Luckbox vs. The Media
I’m honestly not sure whether you are serious or what you’re trying to say with the edit. Are you saying that Joe Rogan is the same caliber interviewer for political or policy topics as Matt Yglesias?
I don't really think Yglesias does much interviewing actually. He'll occasionally interview someone on The Weeds, but it is usually just Vox staff talking about politics and policy. Ezra Klein's podcast is more interview-oriented. I'd describe Matthew Yglesias as a political analyst and commentator.
Guess its not clear it wasn't a real suggestion with all the wackiness so far.
I don't really think Yglesias does much interviewing actually. He'll occasionally interview someone on The Weeds, but it is usually just Vox staff talking about politics and policy. Ezra Klein's podcast is more interview-oriented. I'd describe Matthew Yglesias as a political analyst and commentator.
I don't agree with this claim. There are too many outlets now that are willing to print something even if the more traditional ones won't. And social media is too powerful now for the traditional media to easily ignore things just because they are controversial. No doubt it's true that many secrets are still hidden, but lot's of very controversial stuff goes to print.
Meh. Reporting in a purely objective manner is not possible. Instead, we should be looking for journalism that is fact-based, open-minded, and can report on stories that go against their editorial stance. It is still the case that traditional newspapers are the best source for this kind of reporting that is publicly available.
And there are plenty of small independent local papers. I know a girl who is an editor for one. She definitely isn't a "controlled" person. From what I understand they were blackballed by the governor after a critical story--so they will go after politicians. But it seems like papers are concerned about maintaining their access and this is why cops accused of crimes are usually treated with kid gloves by local press.
Okay. We should always try to stay skeptical and independent-minded of what powerful people say is true when it benefits them. But we also shouldn't adopt ideologies that make it very difficult for us to learn what is true.
What you're asking for is a fantasy. There are no papers currently known for speaking truth to power. The Guardian had a reputation for that but that is a tough sell now. You had San Jose Mercury News in the 90s with their stories about CIA/cocaine smuggling. Possibly you have some current examples and I do also want to get to the Russian part of your post, although I don't consider that qualifying.
And there are plenty of small independent local papers. I know a girl who is an editor for one. She definitely isn't a "controlled" person. From what I understand they were blackballed by the governor after a critical story--so they will go after politicians. But it seems like papers are concerned about maintaining their access and this is why cops accused of crimes are usually treated with kid gloves by local press.
The bolded is a bit of a strawman. The argument isn't that you can never trust media or that it is difficult to learn truth. It is more like the media shouldn't be seen as the arbiters of it. It is also a rather normative position to take on something that should be more evidence based. If you know you've been fed a pile of manure you can't just keep eating because you don't know where else to find food.
The bolded is a bit of a strawman. The argument isn't that you can never trust media or that it is difficult to learn truth. It is more like the media shouldn't be seen as the arbiters of it. It is also a rather normative position to take on something that should be more evidence based. If you know you've been fed a pile of manure you can't just keep eating because you don't know where else to find food.
Five is quite a lot, so there is that.
I don't want to strawman you, so perhaps you could tell me how you gain information about current events. I'll agree with you that we should always be aware of the perspective of the news sources we rely on. The main claim that I would put forward is that reporting in good newspapers - eg Financial Times, Guardian, WaPo, Economist - are our most reliable source for news about current events around the world. This of course is not to say that they aren't sometimes wrong or don't have a POV, just that they are more likely to give us good information than any other source publicly available. I wouldn't say that they are arbiters of truth, but I would say that their reporting provide good prima facie reason to accept a claim as true.
My main claim isn't that the media is constantly lying, but more that they seek to guide and control the narrative and are generally obsequious to the state. Sometimes this will involve outright getting a story wrong, and other times it can be an issue of framing.
Staying informed on current events or thinking that if only get your news from the most objective sources (while still understanding that is impossible, etc etc) will only get you so far. Narrative > Facts and the media is in the narrative business not the fact business (imo). Yes the two are obviously related, but it's for this reason that I don't think you should separate out opinion makers vs real journalists vs cable news--at least not if you are aiming for a critique of the media or looking for an overarching view of them. They are all different branches of the same system and I don't think the dividing lines between them are as sharp as you perhaps think.
Really? I look around and see many large national papers that compete against each other. I also see many partisan websites and magazines that do reporting on government scandals. There are lots of blogs, radio and tv shows, YT channels, and social media accounts that are willing to publish scandalous material.
Yes, I'd appreciate a response to the Russian part - that is the most concrete area where we've disagreed so far. As for speaking truth to power - I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it seems to me that there have been many stories that are heavily critical of Trump, the Trump administration, and the policies of the Trump administration. Can you be more specific about what you mean here? Stories specifically about the intelligence services? Because right now the FBI is being investigated specifically for interference in the 2016 campaign.
But as I said in my other post--the relationship between media and government is more like hand to mouth. The media too often relies on the government and on "sources" for information then adopts an obsequious stance towards them. Even in whatever stories you are referring to about the FBI--those likely involve anonymous sources and can be seen more as government infighting (or perhaps theater there too) then the press actually out breaking stories involving bad actors. So when I say "truth to power" I mean more taking a position that is critical of the government and it's actions and trying to take a bigger picture view. The Guardian had a reputation for that 10+ years ago and the joke was if you wanted to know what was going on in the US you had to read a British paper.
Perhaps you mean internationally? I would say that much of the reporting I've read on eg Iran has been skeptical of US claims that it is breaking the nuclear agreement it signed with the US (even though the US has itself broken it) or of Bolton's recent claims about its threatening posture towards the US.
In general though I would say that with foriegn policy that the press is generally very weak when it comes to challenging government and that this is where you can start to view them more as a propaganda arm than as anything resembling journalism.
*and Taibbi is an interesting figure and I used to consider him the absolute worst kind of propagandist (and he still might be) because he would give 95% great truth and then the other 5% would be steaming bull****, and there are things he wrote for the The Nation 10+ years ago that I'm not inclined to forgive him for, but he has done a decent job of being critical of stuff related to Mueller/Russia.
Lockbox,
I have said this before but I think where I diverge with you is you attribute conscious, deliberate agency by human actors; where I believe the forces you are talking about are memes that have taken a life of their own, and have outgrown human control.
The media and Trump aren’t playing us. They are both slaves of the same memes which have become “living” entities in themselves, that propagate for their own purposes.
I have said this before but I think where I diverge with you is you attribute conscious, deliberate agency by human actors; where I believe the forces you are talking about are memes that have taken a life of their own, and have outgrown human control.
The media and Trump aren’t playing us. They are both slaves of the same memes which have become “living” entities in themselves, that propagate for their own purposes.
I think when it comes to public opinion the distinction between straight news and opinion gets lost really quickly if it was ever there originally. But I don't think either come away unscathed. The opinion makers--people like Maddow who devoted months of her show (from what I understand) to sensalationaling every aspect of the story obviously come off the worst, but I'm referring overall to mainstream media and in particular outlets like msnbc, cnn, Wapo, NYT, and a whole host of other print outlets.
I would need to read the report to know what the findings were in regards to Russian interference, but I'm deeply skeptical of the narrative that "guccifer" hacked the DNC and it will be interesting to see what happens with Assange now--but beyond that I know Mueller indicted the Russian troll farm which spent a paltry sum of money on stuff like Black Lives Matter ads that hardly lived up to expectations. So I'm referring more to the disconnect between rhetoric and reality that led people to believe that Mueller was going to be the downfall of Trump that was in large part fueled by msm speculation, lies, and sensationalism. I'm sure for those who are fans of those media outlets the Russia story won't be enough to convince them of much but from the outside it looks bad.
Curious as to why you believe this. Could you post some evidence to the contrary?
Article here . I just read this now and this is a 2017 article so there are probably more recent ones. It's not something I have looked at much. I also just looked at the Mueller report and a lot of the pertinent technical information is redacted (around p.40) with some still to ongoing investigations. But Binny's argument is that the NSA would have captured everything and that that information isn't being presented. Again though that is an old article but the Mueller report is referencing stuff like information being transfered to a computer inside in the US and with the amount of redactions it is hard to know what is going on.
Luckbox,
I have said this before but I think where I diverge with you is you attribute conscious, deliberate agency by human actors; where I believe the forces you are talking about are memes that have taken a life of their own, and have outgrown human control.
The media and Trump aren’t playing us. They are both slaves of the same memes which have become “living” entities in themselves, that propagate for their own purposes.
I have said this before but I think where I diverge with you is you attribute conscious, deliberate agency by human actors; where I believe the forces you are talking about are memes that have taken a life of their own, and have outgrown human control.
The media and Trump aren’t playing us. They are both slaves of the same memes which have become “living” entities in themselves, that propagate for their own purposes.
As far as forces in general or ideas as forces vs individuals--I think that is a always a classic debate and a matter of perspective usually. Although in this specific case I disagree.
I think the approach to this thing whole thing has to be through the relationship between the media and the two party system and a better thread title would be something like "Trump, the Media, and the Two-party System", because it is they nexus that I'm trying to get at more than anything. And as long as I'm dealing with mostly partisans that isn't an easy task. I.e, you can't see the artificial nature of media until you see the artificial nature of the political process first.*
I assume that you agree that polarization has increased with Trump but why do you think that is happening? Do you perceive the media as more biased against Trump than with any recent presidents and if so what do you think is driving that? Thoughts on whether the Russia investigation was a Mueller/media witch hunt?
*this message sponsored by Republican billionaires.
Meme theory is interesting but I always thought the idea was that memes are units of information that spread because they served a function and were good at encapsulating ideas. I'm not sure how that could apply to the relationship between Trump and the media.
As far as forces in general or ideas as forces vs individuals--I think that is a always a classic debate and a matter of perspective usually. Although in this specific case I disagree.
I think the approach to this thing whole thing has to be through the relationship between the media and the two party system and a better thread title would be something like "Trump, the Media, and the Two-party System", because it is they nexus that I'm trying to get at more than anything. And as long as I'm dealing with mostly partisans that isn't an easy task. I.e, you can't see the artificial nature of media until you see the artificial nature of the political process first.*
I assume that you agree that polarization has increased with Trump but why do you think that is happening? Do you perceive the media as more biased against Trump than with any recent presidents and if so what do you think is driving that? Thoughts on whether the Russia investigation was a Mueller/media witch hunt?
*this message sponsored by Republican billionaires.
As far as forces in general or ideas as forces vs individuals--I think that is a always a classic debate and a matter of perspective usually. Although in this specific case I disagree.
I think the approach to this thing whole thing has to be through the relationship between the media and the two party system and a better thread title would be something like "Trump, the Media, and the Two-party System", because it is they nexus that I'm trying to get at more than anything. And as long as I'm dealing with mostly partisans that isn't an easy task. I.e, you can't see the artificial nature of media until you see the artificial nature of the political process first.*
I assume that you agree that polarization has increased with Trump but why do you think that is happening? Do you perceive the media as more biased against Trump than with any recent presidents and if so what do you think is driving that? Thoughts on whether the Russia investigation was a Mueller/media witch hunt?
*this message sponsored by Republican billionaires.
Eric Weinsten had a pretty good take on this in one of his podcasts. And his take is that the main problem is technology has put a tremendous stress on the media as far as finding a way to make a profit, and a lot of the problems we see are a result of this. He postulated that if every journalists salary doubled from what it currently is, and traditional media like newspapers/news shows/magazines had models to achieve the profitability they once did, a lot of the problems would be eased.
I should point out that I believe Trump himself is a complete wildcard, and does not follow the laws of rationale actors due to his narcissistic pathology disorder. Shandrax tried to argue this unpredictability is a good things, as it makes Trump harder to manipulate. But I think history will show, that the variance he creates will have been a negative thing in the end, as most variance is.
And I do believe the meme of capitalism is the engine fueling this crazy train we are all on, with a momentum that transcends the individual actors operating within it.
Hate Inc
Another Matt Taibbi article and this one is pretty relevant for this thread. Like I said, I consider Matt Taibbi the worst sort of propagandist but this one is worth a read. Taibbi talks about his coming of age in journalism:
Now if Matt Taibbi is the worst sort of propagandist them Noam Chomsky is the 2nd worst. I've never read Manufacturing Consent but it sounds like I don't need to. In a throwaway comment Taibbi says that it was written as in "insider's guide" which I can believe.
Here is what Taibbi has to say about it:
Sounds familiar enough. Taibbi goes on to talk about how Fox News shifted the things from being a tone-neutral (he is careful not to say objective) to more slanted and the resulting polarization that occurred.
Above is the section relevant to my discussion with Original Position that perhaps also represents just exactly why Matt Taibbi is the worst sort of propagandist, because he comes really close to explaining a lot and then leaves it all up to processes and forces. Perhaps he is getting there and isn't quite ready to dive into the weeds, but the press is required to lie and repeat lies.
Again I have lots of issues with Taibbi but this should be some good food for thought for people who think these sorts of ideas are a result of my defective brain.
Another Matt Taibbi article and this one is pretty relevant for this thread. Like I said, I consider Matt Taibbi the worst sort of propagandist but this one is worth a read. Taibbi talks about his coming of age in journalism:
My father taught me that reporting is not just about talking, but being willing to be surprised by what people say.
I thought I understood this and many other things about the journalism business at a young age. I even knew everything that “off the record” entails – really knew, as if it were religious tenet – before I hit junior high. I thought I was an expert.
Then I read Manufacturing Consent.
The book came out in 1988 and I read it a year later, when I was nineteen. It blew my mind... Manufacturing Consent taught me that some level of deception was baked into almost everything I’d ever been taught about modern American life.
I thought I understood this and many other things about the journalism business at a young age. I even knew everything that “off the record” entails – really knew, as if it were religious tenet – before I hit junior high. I thought I was an expert.
Then I read Manufacturing Consent.
The book came out in 1988 and I read it a year later, when I was nineteen. It blew my mind... Manufacturing Consent taught me that some level of deception was baked into almost everything I’d ever been taught about modern American life.
Here is what Taibbi has to say about it:
The ideas in it radiated defiance. Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their famed propaganda model, they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz saw.
The book’s central idea was that censorship in the United States was not overt, but covert. The stage-managing of public opinion was “normally not accomplished by crude intervention” but by the keeping of “dissent and inconvenient information” outside permitted mental parameters: “within bounds and at the margins.”
The key to this deception is that Americans, every day, see vigorous debate going on in the press. This deceives them into thinking propaganda is absent. Manufacturing Consent explains that the debate you’re watching is choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it.
The book’s central idea was that censorship in the United States was not overt, but covert. The stage-managing of public opinion was “normally not accomplished by crude intervention” but by the keeping of “dissent and inconvenient information” outside permitted mental parameters: “within bounds and at the margins.”
The key to this deception is that Americans, every day, see vigorous debate going on in the press. This deceives them into thinking propaganda is absent. Manufacturing Consent explains that the debate you’re watching is choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it.
People who came away from Manufacturing Consent with the idea that the media peddles lies misread the book. Papers like the New York Times, for the most part, do not traffic in outright deceptions.
The overwhelming majority of commercial news reporting is factual (with one conspicuous exception I’ll get into later on), and the individual reporters who work in the business tend to be quite stubborn in their adherence to fact as a matter of principle.
People should trust reporters. It’s the context in which they’re operating that’s problematic. Now more than ever, most journalists work for giant nihilistic corporations whose editorial decisions are skewed by a toxic mix of political and financial considerations. Unless you understand how those pressures work, it’s very difficult for a casual news consumer to gain an accurate picture of the world.
This book is intended as an insider’s guide to those distortions.
The overwhelming majority of commercial news reporting is factual (with one conspicuous exception I’ll get into later on), and the individual reporters who work in the business tend to be quite stubborn in their adherence to fact as a matter of principle.
People should trust reporters. It’s the context in which they’re operating that’s problematic. Now more than ever, most journalists work for giant nihilistic corporations whose editorial decisions are skewed by a toxic mix of political and financial considerations. Unless you understand how those pressures work, it’s very difficult for a casual news consumer to gain an accurate picture of the world.
This book is intended as an insider’s guide to those distortions.
As it turns out, there is a utility in keeping us divided. As people, the more separate we are, the more politically impotent we become.
This is the second stage of the mass media deception originally described in Manufacturing Consent.
First, we’re taught to stay within certain bounds, intellectually. Then, we’re all herded into separate demographic pens, located along different patches of real estate on the spectrum of permissible thought.
Once safely captured, we’re trained to consume the news the way sports fans do. We root for our team, and hate all the rest.
Hatred is the partner of ignorance, and we in the media have become experts in selling both.
We manufactured fake dissent, to prevent real dissent.
This is the second stage of the mass media deception originally described in Manufacturing Consent.
First, we’re taught to stay within certain bounds, intellectually. Then, we’re all herded into separate demographic pens, located along different patches of real estate on the spectrum of permissible thought.
Once safely captured, we’re trained to consume the news the way sports fans do. We root for our team, and hate all the rest.
Hatred is the partner of ignorance, and we in the media have become experts in selling both.
We manufactured fake dissent, to prevent real dissent.
Ok. I read all those sections and agree with a lot of it. But when do we get to the evidence of deliberate conspiracy?
This sort of feels like the Mueller report, where we just keep waiting and waiting for the smoking gun, and it just isn't there.
This sort of feels like the Mueller report, where we just keep waiting and waiting for the smoking gun, and it just isn't there.
Eric Weinsten had a pretty good take on this in one of his podcasts. And his take is that the main problem is technology has put a tremendous stress on the media as far as finding a way to make a profit, and a lot of the problems we see are a result of this. He postulated that if every journalists salary doubled from what it currently is, and traditional media like newspapers/news shows/magazines had models to achieve the profitability they once did, a lot of the problems would be eased.
And I do believe the meme of capitalism is the engine fueling this crazy train we are all on, with a momentum that transcends the individual actors operating within it.
This doesn't sound like a very well thought out theory. Media companies (again there are 5 that cover 90% of the US market) are multi billion dollar companies. They don't generate their income because their journalists feel like they need to work twice as hard to get by. Weinstein is one of the IDW I know little about but I was reading about his brother and the evergreen thing earlier. But I can see why he might be a member if this is his media critique.
It's definitely a big part. (Still not a meme)
It's definitely a big part. (Still not a meme)
What is your take on Brett Weinstein if you don't mind me asking? Just because I am curious. I am going to bed now so no hurry. Just whenever you get around to it.
Weinstein himself I don't really have one. I think he knew what he was doing when he appeared on Tucker and his colleagues had a right to be mad at him for that but that he wanted out. I think his reaction to being asked to not go to campus that day is fine. Interesting story though.
Weinstein himself I don't really have one. I think he knew what he was doing when he appeared on Tucker and his colleagues had a right to be mad at him for that but that he wanted out. I think his reaction to being asked to not go to campus that day is fine. Interesting story though.
Think about it for a second. There was a riot on a college campus and a professor (and the campus police force) got run off and no one knew about it until the Tucker interview much later. Talk about the MSM suppressing a story for (IMO) ideological reasons.
Here is the article you're looking for: Why the DNC was not hacked by the Russians.
And further they're only speculating about this because the actual part of the report listing how Mueller knows it was Guccifer is redacted.
And that's before even pointing out that the two authors are regular Infowars and RT contributors that literally nobody takes seriously. Except you, for some reason. Which I suppose is because they say the things you want to hear.
I agree that the FAT stuff is the weakest part of their case and they acknlowdge that, but there are other arguments made as well--like how the NSA will only give the assessment that Russia hacked the DNC 'moderate confidence' and then the argument about file-transfer rates. The argument that the NSA would have the exact trace-route information seems strong.
But you are correct about people believing what they want to believe.
But as far as whether the authors have credibility--Binny was the former technical director of the NSA and I haven't seen that challenged anywhere.
But you are correct about people believing what they want to believe.
But as far as whether the authors have credibility--Binny was the former technical director of the NSA and I haven't seen that challenged anywhere.
Seems sketchy. Their argument is basically that the emails were given to WikiLeaks via thumbdrive rather than by email. Except assuming their data is true and were I the hacker there's no way in hell I'd send WL anything by email when I know they're under constant surveillance by the NSA and GCHQ. The Russian team could've easily transferred the emails to a thumb drive and sent it to a WikiLeaks agent by courier, or even regular mail for that matter.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
Its extremely difficult for me to believe all these specifics are just complete fabrications.
But what I really should have done was wiki the authors before reading piece. That way I could have instantly dismissed them as rabid conspiritards and I wouldn't have had to waste my time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson
Originally Posted by wiki
Michelle Obama hoax
Beginning in 2007, Johnson emerged as a strident opponent of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[2] His rapid swing from the left to the right earned him the enmity of former allies.[2] According to The New York Times, Johnson is "best known for spreading a hoax... in 2008 that Michelle Obama had been videotaped using a slur against Caucasians".[1] His blog, NoQuarterUSA, often criticized Obama's qualifications to be president. On May 16, 2008, Johnson posted an item entitled, "Will Barack Throw Mama From the Train?" which alleged that a tape existed of Michelle Obama "railing against 'whitey' at Jeremiah Wright's church."[13][1] Johnson claimed that Republicans were in possession of the tape and it "is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time." In a subsequent post, Johnson claimed that Obama's appearance had occurred when she was on a panel with Louis Farrakhan. He also explained that he himself had not seen the tape, but had spoken with "five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape."[14] The Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" website denied the rumor, saying, "No such tape exists. Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word."[15]
No tape was ever released, nor has any other evidence emerged of Obama using the word "whitey". On October 21, 2008, Johnson said that, according to one of his sources, the McCain campaign "intervened and requested the tape not be used."[16]
War crime accusations against John Kerry
In 2013, Johnson falsely accused John Kerry of war crimes in Vietnam, alleging that Kerry had "raped some poor Vietnamese woman."[17] To support his claim, Johnson used a YouTube video[18] that contained audio clips from a 1971 debate on The Dick Cavett Show between John Kerry and John O'Neill. The original interview[19] audio[20] was altered to piece together words that Kerry spoke at different times during the debate, falsely making it sound as if he said, "I personally raped for pleasure." When the falsehood was exposed by a reader of Johnson's blog, Johnson deleted the article without apology.[21]
Allegations that British intelligence wiretapped Donald Trump
In March 2017, Andrew Napolitano spread the unfounded conspiracy theory that GCHQ, one of Britain's top intelligence agencies, had wiretapped Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign on orders from President Obama.[1][22] Johnson was the source for Napolitano's claim.[1][23] The conspiracy theory was later asserted as fact by President Trump, with him citing Fox News and Napolitano.[1] GCHQ responded, stating that the claims were "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored".[24] Fox News later disavowed the statement by Napolitano.[1]
Beginning in 2007, Johnson emerged as a strident opponent of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.[2] His rapid swing from the left to the right earned him the enmity of former allies.[2] According to The New York Times, Johnson is "best known for spreading a hoax... in 2008 that Michelle Obama had been videotaped using a slur against Caucasians".[1] His blog, NoQuarterUSA, often criticized Obama's qualifications to be president. On May 16, 2008, Johnson posted an item entitled, "Will Barack Throw Mama From the Train?" which alleged that a tape existed of Michelle Obama "railing against 'whitey' at Jeremiah Wright's church."[13][1] Johnson claimed that Republicans were in possession of the tape and it "is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time." In a subsequent post, Johnson claimed that Obama's appearance had occurred when she was on a panel with Louis Farrakhan. He also explained that he himself had not seen the tape, but had spoken with "five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape."[14] The Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" website denied the rumor, saying, "No such tape exists. Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word."[15]
No tape was ever released, nor has any other evidence emerged of Obama using the word "whitey". On October 21, 2008, Johnson said that, according to one of his sources, the McCain campaign "intervened and requested the tape not be used."[16]
War crime accusations against John Kerry
In 2013, Johnson falsely accused John Kerry of war crimes in Vietnam, alleging that Kerry had "raped some poor Vietnamese woman."[17] To support his claim, Johnson used a YouTube video[18] that contained audio clips from a 1971 debate on The Dick Cavett Show between John Kerry and John O'Neill. The original interview[19] audio[20] was altered to piece together words that Kerry spoke at different times during the debate, falsely making it sound as if he said, "I personally raped for pleasure." When the falsehood was exposed by a reader of Johnson's blog, Johnson deleted the article without apology.[21]
Allegations that British intelligence wiretapped Donald Trump
In March 2017, Andrew Napolitano spread the unfounded conspiracy theory that GCHQ, one of Britain's top intelligence agencies, had wiretapped Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign on orders from President Obama.[1][22] Johnson was the source for Napolitano's claim.[1][23] The conspiracy theory was later asserted as fact by President Trump, with him citing Fox News and Napolitano.[1] GCHQ responded, stating that the claims were "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored".[24] Fox News later disavowed the statement by Napolitano.[1]
Originally Posted by wiki
Russian Interference in the 2016 election
Further information: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Binney claims the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is false, and that the Democratic National Committee e-mails were leaked by an insider instead.[23][24][25] He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote this theory.[18][23][24] Binney said that the "intelligence community wasn't being honest here".[23] He has also been frequently cited on Breitbart News.[18] In November 2017 it was reported that a month earlier, Binney had met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of President Trump.[23]
Role in apparent release of the Nunes Memo
On January 23, 2018, Binney made an appearance on the InfoWars news program[26] in connection with the Nunes memo, a Congressional document alleging irregularities in the application of the FISA Act, which at that time was not publicly available although its potential release was a topic of public debate.[27] During the show, host Alex Jones announced that Binney had been able to provide him with the actual memo, and the purported leaked document was shown on air.[28] However, this was in fact a public document that had been available on the website of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence since at least May 2017.[29][30] The actual Nunes memo was released February 2, 2018.[31]
Further information: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Binney claims the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is false, and that the Democratic National Committee e-mails were leaked by an insider instead.[23][24][25] He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote this theory.[18][23][24] Binney said that the "intelligence community wasn't being honest here".[23] He has also been frequently cited on Breitbart News.[18] In November 2017 it was reported that a month earlier, Binney had met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of President Trump.[23]
Role in apparent release of the Nunes Memo
On January 23, 2018, Binney made an appearance on the InfoWars news program[26] in connection with the Nunes memo, a Congressional document alleging irregularities in the application of the FISA Act, which at that time was not publicly available although its potential release was a topic of public debate.[27] During the show, host Alex Jones announced that Binney had been able to provide him with the actual memo, and the purported leaked document was shown on air.[28] However, this was in fact a public document that had been available on the website of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence since at least May 2017.[29][30] The actual Nunes memo was released February 2, 2018.[31]
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE