[Peace-discuss] The Mainstream Media is Asking for a Government Bailout Via Censorship

Sun Dec 11 10:08:41 UTC 2016

The Mainstream Media is Asking for a Government Bailout Via Censorship

 <https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/author/mkriegs/> Michael Krieger | Posted
Friday Dec 9, 2016 at 11:43 am 

Description: screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-10-35-32-am

The current controversy is different. Many people in Washington are irate
over Wikileaks - not because the email were untrue but because they proved
what many had long suspected . . . that Washington is a highly corrupt place
full of truly despicable people. For people who make their living on
controlling media and information, it was akin to the barbarians breaching
the walls of Rome. So the answer is to call for government regulation to
combat what will be declared "fake" news or propaganda. It is only the
latest effort to convince people to surrender their rights and actually
embrace censorship. 

- From Jonathan Turley's:
<https://jonathanturley.org/2016/12/09/washington-post-issues-correction-to-
fake-news-story/> Washington Post Issues Correction To "Fake News" Story

Watching Hillary Clinton attack "fake news" and calling for legislative
action against free speech she doesn't like got me thinking. Why is she
doing this? Yes, it's obviously related to her notorious personality trait
of never taking responsibility for anything and attaching herself to an
invented controversy in order to deflect blame for her monumentally
embarrassing loss to Donald Trump. But there's more going on here. A lot
more.

To set the stage, we need to examine the types of people who are most
jumping on the "fake news" meme. What you'll find is that it's a who's who
of the most contemptible and corrupt people in America. As Glenn Greenwald
so accurately noted in
<https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-th
at-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/> his piece
published earlier today:

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most
aggressively disseminating it.

But the problem here goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. Complaints about Fake
News are typically accompanied by calls for "solutions" that involve
censorship and suppression, either by the government or tech giants such as
Facebook. But until there is a clear definition of "Fake News," and until
it's recognized that Fake News is being aggressively spread by the very
people most loudly complaining about it, the dangers posed by these
solutions will be at least as great as the problem itself.

Just in case you think the above is an exaggeration, is there an individual
in America more distrusted and more widely viewed as a compulsive liar than
Hillary Clinton? The list of her outright lies is nearly endless (see:
<https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/05/12/video-of-the-day-watch-hillary-cli
nton-lie-for-13-minutes-straight/> Video of the Day - Watch Hillary Clinton
Lie for 13 Minutes Straight). Not only that, but Hillary Clinton was more
than happy to promote obvious fake news stories one week before the
election. Here's the most egregious example:

This was fake news, but somehow I doubt Hillary will be looking for Congress
to take her to task for legitimizing and spreading it.

Then there's the downright comical example of Brian Williams. You know, the
NBC anchor who literally lost his job for promoting fake news about himself
(see:
<https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/02/04/nbcs-brian-williams-is-forced-to-a
dmit-his-tale-of-being-on-a-downed-helicopter-in-iraq-was-pure-fantasty/>
NBC's Brian Williams is Forced to Admit His Tale of Being on a Downed
Helicopter in Iraq Was Pure Fantasy). Now he is one of the "esteemed
pundits" railing against the terror of fake news. You can't make this stuff
up.

<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309488-once-suspended-for-
exaggerating-details-brian-williams-slams> The Hill reports:

MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, who lost his job with NBC's nightly news for
exaggerating details of his time reporting in Iraq, slammed President-elect
Donald Trump and members of his transition team for spreading fake news
throughout the election.

Pure comedy, but let's get serious. At this point, I want to direct your
attention to what is perhaps the most astute commentary on the fabricated
"fake news" push to date. The following was the concluding paragraph to
Jonathan Turley's,
<https://jonathanturley.org/2016/12/09/washington-post-issues-correction-to-
fake-news-story/> Washington Post Issues Correction To "Fake News" Story:

The current controversy is different. Many people in Washington are irate
over Wikileaks - not because the email were untrue but because they proved
what many had long suspected . . . that Washington is a highly corrupt place
full of truly despicable people. For people who make their living on
controlling media and information, it was akin to the barbarians breaching
the walls of Rome. So the answer is to call for government regulation to
combat what will be declared "fake" news or propaganda. It is only the
latest effort to convince people to surrender their rights and actually
embrace censorship. 

This perfectly describes what is going on at the most macro level, and
reminded me exactly of what Wall Street did in the aftermath of its
destruction of the U.S. economy during the financial crisis. Faced with a
potential loss of their fortunes, jobs and reputations, Wall Street invented
a meme that the industry needed to be bailed out without consequences in
order to "save Main Street." This was one of the most brazen, yet successful
examples of propaganda I have witnessed in my entire life.

Wall Street got exactly what it wanted and then some. It proceeded to pay
out record bonuses the very next year (2010) and not a single executive was
held accountable or went to jail. Free market capitalism was completely
suspended in order to save some of the wealthiest and most privileged people
in America. They used the levers of the state to save themselves and
preserve this key segment of status quo power.

Fast forward eight years, and we witness yet another spectacular status quo
failure. Due to its clownish and completely inaccurate coverage of the 2016
election, the mainstream media and the pundit class generally completely
torched its reputation. As a result, alternative, independent media is
eating their lunch. Rather than accept the consequences of this historic
failure, legacy media has decided to take a page from the Wall Street
playbook. They are asking for a government bailout. However, this bailout is
far more dangerous than the one which preceded it.

While the Wall Street bailout consisted of showering financial criminals
with infinite sums of money until they were once again masters of the
universe, the media is asking for a bailout via censorship. Yes, that's
right. Hillary Clinton and other status quo fake news peddlers are actively
asking for Congressional action in order to silence their competition.  This
isn't just about protecting the status quo narrative for the sake of
maintaining a transparently false manufactured reality. It's equally about
preserving the status, wealth, reputation and careers of individuals whose
failures should have landed them on the street, unemployed for their almost
incomprehensible and well documented incompetence. Just like we continue to
suffer from incompetent criminal elites on Wall Street, the media now wants
to build a similar government-sponsored wall around itself. Such an outcome
would be an unmitigated disaster for this nation.

Instead, what we actually need in this country (and what I expect to happen)
was perfectly articulated in a recent article by Nathan J. Robinson in his
must read article in Current Affairs titled,
<https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/the-necessity-of-credibility> The
Necessity of Credibility. He writes:

Yet it is telling that after the election,
<http://www.vox.com/2016/1/30/10873476/donald-trump-never-president> the
people who were most wrong during the campaign are
<http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/30/13631532/everything-matte
red-2016-presidential-election> still producing voluminous commentary. No
outlet that wanted to regain trust and build audiences would be keeping such
people on its staff. But "pundit tenure" is powerful. Thus is also likely
that the quest for credible media will necessitate the creation of new
media. CNN and The Washington Post have never shown a particularly
encouraging capacity for introspection and self-improvement, and it's
unlikely that they're contemplating major internal overhauls in their
mission and accountability practices. Their institutional imperatives
consist, after all, largely of seeking views and clicks. For them, the 2016
election was a success rather than a failure. A lot of people, after all,
tuned in. Why should they do things any differently? Thus it would be useful
to have fresh, truly independent outlets, ones that disclose their biases,
are transparent in their methods, and are constantly trying to improve
themselves rather than simply pursuing the same useless sensationalism and
empty horse-race punditry. 

The last thing this country needs is another bailout of establishment
crooks.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20161211/ebd5b856/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15782 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20161211/ebd5b856/attachment-0001.jpg>