If you see or hear something from large corporate media outlets today that you disagree with or dislike, please keep in mind that saying so can stoke "harassment" against the journalists who did it, and it's therefore best if you just refrain from criticizing them at all.
The @CBC -- one of the most influential news outlets in Canada -- is disabling comments on its Facebook page because the mental health of its journalists is "fragile and in need of attention" and comments "compound the stress and anxiety of journalists."
CBC is disabling comments for 4 weeks as a test because of "the vitriol and harassment" their journalists face, citing "the increased abuse of journalists on social media, especially women and journalists of colour, and the threat such attacks pose to free speech and democracy."
The CBC will continue to report on other people. They'll continue to disclose information that harms people's reputations, exposes others, and influences the life of Canadians.
But the public can't comment about it there because "free speech and democracy" must be protected.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From Russiagate to online censorship to increased powers vested in the security state to battle "domestic extremism": it's amazing how the US Govt & DNC has succeeded in inducing *parts* of the left to cheer the exact weapons to be used against them if they get too threatening:
In March, I reported on the illegal involvement of the CIA in gathering data to create the new Homeland Security plan against domestic extremists. It was clear then that the targets are not just anti-authority groups on the right but also the left. Look:
In April, @lwoodhouse wrote a freelance article for my Substack -- "The Targets of Biden's War on 'Domestic Extremists' May Not Be Who You Think" -- on how they target anyone on the right *or left* against the ruling class. First: animal rights activists.
NBC publishes its standard liberal commentary about an inflammatory topic (CRT and schools) dressed up as news. They send one of the reporters, @BrandyZadrozny, onto TV with Chris Hayes to discuss it. She says remarkably dumb and offensive things and gets criticized for it. Thus:
Male journalists like Ben invoke, so cynically, precepts of feminism in part to show what Good Allies they are but, more so, to place journalists off limits from criticism. That's their main goal. And they use a regressive view of women to do it (too fragile to be criticized).
Brandy's TV comments that attracted criticism were obnoxious and odious, whining how unfair it is that the uncredentialed masses are imposing "onerous" FOIA requests to learn what their kids are being taught. But if you criticize this, you're sexist:
Now that the militaristic/neocon wing of the GOP is using their decades-old "soft-on-RUSSIA" attacks against Biden, will liberals finally be able to see why it's so ignorant and dangerous?
Last night, Tucker Carlson & @RichardHanania mocked and scorned the GOP's Biden-is-soft-on-Russia ad as the idiotic residue of the neocon/Bush/Cheney militarism still in the GOP. Is it possible to imagine an MSNBC or CNN host maligning a DNC ad like this?
Can anyone even imagine, say, Chris Hayes or Don Lemon going on air and saying: "We're about to show you a DNC attack ad on Mitch McConnell," and then bash it for being dishonest and dangerous? LOL. Exactly.
Democrats and their media allies couldn't believe Amy Coney Barrett has genuine judicial principles -- as opposed to corruptly abusing power based on her politics -- because that's how they reason. People without principles always assume others are plagued by the same disease.
That doesn't make Barrett's judicial philosophy correct. It's not one I share. But she has a judicial philosophy that she tries to apply in an apolitical way, making so many claims about her false:
“Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act" - @AOC.
And please never forget one of the most repugnant moments of 2020: when @DrIbram, in the middle of ACB's confirmation, decided to announce that white parents who adopt non-white children are racist colonizers.
I'm a little unclear about this massive CNN/NBC/WPost freakout today about questions regarding FBI infiltration of the groups behind 1/6. DHS has been warning for 2 years at that they pose the greatest threat. Do people doubt that FBI infiltrated them & had informants in them?
The FBI had at least one informant in the group charged with the plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer. They constantly used informants/infiltrators to steer plots from the first War on Terror. Why are people so doubtful that they had informants in these groups?
I can't even count how many "terror plots" I reported on as part of the first War on Terror that were designed, driven and even funded by the FBI, but it was a lot. They'd instigate their own plots, then congratulate themselves for stopping them: