Iraq was a clusterfuck, but frankly, it was the government that did the lying, not the press.
Bullshit.
Of all 393 sources, only three (less than 1 percent) were identified with organized protests or anti-war groups.
fair.org
In an excerpt from his new book 'Hate Inc.,' Matt Taibbi looks back at how the media built new lies to cover their early ones
www.rollingstone.com
It wasn't the Bush admin that censured and suppressed critical voices, failed to present anti-war perspectives for the sake of impartial reporting, and go so far as to deplatform and blacklist Bush critics and war skeptics. That was the media. It wasn't the Bush admin that put exclusively pro-war voices on air, and write blank checks for pro-war op-eds, that was the media. It wasn't the Bush administration that refused to report intelligence refuting pro-war claims, that was already public knowledge by way of leaks and declassification, nor the counterarguments against the war -- specifically, Iraq's lack of WMD's, its lack of attempting to procure WMD's, and the lack of connection between Hussein and Osama bin Laden (in fact, it was known to political and policy elites Hussein and bin Laden were
enemies) -- some of which existed as far back as skepticism towards the necessity of
Desert Storm. That, as well, was the media.
And I'm not even talking about WSJ or Fox News. I'm talking about NYT, WashPo, The Atlantic, MSNBC, and CNN.
Reporters, editors, producers, and executives alike knew full well the arguments for and against the war, knew the intelligence, and knew the case for going to war was entirely false. And, the press chose to not only make it
anyways, but frame those who called it for what it was based on information that was public knowledge as ignorant, extremist, conspiracy theorists, or worst of all, traitorous. That is the textbook definition of lying.
Unequivocally, bullshit.
Whatever you want to say about Corbyn, yes Labour most certainly did have some sort of problem with antisemitism, even if it was internal process dealing with it. And you know what? As leader, the buck stops at Corbyn's desk and there's some truth and point in there.
These may involve bias, exaggerated confidence, foolhardiness and many other sins, but none involve a major media organisation simply bare-facedly pushing stories it knows perfectly well to be (and is internally saying so) completely false.
You
do understand a major part of the Labour leaks were memos and chatlogs specifically between Blairites and the press, collaborating on stories they knew full well to be false and constructing a narrative based upon those false stories, and openly discussing it as such? Shit, they were hiring consultants and astroturfing anti-Corbyn protests, and collaborating with the press on how to report on their astroturfed, fake, protests.
But, you are technically right in that there was widespread antisemitism among Labour. You know, if you accept the definition of "antisemitism" as adopted by the NEC which defined any criticism of Israel, Israeli politicians, or Israeli foreign or domestic policy as such, regardless of context or content. But otherwise, the
actual antisemitism found was actually coming from the Blairites...but not that you'd know unless you followed the leaks, or in fact the EHRC report, as opposed to the press' deliberate misreporting on either.
Again, this is the textbook definition of lying.
Then, in a Tstorm like gambit just to try to prove how feeble your point is, you reach back over a century. It's like you can't try hard enough to say "I don't really have a good point here".
Right, pointing out the single most famous instance of yellow journalism and journalistic malpractice in modern history -- the very one that popularized the term "yellow journalism", which is considered the advent of post-Industrial Revolution propaganda -- is "a Tstorm like gambit". It was
only one of the biggest events that shaped 20th Century North and South American (hell, global) history, that had ramifications which continue today, after all. This is like having a conversation about the Cold War and mutually-assured destruction, and saying Hiroshima is irrelevant.
Utterly fucking laughable.
