The Russia Hoax - Not
nan said:
nohero said:
nan said:
... This site will never get blocked by the Ministry of Truth, but it spreads disinformation. ...
There's a good "On The Media" piece this weekend about the deception and deliberate lies that were used by the right wing to invent the "Ministry of Truth" panic.
Holy Cow! How far has NPR fallen? I went looking for this piece and right before was an advertisement for a piece on "Putin Expert" Garry Kaporov. We are so doomed.
Anyway.
I finally found the Disinformation piece. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/inside-bidens-short-lived-disinformation-governance-board-on-the-media (at 22:52)
It was a softball interview with the Evil Singing Wizard herself, Nina Jankowicz. The whole piece was disinformation about disinformation and Jankowicz said her demise was also caused by disinformation. so if you are in the mood for disinformation, check it out.
They introduce the piece by using benign examples such as storms and electrical problems. How horrible if people did not get the right information on those right? Lives could be lost! Sort of sounds like Homeland Security needs to step in where PSE&G has failed and Nina J. is all about helping out with natural disasters. That's what her time at the neocon Wilson Center and her two books about navigating online trolls were all about, right? Yeah, no.
She tries to reassure us that her position at the Disinformation Board carried no real authority and was simply an advisory position. Yeah, no. Again. Believe that and I have a bridge to sell you.
While at the Wilson Center she was already identifying the Gayzone as a target and in their recent revelations about Paul Mason's plot to shut them down, they found correspondence between him and Ms. J.
The interviewer tries to give her some tiny pushback but no real counter view (Max Blementhal is never going to be a guest on this show) provided. He says people are not comfortable with the idea of government censorship and the name, "Disinformation Governance Board" was probably not the best choice. They giggle over that. He says he agrees with her there is a big problem with disinformation but he's not sure how it should be handled. She says she is an expert in this field and the rejection of her "threatens Democracy." I'm not kidding. The interviewer seems to be won over with this argument! Or maybe her charm!
She says we need to be more like Estonia who evidently gets it right with misinformation. I will have to look into that, because I have never heard anyone else suggest we need to use Estonia as our model for Democracy. She says there is a LOT of misinformation about Ukraine she wanted to deal with and now it's going to get out of control (I can just imagine).
Finally she says she was taken down by the far-right (Tucker Carlson & Fox--which I thought was regular right). They found an old clip of her saying that she favored editing people's tweets with counter information. She said that was taken out of context from a long time ago, but she did not say she was against the idea. All I can say is THANK YOU far-right. It's sad that the Democrats have left the free speech lane open for the people on the right to fill. Democrats used to stand up for free speech and be against censorship. Now they cheer on people like Nina J., censorship and the prosecution of Julian Assange, Journalist. Nina is now thankfully gone, but the inteviewer says this will teach the DHS to do it differently next time and I'm sure it is continuing in a less public fashion. The narrator would consider that a good thing for Democracy and so will a bunch of you on MOL.
a truly silly post.
You have, yet again, absolutely no idea what the disinfo office is charged with doing, yet you have no problem supposing all sorts of nefarious actions they plan on doing.
The mere fact that the first response by the right was "Ministry of Truth!!!", which was then picked up by the loony left is all the proof you need that it was a disinfo campaign.
Couldn't be any clearer or more obvious.
jamie said:
so show us the money stream - how much and where?
Funding is your #1 issue with most outlets. But when you have no clue how much and where the money is funneled from - you're completely fine with it.
The funding is as I said--individuals contributing small amounts. That's what it is. You are making crap up.
nan said:
The funding is as I said--individuals contributing small amounts. That's what it is. You are making crap up.
You don't know they are small amounts.
nan said:
jamie said:
so show us the money stream - how much and where?
Funding is your #1 issue with most outlets. But when you have no clue how much and where the money is funneled from - you're completely fine with it.
The funding is as I said--individuals contributing small amounts. That's what it is. You are making crap up.
How many people? What's their yearly take? What's their budget? How much do the reporter's make?
Why don't they file publicly available financial statements?
What are they hiding?
nan said:
jamie said:
so show us the money stream - how much and where?
Funding is your #1 issue with most outlets. But when you have no clue how much and where the money is funneled from - you're completely fine with it.
The funding is as I said--individuals contributing small amounts. That's what it is. You are making crap up.
I serious don't know how you know this. Are they rejecting any amount from an individual that's more than $100? Please share any revenue information you have on them.
Also, I found a donate button on the site that goes directly to Max Blumenthal- I was able to type in $1,000,000 if I wanted to. It's right here:
https://thegrayzone.com/support/
If they only wanted to accept smaller payments, they wouldn't make this option available.
You all think Max Blumenthal is changing his views based on donor contributions? He has been saying the same things for at least ten years.
This is what it says and this is what you get:
The Grayzone is an independent journalistic initiative that does not receive funding from any government or government-backed group or individual.
Our work relies on the support of readers like you. Please consider supporting us at PayPal or Patreon, to help sustain our journalism.
Wikapedia (which hates Blumenthal) does not critisize their funding and describes it as follows:
The media website is funded by its readers through direct donations and by its Patreon members,[15] who support The Grayzone with monthly payments of $10, $25, or $50. As of February 2020, the website had 383 Patrons, which means it receives a monthly amount of between $3,830 and $19,150 from this funding source.[15]
If you think they are getting big bucks from someone and changing their message (which has been consistent) because of that than you need to identify them and how that changed.
nan said:
You all think Max Blumenthal is changing his views based on donor contributions? He has been saying the same things for at least ten years.
This is what it says and this is what you get:
The Grayzone is an independent journalistic initiative that does not receive funding from any government or government-backed group or individual.
Our work relies on the support of readers like you. Please consider supporting us at PayPal or Patreon, to help sustain our journalism.
Wikapedia (which hates Blumenthal) does not critisize their funding and describes it as follows:
The media website is funded by its readers through direct donations and by its Patreon members,[15] who support The Grayzone with monthly payments of $10, $25, or $50. As of February 2020, the website had 383 Patrons, which means it receives a monthly amount of between $3,830 and $19,150 from this funding source.[15]
If you think they are getting big bucks from someone and changing their message (which has been consistent) because of that than you need to identify them and how that changed.
yeah, you don't understand how this works. No one here has claimed they're changing their message.
We (or at least me) are saying that their message might happen to align with big-pocketed people who would like that message to be louder. And maybe those big-pocketed people are not among the most honorable.
The charge that people change their views based on contributions is one you make, not me. I don't care where Grayzone gets their money, I'm just pointing out your glaring double standards.
Regarding him saying the same thing for at least ten years, I mostly know Blumenthal via your posts here, but I believe there's some controversy over his changing his views on Assad? Perhaps someone who knows or cares more can follow up on that.
drummerboy said:
yeah, you don't understand how this works. No one here has claimed they're changing their message.
We (or at least me) are saying that their message might happen to align with big-pocketed people who would like that message to be louder. And maybe those big-pocketed people are not among the most honorable.
The Grayzone publishes factual investigative reporting. It is better than mainstream media, which is why the mainstream wants it shut down. The mainstream only wants one narrative. It is honorable and who would you consider dishonorable anyway? Probably anyone who does not align with the single allowed narrative.
You don’t even like Glen Greenwald and he got Lula out of jail.
PVW said:
The charge that people change their views based on contributions is one you make, not me. I don't care where Grayzone gets their money, I'm just pointing out your glaring double standards.
Regarding him saying the same thing for at least ten years, I mostly know Blumenthal via your posts here, but I believe there's some controversy over his changing his views on Assad? Perhaps someone who knows or cares more can follow up on that.
Here is the difference -
The Grayzone has a clear and consistent perspective. They are not allowed to be in the mainstream narrative. So they set up a self-funding system to support their alternative view. People who support them are supporting a specific perspective. No one is going to support a left field group to control their narrative. It is what it is.
Mainstream media is different. It is controlled by the powerful elites who want to brainwash the masses against their own well being. Journalists who work for these outlets are selected for or must change into the predetermined narrative. They cannot express a different opinion (occasionally they do). If they refuse to adhere, they will be fired. Currently the acceptable view is anti-Russian, pro-war neocon, and pro-NATO expansion (for example). Also anti Medicare for All and other issues. There is some division between Republicans & Dems on social issues but on war they mostly agree.
Journalists who get fired from the mainstream often go to the self-funded model so they can continue working, speaking truth to power.
PVW said:
The charge that people change their views based on contributions is one you make, not me. I don't care where Grayzone gets their money, I'm just pointing out your glaring double standards.
Regarding him saying the same thing for at least ten years, I mostly know Blumenthal via your posts here, but I believe there's some controversy over his changing his views on Assad? Perhaps someone who knows or cares more can follow up on that.
Easy peasy.
[edited to add] This was the third item found with the Google search "blumenthal assad".
nohero said:
Easy peasy.
[edited to add] This was the third item found with the Google search "blumenthal assad".
Oh. That doesn't look too good for ol' Max.
nohero said:
PVW said:
The charge that people change their views based on contributions is one you make, not me. I don't care where Grayzone gets their money, I'm just pointing out your glaring double standards.
Regarding him saying the same thing for at least ten years, I mostly know Blumenthal via your posts here, but I believe there's some controversy over his changing his views on Assad? Perhaps someone who knows or cares more can follow up on that.
Easy peasy.
[edited to add] This was the third item found with the Google search "blumenthal assad".
Blumenthal changed his opinion before he started the Grayzone. He has been the same for awhile and has written a few books.
I used to be a liberal Democrat like you. I loved Bill Clinton and though Hillary would make a terrific president. When I learned more I changed my mind. Same for MB. Maybe there is even hope for you.
nan said:
Blumenthal changed his opinion before he started the Grayzone. He has been the same for awhile and has written a few books.
I used to be a liberal Democrat like you. I loved Bill Clinton and though Hillary would make a terrific president. When I learned more I changed my mind. Same for MB. Maybe there is even hope for you.
Two thoughts-
1. The date he started the Grayzone is irrelevant. For all I know, that was part of his pro-Assad reversal.
2. No, I’m not going to support authoritarian dictators, minimize cultural or real genocide, or turn any shade of MAGA.
nohero said:
Two thoughts-
1. The date he started the Grayzone is irrelevant. For all I know, that was part of his pro-Assad reversal.
2. No, I’m not going to support authoritarian dictators, minimize cultural or real genocide, or turn any shade of MAGA.
1. Relevant because you were trying to make the absurd claim that someone pays MB to support specific view that he previously did not hold.
2. Good for you but neither does MB. He gets accused of that because he follows the facts and they sometimes point to CIA or other non-dictator involvement. You would never go there because you live on American Imperialism autopilot.
nan said:
1. Relevant because you were trying to make the absurd claim that someone pays MB to support specific view that he previously did not hold.
2. Good for you but neither does MB. He gets accused of that because he follows the facts and they sometimes point to CIA or other non-dictator involvement. You would never go there because you live on American Imperialism autopilot.
1. When did I write that?
2. Your guy “MB” is soft on Assad and on China’s actions in Xinjiang. For all I know, he does it because of strong support of both, not for alleged payoffs.
nan said:
Here is the difference -
The Grayzone has a clear and consistent perspective. They are not allowed to be in the mainstream narrative. So they set up a self-funding system to support their alternative view. People who support them are supporting a specific perspective. No one is going to support a left field group to control their narrative. It is what it is.
Mainstream media is different. It is controlled by the powerful elites who want to brainwash the masses against their own well being. Journalists who work for these outlets are selected for or must change into the predetermined narrative. They cannot express a different opinion (occasionally they do). If they refuse to adhere, they will be fired. Currently the acceptable view is anti-Russian, pro-war neocon, and pro-NATO expansion (for example). Also anti Medicare for All and other issues. There is some division between Republicans & Dems on social issues but on war they mostly agree.
Journalists who get fired from the mainstream often go to the self-funded model so they can continue working, speaking truth to power.
Let's say I'm a reporter at a mainstream outlet who doesn't believe climate change is the catastrophe the woke liberal coastal elite claim it to be. I increasingly chafe at the woke SJW corporate censorship and me editors keep giving me irate notes about my dismissive tone toward climate scientists. So I say, enough, quite in a blaze of twitter glory, start a substack newlsetter and before you know it I'm pouring my bile (black as a coal miner's lungs) out weekly, daily, sometimes even more often. Lots of people sign up for my newsletter and send me money through Patron and my Substack account. Many of them are associated with Big Oil and the general conservative political movement, but I tell no one who my donors are or how much they give because it's none of their business. A lot of them are industry contacts from my old mainstream days, and now that I'm no longer bound by hidebound ethics rules I happily accept all the steakhouse dinners and expensive whiskeys and golf outings they ply me with. I get invited on Fox and RT from time to time too, because why refuse a chance to engage with a larger audience?
So -- under your criteria, aren't I a brave anti-establishment independent journalist who you have no business asking where I get my funding from or what per personal connections are? Isn't even asking those kinds of questions just censorship of the worst kind? Aren't I just speaking truth to power?
nohero said:
1. When did I write that?
2. Your guy “MB” is soft on Assad and on China’s actions in Xinjiang. For all I know, he does it because of strong support of both, not for alleged payoffs.
He is not soft on those people, he has cited facts that don’t support the accusations made by those in the West. You don’t agree. I know in the case of Assad, the report about him using chemical weapons was BS. I spent time looking into that and the report was altered and the OPCW threw their own scientists under the bus.
You can not seriously listen to the uncovered details of that fraud and come out believing Assad did that.
He has similar views on China. You are just calling him traitorous sounding names because he holds a different view from yours, which he supports with facts.
nan said:
nohero said:
1. When did I write that?
2. Your guy “MB” is soft on Assad and on China’s actions in Xinjiang. For all I know, he does it because of strong support of both, not for alleged payoffs.He is not soft on those people, he has cited facts that don’t support the accusations made by those in the West. You don’t agree. I know in the case of Assad, the report about him using chemical weapons was BS. I spent time looking into that and the report was altered and the OPCW threw their own scientists under the bus.
You can not seriously listen to the uncovered details of that fraud and come out believing Assad did that.He has similar views on China. You are just calling him traitorous sounding names because he holds a different view from yours, which he supports with facts.
I don't know what "research" you did (or possibly could do independently), but the lies about OPCW and about the people of Xinjiang which you espouse are not validated by any reputable source.
nohero said:
I don't know what "research" you did (or possibly could do independently), but the lies about OPCW and about the people of Xinjiang which you espouse are not validated by any reputable source.
"research", (appropriately scare quoted) is finding people on the internet that you agree with.
nohero said:
I don't know what "research" you did (or possibly could do independently), but the lies about OPCW and about the people of Xinjiang which you espouse are not validated by any reputable source.
The OPCW, a supposedly reputable source, has been compromised. Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal are right about that.
I have not spent much time reading about China, and I was reading another source so I'm not going to talk about that.
But, on the OPCW report--it was absolutely corrupted and that was a fake attack. And don't come back at me with anything written by Bellingcat because they are not credible on this (reasons covered in this video).
drummerboy said:
"research", (appropriately scare quoted) is finding people on the internet that you agree with.
Mate's research on this is the best on the planet. I don't know how anyone can listen to the video I posted and still think there was a chemical attack. He has multiple sources and evidence - it's not just Aaron Mate who protested about this. The mainstream media ignores the story, but that's on them -- and further shows how they lie or ignore certain narratives in favor of those that promote endless war.
nan said:
nohero said:
I don't know what "research" you did (or possibly could do independently), but the lies about OPCW and about the people of Xinjiang which you espouse are not validated by any reputable source.
The OPCW, a supposedly reputable source, has been compromised. Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal are right about that.
I have not spent much time reading about China, and I was reading another source so I'm not going to talk about that.
But, on the OPCW report--it was absolutely corrupted and that was a fake attack. And don't come back at me with anything written by Bellingcat because they are not credible on this (reasons covered in this video).
This is their transcript of that video, and it's Aaron Mate explaining things. What is the "bombshell" which we're supposed to learn from him in this?
SCANDAL_-The-OPCW-Syria-Cover-up-exposed-by-Investigative-Journalist-Aaron-Mate.pdf (actvism.org)
PVW said:
Let's say I'm a reporter at a mainstream outlet who doesn't believe climate change is the catastrophe the woke liberal coastal elite claim it to be. I increasingly chafe at the woke SJW corporate censorship and me editors keep giving me irate notes about my dismissive tone toward climate scientists. So I say, enough, quite in a blaze of twitter glory, start a substack newlsetter and before you know it I'm pouring my bile (black as a coal miner's lungs) out weekly, daily, sometimes even more often. Lots of people sign up for my newsletter and send me money through Patron and my Substack account. Many of them are associated with Big Oil and the general conservative political movement, but I tell no one who my donors are or how much they give because it's none of their business. A lot of them are industry contacts from my old mainstream days, and now that I'm no longer bound by hidebound ethics rules I happily accept all the steakhouse dinners and expensive whiskeys and golf outings they ply me with. I get invited on Fox and RT from time to time too, because why refuse a chance to engage with a larger audience?
So -- under your criteria, aren't I a brave anti-establishment independent journalist who you have no business asking where I get my funding from or what per personal connections are? Isn't even asking those kinds of questions just censorship of the worst kind? Aren't I just speaking truth to power?
If you don't express the views held by your mainstream media position, you will be fired. If you support Big Oil, there might be some mainstream media venue to seek another job. If you focus on the fact that we have an oligarchy instead of a democracy, your choices are limited except for Substack, Patreon, or something else self-funded. That's the reality.
Anyone who sets up a Substack as their only source of income is taking a big chance. I'm sure a lot of them fail. Mostly, you are going to get people who are interested in your niche area of reporting. It's not like being on CNN/MSNBC/NYTs where you get a chance to influence large groups of people who may not have the background to evaluate your claims.
In your example, the person is pro-big Oil and pro-big Oil entities give him money and bribes to be pro-big Oil. He was already pro-big-Oil so what is the difference? Why do they bother? Why should this person not be invited on mainstream shows? Mainstream shows should be inviting on people with different views--but the pro-Oil person has a much better chance to get on CNN/MSNBC/NYTs than Glen Greenwald or Aaron Mate. Tucker Carlson is the only mainstream news host who has on progressive guests with whom he does not always agree.
So, in Substack land it is generally assumed that people have a point of view and they get people who agree or want to hear more to support them through subscriptions. You and others on MOL are trying to make the case that these people have some secret mega donors who are supporting them specifically to control the narrative and there is no evidence for that because the people who go to substack (or YouTube or create a website) already have strong opinions in place before they go there.
There may be cases where, like the way the Monkeys were formed to create another Beatles, that some nefarious billionaire backs a group as a front (like Bellingcat maybe), but that is a different story than the people we are talking about here, like the Grayzone.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I'm so glad you're acknowledging the money to be made in deception - I don't know how you can possibly equate how much of their reporting is "accurate".
You look at "outperforming" metric as a symbol of "truth"?
T**** made $250 million off of his election lie. Your buddies are making an unknown amount from unknown people. They certainly rile up their base as shown by people like yourself.