Friday, December 16, 2016

James Carden — Why Are the Media Taking the CIA’s Hacking Claims at Face Value?


Because the media is the tank for the Establishment. This is what the right has been saying for a long time and it was a key piece of Donald Trump's campaign.
In 1977, Carl Bernstein published an exposé of a CIA program known as Operation Mockingbird, a covert program involving, according to Bernstein, “more than 400 American journalists who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” Bernstein found that in “many instances” CIA documents revealed that “journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”
Fast-forward to December 2016, and one can see that there isn’t much need for a covert government program these days. The recent raft of unverified, anonymously sourced and circumstantial stories alleging that the Russian government interfered in the US presidential election with the aim of electing Republican Donald J. Trump shows that today too much of the media is all too happy to do overtly what the CIA had it once paid it to do covertly: regurgitate the claims of the spy agency and attack the credibility of those who question it....
Given the historical evidence Carden presents, the balance of the evidence suggests that this brouhaha over "Russian election hacking" may be a false flag operation aimed at domestic regime change through a soft coup.

Yes, I know, the very idea smacks of conspiracy theory, and that is one of the features of a Big Lie. In fact, the classic Big Lie depends on this.

The role of a free press is to act as devil's advocate rather than cheerleader for the Establishment view. Good that The Nation is doing so. It is almost alone in the US liberal media in this. The rest — pundits included — are acting like clowns.

If this were not happening so soon after the Iraq debacle, in which the intelligence services supported the manufacture narrative of Saddam's WMD and the threat of mushroom-shaped clouds, it might be excusable. Now it is not. The government should not be given the benefit of the doubt, anymore than Wall street financially after the crime spree that lead to the Global Financial Crisis.

These people are not only unqualified for the roles they play but also have shown themselves to be untrustworthy by the public they serve and the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and protect.

The Nation
Why Are the Media Taking the CIA’s Hacking Claims at Face Value?
James Carden, contributing writer at The Nation and the executive editor for the American Committee for East-West Accord

6 comments:

DAB said...

I'm happy to be sceptical about anything but the CIA is just one of 17, right? And the FBI agrees with all of them as well. It is the "intent" part that is in question, and of course, it would be unless you were in the room with them.

DAB said...

"skeptical"

Well, I guess the FBI is agreeing to intent now... whatever.

Tom Hickey said...

James Clapper, the guy that lied under oath to Congress, and James Comey, the guy that the Dems says threw the election to Trump, "reportedly" agree. The guy reporting it is Brennan, the head of the CIA.

Still all inference and zero evidence provided.

The Kremlin denies, saying, "Show us the evidence."

Assange says the material he received did not come from Russia.

What is the criterion for judging among these competing claims other than confirmation bias?

David Swan said...

Assange says "okay, maybe Russia." There are no longer any competing claims, other than the blogs that are all authorities in these matters now. Whatever you are hoping to achieve by whipping up a frenzy of over-hyped skepticism, it is a lost cause. Move on.

Tom Hickey said...

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange insisted that the hacked emails from the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta did not come to his organization through Russian state actors. But, when it came to the documents sent to reporters at Gawker and The Hill, he couldn’t be so sure.

"Our source is not the Russian government," Assange told Sean Hannity on his radio program Thursday.

"So in other words, let me be clear," Hannity asked, "Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"

"That's correct," Assange responded.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange insisted that the hacked emails from the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta did not come to his organization through Russian state actors. But, when it came to the documents sent to reporters at Gawker and The Hill, he couldn’t be so sure.

"Our source is not the Russian government," Assange told Sean Hannity on his radio program Thursday.

"So in other words, let me be clear," Hannity asked, "Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"

"That's correct," Assange responded.



Assange: Some Leaks May Have Come From Russia, But WikiLeaks' Source Did Not

DAB said...


Hello, WikiLeaks?

Yes

This is not the Russian Government. I am a fat 18-year-old in my mother's basement. I have some stuff for you.

Oh, thank you.

Later: Assange responded, "No, they said they were most definitely not connected to the Russian government..."