You Noticed THEY Went In On My Man Like His Name Was Kanye Or Kyrie

mronline  |  Largely unbeknownst to the general public, many media executives and top journalists of almost all major U.S. news outlets, political and business magazines, public broadcasters and press agencies have long been members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Established in 1921 as a private, bipartisan organization to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities”, the CFR and its close to 5000 elite members have for decades shaped U.S. foreign policy and public discourse about it. As one Council member famously explained, the goal has indeed been to establish an “empire”, albeit a “benevolent” one.

Based on official membership rosters, the following illustration for the first time depicts the extensive media network of the CFR and its two main international affiliate organizations: the Bilderberg Group(covering the U.S. and Europe) and the Trilateral Commission (covering North America, Europe and East Asia), both established by Council leaders to foster elite cooperation at the international level.

In a column titled “Ruling Class Journalists”, former Washington Post senior editor and ombudsman Richard Harwood once described the Council and its members approvingly as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.

Harwood continued: “The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class. They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it.… They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.”

However, media personalities constitute only a small part of the comprehensive CFR network. As the following illustration shows, key members of the Council on Foreign Relations have included:

• several U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties;
• almost all Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury;
• many high-ranking commanders of the U.S. military and NATO;
• almost all National Security Advisors, CIA Directors, Ambassadors to the U.N., Chairs of the Federal Reserve, Presidents of the World Bank, and Directors of the National Economic Council;
• some of the most influential Members of Congress (notably in foreign & security policy matters);
• many top jounalists, media executives, and entertainment industry directors;
• many prominent academics, especially in key fields such as Economics, International Relations, Political Science, History and Journalism;
• many top executives of Wall Street, policy think tanks, universities, and NGOs;
• as well as the key members of both the 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission (JFK)

 

Huntergate 2.0 - The MSM Largely Blacked Out Coverage Of The Twitter File Drops

FoxNews |  CBS News, ABC News and NBC News did not cover the story, while CNN only mentioned it once.  While the files have dominated discussion on Twitter, a site known to facilitate discussions among members of the press, on-air coverage of the internal documents has been almost nonexistent. 

Since Friday, networks have only discussed the Twitter files for a combined total of 14 minutes. The term "Twitter files" has only been used six times on-air over the same span of time, according to a review of Grabien transcripts by Fox News Digital. 

The fifth installment of Elon Musk's "Twitter Files" Monday revealed that staffers believed that tweets written by former President Trump around the events of Jan. 6 had not actually violated its policies against incitement despite the company saying so at the time.

The Twitter Files began on Dec. 2 with Matt Taibbi revealing internal efforts to suppress the New York Post's Hunter Biden story in 2020.

Bari Weiss reported the second installment of the Twitter Files Thursday which revealed the company "blacklisting" or shadow banning certain tweets and users. 

Parts three and four were dedicated to outlining what led to Trump being removed from Twitter on Jan. 8, 2021. Musk reinstated Trump's Twitter account in November.

CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News have not discussed the Twitter files in the last week.  

"You look now, and they’re talking of course about Hunter Biden’s laptop. They’re in the middle of this Twitter thing that I swear I’ve tried to read through a thousand times and figure out exactly what they’re trying to prove, and if they’re proving anything, what, maybe that Twitter made decisions that they didn’t like," MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said on Monday, briefly alluding to the files. 

The Monday evening newscasts were filled with discussions about Twitter, including criticisms of Musk and the re-release of Twitter Blue. However, the Twitter files never came up on the networks, except a brief reference on NBC News when a reporter discussed how former top Twitter official Yoel Roth was forced to leave his home after receiving death threats. 

Left-wing MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan was the one pundit who offered a full on-air block to the story Sunday, in which he argued that the Twitter files showed no evidence of a company bias against conservatives. 

"Do the Twitter files show evidence of left-wing bias on Twitter?," Hasan asked rhetorically. "No. In fact, the whole Twitter-discriminates-against conservatives-line that Elon or his spin merchants, conservative journalists, like to spout, is literally the opposite of the truth."

 

I Too Have Questions..., Can You Name The CEO Of Tik Tok?

piratewires  |   Dangerous alliance. In 1787, Edmund Burke said there were “Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there [sits] a Fourth Estate more important than they all." The notion of some vital power beyond our government was imported to the New World, and today constitutes a core belief of the American liberal: there is no free people, we’re often told, without a free press independent of congress, the courts, and our president. But throughout the 20th Century thousands of media outlets gradually consolidated, and by the dawn of our internet era only a few giants remained. These giants largely shared a single perspective, and in rough agreement with the ruling class the Fourth Estate naturally came to serve, rather than critique, power. This relationship metastasized into something very close to authoritarianism during the Covid-19 pandemic, when a single state narrative was written by the press, and ruthlessly enforced by a fifth and final fount of power in the newly-dominant technology industry.

It was a dark alliance of estates, accurate descriptions of which were for years derided as delusional, paranoid, even dangerous. But today, on account of a single shitposting billionaire, the existence of the One Party’s decentralized censorship apparatus is now beyond doubt.

Altogether, the Twitter Files — an ongoing story — paint a portrait of clear and inevitable partisan bias at one of the most dominant speech platforms in history. A small handful of very left-wing executives, who naturally perceived most opinion right of center as dangerous, worked tirelessly to limit those opinions from view. Empowered to censor “unsafe” content, and protected by a team of people who shared their political orientation, the executives produced, in a legal and decentralized manner, a key component of our defacto state censorship apparatus. While we don’t know for sure this is also happening at Google, Meta, or TikTok (which is for some reason still allowed to operate in this country), I think it’s a safe bet we’re looking at an industry-wide affliction.  

But I do have questions.

Where is the full list of shadow-banned accounts? Which political campaigns, specifically, communicated with Twitter, and what specifically was taken down? What about requests from foreign governments? What about requests from our own government? We need to know which of our government agencies, if any, had content removed from the platform, and we need to know the nature of this content. Taibbi alluded to Trump’s White House — did someone from the Trump administration request a takedown? Who made the request? Who received the request? Was it answered? What, if anything, was removed?

The Trump line of questioning is, in particular, something you might assume attractive to the media, which has waged all-out war on the populist clown king for the last seven years. Alas, the press seems broadly disinterested. Is this because they don’t believe the former president ever made such requests, or is their lack of interest rather stemming from a fear of validating a major story most of them are currently trying to frame — for their own obvious political reasons — as not worth reading?

A brief selection of positions from our cherished Fourth Estate: This entire story is a “dud” (The Washington Post) — no bombshells here! (Forbes). The Twitter Files, in which a handful of committed partisans enthusiastically censor large swaths of the conservative base, including a former president, actually prove the company was not politically biased. It is, however, now biased against Democrats (New York Magazine). Elon’s exposé is a flop that doesn’t matter. It has also placed multiple “trust and safety experts” in mortal danger (The Verge, predictably). Then, my favorite: it is good to finally see the blacklist tools I have been curious about for many years, which we have by the way always known existed, and therefore don’t matter (The Atlantic).

The charge of shadow banning evoked uniquely loud jeering from the press, including Charlie Warzel in particular, a man formerly of the position “Twitter isn’t shadow banning Republicans.” Now, in the face of evidence the company absolutely shadow banned Republicans, the official position is we are using the term “shadow ban” incorrectly.

It’s a game of semantics, in which the public is dragged through the exhausting, useless question of how much invisible speech suppression, precisely, constitutes a “real” shadow ban, rather than the glaringly important questions of both ethics and, frankly, safety. In the first place, is it right to run a decentralized censorship apparatus, and to make your rules invisible? In the second, what happens to a free country when the bounds of acceptable speech are set by a small cabal of unelected partisan cops? Because my sense is the answer isn’t “freedom.”