If you believe that the West is about to embark on (another) clash of ‘good v evil’, on which the fate of the world depends, it’s likely because you assume what you read in papers like the NYT and WaPo is unbiased.

Problem is, it isn’t.

via @YouTube
There was once a great paper called the New York Times. It was the first to cover the huge story that the Vietnam War was ‘a lie’, and the US Govt knew it was a lie.

It’s editors and staff risked jail to bring people the truth.

Unfortunately it died.
Working for the New York Times was a journalist called Neil Sheehan. He spent ten years writing a book that won a Pulitzer.

It was called ‘A Bright Shining Lie’.

Can you guess what it was about?

Neil Sheehan would not be welcome at the Times today.

He’d be in jail.
The Washington Post covered the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal. They took risks to bring you the truth.
Its owner Katherine Graham outed the Govt even though she was a personal friend to some of them.

Today Katherine Graham would be a traitor and Russian spy.
Perhaps the darkest time in the US history was the era of Senator Joe McCarthy. He ruined the lives of many people by denouncing them as enemy agents when in reality they were nothing more good Americans who questioned the narrative of ‘hate’.

Joe would like todays America.
One the saddest facts is that if there was a big story of truth in today’s America, it would appear in the Post, not the Times.

What would Neil say?

#NYTimes
#WaPo
#HunterBidenLaptop
#NYPost

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David McBride

David McBride Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MurdochCadell

Mar 25
A recap from yesterday:
Hastie confirms rumours about BRS were circulating at high level even in 2012.
2013 they intensify. 20 people confirm them to him.
Only rumours, sure. But enough for investigation.
What does the ADF leadership do?
No investigation of BRS.
But a cover-up.
Remember this? Also 2013. It’s was actually all about an obscene email trail. Or was it? The irony is so strong it turns one’s stomach.
Turns out General Morrison may have walking past something pretty big in 2013. Or creating a smokescreen. Image
Another thing that happened in 2013 was ‘the hand incident’. While this made the Minister and CDF foam at the mouth, with the knowledge we have about BRS and ‘Brereton’ was cutting off a dead hand to ID them, really one of ‘the most horrific things ever’, as it was painted?
Read 9 tweets
Mar 25
Those who know my case, in which the Aust Govt is trying to destroy me with, and caused me to lose my job and marriage, and so much more will know how devastating this is for the Govts case.
Hastie told his commanders his suspicions in 2012.
They ‘knew’. But they put on an act. ImageImage
I’ve got mixed feelings about this:
happy that the noose is tightening around the ‘Leadership’s Knowledge’ about BRS.
Angry that it has even come to this. It will be 10 years of mine and my families life before it comes to court. I, we’ve all aged a lot.
It’s ironic that an LNP Minister has delivered this killer blow. What are they going to say? He’s a liar?

Hats off to Andrew Hastie. You have my utmost respect in this. But he’s right, it gives no real soldier any pleasure, but we can’t go forward till it’s done.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 20
Remember how the Russians kidnapped innocent people off the street without an arrest warrant, took them to countries without laws, and tortured them to death, and claimed they had done nothing wrong?
Remember how the Russians got around the prohibition on torture by the in-house lawyers for the FSB simply changing the definition of ‘torture’, or sometimes simply saying ‘Russians don’t torture, so if we did it, it can’t be torture?’
Remember how the Russians did nothing at all after they heard the Saudi Arabians had chopped a journalist into tiny pieces, even though it went against every principle they espoused at great volume around the world?
Read 9 tweets
Mar 18
If you insist the West is entirely truthful about this war, why do think Julian Assange is in prison?
Why does Snowden have to live in Russia, when his only crime was to assert that senior US officials lied to their own people in major public statements, and carried out other illegal and immoral acts in the name of ‘National Security’?
Nothing Assange and Snowden made public has been proved to be untrue.

If you shout ‘they are traitors!’, it’s suggests you value extreme nationalism over truth.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 25
‘Ukraine’ is why ‘Iraq’ mattered.

If we play fast and loose with the truth and the law, why wouldn’t our enemies?

We reap what we sow.

#Assange tried to point this out. He was jailed for it, instead of Blair and Bush.
The US doesn’t care anymore for the people of Ukraine than they did the people of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The situation is simply an opportunity for them to destabilise a major rival. When they have done so, they will abandon Ukraine like they did Afghanistan.
It’s not the ‘invasion’ which is bad, because we know that some invasions, like ‘Iraq’, are ‘good’ (according to the West).
Read 6 tweets
Jan 22
This piece in the SMH is a good example of an ‘Information Operation’.

On the surface it reads reasonably, but there are a number of misleading subtexts ‘salted’ into the narrative, suggesting the West is under threat, but our Govts will ‘save us’.

1/

smh.com.au/politics/feder…
The main thrust is that China could attack us imminently. No evidence is offered, and the emphasis is on ‘could’. In the same way they we ‘could’ attack them.

The lawyers phrase for an unlikely event ‘can’t be ruled out’ is used.
2/
The maker of the key statement is painted as some ‘stateswoman’, here to give us the benefit of her insight’. She is given further ‘weight’ as a ‘possible future PM’. What’s not said, is that she is simply a ‘politician’, from a hugely unpopular and hypocritical party.
3/
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(