The ironclad rule of media bias here on Breaking Points bears repeating: The most pernicious form of media bias is not what they've choosen to show you, but what they choose not to show you. Selective presentation of facts, cherry-picked headlines and curated bias is the name of the game for narratives on cable news. And in the Western press, it's designed specifically to fulfill an ideological or policy agenda. In a time of war, it is perhaps the most dangerous in this serious and crazy environment that we're living in today. We've seen a collective psychosis take over the media and the global elite as they push for a no fly zone, aka World War Three with Russia.
Glenn Loury introduces a narrative that tells a story about what happens when a person diligently follows the evidence where it leads, but where it leads conflicts with a prevailing cultural-media narrative. In this case, Fryer's research showed police have not been killing unarmed "black" men at a rate greater than they kill unarmed "white" men. Wikipedia's version: "In 2016, Fryer published a working paper concluding that although minorities (African Americans and Hispanics) are more likely to experience police use of force than whites, they were not more likely to be shot by police than whites."
This is the story of the Harvard community reacted to those inconvenient numbers.
Glenn Loury introduces the video:
Roland Fryer is the most gifted economist of his generation. Not the most gifted black economist of his generation, the most gifted economist of his generation. Period.
He was tenured at Harvard at the age of 30, he was awarded the American Economics Association’s John Bates Clark Medal, he received a MacArthur “Genius” grant, his publications appeared in some of the most distinguished journals in the field, and his scholarship was regularly covered in the mainstream media. His research upends many commonly held assumptions about race, discrimination, education, and police violence. It is tremendously creative, rigorous, and consequential scholarship, and it cannot be simply written off because it happens to challenge the status quo.
To do the kind of work Roland does, you have to be more than brilliant. You have to be fearless. And I cannot help suspect that now Roland is paying the price for pursuing the truth wherever it leads. Several years ago, he was accused of sexual harassment by a disgruntled ex-assistant. In my opinion and that of many others, those accusations are baseless. But Harvard has used them as a pretext to shut down Roland’s lab, to curtail his teaching, and to marginalize him within the institution.
I’ll not mince words. Those at Harvard responsible for this state of affairs should be utterly ashamed of themselves. They have unnecessarily, heedlessly tarnished the career of an historically great economist. Again, I can't help but suspect that they have effectively buried vital research not because it was flawed but because they found the results to be politically inconvenient. “Veritas” indeed.
I’m not the only one infuriated by what is happening to Roland Fryer. The filmmaker Rob Montz has made a short documentary about this subject. I’m interviewed in it alongside others who see this fiasco for what it is, some of who have much to lose by publicly coming to Roland’s defense. People need to see this film. They need to know the truth about Roland Fryer. So I ask you to watch and to judge for yourself, and if you feel so moved, to share it as widely as possible.
I'll start by saying that Putin is a bad actor who is acting aggressively and killing innocent people. But I also need to add that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are war criminals. Is there really a problem saying both of these things? Turns out that I'm going light on the United States here. As Noam Chomsky recently stated, the United States thinks that it owns the entire world.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Except in today's tribal crazed environment, where the U.S. is entitled to protect its borders through its militarily-enforced hyper-extended sphere of influence but Russia is not allowed to resist NATO's death machines from being parked on its own borders, "because Putin is Hitler." End of Argument. Freddie DeBoer expands on a story about mass hysteria, fact-denial and hypocrisy that risks getting all of us physically roasted in a nuclear holocaust:
The people who say “whataboutism” don’t want to talk about carpet bombing in Cambodia. They don’t want to talk about death squads in El Salvador. They don’t want to talk about reinstalling the Shah in Iran. They don’t want to talk about the murder of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. They don’t want to talk about giving a hit list to rampaging anti-Communists in Indonesia. They don’t want to talk about the US’s role in installing a far-right government in Honduras. They don’t want to talk about US support for apartheid in South Africa. They don’t want to talk about unexploded ordnance that still kills and maims in Laos. They don’t want to talk about supporting the hideously corrupt drug lord post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan. They don’t want to talk about aiding literal Nazis and Italian fascists in taking over the government in Albania. They don’t want to talk about giving support to the far-right government’s “dirty war” in Argentina. They don’t want to talk about the US-instigated far-right coup in Ghana. They don’t want to talk about our illegal bombing of Yugoslavia. They don’t want to talk about centuries of mistreatment of Haiti, such as sponsoring the coup against Aristide. They don’t want to talk about sparking 36 years of ruinous civil war, and attendant slaughters of indigenous people, in Guatemala. They don’t want to talk about our drone war in Pakistan. They don’t want to talk about how much longer this list could go on. So when do we talk about that stuff, exactly? . . .
Well, OK, fine: I denounce Putin. I denounce his invasion. I support neither and have never suggested I did. Now will you, dear reader, denounce the oceans of blood the United States has spilled in pursuit of its own selfish interests, in the past century? Or do you have some jury-rigged excuse for every American crime I listed above and all the ones I didn’t have space to fit?
If you want the world to operate under the principle of self-determination of countries, you need to start with the country that is the indisputably most powerful and influential country on earth. And if you’re American your first priority and greatest influence lies in America’s government. I will repeat myself in saying that, if you don’t want to acknowledge our role in the world, it’s so much better simply to say, “I’m an American, I think America comes first, I don’t care about the wrong we do, love it or leave it.” That’s not a very enlightened attitude, but it has the benefit of a certain grim integrity, of plainfaced honesty. To insist that you care about self-determination and the principles of non-interference, and to maintain that the United States has the moral authority to opine about them, and to ignore our bloody history… for me, personally, it’s a bridge too far.
This is typical of the insanity that one hears when war is in the air. Mitt Romney and the geniuses at The View shout "Treason!" when Tulsi Gabbard merely expresses concern about the release of pathogens from U.S. affiliated Ukrainian biolabs. I know some people who will be attempted to accuse me of treason for linking to Tucker Carlson's show, but he's right about this issue.
Why aren't these accusers also going after Victoria Nuland, Biden's Under-Secretary of State, who was also concerned about wartime pathogen release from Ukrainian biolabs? The followup to Nuland's admission was darkly comical: Marco Rubio, possibly stunned by Nuland's admission, pushes Nuland to give assurances (based on nothing at all) that if pathogens were released, that it would be solely the fault of Russians.
--
[Added March 15, 2022]
For many people, including many in the news business, civil liberties are quaint and antiquated. No longer the life-blood of the American experiment. Glenn Greenwald gives many examples.
Now that the U.S. is actively engaged in high-stakes brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, I can't rule out that Russiagate hysteria has been a significant factor. Admittedly, Russiagate is not the only factor. We are risking civilization-annihilating nuclear war for other reasons too. For instance, decades of U.S. warmongering and profiteering. Also, conflict pornography by our "news" networks, right and left wing, which constantly feature war-obsessed military officials and members of the spy state, often without disclosing their conflicts of interest. There is a profit-motive behind this media behavior too.
Equally troubling is the failure of our "news" outlets to offer viewpoints criticizing the dominant pro-war narrative. For instance, where are the voices advocating strongly for negotiation and peace? Viewpoints like those of Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky: "This is part of the concept that [the United States] owns the world"
And how about our ignorance of history? The United States has a well-established track record of using our military to "save" countries by launching invasions that end up destroying countries financially, politically and socially. This is the sad state of U.S. foreign policy and the "news" industry that enables it, IMO.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
_(cropped).jpg)
