Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack
of the US election. The term "Russian hack" suggests the Russkies
actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.
But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such
a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface,
you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and
scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails,
and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.
But no chain of evidence supporting THAT claim has been presented to the
public, either. Even assuming the assertion is true, an important
factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED
EMAILS.
In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost
Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the
authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However,
no major media outlet is reporting the story from that
angle.
After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS
SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN'T REFUTE CONTENT OF
LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.
Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren't they
printed? Big news outlets didn't want readers to think about the story
from that perspective.
Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails?
To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion
to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.
"Let's make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED."
When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to
have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who
had the tape and who released it to the press? No.
Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums
it up: "The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as
"Climategate") began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at
the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University
of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of
emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to
various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on
climate change."
One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious
attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major
media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal
hacking, and investigations were launched to determine
the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as
"proprietary work product" and "misleading" because "context was
missing."
Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each
case. "Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he
leaked?"
But that is not a choice you are making. It's a choice being made for you.
Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the
time. In these instances, of course, the press doesn't turn around and
launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a
particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers
and television news departments simply run with the stories.
"Okay, Bob. Here's a little gem for you. The White House and the
Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of
legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House.
It'll establish a working group to combat 'fake
news' operations that confuse the public..."
Does Bob, the reporter, bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a
story accusing his source of trying to knock out independent news
competitors? Of course not. Bob plays along.
Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case
with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in
August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a
2004 study of the MMR vaccine, by covering up the
vaccine's connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was
cooked. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from
scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly.
The leaker AND what he was leaking remained in the
shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story
percolating.
You can find examples of government actors spying on Trump---in these
instances, the press decides to focus on the WHAT, the content gained
from spying; and downplays the WHO, the people who green-lighted the
surveillance.
There is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. The
WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and
agendas---and repressing the public interest.
The NSA, with its gargantuan reach into the lives of the population
(including government officials), has enough content to keep the press
busy for the next 50 years reporting NSA leaks; but the NSA decides
when, and for what reasons, to hold back what it knows.
Or to leak bits and pieces through cut-outs.
The leaks-game is played over and over, and the rules of the game are
shifted, depending on unrevealed agendas. Who do we want to expose this
time? Who do we want to come out looking like a winner? Who are our
friends at the CIA supporting?
Editors are there to keep reporters in line and correct oversights. Not
in so many words, an editor would let a reporter know: "You picked the
wrong source this time, Bob. Your guy is telling a story we don't want
to promote. Find a different source with
a better take, in line with our agenda to attack (fill in a name)."
That's what the editor means. But he might simply say: "Bob, that
source of yours...I don't trust him anymore. I've been hearing odd
things about him. Don't use him for this piece." The reporter gets the
message.
This technique of casual ad hominem criticism and rumor even extends to
the realm of science. In 1987, a prestigious molecular biologist, Peter
Duesberg, "leaked" what many virologists privately knew: the evidence
for HIV as the cause of AIDS was full of gaping
holes. Duesberg published a paper in the journal, Cancer Research,
exposing the con.
Overnight, a whisper-campaign against Duesberg spread through the
research community---and into the press. "We always knew Duesberg was
an odd duck. He likes publicity. He hates authority. He runs his
mouth off. He doesn't care about evidence. He'll take
a contrary position just to stand out."
The game of leaks, sources, and fake news takes many shapes.
Welcome to mainstream news.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment