Who is the Authoritarian?

because I follow these trends closely, but . . . For the past month Matt Taibbi has been reporting in detail that the FBI, DHS, DOD, CIA and other agencies have built a system for mass delivery of censorship requests to firms like Twitter and Facebook. MSNBC has now accused Taibbi of fueling authoritarianism with his reporting. Taibbi responded by listing some of the many pro-censorship advocates currently lurking around at MSNBC, people who call themselves journalists:

John Brennan, former Director of the CIA, now senior intelligence analyst at MSNBC

Frank Figliuzzi, formeer Assistant Director of Counterintelligence at the FBI

Asha Rangappa, former Special Agent for the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence

Nicolle Wallace, former Communications Director for George W. Bush

Jeremy Bash, former Chief of Staff of the CIA

Clint Watts, former FBI counterintelligence agent and MSNBC national security analyst

Chuck Rosenberg, former Acting DEA administrator and senior FBI official

Nayyera Haq, former Senior Director of the White House

Richard Painter, former Chief Ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House

Neal Kaytal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States

Ben Rhodes, former National Security Advisor to Barack Obama

Barry McCaffrey, former U.S. Army General and Drug Czar, security analyst for NBC and MSNBC

Stephen Twitty, former Lieutenant General of the U.S. Army

Joyce Vance, former U.S. Attorney

Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney

Glenn Kirschner, former Assistant U.S. Attorney

For more on the abject silence of the left-leaning legacy media, its refusal to acknowledge the obviously disturbing importance of Taibbi's recent reporting on the Twitter Files, consider this episode of Glenn Greenwald's System Update on Rumble. The title: "Media Silent as Twitter Files Expose Flagrant Misconduct in Govt. & Journalism."

Continue ReadingWho is the Authoritarian?

The Southwest Airlines Crisis Illustrates our Politically Divided News Media

Look who is and who is not covering the Southwest Airlines breakdown and the potential culpability of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. At Lever News, David Sirota describes this daunting problem in his article, "The Partisan Ghost In The Media Machine":

This media dysfunction exemplifies what I’ve previously called The Algorithm: an information ecosystem in which news outlets promote or suppress facts based on whether those facts will flatter or offend their audience’s partisan impulses.

Stories that might shame Democrats are amplified by right-wing media, but effectively shadowbanned by legacy and left-of-center media that do not want to offend a liberal readership that loathes news that might shame the Democratic politicians they worship. This is why previous reporting months ago about Buttigieg’s refusal to do his job was similarly erased from the liberal discourse.

It’s the same thing on the other side: Reporting that might embarrass Republicans is touted by those legacy and left-of-center media, but never mentioned by right-wing media outlets that don’t want to offend the MAGA movement....

When journalism that embarrasses Democratic politicians is promoted by Fox News — and ghosted by MSNBC — liberals either never see the reporting, or they get to eyeroll and smugly laugh at it, insisting the verifiable facts must be false just because they happen to be amplified by Rupert Murdoch rather than by Rachel Maddow. The converse is also true: When facts embarrassing Republicans are reported by MSNBC — and ignored by Fox News — most conservatives never even see them, and those who do get to brush it off as “fake news” from “liberal media.”

This dynamic is a big part of the democracy crisis in America. It has created two throngs of zombie partisans fighting a never-ending war of attrition from behind screens that tell them only what they want to hear, and censor facts that might alter their thinking.

Fixing this nightmare requires the kind of media that Joseph Pulitzer envisioned — a media that will “never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong.”

Clearly, America doesn’t have that media — and many seem to know it, as polls show trust in media plummeting.

Continue ReadingThe Southwest Airlines Crisis Illustrates our Politically Divided News Media

Twitter Files Result in Conspiracy of Silence by Legacy Media Outlets

I just finished reading "The Most Terrifying Conclusion From the Twitter Files That Everyone's Ignoring," by J.D. Rucker.  He makes these observations, with which I agree.

Government and their proxies have been censoring American citizens by ordering Big Tech companies to do it for them. This is a clear betrayal of the spirit of the 1st Amendment at the very least and is likely worthy of legal action. . . .

But while conservative media is busy discussing the ramifications of censorship and the near certainty that both the last two elections as well as the Covid "vaccine" rollout were dramatically impacted by illegal actions taken by members of our government, there's actually a far more troubling takeaway from all of this. For the various misinformation operations to have gone unreported by anyone in or out of government and media, that means an unfathomable number of people have been aware at the least. Many have been directly involved and we're just getting confirmation of it now.

Halfway through Rucker's article I did a search for the word "Twitter" at the websites of the NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC and NPR.  There is almost zero coverage of the Twitter Files at any of these outlets, with the exception of one article by the NYT. It's as if the Twitter Files were never released. This non-coverage is predictable based on the "news" covered by these outlets over the past several years, during which they have been selectively embellishing and stuffing stories mostly in unison, to push their Woke agenda and to elect democrats. These outlets want to claim that nothing interesting is going on because the Twitter Files revelations reflect so poorly on the "journalism" being produced by these media corporations. They want to act as though nothing is happening, but Rucker's article accurately describes that these things have been going on--there is enough here to convince any legitimate journalist with even low-level curiosity to write hundreds of articles:

  1. The FBI set up a command center in San Francisco in fall 2020 that forwarded censorship requests from bureau headquarters to social media platforms.

  2. The FBI succeeded frequently with social media firms when it forwarded censorship requests, including content posted by Americans.

  3. Federal agencies also partnered with contractors to ensure certain content was policed and censorship, creating a degree of separation.

  4. Homeland Security officials took part in weekly meetings with Twitter executives as the 2020 election approached.

  5. Homeland Security knew Twitter had second thoughts about censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.

    6. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingTwitter Files Result in Conspiracy of Silence by Legacy Media Outlets

How to Marginalize Ideas and People to Create an Illusion of Consensus, Hurting People in the Process

A story of hubris by the powers that be. This could also be characterized the sort of thing Jonathan Haidt would characterize as "structural stupidity":

People who try to silence or intimidate their critics make themselves stupider, almost as if they are shooting darts into their own brain.

What follows is an Excerpt From The Free Press. "Government Power v. People Power," By Dr. Jay Bhattacharya:

From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, I was a vocal critic of lockdowns and school closures that I believed would cause more harm than good. In October 2020, with Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, I wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, which proposed protecting vulnerable people while lifting lockdowns for the majority of the population. In other words, it advocated a return to classic principles of pandemic management that had worked to limit the harm of other respiratory virus pandemics. Tens of thousands of scientists signed on.

Four days after we wrote it, the head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, wrote to Anthony Fauci, labeling us as “fringe epidemiologists” and calling for “a quick and devastating published takedown” of the declaration. A propaganda campaign quickly ensued, with various media sources falsely accusing me of wanting to let the virus rip. It wasn’t just the press. Recently I learned in these pages that Twitter placed me on a secret blacklist to limit the reach of my tweets.

So what did I learn in 2022? I learned in a very concrete and painful way the effects of Washington and Silicon Valley working together to marginalize unpopular ideas and people to create an illusion of consensus.

This censorship and smear campaign deprived the world of a needed debate over Covid policy and might have avoided much unnecessary suffering by children, the poor, and the working class harmed by lockdowns.

[Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of health policy at Stanford University, where he has taught in the medical school for over two decades].

Here is an excerpt from the Great Barrington Declaration:

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Continue ReadingHow to Marginalize Ideas and People to Create an Illusion of Consensus, Hurting People in the Process