« Ataturk Airport - 29 June 2016 | Main | "We talked about his grandchildren" Loretta Lynch »

29 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


fascinating, EA. Have to save the link. ... Deserves more attention, at least mine.

More generally: I guess, the thing that puzzled me most in the post 9/11 US universe was, what felt like a peculiar "Gleichschaltung" of media. ... objectivity? ... comment is free, facts are sacred???

And notice, I never read Manufacturing Consent. I respect Chomsky, but I struggled enough for my taste with him as far as linguistics are concerned.

To put it into some type of nutshell: a biological basis of the human language? ... acknowledgment, I was never seriously interested in the topic.

My inner objections no doubt had weak intellectual foundations, random choice: Do we have enough data and research to compare e.g. the brain of an African Grey Parrot with the human brain? From an evolutionary perspective on biology and language? Why does the African Grey Parott imitate every single specific human voice so well ...? Do you know?

Less random, could some theses lie in wait for a proof precisely because they cannot be challenged by science at their time?

along the same nitwit lines: could it be that you only need to throw a theory into the ring, ideally while prominent, to make sure the crowd follows, in the desire to prove you right?


David, I looked at Anti-War, if the site made you choose the category, sometimes too in that time.

"yours is the only one still up and running. I hope it will continue to do so for a long time to come."

I couldn't tell. But is that so?

I wouldn't know. But strictly we may have stumbled across similar links then.

My reason for remaining here instead of under a pure "Anti-War" label, may have to do with the fact, that I exactly on anti-war realized I may not be a solidly orthodox anti-war type of person.



"But you know as well as I do that nearly every French male hunts ..."

Where on Earth did you dig up this unsubstantiated statement?

Bill H

I think the readership being here has less to do with left or right that it does with being pro-sanity. We go where sanity prevails, and we delight in the rigorous eviction when insanity intrudes.



You'll notice that there is no mention in FP of him being at CFR nor do they ever mention how walls work out for our "best ally in the Middle East" nor how many refugees did they take? I believe that counts as "propaganda" outlet.


well, he is rational and open-minded. knows how to distinguish sources from content (& process from structure... individual behaviors from groups / institutions) insists on good manners & a bit of decorum along with freedom of speech. runs a pretty tight ship while allowing commenters to be themselves. these are old-timey liberal traits, so that's appealing to classic liberals. given the extremist tenor of this election cycle ("she's evil!" / "he's a racist-fascist") it's a blessing there are forums like this at all. I think it is because he reviews posts before publishing them - this is a private venue.
I would like to see our polity appreciate liberalism & conservatism as useful analytical tools or points of context rather than personal attributes or end-states. I think it might make America great again if we pursued consensus-making & compromise moreso than partisan purity. To those who are super-sensitive about Hillary, l suggest a more historical pov... both parties have industrialized, commercialized our politics. They must be broken-up to effect change (in whatever direction one desires). It just so happens the GOP is imploding first. Absent national insurrection, it is unlikely they'd both go out in sync, doncha think? So, let's see what comes of a new conservative movement while Hillary is pres. If she's as bad as her worst critics worst fears, the implosion of the Dem party is assured. I think the nation can survive 4 of her years, if thats what it takes to pull down another political party long past its shelf life. Does being a bit of an optimist on this score make me an idealist? Perhaps a little optimism in the dark wouldn't be too terrible.


I had the same reaction, specifically to Krugman's vicious attacks on Sanders and his supporters. It was naive of me, but back in January I expected Krugman to be relatively fair in the contest between Sanders and Clinton, I expected him to support Clinton, but never dreamed he would be so hackish about it. I had almost forgotten how nasty he had been towards all anti- globalization protestors in the late 90's-- unlike fellow liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz, Krugman refused to grant any legitimacy to anything any of the protestors said. After Stiglitz came out saying the protestors were partly right, Krugman softened. But in the past several months, he has been acting the way I remembered him acting in the late 90's, this time towards Sanders. In Krugman's world, Clinton and her supporters are right about everything and Sanders and his supporters are at best deluded and at worst pure evil. He has permanently shattered his credibility as far as I'm concerned.


The media has been an arm of the Democrat party since the 60's.
Each campaign, it just gets moe flagrant.
There hasn't been a "free" press in this country for a loooong time.


Maybe I don't have the foreign policy or military chops that a lot of readers have here, but I can surely see the direction this country has headed under Bush- Obama- and a possible Clinton Redux administration.

I don't like it. I wasn't born into such a country nor do I want to live in such a future.

As far as this old boy is concerned, the only real choice is Trump. All along he opposed the middle east wars and that is enough for me.

The gaffes don't mean squat to me, his actions do.


Colonel, I've enjoyed your site for many years. While most of my votes over the last 50 years or so have been to the left, I voted for George Bush over Bill Clinton, and my choice was based on character. When Bush held a House seat from Houston, he voted for one of the early civil rights bills and he lost the next election. That showed me some of his character. When Bill Clinton was running for President and was being assailed for some of his infidelities, he left the campaign trail to show how tough on crime he was and change the subject by returning to Arkansas to supervise the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a man so retarded he asked for the dessert from his last mail to be saved for later. We don't know what an elected official will confront, so character is important to me.

The other value that most informs my politics is the simple belief that every human, no matter their affiliation(s), should be equally valued. Too many of our politicians think that some group has less value than their own, leading to discriminatory policies, and needless wars that cost the lives of so many innocents.


Agree completely. It's been eye opening as to who actually walks the walk and who just pays lip service when things are easy (like Krugman).

With a lot of these people I wonder if they're actively auditioning for roles in a Hillary administration. Elizabeth Warren turns my stomach at this point.

I'm done with the Democrat party. The Republicans lost me with the cult of personality during the Bush/Cheney years. The Democrats lost me under Obama. But the DNC, Hillary, and Democratic party behavior during this primary pushed me from "lost me" to "actively hate with a passion, want to burn them down, and sow them with salt."

With the Republicans I just parted ways, with the Democrats its become personal.


I am probably one of those on this blog who is to the left. I too think the media treatment of Trump is shamelessly biased. That coverage is basically anti-working class, and pro-globalization.

I think the old dichotomy between liberal and conservative isn't as useful as it once was. Liberal dems have completely abandoned the old FDR labor-friendly roots, while traditional Main Street repub conservatives are marginalized within their own party by the neocons.

And of course those repub neocons are welcomed by their fellow dem neocons.

I thin the loss of those liberal or conservative tags is good. It makes people focus on the merits of positions.


what does that mean:

"20/800 vision"

I could guess, but I better don't. Aircraft somewhat suggest periphery? From a nitwit perspective.


Well, I tried to explain to some of my friends, no matter if coverage is negative or positive, it gets you attention. In the arts, its a standard. Or become a standard, maybe, over a certain period of time.

But yes, I heard the argument too, that he got a lot of free coverage based on that. May have saved him a lot of money. If I may take a slightly polemical turn here: (may have saved him) a lot of money in the maybe not quite as efficient PR/Marketing field, as it's merchants want to pretend.


The US angle of Murdoch celebrates the Brexit as pure democratic victory in the Wall Street Journal. Admittedly only read one article, and it was, as far as I recall, a British contributor. You hear the same argument from the nationalist factions in the EU. The ultimate success of democracy.

Even if one has serious concerns about Europe, while as I do, basically supports its founding vision, one can get a little dizzy nowadays.


Harper, I wish I had quoted "objectivity" above.

I stumbled across a brilliant article in the early times after the "changing-event" targeting objectivity. Forget, graduate Columbia School of Journalism. Maybe? Or that was simply how I tried to find it again, and failed.



The French hunt for truffles.

Larry Kart

Colonel -- You are right in your general point about the current bond between Clinton and the MSM (I think of this primarily as a temporary, until the election anti-Trump manouver). But how then do you account for all the anti-Hillary stories in the New York Times in the early days of the primary campaign, both news stories and lots of snarky "psychological" stuff from columnists Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins? (All of that anti-Hillary material in the Times BTW was not at all from a pro-Sanders point of view -- the Times' negative coverage or virtual non-coverage of Sanders was a much-remarked-upon near scandal for a while.)

My guess is that in the NYT specifically, and in much of the media in general, there is a good deal of lingering resentment towards Hillary on overlapping fronts -- female journalists of the "professional female" sort who can't stand the sort of woman they think Hillary is (e.g. the virtually nutso Dowd and the the somewhat less nutso Collins) and are devoted to coming up with disparaging novelistic "psychological" scenarios about her; male journalists of more-or-less ordinary sorts who don't like the sort of woman they think Hillary is and who also, in some cases, detect, dislike, and even fear her likely Borg Queen role and policies; and (both the gist of the overlap and close to primary IMO) all those journalists of both sexes who deeply resent all the forms of Clintonian bullying and arrogance toward them and their profession that they've met with over all these years.

Decisions no doubt have been made by media "leaders" who live above the level of the journalists in the field, and these decisions currently prevail by and large; but mark my words, Hillary will be turned on by the MSM somewhere down the road and perhaps will even be torn to pieces by it. I know this beast and/or these beasts and its/their inclinations and appetites; I lived and worked among them for almost thirty years. The troops in the field will follow orders from above up to a point, but eventually the scorpion will sting to death the frog (or was it the rabbit?) on whose back he was crossing the river because, as the scorpion said to the frog or rabbit as they both began to drown, "It's in my nature."


My nom de blog comes from more than handedness. I come here because I respect your areas of expertise, experience and willingness to call 'em as you see 'em. It has been a long time since MSM has been good. Especially since 9/11 it has been a sycophantic mouthpiece for propaganda.

Trump is bizarre, equally bizarre is the idea that Clinton is somehow a "lesser evil". Although our choices may vary this fall, like you I will never vote for either one.

Thank you for this site. SST and its active community help make for a more informed public. Hope you enjoy your time in Frednecksburg.

Clif Hutchison

I will vote for Jill Stein, too. I don't believe the MSM is left of center, look what it did to Al Gore and Gov. Dean. Donald Trump is just too bizarre.

Larry Kart

Colonel -- A possible P.S.

Re-reading your original post here, when you write "We no longer have anything like a neutral press in the US. What we have is an ideologically driven propaganda machine," I would say instead that the primary ideology of the U.S. press, especially on the level of those who actually cover and/or bloviate about political and social news, has to do not so much with the policies of any party or candidate but with the self-identity and supposed "rights" of the press itself. That the press is, or wants to think of itself as and be treated as, a legitimate Fourth Branch is its primary ideology, snd this ideology perhaps understandably seems to grow more adamant as the economic foothold/survival of U.S. journalism becomes more tenuous. This, if true, is not to contradict your primary point but to suggest that what we have here is a bit more of a witches' brew than the idea of the media simply going in the tank for Clinton because it supports her policies and fears the advent of Trump.


"Faux bubba" - perfect description. Also, Rep King as head of the House Committee on Terrorism is ironic, considering his previous support of and ties to the IRA back in the day. He used to raise money for the IRA through NorAid- something that would be a crime under present Federal laws which were not in effect then. And the IRA was waging war against the UK, our closet ally.


Clinton is talking about launching a Libya-style war against Syria and possibly Russia and Iran. Can Trump be more dangerous then that? A way around the "lesser evil" trap is through vote pairing. A Trump voter agrees with a Clinton voter to vote for a third party candidate. This way you can vote for a third party ticket without feeling you have contributed to a greater evil victory. This idea is discussed at www.votepact.org.

Seamus Padraig

I'm not voting for Trump either, but for the record, I agree: the media are obviously in the bag for Hellary and are actively dog-piling Trump.


SAC Brat,

And people here think I am some sort of upjumped whippersnapper. Thank you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad