Politically inconvenient truths become morally disqualified facts when all that matters is ensuring elite rule in perpetuity and eternal supremacy of the Church of Progress™
I wonder how many "migrants" live in the same neighorboods where Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell or Margaret Brennan have their home(s), how many share a classroom with their children, how much wage pressure they apply to their exalted positions—to ask is to answer.
I wonder how many "migrants" are employed by Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell or Margaret Brennan to mow their lawns, take care of their kids or parents, or serve their dinners—has to be more than a few.
I wonder how many Me-Too feminist bromides Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan have spouted and if they'll ever use their supposed concern for abused women to speak up for women raped or trafficked or assaulted by "migrants"—never happening.
Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan et al. mistake power and influence for moral authority, but they have none, which seems to be becoming more and more obvious to everyone outside their Versailles bubble.
For just one -- but significant -- example of the "propagandistic contextualizing" Brad refers to, look to the FactCheck.org "fact check" of the Cochrane Review study on the effectiveness of masks.
During the pandemic, masking up was touted not merely as a preventative measure, but was presented as a moral duty to one's fellow man. To concede that wearing a cloth mask didn't prevent the spread of the coronavirus would be to undermine the moral credits one received for not only wearing one, but for haranguing others to do so.
So what does FactCheck.org say in its review about what the Cochrane Review *really* says about masking? Well, it lets readers know that Bret Stephens, whose NYT opinion piece referenced the Cochrane study and said that mask mandates don't work, is a conservative.
It also informs the public that an Instagram post declaring the ineffectiveness of masks was authored by a "Christian religious liberty organization."
What matters most to the fact checker in this case -- and I would say that extends to most of the liberal media MSM -- isn't the issue of what is or isn't technically true about masks. What matters is that conservatives are using the study as a broadside against the government and the credentialed class, and because conservatives are less than progressives, that cannot be allowed to stand.
Even the lead author of the study, Tom Jefferson, does not escape the "guilt by association" verdict.
This is the LEAD AUTHOR of the study being fact checked, and we are told that his statement "There is no evidence that they" -- meaning masks "make any difference" is inaccurate.
Just a few small paragraphs above his quote is this statement by the article author: "there isn’t good evidence from randomized controlled trials that encouraging mask use in the community prevents the spread of respiratory diseases"
Read these two passages and tell me where the substantive difference is.
If you can't find it, it's likely because you didn't have the REAL distinguishing factor: That Mr. Jefferson has "endorsed several unorthodox views about COVID-19 and some of his writing has been republished by the Brownstone Institute, a group that has described itself as the 'spiritual child' of the widely criticized Great Barrington Declaration."
And there you have it: Jefferson's opinion of his own study, in a field on which he has written since 2006, is invalid because he can be associated with ideas and groups that challenge elite-class orthodoxy. The government response to the pandemic was widely criticized as well. I don't see that mentioned.
And that, right there, is propaganda -- technically true, but framed in a way to ensure you share and affirm the same "correct" viewpoint.
MSM and it's "fact" checkers are clear evidence that Trump and Vance are POPULIST candidates. Both represent the people more than any political party.
The political establishment (from both Parties) will do everything they can to beat these men. They know that if they win, the establishment loses, because Trump and Vance can't be controlled
For one example of how deep the effort to sway opinion and thought go, look at how Wikipedia explains Jay Bhattacharya’s involvement with Covid. Wikipedia was once (perhaps I am naive to think so) a source for honest factual information. That is no longer the case. They have a clear bias which supports the ruling elites and disparages opposing views.
Wikipedia used to be OK, although even Stephen Colbert, before he lost his mind, pointed out its weaknesses by encouraging his listeners to edit in falsehoods about elephants.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has now become one with the Censorship Industrial Complex. It's OK for looking up things like chemical formulae, but for anything that can be politicized, it's useful only for determining whether a particular subject or a person is Approved or Not Approved.
It's interesting to read the discussion pages for some articles. They actually have a list of approved sources that can be cited. Guess who those might be…
"but I sense the PMC-driven censorship-of-the-many-under-the-aegis-of-the-few crusade is becoming outright malevolent, as if the regime has turned inward and the federal government is playing the role of an increasingly paranoid colonial administration that’s alienated from and hostile to the local population."
Oh, I think this becoming starting rolling in 2016 if not before. It is the study of desperation... of the gambler that cannot tolerate losing it all. These creatins have gone all in except for the next hand they play with credit from hell. They should be identified as unwell and dangerous with the keys in their hand. Yet I think we think because they are educated and articulate that maybe this is a phase... they will grow out of it soon and get normal again. Liberal elites fear having to admit they are wrong more than they fear death... and in their Godless state they profoundly fear death.
I they need to have the keys extracted from clamny clutching fingers, and sent to the asylum where they can only hurt themselves and not the rest of us.
Behind those self satisfied smug mugs is the reality coming of mass layoffs for low rating & over priced managerial puppets who will find that beside everything else, the news is a business.
My understanding is that CBS agreed not to fact check and then fact checked. Did they suffer any consequences? Seems to me there should be legal and financial remedies to address what amounts to breach of contract. What am I not getting?
“And yet they still couldn’t help themselves. Margaret Brennan, beholden as she is to the impulsive hall monitor/morality police psyche that is all too common among self-styled champions of Our Democracy™, just had to try to fact-check Vance, and, in so doing, made a complete ass of herself because she was wrong and Vance was right.”
Anyone who pays any attention, listens or observes with anything like an open mind, clearly sees that the Brennan types operate with extreme bias and prejudice. It controls their every thought and action. That’s why she could not help herself.
On the Taibbi livestream, there was general speculation that the producers had told the moderators to knock it off after that happened. Still, it would be nice to see some sort of consequence, even just an apology, even though I generally think apologies are usually lame and worthless.
The "consequences" is that Vance turned it around on them. He responded in the moment, with skill and authority. That's all that's needed to make what they were doing obvious.
Dude, I know I’ve said this before but it utterly bears repeating: you can fucking WRITE, sir. I love your stuff. You bring the art of the polemic back to its rightful place in American discourse, in the tradition of Thomas Paine, among others.
It's not just for the elitist press, the general attitude of moral righteousness applies to the unmanaged bureaucratic deep stated three letter groups and their minion ilk. These folks are running the government (not so) behind the scenes. Neither Biden nor Harris are in charge of executive and the congress is either too lazy, stupid, unorganized, unmotivated, or compromised to effect any change. (The previous list is not mutually exclusive.) The cabal of regulars (clintons, obama, etc and even Soros ) is not in control as much as they believe as there are very little consequences applicable to a misbehaving bureaucracy; the cabal doesn't have direct control. I believe the federal government has gone completely amok. I fear electing Trump will have little effect on the system as it has long ago gotten too big and out of control to be managed. It may be time to think about employing stronger measures to maintain a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Thank God for the internet and Substack - MSM will, I pray, be dinosaurs before the next presidential election.
I believe (hope) that enough of these points are being made outside of the realm of traditional media to enough folks to show how much we're being patronized, misled, and just plain old taken for granted - and to convince them that they just shouldn't take this crap any more!!!
If the Dems win the Presidency they will implement censorship beyond what we can imagine now. I am picturing an AI bot cruising through Substack posts and seamlessly replacing offending words and phrases. The Feds will prop up the MSM with tax breaks or outright grants “in the public interest.”
Brad, I'm on board with the broad strokes of your article. The explanation of CBP One and how it skirts around whether immigrants are here legally or not was spot on.
Would you agree that some fact checking is appropriate - an example being refuting MTG's suggestions that hurricanes are controlled by "them" - with statements that no evidence exists to supporting her claim?
Yes, I do think that truly objective fact-checking would be appropriate. Lying and falsehoods aren't unique to just one side of the political spectrum. MTG is a moron. The problem is that a massive swath of the country knows that the practice of fact-checking has been so transparently abused that the entire concept seems like a partisan farce. And the damage to our underlying social fabric is truly incalculable. The Hunter Biden laptop episode alone has led to dangerously high levels of paranoia and conspiratorial thinking among much of the public.
Excellent counterpoint. The immediate (and game-planned per Taibbi's reporting) declaration by a host of "right thinking" security professionals that this was a Russian disinformation campaign creates doubt and disbelief in anything else this cadre says. (Kudos to them for creating plausible deniability by saying that it had "all the classic earmarks" of Russian disinfo, rather than stating it for a fact).
I'm not advocating shutting MTG down. I think the best response to free speech is more free speech - in this case people calling her out on her BS. I shudder at the thought of having a Ministry of Truth, whether in the hands of Harris or Trump.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Plenty of people will call her out on the BS, which I think is better than some official statement because, again, that can and will be politicized
I wonder how many "migrants" live in the same neighorboods where Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell or Margaret Brennan have their home(s), how many share a classroom with their children, how much wage pressure they apply to their exalted positions—to ask is to answer.
I wonder how many "migrants" are employed by Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell or Margaret Brennan to mow their lawns, take care of their kids or parents, or serve their dinners—has to be more than a few.
I wonder how many Me-Too feminist bromides Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan have spouted and if they'll ever use their supposed concern for abused women to speak up for women raped or trafficked or assaulted by "migrants"—never happening.
Anne Applebaum, Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan et al. mistake power and influence for moral authority, but they have none, which seems to be becoming more and more obvious to everyone outside their Versailles bubble.
It's one part hilarious and another part infuriating.
Historically speaking, aristocracy goes through three phases in my mind:
- self appointed superiority
- privilege
- vanity
Typically it dies (literally and metaphorically)in vanity.
Pretty sure we're at step 3....and not a moment too soon.
For just one -- but significant -- example of the "propagandistic contextualizing" Brad refers to, look to the FactCheck.org "fact check" of the Cochrane Review study on the effectiveness of masks.
During the pandemic, masking up was touted not merely as a preventative measure, but was presented as a moral duty to one's fellow man. To concede that wearing a cloth mask didn't prevent the spread of the coronavirus would be to undermine the moral credits one received for not only wearing one, but for haranguing others to do so.
So what does FactCheck.org say in its review about what the Cochrane Review *really* says about masking? Well, it lets readers know that Bret Stephens, whose NYT opinion piece referenced the Cochrane study and said that mask mandates don't work, is a conservative.
It also informs the public that an Instagram post declaring the ineffectiveness of masks was authored by a "Christian religious liberty organization."
What matters most to the fact checker in this case -- and I would say that extends to most of the liberal media MSM -- isn't the issue of what is or isn't technically true about masks. What matters is that conservatives are using the study as a broadside against the government and the credentialed class, and because conservatives are less than progressives, that cannot be allowed to stand.
Even the lead author of the study, Tom Jefferson, does not escape the "guilt by association" verdict.
This is the LEAD AUTHOR of the study being fact checked, and we are told that his statement "There is no evidence that they" -- meaning masks "make any difference" is inaccurate.
Just a few small paragraphs above his quote is this statement by the article author: "there isn’t good evidence from randomized controlled trials that encouraging mask use in the community prevents the spread of respiratory diseases"
Read these two passages and tell me where the substantive difference is.
If you can't find it, it's likely because you didn't have the REAL distinguishing factor: That Mr. Jefferson has "endorsed several unorthodox views about COVID-19 and some of his writing has been republished by the Brownstone Institute, a group that has described itself as the 'spiritual child' of the widely criticized Great Barrington Declaration."
And there you have it: Jefferson's opinion of his own study, in a field on which he has written since 2006, is invalid because he can be associated with ideas and groups that challenge elite-class orthodoxy. The government response to the pandemic was widely criticized as well. I don't see that mentioned.
And that, right there, is propaganda -- technically true, but framed in a way to ensure you share and affirm the same "correct" viewpoint.
Also never mind that this particular Cochran review gets updated every few years to incorporate new research. It was uncontroversial until Covid.
MSM and it's "fact" checkers are clear evidence that Trump and Vance are POPULIST candidates. Both represent the people more than any political party.
The political establishment (from both Parties) will do everything they can to beat these men. They know that if they win, the establishment loses, because Trump and Vance can't be controlled
For one example of how deep the effort to sway opinion and thought go, look at how Wikipedia explains Jay Bhattacharya’s involvement with Covid. Wikipedia was once (perhaps I am naive to think so) a source for honest factual information. That is no longer the case. They have a clear bias which supports the ruling elites and disparages opposing views.
Wikipedia used to be OK, although even Stephen Colbert, before he lost his mind, pointed out its weaknesses by encouraging his listeners to edit in falsehoods about elephants.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has now become one with the Censorship Industrial Complex. It's OK for looking up things like chemical formulae, but for anything that can be politicized, it's useful only for determining whether a particular subject or a person is Approved or Not Approved.
It's interesting to read the discussion pages for some articles. They actually have a list of approved sources that can be cited. Guess who those might be…
"but I sense the PMC-driven censorship-of-the-many-under-the-aegis-of-the-few crusade is becoming outright malevolent, as if the regime has turned inward and the federal government is playing the role of an increasingly paranoid colonial administration that’s alienated from and hostile to the local population."
Oh, I think this becoming starting rolling in 2016 if not before. It is the study of desperation... of the gambler that cannot tolerate losing it all. These creatins have gone all in except for the next hand they play with credit from hell. They should be identified as unwell and dangerous with the keys in their hand. Yet I think we think because they are educated and articulate that maybe this is a phase... they will grow out of it soon and get normal again. Liberal elites fear having to admit they are wrong more than they fear death... and in their Godless state they profoundly fear death.
I they need to have the keys extracted from clamny clutching fingers, and sent to the asylum where they can only hurt themselves and not the rest of us.
Behind those self satisfied smug mugs is the reality coming of mass layoffs for low rating & over priced managerial puppets who will find that beside everything else, the news is a business.
My understanding is that CBS agreed not to fact check and then fact checked. Did they suffer any consequences? Seems to me there should be legal and financial remedies to address what amounts to breach of contract. What am I not getting?
As Brad stated so accurately;
“And yet they still couldn’t help themselves. Margaret Brennan, beholden as she is to the impulsive hall monitor/morality police psyche that is all too common among self-styled champions of Our Democracy™, just had to try to fact-check Vance, and, in so doing, made a complete ass of herself because she was wrong and Vance was right.”
Anyone who pays any attention, listens or observes with anything like an open mind, clearly sees that the Brennan types operate with extreme bias and prejudice. It controls their every thought and action. That’s why she could not help herself.
On the Taibbi livestream, there was general speculation that the producers had told the moderators to knock it off after that happened. Still, it would be nice to see some sort of consequence, even just an apology, even though I generally think apologies are usually lame and worthless.
The "consequences" is that Vance turned it around on them. He responded in the moment, with skill and authority. That's all that's needed to make what they were doing obvious.
I was very impressed at the way he responded to that and insisted unresponding. Cutting off his mic was not cool.
Church ladies. Scolds.
Dude, I know I’ve said this before but it utterly bears repeating: you can fucking WRITE, sir. I love your stuff. You bring the art of the polemic back to its rightful place in American discourse, in the tradition of Thomas Paine, among others.
Thank you!
The truth shall set you free. Lies only create an ever more tangled web that enslave the tellers and gullible listeners. Thanks for this.
It's not just for the elitist press, the general attitude of moral righteousness applies to the unmanaged bureaucratic deep stated three letter groups and their minion ilk. These folks are running the government (not so) behind the scenes. Neither Biden nor Harris are in charge of executive and the congress is either too lazy, stupid, unorganized, unmotivated, or compromised to effect any change. (The previous list is not mutually exclusive.) The cabal of regulars (clintons, obama, etc and even Soros ) is not in control as much as they believe as there are very little consequences applicable to a misbehaving bureaucracy; the cabal doesn't have direct control. I believe the federal government has gone completely amok. I fear electing Trump will have little effect on the system as it has long ago gotten too big and out of control to be managed. It may be time to think about employing stronger measures to maintain a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
They're a bunch of Church Ladies (ref Dana Carvey).
Let's keep track of what Milei is doing in Argentina.
He has the same problem; maybe worse.
Trump and his team are going to be just as effective as Milei. Perhaps evenore effective.
Bingo. Well said.
Bravo, Brad.
Excellent article. Thank you.
Thank God for the internet and Substack - MSM will, I pray, be dinosaurs before the next presidential election.
I believe (hope) that enough of these points are being made outside of the realm of traditional media to enough folks to show how much we're being patronized, misled, and just plain old taken for granted - and to convince them that they just shouldn't take this crap any more!!!
If the Dems win the Presidency they will implement censorship beyond what we can imagine now. I am picturing an AI bot cruising through Substack posts and seamlessly replacing offending words and phrases. The Feds will prop up the MSM with tax breaks or outright grants “in the public interest.”
Norah. Margaret. Old lady names.
Luegenpresse (I don't have an umlauted U readily available, so I used the workaround, ue) is German for Lying Press.
Brad, I'm on board with the broad strokes of your article. The explanation of CBP One and how it skirts around whether immigrants are here legally or not was spot on.
Would you agree that some fact checking is appropriate - an example being refuting MTG's suggestions that hurricanes are controlled by "them" - with statements that no evidence exists to supporting her claim?
Yes, I do think that truly objective fact-checking would be appropriate. Lying and falsehoods aren't unique to just one side of the political spectrum. MTG is a moron. The problem is that a massive swath of the country knows that the practice of fact-checking has been so transparently abused that the entire concept seems like a partisan farce. And the damage to our underlying social fabric is truly incalculable. The Hunter Biden laptop episode alone has led to dangerously high levels of paranoia and conspiratorial thinking among much of the public.
Excellent counterpoint. The immediate (and game-planned per Taibbi's reporting) declaration by a host of "right thinking" security professionals that this was a Russian disinformation campaign creates doubt and disbelief in anything else this cadre says. (Kudos to them for creating plausible deniability by saying that it had "all the classic earmarks" of Russian disinfo, rather than stating it for a fact).
You're still stuck with the problem that someone has to determine what's true. A function that will *always* be politicized.
IMO much better to let MTG hang out there and be ridiculed.
I'm not advocating shutting MTG down. I think the best response to free speech is more free speech - in this case people calling her out on her BS. I shudder at the thought of having a Ministry of Truth, whether in the hands of Harris or Trump.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Plenty of people will call her out on the BS, which I think is better than some official statement because, again, that can and will be politicized