It's a cause of momentary celebration that the Department of Homeland Security was forced by popular anger to "pause" its Disinformation Board and the absurd #Resistance cartoon they hired to run it, but read this to see how angry WPost and @TaylorLorenz are that this happened:
Summary of the rules from the WPost and @TaylorLorenz in case you're confused:
-- High-level officials of the Department of Homeland Security: off-limits from investigation and criticism!
-- Anonymous citizens who tweet bad ideologies: Dox, Unmask, Bang on relatives' doors!
In sum, a free press exists to unmask and punish private citizens with the wrong politics ("shoe-lace reporting"), not to investigate and scrutinize the beliefs, conduct and claims of powerful government officials ("harassment" and bullying).
Without having the US Government's Department of Homeland Security have a Disinformation Board run by Nina Jankowicz to decree truth and falsity, how will we know what we should believe and not believe? How can a democracy function without DHS telling us what is true and false?
Also seems odd that WPost allowed @TaylorLorenz (who, credit where due, broke the story of the DHS "pause") to write an entire article arguing Nina Jankowicz should be off-limits from criticism, without mentioning Jankowicz argued the same about Lorenz:
Indeed, Jankowicz has a very long history of defending Lorenz and expressing solidarity for the trauma Lorenz suffers when her work is criticized. That's almost certainly where Lorenz got her version of events and seems like it should be disclosed when Lorenz defends Jankowicz.
The other bizarre aspect of the Nina-Jankowicz/@TaylorLorenz saga: Taylor depicts this poor, marginalized DHS official as the victim of "right-wing" disinformation, when the most devastating investigative piece on her was this one last week in @thenation:
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.
There are few people in the democratic world more powerful or tyrannical than Moraes. He believes he is Brazilian democracy itself, and thus any criticisms of him are a criminal attack on the state.
Brazil's left views him as a deity, since he censors/imprisons their opponents.
On Tuesday, we began reporting in @Folha on a massive archive of data we obtained from his chambers between his top aides (6gb).
After the first day, the left united to defend him because they see him as infallible, and he called our reporting a plot to destroy democracy.
It's hard to explain the cult-like adoration the left has for him. No matter what he does - ban people from the internet or imprison them with no due process or trial - they go online and type "Eu autorizo, Xandão!" (we support you, Great Alexandre!).
Not even herd animals are this flagrant about it. You tell me how and why corporate media constantly speaks from the same exact script this way, verbatim. #KamalaIsJOY