That awkward moment when ‘Rolling Stone’ slams the Media (D) for not using ‘journalistic integrity’.
Rolling Stone has had some pretty controversial moments with their own ‘lack of journalistic integrity’.
Rolling Stone has been a shill for the Democrats for years and has pushed a Leftist, Statist, Progressive agenda.
Suddenly, they’re off-script.
It’s really weird.
They’re sceptical of the ‘Russian Hacking’ story.
Check out the title: ‘Something About This Russia Story Stinks’
The article talks about the recent limp-wristed Obama ‘sanctions’ on Russia for their alleged ‘hacking’ of the US Election and contrasts it to the ‘WMD fiasco’, where the Media (D) trusted intelligence sources and reported all the info as fact just to retract later.
From Rolling Stone:
This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all.
Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.
“It’s déjà vu all over again” is how one friend put it…
The article then says that some newsmedia is reporting it all as fact, while others are hedging their bets using phrases like ‘Obama says’.
It then talks about the NY Times flatly stating the ‘hacking’ as fact while backing up their story with a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that doesn’t have much in the way of specifics.
But we don’t learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now…
…Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the “small price” Russia paid for its “brazen attack.” The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is “insufficient” as a response to “attacks on the United States by a foreign power.”
The “small price” is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there’s an element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking narrative that should make reporters nervous…
…Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we’ve seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like “Russia hacked the election.”
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn’t always been great evidence), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.
This is worse than the ‘stolen’ election theory of 2000. If half of all Hillary supporters believe that the Russians influenced the election, then they will not accept the legitimacy of President Trump when he takes office.
Rolling Stone then sets out the possible scenarios, none of which look good for Trump:
On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d’etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy.
But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures.
The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence “assessment” to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force Trump into an embarrassing political situation: Does he ease up on Russia and look like a patsy, or escalate even further with a nuclear-armed power?
It could also be something in between. Perhaps the FSB didn’t commission the hack, but merely enabled it somehow. Or maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it’s any more believable than anything else here.
We just don’t know, which is the problem.
Journalists are suppose to dig deep and find the truth, not accept the pap that is peddled by their preferred Political idealogues. This is why many have been labelled ‘Presstitutes’.
There are quite a few unanswered questions about this Russian ‘hacking’ story.
And this is why many Americans are losing faith in the Media (D).