I set up a meeting with the fellows who were taking care of him and Tony, who was the attending physician. I had not met Tony before that. I was the interpreter. And Tony told him, “He may go home and be very careful about taking care of his health and doing his dressings and sitting with his leg up and things like that.” And when I told him that, Pedro said, “There’s no way I’m doing that. I’ve been in the hospital for months. I’m going to the beach, and I’m going dancing at night.” And I sort of in a split second decided to tell Tony, “He said he’d do exactly what you said.”

AF: She lied! [laughs]

CG: I lied! So the next day I was walking down the hall, and Dr. Fauci came by and said, “Can I see you in my office at the end of the day?” I thought I was going to get fired. But he asked me out to dinner. [laughs]

The entire hagiographical interview in hindsight is a classic look at the elitist bubble around the people in Washington, D.C. during the pandemic. Dr. Fauci’s contribution to history will not be seen in a kind light.

Silencing Voices for Peace

Posted on by
1

By W.J. Astore

Source: Bracing Views

The U.S. Mainstream Media Is Almost Always Pro-War

In the “liberal” New York Times today, I saw an article on “Putin’s forever war” that has the following short synopsis: “Vladimir Putin wants to lead Russians into a civilizational conflict with the West far larger than Ukraine. Will they follow him?”

Is this true?  Does Putin truly seek a “civilizational conflict” with the West?  One that’s “far larger” than the Ukraine war?  It doesn’t seem likely.  Russian forces have struggled in Ukraine.  Already embroiled in a destructive regional war that’s become somewhat of a quagmire, why would Putin seek to widen it?  Is Putin always the aggressor, the bad guy, and the West always the aggrieved party, the good guys, holding back a “red storm rising”?  I thought the West won the Cold War more than 30 years ago.

It’s remarkable how easy it is to get alarmist articles about Russia or China published in the U.S. mainstream media (MSM).  Wars and rumors of war dominate.  The West is always portrayed as the defender of democracy; other countries such as China and Russia are portrayed as threats to civilization and its “rules-based order.”  Strictly speaking, this is simplistic, one-sided, propaganda.

Back in 2017, I wrote about how difficult it is in the MSM to read honest accounts of war.  In the runup to the Iraq War in 2003, critical voices were actively suppressed and punished.  Back then, I focused my article on MSNBC, which like the New York Times is allegedly “liberal.”  At “liberal” newspapers and networks, shouldn’t America expect at least a few critical critiques of war narratives?  The answer here is “no,” as I wrote here:

Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota (1999-2003), was a hot media commodity as the Bush/Cheney administration was preparing for its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ventura, a U.S. Navy veteran who gained notoriety as a professional wrestler before he entered politics, was both popular and outspoken. MSNBC won the bidding war for his services in 2003, signing him to a lucrative three-year contract to create his own show – until, that is, the network learned he was against the Iraq war. Ventura’s show quickly went away, even as the network paid him for three years to do nothing.

I heard this revealing story from a new podcast, the TARFU Report, hosted by Matt Taibbi and Alex Pareene. By his own account, Jesse Ventura was bought off by the network, which back then was owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor that was due to make billions of dollars off the war.

Of course, Ventura was hardly the only war critic to run afoul of GE/NBC. Phil Donahue, the famous talk show host, saw his highly rated show cancelled when he gave dissenters and anti-war voices a fair hearing. Ashleigh Banfield, a reporter who covered the Iraq war, gave a speech in late April 2003 that criticized the antiseptic coverage of the war (extracts to follow below). For her perceptiveness and her honesty, she was reassigned and marginalized, demoted and silenced.

So much for freedom of speech, as well as the press.

As Phil Donahue said, his show “wasn’t good for business.” NBC didn’t want to lose ratings by being associated with “unpatriotic” elements when the other networks were waving the flag in support of the Iraq war. In sidelining Ventura and Donahue, NBC acted to squelch any serious dissent from the push for war, and punished Ashleigh Banfield in the immediate aftermath of the war for her honesty in criticizing the coverage shown (and constructed) by the mainstream media, coverage that was facilitated by the U.S. military and rubber-stamped by corporate ownership.

Speaking of Banfield’s critique, here are some excerpts from her speech on Iraq war coverage in April 2003. Note that her critique remains telling for all U.S. media war coverage since then:

That said, what didn’t you see [in U.S. media coverage of the Iraq war]? You didn’t see where those bullets landed. You didn’t see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you’re getting the story, it just means you’re getting one more arm or leg of the story. And that’s what we got, and it was a glorious, wonderful picture that had a lot of people watching and a lot of advertisers excited about cable news. But it wasn’t journalism, because I’m not so sure that we in America are hesitant to do this again, to fight another war, because it looked like a glorious and courageous and so successful terrific endeavor, and we got rid of a horrible leader: We got rid of a dictator, we got rid of a monster, but we didn’t see what it took to do that.

With admirable honesty, Banfield spoke of the horrific face of war at Kansas State Univ. in 2003. Soon after her speech, she was demoted (Image courtesy of KSU)

I can’t tell you how bad the civilian casualties were. I saw a couple of pictures. I saw French television pictures, I saw a few things here and there, but to truly understand what war is all about you’ve got to be on both sides…

Some of the soldiers, according to our embeds had never seen a dead body throughout the entire three-week campaign. It was like Game Boy. I think that’s amazing in two different ways. It makes you a far more successful warrior because you can just barrel right along but it takes away a lot of what war is all about, which is what I mentioned earlier. The TV technology took that away too. We couldn’t see where the bullets landed. Nobody could see the horrors of this so that we seriously revisit the concept of warfare the next time we have to deal with it.

I think there were a lot of dissenting voices before this war about the horrors of war, but I’m very concerned about this three-week TV show and how it may have changed people’s opinions. It was very sanitized.

This TV show [Iraq invasion coverage] that we just gave you was extraordinarily entertaining, and I really hope that the legacy that it leaves behind is not one that shows war as glorious, because there’s nothing more dangerous than a democracy that thinks this is a glorious thing to do.

War is ugly and it’s dangerous, and in this world the way we are discussed on the Arab street, it feeds and fuels their hatred and their desire to kill themselves to take out Americans. It’s a dangerous thing to propagate…

I’m hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.

Nothing has changed since Banfield’s powerful critique. Indeed, the networks have only hired more retired generals and admirals to give “unbiased” coverage of America’s military actions. And reporters and “journalists” like Brian Williams have learned too. Recall how Williams cheered the “beautiful” U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles as they were launched against Syria earlier this year [2017].

It’s not just that U.S. media coverage actively suppresses dissent of America’s wars: it passively does so as well, which is arguably more insidious. Any young journalist with smarts recognizes the way to get ahead is to be a cheerleader for U.S. military action, a stenographer to the powerful. Being a critic leads to getting fired (like Donahue); demoted and exiled (like Banfield); and, in Ventura’s case, if you can’t be fired or demoted or otherwise punished, you can simply be denied air time.

When you consider that billions and billions of dollars are at stake, whether in weapons sales or in advertising revenue tied to ratings, none of this is that surprising. What’s surprising is that so few Americans know about how pro-authority and uncritical U.S. media coverage of war and its makers is. If anything, the narrative is often that the U.S. media is too critical of the military to the detriment of the generals. Talk about false narratives and alternative facts!

America’s greed-wars persist for many reasons, but certainly a big one is the lack of critical voices in the mainstream media. Today’s journalists, thinking about their career prospects and their salaries (and who is ultimately their boss at corporate HQ), learn to censor themselves, assuming they have any radical thoughts to begin with. Some, like Brian Williams, even learn how to stop worrying and love the beautiful bombs.

[After I wrote this in 2017, I added this comment at the site.]

One thing that troubles me is the mindset that criticism of America’s wars undermines the troops. That it could even be a form of betrayal. This mindset is very dangerous. It not only protects the decisions and actions of those at the highest levels of the military and government. It acts to prolong wars and to endanger the lives of the troops (and of their “enemies” as well).

During the Iraq war, I recall instances of U.S. troops speaking clearly and frankly against the war. Their voices were heard, yet their advice was not taken. Instead, generals like David Petraeus were trotted out to assure the American people that the war was being won, even if the gains were characterized by weasel words like “fragile” and “reversible.” And so those gains have proved — even so, Petraeus remains in demand, and is still trotted out, now in mufti, to explain how we must stay the course and continue to defer to the military.

There’s a powerful book to be written here, and it should focus in part on the silencing or marginalization of anti-war voices (even those that wear or wore the uniform), even as pro-war elements are given the main stage as the voices of probity and sanity.