COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MICK MEANEY IN RINF
Well said, Mick.
We have the startling example of what is likely the all-time great attack campaign by the press, ignoring every journalistic principle, the one conducted against Trump.
There has never been anything quite like it for relentless intensity and comprehensiveness.
And what happened? It failed, and Trump was elected.
The old fable of the boy who cried "wolf" too often definitely applies here.
So, too, does the traditional sympathy many people instinctively come feel for an underdog.
To say nothing of the revulsion many feel towards showy displays of the arrogance of power.
In the end, corporate journalism - and that is what all the mainline press and broadcasting are, corporate - cannot be honest journalism. It is literally impossible.
We see how even the new hi-tech internet companies - all started with undoubtedly good intentions - have terribly abused their power now that they are very large and established corporations. You name the firm - Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc - and it is abusive and often drunk on its own power.
The press and broadcasting are not a whit different. Big corporations are big corporations, effectively all fairly powerful special interests.
This current attack on "fake" news and on legitimate non-American news sources is just sickening. It comes from what are special interests, the corporate press and officials of a political party aggrieved by its own failings.
That number of 200 “fake news” sites immediately struck me because it is close to the number drunken old Senator Joe McCarthy used to claim as the number of “commies” in the State Department whose names were supposedly on one of his secret lists, never even seen by anyone.
Often-drunk McCarthy who was trying to spark a failing political career with shocking claims, and he briefly succeeded.
He has long been totally discredited, but here is one of the best-known newspapers in America making a frighteningly similar claim. They do not even understand the source of their “information,” but they published anyway. Absurdly irresponsible.
Perhaps they, too, are trying to spark a flagging career, flagging in terms of traditional advertising revenue and in terms of readership vis-à-vis the alternate press, but I’m also quite sure they are serving the interests they always have served, interests such as CIA, special and corporate interests, and political insiders.
Not everything the alternative press does is sound or even responsible - although that is precisely the case for the corporate press already - but the alternative press exercises free speech, the single most important right there is in distinguishing a free society from an authoritarian one. In that sense, they are on the side of the angels.
And just reflect on the person who perhaps most strongly raises her voice against the alternative press and makes utterly unfounded claims about Russia, Hillary Clinton.