She Warned of ‘Peer-To-Peer Misinformation.’ Congress Listened
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Misinformation from our own government has been influncing the deaths of millions from Vietnam, to the Civil Rights Movement, to the War on Terror. It also played a role in establishing NSA domestic surveillance, among a host of other problems. The plutocracy spends billions on information warfare across elections. I've yet to see an article headline mainstream media complaining of plutocrats and Wall St bankers like Gary Cohn in charge of US tax policy. This same corporate media has deep and proven links with the CIA. Also, the DNC used deception and subvertion against their constituents' candidate in favor of their own. Then you even have institutionalized crony influences like Al Franken giving his super delegate to Clinton when Bernie had over 60% of his constituents' votes. And Russian social media influence and ads has also been linked to extreme left propaganda such as anti-fa.
Protecting democracy is important, but we can't just only do it when it is convenient.
I'm inspired by Greenwald's articles, along this same line of thinking.[1]
1 - https://static.theintercept.com/amp/the-deep-state-goes-to-w...
1) I can't be bothered to look for references, but the NY Times has not failed to notice (and criticize) the fact that the Trump administration is staffed by quite a few people from Wall Street. A fair question is whether the NY Times would be as critical of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration, if it made similar personnel choices.
2) The DNC has spent decades trying to avoid a repeat of 1972, when the "popular choice" of the party base (George McGovern) went down to a flaming defeat against Richard Nixon. The whole "super-delegate" thing was deliberately designed to make sure that party "elders" could influence the choice of nominee, so that the party base would not again nominate someone who was unelectable. This was non-democracy by design, not accidental corruption. You may not agree with the idea, but there was at least some logic behind it.
3) Russian social media influence seems to have been designed, at first, to exacerbate tensions in the US and subvert faith in US democracy. The decision to lean towards Trump seems to have been taken later on. And it could be argued that helping to build up antifa, and exaggerating its influence, would actually serve to increase pro-Trump feeling among his base.
The NYTimes also covered the Dakota Pipeline protests and the DWS DNC scandal. CIA influence in domestic media has also been covered in mainstream media.
But there's a difference between technically covering a topic somewhere and incessantly exposing an idea.
The news nowadays simply build everything out of minimal fact, and popularize images they want to portrait with minimal reasoning.
This sentence jumps from A to B in such a mentally blind fashion, so much so that I think to describe just how absurd the connection would be an article in the same length of this report.
Did the author have any formal training in news writing at all, or they forgot what they learned...
Reminds me of this: https://ecigarettereviewed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/to...