It's hard to overstate how common this behavior is. I'm not speaking here with 20/20 hindsight now that the Pentagon admits its story was false. I published a video on August 30 - one day after - criticizing the media for its complete lack of skepticism about these drones strikes
The only reason the Pentagon was forced to admit its drone strike story was false is all eyes were on Kabul, which enabled the NYT's superb investigation proving the story was false. But usually, the same thing happens and they don't get caught - thanks to media stenographers.
Several points about the above video report on how the Biden Admin lied about the Aug. 29 drone strike and was helped by uncritical media endorsing the false claim that they killed ISIS terrorists - until the NYT's Sept 10 great exposé.
First, there's no doubt the Pentagon lied:
Second, until the NYT's report 2 weeks later, media repeatedly and unquestioningly spread the Biden Admin's false story that the drone strike killed ISIS terrorists headed to the airport with bombs, and that this caused "secondary explosions." This dominated news for 2 weeks:
Beyond that, the fact that a rarity happened here -- not that the Pentagon lied but that it got caught lying -- is almost secondary. The point is that this media practice -- of publishing US Govt claims about who they killed with drone strikes *with zero skepticism* -- is common.
In the two weeks after the Aug. 29 drone strike, so many journalists endorsed the Biden WH's claim that they killed ISIS terrorist, even though there was *zero evidence* for it. You can watch them here. What happened to the Trump-era skepticism of pointing out "no evidence"??
The NYT, as I discuss here, deserves ample credit for exposing this lie. But it was an aberration because of the attention on Kabul. Since Obama's heavy use of drones, they've been wiping out entire families, then lying about it. Don't let the criminality of that be forgotten:
The truth here is as clear as it is ugly: after the attack on Kabul airport, the Biden WH was desperate to change the news cycle, eager to give its friendly journalists a way to depict Biden as "tough," so they extinguished 10 innocent lives with total recklessness, then lied.
Here's Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, telling multiple lies on September 1 about the August 29 US drone strike in Afghanistan, on his way to heralding it as a "righteous strike" (it wiped out an entire family and killed no terrorists). #Righteous
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The only thing more stunning than watching the US Government forcibly close a speech, information and community social media platform that 170 million of its citizens voluntarily chose to use is seeing that it's Trump, almost alone in DC, fighting to keep it open:
If you think that TikTok was banned was due to fears of China, then you haven't been paying attention. That was the original impetus for it (including under Trump), but everyone involved says the reason it got enough votes was fear of Israel criticism:
A Globo e autoridades brasileiras alegaram que a descrição de Zuckerberg das ordens "secretas" de censura do Brasil eram "sem provas".
Isso é desinformação. Há provas esmagadoras para isso. Em abril, a @Folha publicou um Editorial condenando a censura de Moraes e seu sigilo:
Enquanto a Globo defendeu repetidamente Moraes e suas ordens secretas de censura — da mesma forma que defendeu tudo o que Sergio Moro fez — a Folha, em 2024, condenou repetidamente o esquema de Moraes como perigoso, antidemocrático e inconstitucional:
Left-liberal Twitch streamers and YouTube shows knew that to attract a pre-election audience (money), they had to tell their viewers Kamala was *clearly* winning.
So they randomly anointed a random Twitter user, @Ettingermentumv, into a data guru, who assured them all of it.
For months -- including just a couple weeks before the election -- this fraudulent partisan data guru kept saying the polls were wrong, the polling experts were wrong, the secret numbers he saw made clear that Kamala wasn't just ahead but ahead by a good distance.
This is as much a problem with partisan independent media as partisan corporate shows: they have to validate their viewers' desire to believe things even if untrue.
So after all the profit and Substack subscriptions were sold by this fraud, he wrote his "I-was-wrong" confession:
The belief that Joe Rogan and those like him are just an updated Fox News -- a non-stop messaging of right-wing ideology -- is beyond stupid.
Those podcasts grew organically: in part because they're not ideological or partisan. They're normal conversations: how humans speak.
Depicting Rogan as a far-right ideologue is something only those who never heard his show would say. AOC separated from Bernie's campaign after Bernie touted Rogan's endorsement.
He is a vehement defender of same-sex marriage. He believes in full freedom for adults' personal lives. He frequently argues that corporate power is suffocating the lives of ordinary people, etc. etc.
The most consequential - yet overlooked - Trump era change is many debates are no longer shaped by old left/right divisions, but instead by who loves, respects, and is loyal to institutions of authority (Dems) and who believes they're fundamentally corrupted (Trump supporters).
Today's NYT column by @ezraklein notes obvious exceptions (abortion, gun control), yet argues the key difference between Kamala and Trump voters is how much one likes US ruling institutions.
Hence, Dems love CIA, FBI, DHS, corporate media. Even views of corporate power changed.
@ezraklein Think about key debates. Which is right or left?
- Trust in large media corporations.
- Opposition to BigTech/state internet censorship.
- Opposition to funding endless wars (Ukraine).
- Eagerness to remain tied to NATO and EU-based institutions.