Press freedom as a legally protected right is unnecessary if the press stays within bounds. So if the press intends to stay in bounds then they don't need press freedom and don't need to campaign for it.
I think this might explain the disconnect Matt and Katie appear to have with the rest of the press. They imagine that other journalists can imagine that press freedom might one day have relevance in their lives. But maybe they don't.
And it does make sense. According to the propaganda model, press freedom will only be given to those who aren't going to need it. Either we aren't a threat because we have insignificant audience or we aren't a threat because aren't going to say the wrong things. Assange/Wikileaks is an unusual case.
I highly doubt that Hillary would have brought on WWIII. While she is neo-con, her leadership wouldn't have been out of line with most of the others that preceded her, she would have simply continued the previous policies that haven't led to WWIII. What probably would have happened is that Putin would have to deal with further US policies that restricted his and his cabal to access their skim. Russia and China saw Trump as a pushover, not Hillary, and so they would have modified their behavior accordingly.
I subscribed on Substack to hear the complete Assange interview but the podcast is the same length as the public post. Where is the complete interview?
So much of what liberals think they know about Assange was a concerted disinformation campaign to discredit him. It's too late now, but the Mueller report was extremely cagey in using weasel words to describe all the unsubstantiated bs about any connection between WikiLeaks and Trump or WikiLeaks and Russia. At some point, Matt (I know this would be drudgery), it would be great for you to revisit the Mueller Report and put it into the context of all the revelations since, such as the newly unredacted pages that further minimize the evidence for any connection between Assange and Russia and Shawn Henry and others' revealed testimony from 2017 under oath (only released in May of 2020 and not covered by the MSM) that contradicts the major premise for the entire case - that the DNC was hacked by Russia or by anyone else.
And dare to tread back one more - that if the DNC wasn’t hacked, and various treachery used to muddle the truth - not such a stretch at all to revisit Seth Rich and the complete propaganda & smear used to silence any inquiry about his murder and involvement and lack of investigation into it.
It seems that the deceptions (not acknowledging the role of the Hillary campaign in creating the Steele dossier,) the criminal behavior of the FBI in changing the content of an email as evidence submitted for the FISA court, the news articles that became a flurry of misinformation all misinforming in one direction and often initiated by "anonymous sources," the contradictory statements Comey made to the public and in private under oath, the bias in so many related FBI investigations that involved agent Peter S., the ridiculous timeline that the Mueller Report proposed (G2 handing over emails after Assange said he already had them a month earlier,) the reference to the head of the IRA as "Putin's chef" when that was just a reference to a NYTimes article about Putin's choice in restaurants, the fact the Mueller investigation never interviewed Assange even though his lawyers offered that, the fact that the Mueller investigation never interviewed Craig Murray who said he delivered a thumb drive to WL. from the U.S, the fact that the Mueller investigation never interviewed former NSA technical director Bill Binney, who created the first data hoovering mechanism and who said the NSA would have caught a packet with time and destination if the DNC had been hacked, the fact that the FBI relied on data provided by Crowdstrike hired by the Hillary campaign (breaking the chain of custody of the evidence), the fact that Shawn Henry testified in December of 2017 that Crowdstrike saw no emails exfiltrated by Russia or anybody else, etc. - at some point doesn't the evidence add up to an incredibly corrupt effort to mislead the American people? At some point does the caveat "We'll never know" have to change to be, "It appears to have been an elaborate hoax?"
Matt, I think you know the answer to your own question “why isn’t the MSM covering this?” Do you think journalist are not afraid to be canceled? Or have to be spied on? I think your own work suggests that every journalist should walk lightly when it comes to these nat. Security issues.
The US's charges are a travesty, period. That more media isn't taking a stand in his defense is also a travesty and shows their lack of interest in America's crimes and exposing complicit leadership. The American people lose, but apparently we just don't give a shit. Therefore, we get the government that we deserve. Thanks, Obama.
Where is extended interview? The link I got does not include it. SPECTACULAR interview BTW!! THANK YOU for giving this issue the space it deserves!! Please keep going!!
OMG! I can’t believe I’m listening to a podcast where we are interpreting Hunter’s paintings. I’m actually pissed off, you wasted my time, before I gave up. And turned this off. Nobody is watching useful idiots to lu see them to Katie’s mom’s schoolmate talk abt how much red are in Hunter’s paintings. WTF
What does legacy media need press freedom FOR?
Press freedom as a legally protected right is unnecessary if the press stays within bounds. So if the press intends to stay in bounds then they don't need press freedom and don't need to campaign for it.
I think this might explain the disconnect Matt and Katie appear to have with the rest of the press. They imagine that other journalists can imagine that press freedom might one day have relevance in their lives. But maybe they don't.
And it does make sense. According to the propaganda model, press freedom will only be given to those who aren't going to need it. Either we aren't a threat because we have insignificant audience or we aren't a threat because aren't going to say the wrong things. Assange/Wikileaks is an unusual case.
For those who believe Assange “gave us Trump”, maybe not so bad as it is likely Hillary would have brought on WW III.
I highly doubt that Hillary would have brought on WWIII. While she is neo-con, her leadership wouldn't have been out of line with most of the others that preceded her, she would have simply continued the previous policies that haven't led to WWIII. What probably would have happened is that Putin would have to deal with further US policies that restricted his and his cabal to access their skim. Russia and China saw Trump as a pushover, not Hillary, and so they would have modified their behavior accordingly.
"he has a lot of experience inhaling and blowing" I've never heard of Nina Felshin before but holy shit, she's hilarious.
I subscribed on Substack to hear the complete Assange interview but the podcast is the same length as the public post. Where is the complete interview?
So much of what liberals think they know about Assange was a concerted disinformation campaign to discredit him. It's too late now, but the Mueller report was extremely cagey in using weasel words to describe all the unsubstantiated bs about any connection between WikiLeaks and Trump or WikiLeaks and Russia. At some point, Matt (I know this would be drudgery), it would be great for you to revisit the Mueller Report and put it into the context of all the revelations since, such as the newly unredacted pages that further minimize the evidence for any connection between Assange and Russia and Shawn Henry and others' revealed testimony from 2017 under oath (only released in May of 2020 and not covered by the MSM) that contradicts the major premise for the entire case - that the DNC was hacked by Russia or by anyone else.
And dare to tread back one more - that if the DNC wasn’t hacked, and various treachery used to muddle the truth - not such a stretch at all to revisit Seth Rich and the complete propaganda & smear used to silence any inquiry about his murder and involvement and lack of investigation into it.
It seems that the deceptions (not acknowledging the role of the Hillary campaign in creating the Steele dossier,) the criminal behavior of the FBI in changing the content of an email as evidence submitted for the FISA court, the news articles that became a flurry of misinformation all misinforming in one direction and often initiated by "anonymous sources," the contradictory statements Comey made to the public and in private under oath, the bias in so many related FBI investigations that involved agent Peter S., the ridiculous timeline that the Mueller Report proposed (G2 handing over emails after Assange said he already had them a month earlier,) the reference to the head of the IRA as "Putin's chef" when that was just a reference to a NYTimes article about Putin's choice in restaurants, the fact the Mueller investigation never interviewed Assange even though his lawyers offered that, the fact that the Mueller investigation never interviewed Craig Murray who said he delivered a thumb drive to WL. from the U.S, the fact that the Mueller investigation never interviewed former NSA technical director Bill Binney, who created the first data hoovering mechanism and who said the NSA would have caught a packet with time and destination if the DNC had been hacked, the fact that the FBI relied on data provided by Crowdstrike hired by the Hillary campaign (breaking the chain of custody of the evidence), the fact that Shawn Henry testified in December of 2017 that Crowdstrike saw no emails exfiltrated by Russia or anybody else, etc. - at some point doesn't the evidence add up to an incredibly corrupt effort to mislead the American people? At some point does the caveat "We'll never know" have to change to be, "It appears to have been an elaborate hoax?"
Lol this Hunter Biden shit. This is what we're doing now? Isn't this the same MF who was paid a bunch of money to have a do-nothing job for Burisma?
Yeah, totally seems legit. Nothing to see here.
The money for the paintings is probably just bribes but maybe art is in the eye of the beholden.
Matt, I think you know the answer to your own question “why isn’t the MSM covering this?” Do you think journalist are not afraid to be canceled? Or have to be spied on? I think your own work suggests that every journalist should walk lightly when it comes to these nat. Security issues.
Wikileaks exposes corruption, deception, abuse of power and now apparently, incorrect thought?
The US's charges are a travesty, period. That more media isn't taking a stand in his defense is also a travesty and shows their lack of interest in America's crimes and exposing complicit leadership. The American people lose, but apparently we just don't give a shit. Therefore, we get the government that we deserve. Thanks, Obama.
Where is extended interview? The link I got does not include it. SPECTACULAR interview BTW!! THANK YOU for giving this issue the space it deserves!! Please keep going!!
Does Katie know that the Sanskrit’bodhi’ is an adjective meaning ‘awakened’? As in ‘bodhisattva’ ‘bodhicitta’ etc.
OMG! I can’t believe I’m listening to a podcast where we are interpreting Hunter’s paintings. I’m actually pissed off, you wasted my time, before I gave up. And turned this off. Nobody is watching useful idiots to lu see them to Katie’s mom’s schoolmate talk abt how much red are in Hunter’s paintings. WTF
I enjoyed that segment, so ....
After turning it off, you came here to grumble about it?