Media, Politics & The Death Of Intellectual Honesty
from the what-just-happened dept
Yeah, so I get that it's political silly season, and people like to throw around all kinds of arguments of "bias" -- especially towards the media. I've been on the receiving end of those accusations, but for the most part, I think claims of media bias are silly and over-hyped. What's true, though, is that it's all too easy to be sloppy in reporting and to try to hype up a nothing story into a something story. Here's a story where no one comes out of it looking very good and the end result is a complete mess. It starts with Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald. Last night I saw a marginally interesting story by Eichenwald about how a Russian government connected news website, Sputnik, misread an email leaked via Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal to campaign chief John Podesta. The email contained a link and full text to a much earlier Eichnwald story about Benghazi and Clinton. The Sputnik story incorrectly stated that the text in the email was by Blumenthal, and not by Eichenwald. It took one sentence out of this longer article, and falsely claimed that Blumenthal was admitting that the mess in Benghazi was "preventable." As Eichenwald notes, this is wrong:Okay. So that's actually kind of interesting. This Russian source was so eager to get a story out of the leaked emails that it misrepresented them -- either by accident or on purpose. That's marginally interesting, and certainly a fun thing to report on. What happened next is where things really go off the rails. While Sputnik pulled down its story once Eichenwald pointed out the error, a few hours later, Donald Trump mentioned the story at a rally as if it were true:Those words sounded really, really familiar. Really familiar. Like, so familiar they struck me as something I wrote. Because they were something I wrote.
The Russians were quoting two sentences from a 10,000-word piece I wrote for Newsweek, which Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta. There was no mistaking that Blumenthal was citing Newsweek—the magazine’s name and citations for photographs appeared throughout the attached article.
Okay. So we've still got a story here, and the story is this: holy shit, Donald Trump is willing to take very, very unreliable sources and broadcast them as fact. But that's not the story that Eichenwald started pushing. He went on something of a Twitter rampage making a bunch of claims that were not supported at all by the story, claiming variably that (1) the leaked emails were doctored (2) that Wikileaks was responsible for this (3) that the Russians and Wikileaks are in cahoots and (4) that Trump and the Russians are in cahoots. Now, any of these might actually be true. But none of them are actually supported by any actual evidence. Eichenwald just makes the logical leaps from what's written above, assuming that only the Russians could have given Trump that news -- ignoring that the story on Sputnik was getting passed around on social media (again: real story: Trump relies on unreliable sources for news). Here are just a few of Eichenwald's many, many tweets promoting his own article (and note how most have tons of retweets):At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”
“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.
“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”
This morning lots of people were pointing out the problems with Eichenwald's exaggerations about his story, including the Washington Post, NY Magazine and Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept. Greenwald's account highlights that many Hillary Clinton supporters keep saying that the Podesta leaks include faked emails, but no one has pointed out a single one.
Eichenwald, for his part, keeps insisting that the original Sputnik report involved a "manipulated" email, which implies that the email was faked or doctored. This is flat out wrong. The email was misrepresented. It's entirely possible that it was misrepresented on purpose to make Clinton look bad. But misrepresented is different than doctored. Here, let me prove it to you: Eichenwald misrepresented who could have possibly seen the Sputnik piece. He did not doctor that information.
I don't think -- as some are claiming -- that this is evidence of "media bias" on Eichenwald's part. I honestly think that he's guilty of the same thing that probably happened with Sputnik. He saw what seemed to be a really great story, and oversold it. Sputnik did the same. Both look bad.
And, honestly, almost everyone comes out of this looking bad. Eichenwald and Newsweek oversold a story. Various Clinton supporters look bad for buying the claims in the story without reading them or checking them carefully. Trump, of course, looks bad for relying on a Russian government site for unreliable news. And, basically, everyone looks at this story and sees from it what they want. Trump supporters can see more examples of media bias. Clinton supporters believe there's more support for the idea that Russia is supporting Trump. Wikileaks haters get more ammo claiming that the site is working with the Russians and/or that it's releasing fake emails (though it does not appear to be doing so). Again: many of these things may actually be true, but this story only supports the single claim of Trump relying on bad info.
But this is the state of things today. 2016 can't end fast enough. Hopefully 2017 is better.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: benghazi, donald trump, hillary clinton, john podesta, kurt eichenwald, media bias, misrepresentation, politics, russia, sidney blumenthal
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This election cycle brought to you by Barnum and Bailey's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yah... I'm going on the side of "getting worse" in the terms of media landscape. They are getting tons of eyeballs from this campaign. Are they really going to drop that once someone wins? Heck no. They need those inflated CPMs!
They will find a way to keep the Trump train going strong well into 2017. At least until Trump and Breitbart start Trump TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How can it possibly be better. One of these two assclowns is gonna be POTUS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can 2017 possibly be better.
If Clinton gets into office, it may look like the continuation of the Obama administration, which is to say she will have to be pressured to make changes.
But she'll be open to pressure.
If Trump gets into office, then he's going to change bunches of stuff, few for the better, and the admin's going to look a lot like George W's. And then his advisors and intimates just have to convince him that the policies they want will hurt Trump's enemies, and he'll push them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wish.
2017 one of those eager into overselling stuff will be in command of the U.S.A.'s nuclear arsenal.
Be glad that all the overselling they do now is in the context of campaigning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We gulp down everything put before us, not wondering where it came from or if it has any truth.
If its the farmer feeding us, we believe... if its the hired hand we saw slaughter our cousin we assume its all poisoned.
We have studies proving that we keep believing things that are false, even in the face of undeniable evidence we were lied to, we cling to the false idea and jump through larger hoops to protect the lies. Ex. Anti-Vaxxers
The media has conspired to feed us this crap buffet, and when challenged they throw their hands up denying it is their fault. They run half truths in headlines and sometimes retract them in 2pt font on page 87c.
We deserve better. We need to demand better. Reporter lies about being on a helio that took fire in a war zone, and we run him out... Headline screams that Hilary ate a baby, to get better viewership numbers, and its just shrugged off by the "media" outlet when debunked.
Once upon a time the media was independent, this is no longer the case on both sides. We need to stop accepting bias pretending to be reporting. No one is a saint, no one is a sinner... they are all mortal and make mistakes. News isn't entertainment, it is supposed to be fact. We need to stop caring about Kayne's latest tantrum & not accept that as being important enough to be on the nightly news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at the talking heads on all three of the 24 hour news stations. Each has a prime time personality that spends more time building themselves and their personal brand than reporting the truth.
There will always be bias and spin. Nobody is completely objective. Nobody can be. But when the program you are watching is specifically meant to be subjective they should make clear distinctions. Far more than they do now. We need the TV version of opinion pages and ombudsman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right now all the rage is about "evil clowns" everywhere.
More and more stories about it spreading like a virus.
They want to say it is all social media driven, ignoring that they are covering it more & more encouraging people to try it.
So a couple kids claim to have seen clowns trying to lure them into the woods... police investigate & find nothing to support the claims... no one asked if a sibling told them a story about evil clowns... Now there are evil clown sightings everywhere, many being dubious claims, many being idiots idioting, but the media keeps mentioning it. There are now professional clowns being yelled at and threatened and eventually someone is going to shoot someone in a clown suit... all because the media kept telling people to be terrified of boogeymen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Naturally this led to "overreactions." Including one case where someone honestly flagging down a passer-by for help had to jump two fences while the driver drove through them to try to "catch" him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Instead of whining about media biases, go to the original sources. That possibility is unfortunately forgotten by many users of media today because it is so much more timeconsuming and because many journalists today are completely oblivious to or uncomfortable with the Harvard method or any other referencing method (plus correct sourcing takes a lot more time and can expose "sensitive sources" of you make the reference to obvious). But if you want the truth, go to the original sources and particularly their sources etc. That is the only way around media bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2017
It could only be worse if it ended with Cats sleeping with Dogs; you know, those Old Testament types of disasters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stolen elections
I suspect those on the losing side, even if they were defeated by obvious and provable voter fraud, they will be left to sulk as well, and not even tossed a bone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2017
That was already a circus, but imagine the circus with Hillary v. Trump. Merged with the Supreme Court battle to replace Judge Scalia. And a Tea Party that didn't exist in 2000. And already accusations of a rigged election from one side and of Russian involvement from the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2017
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2017
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should we be surprised?
Given that standard - Should we be surprised that harried staffers and an orange-colored moron will grab stuff off the internet without bothering to fact check? Given that standard they should have no problem assuring us 9-11 was an inside job, the towers were brought down by demolition charges, and the Mexicans are all rapists and murderers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should we be surprised?
And then apologized for "getting it wrong" when the White House lied about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
media bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: media bias
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outsourcing Propaganda
Much later I read that it was a hoax. There was an assembly line for such hoaxes. Some right-wing rag would print the story as satire. Rush Limbaugh (before the press realized that he was a professional liar) would repeat it as truth. And then more credible publications would pick it up as truth.
For Obama the internet was added to the assembly line. Politicians and Fox News reporters who would never initiate birther claims would nevertheless cheerfully repeat them if they originated at WorldNetDaily and other wingnut sites. Even the most credible news sites still refer to Obama not releasing his birth certificate until 2011, ignoring that it was released - and authenticated by Vital Statistics in Hawaii - in mid-2008 when the issue was first raised.
Trump's innovation is merely in sending the jobs overseas. To Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Outsourcing Propaganda
I think it is slightly more nuanced than that. If you think of him as the conservative equivalent to Stephen Colbert (does not believe anything he says and develops a fake personality solely for the media) he makes a ton more sense in why he says what he says. So yah he lies continually, but his character does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Outsourcing Propaganda
Rush Limbaugh is simply a professional liar. Sure, he likely doesn't believe most of his lies, but he's still spreading them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Outsourcing Propaganda
I intended to mean that he has developed that persona for the public and likely does not believe anything his character says.
That was the extent of my comparison. I completely failed at that. I in no way meant to compare him on the satire side or genius of Colbert. Doh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Outsourcing Propaganda
There's another element to it: Rush Limbaugh and his type, plus Fox News, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and others made a terrible discovery: Their biggest source of revenue is "impotent right-wing rage."
Limbaugh had to sit down and shut up and stop the anti-White House wingnuttery during the Bush II years, and that cost him money. The others know this.
Which is why in the 2012 election cycle when classic hardliner Newt Gingrich made the adult suggestion of negotiating with Democrats on the budget as had always been done, Fox News and the rest attacked him and labeled him a RINO. And why the 2012 and 2016 Republican clown car candidates got so much Fox coverage while the credible candidates quickly faded away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Outsourcing Propaganda
If Fox will only accept Trump and his ilk as valid representations of the Republican movement, expect more of the same till they change their minds. Hilariously, they've painted themselves into a corner; any time they try to be more moderate their audience flips out at them and claims they've gone all liberal and stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not news
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but he's always been doing this.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272824-trump-all-i-know-is-whats-on-the- internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2017 Better
One of these two complete idiots will be President of the United States and will be busy punishing their enemies....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2017 Better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to disagree with the idea that the "media bias" accusation is anywhere close to being overblown. Seriously Mike, I am a huge fan otherwise I would not even bother, but you honestly need to get away from the media circle to appreciate how ridiculously left-wing the media. The number of your colleague that identify as Independent:Democrat:Republican is 15:4:1 and I would bet money that the so call independent leans left. The truth has a left-wing bias right?
The media is so left wing it doesn't even reflect the values of the average democrat let alone the general populace. Only 38% of the populace trust the media and only 51% of democrat has faith in the media. So one side of the aisle think the media is full of shit and another half of the the other thinks its full of shit. If you guys were the fourth estate, self-appointed/unelected, then right about now the people are sharping their pitchforks and prepping molotovs.
What are the media stances on issues in the news? Banning assault weapons and semi-automatics, the police sucks, and literally vote Clinton or we're all going to doomed. Which from the top, is a losing issue trying to ban all guns aside from revolvers and flintlock because the media doesn't do basic research before writing a 2k word essay. The police has a 52% approval rating despite a historical low compare that to a certain other profession and understand how much journalist are despised right now. Self-evident truth right, fact and not opinion, the emotion and loathing of DT won't cause blurring of opinions and fact among the immaculate 80%+ left-leaning journalists.
What has been the media response to the animosity towards them. Literally writing articles how their critics are nothing but trolls, the evils of comment sections, how some people feel they are too conservative. Sometimes its acknowledge that they are reviled but that society's fault and what a world we live in because of their low intelligence free press is in danger.
The problem becomes even more stark once you realize that its not even the fact that they lean left that is the problem considering "media filters" like Wikipedia or Stewart-Colbert-Oliver actually do a decent job of informing the public and they are even more left leaning. Its the fact that they can't tell the difference between a Sig Sauer from a AR-15 after decades of reporting on topic, a gameboy from a PsP, 4chan isn't a famous hacker,or that its unfeasible to replace our power-grid with solar power but totally feasible to replace our roads with 3 times that number and still have it function as roads.
From mass consumer of news its a very disheartening experience because I still very much believe in the role of the press but it seems like they have forgotten the the road to hell is full of good intentions and they are slashing and burning the innocent from their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't be silly. The media isn't "liberal", although some of its reporters may be. But the owners of the media are rich, and they look after their class. Reporters do not control the final product, editors, producers, and publishers do. However (and I am the extremely small potatoes producer of a TV news show no one has ever heard of), the media likes a good show. "If it bleeds, it leads." The media likes stuff that makes stories that grab the attention of viewers (and advertisers). Violence and sex are two topics guaranteed to get viewers. There are of course other themes that do, performers like Rush Limbaugh tap into some of them.
No, neither Democrats nor Republicans trust "the media" (well, aside from Fox viewers, Limbaugh listeners, and maybe SputnikNews patrons like The Donald). And they should not, because "the media" is for the most part not there to spread truth, but to make money (or in the case of SputnikNews, to sell what Putin wants sold).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is this in spite of due diligence and society is to blame, or they are deserving of this fact? CNN, the NYT, CBS,the New Yorker, and NPR is consider a reliable source of information by whom exactly? If they are all in it for the ratings what difference is it to reality television or fox news exactly or straight up Russian propaganda?
Opinion: The press bitching about how Democratic Mayor X is not doing enough to curb hate speech, not reducing income inequality, or forcing the police to fix race relation is NOT the press being conservative. Then turn around and be mean to conservative makes them moderates.
Also for the record I don't believe the press have a liberal bias, I think they have a left-wing progressive bias, there is nothing liberal about the press except for it staunch belief in freedom of the press and maybe the fourth amendment. The crime isn't that they are driven by their belief but by the fact that they print and report inaccurate and poorly research articles and they all happen to be left-wing that makes it corrosive. If it a hoax at least it would make the world a better place. Then keep on hammering on about how the press is reliable source of information.
Let it sink in for a minute how ineffective the
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop. We're already waaaay beyond the comprehension level of the electorate. Especially those that need to understand this story. Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is going to end most things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the internet, ya know?
The internet makes communication all over the world near about instantaneous. It has also removed most of the filters was have had in the past. The two most important were distance and time. A dumb (and false) story written by a third rate Russian "news" organization would likely never even be heard of outside of it's original area. With time and distance, there would be enough filtering going on to catch that it's wrong and not repeat it.
The internet? Huge echo chamber, and some people try very hard to control the echos and drown out sanity.
We were lead to believe Wikileaks was a good source. That's just not the case anymore. Assange clearly has political axes to grind and an agenda as long as his arm, which means what many believe to be a credible source just isn't always that at all.
The internet has also brought us great sources like Alex Jones. Yeah, Infowars is perhaps one of the most depressing pieces of crap online (as far as I am concerned) but for some it's absolutely gospel, gods word into his ear shit. He's just a more extreme version of Rush Limbaugh, and he just a more abrasive version of Fox News (the ultimate in velvet glove delivery of total, absolute nonsense).
We get more and more of our information from websites like Techdirt. Like it or not, this place has an agenda and a tone which means that facts are cherry picked and glued together without the goal of creating a truth that may or may not be true. There are some who read this site in the same manner people pay attention to Alex Jones. It's not as extreme, but just as dangerous in the end.
When you get your information from a biased source (WND anyone?), your opinion will naturally be biased. It's how it works. The internet and modern media distribution let's it happen. Like minded idiots can congregate and egg each other on. The retweet first, check never mentality means that incorrect stories are repeated over and over again. Celebutards use this to their advantage, the entire Kardashian thing is created out of whole cloth by them grabbing and controlling the message and the media.
It's all because you like it, because you react to it, and because you get involved with it. Every re-tweet is, in it's own way, spreading a little lie or a little twist of the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the internet, ya know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the internet, ya know?
I don't believe that is necessarily true. I believe there is an objective truth and that it is shareable. It's why I tend to downplay the importance of 'timing' in releases of Interesting Information. I consider the information itself to be more important than the circumstances behind it. (Who released it, When it was released, Why they released it, How it was released.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'M KING OF THE WORLD!" - Donald Trump, from Titanic
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanity Prevails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vapid
Intellectual honesty died officially in 1948, with the creation of the national security state and the CIA. There we became reliant upon leaks of secrets. Disinformation, lies, cover-up followed and are the norm today. You can read all about Operation Mockingbird. Frank Wisner bragged of playing the US media like a "Mighty Wurlitzer." Carl Bernstein exposed these things in 1977, but even the Church Committee revelations fade from people who purport to write on these topics today.
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
I'd need several hours to make the appropriate dent.
The Libya fiasco was a clear war crime, a breach of the UN Charter. American CIA, exposed by Seymour Hersh and others, was moving arms from the captured arsenals of Libya over to the next target on the empire's hit list: Syria. This is not debatable at this point. If you play with fire, you get burned. The larger issues are those of waging wars on the same side as Al Qaeda & ISIS. Frauds of this magnitude have a name, and it's the Big Lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's nearly over now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The media is shit, has been and will be always and forever. It was made official with William Randolph Hearst's media empire and never went away- just went through various permutations of pretending it was something it never was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media, Politics & The Death Of Intellectual Honesty
With Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as President? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]