Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. (Photo: Commonwealth Club/flickr/cc)
Dec 17, 2016
My source at the CIA, who will remain anonymous, has told me recently with "a high level of confidence" that Krugman repeatedly voted for Hillary Clinton on election day on November 8. The source told me that Krugman "went to great lengths to vote for Clinton at multiple polling places." My source also told me that Krugman "did this because Hillary told him to."
Given that the entire liberal news media and Democratic establishment has been hijacked by anonymous intelligence sources to the effect that Russia engineered this year's presidential election in Trump's favor, I expect that virtually every mainstream news organization in the United States will now report as fact, given what my anonymous source has told me, that Krugman sought to fix this year's presidential election on behalf of Clinton and that she was "personally involved" in his election-tampering.
"Today, including with the aid of Paul Krugman, who was mostly silent during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times is at the wheel and driving us once again to war, this time with Russia, by using the same reckless brand of journalism and commentary."
Krugman denies the allegations. Just yesterday (December 17), Krugman reported in the Times "It's important to realize that the postelection C.I.A. declaration that Russia had intervened on behalf of the Trump campaign was a confirmation, not a revelation (although we've now learned that Mr. Putin was personally involved in the effort)."
Krugman's claim that Putin was "personally involved" was linked to a report from NBC News that cited intelligence sources as follows: "U.S. intelligence officials now believe with 'a high level of confidence' that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News."
As in all such reports to date from other mainstream news sources, including as practiced on a nearly daily basis by David Sanger and his colleagues at the Times, the U.S. intelligence officials are not identified. This is a long-standing and condemnable feature of news reporting at the New YorkTimes, which in 2002 and 2003, while journalistically co-piloting the United States toward an invasion of Iraq, repeatedly quoted anonymous intelligence sources that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States and our allies.
Today, including with the aid of Paul Krugman, who was mostly silent during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times is at the wheel and driving us once again to war, this time with Russia, by using the same reckless brand of journalism and commentary. And in case the Times hasn't noticed, Russia, unlike Iraq, does have nuclear weapons. And so do we.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Howard Friel
Howard Friel is author of "The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight about Global Warming" (Yale University Press) and with Richard Falk, "The Record of the Paper: How The New York Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy" (Verso).
My source at the CIA, who will remain anonymous, has told me recently with "a high level of confidence" that Krugman repeatedly voted for Hillary Clinton on election day on November 8. The source told me that Krugman "went to great lengths to vote for Clinton at multiple polling places." My source also told me that Krugman "did this because Hillary told him to."
Given that the entire liberal news media and Democratic establishment has been hijacked by anonymous intelligence sources to the effect that Russia engineered this year's presidential election in Trump's favor, I expect that virtually every mainstream news organization in the United States will now report as fact, given what my anonymous source has told me, that Krugman sought to fix this year's presidential election on behalf of Clinton and that she was "personally involved" in his election-tampering.
"Today, including with the aid of Paul Krugman, who was mostly silent during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times is at the wheel and driving us once again to war, this time with Russia, by using the same reckless brand of journalism and commentary."
Krugman denies the allegations. Just yesterday (December 17), Krugman reported in the Times "It's important to realize that the postelection C.I.A. declaration that Russia had intervened on behalf of the Trump campaign was a confirmation, not a revelation (although we've now learned that Mr. Putin was personally involved in the effort)."
Krugman's claim that Putin was "personally involved" was linked to a report from NBC News that cited intelligence sources as follows: "U.S. intelligence officials now believe with 'a high level of confidence' that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News."
As in all such reports to date from other mainstream news sources, including as practiced on a nearly daily basis by David Sanger and his colleagues at the Times, the U.S. intelligence officials are not identified. This is a long-standing and condemnable feature of news reporting at the New YorkTimes, which in 2002 and 2003, while journalistically co-piloting the United States toward an invasion of Iraq, repeatedly quoted anonymous intelligence sources that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States and our allies.
Today, including with the aid of Paul Krugman, who was mostly silent during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times is at the wheel and driving us once again to war, this time with Russia, by using the same reckless brand of journalism and commentary. And in case the Times hasn't noticed, Russia, unlike Iraq, does have nuclear weapons. And so do we.
Howard Friel
Howard Friel is author of "The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight about Global Warming" (Yale University Press) and with Richard Falk, "The Record of the Paper: How The New York Times Misreports U.S. Foreign Policy" (Verso).
My source at the CIA, who will remain anonymous, has told me recently with "a high level of confidence" that Krugman repeatedly voted for Hillary Clinton on election day on November 8. The source told me that Krugman "went to great lengths to vote for Clinton at multiple polling places." My source also told me that Krugman "did this because Hillary told him to."
Given that the entire liberal news media and Democratic establishment has been hijacked by anonymous intelligence sources to the effect that Russia engineered this year's presidential election in Trump's favor, I expect that virtually every mainstream news organization in the United States will now report as fact, given what my anonymous source has told me, that Krugman sought to fix this year's presidential election on behalf of Clinton and that she was "personally involved" in his election-tampering.
"Today, including with the aid of Paul Krugman, who was mostly silent during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times is at the wheel and driving us once again to war, this time with Russia, by using the same reckless brand of journalism and commentary."
Krugman denies the allegations. Just yesterday (December 17), Krugman reported in the Times "It's important to realize that the postelection C.I.A. declaration that Russia had intervened on behalf of the Trump campaign was a confirmation, not a revelation (although we've now learned that Mr. Putin was personally involved in the effort)."
Krugman's claim that Putin was "personally involved" was linked to a report from NBC News that cited intelligence sources as follows: "U.S. intelligence officials now believe with 'a high level of confidence' that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News."
As in all such reports to date from other mainstream news sources, including as practiced on a nearly daily basis by David Sanger and his colleagues at the Times, the U.S. intelligence officials are not identified. This is a long-standing and condemnable feature of news reporting at the New YorkTimes, which in 2002 and 2003, while journalistically co-piloting the United States toward an invasion of Iraq, repeatedly quoted anonymous intelligence sources that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States and our allies.
Today, including with the aid of Paul Krugman, who was mostly silent during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times is at the wheel and driving us once again to war, this time with Russia, by using the same reckless brand of journalism and commentary. And in case the Times hasn't noticed, Russia, unlike Iraq, does have nuclear weapons. And so do we.
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.