Following the late January guilty verdicts in the espionage trial of former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, more proof emerged — if any more were needed — that many elite mainstream journalists abhor whistleblowers and think they should go to prison when they divulge classified information.
New York Times columnists Thomas Friedman and David Brooks, Washington Post columnists David Ignatius and Richard Cohen, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s former Meet the Press host David Gregory, and the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin. These are among the journalistic heavyweights . . . .
Wow. What a list. With "mainstream" poseurs such as these, who needs Fox News?
I applaud the author's choice of the term "journalistic heavyweights" over "heavyweight journalists."
"New York Times columnists Thomas Friedman and David Brooks, Washington Post columnists David Ignatius and Richard Cohen, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s former Meet the Press host David Gregory, and the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin. These are among the journalistic heavyweights who have in one instance or another come to the defense of the government’s secrecy policies and who have pilloried those making the leaks. And, in the process, they frequently sounded more like government press officers than independent, skeptical watchdogs of the public interest."
A few things come to mind upon reading this sentence. One is that it's fairly well known that during war time or an era that makes war its MIC's centerpiece, that media is turned into a propagandistic arm of the Martial State.
Second, it's been proven that the NSA funds specific writers, and the list includes playwrights, novelists, academics, and journalists. These individuals are salaried to spout ideas (along with an ideology) that are supportive towards the MIC's objectives. Largely that means setting pretexts for making war or spreading existing conflagrations. (How better to sell all those armaments which covert war profiteers rely on for their lifestyles, the better with which to bribe "lawmakers" and other political heavyweights--elected--via quid pro quo campaign funds or appointed.)
I have yet to finish the entire piece... but the aforementioned required expression.
"In Friedman’s telling, Americans must not overly concern themselves about our government spying on citizens and must accept a curtailment of privacy and civil liberties today in order to protect the nation and ward off a repeat of 9-11 — which, if it occurred, would lead to an even more serious crackdown on civil liberties. As he wrote: “…(W)e don’t live in a world any longer where our government can protect its citizens from real, not imagined, threats without using big data…under constant judicial review. It’s not ideal. But if one more 9/11-scale attack gets through, the cost to civil liberties will be so much greater.”
Whenever there is a cover-up, the corpse stinks to high heaven and nothing genuine can be built upon that unholy ground.
Covert operators, part of the Deep State got away with killing JFK, Paul Wellstone, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and Malcolm X. They own enough media and paid pundits to spin stories so far off the axis of truth that when these lies become the intellectual fare of the land, few have the courage, cajones, or wit to challenge them. And any who do--like all the journalists being tarred and feathered as suspicious whistle blowers for not marching lockstep with official narratives--are treated as out to lunch pariahs.
Nonetheless, much goes back to the central crime; and when those who planned, executed, and covered it up remain in high places, that stench to high heaven permeates the nation's atmosphere.
Given the evidence and/or the rush to hide it... any true journalist would at best be agnostic about the official 911 fairytale. Those with the courage to handle the truth know that it was an inside job as planned as the German Reichstag and likely conceived of by the remnant Nazis imported into the CIA after W. W. II.
As if the new American surveillance cum Stasi state, the worship of men in uniform (and armed force as well as armed forces), the militarization of U.S. police departments, the return of military ordnance to "the Homeland" to patrol its streets, the border fence and efforts to maintain profiles on so many citizens are not l930s redux.
What's happening in this nation (along with other Western allies) is despicable and it's ALL founded on a number of Necessary Lies. That September event factoring high on the list.
"Why do these stars of the news media so readily brush off concerns about our dangerous warfare/surveillance state revealed by Snowden, Manning and the others? Why do they cheer on the government’s crackdown on unauthorized leaks and tell us surveillance and the diminishment of our civil liberties is really for our own good in a scary world — rather than side with the Bill of Rights and the handful of other journalists and whistleblowers who expose secrets that people in a free society should have the right to know? Why do they sound as if they are angling for a position on the National Security Council or membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, rather than aspiring to be another I.F. Stone (who lived by the tenet, “all governments lie”) or Edward R. Murrow or Seymour Hersh?"
I must assume that the above is posited as a rhetorical question. After all, anyone who studies the state of U.S. media surely must recognize that in this authoritarian time of intellectual lock-down, ANY who step over the line (by challenging Official Stories) will lose their jobs and, if demonstrating a sufficient enough threat to the constellation of lies that is repeated often (and in lockstep by so many respected and recognizable media voices) will be prosecuted.
Why is it that ALL mainstream sources paint Putin as the aggressor or up until recently painted Israel and Palestine as two co-equal sides in an ongoing conflict? Why is so little stated about the racist/sexist nature of an authoritarian status quo that in everything from classrooms to congress NOW follows military protocols?
No one with a good media job has it for thinking independently. If they are inclined to do so, they would lose their jobs and the times are financially uncertain. Just as the young boys living in low income rural zones opt for the military as their own path out of fiscal purgatory, many journalists understand that they will NOT have jobs if they rock the boat. Today's establishment in everyway reflects a military-mercantilist merger, a/k/a fascism. To survive is to find one's niche in a very dangerous system... that is, until the inevitable collapse.
THAT is what's going on. And I think it's clear to any who look beneath surface appearances.
The consolidation of media to the point where a handful of corporations own all print, radio, and broadcast media really does limit jobs. It's not as if 20 people aren't waiting to act as stenographers to power if 1 principled individual quits.
the supposed reporter Friedman still insists that 911 was an attack from abroad when we all know that it was planned and executed by the U.S. govt with Mossad assistance. Sad.... Gee Tom guess we are lucky the 'forces' don't invade our living rooms and confiscate computers.