Greenwald’s Intercept Resignation Exposes The Rot In All Mass Media

Well Glen finally reacted to my questioning of remaining with a media that works against him. As I have stated here occasionally. You can't have a publication that works both within and outside of the rabbit hole and not eventually be called out as part of the problem. I heard about this yesterday and was thinking of a way to post this information, but Johnstone provides me the help.

[caitlinjohnstone.com]

Matt Taibbi and his article on this is mentioned in this article also who left Rolling Stone for basically the same reasons. In his case though he had a role in playing within the rabbit hole before he wised up and left. Glen on the other hand has always been, for the most part, attempting to expose the hole and fill it in. I'm still a bit weary about Taibbi at times.

These are my warnings towards Common Dreams, for the most part, I occasionally pass on too. There are only a select 2 to 3 on the site I have a sense of trust in. Don't just trust any thing put out. Even the best of media have their faults. Even Consortium which use to be my most trusted site, although still is by large degree, has fallen victim to this since Robert Parry's death and the family named Joe Lauria and Corinna Barnard as editors. The comments section on articles has become overly censored and often shut down as people have attempted to voice questioning towards certain aspects in certain writers articles. I often find myself with the same thoughts but have seemingly been banned from posting them. My last few attempts to agree and back others comments or provide my own analysis have been denied posting. In these cases it almost always ends in the comment section being shut down. In these cases it is always from people that have made their way in since Parry's death that I know from other news sites. Even Common Dreams has more openness to dissenting comments on posted articles.

{The traditional method of controlling the press — as described by legendary independent journalists like I.F. Stone — was the quiet aside by the boss, “a little private talk,” where a “hint that the reporter seems irresponsible, a little bit radical” would be dropped. Getting the message, and fearing for his or her job, the reporter backs off. Or, in cases like the Iraq war runup, the strategic dismissal or un-hiring of a big name with the wrong views — Phil Donahue, Jesse Ventura — makes sure the rest of the employees get the message.

Greenwald co-founded the Intercept with this exact scenario in mind, building a structure where “little private talks” with bosses would never happen, and there couldn’t be high-profile dismissals for ideological reasons.

What he didn’t guess at was that even in an atmosphere where managerial interference is near zero, a collective of independent journalists can themselves become censors and enforcers of official orthodoxies. In some cases, journalists will become more aggressive propagandists and suppressors of speech than the officials from whom they supposedly need to be protected. This is what happened with The Intercept.}

If the Parry family doesn't reel this in Robert Parry's Consortium News as once known will come to an end. Having managed to survive with the help of followers donations since 1995 they will quit supporting as they are suppressed and the site will have to refer to outside funding which will assuredly be based on a biased nature of one side or the other benefiting the establishment either way that goes. During the Obama years as Robert Parry was exposing his administrations crimes and unethical practices the site drew in a substantial amount of republican supporters. But through all the movement from the transition from the Obama to Trump era as Parry turned towards Trump and the dissenting republican supporters the comments were never so censored. Those that didn't use the information to learn from and remained conditioned filtered themselves out.

{If as Upton Sinclair says it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it, then surely that is especially true of those who’ve spent their working lives learning what frameworks of understanding help them ascend to prominence in the sphere of journalism. This would have shaped them long before they arrived at any outlet which purports to promote “fearless adversarial journalism”, and it would continue shaping them as they interact with fellow journalists.

This combined with a dominant plutocrat-funded media system designed to streamline journalistic thought into mainstream establishment orthodoxies creates a kind of conformity conveyor belt that journos get processed through like the schoolchildren in the video for Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall”.}

{When you take all these factors together and throw them into a large media outlet full of journalists, our primitive impulses to conform with the pack kick in and the consensus worldview has a much easier time overtaking critical thought even further than it already has.

Additionally, when you gather news reporters together in a large outlet you’re going to attract the attention of powerful forces who have a vested interest in controlling how the news is reported. If you can use your leverage and/or resources to manipulate how that entire outlet reports, then that’s energy well spent.}

"Out Of The Illusion " Group