SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Hypocrisy of Russia-Did-It Stories Is Hard to Stomach
It is, of course, worth knowing what involvement any other country might have had in the US election, but elite media's consumption with the Russia-did-it storyline so far is discouraging to say the least.
Dec 16, 2016
It is, of course, worth knowing what involvement any other country might have had in the US election, but elite media's consumption with the Russia-did-it storyline so far is discouraging to say the least.
The Intercept's Sam Biddle (12/14/16) has a breakdown of what public evidence there is that Russia was behind hacks of DNC email accounts. He concludes that while it's plausible that Russians or even Russia was involved, it's a very long way from proven, different agencies dispute it, all the sources we're reading are anonymous and the assessments themselves are secret.
It should go without saying that the repercussions of such an accusation are serious. As Biddle writes:
What we're looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence.
Apart from the slipperiness between the possible and the proven, the gap between the confidence of the headlines and the caution buried deep inside, it's weird to see media skip over the story's center: that the alleged meddling consisted of revealing true information about the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign. As journalist Bob Parry (Consortium News, 11/18/16) notes, a sort of hysteria in official Washington is now clumsily conflating such real--if embarrassing--news with the phenomenon of "fake news," though reporting has tracked that phenomenon not to the Kremlin but to Millennials in Macedonia, for example, who figured out how to make money with crazy click-bait stories.
But in back of it all, what makes the umbrage of elite media so hard to stomach is the hypocrisy. This is, after all, the same elite media that supports outsider-induced "regime change" anywhere and everywhere they see an official enemy, from Iraq to Honduras to Libya to Syria--and wait, what's this? A cover from Time magazine (7/15/96): a chipper Boris Yeltsin holding an American flag, and the line "Yanks to the Rescue! The Secret Story of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win." You can make "one law for me, another for thee" your credo, but you can't be too surprised when others are unimpressed.
Whatever story there is to be told about Russia and the 2016 election, corporate media have squandered the credibility it would take to tell it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
It is, of course, worth knowing what involvement any other country might have had in the US election, but elite media's consumption with the Russia-did-it storyline so far is discouraging to say the least.
The Intercept's Sam Biddle (12/14/16) has a breakdown of what public evidence there is that Russia was behind hacks of DNC email accounts. He concludes that while it's plausible that Russians or even Russia was involved, it's a very long way from proven, different agencies dispute it, all the sources we're reading are anonymous and the assessments themselves are secret.
It should go without saying that the repercussions of such an accusation are serious. As Biddle writes:
What we're looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence.
Apart from the slipperiness between the possible and the proven, the gap between the confidence of the headlines and the caution buried deep inside, it's weird to see media skip over the story's center: that the alleged meddling consisted of revealing true information about the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign. As journalist Bob Parry (Consortium News, 11/18/16) notes, a sort of hysteria in official Washington is now clumsily conflating such real--if embarrassing--news with the phenomenon of "fake news," though reporting has tracked that phenomenon not to the Kremlin but to Millennials in Macedonia, for example, who figured out how to make money with crazy click-bait stories.
But in back of it all, what makes the umbrage of elite media so hard to stomach is the hypocrisy. This is, after all, the same elite media that supports outsider-induced "regime change" anywhere and everywhere they see an official enemy, from Iraq to Honduras to Libya to Syria--and wait, what's this? A cover from Time magazine (7/15/96): a chipper Boris Yeltsin holding an American flag, and the line "Yanks to the Rescue! The Secret Story of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win." You can make "one law for me, another for thee" your credo, but you can't be too surprised when others are unimpressed.
Whatever story there is to be told about Russia and the 2016 election, corporate media have squandered the credibility it would take to tell it.
Janine Jackson
Janine Jackson is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) program director and producer/co-host of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. She contributes frequently to FAIR's magazine, Extra! and co-edited "The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the '90s" (2019).
It is, of course, worth knowing what involvement any other country might have had in the US election, but elite media's consumption with the Russia-did-it storyline so far is discouraging to say the least.
The Intercept's Sam Biddle (12/14/16) has a breakdown of what public evidence there is that Russia was behind hacks of DNC email accounts. He concludes that while it's plausible that Russians or even Russia was involved, it's a very long way from proven, different agencies dispute it, all the sources we're reading are anonymous and the assessments themselves are secret.
It should go without saying that the repercussions of such an accusation are serious. As Biddle writes:
What we're looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence.
Apart from the slipperiness between the possible and the proven, the gap between the confidence of the headlines and the caution buried deep inside, it's weird to see media skip over the story's center: that the alleged meddling consisted of revealing true information about the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign. As journalist Bob Parry (Consortium News, 11/18/16) notes, a sort of hysteria in official Washington is now clumsily conflating such real--if embarrassing--news with the phenomenon of "fake news," though reporting has tracked that phenomenon not to the Kremlin but to Millennials in Macedonia, for example, who figured out how to make money with crazy click-bait stories.
But in back of it all, what makes the umbrage of elite media so hard to stomach is the hypocrisy. This is, after all, the same elite media that supports outsider-induced "regime change" anywhere and everywhere they see an official enemy, from Iraq to Honduras to Libya to Syria--and wait, what's this? A cover from Time magazine (7/15/96): a chipper Boris Yeltsin holding an American flag, and the line "Yanks to the Rescue! The Secret Story of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win." You can make "one law for me, another for thee" your credo, but you can't be too surprised when others are unimpressed.
Whatever story there is to be told about Russia and the 2016 election, corporate media have squandered the credibility it would take to tell it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.