Miranda Devine skriver i New York Post, at pressen får stadig sværere ved at ignorere og dække over Biden familiens korruption.
The reason the president still gets away with the innocent act with half the country is because of the gaslighting from complicit media, fed by anonymous intelligence sources and Atlantic Council types who have covered up for Joe for years, especially when it came to his most vulnerable quid pro quo in Ukraine.
Formerly august media organs have degenerated into naked propaganda operations, pumping out lies, or as they might prefer to call them, “narratives” in which truth is “debunked” and fiction is evidence.
Or, as Philip Bump of the Washington Post likes to call it, “parsing.”
Bump, who could be a minor character in Evelyn Waugh’s classic satirical novel about journalism, “Scoop,” has been wrong on almost every aspect of the Hunter Biden laptop saga, just as Bump was on the Russia hoax and the Donald Trump “photo op” controversy in Lafayette Park in DC.
For instance, when every other media organization finally admitted that Hunter Biden’s laptop was real, Bump clung to his story that “the laptop was seeded by Russian intelligence.”
Det kan være svært at afgøre, hvilke interesser pressen har i at agere propaganda for Washington og især Det Hvide Hus (når Trump ikke er der selvfølgelig). Er det blot en katastrofal kampagnejournalistik, der er inde i et uopretteligt styrt, fordi en indrømmelse i den størrelsesorden for altid vil underminere troværdigheden? Er det økonomiske interesser i baggrunden, politisk indflydelse fra Washington og efterretningstjenesterne? Eller er det blot et udtryk for en massepsykose for det meste af et hverv?
Washingtons Posts Philip Bump er i hvert fal lidt af et studie, der har gjort sig uheldigt bemærket, ved at have beklovnet sig selv på en podcast. Her var han gæst hos en old school Demokrat, der stadig levede i den vildfarelse at journalister var ærlige og tænkende mennesker. Bump mente ikke, der var beviser for at Hunter og Joe Biden havde forretninger sammen, men da podcasteren Noam Dworman indskød at Hunter skrev til sin niece, at han altid havde betalt 20% af sin indkomst til faderen kom samtalen til et sørgeligt kollaps som Bumps kognitive dissonans formørkede hans sind.
Optrinnet er et sindbillede på den vestlige presse. Konfronteret med Hunters egen beklagelse over, at faderens andel af ‘hans’ indkomst er for stor, bliver han frustreret og defensiv. Ikke skyggen af nysgerrighed fra en mand, som hver måned modtager en lønseddel, hvor han er tituleret journalist.
Jonathan Turley havde selvfølgelig (som vi skal se længere nede) noteret sig Bumps optræden og skrev
Dworman’s podcast interview stands as one of the most revealing and vivid examples of how the media has changed in the age of rage. Bump moves quickly from the conversational to crazed when simply asked about the basis for his claims in the Washington Post.
Dworman was asking about the mounting evidence and contradictions in the Biden corruption scandal. Some of us have said that there is evidence of obvious corruption and influence peddling, but more investigation is needed to establish any basis for impeachment or criminal charges involving President Biden. Bump, however, will have none of it. The Post writer (who demanded investigations of a wide array of Republicans on false stories with little evidence) is vehement that there is nothing to see here . . . and the public just has to take his word for it.
(…)
Bump then walks out with a statement that captures perfectly the new media. He first attacks independent journalist Matt Taibbi and says that he has “an agenda.”
Dworman delivers a haymaker in response and states “You have no agenda.”
That is when Bump delivers his exit line that foreshadowed the Post statement on my column: “I do have an agenda … My agenda is to do my best to try and present accurate information to the public. And I have an institution behind me to hold me to account when I don’t do that, which I think is an important consideration.”
Indeed, the Post would then stand entirely behind Bump and claim that all of his false statements were true. Even when other media have acknowledged that these claims were false, the Post insists that they remain true. (…) It appears that, if “Democracy dies in darkness,” journalism more often dies in the light of day.
After all, the problem is not that they are false but that people just “don’t listen to the press. I’m sitting here and I’m telling you, you’re wrong about these things, and you don’t listen.”
Bump og Washington Post havde, som Devine skrev, også rodet sig ud med Jonathan Turley i en diskussion om virkeligheden. Turley havde påpeget Bumps løgne, men Washington Post skrev tilbage, at de stod ved Bumps skriverier. Hvilket fil Turley til at udkrystallisere sin kritik, i en særligt anbefalelsesværdig klumme, hvor han kort redegør for fordrejningerne af historien om ‘Russian Collusion, Hunters computer, som ovenfor diskuteret, og noget glemt, optøjerne foran det Hvide Hus ved Lafayette Park, da Black Lives Matter ville storme den Orange præsidents residens
The first Post link is Bump’s claims over the “photo op” controversy in Lafayette Park. Many of us criticized Trump’s photo op in front of the church as well as the level of force used to clear the area of Lafayette Park. Yet, media and pundits like Bump and University of Texas Professor Steve Vladeck (who is a CNN contributor) went further to claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr cleared the park in order to hold the photo op.
There was never evidence to support that factual conclusion. I testified in Congress not long after the clearing of the area and stated that the conspiracy theory was already contradicted by the available evidence. I encouraged Congress to investigate the question and establish the truth of the matter. The issue was not whether it was worthy of investigation but whether it was established as fact.
We previously discussed the Inspector General report on the Lafayette Park protests and the debunking of Bump’s conspiracy theory. The Inspector General of the Department of Interior conducted an investigation over the last year and found that the clearing was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”
In other words, it was false. Not arguably false. It was false.
One of the most cited articles was by Bump titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” He stated:
“It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.”
It was later proven that Barr was speaking truthfully about both the photo op and the tear gas. It was Bump who was giving a false account.
After the release of the report, the Post responded with a second article by Bump entitled ‘The lingering questions about the clearing of Lafayette Square,” which struggled to keep doubt (and the conspiracy theory) alive. Bump emphasized a scene shortly before the operation where Barr reportedly said “Are these people still going to be here when POTUS comes out?” Bump said that that reference to the protesters still raises a “lingering question.”
However, buried in the article, the column admits that the “preparations were made before Barr arrived at the scene. That’s compelling evidence for the argument that the area was going to be cleared despite Barr’s presence.” It also states that “The inspector general’s assessment does add new information to the established timeline that reinforces the Park Police’s assertions that the area was cleared to erect new fencing to better protect the White House complex.”
So Bump’s original claims were false. However, Bump still sought to pretend that there are still doubts. He wrote that there remain questions of whether all of this was just “essentially a coincidence.” It was a bizarre claim. The Post acknowledged that the report detailed the approval of the plan at least a day earlier to address the violence around the White House and threat of a breach of the compound. It also detailed how the operation was supposed to go forward earlier on that day but personnel and fencing were delayed. In the meantime, the White House decided on its own to move forward with a photo op. Barr’s comment would seem the obvious one when told about the plan for a photo op as the personnel were still deploying to clear the area. None of that seems particularly challenging or incomprehensible.
Of course, the photo op was not the only false account by Bump from that day. The federal government long denied using “tear gas” in its operation as opposed to pepper balls in the clearing operation on June 6th. The difference has little real significance either legally or practically. The IG found that “the USPP incident commander did not authorize CS gas for this operation. Expecting that CS gas would not be used, most USPP officers did not wear gas masks.” Not only did the IG not find evidence of tear gas in the federal operation, “the MPD confirmed, that the MPD used CS gas on 17th Street on June 1. As discussed above, the MPD was not a part of nor under the control or direction of the USPP’s and the Secret Service’s unified command structure.”
In fact, the District admitted that it used tear gas about a block away in its enforcement of Mayor Muriel Bowser’s curfew. The admission was itself breathtaking since the media lionized Bowser for her stance against the operation and specifically the use of tear gas. For a year, the District knew that it used the tear gas and said nothing to the public as Bowser basked in the media glow – and Barr was attacked as a liar. Bump simply does not discuss that disproven “fact.”
Yet, the Post is now claiming that Bump has not published false claims on Lafayette Park and stands by his account that the park was cleared for the photo op and presumably that tear gas was used by federal officers.
Pressen beskrev dengang urolighederne som en folkelig opstand, der brutalt blev slået ned. Trump blev kaldt “Bunker Bitch” fordi Secret Service havde evakueret ham til Det Hvide Hus sikkersheds-bunker, da de ikke længere kunne garantere hans sikkerhed, hvor DCs politi også valgte at rydde demonstrationen. Ingen tale om “insurrection” eller stormen på Det Hvide Hus dengang.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar