Clinton and the Media
Caute:
This is not intended in any way an endorsement for Trump but is an examination
of the collusion between mass media and the Democratic party.
Bias in media is an age old story. Anyone who has read any
history would know that even before the ancient Greeks, the ‘spin’ has been
used artfully to manipulate public opinion. The great I. F. Stone once said to
the much lamented Christopher Hitchens when he first arrived in the US that it
might be worth his while to read The
Washington Post, because “it’s a great paper. You never know on what page
you’ll find a page-one story.”
We like to think that, in the 21st century, with
the increasingly disintermediated sources of information, that the average
person is more cynical, wised-up, street-smart and immune to information
gyrations. One might feel cautiously vindicated in this notion to notice that,
in the recent referendum for the UK to leave the EU, despite all the major news
and media outlets, even the conservative leaning Telegraph, being partisan towards remaining narrative (with the BBC
shamelessly and flagrantly so), more British voters voted to leave the EU than
have ever voted for anything in the history of the UK. Having looked into the
debate and the issue surrounding the momentous decision, which you can find
here: http://xin-phd-posthonoursdrudge.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/brexit-decline-and-fall-or-liberty-and.html,
one can only imagine what the outcome of the vote would have been if the
balance of reportage was to have swung somewhat towards the bipartisan,
objective centre which is the gold standard that the creed of journalism
rightfully claims to be its ethos.
Looking across the Atlantic, with the liberal-dominated media
circus surrounding the open primaries and now moving into the main dish of the election,
one has to conclude that the case in America is even less encouraging. The
latest example perhaps takes the proverbial cake: The explosive revelation, or
at least what should have been explosively splattered across every front page,
taking up every column inch and every minute of talk shows, news analyses and
interviews, is the disclosure through 20,000 leaked emails of the long
suspected fashion in which the DNC has abandoned the democratic process and has
indeed actively colluded with major media outlets such as MSNBC, NBC and Kenneth
Vogel of Politico to sabotage the open primary process in favour of Hillary
Clinton. This has led to the public disgrace and resignation of the chairman of
the DNC Wasserman Schultz. The Clinton campaign did not even have the decency
of pretending to be shocked. Instead of condemnation or a hint of apology or
contrition, Clinton hired Wasserman Schultz, who blatantly violated the DNC
charter, as a campaign manager. The replacement for the role of DNC chairman,
by the way, is Donna Brazile, another who is a member of Hillary’s inner
cabinet, who, in a leaked email, said she will “cuss out the Sanders camp.” This
woman is the anointed ‘honest broker’ charged with answering to the Sanders
supporters.
This story more than carries the malodorous scent of the infamous
Watergate. It’s the intersection of the corruption of the DNC with the collusion
of the mainstream media acting like megaphones for not only one party but one
candidate. What has been done by the DNC traduces the democratic process and
threatened to make America a banana republic. Instead, in most of the media, this
meteorite barely made a ripple as headlines were grabbed by more important
issues such as Melania Trump’s nude photo shoot some 15 years ago.
Naturally the idea that the primaries were rigged by their own
party led many Democratic voters, not least the Sanders supporters, outraged.
However, even then, if you watch the coverage of the DNC by the major news
outlets, despite the distinctive booing and chants for Sanders and placards
saying “Bernie or Bust”, the reporters smiled Panglossian smiles and congratulated
each other on what a wonderfully harmonious atmosphere the DNC was. When Wasserman
Schultz was almost booed off the stage, MSNBC reported it, with steely resolve
not to look facts in the face, as “Wasserman Schultz receives cheers at Florida
Delegation breakfast”. When Sanders himself capitulated and endorsed Clinton,
he was booed by his own voters, who are so disgusted from the blatant Machiavellian
political haggling behind the scenes (see Ben Shapiro’s video linked below). Little
wonder, as a large proportion of his voters was drawn to his message of
antiestablishment and anticorruption appeal. To see their man bending to the
whims of a patently corrupt party that has actively jeopardised his own campaign
must have been like seeing Trotsky kow-towing to Stalin or Che ingratiating it
up with Batista.
On the flip side, the same media, who tried to paint Hillary
into a saint through shameful, mendacious and desperate chaperoning, actively suppressed
and glossed over many pivotal negative pieces regarding this candidate and
potential future president. I admit that I never liked either of the Clintons and
the reason for this dislike is because I know too much about them. And the only
reason I know such things is because I did not rely on main stream media for my
information. Keeping it topical and concentrating it in this century in the
target-rich environment of why one might dislike the Clintons: Hillary lied
under oath in the investigation regarding her using a private server for
official and classified communications during her tenure as Secretary of State,
stating that it was set up with regards to all regulations whereas it violated
State Department protocols and federal laws. When handing over 30,000 emails to
the State Department at the end of 2014, Clinton withheld and deleted over
30,000 emails, which since has been recovered by the FBI in early 2016. In
March 2015, the Benghazi panel found that Clinton and her aides almost
exclusively used her personal email and that her aides did not preserve emails either
sent or received from her account as required by federal law.
Speaking of Benghazi, hacked emails show that she lied about
the attack in 2012, which led to the deaths of four Americans, including
ambassador Christopher Stevens. The 800 page report of the investigation showed
that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for additional security measures and
was repeatedly denied by the Obama administration, some of the hundreds of
appeals rejected in Clinton’s name. While the attack was happening, the Obama
administration had a meeting where, instead of sending security forces to save
lives (which did not happen for 8 hours), half the time, it being an election
year, was spent on the narrative that they were going to push to the public to
minimise the negative portrayal of their decision to invade Libya. The
narrative manufactured was that the attack by Islamist forces was instigated by
a YouTube video critical of Islam, a clear tactic of shifting blame as the
Clinton emails show that she clearly knew that the video had nothing to do with
the attack. However, Hillary was the first to introduce the narrative, as
pointed out by Ohio Republican Jim Jordan. The maker of the film, an Egyptian
Coptic Christian but naturalised American named Nakoula, was made the
sacrificial goat of appeasement and promptly arrested. Ambassador Susan Rice
went on cable channel chat shows to push this narrative, to the shock of State Department
employees, many of whom testified that the video had nothing to do with the
attack. Most importantly, the Obama administration stopped any investigation
into weapon smuggling into Syria through Libya into the hands of Al-Qaeda and
ISIS. Clinton was on the board which decided on these sales of weapons. The reason why most
of the public think that Benghazi is a non-issue is because the mass media has
concocted a pact with Clinton and made it a non-issue by suppressing facts and
spinning lies. They have decided what is fit for public consumption due to
their adherence and subservience to a party ideology. Wikileaks has announced that more leaked emails will be coming and Assange has said that there are enough incriminating material to indict Clinton.
So how did a supposedly free media become like this? Dr Goebbels
of the National Socialist fame once remarked: "one of the purposes of Nazi
propaganda was to provide an ostensible diversity behind which lies an actual
uniformity." The attempt of the mainstream liberal media to create a
consensus a thousand miles wide and a millimetre deep shows the complacency,
mean spiritedness and solidarity in the face of their own power. Even the rest of the left leaning liberal media, not hand in hand with the Clinton campaign, has failed miserably. Their
behaviour of taking things at face value with no follow up and no cynicism
is the definition of what it is NOT to be a journalist.
The eagre public on either side of the
political spectrum who greedily lap up the fabricated consensus because it fits
in with their preloaded narratives should also bear some responsibility. There
seems to be an increasing sense that the people should have a say on what news
they want to be given in the way that focus groups would ask consumers about
what types of sitcoms or reality shows they would prefer. News by definition is
things you don't know and things you might not like. Journalists can't behave
as if they are a flotsam in a cyclone of public opinion but need to grow a
spine and report on things for their intrinsic value.
The consuming public on the other hand
needs to sharpen their scepticism and hone their sense of cynicism. The danger is to become what Orwell wrote of the nationalist who "... not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he
has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
Christopher
Hitchens, excoriating radical to the end, wrote in his book ‘Letters to a Young Contrarian’, “Be suspicious of all those who employ the term
'we' or 'us' without your permission. This is a form of surreptitious
conscription ... Always ask who this 'we' is; as often as not it's an attempt
to smuggle tribalism through the customs.” (Hitchens recalls in his memoir ‘Hitch 22’ that his friend Martin Walker
had once published a critical book in America on Clinton (William Jefferson)
entitled ‘The President We Deserve’.
He subsequently reprinted it in England, with the title ‘The President They Deserve’.) In other words, ask yourself how you
know what you know. How did you come to possess the particular construct of
knowledge and narrative. Did you spend enough time establishing first
principles and have you engaged with the opposing view at all? Never satisfy yourself with the false security of consensus. And above all, not to succumb to the cancer of public discourse that is spreading especially among the millennials – don’t be offended at a drop of a hat. It is not an argument
and makes you look prematurely foolish.
Articles on collusion between DNC and media outlets and
undermining Sanders
Clinton hires Wasserman Schultz
Mayhem at the DNC
On Donna Brazile
Arming rebels in Libya and Syria
NY Times continued misreporting on Benghazi
https://benghazi.house.gov/news/blog/3-benghazi-myths-the-new-york-times-is-inexplicably-clinging-to
Comments
Post a Comment