Journalist Can't Fathom How Information Spreads in Today's Social Media-Fixated Society
A "senior writer" at Newsweek published this "news" story earlier today, describing the situation as "terrifying.". The story accuses Donald Trump, the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, and Russian media of being in collusion with each other to interfere in our election by undermining Hillary Clinton's
The author, Kurt Eichenwald, is a 55-year old so-called "journalist" of the mainstream media. He offers only one explanation for the following series of events:
The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth
Apparently, Eichenwald can't fathom how information, in today's age of social media, the Internet, and related technologies, could possibly have wound up in the hands of a candidate hours—HOURS—after it was released by a media outlet he labels (with no proof) as being a propagandist machine. This is, after all, the 21st century, where information moves at the speed of The Pony Express, is it not? Perhaps this failure of runaway imaginations is the result of the story not having originated from America's own propagandist machine—oops, I mean mainstream media? .
Or more likely, it is yet one more peg in the machinations designed to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton and her seemingly unending stream of gaffes, misstatements, and "mistakes" that otherwise would have doomed such lesser candidates as Richard Nixon not less than half a century ago. Everyone from MSNBC to even sardonically tongue-in-cheek satire site The Onion has gotten into the artful production of illusory deception concerning the most important facts (you know, the things we should actually be concerned about instead of the irrelevant things we're being told we should be concerned about, such as who or where the facts come from).
Now, obviously, there are separate newsworthy questions about who did the [DNC] hack, and the reasons for it, and what the implications are that also ought to be journalistically examined. But in terms of the content of the material itself, whether it has been stolen by a whistleblower, or hacked by an adversarial government for nefarious ends, or for fun by some hacker, I ask one question: Is it in the public interest? And if the answer is yes, that’s the end of the inquiry.
But I digress, lest I be led down that conspiracy-theory road that American mainstream media worked overtime so as to enable Clinton to steal the Democratic primary election from US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Alleging Russian conspiracies to undermine Hillary Clinton's coronation is, as they say, all the rage in Paris these days. Anti-Russian sentiment has been the en vogue narrative and trend du jour of the mainstream media in its collusion with Hillary Clinton this past year, and now the Democratically-controlled branches of our federal government (which I'll analyze in the future).
There is no proof offered by Eichenwald (or the US government, for that matter) for any of his claims, that this was orchestrated by the Russians, or that Trump was even involved. It is, at best, conjecture and innuendo and, at worst, libellous and defamatory accusations.
Moreover, Clinton herself confirmed the authenticity of the Wikileaks data when she responded to a question during the second presidential debate on maintaining both public and private views, not by dismissing the question as fraudulent but rather defending the statements contained in the emails released by Wikileaks. If the emails—and the statements they contain—are anything other than authentic, why defend them?
What is perhaps most telling is that Eichenwald calls the Sputnik story "manufactured." What is it they say about guilty minds or guilty consciences? I believe Lady Macbeth knows a thing or two about that ... but I digress. (See how easy it was to insert baseless innuendo into an argument?)
I truly wish so-called "journalists" such as Kurt Eichenwald (and the rest of the so-called journalists in mainstream media) would go back to entertaining folks with the nonsensically irrelevant absurdities of our time, and get the heck out of politics.
It's no wonder his Wiki page describes him as a writer and former investigative journalist. Perhaps he should go back to writing best-selling novels that can be turned into major motion pictures—that's something he appears to actually be good at.
Perhaps this is why he lists himself as a "Senior Writer" instead of using "reporter" or some other moniker for a salaried journalist at an organization dedicated to reporting the news. Then again, given the media's collusion with Clinton, one must wonder whether there are any journalistic organizations left dedicated to the pure reporting of real news.
Eichenwald might do better to leave the reporting to true journalistic organizations, like Wikileaks, which has an untarnished reputation for veracity with a sterling record—one of the many reasons more than one hundred major international news outlets rely on Wikileaks as a primary source. At the very least, he should stick strictly to the facts, leaving the conjecture to others who can be quoted. As a seasoned, former investigative journalist from The New York Times, Eichenwald should know better.
UPDATE: Eichenwald's "news" article elicited a response from The Intercept's Greenwald, who dismantled Eichenwald's entire article piece by piece in a lengthy dissection of the facts. It is well worth the read.
You may also be interested in:
The full text of the file attached to the Wikileaks email dump of John Podesta, from Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential primary campaign. This email is from Tony Carrk to the campaign team, containing selected extracts from the transcripts of some of the paid speeches that Hillary Clinton gave to Wall Street, among others, which she has refused to release.