Greenwald:Mainstream US Media is Culpable for Disseminating Fake-Deceitful News

[drunkenshoe]

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/glenn_greenwald_mainstream_us_media_is
This is from a Fox News interview, put into democracy now. I am posting because it is with Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman.

We are joined by Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and one of the founding editors of The Intercept. His latest article is headlined "WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived." In it, he writes, "Any story that bolsters the prevailing D.C. orthodoxy on the Russia Threat, no matter how dubious, is spread far and wide. And then, as has happened so often, when the story turns out to be false or misleading, little or nothing is done to correct the deceitful effects."

"U.S. Media is Culpable for Disseminating Fake & Deceitful News on Russia"

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We’re talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and allegations of Russian cyber-attacks. During his interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity this week, Assange was asked whether mainstream media in the U.S. is dishonest.

JULIAN ASSANGE: It’s very dishonest. "Corrupt" is interesting; it depends on your definition. If you look at what we published in the Podesta emailsâ€"
SEAN HANNITY: Wait a minute. If they’re colluding with Hillary, that’s not corrupt?
JULIAN ASSANGE: It’s an ethical corruption.
SEAN HANNITY: They’re not identifying it to their audiences. They claim that they’re objective journalists.
JULIAN ASSANGE: It’s ethically corrupt, corrupt by itsâ€""corruption" also means something in law, which is that you’re taking money in exchange.
SEAN HANNITY: OK.
JULIAN ASSANGE: So I don’t thatâ€"
SEAN HANNITY: Collusion.
JULIAN ASSANGE: They’re colluding, yeah.
SEAN HANNITY: Because they share her political agenda. Well, why else would they collude? Or they hate Donald Trump.
JULIAN ASSANGE: I think that’s an optimistic interpretation, that they share the political agenda.
SEAN HANNITY: Well, explain that.
JULIAN ASSANGE: It’s more like, "You rub my back, I’ll rub yours." I’ll give youâ€"you know, I’ll give you information. You’ll beâ€"you’ll come to myâ€"I’ll invite you to my child’s christening or our next big party orâ€"do you know what I mean?
AMY GOODMAN: That’s WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Fox News. Glenn Greenwald, your latest article for The Intercept is headlined "WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived." So, could you comment on what Assange said and your own findings regarding mainstream media coverage of alleged Russian cyber-attacks?

GLENN GREENWALD: So let’s focus on the extraordinary behavior of The Washington Post for the moment. They have produced two of the most humiliating debacles in American journalism over the last several years. And these two humiliations have taken place just within the last six weeks, both of which were about completely fictitious and fabricated claims about the threat posed by Vladimir Putin and Russia.

The first was on November 24th, when they claimed, based on a newly formed anonymous group, that there has been a very widespread, successful effort to implant Kremlin propaganda in the American discourse. And they accomplish this by giving credence to this secret list that this anonymous group of cowards had created in which they claim that a whole range of American media outlets and websites, such as the Drudge Report and other libertarian critics of Hillary Clinton on the right and long-standing left-wing critics of the Democratic Party, like Naked Capitalism and Truthout and Truthdig on the leftâ€"they decree them to be tools of Kremlin propaganda. And The Washington Post created this huge story, that went all over the place, based upon giving credence to this list and saying that Russian propaganda had been viewed more than 200 million times in the United States. Journalists all over Twitter, throughout the American media, mindlessly spread it, aggressively endorsed it. It became a huge story. And over the course of the next two weeks, the story completely collapsed, and there’s now a major editor’s note at the top of the article disclaiming the key source, saying that they did not intend to in any way vouch for the validity of the findings of the source on which the entire story was based.

But even more embarrassing was this weekend, when the Post trumpeted this story on Friday night that Vladimir Putin and Russia had hacked into the electric grid of the United States through a Vermont utility, which caused Vermont officials like the governor and Senator Pat Leahy to issue statements saying Vladimir Putin is trying to endanger the safety and the welfare of Vermonters by stealing their heat in the winter. The whole story, from start to finish, turned out to be a complete fabrication. There was no invasion of the American electric grid. The malware that was found on one laptop had nothing to do with Russia. The story was completely false. And again, the American media, in this hysteria, kept spreading and endorsing it.

And in both cases, the retractions were barely noted. So you have millions of people being misled into this hysteria, into this view that Russia is this grave threat, and when the story journalistically collapses, they barely hear about it. And it happened over and over through the election, with Slate saying that a secret server had been found between Donald Trump and a Russian bank, which turned out to be completely false. The Post aired allegations that Putin had poisoned Hillary Clinton on the day that she collapsed on 9/11. And so, it’s not really just dishonesty. It’s the kind of behavior we saw in 2002, where American media outlets are willing to publish anything that the U.S. government tells them to publish, to inflate and expand the threat posed by Russia, to raise fear levels to the highest possible degree. And it’s an incredibly irresponsible and dangerous form of behavior that media outlets, led by The Washington Post, are engaging in.

AMY GOODMAN: And you talk about how retractions obviously don’t get anything like the play of the story, that also has to do with what’s tweeted by the publication, even when they retract, and what isn’t, Glenn.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. So let me just give you two examples of just the corruption that’s at play here. So, when the Post unveiled their huge story about Russia fake news based on this McCarthyite list that has been proven to be a fraud, they had Marty Baron, the executive editor, the widely respected executive editor of the paper, go onto Twitter and announce this huge exposé. And predictably, it got tweeted and retweeted and shared thousands and thousands of times by all of the biggest journalists with the biggest social media followings. When the story collapsed over the next two weeks and they appended this huge editor’s note, The Washington Post did nothing to bring anyone’s attention to the fact that the key claims of the story have been gutted. Marty Baron refused to answer any questions over that two weeks about what the paper did, and he uttered not one syllable on Twitter or anywhere else to tell all the followers that he alerted to this story that the story had collapsed.

With the story that I just talked about over the weekend of theâ€"of how Putin had wanted to steal the heat from Vermonters to make them suffer in the winter, Brent Staples, who works for The New York Times editorial page, went on Twitter and said, "Our friend Putin has invaded the U.S. electric grid." And when that story collapsed and The Washington Post retracted it, he did something even worse: He just went and quietly deleted his tweet a day later, as though it never happened, and also failed to tell his 30,000 followers that what he had just told them the day before, that caused them to run around and share with all their friends on Facebook and Twitter that this has happened, was in fact a complete fiction.

And you see this over and over and over again. And remember, these are the people who keep saying that fake news is a huge problem, that Facebook has to suppress it. And yet it’s America’s leading journalistic outlets that are doing more to disseminate false and deceitful stories than Macedonian teenagers by a huge amount. And when they do it and it turns out that the stories are discredited, they take very little to no steps to alert the people that they’ve misled about the fact that the stories were false. And it’s incredibly reckless journalistically. And these are the same people pretending to be crusaders against fake news, who are themselves disseminating it more aggressively than anyone else.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Glenn Greenwald, let me ask you about the possible use of Twitter for the dissemination of other kinds of possibly fake information. You’ve repeatedly emphasized, as you just did, the role of Twitter in spreading false news by news media outlets. But this may be the first time in global history that a head of state, and that, too, of the most powerful state in the world, seems likely to use precisely this medium as one of his principal modes of communication. Do you think there are similar risks involved with official pronouncement conveyed through Twitter as you say and have explained are with journalistic use of this medium?

GLENN GREENWALD: So I think there are two sides to this. One is, there’s a potentialâ€"a potential virtue to having politicians being able to communicate directly to their constituents and the people they represent without having to be mediated by American media outlets, especially ones that have proven to be untrustworthy. So, in some sense, I actually think it’s positive, under the right circumstances, for a political leaderâ€"not Donald Trump, but just for political officials generallyâ€"to have a means to communicate directly to the people who they’re supposed to be representing and who can then hear feedback back from those people. I mean, in theory, that would be a good model.

The problem with Donald Trump using this is twofold. One is that when you’re the actual president of the world’s largest superpower with a massive nuclear arsenal, using Twitter is an extremely dangerous venue because it inherently has all kinds of ambiguities and possibilities for being misunderstood and for misleading people into what your actual intentions are. And that has happened over and over, where so many of his tweets are not even susceptible to reasoned discourse, where you don’t even know what he means. And when a president is issuing those kinds of ambiguous statements, those are the kinds of things that can ratchet up tensions unintentionally and even spark wars.


But I think there’s another sort of more pernicious aspect to it, which is what Trump is doing is he’s trying to discredit every single source of information other than Donald Trump. So, he’s telling his followers, "Don’t listen to the American media, because they’re liars." He’s telling them, "Don’t listen to the intelligence community, because they defrauded you with Iraq." He’s telling them, "Don’t listen to experts, because these experts are all corrupted and they’re part of the D.C. swamp," that he wants to drain. "The only truth that you should trust comes from me, Donald Trump." And that is a very dangerous framework. It’s pure authoritarianism when a political leader also becomes the only source of information that the population trusts. But, unfortunately, his biggest allies in that are media outlets who have done the kinds of things that I just explained The Washington Post having done and journalists having helped them. They’re the reason why people are losing faith in American media outlets. And that’s what gives space to a demagogue like Donald Trump to say, "I’m the only person who you can trust." And his use of Twitter is really a weapon, a powerful weapon, in achieving that dangerous state of affairs.


AMY GOODMAN: China’s state news agency Xinhua said, "Twitter should not become an instrument of foreign policy," warning President-elect Trump. But, Glenn, as we wrap up, your concerns right now? In the headline, we just said that Donald Trump says he’s going to overhaul the intelligence agencies, which many might think is a good thing, cutting back Virginia, the headquarters, less computer internet surveillance, more human surveillance, getting more spies out on the streets. Where is this country going now, Glenn? Your perspective, from outside now, though as an American?

GLENN GREENWALD: I mean, I think it really remains to be seen, but there are definitely fundamental changes taking place. If you look, for example, at recent polling, what you find is that the CIA is now one of the most admired and defended institutions among Democrats, while Republicans don’t like the CIA and actually prefer Vladimir Putin even to Barack Obama. You have radical shifts taking place in coalitions, in alliances, in alignments, and it canâ€"it’s very unpredictable how it can play out. Sometimes instability could produce positive outcomes. Trump abrogated the TPP. He wants to limit Boeing and Lockheed and the amount of money that’s spent on them. He wants to bring jobs back to the U.S. But it can also have very dangerous outcomes, as well, because of its unpredictability. And so, I think it’s a very dangerous time for the United States, and it’s one of the reasons why I’m hoping Democrats find their footing and become a lot more focused and reasoned and stop sort of wallowing in these radical conspiracy theories that make them appear unhinged, because Donald Trump needs a cohesive and focused and effective opposition.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there, Glenn Greenwald. Thanks so much for being with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, one of the founding editors of The Intercept. We’ll link to your pieces, most recently, "WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived."

[Baruch]

It is the job of the MSM to be shills for the Establishment.  I wouldn't call it culpability, I would call it employment.

[drunkenshoe]

It is the job of the MSM to be shills for the Establishment.  I wouldn't call it culpability, I would call it employment.

See, this is a great example of the on going bullshit. What the fuck does that even mean, Baruch? :  "I wouldn't call it culpability, I would call it employment."

They are discussing specific events and why it is so dangerous at this time, at this point with Trump. With a society highly susceptible to this specific paranoia.

And you keep playing 'quote the following picture in the most ridiculously hyperbolic way' game. You got the award, no competition.

[Baruch]

See, this is a great example of the on going bullshit. What the fuck does that even mean, Baruch? :  "I wouldn't call it culpability, I would call it employment."

They are discussing specific events and why it is so dangerous at this time, at this point with Trump. With a society highly susceptible to this specific paranoia.

And you keep playing 'quote the following picture in the most ridiculously hyperbolic way' game. You got the award, no competition.

Not hyperbolic, I was simply stating facts.  The authorities are of the people, and the People are evil, we all are.  So in Satan's kingdom, doing wrong ... is doing right.  You expect the 4th estate to do some fact checking bullshit?  No, they are the same as the tragedians in the Athenian theater.  They repeated ancient myth, but it was about contemporary events and characters.  So fiction was used to articulate what couldn't be articulated any other way, it always is that way.  Like most moderns, you condemn the poets, because you are a follower of Plato, not Sophocles.

[chill98]

Ya think this may be a biased article?  Just a bit?

And in both cases, the retractions were barely noted. So you have millions of people being misled into this hysteria, into this view that Russia is this grave threat, and when the story journalistically collapses, they barely hear about it. And it happened over and over through the election, with Slate saying that a secret server had been found between Donald Trump and a Russian bank, which turned out to be completely false. The Post aired allegations that Putin had poisoned Hillary Clinton on the day that she collapsed on 9/11. And so, it’s not really just dishonesty. It’s the kind of behavior we saw in 2002, where American media outlets are willing to publish anything that the U.S. government tells them to publish, to inflate and expand the threat posed by Russia, to raise fear levels to the highest possible degree.

and then the article drifts into why Trump is bad via:

But I think there’s another sort of more pernicious aspect to it, which is what Trump is doing is he’s trying to discredit every single source of information other than Donald Trump. So, he’s telling his followers, "Don’t listen to the American media, because they’re liars." He’s telling them, "Don’t listen to the intelligence community, because they defrauded you with Iraq." He’s telling them, "Don’t listen to experts, because these experts are all corrupted and they’re part of the D.C. swamp," that he wants to drain. "The only truth that you should trust comes from me, Donald Trump." And that is a very dangerous framework. It’s pure authoritarianism when a political leader also becomes the only source of information that the population trusts.

How do you reconcile the flip-flop of this article, when as my bolded portion reveals, the media is willing to print any garbage the government says to.

And with these 'fake news' reports, when reading the actual articles, almost 100% of the time, it is claimed that 'an anonymous government official says/confirms/etc'.  And that is a whole bunch different than Trump tweeting from his account "this is the story".  Its not anonymous and if it turns out to be false, we the people have an actual person to hold accountable. 

So what exactly is the difference?  Trump saying he's got the real story or some anonymous government source saying heres the real story?  What exactly is the point of this particular article?

[Baruch]

If anyone, other than George Soros, benefits from any government action, then it is criminal or treasonous.  If Vladimir Putin benefits at all, as collateral benefit even, that is proof it is satanic.  Bwahaha.

[drunkenshoe]

Trump is a bussinesman who hasn't even had one day in office. Are you aware of that? He doesn't have one speck of experience in this in anyway.

Trump and all republicans side of his have adamently refused Russia hacking in US presidential elections. He has just accepted it a few days ago. Are you aware of that? Is that a kind of flip flop you are talking about?

They are not discussing the issue one sided in the article, if you are capable of understanding what you read. But your only problem is, chill, that 'They are saying Trump is baaaad'.

As it is explained in the OP, I posted a Fox news article because of Greenwald and Goodman, because it is a conversation between a few people. 

[Baruch]

Trump is a bussinesman who hasn't even had one day in office. Are you aware of that? He doesn't have one speck of experience in this in anyway.

Trump and all republicans side of his have adamently refused Russia hacking in US presidential elections. He has just accepted it a few days ago. Are you aware of that? Is that a kind of flip flop you are talking about?

They are not discussing the issue one sided in the article, if you are capable of understanding what you read. But your only problem is, chill, that 'They are saying Trump is baaaad'.

As it is explained in the OP, I posted a Fox news article because of Greenwald and Goodman, because it is a conversation between a few people.

Yep, most of us know that.  And not a very good businessman at that.  But Americans don't have the automatic hatred of businessmen that would brand us European.  Americans don't care for monarchies either unless we visit them as tourists.  Why haven't the Europeans executed all their monarchs yet?  Why haven't all the Turks converted to Frankfurt School, so they can satisfy the entrance exams into the EU?

Trump accepting the hacking accusation is a lot different than Rince Priebus saying he accepted it.  That is agitprop ... to satisfy all the neoCon Cold Warriors in the R-party that Trump is OK.  Trump will never be OK to them, not until they have made him watch Dallas (not the J R TV show).  Russia is Satan, Russia must be destroyed (for their resources).  Russians are the Native Americans, they need the Europeans (not just the Americans) to civilize them ;-(

There was no hacking (of any significance).  Every nation attempts to hack and sway every other nation ... it isn't a crime, let alone cause for WW III.  I think Trump accepts that ... but I don't think Trump accepts the neocon bullshit ... it is bad for business.  But ideologues of the L or R don't care about business, or survival ... they just want the last word in a radioactive glass parking lot.  Cold war?  Been there, done that.  Putin isn't Stalin.

I like Greenwald BTW ... but he is ideological, just like Wikileaks.  I know what some people want ... that the R and I people don't get to vote, just the D people.  And all the D people have to be blind fools for the completely corrupt DNC.  And that the Clinton family get to control the DNC like it is their house bitch.  I see Turkey as less corrupt that the US.  The Clintons, the DNC and the Democrats can go F themselves, until they have decided to act like adults (oh gotta drop all voter demographics for just the Snowflake vote).

[chill98]

Trump is a bussinesman who hasn't even had one day in office. Are you aware of that? He doesn't have one speck of experience in this in anyway.

So what?  Everyone knew that on election day.  There are very few requirements to be eligible for PotUS; like it or not, Trump met those requirements.  Besides this is not related to the topic.  MSM printing anything the gov tells them to vs Trump has his own opinion.

Trump and all republicans side of his have adamently refused Russia hacking in US presidential elections. He has just accepted it a few days ago. Are you aware of that? Is that a kind of flip flop you are talking about?

You mean "A Trump cabinet Nominee says Trump accepts...." but it is better than an anonymous government source says, says the MSM.

From Reuters:
After receiving a briefing on Friday from leaders of the U.S. intelligence agencies, Trump did not refer specifically to Russia's role in the presidential campaign.

In a statement, he acknowledged that "Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat(ic) National Committee."

I agree with that.  But I have a website and review the log files pretty regularly.  China is the worst in my experience, followed by Ukraine.  China is getting more difficult due to their sourcing hosts on the west coast of the usa more frequently now.  Never ran an email server so I don't know what the log files look like (ie how easy it is to spot a hack attempt).  But even with those log files, I cannot tell you Gov Agent or pissant living in moms basement, most of the time.

They are not discussing the issue one sided in the article, if you are capable of understanding what you read. But your only problem is, chill, that 'They are saying Trump is baaaad'.

No, it was not what I was talking about but nice try at deflection.  Personally, they gained my interest because of the focus on MSM putting out info that is later retracted and the lack of effort to ensure the MSM social media followers (twitter, facebook) are made aware things have changed.

How it segued into Therefore, Trump should not tweet -> he's an authoritarian.

is where the questioning of the biased nature of this conversation.  After all, democrats are just as mislead by these anonymous government sources as everyone else.  Was your only reason for posting the OP because it says Trump is bad?

As it is explained in the OP, I posted a Fox news article because of Greenwald and Goodman, because it is a conversation between a few people.

Sooo... you did not expect someone to question your OP?  Just wanted someone to pat you on the back and say "well done!  Good Puppet! "?

[drunkenshoe]

chill, the article is not just talking about the election period or Trump or pointing something about that specific series of event. But also post 9/11 and while they are pointing out the manipulation and fake news that they are trying to take attention to that new sources are not going back to the a certain topic that was proved as fake and correct it as journalisn requires. These are sources read by overwhelming masses of people. They are actually talking about the false or fake news produced about Trump.

So there is a dangerous situation here and for some reason accepted by people as 'yeah everyone knows that, so what?'.

Where does Trump stand here?

While he is using twitter worse than a teenager celebrity compared to his post -and Greenwald describes his tweets perfectly- he is also dismissing every kind of news source that is not convenient to him. Basically, he has made -and still does- ambitions claims and allegations, dismissals, he targets around randomly and tells people not to listen anyone else. He declares himself as the only reliable source for any subject regardless of its merit.

This is a very dangerous path. And it is not dangerous because of some possile outcome of a hollywood scenario or government paranoia; a bunch of conspiracy theory tales.

-It's very dangerous for the world because of the extrene scale of American intervention everywhere around the world that has shaped and shapes the basic relations, economy, military issues and politics.

-It's very dangerous dometsically, because this is the very defintion of a dictatorship; it the cemented means of 'if you are not suppoırting me, you are my enemy'. It is teh severe path of dividing a country.

A certain path to kill anything in America that actually makes life and sense about America. Diversity of cultures, a bit of common freedom of seech that is trying to hold on, professionality, science, expertise, international scholarship. Trump is telling people that only his opinion makes sense about anything whatever the subject.

You think that is not going to have severe conseuences for all of us? You think America is divided right now? Wait. This is a gradual process, not a sudden leap.


When somebody uses that word 'dictatorship', Americans from every 'side' and political opinion cannot actually imagine their country as one, because the word is ingrained into the culture with cemented connotations of certain foriegn cultures, caricaturised with pop cultural hyperbolism. This is the worst delusion.

The state of dictatorship is not some sort of a 'hell door' that gets open suddenly and armies of doom is loose to start war. It's the normal life continues very normally and then society slowly evolving to the most disgusting norms of existence while the nobody can do anything.


You are still talking about anonymous sources from government makes no sense because it is a lie. That is not the point. Everyone and people in the article are criticising the current flow and structure.

And you are asking me if I thought my OP wouldn't be challenge. You are not challenging anything, because you demonsrated that you do not understand the issue here.

Your are not questioning the OP, you are dismissing it with 'so what, everyıne doe sthat and I believe in Trump' and point out the source of an interview which would, if misquoted or manipulated, get an immediate response from the other journalists an the sources it criticised which has a much larger audience to hear them out. These are not Jihadwatch articles throwing ridiculous claims, nor are the people who criticise them.

[drunkenshoe]

Yep, most of us know that.  And not a very good businessman at that.  But Americans don't have the automatic hatred of businessmen that would brand us European.  Americans don't care for monarchies either unless we visit them as tourists.  Why haven't the Europeans executed all their monarchs yet?  Why haven't all the Turks converted to Frankfurt School, so they can satisfy the entrance exams into the EU?

Trump accepting the hacking accusation is a lot different than Rince Priebus saying he accepted it.  That is agitprop ... to satisfy all the neoCon Cold Warriors in the R-party that Trump is OK.  Trump will never be OK to them, not until they have made him watch Dallas (not the J R TV show).  Russia is Satan, Russia must be destroyed (for their resources).  Russians are the Native Americans, they need the Europeans (not just the Americans) to civilize them ;-(

There was no hacking (of any significance).  Every nation attempts to hack and sway every other nation ... it isn't a crime, let alone cause for WW III.  I think Trump accepts that ... but I don't think Trump accepts the neocon bullshit ... it is bad for business.  But ideologues of the L or R don't care about business, or survival ... they just want the last word in a radioactive glass parking lot.  Cold war?  Been there, done that.  Putin isn't Stalin.

I like Greenwald BTW ... but he is ideological, just like Wikileaks.  I know what some people want ... that the R and I people don't get to vote, just the D people.  And all the D people have to be blind fools for the completely corrupt DNC.  And that the Clinton family get to control the DNC like it is their house bitch.  I see Turkey as less corrupt that the US.  The Clintons, the DNC and the Democrats can go F themselves, until they have decided to act like adults (oh gotta drop all voter demographics for just the Snowflake vote).

Baruch, this^post is a word salad. It doesn't mean anything. Niether you -nor chill for that matter- are able to understand the issue presented in the OP here, as you both demonstrated, let alone make an interpretation of it.

Stop throwing the names various disciplines or schools or other cultures between the random bullshit you like to type. You have proved over and over again that you actually don't know anything about them beyond copy-pasting google. You constantly demonstrate that you are incapable of building the simplest historical perspective 101 or produce some idea about some given issue, but just try to bend some conjecture you deem is questionable at some random point you got stuck with teenager hyperbole. I have pursued several conversations with you and all of them proved to be a balloon. Basically, you don't kow what you are talking about most of the time and you are not sincere about it.

You know what I do when I don't know about something posted here, I follow it. Try to look into it further if I can. You wouldn't believe how easy to distinguish the posts written by people who actually have something to say about something from other bullshit doesn't matter whatever the style. You can observe this easily in my case, because I never post to those heated conversations, even though I generally love doing that and post very often to others, mostly even to pick a bone. 

If you are capable of typing a coherent, sincere response on something you actually have a thing to say, do it. I have seen you doing it a few times, who knows may be you actually have something to offer provided you can get over your inferiority complex and your disguised bitterness. Leave the google scholarship out.




PS On a personal note, stop squeezing random irrelevant bullshit on Turks and Turkish blah blah to every response you write to me specifically whatever the thread or topic is, because one of these days you are going to get bitch slapped by me and you'll find that posting here is not that much of a fun with a broken psyche.

[Baruch]

Bitch on, you have done it before.  But I will charge you for counseling your bad temper ;-)

And as others have posted, you don't seem to have, nor would I expect you to have, a deep view of American political culture.  A European/Turkish view.

[drunkenshoe]

Bitch on, you have done it before.  But I will charge you for counseling your bad temper ;-)

And as others have posted, you don't seem to have, nor would I expect you to have, a deep view of American political culture.  A European/Turkish view.

Baruch, you are incapable of offering a view on anything, let alone a deep one. You do not even get what is this thread about.

What deep view of American political culture? I have never had such a claim, noone has, that is your delusion about me or the others on various subjects. My bitching about anything is more valuable than any of your babble, because it is what I think, by myself, right or wrong.

You are a non-sequitur machine and all your responses are warped by your smug cul-de-sac of your own internal self righteousness, but the pathetic thing is you can't even pull that off, because you don't know what you are talking about.

[Baruch]

OK, my old counselor charged $100 per hour ... so your PayPal bill should be arriving shortly ;-)  We are pals, are we not?

OK, culpability means ... can sue them in court.  Some people are suing Twitter, for allowing terrorists (but not State terrorists of course) to use Twitter to commit crimes against humanity.  So let us know how your suit you will file at The Hague comes along ;-))

If everyone is arrested for what they are guilty of, who will lock us all up?  Self-righteous ... project much?  You have no idea of my conversations between me, myself and I.  You could always turn Catholic and join a convent, if you are really concerned about your own holiness.

[chill98]

chill, the article is not just talking about the election period or Trump or pointing something about that specific series of event. But also post 9/11 and while they are pointing out the manipulation and fake news that they are trying to take attention to that new sources are not going back to the a certain topic that was proved as fake and correct it as journalisn requires. These are sources read by overwhelming masses of people. They are actually talking about the false or fake news produced about Trump.

So there is a dangerous situation here and for some reason accepted by people as 'yeah everyone knows that, so what?'.

I know you put time into your response but I cannot follow what point you are trying to make other than you hate trump.

Heres an article by Greenwald about anonymous gov sources that maybe will help you understand what I am talking about.  I posted this article Dec 12 in a different thread.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

My response was directed at your bolding and font size emphasis in the article and how the msm putting out fake news and not alerting their twitter/social media followers to changes in those articles is unrelated to what Trump posts in his account.

As far as the rest of your post. ..  all it is, is what you imagine in a 'the sky is falling' world view.