"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?
I don't think it's that CNN viewers are that stupid, but I don't know if it's the "journalists" parroting back of completely illogical ideas to show tribal identity, or that the insiders really do think outsiders are that stupid, and it's the absolute condescension that has driven me from the mainstream media to here and from considering myself part of that tribe. I think for all of us who considered ourselves liberal under Bush and Clinton to now be told and expected to think government influence on public speech is ok should really be beyond the pale, and I'm really dismayed more people aren't really upset by this.
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.
One (admittedly very highly-placed) source within the FBI is not "the FBI". When the FBI's Director privately accused Felt of being "Deep Throat", Felt denied it, but it ended his career with the Bureau anyway; he resigned the next day.
It's certainly a valid question to ask whether W&B would have been as enthusiastic about pursuing such a story about a Democratic president, but on the other hand, it's a purely hypothetical question since no modern Democratic president has done such things. The Watergate coverup, Contragate, and Trump's conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election are easily the worst criminal offenses committed by modern presidents, and oddly enough they were all committed by Republicans. It's true that the media fell all over themselves to excuse Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky (and brushed under the rug his lying under oath about it, as if that were a mere detail), but lying to conceal a personal misdeed that was not itself a crime (a moral offense, but not a criminal one) is hardly in the same league as the things Nixon, Reagan, and Trump did.
This FBI suborned perjury, falsified information and forged documents given in pursuit of surveillance warrants. It knowingly misled a private enterprise - most likely by appealing to some patriotic notion - into thinking the Hunter laptop was a fraud when it was not and the FBI knew it wasn't. We have no way of knowing how many shocking behaviors they have covered up more successfully but we can guess who the beneficiaries of those cover ups might be. And maybe W and B are just pawns and dupes in this anyway. They certainly went willingly to literary and cinematic fame and fortune.
But your previous comment was about Watergate. The Hunter Biden laptop case is a completely different situation that occurred nearly half a century later. There is a big difference between one rogue operator within the FBI (even if he was the Deputy Director) secretly leaking info to the press (and lying to his superiors about it) and the FBI officially contacting Twitter to mislead them about the laptop.
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.
Yes for sure. There has always been alternative voices out there as well, such as substack offers now, if you are willing to look hard enough. You can also examine primary sources if you are willing to invest the time, though it is often opaque to non-experts.
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?
I don't think it's that CNN viewers are that stupid, but I don't know if it's the "journalists" parroting back of completely illogical ideas to show tribal identity, or that the insiders really do think outsiders are that stupid, and it's the absolute condescension that has driven me from the mainstream media to here and from considering myself part of that tribe. I think for all of us who considered ourselves liberal under Bush and Clinton to now be told and expected to think government influence on public speech is ok should really be beyond the pale, and I'm really dismayed more people aren't really upset by this.
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.
One (admittedly very highly-placed) source within the FBI is not "the FBI". When the FBI's Director privately accused Felt of being "Deep Throat", Felt denied it, but it ended his career with the Bureau anyway; he resigned the next day.
It's certainly a valid question to ask whether W&B would have been as enthusiastic about pursuing such a story about a Democratic president, but on the other hand, it's a purely hypothetical question since no modern Democratic president has done such things. The Watergate coverup, Contragate, and Trump's conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election are easily the worst criminal offenses committed by modern presidents, and oddly enough they were all committed by Republicans. It's true that the media fell all over themselves to excuse Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky (and brushed under the rug his lying under oath about it, as if that were a mere detail), but lying to conceal a personal misdeed that was not itself a crime (a moral offense, but not a criminal one) is hardly in the same league as the things Nixon, Reagan, and Trump did.
This FBI suborned perjury, falsified information and forged documents given in pursuit of surveillance warrants. It knowingly misled a private enterprise - most likely by appealing to some patriotic notion - into thinking the Hunter laptop was a fraud when it was not and the FBI knew it wasn't. We have no way of knowing how many shocking behaviors they have covered up more successfully but we can guess who the beneficiaries of those cover ups might be. And maybe W and B are just pawns and dupes in this anyway. They certainly went willingly to literary and cinematic fame and fortune.
But your previous comment was about Watergate. The Hunter Biden laptop case is a completely different situation that occurred nearly half a century later. There is a big difference between one rogue operator within the FBI (even if he was the Deputy Director) secretly leaking info to the press (and lying to his superiors about it) and the FBI officially contacting Twitter to mislead them about the laptop.
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 press has been controlled by the rich for a long time, and their tendency has always been to do whatever benefits themselves.
See also: William Randolph Hearst.
Yes for sure. There has always been alternative voices out there as well, such as substack offers now, if you are willing to look hard enough. You can also examine primary sources if you are willing to invest the time, though it is often opaque to non-experts.
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.