Home | About | Donate

In Attempted Hit Piece, NYT Makes Putin Hero of Defeating TPP


#1

In Attempted Hit Piece, NYT Makes Putin Hero of Defeating TPP

Marcy Wheeler

In an remarkable hit piece NYT spent over 5,000 words yesterday trying to prove that all of WikiLeaks’ leaks are motivated from a desire to benefit Russia.


#2

Was it an "attempted hit piece" or was it a real hit piece???

I think it was a hit piece. A piece of propaganda from the NYT.

Marcy Wheeler focuses on TPP from the NY Times article

The next article focuses on Hillary campaign from the same NY Times article

Dean Baquet, who is currently the executive editor for the Times, has a record of avoiding journalism that could be upsetting to the U.S. government. He did not think it was significant that NSA data was shared with Israeli intelligence, so reporters at the publication never pursued further details after The Guardian’s story in 2013. He saw no reason to prepare anything substantial to mark the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War and advocated for a “low-key approach,” even though the paper played a key role in the war and occupation that killed a million Iraqis and thousands of U.S. soldiers.

Incredibly, Baquet has pointed to the publication of disclosures from WikiLeaks to argue the Times is willing to “push back against the government.” It now ham-handedly tries to link Assange to Putin, and one must ask: did publishing WikiLeaks disclosures ever unwittingly help Putin and how will the Times atone for its disloyal sins?

To use the words of Times reporters, whether by conviction, convenience, or coincidence, the “special report” dovetails with the interests of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. It dovetails with the agenda of national security agencies—just as propaganda published in the press about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden being a Russian spy served the agenda of U.S. intelligence.

Has the New York Times become a laundering machine for McCarthyist political and security state gossip? And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Baquet and Clinton?

Since this is what the Times considers to be journalism, let’s ask the questions. Because the Times endorsed Clinton, Clinton and allies have used rhetoric similar to this report to attack WikiLeaks, and so it is important to figure out where the presidential campaign of Clinton ends and the journalism of the Times begins.

Quotation from

HOW CLINTON AND US GOVERNMENT BENEFIT WHEN NEW YORK TIMES ATTACKS WIKILEAKS

Next, a 4 minute video by Cenk Uygr which focuses on the shoddy journalism of NY Times in the front page article

Julian Assange was absurdly smeared in a New York Times piece by William Neuman and Maggy Ayala. The report stooped as low as making reference to a claim that Assange did not flush a toilet, as if that were somewhow relevant. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks down this shoddy journalism.

Julian Assange Hit Piece In New York Times

And finally, here is wikileaks response to the NY Times article. Will the NY Times respond to what this piece calls lies by NY Times?

Response to New York Times article on WikiLeaks

That one article in NY Times covered a lot of ground in order to support the establishment.


#4

Given the consolidation of Big Money, it's easy for Think Tanks to recruit the most promising minds drawn straight out of the best universities.

The mathematicians game the financial system in ways that profit the 1%.

Then those with an insight into the word frames that create the greatest net effect (or buzz) on mass psychology go to work for Military entities and corporate entities.

That's why what Ms. Wheeler presents here, likewise shows up in other Dominant Media frames:

"In other words, as a central piece of evidence, the NYT spent 11 paragraphs repackaging opposition to shitty trade deals — a widely held very American view (not to mention a prominent one is most other countries affected) — into something directed by Russia, as if the only reasons to oppose TPP are to keep Russia on an equal shitty neoliberal trade footing as the rest of us, as if opposing the deals don’t benefit a whole bunch of red-blooded Americans.

"That’s not only logically disastrous, especially in something billed as “news,” but it is very dangerous. It makes legitimate opposition to bad (albeit widely accepted as good within beltway and I guess NYT conventional wisdom) policy something disloyal."

Any critique of Monsanto and its false claims that its products reduce hunger and eliminate the need to use toxic pesticides--is framed as the perspective of Luddites who don't believe in science at all.

Similar arguments are used against those who question the safety of the plethora of vaccines poured into babies' bodies now as if each child's inherent chemistry warrants the same "treatment."

To question war is to be a Putin apologist.

To question the 911 debacle (and the fictions surrounding that seminal event) is to be a conspiracy theorist.

To protest corporate polluters' activities is to be an "Environmental Terrorist."

To challenge the way Hillary Clinton was granted the nomination is to be an unfair loser or Bernie Bro (etc).

THESE frames expose why it's so dangerous to any would-be Democracy to see its main arteries of communications, including TV, Radio, and print news in so few hands.

It's very easy for a consortium of 5-6 major producers of information to repeat the same story lines.

WATCH how this mechanism operates:


#5

If anyone questions Info-Wars, here is another take on the same repetitive rote of renditions:


#6

A journalist actually wrote "He does not flush the toilet" . ?

Maybe he was waiting for latest edition of the NYT with which to wipe his back side and flush away all at once with all the other crap.


#7

Goebbels would be SO green with envy if he could see how his work has been SO successfully refined by the global corporations and their media hit men.


#8

Meanwhile, New York Times' readers are bobbing their heads in unison, fully prepared for the coming war.


#9

Same old NYT working for the CIA and raking in the oligarchy's money.
But we all knew that Obama wouldn't take the blame for the failure of the TPP.
Obama thought that he'd be long gone and retired before "we the people" figured out that he was screwing us.


#10

Have you ever had a toothpaste or ice cream that you thought was a quality product? Maybe a time came when you didn't know that that toothpaste or ice cream was bought out by another company that slowly eroded its quality.

The New York Times has for so long been called "the paper of record" that loyal readers who may remember when it was a quality brand may not realize the degree to which its content has been adulterated.

Do you blame the readers who you allege "bob their heads" in unison, or those on the ACTIVE side of DOING the DECEPTION?

I will continue to use this quote because it's so apt; and it comes from the late Human Rights Attorney, Michael Ratner:

"You either side with the oppressed or with the executioners."

To the degree that ALL citizens (apart from those guaranteed underground bunkers) are being set up as perpetual targets, they constitute the oppressed.

Did you know that a trait common to psychopaths is to laugh at their marks? They believe that anyone who CAN be abused (or lied to and deceived) deserves what they get.

If that is your view, then you sympathize with the psychopaths. Of course, you would not be alone since I am yet to witness a day when the meme that blames citizens/voters/consumers is not utilized at full throttle.


#11

SR, you must realize by now that I hold individuals more responsible than you do. You see individual accountability as blaming the victim, I see it as proper.

Our taxes pay for the Empire. We are responsible.

There was a time when people only got their news through mainstream media. You could make a good case then that people weren't accountable for being uninformed. They only knew what they saw.

We've no such excuses today.

And your accountability is remarkably selective. If someone disagrees with you about 9/11, you rail against them. You expect them to have educated themselves to the extent they agree with you. But on other topics you are always against the 'we' meme, against collective responsibility. You don't expect people to go beyond what MSM presents.

We are not sheep

As part of the U.S. we are responsible for our part in it - and for what we're paying for.

I agree with you on many other things, and appreciate the perspective you bring to the forum, but we disagree on "we" and our level of accountability.


#12

NYT and CIA, two peas in a pod.


#13

The thing is though that the people don't have much choice to not participate. If they don't pay taxes they will have their services needed for survival taken away and then thrown into the hellish limbo that is the Prison Industrial Complex. Although it seems like the powers that be are all too comfortable with doing that anyway...


#14

It's all about where, how, and on what, each individual spends what little disposable income they have.
Is the checking account with a large corporate bank, say CITI, or a small community bank.
Do we purchase what we need at Walmart or spend a few extra cents shopping with a local merchant.
It's all about strategic spending and not wasting resources (don't leave the lights on).


#15

If we are not responsible for changing our society, who is?


#16

It is nice to see someone return to take on the Times in some detail, since it is still out there and often still taken for news.

I should think that a current reader of the Times might be able to infer with moderate certainty just whom the paper serves by reverse engineering the filters that it puts on information.

So, the filters, outlined from Herman & Chomsky's '89 Manufacturing Consent include the following:

  • Owners (nothing printed will offend owners or their interests)
  • Advertisers (ditto, since that's where the paper gets money)
  • Sources of news (because they are apt to dry up)
  • "Flak" or audience criticism (because they sell audience to advertisers)
  • Anticommunist ideology. I think we might update this to "neoliberal ideology," but I have seldom read the paper since 2003.

We can answer "money and power" surely, but I wonder whether anyone may wish to refine the diagnosis further. Surely it has just rolled over and told a couple huge fibs for Clinton now, but I would assume that the list of masters must be a good deal more inclusive than that.


#17

I'll know the world is ending when I tune into "Democracy Now" and Amy Goodman says, "The final days of the campaign could get a little salty."


#18

Absolute shills at the NYT. They have their heads up the butts of the oligarchs so far, it's a wonder they can write at all (oh, sorry, they just repurpose propaganda from think tanks - I forgot). And the worst part of all this corporate-controlled. Goebbelesque propaganda is that the NYT is seen by so many sheeple as a "Liberal", honest newspaper. ctrl_z has it right up above - "readers are bobbing their heads in unison".

Of course it's a misleading hit piece. That's what all the MSM do - confuse the public by jumbling up totally unrelated arguments. It's not just FOX News anymore. They all use the same playbook. Or, at least some people say they do.


#19

The New York Times is a primary source for finding out what the Very Special People think, nobody else counts.


#20

U.S. Peace Council on Syria:

Please watch.


#21

One of the most important revelations involving Hillary Clinton is how carelessly she has handled all kinds of communications. The trove of State Department cables purloined by Manning should never have been so widely available. Why should a lowly PFC have access to classified docs sent by embassy and Other government personnel? Instead of targeting Manning and Assange, Hillary might better have investigated the sloppiness of the operations she supposedly supervised. And then there's her own private email server, obviously set up out of paranoia and then ironically opened to the whole world.

As to Assange, he is another paranoid, hiding all these years in the Ecuadorian embassy just because he won't face charges in Sweden. It is, on the face of it, ridiculous that he thinks Sweden will permit him to be extradited to the US when the UK did nothing of the kind. Had he long ago faced the rape charges, whether bogus or justified, in Sweden he would not be a virtual prisoner all this time. And as to his being a conduit for Putin, why wouldn't he be? Given the anonymized nature of the drop box maintained by Wikileaks, anyone can send anything to Assange and he will publish it. Even Snowden has criticized the way in which Assange & Co. fail to "curate" material sent to them and just put it out onto the net without any restraint.

Both Assange and Hillary are notable for their irresponsibility regarding information management and I would not want to hire either of them for a sensitive post.