The New Yorker and The Atlantic were the two mainstream magazines that did the most to help convince Americans that Saddam had WMDs. They're the two that were the most fanatical about Russiagate conspiracies. Now they'll lead on Iran and the bomb (Jeffrey Goldberg has for years):
Whenever there's an insane, unhinged, deranged conspiracy pushed by the CIA and the other US security services, you can be sure that The Atlantic and the New Yorker will be in the lead endorsing and ratifying it. That's one of their primary functions.
So revealing: the same CNN writer who wrote yesterday's predictable @NewYorker attack on Dan Bongino -- @eosnos -- which accused Bongino of profiting by spreading unhinged conspiracy theories, was the lead writer of the @NewYorker cover story depicting Putin in control of the WH.
The other attack on Bongino by @eosnos was that Bongino only speaks to a like-minded, ideologically homogenous audience. Meanwhile, Osnos spent all day re-tweeting praise of his article exclusively from Dem partisans. Do you see how they always accuse others of what they are?
The @NewYorker has the gall to run hit pieces accusing their targets of spreading conspiracy theories when they a) led the way claiming Saddam was in an alliance with Al Qaeda, b) pushed the deranged conspiracy that Putin took over the US and c) did this:
The pinned tweet of CNN's @eosnos, who wrote the color-by-numbers @NewYorker profile accusing Dan Bongino of spreading conspiracies to like-minded viewers. That's all these people do: babble about Russiagate and The Insurrection™ to like-minded liberals:
It's true that much (though not all) of right-wing media airs conservative views to conservatives, but that's because the corporate media turned itself into an insular, dissent-free echo chamber that serves only liberals. Amazing that *this person* can accuse *others* of that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
While many people in the West believe that Russia/Putin are "isolated" - because their media tells them that -- 2 dozen world leaders are in Russia now for a 3-day BRICS conference.
BRICS itself includes the 2 most-populous countries and 4 of the top 10 most populous.
Beyond the founding 5 (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), it expanded to 5 more (including key US "partners" Egypt, UAE and maybe Saudi).
They "account for 45% of the global population" and 28% of global economy.
Key goal: a financial system independent of US dollar.
There's Western skepticism and even mockery that this huge confederation of countries -- united over perceived abuses of US/EU sanctions -- could create a non-dollar system. @TheEconomist takes it seriously.
Inacreditável que Alexandre de Moraes esteja constantemente concentrando em si próprio a figura de suposta vítima, investigador policial, promotor e o juiz - em seus próprios interesses.
Não há democracia onde uma pessoa pode investigar criminalmente o jornalismo que a reporta.
@lf_ponde @folha Aqui também: um ótimo artigo de @lygia_maria sobre a visão perturbada e perigosa de Moraes, a marca registrada de uma mentalidade tirana:
Que qualquer crítica ou questionamento feita ele é em si "um ataque à democracia" e, portanto, um crime.