How Salon Gets Away with Deceiving Its Readers


Eric Zuesse, originally posted at

Before I start this condemnation of lies from ‘liberal’ ‘news’ media, I should indicate that I am a former lifelong Democrat who left the Party over the corruption of the Obama Administration when the corruption became capped by their Democratic National Committee using many devices to steal the Presidential nomination away from Bernie Sanders, to hand it to Obama’s chosen successor Hillary Clinton, whom Obama expected would complete his pro-Wall-Street legacy by passing into law some version of his trade treaties and by Hillary’s conquering Russia, the latter of which goal was a U.S. government project that had actually started in secret on the night of 24 February 1990 when the then-President George Herbert Walker Bush initiated what has since become a ceaseless behind-the-scenes U.S. government program to expand NATO right up to Russia’s borders and ultimately to conquer Russia itself. Though the Cold War ended authentically on Russia’s side in 1991, it never really did end on the U.S. side (that was just a lie) — and Obama-Clinton were hoping soon to culminate the U.S. aristocracy’s conquest of Russia. I remain a committed progressive journalist but am no longer committed to any political party, because now both of the major political parties are vile and no third party in a Presidential system of government stands a realistic chance of controlling either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch of government — its only function is to serve as “spoiler” for one or the other of the two. So: I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, nor a supporter of some ‘third’ Party, but remain unchanged throughout, consistently a progressive, which means totally dedicated to truth and against lies (such as dominate all forms of conservatism). My criticisms of ‘news’media reflect that, no political-party orientation.


On November 9th, Salon’s reporter Brendan Gauthier headlined Salon’s top-of-homepage headline of the day, “In Donald Trump’s cabinet from hell, corporatism and cronyism run rampant — and Sarah Palin may be there, too” and reported what was at the time speculation that was sourced to an NBC news report, titled “Gingrich, Giuliani, Priebus Eyed for Top Jobs in Trump White House: Sources”, which stated that:

Among the names being considered, according to conversations with three campaign advisers who requested anonymity to speak freely: Rudy Giuliani for attorney general, Newt Gingrich for secretary of state, retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn for defense secretary or national security adviser, Trump finance chairman Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary, and Republican National Committee finance chair Lew Eisenberg for commerce secretary.

Trump himself has not taken an active part in transition efforts, in part out of superstition: He fears too much planning before a victory might jinx the campaign. In 2012, he was shocked to read detailed stories on Mitt Romney’s preparations for the White House long before election day.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, a loyal supporter, has taken a major role managing the transition effort, especially as the official transition chief, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, has drifted from the campaign. …

Asked for comment on the above names floated for cabinet posts, Trump campaign spokesman Hope Hicks replied by e-mail that “none of this is accurate.”

Gauthier added nothing substantial to that NBC information (of which, maybe, “none of this is accurate”) except to say such uninformative things as that Gingrich “proved himself a rabid Trump surrogate” and as that Giuliani “has been a tireless, if controversial, surrogate for Trump on the trail and in the media.” But in one instance Gauthier linked to a New York Post op-ed by Michael Flynn as being his source by which to allege regarding: “Department of Defense Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn: Trump’s national security adviser was fired from his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, which he attributed to his hawkishness.”

That statement about Flynn is outright false. Here is all that Flynn’s op-ed — Gauthier’s cited source — actually said concerning his having been fired by Obama:

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. …

I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are). …

We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that … picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.

That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war.

There was no indication whatsoever in the article, that Flynn had been fired on account of any “hawkishness.” That allegation by Salon was simply fabricated.

The reality about Flynn’s firing was the exact opposite: he was too ‘dovish’ to suit the neoconservative Barack Obama, who was now demanding that all of his top military generals support his goal of going to war against Russia. Flynn objected to that by saying that only one war at a time makes any sense, and that this war must be the defeat of jihadists, nothing else — certainly not a war against the other nuclear superpower.

Rather than Flynn’s support of Trump being a reflection of their shared ‘hawkishness’, it reflects their strong belief that the view that Barack Obama holds and that Hillary Clinton holds even more strongly — that the war against jihadists must be subordinated to the war against Russia — is a totally upside-down view of the priorities, and that instead of the U.S. supporting jihadists who are warring against Russia and its allies, the U.S. ought to be supporting Russia and its allies who are warring against jihadists.

If Salon wants to support the Obama-Clinton view and oppose the Trump view on the basis of truthful assertions, then that’s journalism and it is not mere political propaganda.

But if Salon wants to deceive its readers into holding the political viewpoint that they hold, then what else is there to call Salon but a propaganda-site?


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Tim Hadfield

    Flynn was wrong about Iran – they are not allied with terrorism – Saudi Arabia, and all those little oil rich states, ARE allied with terrorism.

    • Dr. Detroit

      Don’t forget the U.S shadow government.

    • woody188

      Yeah, because holding people for ransom isn’t terrorism. Oh wait…

      • Tim Hadfield

        Iran has a very different government now.

    • DonNeedNoStinkinUserName

      CORRECTAMUNDO !! The ZioNazis in Tel Aviv have got the entire US govt & a large part of the Republican supporters brainwashed – to wit, Woody188 – into this shit that Iran is a threat to the US & world peace. Nothing could be further from the truth – IsraHell & the US are the major players in kicking off wars & terrorism. The wikileaks emails detailed that Killery KNEW that the KSA & Qatar were funding, training & arming al Qaeda & ISIS & she not only took millions to run her election, she totally ignored the fact they were sponsoring terrorism, not only giving them a “pass” but joining in as well, keeping it from the American people though. I was always under the impression that if a country did that they got a bunch of cruise missiles for Xmas. Must only apply to certain countries I see . . . like ones IsraHell view as an existential threat. Iran (& Iraq under Saddam) were both at war with al Qaeda & Wahabist Jihadists in general as was Syria & Libya but all except Iran have had al Qaeda (& now ISIS) backed to various degrees by NATO, US & the ZioNazis, destroy their countries as functioning entities. Iran knows the night is still young so is awake to US/IsraHelli duplicity.

      As for Iran & Hostages – if you are talking about the 2 Navy boats captured intruding into Irans territorial waters of course they got snatched !! Take a minute to think about how the US would respond to Chinese or Russian naval units popping up 20 miles off shore. And the “ransom” you talk about – Iran used the leverage that had dropped into their laps to demand some of the BILLIONS of dollars the US arbitrarily took for whatever reason they came up with back in the day. They are still owed shit loads.

      • Tim Hadfield

        Absolutely correct. Thank you.

  • PERS ponzi 1st repsonders

    In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

  • desertspeaks

    it’s all propaganda,..all propaganda, all the time.. don’t fight your indoctrination into the war mantra! Kill for corporate profit, die for corporate profit, then do it all again and again and again!

  • Robert McMaster

    Daily Beast, HuffPo, Salon all push garbage and are completely untrustworthy. They are not the solution, they are the problem. Not buying what they dish out. In fact, not buying them at all. No money for you. Go out of business. Now, please.