The things you will see on Fox News! (I have called them the mushroom farm which is terribly unfair to actual mushroom farmers and I still like my analogy.) Apparently, Barr's appointed US counsel in charge of making the Russia investigation look like it wasn't great (despite the multi-volume Senate intelligence report on same) has filed a thing that isn't actually shocking--someone related to the Clinton campaign mentioned to a government agency that a thing they noticed should be looked into, and they never explicitly pointed out that they might be tangentially associated with that campaign, which was over at the time of their being asked. The thing was DNS traffic, and my god, anyone hyping it should have to spell out what they think analyzing DNS traffic means. Because it is actually really boring, and not actually spying or wiretapping.
The October 2016 news story was so dull I called it "too good to be true" at the time and I'm an obsessive re: Trump/Russia. That's how not a big deal it was. But that doesn't stop the premier propaganda cable news network from bolstering Trump's claims that pointing out a fairly nerdy and easily dismissible propinquity regarding Trump Tower and a Russian bank based on web traffic should result in the electric chair.
Like, look up things that are publicly available and render an unfavorable conclusion and apparently, that is way too much for our society to bear. That is what this mishigas is about. Someone noticed something in the Trump milieux and not realizing His Nibs was sacrosanct, mentioned it. This got enlarged to supposedly spying on the Trump Administration, and no--the period involving White House traffic was the Obama Administration. Like, maybe Obama can get wee-weed up about it, if he was the type. But I think not. And this is in no way analogous to Trump being "wiretapped!"
You know none of that from watching Fox News. You would think Trump was vindicated and was spied on and wiretapped by Hillary Clinton, no less, while he was in the Oval Office. because that was the impression that Fox News, a propaganda outlet, not an actual news outlet, created. And it was the necessary narrative, because otherwise, there was fuckall to talk about, other than Biden's great economy and Trump's accounting firm giving him the shaft.
I guess they could have doubled down some more on a misbegotten story about crack pipes. But when they weren't pimping the Durham nonstory, (or for some reason trying to reinvigorate interest in the debunked Seth Rich conspiracy theory which is gross and Tucker Carlson is a bloody necophiliac for trying that old thing on) they were featuring Jonathan Turley regarding Trudeau's crack down on the domestic terrorist convoy, who said the dumbest thing imaginable: Under these conditions, couldn't MLK have been arrested?
Wow. I suppose "Letter from A Birmingham Jail" and widely posted pictures of MLK's mugshot (not to be confused for Josh Hawley's) were not enough evidence for Turley to notice that civil rights leaders are basically forever getting thrown in jail. You would have to be a fucking dumbass to have never noticed this. Did this happen during his lifetime, as if he was born a whole minute ago and is in fact an alien podperson? Or has he been so disconnected his entire life from the very idea of the struggle in this country that the bare details of it never mattered to him?
All in all, yikes that this got shown on Fox News with little (no) pushback, but also, Jeanine Pirro thinks that the unrest of BLM summer/2020 is on President Biden. She can't recall who was actually president then. And no surprise, since Trump did so little and she's rumored to drink so much. But still, the delivery of such incorrect information is really weird, and the keeping on of people who promote bad, weird, totally debunked stuff is also so not good.
It's almost as if Fox News entirely existed for disinfo to protect Republicans and not actual news! Wow! Imagine that!
You know, in light of the decision against Sarah Palin's defamation claim against the New York Times with reference to actual malice, I really think it an astonishing example of forbearance on Hillary Clinton's part that she never chased down a defamation claim even though I think she'd be able to prove malice easily. But she wouldn't do the First Amendment dirty like that. But propagandists and bald-faced liars like Fox undermine the First Amendment by committing a special, hardly noticeable kind of fraud all the time. They just lie. And feel secure that their viewers won't hear about or care about the lies.
But they do lie, and even US Senators even act as if Fox News lies were the truth. It's a sorry state of things, and I don't know the remedy. I sometimes think if I hit the lotto, I'd try to create a "Vixen News" shadow network that was a channel that followed Fox News and just debunked every little thing. I wish the truth was potent enough to undo the magic of devoutly wished-for lies. But I don't know what unfucks the whole of fallen human nature.
2 comments:
it wasn't "someone related to the clinton campaign". the alleged shenanigans happened in 2014. the clinton campaign didn't EXIST yet. she didn't announce until april of 2015.
it's LITERALLY faux news flinging crap and trying to get ahead of tang the conqueror's theft of classified documents and destruction of white house presidential papers by going back to their eternal nemesis, hillary clinton.
it's fucking pathetic. like, reporters should ask if they're saying clinton is a time lord now. with a TaRDiS up in that closet in chappaqua.
FFS. all ALL of them do is lie. ALL the time.
From the 2016 story:
In the parlance that has become familiar since the Edward Snowden revelations, the DNS logs reside in the realm of metadata. We can see a trail of transmissions, but we can’t see the actual substance of the communications. And we can’t even say with complete certitude that the servers exchanged email. One scientist, who wasn’t involved in the effort to compile and analyze the logs, ticked off a list of other possibilities: an errant piece of spam caroming between servers, a misdirected email that kept trying to reach its destination, which created the impression of sustained communication. “I’m seeing a preponderance of the evidence, but not a smoking gun,” he said.
It's metadata (like phone records), not anything equivalent to, say, the hacked emails that Trump touted during the 2016 campaign. The hyperventilating over this makes me wonder what sort of actual direction re: CIA, NSA or other intelligence agencies Trump might have deployed against political adversaries, because Trump accusations often turn out to be a form of confession.
The lying is galling: an insult. The way it points also to some kind of warped or inverted truth is an intended injury. I refuse to be demoralized by their immoral fabrications.
Post a Comment