nationofchange | The Washington Post article in question, written by Craig Timberg
— surely either one of the most credulous and lazy journalists working
in a major US news organization (and that’s really an accomplishment!),
or a rank propagandist for the US government posing as a journalist at
the Post — relied upon only two sources for his dramatic
“exposé” purporting to prove that a massive Russian propaganda campaign
had surreptitiously attempted to undermine (perhaps successfully!) the
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and to throw the race to Donald
Trump, at the same time undermining US foreign policy and faith in the
US government while elevating the reputation of Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Both sources are falsely described by Timberg as being
“two teams of independent researchers.” The assumption we clearly are
meant to have is that these organizations have no institutional bias.
In fact, the first of these sources, the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI),
turns out to be a hoary relic of the Cold War founded in 1955 by Robert
Strausz-Hupé, an Austrian emigré and passionate anti-Communist. It has
continued its anti-Russian propaganda stance since the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the 2002 death of its founder and now boasts on its
board of trustees jailbait like former Reagan National Security Advisor
Robert McFarlane, a key player in the Reagan-era Iran Contra scandal who
pleaded guilty to four counts of lying to Congress but was pardoned by
President Reagan, arch-neocon and Russia-phobe Robert Kagan, a key
promoter of the the US invasion or Iraq in 2003, and a whole host of
other right-wing anti-Russian fanatics.
At least FRPI is willing to let people know who it is and who is
running the joint. In contrast, the other of Timberg’s sources,
PropOrNot, an organization with a website, PropOrNot.com,
founded only several months ago, remains totally secret, providing no
information on its site about its origins, its funding, its leadership
or its staff. And yet Timberg confidently claims its information about
Russia’s alleged epic propaganda effort was the result of the
painstaking analytical work of these “experts.” In fact Timberg says the
organization’s executive director, whom he quotes, asked for and
received anonymity along with all his staff because they wanted to
“avoid being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers.”
And the Post’s editors allow him to get away with this gutlessness and lack of transparency. To get the full picture of how credulous and unprofessional — or willfully biased — Timberg’s editors at the Washington Post (often still considered one of the nation’s top “newspapers of record”), were in not vetting his article, read the Intercept’s article Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist from a New, Hidden and Very Shady Group, which devastatingly eviscerates both PropOrNot and the Post.
Suffice to say that besides allowing Timberg to use as the key source
of his article and dramatic media blacklist an anonymous and clearly
partisan group, PropOrNot, the Post’s editors also never
required their supposedly crack “technology reporter” to even attempt to
contact a single editor or journalist at any of the named alleged
purveyors or “useful idiots” he was accusing of secretly spreading
Russian-sourced “false news.” There’s not even a perfunctory: “Efforts
to contact the editors at Counterpunch were unsuccessful” in the entire
piece. Timberg and the editors of a paper that once gave us the
Watergate story that brought down President Richard Nixon clearly didn’t
even consider such basics of journalism important!
0 comments:
Post a Comment