Russ Baker

Russ Baker

Folks, it is not only a new year, it’s “Morning Again in America,” as Ronald Reagan’s campaign so disingenuously claimed. Let’s reclaim that term for truth-seekers, because why let the liars own the language?

The reason I say it is Morning Again is that we start the new year with at least one hopeful sign: the growing skepticism toward government propaganda by some serious people with widely accessible platforms. That skepticism has been directed at Washington’s instantaneous tagging of North Korea as a world-class cyber threat, long before anything of the sort could be established with any degree of certainty.

Since the first moment of the announced “North Korean attack” on Sony, our alarm bells were going off. Of course, the New York Times and Washington Post took the lazy way out, quoting unnamed officials asserting that they knew it was North Korea behind the cyberattack, without any evidence at all. Apparently, they couldn’t even do the right thing and acknowledge that we should be highly skeptical of these claims—because that would immediately raise questions of why they were headlining them.

And of course everyone ran President Obama’s Dec. 19 press conference comments that “We can confirm that North Korea engaged in this attack.” And then the typically aggressive move, dripping with manipulative rhetoric: “We will respond. . . . We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States.” The public response, made on Jan. 2, was a new round of economic sanctions—a move that guarantees a story, whether or not the new financial restrictions will have any effect.

A number of journalists and cyber-specialists were out early advising caution in the rush to judgment, based largely on technical considerations and the range of possible culprits. (Glenn Greenwald has just published a good summary of the coverage, both the disappointing and the encouraging.)

My own thoughts were more along the lines of “been there, seen that”—a long history of the U.S. government falsifying allegedly belligerent acts in order to advance some stated agenda.

Today, we still don’t know who hacked Sony, or why.

But the New York Times did finally catch up, running a short but sober piece by a fairly new reporter, raising the same doubts that others had earlier. It’s interesting that the paper’s original buy-in to the propaganda was co-authored by an old Times Washington hand, David Sanger, and a newbie, Nicole Perlroth, but its corrective was a sole byline of Perlroth, a younger, fairly recent addition to the Times staff based in the “new media” capital of San Francisco. And then, earlier this week, the Times Public Editor (ombudsman) took the paper to the woodshed for its handling of the story, especially its overuse of anonymous sources, noting that “there’s little skepticism in this article.”

Truthmongers

Anyone who reads this site knows that it is principally about being skeptical of what we are being told—and pressured to accept without further inquiry—by those who claim to serve the public interest.

So we’re thrilled to see this rising tide of skepticism. One thing that distinguishes our site is that we go further, and look at the bigger picture. If the large news organizations are willing to be used in such a fashion, what does that tell us about how journalism must be reformed? More importantly, if the government is willing to lie to us, what does that tell us about the government itself—and about whether it is really the people, as in a democracy, guiding its leaders, or someone else?

That latter point is what makes everyone nervous, even those who are constantly expressing doubt on their respective platforms about government pronouncements. Because anyone who asks the “big questions” has traditionally been marginalized as a “conspiracist” or nut.

***

But with growing evidence that we cannot trust what we are being told, perhaps a new moniker would be appropriate. How about: “truthmonger”?

And how about all those brave skeptics taking on something really problematical—and really risky—like the Boston Marathon Bombing, where virtually no one has stepped out of line from the mandated narrative?

Contrast this lock-step approach with the blogosphere’s response to the claim that North Korea was responsible for the Sony hack. For example, security blogger Bruce Schneier wrote:

I am deeply skeptical of the FBI’s announcement on Friday that North Korea was behind last month’s Sony hack. The agency’s evidence is tenuous, and I have a hard time believing it. But I also have trouble believing that the U.S. government would make the accusation this formally if officials didn’t believe it.

Schneier is a cyber guy, and a decent one at that, but when will comparable people take a hard look at the government’s much more aggressive propaganda campaign to hype the evidence in the Boston Marathon bombing? In both the Korean story and the Boston one, the authorities have made all kinds of statements about what happened and why, while refusing to back them up with proof.

As the estimable Greenwald wrote, “Coverage of the episode was largely driven by the long-standing, central tenet of the establishment U.S. media: government assertions are to be treated as Truth.”

Of course, all publications, including Greenwald’s, pick their battles. Some truthmongering campaigns, it seems, are riskier than others.

[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

print
0 0 votes
Article Rating
9 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jay
Jay
6 years ago

“We will respond. . . . We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States.” Well… Of COURSE not… We want to make sure that WE are the ones imposing censorship here in the US… Right?

SomeoneWatching
SomeoneWatching
6 years ago

Go Russ! I like “truthmonger”.

As soon as stuff like the Sony cyberattack, or the AirAsia flight disappearence, or the Ukraine coup, etc. etc. happen, my friends always ask my opinion because they know I like looking into this stuff.

Nowadays, I don’t even need to look into it anymore. I just go “They’re lying. Obama’s lying, the NYT is lying, whatever cable news network you watched is probably lying too. In one day there’s going to be a rebuttal by an actual expert.”

goingnowherefast
goingnowherefast
6 years ago

I find it astonishing that after so many decades of proven lies by the government and continuous failure by the establishment press to call out those lies, at least until long after it is useful to do so, that the public still for the most part trusts what official sources tell them. On some level they must know they are being manipulated.

I hope as you say that things are beginning to change. It’s certainly long overdue.

Charles D
Charles D
6 years ago

Any journalist worth the name should begin with the assumption that the government is lying, especially when it’s about foreign affairs, espionage or anything related to the military. Parroting government press releases, or even worse, the rantings of unnamed high-level sources, is completely irresponsible.

bobke
bobke
6 years ago

Don’t hate me I am just using my right of free speech. I think our Gov sucks too.

bobke
bobke
6 years ago

ever think about that?

bobke
bobke
6 years ago

Maybe, just maybe the Gov has “other” means of knowing that they don’t want every one to know about. Ever thin

Valis
Valis
6 years ago
Reply to  bobke

Don’t be so gullible. If the gov. had *any* kind of proof they would have trumpeted it far and wide. At the very least they would’ve alluded to “evidence not released for reasons of national security”.

Jimi James LaMont
Jimi James LaMont
6 years ago

We know the media is Co-Opted and we also knows OWNS the media, do we not???

Subscribe to the Daily WhoWhatWhy

Relevant, in-depth journalism delivered to you.
Name(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.