"Like the intelligence agencies, the media is oriented not by ideology but by power." I wish more people understood this. They don't choose sides: they choose power.
I love this article. I would like to make two observations and ask a question:
Musk's wording might be "messy," but it is also accurate. One of the wonderful things about modern society is that we understand power differentials. In certain situations, can you really say no? You can't argue that all these things were "suggestions" unless you ignore the huge power differential between the Democrat Party and the tech platforms *or* the whole of government and the tech platforms. I'm not saying they had no choice in the matter, but it would have taken much stronger people to commit financial and regulatory suicide over free speech. So these "requests" were as good as orders, especially when your building has an outpost of (ex-)FBI officials. I'm not sure "choice" is a word that can be used in any serious way in that context, which makes CNN's argument laughable.
Second, as Matt Taibbi says, when did we get it in our heads that "stolen" material can't be used as news? If it's real, then it's news, no matter where it came from. I figure Assange and Snowden should be given medals for telling us the truth. On the other hand, the same media had no problem printing the leaked Dobbs decision, for example, so the double standard is revealing.
Finally, I have to wonder how far back this goes. In other words, was Nixon not appropriately friendly with the press and so they had no problem tearing him down? In other words, is this a new problem or just a very old problem repackaged for a new age?
So to refute suggestions the FBI was lying to Twitter management, CNN interviews an anonymous FBI agent who assures them the FBI was not lying at all. Case closed.
Not only does this make me weep for the state of corporate journalism today, but it is difficult to imagine how credulous and stupid you would have to be to accept this as evidence against the Twitter Files revelations. I mean, Joyce Behar level of stupidity. Are CNN viewers really that stupid? Is anyone?
Woodward and Bernstein were in the hunt for a Republican president and Republican operatives. The FBI, we learned decades later, helped them. Very little has changed.
Good article. Increasingly the press is in the hands of billionaires who are supportive of the status quo. Trump didn’t make himself any friends with his “Deep State” comments. The career bureaucrats in the various federal agencies knew he was talking about them.
Great article and video -- and I totally agree it's a symptom of "the establishment" fighting for survival. "Outsiders" are lashing out because they are tired of being left behind. Jon Meacham sums it up with "two numbers": 17% = Americans who trust the government (down from 77 percent in 1955); and $58,000 = the Average household income (vs $130,000 needed to live a "middle class life" as defined by 1970s standards).
Well argued and helpful piece. It dovetails nicely with my own view that this swarming into tech platforms by the US security apparatus is a make-work strategy, rather than primarily about politics. They need stuff to do (and get budget for) since the war on terror ran out of juice.
Curtis Yarvin argues that the one power that still remains available to a president is the declassification of protected information. This is the one thing available to counter administrative state.  otherwise, a dissident president like Trump or Sanders are effectively powerless.  Of course the sundowner in chief Biden does their bidding, or more accurately is consumed with fear about delivering his lines.
"Like the intelligence agencies, the media is oriented not by ideology but by power." I wish more people understood this. They don't choose sides: they choose power.
I love this article. I would like to make two observations and ask a question:
Musk's wording might be "messy," but it is also accurate. One of the wonderful things about modern society is that we understand power differentials. In certain situations, can you really say no? You can't argue that all these things were "suggestions" unless you ignore the huge power differential between the Democrat Party and the tech platforms *or* the whole of government and the tech platforms. I'm not saying they had no choice in the matter, but it would have taken much stronger people to commit financial and regulatory suicide over free speech. So these "requests" were as good as orders, especially when your building has an outpost of (ex-)FBI officials. I'm not sure "choice" is a word that can be used in any serious way in that context, which makes CNN's argument laughable.
Second, as Matt Taibbi says, when did we get it in our heads that "stolen" material can't be used as news? If it's real, then it's news, no matter where it came from. I figure Assange and Snowden should be given medals for telling us the truth. On the other hand, the same media had no problem printing the leaked Dobbs decision, for example, so the double standard is revealing.
Finally, I have to wonder how far back this goes. In other words, was Nixon not appropriately friendly with the press and so they had no problem tearing him down? In other words, is this a new problem or just a very old problem repackaged for a new age?
So to refute suggestions the FBI was lying to Twitter management, CNN interviews an anonymous FBI agent who assures them the FBI was not lying at all. Case closed.
Not only does this make me weep for the state of corporate journalism today, but it is difficult to imagine how credulous and stupid you would have to be to accept this as evidence against the Twitter Files revelations. I mean, Joyce Behar level of stupidity. Are CNN viewers really that stupid? Is anyone?
Woodward and Bernstein were in the hunt for a Republican president and Republican operatives. The FBI, we learned decades later, helped them. Very little has changed.
Yeah supporting the prerogatives of the establishment order as long as the power is in Democrat hands!
Good article. Increasingly the press is in the hands of billionaires who are supportive of the status quo. Trump didn’t make himself any friends with his “Deep State” comments. The career bureaucrats in the various federal agencies knew he was talking about them.
The video was great but the music ruined it. Turn down volume so the words can be heard.
Great article and video -- and I totally agree it's a symptom of "the establishment" fighting for survival. "Outsiders" are lashing out because they are tired of being left behind. Jon Meacham sums it up with "two numbers": 17% = Americans who trust the government (down from 77 percent in 1955); and $58,000 = the Average household income (vs $130,000 needed to live a "middle class life" as defined by 1970s standards).
Well argued and helpful piece. It dovetails nicely with my own view that this swarming into tech platforms by the US security apparatus is a make-work strategy, rather than primarily about politics. They need stuff to do (and get budget for) since the war on terror ran out of juice.
One question I have, tangential though it is: Why was the FBI spying on Giuliani in the summer of 2020?
So you don't see a pattern of favoritism?
Well said
Curtis Yarvin argues that the one power that still remains available to a president is the declassification of protected information. This is the one thing available to counter administrative state.  otherwise, a dissident president like Trump or Sanders are effectively powerless.  Of course the sundowner in chief Biden does their bidding, or more accurately is consumed with fear about delivering his lines.