Home | About | Donate

The Derangement of Journalists Against Transparency


#1

The Derangement of Journalists Against Transparency

Kevin Gosztola

Officials from President Barack Obama’s administration collude with Wall Street executives to push for the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The FBI monitors “professional protesters” in Baltimore and Ferguson. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s aides discuss whether to release a video showing the extrajudicial killing of a young black man by the city’s police.


#2

Important topic, which unfortunately is very little discussed. Yglesia's argument that "prudent staffers want to do basically everything, no matter how innocent, over the phone" is actually a good description of the pervasive culture of governmental organizations. Anyone who has worked in one, knows that the important and delicate matters, the political games and the quid pro quo-s, are never written down into emails or documents. What makes it to emails and documents...are mostly trivial matters. And...not reporting on even those trivials that make it to record....sets the standard at an extreme low.

At a local level, where investigative journalism can be much easier, it is virtually non existent. Journalists have little freedom from their editors who are good friends with local officials and government executives and can easily loose their jobs if they show more curiosity than allowed. Most local papers just stenographically repeat what they hear in public meetings without even a remote semblance of questioning or analysis.


#4

In a nutshell, Obama's definition of "transparency" when he claimed that his would be "the most transparent administration ever".

Its all in how you define "transparency".

Isn't it time to elect a POTUS who is NOT an attorney ?


#6

There's something particularly galling and abhorrent about a One-Way mirror.

Popular dramas like "Law and Order" show the suspect under interrogation as the police captain looks on from behind that one-way mirror.

Now, with virtually the whole of society under permanent surveillance, how DARE journalists protect the "right of elites" to hide so much. The very content of which would completely elude the public were it not for whistle blowers.

This, of course, is ideal but irrelevant when near absolute Power has already corrupted absolutely:

"It never occurs to Drum or Yglesias that government officials could simply not do the thing they are unwilling to defend in public."

And leave it to a pro-establishment high-paid dupe to argue against Snowden by making the case that elites have a "right" to hide much from the people they arguably are in office to represent:

"The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman declared, “I believe Snowden is someone who needed a whistleblower. He needed someone to challenge him with the argument that we don’t live in a world any longer where our government can protect its citizens from real, not imagined, threats without using big data — where we still have an edge — under constant judicial review.”

Following the lead of Obama giving the Bush Junta and its penchant for high torture a pass, almost no journalist dares to "look back" at the nature of the seminal event that got all these illegal wars into motion. Then, with wars underway, they used that pretext as cause to eviscerate Civil Liberties, constitutional protections, and any genuine form of transparency... from the OTHER side of the mirror, that is.


#7

Your statement is ridiculous.

How many anti-war voices were allowed anywhere near mass media when Bush and his junta made their fake cases for foreign wars of aggression?

BUSH set the tone.

Obama continued the march to folly while turning Law further into a farce.


#8

Times
(to)
raydelcamino

"The problem is, we voters have gotten to the point that we want perfection."

Another UTTERLY stupid statement.

The problem, in your view apparently, is none of the following:

  1. The costs of running a campaign

  2. Citizens United giving top donors the "right" to purchase candidates (and through them, policy)

  3. The Electoral College

  4. A Mass media in private corporate hands that can (and does) allow a billion dollars in free publicity to a chump like Trump and uses all sorts of calumny to blacken the reputation AND actual positions of Sanders... while defining WHO has won (Clinton) before the tallies are in

  5. A checkerboard set of rules regarding WHO can vote in primaries... this little game of eligibility preventing MILLIONS of independents from weighing in

  6. Touch Voting machines that CAN (and have been) be hacked in order to produce "necessary results."

  7. Lies told often

  8. Strategically engineered gerrymandering

But rather than focus on the systemic fraud that voting represents, you posit the ridiculous assertion (I can't even call it a counter-argument, it's so ridiculous) that "voters want perfection."

I hope you are being paid no more than minimum wage since message shaping bottom feeders such as yourself are so fundamentally ignorant as to merit LOW pay.


#11

Hatred? Frothing at the mouth?

I challenged you on you STUPID comments.

Instead of the substance of massive fraud, like your TAG TEAM associates, you're here to push the LIE that citizens get what they deserve and vote a certain way, and that in turn, produces a supposed outcome.

It's a farce on so many levels.

First, it places front and center the idea that the voter is in the driver seat.

This is a DANGEROUS canard at a time when the assertion could not be more deceptive.

And by focusing on the LIE (typical Koch Brothers' style Talking Point) that "voters want perfection"... which IS what you said, Dingo, you put the spotlight on a supposed flaw in voters.

Voters want honesty. For all his pomp, bluster, and confusion, Trump is honest in being the jackass that he is. And a lot of people resonate with him for that alone.

Sanders was also honest... about the condition of this nation and where its economic priorities lead.

THOSE are some of the drivers in this election.

The nonsense that voters want "perfection" is a ridiculous ruse.

If calling you on a Talking Point is equivalent to hatred or frothing at the mouth, I'd say you need psychological attention tout suite.

I do dislike you. And it's because I recognize your commentary as being a constant in this forum. And it's a constant that is recapitulated under a variety of screen names. Apart from the deceptive nature of the commentary is the deception that a lot of individuals hold the views espoused by your little team of under-cover soldier boys. It's dishonest and it's a form of cheating and I do detest both.


#12

"you are an uneducated troll sometimes."

Okay, jackass... now I will post some of your recent comments. You're in favor of the wall, don't understand why Latinos wouldn't like Trump, and openly advocate FOR Trump while calling yourself a "Progressive."

HONEST readers will be able to see the level of consciousness that has made this juvenile comment:

Times:

Yes, we have barriers and surveillance and all sorts of technology but at the end of the day, as you admit to yourself, we still have 750,000 of those sentences spanning from 2005. And that is just those who we catch, for every 1 we catch another 10 get through. Consider the example you used with Sarabia trying to get to his 4 month old child. Somehow his wife was able to cross the border undetected and give birth in America so their child could be an American citizen. The border security can't be very effective if severely pregnant women can easily make it.

Yes, conditions in Mexico are bad, Mexico uses America as it's social safety net, good deal for Mexico, not so good for America.

I consider myself a Progressive on most issues but I have to be practical and admit that America can't take on the responsibility of caring for the entire world's poor. We have to set some kind of limit or good becomes bad in the long run. For example, donating blood is good, but you can only donate so much of your own blood before you get sick or even die yourself. We have to set limits. Now we may debate what those limits should be but there must be some set limit we can use as a guideline.
Millions of Mexican citizens risk the well described difficult journey into America because they know it is possible, it is a well known fact that refugees all the way from south America can easily make the trip, even small children and extremely pregnant women can enter America if they want to and that "fame" is part of the reason why people do it.

Times
(to) planetearth

Walls work pretty well for Israel, if not every Jew would be dead right now. Walls in other places had mixed results sure, but at the very least it provided some form of control to slow the crossings if not completely stop them. The walls also mark where control of an area changes. We have no control over the fact that Mexico uses America as it's social safety net outside of border security. How many Mexican Nationals do you think would move to America if we removed the walls and border security? Some numbers put the very poor in Mexico as around 70 million people, could America absorb 70 million people?

Times
(to) Tom1

Well let's be honest, the "wall" can't be very good if very pregnant women and small children can easily make it into America. Yes, we stop a lot, but even more make it, I am not trying to support Trump but facts are facts. My main point is that Hillary was saying almost the same things Trump is saying a couple years ago and nobody called her a racist. Same beliefs, different treatment by the media and the writers.

Times
(to) bkswrites

I don;t really understand why "ALL" Latinos would hate Trump just because he wants to end illegal immigration, it is not like he has ever said anything against Latinos in general, just the illegal aliens.
Obama actually agreed with Hillary who said a couple years ago it was Mexico's policies and lack of social safety net that is driving their poor into America. America "IS" Mexico's social safety net, good deal for them, not so much for us.

Times
(to) BWilliamson

And you are a liar, no matter how many times you lie and claim I am a Trump supporter it will never be true. You are just trying to justify your support for a bloodthirsty corrupt corporate shill because you do not want to accept responsibility you will be part of the reason Hillary kills so many people after you help her gain the Presidency.
The truth hurts, deal with it.

Times
(to) Imhotep

Actually to be honest the majority of corporate money in this election is against Trump and for Hillary. Hillary is sporting a brand new jet and was bragging about it Monday and she is out spending Trump 20 to 1 in adds and yet she is still losing ground to Trump.
Trump indeed lacks a lot, but at this point I would prefer Trump who knows nothing to Hillary who knows everything about waging wars all over the planet. Hillary made it very clear last night she has no regrets over the lives she has helped to kill.

Your intellectual acumen is just miles above mine... sure.

You're a typical Trump supporter who can't see past your own dick and skin color.


#14

"...contributing editor at Newsweek suggested...there has not been enough attention to which of these leaks do real damage to National Security and which do not."

Generally, it seems to me, it's not the leaks that endanger National Security, but rather, that which is Exposed, such as all facts that point to our Endless War being the prime factor in making Our Country less and less safe as Hatred is cultivated against it by our Military's destruction of country after country, and family after family in Illegal Wars of Aggression.


#15

Back when there were only three networks, there were still many points of view allowed access to the Public.
That's one of the reasons that opposition to the Viet Nam War was able to be mobilized.

Now with the Media effectively Captured, it allows only one, Corporate point of view, camouflaged to appear balanced to the trusting.

Brainwashing isn't a choice. It's called brain washing instead of brain stabbing because it is soft, slow and undetectable.

I listened to Corporate Talk Radio for years at work until I found there was an alternative.

My epiphany was when I came close to voting for a known NY dirtbag who, over time, was introduced to the audience on a regular basis through in-studio visits as a "swell guy", and "Senator Pothole"

Like all cults, they work at first becoming our "friends", talking about sports, their kids, the weather and then, in a daily, one way conversation, begin to frame topics according to their agenda and shape our points of view.


#17

It wasn't Newspapers, it was the Fairness Doctrine that kept TV Networks in check, and because of its revocation, a huge chunk of our still trusting Population get manipulated daily by the ability of the Now Captured Media to Frame virtually every Important Topic in a way to benefit their Agenda.

To many Citizens, Computers and Internet Access remain an expensive luxury.

I can't fault them, as they SHOULD be able to get their news from a Free Press and the Public Airwaves that their Government is now denying them.

Even with the Internet and Sites like this, I, myself, dig for news, yet sometimes, find things out weeks and months late.


#19

Bernie was threatened, big time, to go along.

He accomplished more than any other Progressive could have dreamed of simply by laying bare the Dem Party for all to see just what it is.

I don't understand your analysis of the results of the demise of the Fairness Doctrine as its overturning enabled heretofore unimaginably one sided entities like Fox News or Corporate Talk Radio, for example, to actually exist.


#21

Sorry, but your responses lead me now to understand that, at this point, I'm no longer involved in a realistic conversation.


#23

What is a "jatter"?


#24

I truly don't know WTF you're talking about at this point vis a vis reality. Enough. Move on.


#26

Please...


#28

.........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ I'm sorry, did you say something?