So many in media got so much so wrong over the past two years as they put all of their eggs in the basket of Trump/Putin collusion in the 2016 election. I asked some Russiagate skeptics to share what they saw as the worst moments or biggest failings during the 22-month spree, and their tips for moving forward.
1. Encourage debate and dissent, not conspiracy theories and clicks.
—Aaron Maté, journalist, The Nation
Aaron Maté
I’ll never forget that Rachel Maddow did a segment where she called some alleged Russian trolls, interfering on Bernie Sanders’ fan club page, “international warfare against our country.” Jonathan Chait came out with a story about whether Trump was a Russian military intelligence agent, and then Chris Hayes put him on his program that night, and they discussed it as if this was a serious prospect.
January 2017, basically right as Trump was taking office, was the last time someone who was skeptical of Russiagate from the left was allowed on MSNBC, because in December of 2016, Ari Melber interviewed Glenn Greenwald. But that was the last time for Glenn. And January 2017 was the last time Matt Taibbi was on MSNBC. That means that basically, throughout this entire affair, throughout Trump’s presidency, MSNBC has not allowed on a single dissenting voice. That’s extraordinary. And what does that say about a political media culture, that it’s somehow a fringe position to question the conspiracy between the president and Russia?
So the only possible victory here for politics and journalism is if there’s accountability: On the journalism front, if we learn how to follow the facts, not a narrative that benefits ratings and gets us clicks; and in politics, if we actually learn to start becoming a real resistance, mounting opposition to Trump based on opposing his policies, not based on believing in this fairy tale.
2. Stop playing into Trump’s hands and stop smearing reporters.
—Matt Taibbi, journalist, Rolling Stone
Matt Taibbi (image: BillMoyers.com)
People are already writing articles accusing me and other journalists of being smug and taking a “victory lap.” I don’t feel victorious! I’d settle for being able to write about this story without being called a traitor.
Because of the way the modern news landscape is divided, we’re really susceptible to groupthink and orthodoxies. Everyone settles on narratives, and it becomes forbidden to explore any alternative themes being pursued on the “other” media. With Russiagate, it was called “shilling for Trump” to wonder about whether any part of it was untrue. That makes it very hard for young reporters, especially, to challenge this.
The only way we could possibly lose with the public in a contest with someone like Trump is if we completely abdicated the standards of the profession and did what he accused us of doing, which would be politicizing our jobs and using trumped-up evidence to try to make him look bad. That was the one option out of an infinite number of ways we could have pursued covering his presidency. That was the one thing that could have really helped him. And we did it. Not only did we do it, but we did it, basically, to the exclusion of everything else, for years.
3. Stop spreading Russophobic paranoia.
—Yasha Levine, journalist, S.H.A.M.E. Project
Yasha Levine
The thing is that America’s media obsession with the Russian menace—this idea that Russia is the greatest threat to liberal civilization—predates the Mueller investigation. It predates the 2016 election, and it predates Trump. So this wasn’t a sudden mistake about a single investigation, but something that America’s been moving towards for over a decade. The Russian Menace has been a lucrative racket—paying the mortgages, car loans, kids’ college tuitions, for thousands of think-tankers, military contractors, academics and journalists.
After Trump, the Russia hysteria hit a new level of paranoia and bigotry. There was a need to blame America’s domestic political turmoil, and the failure of its political establishment, on someone or something—to deflect responsibility for what happened. So suddenly liberal media began to see “the Russians” everywhere—part of a shadowy foreign conspiracy to undermine America from within.
They weren’t just threatening Europe and NATO. They were in the White House, in American voting machines, in American electrical grids, in American children’s cartoons. They were hacking people’s minds. They were controlling both the international left and the international right—against the respectable political center. That’s how sneaky and devious and cynical they are. That’s how much they want to destroy America’s liberal democracy.
The Mueller report may provide us some much-needed respite from this insanity for a few weeks or months, but this focus on the Russian menace isn’t going away any time soon. You can already see Joe Biden’s creepy behavior with women being blamed on a devious Russian plot to help elect Bernie. So as we get closer to the election, this kind of stuff is gonna fire up again big time.
To treat this issue as a media problem that we “can solve” and “get right” in the future is a bit too optimistic, in my opinion. It assumes that our political and media establishment wants to actually “get it right.” What does getting it right mean, when they are the problem that needs to be corrected? To “get it right,” they’d have to admit that they’ve been wrong — not just about Mueller, but about the decades of bankrupt neoliberal politics they’ve been complicit in pushing on America and around the world. To get it right, our political and media elite would have to voluntarily deplatform itself. And I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
4. Talk to people with an actual understanding of history and Russia, not fake experts and uninformed pundits.
—Carl Beijer, writer
It’s remarkable how often the problems of Russiagate coverage came down to simple ignorance. From references to Russia as a “Communist” nation to basic translation errors, we’ve seen prominent pundits make mistakes that would embarrass a grade-school Muscovite.
This was in part a problem of people exaggerating their own credentials, but it was also a problem of the media deciding that no real expertise was needed. I don’t want to call for academic entry exams, but I think it’s clear that the media needs to move in the direction of treating Russian studies as a field of knowledge like any other. Do you speak the language? Have you spent more than a few weeks in the country? What and where have you published? Do you have a directly relevant professional background?
There are so many people who could give extraordinary answers to all of these questions, so it says everything about Russiagate when you look at who we heard from instead. From overt operatives to media hacks, corporate news is now overrun by pundits who function as PR professionals for the major parties. All of their professional and social incentives compel them to carry water for their party; if they happen to be right about a given issue, it’s purely by accident.
And with Russiagate, we saw the worst-case scenario play out: Republicans, who will defend Trump over anything, ended up being right—while Democrats, desperate to believe they had caught him in an impeachable crime, got it wrong. The only way around this problem, as far as I can tell, is to talk to pundits who are acting against their own political interests.
In this case, there were plenty of people in liberal-left media who clearly want to see Trump fail, but who were nevertheless Russiagate skeptics. Some of those voices were just being contrarians, of course, but some of them were acting from a place of conviction.
5. Don’t manipulate the truth to justify war.
—Rania Khalek, journalist, host of In the Now
Rania Khalek
From the start, we were warning people that pushing this evidence-free conspiracy theory was ultimately going to empower Trump. But even worse, it actually made the world a more dangerous place. In order to prove he wasn’t in bed with the Russians, the Trump administration pushed some of the most anti-Russia policies in the post Cold War-era, moving us closer to nuclear war and increasing the likelihood of more violence in places like Syria, Venezuela and Ukraine, all to prove that Trump isn’t Putin’s puppet.
This entire affair has also resurrected the careers of the neocons, who, until Trump came along, were largely disgraced for the horrors they inflicted on Iraq. Now they’ve been embraced by liberals for being anti-Trump, and they have more influence than ever. Not to mention the new McCarthyism that frames everything, from the NRA to white nationalism to even progressive advocacy groups that challenge the Democratic Party, as agents of the Kremlin, distorting everyone’s understanding of what’s going on today.
The Russiagate narrative has been a disaster, and it’s going to continue to be a disaster, because, despite being proven to be a sham, the corporate media and the corporate Democrats are still pushing it, distracting everyone from the real reasons for our miserable status quo.
It’s regime change anniversary month for Iraq, Libya and Syria.
These countries were the targets of the US regime change playbook and all are worse off because of it. And now the regime changers have moved on to Venezuela and Iran. Will it ever end? pic.twitter.com/nd58u3VQSV
— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) March 13, 2019
6. Be skeptical toward government officials and other authorities.
—Branko Marcetic, journalist, Jacobin
Branko Marcetic
The media seemed to replace caution and wariness with an overeager credulity towards those in power or positions of authority, whether it was the salacious, unproven tales collected by a British spy; the various false and misleading claims disseminated by mysterious, anonymous government officials; or perjury-tainted former intelligence officials asserting that Trump was being blackmailed or controlled by Putin. They seemed to forget the lessons of the Iraq War, that these people, too, have their own agendas and interests.
Given the dangers, and with allegations this wild—particularly the idea that Trump was wittingly doing Putin’s bidding, which is what this scandal has always been about—there was always good reason to be extra careful. Instead, some of those pushing this narrative actually chided people for being too skeptical.
It also would’ve helped if the press gave weight to countervailing views and to experts (Russian journalists, coincidentally, never bought into the scandal), focused less on Trump’s Putin-curious rhetoric than on his administration’s actual policies, and resisted the temptation to take an explicitly nationalistic standpoint when reporting.
It’s not too late to salvage the media’s reputation, but they’ll have to acknowledge what they got wrong, be transparent about how they plan to rectify it and prevent a repeat, and have at least some accountability. None of that seems to be on the menu right now.
7. Focus on the many actual crimes.
—Esha Krishnaswamy, lawyer, host of historic.ly podcast
Esha Krishnaswamy
“Collusion” is a vague word that is not defined as a crime in any federal statute. There are numerous other Trump crimes to focus on, such as soliciting contributions from a foreign national, computer fraud, wire fraud, bribery of a public official, conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy to defraud the US, or even a violation of the emoluments clause.
We already know that a Saudi official paid for a “conference” and 500 rooms in Trump hotels. We know about the bizarre ties with a Turkish money-laundering case. Jared Kushner tried to get Qatar to bail him out on a bad building investment, and, when they refused, Trump took aim at Qatar. Trump cut ties with Qatar after the Saudi crown prince bragged that he had Jared Kushner in his pocket.
Since war criminals get a free pass, the media may not notice. But genocide is still illegal under international law (which the US doesn’t really subject itself to) and also under US law. Under 18 USC 1091, “transfers by force children of the group to another group” counts are genocide. During his brutal ICE detentions, Trump separated parents from children, and some of the children were adopted out.
But focusing on “collusion” allowed the media to peddle stories related to Facebook memes instead of talking about the issues, like how our elections are basically auctions to the highest bidder. Trump and Clinton spent nearly $2 billion each but instead of covering this, the media focused on whether or not a random Twitter account with eight followers interfered with bad memes.
The media ignored the brutal bloodbath in Yemen, the Rohingya situation in Myanmar. Domestically, they ignored wage stagnation, the rising prescription drug prices, housing foreclosures, the opioid epidemic.
The media promoted outright bigotry against Russian individuals. Maddow said, “These are the Russians in Davos.” Would she have done the same segment about any other group? “These are the Jews in Davos”?
They also sparked dangerous foreign policy, subjecting Trump to “tests” to prove that he wasn’t Putin’s puppet. Rachel Maddow encouraged NATO’s build-up in Ukraine. Many Democrats continued to encourage Trump to arm Azov Battalion (Nazis) in Ukraine. The only decent thing Trump tried to do was build peace with North Korea, and the media fear-mongered about that. As usual, they chose to push the “national security consensus” over the truth.
8. Pay attention to whom Trump is actually colluding with.
—Kyle Kulinski, host of the Kyle Kulinski Show
Kyle Kulinski
I’d say the worst example of media fails would be Maddow saying, what if Russia cut off the electricity to the middle of the country during the polar vortex. That’s just hysterical fear-mongering. I also hate the conflation of “attacking the country” with random low-level troll farms.
There’s also a concerted effort to not discuss the substance of the leaks on the DNC, and simply dismiss them because the source might be Russia. Would they do that if the leaks exposed corruption within the RNC? With 100 percent certainty, we can say no. This also gave Trump credibility, because when he screams “fake news” in the future, people won’t be as quick to reject it.
The media should focus on policy and how it impacts regular people. If they did, they would’ve spoken quite a bit about Trump’s dealings with predatory payday lenders. They donated a lot to his inauguration, and recently have been funneling him money through his golf courses. In return, he dropped an Obama-era lawsuit against them, and blocked implementation of new regulations. They’ll now make $7 billion off society’s most vulnerable. You can almost say it was “collusion” between Trump and the industry. Too bad MSNBC and CNN don’t care—and probably don’t even know—about it.
9. Stop fear-mongering and engaging in “acceptable” bigotry.
—Jimmy Dore, comedian, host of the Jimmy Dore Show
Jimmy Dore (cc photo: Gage Skidmore)
When Keith Olbermann pounded his fist on his table, screaming, “SCUM! RUSSIAN SCUM!!!” I couldn’t help but thinking, that’s the only nationality he could insert there and get away with it. He couldn’t scream “Mexican scum” or “Chinese scum” or “Indian scum.” Russian bigotry is, I think, the only acceptable bigotry among the liberal media. Totally acceptable to the liberal media.
Rachel Maddow telling her audience in the middle of a polar vortex that Russia controls their power grid and could freeze them all to death at a moment’s notice was by far the most egregious example of fear-mongering. But that’s not the only bad thing the media’s done. They’re currently pushing regime-change wars in Syria and Venezuela.
The corporate news will never regain my trust or redeem itself, because they are owned and funded by the people they’re supposed to be investigating and exposing, like the richest man in the world, for instance, Jeff Bezos. He controls 51 percent of all the internet sales in the United States, sits on a Pentagon board and has a $600 million deal with the CIA. That’s the guy running the news!
FAIR I’m so disappointed!! This is a long list of people who all believe the media got it wrong AND the collusion with Russia story was/is overblown. What about the media got it wrong because they focused on the minuteae of the Mueller investigation, fed into the public waiting for revelations and buying into the idea that superficial spectacle means freedom. Uh, hum….The media moved so quickly from the collusion in plan sight. They forgot to put together the very big important information as factual and kept making it a big question. Yes, the US was under attack, eg when the emails were released prior to the DNC. Fact. In the public domain. It’s all of the questions “why” “when” and this one is my favorite of the ridiculous questions. “What is Trump talking about with Putin, what’s in the transcripts that he won’t let us read?” There is playbook of autocracies around the world, and Trump is following. Contemporary history let’s us know the philosophy, the script, the strategies, so media and public alike could easily be less surprised and confused if they put this Trump era in historical context. Now that’s a radical idea. Decades of Trump’s ties to the Russian Mafia, Trump’s debt to Russia as they saved his businesses when no US bank would loan him money. Trump’s asking Russia for more emails in a public press conference. I could go on. But the misplaced focus was on the idea of a savior (Mueller), the lack of history as well as credible authentic forethought. The institutions in our country, from the Republican Party to the CIA have been compromised, whether through complicity or threats and bribes. FAIR apparently included.
The people doing investigative reporting independently are our heroes. And still, we need more of them and each of us must take responsibility to impeach this POTUS.
Nina:
The press got Russiagate wrong long before Mueller got his job.
You’ll need to provide evidence of Trump debts to the Russian mafia if you’re going to make the accusation.
All like many, you’re highly ignorant of Trump’s request for the missing emails from Hillary’s against policy server.
“Yes, the US was under attack, eg when the emails were released prior to the DNC. Fact.”
What does this have to do with Russia? The emails were likely leaked, and Wikileaks published them.
Your deranged. Trump was referring to Hillary’s crime of deleting 30 thousand emails illegality. You got nothing you lost forever and ever and ever.
Yes it was nauseating at times to watch, but there were many stories that pursued real crimes. I don’t understand why the critics weren’t given a spot on say MSNBC to present their criticisms? Obviously they should have stuck to the real purpose of the investigation, Russian election meddling, but there was more sleazy news than could be covered. In this age of infotainment and clicks for bucks you can’t blame cable news that exists for ratings.
And maybe, just maybe if the critics weren’t as smug as they were, they might have changed the course of coverage.
Now is the time to ramp it up for real evidenced base journalism.
They couldn’t “stick to the real purpose of this investigation” ..”Russian election meddling”..Because in 3 years, an official of the most powerful surveillance and police state in history, empowered with an investigative mandate so broad it could barely be defined, could not find A SHRED of evidence that this alleged “election meddling” ever happened..The democrats from Hillary on down refuse to accept why Trump is president….Because their pro wall street pro business, anti war, pro war anti human policies couldn’t inspire enough people to vote for them to prevent a mentally ill narcissistic game show host from defeating them….the real problem is THEY CANT accept the truth of this because wall street parasites, the “defense” industry and the war business, are their greatest patrons and wont accept sharing power with the rest of us, the “90%”.
None of these people, as well as FAIR, have seen the Mueller report. Couldn’t we all wait to hear these people’s opinions until we actually know what Mueller _did_or_didn’t_ find, instead of doing exactly what these people criticize by immediately believing Barr’s “4-page summary”? Seems to me like FAIR is jumping the gun on this one, which strikes me as uncharacteristic after years of reading your otherwise well-reasoned and well-timed reports.
Well-said. Very uncharacteristic of FAIR which I’ve followed for many years. I’d really like the editors to take a look at this piece and acknowledge the poor timing and the obviously superficial and unsubstantiated conclusion…
Soeren J:
The problem is the no evidence for collusion long predates the formal submission of the Mueller report. And collusion was the primary claim from the start.
Do you honestly think that Mueller would allow his work to be massively mis-characterized? I don’t. So when the ‘full report’ is made public (if ever) do you think that you’ll be able to find information that contradicts his decision not to bring any charges against Trump or his campaign for colluding/conspiring with the Russian government?
In any case, why aren’t you concerned with the ACTUAL collusion that took place and the confirmed meddling/interference in our electoral process by the Israelis and Saudis?
Nah, this was a great job by FAIR.org as usual. Too bad it doesn’t align with your petty personal politics or live up to your own expediencies. If you’re so concerned, why don’t you become an investigative journalist and go out and dig up the truth?
Yasha Levine nails it, don’t he?
This really isn’t primarily about Killer Clown. It’s meant to absolve the Clintonistas of any responsibility for his circus of death and dystopia (not that Madame Mayhem’s ascension wouldn’t have been largely a matter of degree, not kind), and to fill the putrid pockets of the arms industry by playing Russian roulette with nuclear armageddon.
And the corpress did indeed do their job; one they’ve toiled assiduously at from long before the Gulf of Tonkin.
Glenn Greewald and Jeremy Scahill are the first two people who should be interviewed for a story like this. They are possibly the leading independent journalists on the planet, highly knowledgeable men, and both were shuttered from appearing on MSNBC because they were challenging the whole Russia narrative.
So what’s their story on Erik Prince meeting in the Seychelles with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian wealth fund manager?
In your fantasy world, do you dictate the activities of ALL journos or just the ones who don’t necessarily agree with you?
The Russian BS was the perfect diversion for the politicians and their donors who didn’t want Climate Catastrophe (and a dozen other vital issues — Yemen, arms sales, nukes, treaties, Saudi Arabia, the impending recession, etc etc — to get fair coverage. Not that the mainstream media is capable of that. Climate Catastrophe and nukes are international issues and existential threats. It’s sheer insanity that they aren’t the front-and-center issues every day. We’re all going to pay a dreadful price for our neglect — not to mention our kids.
While the larger point the guest columnist make is correct, it looks to me as if they’re all doing exactly what the accuse the rest of the media of doing: they’re already proclaiming themselves right and the media wrong, without having read the Mueller report. Never mind that a) there are ongoing investigations that grew out of the Mueller one and that with exceptions of Manafort and Cohen, all the indictments, guilty pleas and cooperation agreements ARE Russia related. So, let us wait until the Mueller report is made public.
So answer this: Do you think Mueller or anyone on his team would sit around and let his report be MIS-characterized? Do you predict that there will be evidence of Trump or his people colluding with the Russian government (which was the accusation even though you and people like you would prefer to move the goalposts again) in Mueller’s complete report and that these journalists and commentators will have to eat crow?
Try not to change the subject, please. Do you or do you not think that the “full report” will contain information that shows Trump colluded with the Russian government and influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election?
good information for reference
Awesome job, Katie!! Really appreciate this!
Wow, instead of calling out the media for treating as fact Barr’s characterization of a report no one has seen because it’s actively being buried , FAIR is joining in with the public snow job. We’re not post-Mueller until that report is released, and FAIR should be pushing to see that happen.
We’re still digging out of the Russiagate snow job of the last 3 years – no collusion and all that. Give us a little time. Thanks
Appreciate the work of all here, but I still think a basic question is not being asked or answered: qui bono? Or more incisively, who *needed* this narrative, who had the most to lose without it?
There was a campaign that blew through approximately a billion dollars in formal donor money, and swung more than a billion in dark money. And lost. Whose candidate ran on political “competence” and “experience,” and lost to political novices. Who, under other circumstances, would have had to answer more searching questions about why/how they lost, and where did all of the money actually go? Who ran a campaign structured more around entertainment media personalities than around the kind of field organization essential to effective GOTV? Who might have had to explain more about their primary process? Who actually *preferred* Trump as an opponent, over the rest of the not particularly strong GOP field?
“It-was-all-because-of-the-Russians” offered a handy, media-fascinating, base-enraging, and face-saving narrative that forestalled critical (and frankly, realistic) examination of the Clinton campaign and its loss, and the political context in which it operated (consultants and donors). The matter is as important now as ever, as Dems seek their next Presidential candidate, and ponder their strategy. I don’t think this story is over yet. Thank you for sticking to it this far.
The people who are still concerned about election meddling by russia, most of them, became convinced with the first story; the one told by HRC about thev14 of 17 intelligence agencies that had proof of a conspiracy. That was false. Then there were the electrical grid atracks, twice this story made the rounds, false. Then there were the facebook bots, less than 100k total. Not one shred of evidence has been proven; the most recent story is the one they are enthralled by now and that is only because there has been less time to refute it than the previous stories.
Worse than being gullible, worse than being hypocritical; this persistent intrigue done in the name of a progressive movement is destroying the credibility of real progressives, real journalists and real intellectuals. It is giving trump, the neo nazi resurgence and the rest of the scum total immunity to an criticism.
Reality Winner is in jail now for releasing info that the Intercept carried about Russian actors infiltrating over 20 state’s voter rolls.
So what’s that about?
I am a Russiagate Naesayer and have been from day one. However Google Trump Bankruptcy Russian Jewish Criminal Oligarch and get an education.nyoy will instantly understand where Trump let’s netyenheau be the U.S. defacto Secretary of State and in control of the U S war machine, why Trump recognized Israeli control of Gaza and Jersleum as the Israeli capital against US and international law.
I would add: focus on the main chance. All the people here are heroes of real journalism and deserve the gratitude and respect of people all over the globe for resisting a propaganda operation whose obvious result is a more dangerous world.
But the Mueller report really isn’t about collusion. And it never was. Its main message and main political purpose is to make it an indisputable fact that the Russian government interfered with the US elections and altered the outcome. Even most of the writers here — no doubt justifiably tired of battling about these questions — have underplayed this question recently. Taibbi’s marvelous long form summary touches on it in only in passing with a healthy skeptical agnosticism.
If Mueller isn’t pressed on this issue, the underlying fearmongering and bigotry win, no matter the collusion conclusion. That’s why Mueller’s disgraceful deceit about the IRA’s budget, carefully crafted to leave the [false] impression in the minds of credulous liberals that they were spending $1.25 million a month to influence the U.S. election, or his comically incompetent failure to interview either Julian Assange or Craig Murray, should be subject to the same level of critical scrutiny as Schiff or Maddow’s ravings.
Many of the reporters interviewed here, especially Aaron Mate, have analyzed these issues in their past dogged reporting. And it’s understandable that in the current moment the question of “collusion” is paramount, and inverting St. Mueller’s credibility against his most unhinged supporters is tempting and, let’s admit, a hell of lot of well-earned fun. But this investigation has been a propaganda operation as much from the inside as the outside, and its political goals — the most important of which is to leave the millions of Americans who would like to see a more peaceful world and get rid of, or at least dramatically restrain the U.S. empire without a home in either major U.S. party — will be achieved if the core “Russia hacked our elections and helped Trump win whether he knew it or not” is allowed to stand unchallenged.
This narrative has laid the political groundwork for the prosecution of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. The possibility of a trial to establish the government’s unchallenged right to censor criticism of U.S. foreign policy has become very real. It will be cheered as lustily by liberals who profess to revere a free press and loathe Trump’s authoritarianism as it will by freedom-loving conservatives.
So, thanks to all these writers, who have sustained my faith in this profession for years. But unfortunately, there are many long days ahead discussing masturbation memes and download speeds, personal hygiene and cat piss, a bizarrely distorted recent history of Ukraine and the need to expose the lies big and small that protect the right of rich, powerful people and nations to inflict whatever violence they choose on those with less power. Keep telling the truth.
Thank you FAIR for bringing together these viewpoints. I have had a difficult time believing very much in the major corporate media. I actually have had a hard time believing that Clapper person, and especially when we saw him smile and enjoy his camera moments when telling the Congress, that yes, he lied to all of them. So many spy agencies and yet—no one saw this fakery coming?
Of course , as to GW and his WMD story and , I am confused as to what people in the State Dept. think they are doing—or is NOT thinking a requirement for the job?
It appears that America is sanctioning its own self and sanctioning itself out of existence.Wars that never end are sucking the energy out of this nation while criminals of the last wars rise again like re -animated vampires. Truly America, if we had actual patriots about, perhaps those people would realize that those who control the media do disrespect the concept of We the People, and sadly are driving this nation into a ditch of its very own making. How far journalism and truth have fallen since reading about Watergate— a time when journalism and Congress seem to value truth. Does anyone today truly know anything? I guess no one does, as Bluffdale holds so many pieces of whatever, but then no one has time to read, only gather–as the nation slides into a cess pool of its own making. I do wonder–what will become of us.
How can we be post-Mueller report if no one has read the Mueller report?
MsInformed:
“How can we be post-Mueller report if no one has read the Mueller report?”
Because Mueller didn’t recommend charges on the primary claim of collusion.
Exactly Jay! I suspect that no one here is a Trump supporter, but most of us ‘non-Russia-gate-ers’ don’t want to see an already-strained relationship with Russia (a major nuclear power) needlessly exacerbated by US election-campaign fallout and excuse-making/scapegoating by the loser. As you so correctly noted, this Mueller investigation was supposed to be SOLELY about possible Trump-Russian GOVERNMENT collusion affecting the 2016 POTUS election, NOT whether Trump is a corrupt scam artist, which I take as an established fact (ie, his 3 bankruptcies, the numerous lawsuits against him by former business investors and now some states, his sleazy ‘reality’ show, etc, etc), and NOT whether Trump or his relatives had contacts with their fellow scam artists in Russia, the oligarchs, who are not the Russian government. I didn’t vote for Trump (I voted for Stein) and never seriously considered doing-so —- even when he SAID one or two positive things (ie; about ratcheting-down the MIC & reducing US saber-rattling around the world) — because I had NO confidence that he seriously meant most of it (a belief which has been mostly borne-out) given his past flip-flops and scamming, so I’m in no-way a Trump fan. But these ‘special prosecutor’ programs seem to be too-often abused and become standing, open-ended witch-hunts, most notably the Clinton Whitewater non-scandal that morphed into the oh-so important question as to whether or not he lied about getting a blowjob, a nearly impeachable offense. But important constitutional transgressions never warrant that kind of investigatory effort…
Great list. I would add a subpoint to number four by Carl Beijer. That subpoint would be “Challenge Putin/Russia Mind Readers.” Time after time, I have read or seen pundits/posters/etc, make statements about what Putin or the Russian collective mind desires and wants–they absolutely know their motivitations. How in the hell do they know the mind of Putin with it is evident they don’t even read Putin in translation, much less know the Russian language, history, or been there? Everytime someone says “Putin wants to ….”. Stop there and ask how they know want Putin wants. Putin/Russia has become the Rorschach Test of political projection and hypocrisy. Of course the likely outcome will a type of Marcy Wheeler non-sequitur word salad, Comrade.
I am unashamed to say that I often come to read FAIR for the Russian narrative. They are rarely different from what is found on RT.
“The US was under attack, eg when the emails were released prior to the DNC”
The DNC emails were fair game, journalistically and they showed how the DNC sabotaged the Sanders campaign. “Russia” is a distraction from what the emails disclosed.
Also, there was considerable insight into Hillary, Inc. in the *State Department emails published by the State Department* and investigated by Comey in the first place, with his announcement just prior to the DNC Convention. Too bad half of them were deleted. I’m sure her entire State Department email chain was available to *numerous* foreign governments and a ready source of revelations had she been elected.
This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen you do. The contention here is that the Mueller Report is bogus, Russia didn’t try to influence the US election, Trump is exonerated & Putin is a force for good. Really? This is your position? I used to support FAIR but now that you’ve gone full MAGA, that’ll be the end of that.
No proof, but I can’t help but feel that the whole RussiaGate hysteria was created to pressure Trump into being more hostile to Russia. It seems to have worked, as Trump has caved completely on this.
Always make sure that every “reasonable” article contains at least one unsubstantiated assertion to reinforce the narrative that President Trump is bad, evil, and wrong. I can’t believe you left that one out, although you did demonstrate it beautifully!
This is a useful summary of a few different viewpoints, though some are a bit cursory and vague. Naturally, there are many other viewpoints that didn’t make it on this list. I’ll comment on a few things:
1. Aaron Maté seems to be more or less arguing that the “fairness doctrine” should be reinstated. But that seems a bit naive. Victor Pickard wrote extensively about this, see, e.g., “A Final Farewell to the Fairness Doctrine?” (History News Network, undated). Pickard called it “one of the most famous and controversial media policies ever debated” whose “effectiveness is debatable”. Most importantly, Pickard explains it as a political compromise, and the political factors that supported that compromise long since fallen away. Mate is politicking here for a preferred policy — subjecting him to something of a tu quoque criticism.
3. Yasha Levine – these are excellent points, drawn almost from institutional economics and sociology.
7. Esha Krishnaswamy – yet more excellent points. She deserve extra kudos for citing more evidence than any of the other people who comment in the article.
9. Jimmy Dore – sorry, Jimmy, but there are many more groups who can be demonized by bigoted liberals besides Russians, including anyone with a communist orientation (or from a nation with one). Jimmy should read the late Domenico Losurdo’s book “Liberalism: A Counter-History” for a more robust discussion of the topic that he sort of stumbles into. Losurdo’s claim is that liberalism is–contrary to what it explicitly professes, or, perhaps we should say, contrary to what it is willing to admit–a politics of exclusion, and liberals advocate liberal freedoms only for select groups deemed worth of them, and expend much effort policing the line over who is worthy and unworthy.
Picking up on the comment in response to Dore, Slavoj Zizek had this to say on the underlying topic here: “There is an even greater problem with the underlying premise of those who proclaim the ‘death of truth’: they talk as if before (say, until the 1980s), in spite of all the manipulations and distortions, truth did somehow prevail, and that the ‘death of truth’ is a relatively recent phenomenon. Already a quick overview tells us that this was not the case. How many violations of human rights and humanitarian catastrophes remained invisible, from the Vietnam War to the invasion of Iraq? Just remember the times of Reagan, Nixon, Bush… The difference was not that the past was more ‘truthful’ but that ideological hegemony was much stronger, so that, instead of today’s greater melee of local ‘truths,’ one ‘truth’ (or, rather, one big Lie) basically prevailed. In the West, this was the liberal-democratic Truth (with a Leftist or Rightist twist). What is happening today is that, with the populist wave which unsettled the political establishment, the Truth/Lie that has served as an ideological foundation for this establishment is also falling apart. And the ultimate reason for this disintegration is not the rise of postmodern relativism but the failure of the ruling establishment, which is no longer able to maintain its ideological hegemony.” “Three Variations on Trump: Chaos, Europe, and Fake News” (The Philosophical Salon, 7/29/2018); see also “Fake News: How to Watch the News” (RT, 3/21/2019).
I have been valuing your opinions on a lot of subjects. This reads as Russian propaganda. This goes a little to far over to the other side. Too goody, goody Russia. There is too much evidence, not just shown on MSNBC, that Russia was involved in getting Trump elected. Trump is money. Putin is money. Both are after the same things and are narcissistic enough that they don’t care how they get it. To tell you the truth, I think we’re screwed. Forget about my support. You lost me with this one.
Your article’s subheadline refers to the people interviewed for this piece as “evidence-based journalists,” yet the last two people featured are hosts of YouTube shows who do hot-take commentary on current events, not journalistic reporting. They are not “evidence-based journalists.” Dore’s show is a bunch of profanity-laced ranting, and both he and Kulinski’s shows often base entire segments on reading off a headline and giving a sarcastic, superficial summary of what actual journalists reported elsewhere. By calling these two men “evidence based journalists” you are contradicting the facts.
It seems to me that FAIR has completely blown your credibility on this article. You asked these so called evidence-based journalists to comment on “Russia Gate” before all the EVIDENCE was presented. The redacted Muller Report wasn’t even published when FAIR published this article. Incredible!!
In your rush to point a finger at “corporate” media (e.g., Rachel Maddow) you did exactly what you accused them of doing. There is plenty evidence of collusion in the redacted report and, given time, Mueller could have probably proved criminal conspiracy. Then on top of this there is a mountain of evidence of obstruction of justice. Why was Trump obstructing the investigation if there was not some underlying criminal behavior.
Please look for my request to unsubscribe from FAIR and don’t bother to send me any emails requesting a donation. You have seem my last donation.
They will never stop with Russiagate, because a new cold war is a win for the military industrial complex. In the “Project For A New American Century”, a neo-con manual, the idea for another ideological conflict with Russia and China have long been planned for. They will not stop until the U.S. owns and controls the entire world. Hubris will be our downfall. America was never meant to run the world and be an imperial power. We have lost the character of this nation, and any pretense of freedom. The FBI’s directive is to keep progressives and libertarians out of government, so things aren’t going to change anytime soon.