How “journalism” works these days
This is a discussion of the Kristof piece in the Times, but it’s actually of more general value than that because it explains how modern journalism works – not just for the NY Times but for so many media outlets. I’ve cued it up to show a ten-minute segment that I think is highly informative on the subject:
Related and worth reading again
https://thenewneo.com/2005/05/25/tracing-use-of-anonymous-source/?trashed=1&ids=628178
Yeesh, the vocal fry, aye-yi-yi, save us lord
What I do not understand is the fact that the people putting these stories out do not see that they are undercutting their case with those who aren’t already on board. After seeing the story about the rape-dogs, what person will take seriously ANYTHING Kristoff says? Surely it’d be more effective to put forward more plausible stories.
I have read that, early in WWII, there was a problem in Britain, in that much of the population discounted as propaganda things that were actually true, but which reminded them of what was claimed in the previous war.
Eeyoure. I used to wonder that, too. But I’ve met a new type, or recalled I’ve met them before and didn’t twig.
They know better than whatever it is but they insist it’s true. This may, possibly convince someone with no idea either way. But mostly, it’s to signal to others of the Just and Righteous who, on hearing what they know to be false, nod righteously as if they, too, believe.
Somebody asked if the state of Israel is big enough, too public, to avoid the Sullivan doctrine. But even if so, the reckless disregard for the truth here, with other information so available, could look like actual malice. If there’s a trial, discovery could e a lot of fun.
There is no “journalism” on the left, Just invented narrative to fill the propaganda organs on the left. Truth is not even a distant consideration, unless of course factual truth can be twisted to serve the narrative. It is hardly surprising that the NGOs are funding it with both private and public dollars.
@Eeyore
Re that, in some ways it was even worse because we now know (in part from being able to read the notes of “the other guys”) is that a lot of what was claimed in WWI but disbelieved after was either outright true (large scale executions and hostage taking among civilians in Belgium and France and elsewhere, intentional dishonesty about the reason for the Habsburg ultimatum to Serbia, large scale use of slave labor from Allied POWs and deported civilians on things like the Ruhr war plants), were exaggerations of the truth or misunderstandings of it (a lot of the “You stupid Britishman, we only shot X -500 civilians not C” fall under this), or were false but based off a game of telephone or misunderstandings of something actual (the “corpse factories” were being used to grind up animal corpses not human ones). Though a lot of this wouldn’t be known or appreciated until now, in part due to major campaigns of deny deny deflect deflect deny deny downplay downplay which was largely coordinated with malice aforethought from foreign governments (in particular every German government between the Second Reich and the Federal Republic downplayed the Rape of Belgium, and every single one East of the Iron Curtain until the fall of said wall censored or hid damning archival evidence from global assessment). So what is really horrible is how a lot of the evidence of the Holocaust and so on in WWII but which was being doubted on the basis of stuff claimed in WWI was all the more credible because a lot of said stuff done in WWI was either actually stuff that happened or was at least in line with actual Central Powers conduct but just lied about and/or misunderstood.
But I think that is also a worrying thing and why people like Kristof and his column serve a role. Among those already onboard they serve as red meat and reinforcement. Among the uncommitted they serve as chaff or muddying the waters. They also serve as an excuse to not talk about the truly damning Oct 7th atrocity report. As part of the weapon so of strategic denial it is in the blunt “the sky is beige and the Sun rises in the West” dishonesty, which can serve to make more superficially credible denials or lies or critiques seem more reasonable or respectable.
Eeyore: Surely it’d be more effective to put forward more plausible stories.
_If_ that’s why they published it. But,
What if they published it to distract, disrupt, torpedo the coverage of a meticulously documented report on sexual violence by Hamas (link below). What if they published it as a psy-op to discombobulate Israel and supporters getting ready for the release of that report?
If that’s the real reason they published it, I’d say it was very effective.
https://www.lawandisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/Topics/Gaza/2023-Conflict/Evidence/Silenced-no-more.pdf
There is no way on earth that anybody could believe that a modern 21st century nation would train dogs to rape.
Any individual promoting this idiocy knows it all BS, a big lie.
But it also demonstrates how evil, dishonest, scum-of-the-earth such an individual is. It is this sort of individual that has no problem shoving people into gas chambers or gulags or imposing Khmer Rouge policies on “enemies of the state.”
Bill Kristol is an evil, lying SOB who deserves to be…………..
And worse, is the NY Times – the demoncratic party’s “Der Sturmer” that actually allowed this garbage to be printed.
And it is these sorts of people that support the demonrats. This should tell us all what the demonrats are all about.
When you learn some basic storytelling and editing techniques to convey information, you start “seeing the code” of the matrix when it comes to the news and can no longer bear to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSx9-YRt_RE
(classic meme, still accurate)