by William Skink
Blog skirmishes are nothing compared to the bigger world of media warfare. For example, I could speculate whether recent Zinke oppositional research about where he lives was actually investigated and solely authored by Don Pogreba, or if maybe someone else is filtering political hits through ID, but that is not nearly as important as the attacks on media covering the Dakota Excess pipeline and the British bank freeze out of RT. Regarding the latter, here is a snip from the link:
Although I’m perfectly happy admitting I’m no fan of segments of RT’s coverage, those who criticise the network but stay eerily quiet about the fact that both the British and American mainstream media have supported almost every one of their respective military escapades over the last few decades are clearly more interested in playing Cold War mind games than tackling systemic media bias.
Moreover, RT lends a tremendous amount of coverage to marginalised issues and people in the West. In the United States, for example, RT were reporting on the country’s largest prison strike in history amid little more than a tumbleweed response in the mainstream American media. They even received an Emmy nomination as one of the first networks to cover Occupy Wall Street.
Sources are a big deal to some people. Or, to be more specific, the “right” sources. Reading broadly while knowing bias exists everywhere is down-right threatening to some people.
Some other recent developments in the media wars leads me to suspect a liberal authoritarian shutdown of free speech is brewing. Julian Assange is now under direct threat after Ecuador appears to be caving in to US pressure to shut him up. Just today a mysterious disclosure has some speculating whether something has happened to Assange, and/or an “insurance policy” data dump has been enacted.
While the erosion of free speech has been brewing on campuses across the country–with increasingly hysterical demands for safe spaces and trigger warnings to protect these alleged adults from the sometimes harsh forms reality takes in this fucked up world–it’s the latest lament from President Obama that I find the most disturbing for what it could portend. Here’s a taste of how liberal authoritarianism is being framed as good and necessary:
“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
“There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.
His remarks came amid an election campaign that has seen Republican candidate Donald Trump repeat ideas and take on key staff from right-wing media outlets.
“That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible,” he added.
“The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
…”obviously not censorship” my ass. Remember, this is the President who has taken the gloves off when it comes to going after whistleblowers. That link is to a Counterpunch piece, by the way 😉
It remains to be seen what will happen to Julian Assange. Liberals made a big deal out of Trump suggesting he would have Hillary Clinton prosecuted if he won the election, but Hillary Clinton has actually suggested having Assange assassinated by drone. She may not get a chance, depending on how desperate the power-mad sociopaths are to keep more drips from dripping out of Wikileaks.
If Assange is taken out, one way or another, how will Democrats spin this lethal suppression of information? Has Assange been sufficiently Kremlinalized to warrant execution in the hearts and minds of the liberal class?