The Dumbed-Down New York Times

Exclusive: A New York Times columnist writes Americans are so “dumbed-down” that they don’t know that Russia “invaded” Ukraine two years ago, but that “invasion” was mostly in the minds of Times editors and other propagandists, says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

In a column mocking the political ignorance of the “dumbed-down” American people and lamenting the death of “objective fact,” New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma’am mainstream media.

Egan states as flat fact, “If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it — two years after they had, in fact, invaded it.”

New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

But it is not a “fact” that Russia “invaded” Ukraine – and it’s especially not the case if you also don’t state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched “special forces.”  Yet, the Times doesn’t describe those military operations as “invasions.”

Nor does the newspaper of record condemn the U.S. government for violating international law, although in every instance in which U.S. forces cross into another country’s sovereign territory without permission from that government or the United Nations Security Council, that is technically  an act of illegal aggression.

In other words, the Times applies a conscious double standard when reporting on the actions of the United States or one of its allies (note how Turkey’s recent invasion of Syria was just an “intervention”) as compared to how the Times deals with actions by U.S. adversaries, such as Russia.

Biased on Ukraine

The Times’ reporting on Ukraine has been particularly dishonest and hypocritical. The Times ignores the substantial evidence that the U.S. government encouraged and supported a violent coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, including a pre-coup intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should lead the new government and how to “midwife this thing.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria "Toria" Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria “Toria” Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times’ coverage, you’d have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis.

While leaving out the context, the Times has repeatedly claimed that Russia “invaded” Crimea, although curiously without showing any photographs of an amphibious landing on Crimea’s coast or Russian tanks crashing across Ukraine’s border en route to Crimea or troops parachuting from the sky to seize strategic Crimean targets.

The reason such evidence of an “invasion” was lacking is that Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the port of Sevastopol. So, it was a very curious “invasion” indeed, since the Russian troops were on scene before the “invasion” and their involvement after the coup was peaceful in protecting the Crimean population from the depredations of the new regime’s neo-Nazis. The presence of a small number of Russian troops also allowed the Crimeans to vote on whether to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they did with a 96 percent majority.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

In the eastern provinces, which represented Yanukovych’s political base and where many Ukrainians opposed the coup, you can fault, if you wish, the Russian decision to provide some military equipment and possibly some special forces so ethnic Russian and other anti-coup Ukrainians could defend themselves from the assaults by the neo-Nazi Azov brigade and from the tanks and artillery of the coup-controlled Ukrainian army.

But an honest newspaper and honest columnists would insist on including this context. They also would resist pejorative phrases such as “invasion” and “aggression” – unless, of course, they applied the same terminology objectively to actions by the U.S. government and its “allies.”

That sort of nuance and balance is not what you get from The New York Times and its “group thinking” writers, people like Timothy Egan. When it comes to reporting on Russia, it’s Cold War-style propaganda, day in and day out.

And this has not been a one-off problem. The unrelenting bias of the Times and, indeed, the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis represents a lack of professionalism that was also apparent in the pro-war coverage of the Iraq crisis in 2002-03 and other catastrophic U.S. foreign policy decisions.

A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly “objective” news (because it is anything but objective).

Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they’re not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine”; “NYT Is Lost in its Ukraine Propaganda”; “NYT Whites Out Ukraine’s Brown Shirts”; and “NYT Enforces Ukraine ‘Group Think’”]

image_pdfimage_print

128 comments for “The Dumbed-Down New York Times

  1. Jim Hannan
    August 27, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Your idealism is noted. We live in an empire, and the New York Times is the official mouthpiece of the empire. It has nothing to do with being an “honest” newspaper. I think when Judith Miller channeled Dick Cheney on Iraq, the Times officially became “typists”, as Stephen Colbert made clear in his speech to the press corps.

    • mcs_in_ny
      August 29, 2016 at 1:02 pm

      So your argument is that the ISIS-controlled region should no longer be considered Syrian sovereign territory because the Syrian government does not control it? By the same logic Crimea should no longer be considered part of Ukraine because the Ukrainian government has not controlled it for over 2 years. You’re not going to dissect the article to show what is counterfactual because you can’t, period. It’s not that people on this site have a love affair with Putin, it’s that we realize that the US has done far worse to the countries it has invaded than Putin has done to Ukraine, which is the whole point Parry is trying to make.

      • Eddy
        August 30, 2016 at 2:50 am

        mcs_in_ny
        Well spoken, good to see some folks can see the wood for the trees.

    • Herman
      August 29, 2016 at 3:13 pm

      Mr. Egan notes that only 16 percent of the population know can locate Ukraine on the map. Would be interesting to know what the views are of that sixteen percent. My guess is that there is a strong correlation between knowing where Ukraine is and what is going on there and their views are not likely to be the views of the New York Times writer or the New York Times, itself.

    • August 31, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      Yes very good!

    • MrJones
      September 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      Speaking of Colbert, have you seen his Tonight Show. He’s crossed over to the dark side. Sounds like Timothy Egan and the deep state are now writing his jokes.

    • September 8, 2016 at 12:49 am

      “We need to ask ourselves why first class journalists like Parry are not editor-in-chief of the New York Times. Why, instead, is the NYT a propaganda organ for the government?” – Paul Craig Roberts

      http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/31/the-dumbed-down-new-york-times/

  2. Tom Welsh
    August 27, 2016 at 11:48 am

    The NYT and the other MSM presstitutes are gradually finding out that the price of betraying their craft and their duty is to be desrted by their readers. What the NYT calls “objective truth” is in fact US government propaganda, and it sticks in our throats. So we spit it out and go in search of more accurate, reliable and truthful sources online.

    • Roberto
      August 27, 2016 at 11:52 pm

      Which is exactly why I just enjoyed this article.

    • Abwehr
      August 28, 2016 at 12:52 am

      Joseph Goebbels had more integrity in launching “TOTALE KRIEGE” in 1943 than the deliberate propaganda for a Necon New World Order. All you have to do is read Tom Friedman and David Sanger to get a real taste of and breathe in the stench of the cloacal schmutzige they peddle daily as “journalism”.

    • MrJones
      September 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm

      We already have spit it out, which why we are here reading this.

  3. Jim Hannan
    August 27, 2016 at 11:51 am

    For those who never had the pleasure, here’s the link to Colbert’s speech:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/28/1205314/-Colbert-s-Speech-at-the-White-House-Correspondents-Dinner

    Perhaps it should be required reading in 10th grade.

    • Rob
      August 27, 2016 at 12:57 pm

      Given the circumstances (the White House Press Corp’s annual dinner with Bush and all the media bigwigs in the room), Colbert performed one of the greatest stand-up comedy routines ever. But did it have any impact on how the news is covered by the corporate media? Not that I can tell.

      • Jim Hannan
        August 27, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        The fact that the New York Times didn’t even report on the speech, and that there was an effort to remove the video from the web, speaks volumes. Ten years later, thankfully, we can now get our news from sites like this, Intercept, Juan Cole and others. The New York Times and Washington Post are still pushing neo con foreign policy prescriptions and neo liberal entitlement spending cuts but with less impact. They, along with the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings, etc., have been very frustrated that Obama has not been a fanboy of their foreign policy views.

        • Gregory Herr
          August 27, 2016 at 4:15 pm

          Thanks for the link. Really a priceless performance. I love the line addressing correspondents, “We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out”. Turns out he’s just warming up…a must see.

        • Brad Benson
          August 27, 2016 at 11:16 pm

          Juan Cole is a pernicious propagandist. He never saw a war he couldn’t love and his articles lauding our various war crimes are coming out at a rate of about two per day right now. He is aiding and abetting WAR CRIMES and hence, under International Law, could be tried as a WAR CRIMINAL.

          Juan Cole is a CIA Asset—once a member of the family, always a member. http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/30/meet-professor-juan-cole-consultant-to-the-cia/

          “An Open Letter to Juan Cole” by Bill van Auken of the World Socialist Web Site
          https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/08/cole-a10.html

          Letters to Bill van Auken following his “Open Letter” to Juan Cole
          https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/08/lett-a11.html

          Juan Cole celebrates the murder of Gaddafi
          https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/cole-o25.html

          • August 29, 2016 at 12:31 am

            Certainly hard to find any consistency in the positions he takes… I attribute it to the swill that passes for water in my home State… Last time I visited, my kidneys quit working….. Easy cure, get outta
            Michigan… I never understood Cole’s hate for the Mo….. WTF… It’s Motown isn’t it??? I can remember telling friends that I was going to relocate to the Cass Corridor so I could go to his public events… But more and more he seems some kinda pink shirted Neocon… Big disappointment.. Worse than the Gadaffi snuff will be the fallout of the way we turned the UN resolution into a bloodbath and how it will affect relations with Russia going forward. What is it going to take to keep Hillary and “Toria” from starting WWIII just to show Putin they have testicles too….. Maybe that her progeny will not survive 15 minutes… Such a crazy world, with these “What me worry” Neocons out to play thermonuclear chicken with Putin and Russia… I’m going to go back to my shelter for the night….

          • Sam F
            August 29, 2016 at 6:54 am

            I have long admired JuanCole’s extensive knowledge of mideast affairs, but have had very moderate comments there deleted since the Turkey coup attempt. He may have friends among the purged Gulenists, and may get funding from them or directly from the CIA, so that he dares not criticize them. But he does seem to try for objectivity within those parameters.

          • September 1, 2016 at 2:30 pm

            Thanks for the links. I am not a fan of Juan Cole. I’m going to examine some of those linked-to sources closely.

        • August 31, 2016 at 8:58 am

          Indeed. But it would be nice if the smart folks at the Intrcept could fashion a working search engine. I emailed someone there (you can’t find a webmaster) many months ago about it. She acknowledged the problem and wanted someone to get on it. No one did.

      • Marcus
        August 28, 2016 at 3:25 pm

        No, it did not. And Colbert has undermined his own satire dozens of times by bein the willing mouthpiece for US propaganda, (much of it “reported” in the NY times ) and for “humanitarian” imperialism, as long as its carried out by a democratic administration. Colbert has been especially compliant and willing to spread the “Putin aggression” propaganda theme

        • mister natural
          August 28, 2016 at 6:36 pm

          Correct.

        • August 31, 2016 at 9:00 am

          Interesting. I need to have examples (not because I’m doubting you). I wasn’t impressed with his pro empire stand on the Brexit referendum.

  4. Alec
    August 27, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    The NYT has been a mouthpiece for all things neo con which in turn is driven by zionists which is why soros owns so much of Ukraine ….

    • August 27, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      The Consortium should do an article about “Soros owning the Ukraine.”

      • September 1, 2016 at 1:15 am

        There’s lots to talk about there. You can’t read anything without finding it mentions Soros, or his Open Society, or is taking funding from the same. Off Guardian carries some useful info about his influence.

  5. Gregory Kruse
    August 27, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Thanks, Robert, for acknowledging me and others like me who have dropped all corporate media and have long relied upon sites like this one and others such as The Real News Network, the Young Turks, Truthout, Truthdig, Common Dreams, Black Agenda Report, FAIR, etc. for a more objective and extensive view of world affairs. Though it is more work, and it costs me money to support your work and the work of these other brave people, I can only vaguely imagine how droll my intellectual life would be without them. Still, this is a lonely path, and I am always afraid someone will fall by the wayside, never to be heard from again. Truthout fell thousands of dollars short of its goal in its most recent fundraiser. I hope some of the “Revolutionaries” will invest some of that Sanders money in real journalism like you and others like you are doing.

    • John
      August 28, 2016 at 3:16 pm

      I do not think Commondreams deserves inclusion in your list, especially not in an election year. I have been suspended from commenting there until 2153 (and have heard several others complain of the same thing) for daring to call them out on their Neo-con support of Hitlery Klanton while only talking about Jill Stein in a derogatory manner, if at all.

      What makes this even more infuriating is that their latest funding drive is based on the phrase “lies of omission”.

      Abbey Zimmet has the blood of Libyan and Syrian children on her hands.

      • August 29, 2016 at 12:52 am

        She is probably proud of that blood… Like lovely lady Madelaine… thinking half a million dead Muslim babies ” Was worthit” Too bad that Leslie Stahl didn’t have the presence of mind to ask…. Would “it have been worth half a million dead Jewish Israeli children…???? We all know the answer to these questions never uttered… The abussed make such wonderful abussers… Any remnant of decency extinguished.. Monsters in skirts and lipstick killing other peoples children.. And feeling good about it… If that is not hate think, hate speech… Then tell me what could top it…

      • September 1, 2016 at 1:07 am

        *My first effort to respond to your comment was disappeared. What say you Robert?

        I’ve got my issues with Common Dreams for sure. It’s dynamic, always moving and informing. But I’d rather they slowed down and focus on quality rather than quality. They constantly pass on reportage from Bush-connected Politico for example, without qualification. (http://bit.ly/2bDLfwv) HRW and other individuals and orgs that are sketchy get the same treatment. There’s never any qualification. Just qualify your quotations or risk being seen as endorsing them, unless you do. I was floored when they gave Jeffrey ‘destroyer’ Sachs his own space to rant. But I also have issues with Consortium News, where Robert Parry carries, sometimes, CIA asset Graham Fuller’s articles. Remember Fethullah Gulen? Graham thinks he’s a fine fellow and helped him get into the US.

  6. Stephen P Ruis
    August 27, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    They probably don’t know that Russia annexed Crimea either or that we invaded Russia (just after the Bolshevik revolution in coordination with the Japanese (who had just fought a war with Russia recently)). And we are puzzled that Russians don’t like us or that they fear us. Amazing!

  7. August 27, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    As revealed by documents released by Wikileaks, the United States Government not only “invaded Syria”, the Obama Administrations made a conscious decision to continue the GW Bush Administration’s clandestine operations attempting to achieve a (more US corporation-friendly) “regime change” in Syria by “destabilizing” Syria’s Assad Regime (fomenting hatreds among Syria’s various ethnic/religious groups, among other things). This created the “hair trigger atmosphere in Syria for the eruption of a very bloody multi-sided civil war in Syria when the Assad Regime decided to violently suppress some peaceful protest demonstrations in 2011. Violent suppressions of protests in other Middle Eastern countries during that time period did not create civil wars in those countries. That Syrian civil war which the US Government played a role in creating killed hundreds of thousands of Syrian men, women, and children as well as creating over 10 million refugees (about a million of whom risked drowning while fleeing to Europe). That massive influx of refugees in turn has had a destabilizing effect on at least a few EU countries since then.

    • Gregory Herr
      August 28, 2016 at 11:43 am

      I’m just into the second chapter of The Dirty War on Syria,” a recently published book by Tim Anderson. The gist of the first chapter is a contextual overview of Washington’s “strategy” in the Middle East, and in particular, Syria. Mr. Anderson goes into the deliberate provocation of sectarian conflict towards the ploy of “creative chaos,” as Condi Rice put in 2006. The rise of Al-Quada in Iraq and subsequently ISIS. was coordinated with the Saudis with just that “chaos” in mind. Plans for Syrian destabilization and eventual overthrow were already in the works at the Pentagon, State Dept., and in Britain.
      Chapter 2 is entitled “Barrel Bombs, Partiasan Sources, and War Propaganda”.

    • Jeff Davis
      September 1, 2016 at 9:21 pm

      “…the Assad Regime decided to violently suppress some peaceful protest demonstrations in 2011.”

      From at least 2006, US foreign policy called for the destruction of those Mideast states which remained hostile toward Israel. This was essentially the Oded Yinon plan out of Israel, implemented by a US govt subverted by the Neocons and AIPAC. Regarding the “violent suppression” of “peaceful demonstrations”: paramilitary groups trained by the CIA and MI6 — ie terrorists — had ambushed and killed members of the Syrian military and police prior to the “peaceful demonstrations”. The intent of those attacks was to provoke a violent response against the “peaceful demonstrators”. It all went according to plan — as in Libya — to provide the justification for the “humanitarian intervention”. Fortunately for Syria, Putin/Russia had interests to protect in Syria, had been “schooled” by the Libyan version of the R2P “humanitarian intervention/regime change”, and stepped in to put a halt to the all-too-clever “justified” aggression. From that point onward, by dint of Russian military capability, the regime change stalled. Though the Neocon plan was blocked, the Neocon commitment to Assad’s removal did not, so they doubled down (to no avail), the violence ramped up, and the situation morphed into the years-long ISIS Caliphate/killing field/refugee tsunami/Turkish meltdown that we see today.

      So when you hear about the Assad “regime’s” violence against “peaceful demonstrators”, understand that Assad was putting down a Zionist-planned and foreign-implemented Islamist terrorist proxy war against the Syrian nation.

      Bottom line: every dead Syrian was effectively ***MURDERED*** by Israel, the US/UK/France, the Saudis, Qattaris, and Erdogan. And when I write “the US”, I mean Neocon tools Cheney, Bush, Obama, and H Clinton.

  8. D5-5
    August 27, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    It’s interesting that this NY Times kind of coverage has infected the population with so much rabid and hysterical nonsense. I recently tried to point out in a Disquss forum the inaccuracy of using “Illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia,” which is common boilerplate in MSM coverage. I was rounded upon for saying this is “MSM propaganda” as though by raving pit bulls. It is a relief to read this Consortium news forum in contrast to what typically passes for “discussion” in other fora. I’m reminded of the sheer blatant hysterical virulence of 1950’s America in response to “the commies.” All this related to the recent article on “American hubris” indicates heavy going toward effective thinking and rational solutions.

  9. August 27, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    People from Russia wearing Russian military uniforms, speaking Russian, using Russian weapons and taking orders from Russian officers are … Russians. Duh! Those selfsame armed Russians, when crossing into Ukraine without Ukrainian permission, are correctly called invaders. Why corporate mainstream media of communication in the United States immediately insisted Ukraine was being annexed rather than invaded is beyond me. But there’s precedent for such dishonesty: Nobody blinked an eye in protest when U.S. corporate mainstream media of communication decided a blockade (an act of war) was going to be mendaciously deemed a quarantine! Decades later, escalation of warfare became known as surging–according to our beloved silent and subservient journalists.

    I detest this new cold-war malarkey being foisted on the public by unethical journalists in the employ of liberal interventionists and neoconservatives. The Russian government was and remains wrong in its invasion and occupation of Ukraine, but it’s just as wrong for the Western yammering class to blame the government of Russia for all malfeasance worldwide. In fact, it’s stupid and only serves to decrease human intelligence across the board–as it did during the real cold war decades ago.

    • Larry
      August 27, 2016 at 6:42 pm

      Ukraine was overthrown in a coup plotted, financed, and otherwise supported by the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, and Ukrainian ultra-rightists prominently including actual neo-nazis, and an elected government and president were overthrown in Ukraine. Since you don’t seem to even acknowledge this or believe this, and don’t appear to know or care that Ukrainian neo-nazi paramilitary forces directly supported and directed by the illegal-coup government of Ukraine were committing genocidal murders and attacks on western Ukrainians including ethnic Russians who’d lived in Ukraine for generations – since you don’t seem to know this or don’t consider it severe provocation enough for Russia to intervene minimally but strongly enough to help deter this neo-nazi Ukrainian genocide, then your opinion is neutered and should be disregarded. You also seem to have digested NYTimes and other monopoly news media propanganda on the subject and have no actual neutrality of thought necessary to think straight on the topic. Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine have been defensive in nature and minimal in force. Think how much more awful the retribution if, say, Russia engineered the overthrow of Mexico and were killing thousands of Americans who make their homes in Mexico. It would be U.S. bombs-away and total warfare destruction against the Mexican coup government and all the Mexican people.

      • August 29, 2016 at 1:19 pm

        Larry, your ad hominum reply is neutered by its very nature. I’m sure you’re intelligent, but your ad hominum tactics fail to earn my respect. Plus, you didn’t acknowledge the second paragraph of my comment. Try again, please.

        • Jeff Davis
          September 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm

          I see no ad hominem in Larry’s contextualizing and fact-based reply to your MSM Kool-Aid based comment. Your bad.

        • zman
          September 4, 2016 at 12:34 am

          I’m as puzzled by your accusation of ad hominem remarks attributed to Larry as J.D. is. His rather mild rebuttal was above board and merely stated that the statements that you presented as facts [whether by design or ignorance], were in fact, not…. I’ve seen much worse replies for comments such as yours. As for your second paragraph, if you removed the first half of your 2nd and 3rd lines, I’m sure you would have full agreement from most, if not all, that are here.

    • Joe B
      August 27, 2016 at 7:52 pm

      Remember, though, that Crimea was part of Russia until the (Ukrainian) USSR premier Kruschev gave it to Ukraine. It is also populated largely by ethnic Russians, and has the only large Russian naval base. Crimea voted to go back with Russia. So letting NATO steal it was not likely, and the US should never have considered such a scheme.

      Also remember that Eastern Ukraine is similarly ethnically and linguistically Russian. Any soldiers from Russia were there as Ukrainians, not under command of Russia. There was no invasion, nor (real) evidence of arms movements. But there was plenty of cause for Russians to come to the defense of their own there when attacked, and they were certainly attacked.

      Ukraine was a very troubled democracy, with those regional factions entrenched since WWII and earlier. The proper course for the US and NATO was to help, not conspire with one faction to disenfranchise the other. How would we have felt if the old USSR had been seeking to turn disadvantaged groups in the US toward revolution? That’s what we did there.

      One has to ask why West Ukraine sought to dominate East Ukraine after the coup. Clearly they had no intention of granting minority rights, so they were anti-democratic, not democratic. If they were not out to rob the East, they would have not attacked its independence.

      • August 29, 2016 at 1:30 pm

        Thank you, Joe B, for your well-taken points of view. I would only point out that, to the best of my knowledge, the Crimean part of Ukraine was in fact part of a sovereign nation–Ukraine–when it was attacked; and, as far as I know, it remains within the boundaries of Ukraine. The fog of war is thick and I wasn’t (and am not) there, so The Firesign Theatre’s album title ‘Everything You Know Is Wrong’ could easily apply to any or all of us.

        • Jeff Davis
          September 1, 2016 at 10:01 pm

          “…to the best of my knowledge…”

          There’s the problem. The “best” of your knowledge is “flawed”, to put it politely. The anti-Putin/anti-Russia theme in Western political culture is just a rebranding of the old cold war, anti-Commie self-indulgent hating-is-fun ideological masturbation. Rational control of one’s baser instincts, directing one’s behavior toward civility and a peaceful world is a better path for your humanity.

    • Oleg
      August 28, 2016 at 6:04 am

      What you write is factually wrong. Russia did not invade Ukraine — trust me, you would have noticed that. In Syria the Russian
      military ARE conducting a military operation with the result that more ground was gained from ISIS in 2 weeks than during a year long US campaign. The presence of Russian forces does not go unnoticed. In Ukraine, you always hear some fairy tales and no factual proof. Certainly, Russia lets the volunteers (as well as some arms) through the Russia-Ukraine border and sends some instructors
      (just like what the US does). But that’s it.

      Crimea was a different story. Russian troops were already there as per agreement with Ukraine and their movement was authorised by
      the local authorities (although not the central coup-installed self-proclaimed government). As you see, almost no shots were fired and the operation was extremely efficient. That really was the Russian military. Needless to say, an overwhelming majority of Crimeans approves of this action and even the Ukrainian military personnel (including generals) have switched sides.

      So please facts first, then emotions.

      • August 29, 2016 at 1:32 pm

        Oleg, drop the ad hominum malarkey and your insights will be more believable. Thank you.

        • August 31, 2016 at 2:23 pm

          The phrase is “ad hominem”. Respectfully offered by a language maven.

        • backwardsevolution
          September 1, 2016 at 2:23 am

          Joseph A. Haran – you just need to read more. With the few articles I have read on Ukraine, I even know more than you. I concur with the posters above. They are absolutely correct. Russia has been defensive and they’ve been soft. They’ve negotiated for a peaceful resolution. There was a vote in Crimea, and the people chose Russia.

          Read Robert Parry’s articles on MH-17, the passenger airliner that was blown up over Ukraine. The U.S. blamed Russia for it, with absolutely no evidence pointing to Russia.

          For this the people of Russia are sanctioned. Unbelievable.

          • AndJusticeForAll
            September 1, 2016 at 10:18 am

            backwardsevolution you forgot to mention that first Russian unmarked troops occupied Crimea covered by military exercises (Putin acknowledged this personally), performed a coup bringing to power Aksenov and co. and then simulated the voting. By UN definitions it is called aggression and not defense. Mr Parry and others make up excuses as Russia have being threatened by NATO.

            France was building helicopter carriers for Russia and cooperating on updating Russian avionics technologies, Germany was building training centers for Russian army, USA was buying RD108 engines, financial markets were wide open to Russians, Western companies were investing in all over the Russia including car, aircraft, jet engine manufacturing, IT. Where is the threat? Are you saying NATO is going to bomb where they put their own money?

            There is an interesting topic not covered here how does Russian money influence EU politics through sponsoring left and right movements at the same time. As part of that they host forums/meetings with far right participants from EU and USA and this is ok by Mr Parry and co.

          • zman
            September 4, 2016 at 1:00 am

            @andjusticeforall…If you would like to know why Russia feels as though NATO is threatening them, go back to the early 90s and look at the assurances given Russia that NATO would not advance any further east, nor would it incorporate any of the former USSR countries. NATO lied, plain and simple. Now, NATO has moved nukes from Turkey into Romania. I’ve had conversations with people living in Romania and they are not happy, as they know that NATO has just put a big fat target on them. When has Russia moved west? When have they threatened Europe? As for your statement that the voting on the referendum on joining Russia was simulated, please provide some sort of confirmation please, not statements thrown out for consumption. If Russia moved troops, military matériel and interceptor missiles into Central America, even by invitation, the US would have a screaming fit. Remember Cuba?

    • kooka
      August 28, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      Are you living in another universum? Russia DIDN’T invade Ukraine and it DIDN’T annex Crimea.
      I am just in Sewastopol (Crimea) for a holiday and people are happy to be part of the Russian Federation. I was asked several times already if I think that NATO and this means the US /EU will try to invade Crime as they did in former Yugoslavia.

      • August 29, 2016 at 1:44 pm

        Oh surely, kooka, I’m actually living on Pemular VII in the Delta Quadrant. Look, I’m glad to know so many people in the Crimean part of Ukraine are happy with the situation there. I, too, am heartily opposed to Central Intelligence Agency machinations and the horrors they have created over the decades and continue to create. But so long as democracy is trumped everywhere by capitalism or any other all-encompassing wrongful ideology, so long will secret agencies be allowed to operate for the achievement of power-elite ends.

    • GailStorm
      August 29, 2016 at 3:11 am

      Some of it is semantics you could argue but people in Eastern Ukraine – and in fact educated Ukranians in general – would prefer to have closer ties with Russia than the Ukraine. Ties with a first world country are generally preferable. The reverse example would be Puerto Ricans wanting to be part of Cuba rather than the U.S. It’s silly to even suggest.

      • August 29, 2016 at 1:52 pm

        GailStorm, I agree with you! Indeed, Ukraine continues to be governed by oligarchs via their bought-and-paid-for politicians–just like here in the United States and in every other supposedly-democratic nation. Money means everything. All else is show business.

    • AndJusticeForAll
      August 30, 2016 at 10:21 am

      Joseph A. Haran, Jr. my point of view coincides with yours in many aspects. If we use UN terminology about aggression http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/da/da.html then annexation and invasion are interchangeable depending on situation. Mr Parry and majority of commenters here ignore those definitions and invent their own and under such circumstances it is difficult to argue with them and you see ad hominum a lot.

      • Oleg
        August 30, 2016 at 3:40 pm

        Sorry, you are really missing the point just like Mr. Haran. It does not matter what the legal definition is as long as it distorts the truth. Just like OJ Simpson was legally acquitted, yet he’s obviously a murderer.( BTW US never cared for legal definitions in its foreign policy )

        Mr. Perry and others tried to convey the message that Russia’s response was reasonable and just after US and allies supported a violent coup which overthrew an elected president and installed a pro- Nazi government. The gloves were off and Russia did what it had to to save lives and prorect its borders. It simply had no other choice.

  10. Bill Bodden
    August 27, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    A New York Times columnist writes Americans are so “dumbed-down” …

    The NYT got that part right. The vast majority of the American people are dumbed down, thanks to the NYT, the WaPost, cable news, movies and television and many Internet sites. A sizable majority (more than 60 percent) bought into the lies for the Iraq war. A similar majority is buying into the constant stream of mendacity from Clinton, Trump and their supporters. But this should come as no surprise. The American people (and people around the world) have been constantly lied to from the time they began to understand the spoken word. In addition to so many people being so gullible many prefer to believe they lies told them if it makes them feel good.

    • Bart
      August 27, 2016 at 5:42 pm

      An ignorant electorate is a feature, not a bug, for the agents of the Deep State.

  11. Bill Bodden
    August 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Another example of NYT double standards: Wedding Crashers Who Kill by Charles Pierson – http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/26/wedding-crashers-who-kill/

    • backwardsevolution
      September 1, 2016 at 2:58 am

      Or this article that refers to the lies of the New York Times:

      “While I periodically have written commentaries dissecting and pillorying news articles in the New York Times to expose their bias, hypocrisy half-truths and lies, I generally ignore their editorials since these are overtly opinions of the management, and one expects them to display the elitist and neo-liberal perspective of the paper’s publisher and senior editors.

      Headlined “A Break in the Assange Saga,” the editorial starts off with the flat-out lie that “Ecuador and Sweden finally agreed last week that Swedish prosecutors could question Julian Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he has been holed up since 2012.” […]

      The casual reader fed only corporate media stories about this case might logically assume from that lead that such an interview has been held up by a disagreement of some kind between Ecuador and Sweden. In fact, Ecuador and Assange and his attorneys have stated their willingness to allow Swedish prosecutors to come to London and interview Assange in the safety of their embassy for several years now.”

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/new-york-times-shames-itself-by-attacking-wikileaks-assange/

  12. Annie
    August 27, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    I know someone who is an international lawyer and professor who pretty much restricts his news to the NY Times and the Washington Post. His perception is that Russia acted illegally when she annexed Crimea and perceives her behavior during the Ukrainian uprising as aggressive, while he tenaciously ignores our involvement in a coup and US international crimes. I don’t believe that his conclusions are solely based on what he reads but he chooses to read material which will reinforce what he already believes. He grew up in the cold war era and carries over much of what he was taught about Russia, as well as his childhood fears. A mental time warp. Propagandists spew misinformation to serve their own ends, but if people’s minds were inhospitable to such garbage, the lies would soon die.

    • Joe Tedesky
      August 27, 2016 at 2:33 pm

      Annie, what you are bringing up here is something worth talking about. In my circle of friends, it is mostly my liberal friends who now hate Vladimir Putin. For some Putin with his shirt off represents a kind of chauvinist pig mentality that these liberal minded people dislike to the fullest. My gay friends really don’t like Russia, because Russia is homophobic, and that’s all there is to that. I tried turning them on to Timothy Bancroft Henchey who is English, and works for the Portuguese Pravada media office, and is a LGBT advocate. It doesn’t matter, because I read stuff from conspiracy sites, and even with that they still love me while putting up with my theories of evil doing. I’ll continue on, but I sure wish the American media would become objective and honest, because that would sure be a big help for us tinfoiled hat people.

      • Jack Epicoúreios
        August 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm

        Dear Mr. Tedesky, Here are some useful points for your “sensitive” friends:
        All countries have their particularities, all are on different “historical clocks”. Examples:
        1. Russians are not crazy about homosexuals, and Americans are so much in love with their guns that they use them daily to kill each other; plus, their police, daily, kills and/or brutalizes UNARMED civilians … No one is perfect, no one should cast stones … The planet would be much better off if countries left each other alone … fewer problems than today. All this nonsense about “universal human rights” etc — we are not just biology / zoology, that’s why we have the HUMANITIES, history / culture matter! Humanitarianism begins at home …
        Naive question: Is the West pushing for WWIII with Russia & China to protect the rights of the homosexuals, LGBT’s etc ???
        [BTW, Washington’s Ukro-Nazi friends are very anti-homosexual …]
        2. If the “Pussy Riots” had done in America what they did in Russia (vandalization of an Orthodox church etc, bearing in mind the significance of Orthodoxy for Russia) they would have been arrested immediately, roughed up / tasered (?), and given a few years in prison. [Here in America, recently, an 84 yr old nun was arrested for breaking into a nuclear weapons installation and for carrying out minor / symbolic vandalization there; she was sentenced to three (3) yrs in prison; I think she served one (1) and then was paroled … How many fellow citizens know this, I don’t recall any feminist protests …]
        3. Without Russia, where would Edward Snowden go ?
        4. There’s no proof that V. V. Putin had anything to do with the death of some Russian opposition members, incl. journalists, & the poisoning incident in London; for a thorough debunking of these accusations, see writings / video talks of Prof. Stephen Cohen et al. Also, ask Mt. Robert Parry for details.
        On the other hand, the Ukro-nazis openly kill opposition journalists; furthermore, every Tuesday (I think) the POTUS goes over a list of names and decides who will be taken out, by drones etc; and it’s considered very normal, a… right.
        I could go on and on … Sincerely yours, Jack Epicoúreios

        PS: You see all the neo-MacCarthyism against D. Trump (& J. Stein) … and I’m no fan of either. That gives you an idea of the accuracy (“accuracy”) of the Putin accusations — the NYT is somewhere between the old Soviet “Právda” and the “National Inquirer” … maybe it has always been like that …
        I recommend the writings / videos / talks etc of such American patriots as: Paul Craig Roberts (fmr. ass’nt Treasury sec’y under Reagan , Stephen Cohen (frmr. Princeton & NYU prof, top Russia expert), The Saker (blog), antiwar.com (principled libertarians), the Ron UNZ report (republican politician, I think), the Ron Paul website; also, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (frm’r. chief of staff of sec’y Colin Powell), and, of course, Consortium News!
        Unfortunately, in the areas of freedom / democracy / pluralism etc etc, America has been declining, while Russia has been going up / flourishing …

        • Joe Tedesky
          August 28, 2016 at 1:11 am

          Mr Epicoureios, I’m with ya brother. Like singing to chore, and I’m singing with you. Thanks for the support. All of the advocates for truth you mentioned I am already turned on to, but thanks anyway. Please understand my liberal and homosexual friends are all good people, but their sources for media are just plain bad. I just tonight met with a lawyer friend of mine, who although he leans right he is willing to learn more about geopolitics. Now he wants me to send him three articles a week. I send him last week one by the Saker declaring how the Russians aren’t coming to get us, another one about a Russian talking about his disappointment with his once idolized America who is now letting him down, and another written by a Vietnam vet who tells the real story, and not the phony one we have all grown tired of listening too. Thanks again Jack. JT

          Here is the Russia they lost story….
          https://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/24/the-russia-they-lost/

          • Kiza
            August 28, 2016 at 10:20 am

            Jo, sorry but I beg to differ. I understand that these people are your friends and thus you have to have understanding for them. But God or Nature have given us brains and it is therefore our principal responsibility not to get suckered in. Characters who do are just brainless drones or people with brains switched off (focused on the “mighty” dollar). Most of human history is actually about schemes of the bamboozlers (the chosen), the only difference is that now they have MSM.

          • zman
            September 4, 2016 at 1:24 am

            Joe, it’s not just your gay friends my friend. I have gay friends and they are not anti-Russian at all, mainly because hey don’t get their news from FOX and associated ilk. On the other hand, I have what I always thought of as being very intelligent professional people, that I recently learned were Russo-phobic. I never really talked politics or NWO topics with them, although I did know they are TPers. But just yesterday at a dinner party I heard them discussing Russia and politics and I was floored. They believe all the corpgov line on Russia and are really Islamophobic. The part that really got me was that they are convinced that there are Muslim hit teams here (in Arkansas) and that our little town of 10,000 is a target because there are so many Christian churches here. Seriously demented and paranoid, they now have guards that are packing heat at all entrances. It was like a mutual paranoid society meeting. Before I left I did ask where they got their news. FOX. What a surprise.

      • Jack Epicoúreios
        August 27, 2016 at 7:15 pm

        Dear Mr. Tedesky, Here are some useful points for your “sensitive” friends:
        All countries have their particularities, all are on different “historical clocks”. Examples:
        1. Russians are not crazy about homosexuals, and Americans are so much in love with their guns that they use them daily to kill each other; plus, their police, daily, kills and/or brutalizes UNARMED civilians … No one is perfect, no one should cast stones … The planet would be much better off if countries left each other alone … fewer problems than today. All this nonsense about “universal human rights” etc — we are not just biology / zoology, that’s why we have the HUMANITIES, history / culture matter! Humanitarianism begins at home …
        Naive question: Is the West pushing for WWIII with Russia & China to protect the rights of the homosexuals, LGBT’s etc ???
        [BTW, Washington’s Ukro-Nazi friends are very anti-homosexual …]
        2. If the “Pussy Riots” had done in America what they did in Russia (vandalization of an Orthodox church etc, bearing in mind the significance of Orthodoxy for Russia) they would have been arrested immediately, roughed up / tasered (?), and given a few years in prison. [Here in America, recently, an 84 yr old nun was arrested for breaking into a nuclear weapons installation and for carrying out minor / symbolic vandalization there; she was sentenced to three (3) yrs in prison; I think she served one (1) and then was paroled … How many fellow citizens know this, I don’t recall any feminist protests …]
        3. Without Russia, where would Edvard Snowd’n go ?
        4. There’s no proof that V. V. Putin had anything to do with the death of some Russian opposition members, incl. journalists, & the poisoning incident in London; for a thorough debunking of these accusations, see writings / video talks of Prof. Stephen Cohen et al. Also, ask Mr. Robert Parry for details.
        On the other hand, the Ukro-nazis openly kill opposition journalists; furthermore, every Tuesday (I think) the POTUS goes over a list of names and decides who will be taken out, by drones etc; and it’s considered very normal, a… right.
        I could go on and on … Sincerely yours, Jack Epicoúreios

        PS: You see all the neo-MacCarthyism against D. Trump (& J. Stein) … and I’m no fan of either. That gives you an idea of the accuracy (“accuracy”) of the Putin accusations — the NYT is somewhere between the old Soviet “Právda” and the “National Inquirer” … maybe it has always been like that …
        I recommend the writings / videos / talks etc of such American patriots as: Paul Craig Roberts (fmr. ass’nt Treasury sec’y under Reagan) , Stephen Cohen (frmr. Princeton & NYU prof, top Russia expert), The Saker (blog), antiwar.com (principled libertarians), the Ron UNZ report (republican politician, I think), the Ron Paul website; also, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (frm’r. chief of staff of sec’y Colin Powell), and, of course, Consortium News!
        Unfortunately, in the areas of freedom / democracy / pluralism etc etc, America has been declining, while Russia has been going up / flourishing …

      • J.B
        August 28, 2016 at 11:31 am

        Here’s a good read on the Russian “Anti-Gay Laws”:

        http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/february2014/white_paper.pdf

        • Annie
          August 28, 2016 at 3:04 pm

          I’m aware of those laws, and certainly I’m in no way supportive of them and they most certainly reflect a total lack of understanding on the subject. I think in this country we’ve made significant progress, and people are more accepting. My brother was gay, and died of AIDS. When walking home from school, boys would try to beat him up,and I would set them straight with threats of bodily harm. Fight them like a girl, pull their hair, stratch their face, cry, and scream, and that usually was the end of it. Adults were too often cruel, but in general he met mostly with silent disapproval. Death came when he was too young, surrounded by a caring family, but a medical profession that still should feel shame at their indifference and fear.

          • Kiza
            August 28, 2016 at 5:46 pm

            I usually like your comments Annie, but have you actually read at least the executive summary of the above report (JB’s link)? We really need to assume that whatever is said in the MSM is either a complete lie or a gross manipulation of the truth at best, ditto Russian Anti-Gay Laws.

            Just in case I misunderstood your comment (“I’m aware of those laws”), the above white paper/report actually shows that there is almost nothing anti-LGBT in Russia, except protection of minors from LGBT-lifestyle promotions on Russia as much as one would wish to protect minors from the tobacco company promotions in the US, for example. Let young people decide for themselves what kind of lifestyle they want, with a minimal influence outside their family. At least to me, this is a very healthy and sound social policy.

            But I really liked how you defended your late brother from the small minds attacking him.

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 28, 2016 at 6:07 pm

            KIza, I being a product of America’s first generation to grow up with television am against all forms of censorship. Although, as a responsible parent, who feels it’s they’re duty to police the media contend that they’re child is exposed to, I’m not necessarily the Gestapo because I just say, ‘we’re not watch that’ and change the station. Contend Ratings are fine, I guess, but then a person needs to sometimes drive with their lights on. What is sad, is how stuff like #135FZ becomes propaganda falter for an aggressive Neocon/NGO/CIA trap. Brian Heiss thinks it all due to Viacom and the Disney crowd, and he is probably right, but it could be a lot wider than that when it comes to agitating special interest concerns. Somebody ought to settle the heck down.

        • Joe Tedesky
          August 28, 2016 at 3:20 pm

          J.B. I read it, and already emailed it on to the friends I was referring to. Thanks.

          Mr Heiss facts may tend to have you boycott Jack Daniels, and order around of Stolichnaya, when taking a side against censorship ….like getting a fine over airing 2 1/2 Men. There is something worth noticing also whereas American Soft Power has a market if it so wishes, so why all the saber rattling and war????

          Thanks J.B. JT

      • Annie
        August 28, 2016 at 12:15 pm

        Joe, I think countries encourage a mindset which makes people more vulnerable to propaganda. The public schools in this country, and I say this as a teacher, don’t exactly encourage critical thinking skills. An authoritarian figure, the teacher, basically informs the student of the “facts” and from day one that’s the way it goes. For the most part teachers do not step outside the curriculum which they are forced to preach. Columbus is still a wonderful guy! Religion itself asks people to believe without questioning, so those in positions of authority which includes the media, are often believed without question. People’s prejudices will certainly make them more vulnerable, like Obama wasn’t born here, and he has no birth certificate, and he is a Muslim, and people believed because of their own underlying racism which really turns them on to people like Limbaugh and Savage and their anti-Obama tirades and their right wing propaganda. If you heard Joe Biden’s speech during the DNC you know that people of all countries are indoctrinated with a devout sense of patriotism, so people swallow the threats like Putin is up to no good and America can do no wrong. In other words, before the media’s propaganda can work it’s wonders people have to be trained so they are made vulnerable to it. Some of us escape – -Thank goodness.

        • Joe Tedesky
          August 28, 2016 at 5:49 pm

          Annie I hear what your saying. In Jeffrey Goldberg’s April 2016 published on the Atlantic called ‘The Obama Doctrine’ President Obama said this; “Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than Americans tend to think. “He’s constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us, because he’s not completely stupid. He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.”

          Now, I took that to mean that our country looks upon Russia as a diminished nation, who train has left the station, so we humor them. Maybe I am taking that impression a bit to far, but I don’t sense America generally fears Russia. That would be alright, but could this mind set lead to an interpretation that Russia is weak, and can be overtook easily? Better said, what does Hillary think of Russian might?

          History as you know is written by the victor, and often by the nationalist who patriots their cause. What I have a concern with, is how a honestly pragmatic person who is dealing within the confines of reality, and to how they may perceive such a military power. Plus whatever it is about Putin speeches, and I have read a lot of them, I can’t for the life of me figure out what is wrong with what this man is saying. I always hear a leader who is extending his hand toward the west only to get his hand slapped away in a very rude fashion….what does DC want, a fight with Russia?

          Thanks for your reply Annie JT

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 28, 2016 at 5:53 pm

            Here’s the link to Jeffrey Goldberg’s Obama interview;

            http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

          • Gregory Herr
            August 28, 2016 at 9:48 pm

            Obama’s remarks on Putin are condescending, trite, and reminiscent of adolescence. Obama is a snoot, and apparently a stupidly superficial one at that. But not completely Obama. You’re not completely an immoral elitist sellout, are you Obama? God I wish we had some class and grace in our leadership!
            I have read or viewed a good deal of Putin’s spoken words or written thoughts, and yes Joe, he comes across quite well…intellectually and on a gut level.

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 28, 2016 at 11:38 pm

            Gregory everything you said about Obama is true enough, but if you read Goldberg’s interview Obama comes away looking like the only peacenik to be found in the Situation Room. I personally thought the Obama interview was Obama’s announcing the beginning of his legacy tour. It also sounded like often the president is expected to rubber stamp whatever develops and comes about from the State Department, or the Pentagon, and of course the CFR/CIA where appropriate. Let’s both face it America is broke and in decline, and the country is running on the fumes of it’s own hubris.

            The real question isn’t so much what Obama may do, but what will a President Clinton do? The only good thing left, is that Putin is apparently blessed with patience and some pretty thick skin. Again, the question is, what will Hillary do?

          • Kiza
            August 29, 2016 at 1:46 am

            Gentlemen, I am sure that you are aware that Putin has a group of absolutely first class advisers, such as: Sergey Glazyev, Sergey Shoygu and so on. For example, an old interview with Glazyev: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cikvqdMRTTA. http://sputniknews.com/business/20150915/1026993814/russia-economics-reform.html.

            One could debate the ideology of such advisers, but at least one would be certain that they do not work for vested interests: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/08/25/20160828_clinton.jpg

      • John
        August 28, 2016 at 3:48 pm

        Someone already linked the white paper on Russia’s so called “anti-gay” laws, which is, as far as I know, the only examination of it that actually includes an English translation of the law, and it is very different than reported in the West. To be prosecuted, one must be using factually incorrect information, and giving it to minors without the minors asking for it. The penalties for Russian nationals doing this are puny, it is if non-Russian owned media does this that penalties are big.

        In Russia, it is illegal to discriminate on basis of sexuality for jobs, housing, etc, which means that, effectively, LBGTQIetc people in Russia have more rights rhan they do in most states in the US.

        Also, gaybashing in Russia is far more rare than thd US, on a per-capita basis, there is about 1 instance of gay bashing in Russia for every 1000 instances in the US.

        Unfortunately, the most visible gay rights organization in the US, the Orwellian named “Human Rights Council” (the people with the yellow equal sign on a blue background) is mainly funded by war profiteers, especially drone makers. Their board of directors is pretty much all wealthy white cisgendered males. They have a history of transphobia, and are pretty hostile to any issue that does not affect the priviledged. One only needs to look at what they have done (the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes bill was an ammendment to a military appropriations bill that caused liberal Democrats to vote yes on that appropriations bill that would have voted no. Then they focused on getting the “right” to participate in imperialist wars for LBGTQIAATSetc people. They did do a lot of campaigning for Marriage Equality, but ultimately that was won by a different organization, Lambda Legal. However, Marriage Equality is not really about Equal Rights, as in most states you can still be fired or denied housing if you decide to get married to someone of the same gender. It is, in reality, about assimilation into heteronormative family strictures. The group Against Equality has a very strong critique of this from a RadQueer perspective.)

        • Joe Tedesky
          August 28, 2016 at 6:12 pm

          My grandma who had eleven children always said, how people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, was really right. I say, get your own house in order, but that doesn’t do anything for the MIC & any others who see a benefit to making trouble.

          • Curious
            August 29, 2016 at 12:37 am

            Yes Joe, and my grandmama always said ” don’t criticize the splinter in your fellows eye until you take the log out of your own”

            Both ring true, but the hypocrites probably only smile at such ‘old wifes’ tale truths.

            so it goes….. the NYT is only good at a couple of things these day e.g. N.Y.T and N.F.L.

            The editors have it nailed. Don’t tell the truth about stories, but make sure you punctuate archaically so people think you’re smart.

          • Joe Tedesky
            August 29, 2016 at 1:30 am

            Curious should we send GrandmaHillary these handed down Grandma Sayings? I think we could easily email some to her.

            A corporate media serves only the corporate interest. Lately, it’s so corporately busy with everything Trump, they failed to make mention of the IG DOD June report claiming the DOD can’t find 6.5 Trillion Dollars. Another failed News Flash; is America’s telling a sovereign nation they can’t fly over their own space, with that potentially rivaling Russian interest, and hardly a peep. The only thing the Corporate MSM does, is it assures you that you will learn nothing by your tuning into their news programs. When it comes to MSM Print media, do the crossword puzzles.

      • GailStorm
        August 29, 2016 at 3:13 am

        Maybe those friends should be informed about the Ukranian government. Start with their ties to white extremists.

      • backwardsevolution
        September 1, 2016 at 3:03 am

        “The term “conspiracy theory” was invented and put into public discourse by the CIA in 1964 in order to discredit the many skeptics who challenged the Warren Commission’s conclusion that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself was assassinated while in police custody before he could be questioned. The CIA used its friends in the media to launch a campaign to make suspicion of the Warren Commission report a target of ridicule and hostility. This campaign was “one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

        So writes political science professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who in his peer-reviewed book, Conspiracy Theory in America, published by the University of Texas Press, tells the story of how the CIA succeeded in creating in the public mind reflexive, automatic, stigmatization of those who challenge government explanations. This is an extremely important and readable book, one of those rare books with the power to break you out of The Matrix.”

        http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/31/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge-paul-craig-roberts/

        This is what your friends need. Get a copy and pass it around.

    • August 29, 2016 at 7:39 am

      As someone who grew up in Eastern Europe in 1950’s and 60’s it does not cease to amaze me how the current MSM, led by NYT, WP & CNN resembles what the commies used to feed us day in and day out. The distortions are growing ever more grotesque, the lies ever more brazen. These guys are shameless truthers.

      • backwardsevolution
        September 1, 2016 at 3:05 am

        Yes, and I can watch CNN for all of about 3 minutes. It’s nothing but Trump, Trump, Trump, yet meanwhile the Crook is hardly mentioned.

  13. Michelle Hansen
    August 27, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    In 1985, while studying Iran in college, I could not find one reference to Iraq starting the Iran/Iraq war. All media and especially the New York Times blamed Iran up until Iraq invaded Kuwait and then the New York times became the first to blame Iraq for starting the war. I also noted at that time censorship in all media. The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. was on TV daily, but I could never find a word about him or anything he said in print. So much for the New York time bias.

  14. robert
    August 27, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    good article, too bad American media are such toadies

    • Bill Bodden
      August 27, 2016 at 5:23 pm

      It isn’t just the media. It is the plutocrats and their political oligarchs who recognize the media are a tool to greater power and wealth and have purchased the brothels and the presstitutes who work in them – a business investment similar to the purchase of the White House and Congress and their office holders.

      • Joe Tedesky
        August 28, 2016 at 2:41 am

        You would think a decent upper lot would give the John Q. Public a cut of the laundry fees, for flipping all that contraband around into real dollars, won’t ya? No, they are all to stingy for even if it were their poor mum they would still say no. Seriously they are all in the celebrity bubble, or soon to be in the celebrity bubble that the real power send out here for us to view. The real problem is, is they are all too star struck, and take advice from bad people of special interest. The media is just to damn corporate.

        Now back to the good comments.

      • dahoit
        August 28, 2016 at 10:51 am

        It’s all about Israel.Give US a break from the misdirection crap.

  15. jo6pac
    August 27, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Vicky the cookie monster nuland bragging about the Ukraine. Check the event sponsors all the known corp. criminal class. The nyt is just another mouth piece of the noise machine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaR1_an9CnQ

  16. Realist
    August 27, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    To use Hillary Clinton’s favorite new word, a lot of this irrational, hypocritical, highly aggressive behavior is grounded in racism. The Anglo-Zionists who control the government, the media, and the business/finance sector of America are conspicuously caustic Russophobes, Sinophobes and Islamophobes. Of course, there are the spoils of empire that they lust after, but they make sure to direct their predatory actions against only the right people. Western Europe, from whom America inherited these prejudices and predatory instincts, gets a pass–as long as they support the bully. A few key “house negroes,” such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who serve the master’s interests, are also allowed to live, though they will never be liked or trusted. It would be unthinkable for the NYT or any of the other propagandists of the Master Race–excuse me, I mean the Exceptional Country–to criticise the repeated domination of Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia for the benefit of the American upper crust. Yes, Barack Obama is just as much a white supremacist as David Duke–through his deeds if not his bogus pontifications. He uses his black heritage to political advantage, but, like OJ, he’s been an honorary white his entire life, and, if people looked beneath the facade of studious jive, they would see it. He’s done more to neglect the condition of black people in America than any recent president, and he’s rubbed salt in the wound with the fallacious promises he made to minorities and liberals in order to get elected but then quickly forgot. Sure, he facilely blames the ham-fisted Republicans for tying his hands (one gets the impression that the necessary bit actors serve on both sides of an elaborate ruse to maintain the status quo), but he’s never really fought them on the matter, not even with lip service. What can we expect from Sojourner Clinton? More racism directed at peoples both within and outside the borders of this country. Sorry if I contradicted anyone’s life-long paradigms with my words. Take a deep breath and snap out of it so you better understand what’s coming down the road.

    • dahoit
      August 28, 2016 at 10:51 am

      Spot on,as they say.

  17. Larry
    August 27, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    I remember a near correlation of the Russian-Crimean situation with George Herbert Walker Bush’s “invasion” of Panama using United States military personnel stationed in the Panama Canal Zone to destroy a significant portion of Panama City and killing at least hundreds of Panamian civilians (for no stated or actual reason) while overthrowing the legitimate government of Panama. We all know how the New York Times and other pro-MIC media consortia treated the American overthrow of Panama’s government as a victory for law and order. Russia’s reabsorption of Crimea at least was defensive in nature and not an invasive atrocity like Bush’s rupture of Panama.

    • Kiza
      August 28, 2016 at 6:27 pm

      Great reminder Larry. Hypocrisy thy name is US Government, Corruption thy surname is Clinton.

  18. Yuri
    August 27, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    Timothy Egan will go in history as a whore of high order. Every column of his is full bullshit lies, propaganda and outright falsehoods. I got tired of writing comments to his drivel only to see them rejected by the censors. So I stopped reading him and most of the Times a while ago. Thanks, Mr. Robert Parry, for having the patience and the perseverance to deal with this intelligentsia scum.

  19. Lois Gagnon
    August 27, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    The official press is clearly in full imperial propaganda mode. The corps, all 3 branches of government, Wall St., intelligence, media and the deep state are 100% in lock step. Full Spectrum Dominance is the goal by any means necessary. I don’t expect to see this change anytime soon. The best we can do is tune them out and access a variety of independent sources for real reporting such as this.

  20. Pablo Diablo
    August 27, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    “All the news that’s shit to print”.

  21. mrtmbrnmn
    August 27, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Robert Parry, you and Michael Hudson, William Black, John Pilger and some others, continue to do God’s work (that is if one believes in God-count me a doubter on that). Reportorial truth-telling. Sadly, Rogue Nation USA has the stupidest, most ill-informed sloping-foreheaded ignormuses on the planet (I’m talkin’ about the government as much as the gen pop). And the lying rag aka The New York Times is no help. As a onetime laborer in that journalistic vineyard, what it has become is weep-worthy. I speed read articles for the PUTIN SUCKS default key and immediately stop reading. I know I am being tangled up in lies. Fact is, I can’t even trust the NYT ball scores. The stories the make-believe character William Boot conjured up out of thin air in Evelyn Waugh’s brilliant zinger “Scoop”, are more reliable than any NYT byline propaganda pamphleteers (you and they know who they are-shame on you Timothy Egan!). It is most honorable and noble how you continue to challenge these charlatans with the kryptonite of TRUTH, HONESTY, MORALITY & INTEGRITY in your reporting. Fer Godsake, keep up the good work!

  22. August 28, 2016 at 12:09 am

    Western mainstream media r disciples of Goebbels . Their job is to manufacture consent and further more prepare the west for eminent confrontation of the global sort that is WW3. With the resistance they r encountering from Iran,China and Russia. These three countries have made it clear they will not be extorted by the Washington consensus. WAKE UP SHEEPLE CAUSE THE WAR IS COMING IF WE ALLOW IT. Nuclear winter is just around the corner and the western extortion racket is coming to and end.IE Petro-dolar, Fiat money ,Quantitative easing, The European Union. TPP TTIP TAP. The financialisation of every facet of our lives from Public schools to health care and Universities.

  23. August 28, 2016 at 1:02 am

    What was really pretty gd sick was to see how both the US and
    the netherlands were willing to just lie, lie, lie, and lie aagain about mh-17 shootdown by ukrainians while covering up thermite dropping in civilian areas, setting occupied housing on fire just like the US and israelis did in gaza and southern’ll lebanon. The real lowdown dirty rotten shame is to see how little civilian loss of life matters to so many in US as well. http://www.dopewardrugpeace.wordpress.com. See how they just abandon the refugees and the homeless as well, lying and turning them into enemies propagandistically as well. Its the haves vs. the have-nots in the new nazi slow mass ill and kill. Lyle Courtsal http://www.3mpub.com

  24. Exiled off mainstreet
    August 28, 2016 at 1:15 am

    this is an excellent summary of the 1984-style regime propaganda which now obtains. Freedom is definitely slavery for those who accept the propaganda fables of the Times, Post, CNN and NPR. Considering the fascist disgrace and failed state presented by the Ukraine, and considering their cynical efforts to wage war on behalf of pro-Saudi wahabi terrorist thugs, the US regime has sunk to a historical low level. Let’s hope that enough people see through them despite the media propaganda wall, and we avoid the likely nuclear war which would result from the harpy’s victory.

  25. Geoffrey de Galles
    August 28, 2016 at 3:35 am

    Twice in the first few paragraphs I encountered the wonderful new coinage “fiat facts”, but then for some reason got suspicious and was disappointed upon further close scrutiny to discover that my failing eyesight was to blame. I must say however that, given we are concerned here with the functionally solipsistic NY Times, I do prefer my own misreading, “fiat facts”, than I do the otherwise excellent Mr. Parrys “flat facts”.

  26. Jim
    August 28, 2016 at 8:03 am

    Another article about what the media does. We already get that. We need more articles written about how the media operates. Who’s behind it pulling the strings; and what is their agenda. Pull back the curtain and expose the wizard(s). Name names. Follow the money. Connect the dots.

    • J'hon Doe II
      August 28, 2016 at 9:25 am

      The US third offsets strategy: Why China should worry

      BY RICHARD A. BITZINGER
      AUGUST 27, 2016
      in ASIA TIMES NEWS & FEATURES, CHINA

      Third offsets strategy aims to pursue promising technologies that could preserve the US military’s competitive edge. It may have a significant impact in the Asia-Pacific region as it is intended to deal with the growing anti-access/area denial challenge posed by China. Unlike earlier doctrines by Pentagon, it is more modest in scope and goals and stands a much higher chance of succeeding.

      The Pentagon has never been at a loss for cute catchphrases when it comes to describing the Next Big Thing in the way of warfare.

      (FILE PHOTO: Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft provided by the United States Navy May 21, 2015. U.S. Navy/Handout via Reuters/File Photo)

      In the 1900s, the U.S. military was all about the “revolution in military affairs” (RMA) and “network-centric warfare.” This gave way to “force modernization” in early 2000s, when Donald Rumsfeld was in charge. By 2010, it was “AirSea Battle” (ASB), later transmuted into the jaw-mangling “Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons.”

      Today, the buzzword of choice is the “third offsets strategy.”

      http://atimes.com/2016/08/the-us-third-offsets-strategy-why-china-should-worry/

      ::

      (electronic pulse warfare… ?)

      • J'hon Doe II
        August 28, 2016 at 9:39 am

        Air-Sea Battle’s Next Step: JAM-GC on Deck

        A TNI interview with the ASB Office: Yes, the Air-Sea Battle Office exists… and is cooking up the evolution of ASB. Here comes JAM-GC.

        Harry J. Kazianis
        November 25, 2015

        The challenge posed by the growing list of countries embracing Anti-Access/Area-Denial, or A2/AD, is not one that will disappear anytime soon. The U.S. military clearly understands the challenge and is working to develop military assets, operational concepts and ultimately strategies to address the challenge. However, the debate over what was once called the Air-Sea Battle operational concept, commonly referred to as ASB, while certainly passionate and well meaning, left many with more questions than answers.

        Last fall, the Pentagon dropped the controversial ASB name and seemed to point towards a fresh start when it comes to confronting A2/AD. However, since the change in name, we have received very little information on what the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons, or JAM-GC, will look like.

        Below you will find the following responses to questions I recently posed to the Air-Sea Battle Office—oh, and yes, it does still exist.

        http://nationalinterest.org/feature/air-sea-battles-next-step-jam-gc-deck-14440

    • dahoit
      August 28, 2016 at 10:54 am

      Phillip Giraldi did,and hit the bulls eye.

  27. J'hon Doe II
    August 28, 2016 at 10:13 am

    CHIPS Articles: U.S. Navy Information Dominance Roadmap 2013-2028

    U.S. Navy Information Dominance Roadmap 2013-2028

    Synchronizing Navy’s information and operational environments to fight and win

    By Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance
    – July-September 2013

    Navy Information Dominance is defined as the operational advantage gained from fully integrating Navy’s information capabilities, systems and resources to optimize decision making and maximize warfighting effects in the complex maritime environment of the 21st century.

    Achieving the advanced capabilities that are needed will require leveraging Navy’s intellectual, technological, human and financial resources across the fleet, systems commands and OPNAV staff, Leigher wrote in the foreward to the roadmap.

    The roadmap takes into account analysis from the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World and Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, which predicts that the future international system will be almost unrecognizable from previous decades owing to the rise of emerging powers, an increasingly globalized economy, an unprecedented transfer of relative wealth and economic power flowing to Asian states, and the growing influence of several non-state actors. The report states that while the United States will remain the single most powerful country in the late 2020s, it will be less dominant on the world stage, and will see its relative strength — even in the military realm — decline.
    http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=4676

  28. J'hon Doe II
    August 28, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Is It Time To National Intelligence Council
    Global Trends
    For nearly two decades, National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends Report has been shaping strategic conversations within and beyond the US Government. In creating the report, the NIC engages expertise from outside government on factors of such as globalization, demography and the environment, producing a forward-looking document to aid policymakers in their long term planning on key issues of worldwide importance.

    Since the first Global Trends was released in 1997, the audience for each report has expanded, generating more interest and reaching a broader audience that the one that preceded it.

    A new Global Trends report is published every four years following the U.S. presidential election.
    Global Trends 2035
    Critical to its insight and policy-relevance have been meetings worldwide with a wide range of interlocutors—including government officials, scholars, business people, civil society representatives, and others—in workshops, exchanges, and other events designed to stimulate thinking about possible global trajectories and discontinuities over the next two decades.

    Individuals from scores of countries and walks of life have helped the NIC examine trends—including economics, demography, ecology, energy, health, governance, security, identity, and geopolitics—and understand their implications for peace, security, and prosperity worldwide.

    The NIC crystallizes ideas gleaned from these meetings as well as extensive research in a Global Trends report published every four years, between the US Presidential Election Day and Inauguration Day.

    Who Reads Global Trends?
    In December 2016, the US President-elect will receive Global Trends 2035, the sixth edition in the National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) series aimed at providing a framework for thinking about the future.

    This time period affords the incoming or returning President and senior staff the opportunity to weigh the report’s judgments and lay the groundwork to address long-range issues of importance to national and global security.

    The report also is publicly released, aiding policymakers, scholars, and others in many countries in better understanding possible trends and discontinuities in the global environment.

    Join the Conversation
    As the NIC prepares Global Trends 2035, it is consulting an increasingly diverse set of voices worldwide—both established and new—to help it question assumptions, identify new issues, and help conceptualize a framework that lays out in a cogent and understandable style the consequential trends and surprises that could occur in the next 20 years.

    Some of the questions the NIC and its partners are exploring include:
    Will power continue to diffuse or concentrate in the future?

    To what extent will further advances in communications technology transform societies and the relationship between citizens and governments?

    How will automation and robotics impact human employment and economies?

    Which currently unresolved questions or uncertainties regarding society, economy, and politics are likely to be most game-changing through 2035?

    Global Trends 2030 | Global Trends 2025 | Global Trends 2020 | Global Trends 2015 | Global Trends 2010 Getting AHEAD of The Game – ? – as opposed to being the Tail of the Dragon?

    ::

    National Intelligence Council
    Global Trends

    For nearly two decades, National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends Report has been shaping strategic conversations within and beyond the US Government. In creating the report, the NIC engages expertise from outside government on factors of such as globalization, demography and the environment, producing a forward-looking document to aid policymakers in their long term planning on key issues of worldwide importance.

    Since the first Global Trends was released in 1997, the audience for each report has expanded, generating more interest and reaching a broader audience that the one that preceded it.

    A new Global Trends report is published every four years following the U.S. presidential election.

    Global Trends 2035
    Critical to its insight and policy-relevance have been meetings worldwide with a wide range of interlocutors—including government officials, scholars, business people, civil society representatives, and others—in workshops, exchanges, and other events designed to stimulate thinking about possible global trajectories and discontinuities over the next two decades.

    Individuals from scores of countries and walks of life have helped the NIC examine trends—including economics, demography, ecology, energy, health, governance, security, identity, and geopolitics—and understand their implications for peace, security, and prosperity worldwide.

    The NIC crystallizes ideas gleaned from these meetings as well as extensive research in a Global Trends report published every four years, between the US Presidential Election Day and Inauguration Day.

    Who Reads Global Trends?
    In December 2016, the US President-elect will receive Global Trends 2035, the sixth edition in the National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) series aimed at providing a framework for thinking about the future.

    This time period affords the incoming or returning President and senior staff the opportunity to weigh the report’s judgments and lay the groundwork to address long-range issues of importance to national and global security.

    The report also is publicly released, aiding policymakers, scholars, and others in many countries in better understanding possible trends and discontinuities in the global environment.

    Join the Conversation
    As the NIC prepares Global Trends 2035, it is consulting an increasingly diverse set of voices worldwide—both established and new—to help it question assumptions, identify new issues, and help conceptualize a framework that lays out in a cogent and understandable style the consequential trends and surprises that could occur in the next 20 years.

    Some of the questions the NIC and its partners are exploring include:
    Will power continue to diffuse or concentrate in the future?

    To what extent will further advances in communications technology transform societies and the relationship between citizens and governments?

    How will automation and robotics impact human employment and economies?

    Which currently unresolved questions or uncertainties regarding society, economy, and politics are likely to be most game-changing through 2035?

    Global Trends 2030 | Global Trends 2025 | Global Trends 2020 | Global Trends 2015 | Global Trends 2010

    • J'hon Doe II
      August 28, 2016 at 11:33 am

      I humbly apologize for the double post – please forgive.

  29. Bill Howes
    August 28, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Clearly the Times, etc are fully involved in the dumbing down of Americans. Seemingly no-one I talk to knows who Victoria Nuland (or her armaments manufacturing Husband) are, or that she spent 5 billion of our tax dollars in Ukraine to topple government there. Seems to me Putin is an international hero for avoiding temptation of war .so much propaganda from main stream media, neither RNC or DNC candidates are worthy of naming or voting for.

  30. Bob Van Noy
    August 28, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Thank you Robert Parry for keeping this in front of us especially during this election cycle. For me the most disappointing aspect of our contemporary American life is the disingenuousness on such a massive scale. For several years I enjoyed my home delivery and digital editions of the NY Times and got particular joy comparing the tabs over the online response feature. So that if David Brooks, for instance, had a particularly inane column he would be excoriated in the “readers picks” tab. It felt like real-time Democracy to me and I thought that, in time, the more on line publications offered a reader response to more reportage, the more viable the reporting would be. Unfortunately as the election nominating process began, the paper almost immediately began to show a clear bias toward Hillary and that bias was reflected in the commentaries so l had to drop my subscription.
    Interestingly, the Guardian is clearly biased toward Hillary, but their online commentary seems more reflective of reality.

  31. delia ruhe
    August 28, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    To say nothing of who–Ukraine or Russia–brought down that Dutch passenger jet. It would seem that the whole issue has been swept under the rug by Washington and the MSM. Is that because the evidence for Russia’s culpability was threatening to start looking a bit thin? Sure would be nice for the families of the dead if responsibility could be nailed down definitively.

  32. wobblie
    August 28, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    This is why society is crumbling. A dumb ignorant masses can not counter their ruling class’s excesses.

    https://therulingclassobserver.com/2016/08/19/the-individual-among-us-part-ii/

  33. ALBERT CHAMPION
    August 29, 2016 at 12:39 am

    the real problem is that this nyt/wapo criticism is confined to so few.

    for the masses of rhe us citizenry , they don’t read the nyt/wapo.

    perhaps they watch faux news. or cnn. or msnbc. or the other orgs.

    that is where there opinions are formed.

    and that is the real obstacle. isn’t it?

    • B
      August 29, 2016 at 7:19 pm

      you realize most “news outlets” are just running stories by others mostly the wires services Reuters afp ap etc and the big print media nyt wapo etc

  34. Realist
    August 29, 2016 at 3:22 am

    Robert must have struck a nerve over at the New York Times because after his piece they put up a column by Neil MacFarquhar titled “A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories,” in which basically every truth one reads in “truth-to-power” venues such as Consortium News, ICH, Counterpunch, NEO, Unz Review, Global Research and Antiwar.com is quite methodically called a lie. It’s a totally mirror-image world that MacFarquhar describes. I wonder if it is composed of antimatter? You can’t post a comment about this latest propaganda on the NYT site, and I won’t dignify their mudslinging by citing the URL for it. But you can’t miss it at “the newspaper of record” for the “exceptional country.”

  35. John Hawk
    August 29, 2016 at 7:18 am

    Today is August 29, 2016 and the NYT has published another anti-Russian diatribe written by one of their own ‘dumbed-down’ reporters…check it out and LYAO!

  36. August 29, 2016 at 7:45 am

    Here’s my little salvo against the NY Times during the Georgia crisis in 2008:
    http://jiriseverasblog.blogspot.ca/2008/09/new-york-times-witless-boobs.html

  37. B
    August 29, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    the saddest part to me is that there really is no shadowy figures pulling strings from behind the scenes

    its just open and public boot licking of power and money.

    • Joe Tedesky
      August 30, 2016 at 10:43 pm

      B, it’s often been brought up at different times over multiple events, how the truth is always hiding within plain sight. I like your comment, because I myself get so frustrated at times, that it makes me want to see what’s behind the curtain. Take Ukraine for instance, we all saw and heard Victoria (Torie) Nuland, but only recently did the name George Soros become associated with the Ukraine disaster. To some Soros name being associated to this sad state of affairs is a shocker, to others they already suspected or already knew this. The curtain is kind of a known unknown, or for others it’s a unknown unknown….(here I go with that Rummy logic again, please slap me please) nothing in this life is ever that simple, but complexity makes it that much harder for the public to figure it out. My Italian uncles always said, ‘who ever benefited the most is the one who did it’.

  38. JACK EPIKOYREIOS
    August 30, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    MORE ON THE SORRY STATE OF THE NYT (“lies of our times”)

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/08/nyt-laments-of-alleged-false-russian-news-stories-with-a-false-us-news-story.html#comments

    PS: Some astute blogger put it this way (off the top of my head):
    “The NYT’s function is to assure the worried middle class that everything is under control.”

  39. August 31, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Why should anyone be surprised at what the NYT is doing? They have been at it at least since before the Korean War (downplaying the true nature of the American occupation of S. Korea and the destruction of the popularly elected, noncommunist but leftist anti-Japanese committees governing large swathes of what is called S. Korea; the atrocities by American troops, etc., etc.); they continued their role as propagandist during the First (French) Indochina War, the U.S. war in Indochina, and on and on to the present. People who still read the NYT (or the Washington Post and other MSM) despite incontrovertible evidence of their being purveyors of government-provided falsehoods have to be either fools or looking for material for a nasty laugh or two. “The Newspaper of Record” – what hubris!

    • AndJusticeForAll
      September 2, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      if somebody wants to know US government stand they have to read consortiumnews or NYT/WP?

  40. Herbert
    August 31, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    Here is a nice summary of these events from the G2mil blog:

    Aug 8, 2016 – Putin and Crimea

    CNN’s Fareed Zakaria is a corporate spokesman and probable covert CIA asset who spews propaganda, to include vile comments about the biggest threat to his criminal organizations — Donald Trump. Zakaria recently hosted a discussion forum in Europe where he tried to paint Russian leader Vladimir Putin as a Trump ally. Putin smoothly proved Zakaria a liar and explained that Europeans are tired of American warmongering and now suffer from senseless American imposed sanction games with Russia. If you watch the video of Putin schooling Zakaria, you will admire him.

    Americans will never see that video on their CIA-edited corporate news programs. Instead, we get steady propaganda, like criticism of Russia’s “invasion” of Crimea, and Obama administration warmongers wanting ever more money for our military by creating a new Cold War, minus the communism justification. Allow me to provide the proper background to these events. 

    The Ukrainian conflict is the result of NATO’s irrational expansion despite a post-Cold War agreement with Russia. Ukraine was targeted for absorption and NATO began sending American and NATO combat troops to Ukraine for annual military exercises. Why? The effort stalled, so Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled some $5 billion to orchestrate a “revolution” to overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (see my June 7th blog post for hard facts) Ukraine’s elected President was ousted because he (and most members of parliament) refused to support Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for power. 

    Russia feared losing control of Crimea, a strategic republic (i.e. province) that was part of Russia for over a century, but had been administratively attached to Ukraine in the 1950s as a gesture of Soviet solidarity. Russians are the majority people in Crimea and Russian is the common language. After the President of Ukraine was ousted by armed thugs and Kiev fell into chaos, a referendum was held in Crimea in 2014 with international observers and citizens overwhelming voted to rejoin Russia. Russian troops didn’t invade Crimea because some 20,000 Russia troops were based there as they had been for a century. Even most non-Russians in Crimea voted to rejoin Russia because Ukraine is one of the most corrupt and poorest nations in Europe, while Russia has vast natural resources and is far more advanced.

    This is why knowledgeable people like Donald Trump state they are not bothered by Russia accepting the request by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia. Now watch this PBS News Hour propaganda segment providing “facts” as to why Trump is wrong, saying only that Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader was ousted so Russia invaded Crimea, without mentioning any historical facts. The segment actually lies by saying Crimea voted to join Ukraine in 1991. That is false, it voted to become an independent republic from the dissolving USSR that would remain associated with Ukraine. After years of corruption, domestic turmoil, and an American coup in Kiev, the citizens of Crimea chose to be associated with Russia instead. The Russian reannexation of Crimea was desired by the vast majority of it’s citizens and no sane person should object, unless they are limited to censored information in the American media.

    (the blog has links)

  41. historicvs
    September 2, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    The New York Times was founded in 1851 by Henry Raymond, one of the powerful clique of Yankee businessmen who would found the Republican Party five years later to advocate their interests. It has always functioned as an establishment propaganda organ. My field is the history of American journalism. In my researches I have read thousands of issues of the paper from its founding through World War II. The paper is invariable pro-business and anti-labor. Mocking Irishmen, German immigrants, and blacks are staples of the early issues. Its Civil War coverage would lead you to believe that the war was an unbroken series of victories, and the opponents of government policies (for example, the Mayor of New York) were all evil men.

    One of my favorite examples of Times bias is the publication of General Lee’s official report of the battle of Gettysburg, which the paper ran on page one under the headline “A Fable Worthy of Baron Munchausen”. The difference today is that instead of printing the unedited text of Lee’s report, the Times would print selected bits of it out of context to distort its meaning beyond recognition, while on the editorial page would be constructed an elaborate fantasy about it in which opinion would be represented as fact.

    Incidentally there is strong historical precedent explaining why Russia moved so quickly to protect the Crimea from the western-backed coup in Kiev. The two imperial superpowers of the nineteenth century, Britain and France, contrived excuses in 1854 to launch a devastating attack on Russia in the Crimean War. British troops occupied the Crimean part of the Russian homeland for two decades after they defeated the vastly out-gunned Russian defenders. Like any Russian leader worthy of the name, Putin was not about to allow a repeat of this insult to his nation’s sovereignty.

Comments are closed.