It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MSNBC Does Not Merely Permit Fabrications Against Democratic Party Critics it rewards it

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I'll start with a little backstory before we get into this article. It is written by Glenn Greenwald, who with Jermey Scahill brought us Edward Snowden's revelations on the NSA domestic spy program. The two later started a news outlet called The Intercept. This was one of the last true news outlets IMO before they started injecting clear emotion and buzzwords into their articles. It quickly showed the bias towards the left as a whole. To me the news should be like the good ol' days, plain and dry reporting of facts. So often now opinion pieces are presented as news stories as if I the reader can't come to conclusions on my own. That said, Glenn Greenwald is one of the few journalists that I still respect. While he is not self affiliated with a party, if you read his stances he definitely has a liberal outlook, but he isn't afraid to be critical of them. If you read his stories on The Intercept you'll quickly see he calls out their constant hypocrisy, and probably does so because he'd like to see reform in the party he is more likely to identify with. I say all this because this type of approach has gotten him labeled as "deep in the Kremlin pocket".

Remember people, if you're not going by the script, you are a shill (how ironic).

So now we'll get into how MSNBC had a reporter either misspeak, or blatantly lie. Now these things happen to all "news outlets", but the ones who want to retain any kind of credibility correct the record.


On August 20, 2016, weekend host Joy Reid asked Nance about the supposed “affinity” for Russia harbored by Jill Stein supporters. In response, Nance told MSNBC viewers: “Jill Stein has a show on Russia Today.” You can still watch the video of this claim here on MSNBC’s own website, or see it here:
Here's the video.


Whatever your views might be about Jill Stein and her third-party candidacy, there is no disputing the fact that Nance’s statement was a falsehood, a fabrication, a lie. Jill Stein did not have a show on RT, nor did she ever host a show on RT. What Nance said was made up out of whole cloth – fabricated – in order to encourage MSNBC viewers to believe that Stein, one of the candidates running against Clinton, was a paid agent of the Kremlin and was an employee of RT.



The media watchdog group FAIR repeatedly documented the lie told by Nance and urged MSNBC to issue a correction.



To date – almost two years later – neither NBC News nor MSNBC, nor a single journalist who works for either one of those media outlets – has corrected this significant falsehood, despite obviously knowing that it was broadcast to their viewers.


This is where it starts in this situation, which is ironic seeing as a narrative for Russia "supporting her" would be in vein, we all know she didn't have a chance... yet MSNBC has no problem smearing her with obvious lies.

To be fair, she did appear on some RT shows to speak here and there, my guess is she was willing to take any opportunity for exposure during her campaign (MSM never has given much airtime to third party candidates). That said, appearing on and having your own show on an outlet are two very different things.

Maybe this instance seems a bit trivial, but Glenn Greenwald persists on this which seems to invoke another jester of McCarthyism.

Malcom Nance takes aim at Glenn Greenwald next. To be fair, here is some context for Nance's accusations, which Glenn explains.


This week I traveled to Moscow to meet with Edward Snowden as well as to participate in a cyber-security conference, on a panel regarding “fake news” that included Alexei Venediktov, famous in Russia as a fierce critic of the Putin government in his position as editor-in-chief of “Ekcho Moskvy” radio station, along with Giovanni Zagni, the head of an Italian website dedicated to checking politicians’ statements who is working with Facebook to determine “Fake News.” (The Intercept paid for my travel and I was paid no fee for the trip).




Here is the full Intercept article.
That is quite a bold statement from a "journalist" with no facts to back it up. The irony here is Glenn was on a panel with Alexei Venediktov, who has been jailed by Putin's administration on several occasions and was even barred from being able to run in the election.

I thought I would share this with everyone to show just how bad the McCarthyism is getting. I won't sit here and try to act like Russia isn't an adversary, and I won't pretend they didn't expel some propaganda and trolling in '16. But is that not what our "media" is doing now? fighting propaganda with propaganda, and it is the consumers who can't see that who are victim.

edit on 9-7-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Anyone without significant bias knows most MSM media outlets are simply Democrat propaganda tools.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I saw this earlier this morning.
I can't say it's surprising, msnbc went off the rails long ago.
This just illustrates how far they've gone, even the very partisan Fox and NY times still issue retractions and corrections, even if they are too little too late most of the time.
But I wonder how much longer that will last?



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Here is the problem with that..

There was no need to discredit Jill stien because she was never a threat..

JILL stien never had ANY chance of willing even a single state in the primary..


It very well could have been a mistake..


Stein might not have hosted an RT show but was doing substantial appearances on RT if memory serves..


It is one of those issues where assuming there was some conspiracy. It is crazy overkill..


That is like someone assassinating the libertarian (gary(?).. I forget)..

When the libertarian guy was never even remotely In The picture..

Or like those who say 911 was an inside job. When 911 was TOTALLY overkill concerning starting a war..

Pretending one group of marines or any other Americans were murdered would give you a war.



I just don’t see ANY benefit in risking your credibility to demonize someone no one was planning on voting for anyway..

Maybe joy reid was attepting to suck up to Hilary for access later assuming she would win..

also maybe it wasn’t about stien at all.. maybe it was a way to pivot back to russia.. since russia was and still is clickbait??



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Here is the problem with that..

There was no need to discredit Jill stien because she was never a threat..

JILL stien never had ANY chance of willing even a single state in the primary..


It very well could have been a mistake..


Stein might not have hosted an RT show but was doing substantial appearances on RT if memory serves..


It is one of those issues where assuming there was some conspiracy. It is crazy overkill..


That is like someone assassinating the libertarian (gary(?).. I forget)..

When the libertarian guy was never even remotely In The picture..

Or like those who say 911 was an inside job. When 911 was TOTALLY overkill concerning starting a war..

Pretending one group of marines or any other Americans were murdered would give you a war.



I just don’t see ANY benefit in risking your credibility to demonize someone no one was planning on voting for anyway..

Maybe joy reid was attepting to suck up to Hilary for access later assuming she would win..

also maybe it wasn’t about stien at all.. maybe it was a way to pivot back to russia.. since russia was and still is clickbait??



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox



It very well could have been a mistake..


Stein might not have hosted an RT show but was doing substantial appearances on RT if memory serves..


It is one of those issues where assuming there was some conspiracy. It is crazy overkill..


Fair enough, I'm human, so I understand mistakes. That said they still have a duty to correct the record.

Though I think the theory of it being a mistake falls apart when Nance says Glenn is in the Kremlin pocket and is a useful idiot.

I never said anything about a conspiracy, just that certain outlets aren't even hiding bias anymore. Which I think is evident.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
MSNBC Does Not Merely Permit Fabrications Against Democratic Party Critics it rewards it

And they say FAKE NEWS doesn't exist.

It does.

BIGLY.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Few things here.

Malcom Nance isn't a journalist, he's a former Navy intel officer and author who is paid for natsec/fp commentary. He started out giving commentary about terrorism/radical Islam but he's been on a Russia kick since the election.

Glenn Greenwald is of course correct that Malcom Nance made a statement about Jill Stein that is a lie. Since Nance is paid by MSNBC, Joy Reid (who has her own problems with the truth) should have issued a correction at the time.

Here's the thing. I don't think that Greenwald really cares about the statement from two years ago. Nance and Greenwald are like two opposing peas in a pod. Nance goes off the rails with unsubstantiated declarations about people having ties to the Kremlin where as Greenwald likes to stamp his feet and screech "McCarthyism" and "xenophobia" about anything Russian-related and he's been doing so since before the election.

They're both very biased and make unsubstantiated allegations. Case in point, Greenwald's own article:


Worse, not only was Nance never sanctioned in any way for the lie he told, but he was rewarded: he has since gone from “MSNBC Contributor” to “MSNBC intelligence analyst,”

On MSNBC, lies are not corrected; they are rewarded, provided the lies are designed to smear the reputations of Democratic Party critics. Is this not definitive and conclusive proof of that: that this is not a news outlet but a political arm of the Democratic Party? What else could possibly explain, let alone justify, behavior like this? I’m asking that earnestly.

This is because Nance knows that he is free to lie this way with impunity. That’s because he works for an organization – MSNBC – that masquerades as a news outlet but actively encourages its employees to lie this way about anyone who criticizes the Democratic Party.

He will be celebrated inside MSNBC, not sanctioned or even told to rescind his lie, because – just as happened with the lie he told about Jill Stein – the person he chose to falsely accuse of being a paid agent of Russia is someone that the MSNBC audience of Democratic partisans hates, and lying is thus permitted and encouraged, just the way it is in any partisan organization. The network is derided as MSDNC for a reason


Aside from being redundant to the point of absurdity, what Greenwald is stating quite matter-of-factly is that MSNBC encourages analysts to lie and furthermore that Nance was rewarded in some sort of quid pro quo for saying that Stein had a show on RT when she didn't. (the latter seems rather unlikely in particular)

Greenwald doesn't substantiate any of these allegations with evidence. Like Nance, he gives an opinion based on observations and a whole lot of bias without any facts to back it up. "This is what it looks like to me so I assume it's true" is not journalism, it's opinion writing.

Anyway, the criticism of Nance is deserved but Greenwald is also a sanctimonious ass and a bit of a hypocrite.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
sofrep.com...
I will leave this here.
While I recognize his service, it seems it comes with entanglements not normally associated with those from that community.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I agree with most of what you said.

My whole gist was really that the news has kind of died and gave birth to entertainment or biased platforms. Some have a true bias, and others exploit people's bias for ratings.

Either way, I just miss boring news, just read me the facts please.

Also, that's a good point that Nance isn't a journalist, but rather an intelligence analyst. That said, it's almost a little bit more dangerous with his background he's sourced in providing viewers with insight given his experience.

Again, I'm not saying there was no foul play in recent years or even currently by outside actors... But maybe we shouldn't act like anyone who questions certain groups are "in the Kremlin pocket".



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Or like those who say 911 was an inside job. When 911 was TOTALLY overkill concerning starting a war..

Pretending one group of marines or any other Americans were murdered would give you a war.



Killing a few marines wouldn't get the Patriot Act passed. Long after the war is over, the Patriot Act remains.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It certainly did not seem to hurt Nance, and they never issued a correction.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Or like those who say 911 was an inside job. When 911 was TOTALLY overkill concerning starting a war..

Pretending one group of marines or any other Americans were murdered would give you a war.



Killing a few marines wouldn't get the Patriot Act passed. Long after the war is over, the Patriot Act remains.


Don't bother. He repeats this ill-conceived idea at least once a month.

Back to MSNBC...




posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Or like those who say 911 was an inside job. When 911 was TOTALLY overkill concerning starting a war..

Pretending one group of marines or any other Americans were murdered would give you a war.



Killing a few marines wouldn't get the Patriot Act passed. Long after the war is over, the Patriot Act remains.


Don't bother. He repeats this ill-conceived idea at least once a month.

Back to MSNBC...



Well, that and also the fact the Robert Mueller was in charge of the FBI at the time? Might not of been an inside job, but the FIX was certainly in, if you get my drift?



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
sofrep.com...
I will leave this here.
While I recognize his service, it seems it comes with entanglements not normally associated with those from that community.


I went to your source... and shocker!...in the first few lines, it says that Hillary called ALL supporters of trump deplorables..I heard it from her own mouth....she said...........HALF, I/2..........were deplorables.....I left the article after that line...



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Oh did she not?
You are offended by the truth?
The Quote in question....


Reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” comments when she referred to supporters of then candidate Donald Trump, MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance — and self-appointed counter-terrorism, cryptology, intelligence, interrogation and linguistics expert — has stated that all military persons that support the President are “not honorable.”

I missed the word ALL.
Would you point that out for me please....
You can get help below...
www.rif.org...
edit on 9/7/2018 by shooterbrody because: clarity



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Tons of reasons that have nothing to do with Jill personally but third parties in general. The entire goal here is to make sure the third parties remain absurd in the public concious as well as incapable of accomplishing anything and unworth supporting as a result. It's not that she is a threat it's to make sure third parties are irrelevant and stay that way.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove


It's not that she is a threat it's to make sure third parties are irrelevant and stay that way.


Considering these "news" conglomerates and their advertising clients put so much money in the two parties... What makes us think they would give favorable coverage to anyone else.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Exactly. Is so obvious people must have a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance to not see it.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
So she only called 25% of the country racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join