{"id":258607,"date":"2016-07-28T15:45:35","date_gmt":"2016-07-28T15:45:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=258607"},"modified":"2016-07-28T15:45:35","modified_gmt":"2016-07-28T15:45:35","slug":"americas-press-covering-trump-campaign","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/americas-press-covering-trump-campaign\/","title":{"rendered":"How America’s Press Are Covering the Trump Campaign"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

America\u2019s press cover the Trump campaign with barely concealed hostility toward it, and with an obsessive emphasis upon the candidate\u2019s positions regarding Russia; they\u2019re attacking Trump as being (wittingly or unwittingly) an agent of Russia \u2014 and portraying Russia as being America\u2019s enemy.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not only Republican newsmedia that are apparently agreeing with the Republican Mitt Romney\u2019s famous statement made on 26 March 2012, about\u00a0“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.\u201d<\/span><\/a> (Romney, who was the star at the last Republican National Convention, hates Trump so much as to have refused even to attend this Republican National Convention.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, on Friday, 22 July 2016, right after the Thursday-night end of the Republican National Convention and Donald Trump\u2019s acceptance speech there, the top of the homepage of Huffington Post was\u00a0this<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

AMERICAN NIGHTMARE<\/b><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

DARK…\u00a0\u00a0H.W. Speechwriter: \u2018Very Dark And Frightening\u2019… Garry Kasparov: Sounded Straight Out Of Russia… David Duke: \u2018Couldn\u2019t\u00a0Have Said It Better!\u2019… Speech Riddled With Inaccuracies… Andrew Sullivan: \u2018Massive Lies And Distortions, Crammed With\u00a0Incoherence\u2019…\u00a0\u00a0Republicans Have Made A World-Historical Mistake…<\/b><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Just click onto any of the headlines there, to see the stories they link to. Here is how the homepage-top actually looked (screen-shot, no links):<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/p>\n

That \u201cH.W. Speechwriter\u201d is just an incompetent way of referring to a speechwriter for G.H.W. Bush \u2014 whose entire family hate Trump \u2014 and Huffington Post\u2019s \u2018journalist\u2019 there hid that key fact, when reporting on that speechwriter\u2019s comment about the speech: that the comment came from a friend of that inimical family, the Bushes, who hate Trump. In other words: this \u2018news\u2019 report, simply and uncritically, stenographically, transmitted that particular Bush-family propaganda, against Trump \u2014 and this was supposed to be \u2018news\u2019 \u2018reporting\u2019: people such as this \u2018reporter\u2019 get hired in America to write \u2018news\u2019 that gets positioned at the top of one of the nation\u2019s major \u2018news\u2019 sites. The second headline-link there was from \u201cGary Kasparov\u201d, but they also didn\u2019t indicate that this person happened to be a famous Russian opponent of Russia\u2019s current President, Vladimir Putin. The last two of the eight headlines linked-to in that homepage-topper, came from two writers who had been prominent editors at the Democratic Party\u2019s neoconservative magazine, The New Republic<\/i>, which had been one of the leading PR organs for every American invasion, especially for George W. Bush\u2019s 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Hillary Clinton also supported.<\/span><\/p>\n

None of this background-information was supplied to its readers by Huffington Post, whose readership presumably are unaware that they\u2019re reading (especially atop the front page) political propaganda, instead of political news.<\/span><\/p>\n

The same was true regarding print-media:<\/p>\n

Paul Krugman, in The New York Times,<\/i>\u00a0at the same time as that HuffPo propaganda, bannered\u00a0\u201cDonald Trump: The Siberian Candidate\u201d<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0and he linked there to (as his article\u2019s sources) the rabidly anti-Putin articles that will here be discussed below. All of these articles were written by neoconservatives whose careers have been assisted by some of American\u2019s biggest weapons-makers (the profits of which are now booming with \u2018the new cold war\u2019 that those writers had helped to create by their hate-Russia propaganda). Krugman \u2014 an economist famous for arguing that producing weapons (and all other industries for war) is just as economically productive as is producing food or art or anything else (or, in other words, that producing bombs is just as good as producing bridges or education) \u2014 is now also showing, by this article, that his political views are likewise exclusively neoconservative (i.e., slanted in favor of promoting America\u2019s war-industries). And yet, many readers in America consider Krugman to be \u2018liberal\u2019 or even \u2018progressive\u2019; he is considered to be the opposite<\/i> of a fascist, in America.<\/span><\/p>\n

If America\u2019s readers were well-informed, they\u2019d know that this particular war, the war against Russia, had already become a hot one, to overthrow Russia-friendly leaders in Ukraine and Syria. It started being<\/i> a hot war, by Obama against Russia, when the Russia-friendly Muammar Gaddafi in Libya was overthrown in 2011 under U.S. leadership, which was supported especially by the neoconservative<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Hillary Clinton (who famously exulted at Gaddafi\u2019s assassination, \u201cWe came, we saw, he died. Ha, ha!!\u201d<\/span><\/a>). Earlier, under neoconservative President George W. Bush, the hot war against Russia had actually begun by invading in 2003 Russia\u2019s then-ally Iraq, after a barrage of neoconservative propaganda in America\u2019s press had been aimed against the \u2018threat\u2019 to the U.S. posed (allegedly) by \u2019Saddam\u2019s WMD’. But, in 2002, Barack Obama condemned that invasion in advance (with a keen eye to his upcoming political career to win the Democratic Presidential nomination), just as, in 2012, Obama condemned his opponent Mitt Romney\u2019s statement about \u201cRussia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe\u201d (when Obama was secretly, like a double-agent \u2014 pretending to be friendly<\/i> toward Russia, while actually planning war against Russia<\/span><\/a> \u2014 already preparing for Romney\u2019s \u2018number one geopolitical foe\u2019 to be his own<\/i> second-term\u2019s chief military and diplomatic target and national enemy<\/span><\/a>). Obama was a gifted deceiver, much more gifted than Hillary. However, now that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the intent to conquer Russia is considerably more overt. (After all, the U.S. government\u2019s prior propaganda-operation has, by now, even\u00a0bragged to the world its propaganda-success against Russia<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0And they had good reason to be proud: they had deceived the world<\/span><\/a>, and especially deceived the American public, to fear Putin, when it is actually the U.S. itself that has been the aggressor<\/span><\/a> between the two.) \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The main one of Krugman\u2019s sources was the lengthy article on July 21st by Franklin Foer at Slate, who had previously been the editor of The New Republic<\/i>, that leading Democratic Party neoconservative propaganda-organ. TNR<\/i> always favored (and hired only \u2018journalists\u2019 who favor) invading or overthrowing the leaders of any nation<\/span><\/a>, but especially of nations that are friendly toward Russia. In 2002, it was Iraq; in 2011 it was Libya; in 2010 it was Syria; in 2014 it was Ukraine. None of these invasions and coups was part of any actual U.S. national-security interest, never any campaign against jihadists, anywhere; it was always directed instead solely against Russia (the neocons\u2019 obsession), and against any national leader who was friendly toward Russia. Foer\u2019s article about Trump was aptly titled \u201cPutin\u2019s Puppet\u201d<\/span><\/a>. The central idea in it is that to vote for Trump is to vote for American\u2019s enemy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Foer now, after TNR<\/i>, is described in wikipedia as \u201cformer editor of The New Republic. Foer was a 2012 Bernard L. Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation.\u201d That Foundation is funded by the Russia-hater George Soros. Bernard L. Schwartz himself had run Loral Corporation, a major arms-maker for the U.S. military. Soros and Schwartz are quite possibly the biggest donors to the Democratic Party \u2014 but only to its worst, most deceitful and pro-invasion, politicians (such as Obama and the Clintons). Soros, and his Open Society Institute, along with Bernard L. Schwartz, along with David Bradley the owner of The Atlantic<\/i> and several other public-policy magazines, and Bradley\u2019s sidekick James Fallows, are among the top donors to, and leaders of, the New America Foundation<\/span><\/a>. This is why it\u2019s now virtually impossible for anyone who isn\u2019t a neoconservative to be able to win the Party\u2019s Presidential nomination. (As for the Republican Party, that Party has long been famous for supporting American invasions, and especially for its hostility against Russia. So, virtually all of America\u2019s aristocracy are united in supporting neoconservatism, so that, though only a small minority of the U.S. public are neoconservatives, that international-affairs ideology encompasses almost the entirety of successful American politicians at the congressional and Presidential \u2014 at the national \u2014 level.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Another of Krugman\u2019s sources was the July 21st article by Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic<\/i>, a neoconservative magazine that\u2019s directed both at Republicans and at Democrats, and which pretends to be ideologically \u2018nonpartisan\u2019 because it publishes (only) articles ranging between, say, the neoconservative Republican John McCain on the \u2018right\u2019, to the neoconservative Democrat Hillary Clinton on the \u2018left\u2019. Goldberg\u2019s diatribe against Trump was titled,\u00a0\u201cIt\u2019s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin\u201d<\/span><\/a>. Yet again: the central message was that a vote for Trump is a vote for America\u2019s enemy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another of Krugman\u2019s sources was the 4 March 2014 article by the neoconservative Isaac Chotiner at The New Republic<\/i>, titled \u201cThe Increasingly Awkward Conservative Crush on Putin\u201d<\/span><\/a>. (Of course, as a neo<\/i>conservative himself, Chotiner couldn\u2019t mention that numerous American plain conservatives were rabidly anti-Russian and wanted to see Putin overthrown, just as Chotiner and the many other neo<\/i>conservatives do. Neoconservatives are just as conservative as are any other nationalists who favor their nation\u2019s conquest and takeover of other nations. It\u2019s just the most extreme<\/i> end of conservatism \u2014 fascism \u2014 but it\u2019s a supremely deceitful form, praising instead of condemning its opposite, \u201cdemocracy.\u201d Neo<\/i>conservatism favors American dictatorship of the world: \u2018spreading American democracy\u2019. It\u2019s what George Orwell called \u201cNewspeak.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n

All of those articles were based on bogus allegations, especially about Ukraine<\/span><\/a> \u2014 that\u2019s the country whose government the neoconservative friend of Hillary Clinton and of Dick Cheney (Victoria Nuland<\/span><\/a>) had organized to overthrow in a coup<\/span><\/a> culminating in February 2014<\/span><\/a>, but which coup she had started (by no later than 1 March 2013) to set up<\/span><\/a> even before she had been officially sworn in (on 18 September 2013) to her new post in Obama\u2019s second Administration. None of the articles that Krugman linked-to made any mention of Obama\u2019s\/Nuland\u2019s coup in Ukraine<\/span><\/a>, installing in that nation bordering on Russia, a rabidly anti-Russian regime<\/span><\/a>, and thereby endangering Russia\u2019s national security. Obama cites Putin\u2019s response to that \u2018Ukrainian revolution\u2019 as constituting Obama\u2019s excuse for, first, economic sanctions against Russia<\/span><\/a>, and, then, NATO\u2019s pouring troops and weapons onto and near Russia\u2019s borders<\/span><\/a>. Trump is being criticized in Democratic Party \u2018news\u2019 media because Trump hints that he rejects both the Democratic Party\u2019s and the Republican Party\u2019s neoconservatism. This anti-neoconservatism is the major reason why Trump receives very little support from other members of America\u2019s aristocracy (i.e., from other billionaires and centi-millionaires).<\/span><\/p>\n

The buildup toward war against Russia<\/a><\/span> is remarkably similar to how the U.S. \u2018news\u2019 media stenographically \u2018reported\u2019 U.S. government lies about \u2018Saddam\u2019s WMD\u2019 and deceived the American public to invade Iraq in 2003<\/span><\/a>. But the war against Russia can end only in America\u2019s defeat, or else in a globe-destroying nuclear war, because Russia, like the U.S., is nuclear-armed to the teeth. So: if there is any insanity here, it\u2019s from Hillary Clinton, not from Donald Trump \u2014 though the nation\u2019s \u2018news\u2019 media portray Trump as being (by far) the more dangerous of the two (because he hasn\u2019t, at least not yet, sold out to the rest of America\u2019s aristocracy).<\/span><\/p>\n

An actual invasion of Russia would be enormously worse than was America\u2019s invasion of Iraq in 2003. This reality \u2014 and American \u2018news\u2019media\u2019s participation in causing it \u2014 is the reality that\u2019s unpublishable in the United States. (One can\u2019t even report, in the West, that America is building toward an invasion of Russia<\/span><\/a>.) But it helps explain those \u2018news\u2019media\u2019s \u2018news\u2019-reporting about Trump\u2019s proposed foreign policies, and also the American press\u2019s coverup of the reality: Hillary Clinton is determined to push Russia to the nuclear brink if not beyond, whereas Donald Trump opposes doing that. That basic difference between the two nominees cannot be honestly reported in the U.S.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s the central issue in America\u2019s 2016 Presidential campaign. And the way it\u2019s being dealt with by the press is the way one would expect it to be dealt with, in a dictatorship<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

NOTE ABOUT NEOCONSERVATISM<\/b>: The origin of neoconservatism was as a reaction by conservative Marxist Jewish intellectuals in the 1950s who were terrified by the fascist demagogue Joseph R. McCarthy\u2019s anti-communist witch-hunts and so they switched from favoring leftist dictatorship to favoring instead rightist dictatorship: they switched to fascism. The American aristocracy then promoted them to ideological leadership, because, in the wake of World War II, the American public couldn\u2019t even imagine that a Jew could be<\/i> a fascist. These Jewish intellectuals, in other words, could effectively spread fascism yet never be thought of as being<\/i> fascists. Consequently, by sponsoring fascist Jewish intellectuals in America, fascism could now be successfully promoted in America, under the \u201cneoconservatism\u201d brand. This was particularly helpful to the U.S. aristocracy for yet another reason: those Jewish intellectuals were now rationalizing their formerly having been communists, not by means of their having been influenced by Jews or Judaism, but by their having been influenced by Lenin and other Russians, as having reflected a \u2018defect\u2019 in Russian culture, not in Jewish culture; so, as the self-obsessed individuals that they were, they focused their hatred against Russia, which just happens to be also the country that America\u2019s aristocracy have most been wanting to conquer. In fact, amongst America\u2019s aristocracy, the Cold War never was about ideology, at all; it was (and still is) about their conquest of the entire world. In the post<\/i>-communist era, their fascism has thus become laid bare.<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

But the \u201cneoconservatives\u201d are mere tools of the aristocracy; they are tools, not the users of tools. The users, the aristocrats, exploit those duped-and-dangerous intellectuals. It\u2019s like taking advantage of a fool\u2019s foolishness, or of a pit-bull\u2019s obsession to kill. Taking advantage of an intellectual\u2019s prejudices is as easy as taking advantage of anyone else\u2019s prejudices: all it requires is hiring the \u2018right\u2019 ones, and not hiring the \u2018wrong\u2019 ones. The ultimate decisions are made by the people with the money, not by their mere agents \u2014 the hirees. The \u201cneoconservatives\u201d are hirees.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of\u00a0 They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of<\/span> \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org America\u2019s press cover the Trump campaign with barely concealed hostility toward it, and with an obsessive emphasis upon the candidate\u2019s positions regarding Russia; they\u2019re attacking Trump as being (wittingly or unwittingly) an agent of Russia \u2014 and portraying Russia as being America\u2019s enemy. It\u2019s not only Republican newsmedia that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":258612,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[115,30,1036,27,32,96,1035,535,698,907,1017,1023,804,7483,524,754,92,6257,523,49,76,40,1024],"class_list":{"0":"post-258607","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-breaking-news","8":"tag-barack-obama","9":"tag-big-brother","10":"tag-breaking-news","11":"tag-bush","12":"tag-cia","13":"tag-cover-up","14":"tag-daily-news","15":"tag-global-news","16":"tag-hillary-clinton","17":"tag-isis","18":"tag-news","19":"tag-nuclear","20":"tag-politics-2","21":"tag-politics","22":"tag-russia","23":"tag-syria","24":"tag-terrorism","25":"tag-trump","26":"tag-ukraine","27":"tag-usa-news","28":"tag-warfare","29":"tag-white-house","30":"tag-ww3"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258607","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258607\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/258612"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}