The Man Who Makes Sulzberger Look Good

.

What is possible to know is that in 2013, Bezos secured a $600 million deal with the CIA — more than twice what he paid for the Post itself that same year — to provide the agency with cloud services. Last Monday, the Post itself acknowledged that reality, revealing the service will be called Amazon Web Services Secret Region. In a statement posted by Amazon Web Services, CIA chief information officer John Edwards noted the development would be “a key component of the intel community’s multi-fabric cloud strategy.” Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, with a fortune now topping $100 billion, generated primarily by the astounding success of Amazon. Since 2013, he is also owner of The Washington Post, one of the most transparently anti-Trump newspapers in the nation. Bezos, Amazon and the Post are entitled to take whatever political positions they want. But Bezos’ relationship with the CIA is extremely troubling. It’s no secret The Washington Post has force-fed America the idea that Donald Trump’s victory was the result of “collusion” between members of his campaign and the Russians, with the implication that Trump himself was involved. Consider the source, but columnist Glen Greenwald eviscerated one of its many stories on the subject, calling it “classic American journalism of the worst sort,” explaining that its “key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.” That story — and the complete lack of journalistic integrity it demonstrated — was hardly an outlier. The Post published another piece so egregiously sloppy, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi characterized it as an “astonishingly lazy report” that has “no analog that I can think of in modern times.” (Coming from Rolling Stone, that’s saying something.) It was about 200 websites the Post labeled as “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.” Despite Post columnist Craig Timberg’s assertion there were independent teams of researchers making the claims, Taibbi reveals the meat of the report relied on an organization known as PropOrNot, which he describes as a group that offered “zero concrete evidence of coordination with Russian intelligence agencies.” Zero critical skills have also been a staple at the paper. Post writer Adam Entous attempted to turn a joke made by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) — “I think Putin pays Trump” — into another piece about Russian collusion. The Post also ran a discredited piece insisting Assistant U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to resign. It was a lie about James Comey being fired after requesting more funds for investigations, and it was soon debunked by then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Then there was yet another deliberately misleading story about Trump “leaking” classified intel to the Russians — before the Post revealed that every president “has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law” … in paragraph seven. Post reporter Josh Rogin is in a class by himself. As The Daily Wire revealed last February, Rogin managed to get three major stories wrong in the space of only 10 days, two of which falsely perpetrated the Trump administration “chaos” narrative. And last Friday it was revealed that ostensibly objective Post report ... [Full w/ Links] This guy's made the WaPost's erstwhile Newsweek rag look respectable.

WaPo Gang Wang's Trump

UPDATE WAPO Pushes Fake News That Thomas Jefferson Held WH Iftar Dinner to ‘Celebrate Ramadan’ Amy B. Wang of the Washington Post led the pack with this nonsense

Extrapolate

WaPost at it again

As dictated  to Dragon on my iPad.

In the 1970s I was a sales manager for a wretched little company on Long Island, the job entailed flying all over the country. I was never at home.  I would leave on Monday morning and my wife would pick me up early Friday evening out of National airport.   I belonged to every one of those frequent flyer clubs, drinking a lot of booze and sometimes I didn't  even know where the hell I was.  Anyway one day I'm coming back from someplace, the plane landed, I disembarked, and, what the hell's going on here?  I was in a coma like, I've never seen this terminal.  I was flying National Airlines, or Northwest and the plane disembarked into a brand-new  wing of National Airport and it was really sparkly, and all red walls. Not like National Airport at all.  I said oh my God I've done it again, I got off the wrong exit. My mind was very foggy then I looked down on a bench along the walkway there was a Washington Post  front page with something to do about Watergate.  YES! I  was in Washington because believe me, there was no where else in the country, I mean  not even New York, where Watergate was story.

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded

.

WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False NewsAbout Russia Threat It's the money honey What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first [Whoops] note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom. But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become). [...] After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions. But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism — from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker (“propaganda about Russia propaganda”), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone (“shameful, disgusting”), my own article, and many others — including legal threats from the sites smeared as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post’s “independent researchers” — the Post finally added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story (“The Post … does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings” and “since publication of the Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list”). [FULL] I've pondered here over the sudden shift of the WaPost from left-leaning to full frontal New York Times. Even created this  header for the Times and WaPost for the occasion. True, I had originally applauded Amazon owner Jeff Bezos's purchase of the paper.  I suppose because I've been a stalwart  Amazon fan*, and assigned him a halo.  I fully expected to see the likes of  E.J. Dionne Jr. quickly put to pasture.  Alas, it seems that the Will-Krauthammer group have moved, ever so slightly, in his direction. In the case of  Anti-Trumpism, however, they too often mimic the Dionne crazies. So it boils down to this.  Bezos is a genius entrepreneur, and does what he must in order to grow.  In the Baltimore Washington news market, that means cater to the leftist lofo.  In addition, Bezos may see danger to innovations like drone delivery services; and, like other tech companies, who were heavily supported by Obama (climate is a $5 billion industry), he will have lost that lobby.  Well, the New York Times catered to that same market, and are in near bankruptcy. So, there's that. Ahem. * Disclosure:  I owned 1000 shares of Amazon, purchased at about $8 a share, and dumped it during the dot.com when it fell from $107 to $7 almost over night.  It's now in the $700. share neighborhood. But kept my AOL stock. *spit*

Is It Propaganda Or not? Propaganda

Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group .

In other words, the individuals behind this newly created group are publicly branding journalists and news outlets as tools of Russian propaganda — even calling on the FBI to investigate them for espionage — while cowardly hiding their own identities. THE WASHINGTON POST on Thursday night promoted the claims of a new, shadowy organization that smears dozens of U.S. news sites that are critical of U.S. foreign policy as being “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.” The article by reporter Craig Timberg — headlined “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” — cites a report by an anonymous website calling itself PropOrNot ((Is It Propaganda Or not? Your Friendly Neighborhood Propaganda Identifiation Service Since 2016!), which claims that millions of Americans have been deceived this year in a massive Russian “misinformation campaign.” The group’s list of Russian disinformation outlets includes WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report, as well as Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig, and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. The group promoted by the Post thus embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist. Echoing the Wisconsin senator, the group refers to its lengthy collection of sites spouting Russian propaganda as “The List.” [...] "The group promoted by the Post thus embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist." (FULL) Well met; however the rather gratuitous slam "The group promoted by the Post thus embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist" comment caused me to find out that, as expected, author Glenn Edward Greenwald was born in 1967, and thus the product of an education system that, rather purposefully, pedals the "toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy" crap.   As for the WaPost, it has under the Jeff Bezos encroachment become left wing toxic.

Bezos-Sulzberger Hydra

. Washington Post Names Drudge, Zero Hedge, & Ron Paul As Anti-Clinton "Sophisticated Russian Propaganda Tools" So in other words, any and every one who is anything but a liberal drone is now a Russian plant? As the "scientists" explain, reporting facts is tantamount to being a "useful idiot." Bezos-Sulzberger- FAKE NEWS HYDRA The desperate flailing of a mainstream-media struggling through the five stages of grief continues as no lesser unbiased foundation of the fourth estate than The Washington Post pushes ahead with its "fake news, blame the Russians" narrative for why their candidate failed so miserably. The Washington Post states - without irony - that there are now scientific studies that show how the Russians influenced the 2016 election... Citing "two teams of independent researchers" (who surely have a substantial libel litigation provision)  who found "Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery... echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal," the Jeff Bezos-owned website names Drudge, Zero Hedge, and The Ron Paul Institute and countless other outlets among the "useful idiots" that true American patriots should be wary of. “The way that this propaganda apparatus supported Trump was equivalent to some massive amount of a media buy,” said the executive director of PropOrNot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity with the Post. In the wake of the election, fake news and its spread on social media has come into the spotlight - for our latest thoughts on this topic please see our "thank you" notefrom last night. And as The Hill reports, a sophisticated Russian propaganda effort helped fuel the spread of fake news during the election cycle, the Washington Post reported Thursday. “They want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who co-authored a report about Russian propaganda. In the wake of the election, fake news and its spread on social media has come into the spotlight - for our latest thoughts on this topic please see our "thank you" notefrom last night. The report from PropOrNot, provided to the Post, identifies more than 200 websites that routinely pushed Russian propaganda to at least 15 million Americans, and found that false stories pushed on Facebook were viewed more than 213 million times. You may be surprised by some of the sites on the list (it seems even satirical fakes news sites are propagandists too)...  [FULL] "You may be surprised by some of the sites on the list..." Indeed. Nary a mention of CNN. MSNBC. CBS, NBC, ABC, .... et.al.  The way the left are acting is ... like Trump is performing an  exorcsim on the body politic.

Dan has some Balz ...

Oh, the hubris This WaPost Analysis "Donald Trump, America’s first independent president" begins smartly enough: Viewed through any conventional lens, President-elect Donald Trump’s candidacy was improbable from start to finish. Today, two things about his victory seem to be in sharper focus: one, that Trump’s victory might best be understood as the success of the country’s first independent president, and second, that the Trump coalition may be even more uniquely his than President Obama’s has turned out to be. " But  Dan Balz quickly reverts, like the paranoid schizophrenic gone off his Lithium Kool-Aid, to the "fantasy." " Think again about how he prevailed. There are a handful of major events during a general election that give the nominees a chance to showcase themselves, their judgment and their vision. One is the selection of a running mate. Another is the staging of the conventions. A third is performance in the debates. Hillary Clinton did better than Trump on all three tests, though Trump’s team believes the debates did not fall so decisively in her favor. Clinton raised more money than Trump. She had a larger number of paid staffers on the ground in the battleground states. She ran more television ads by far. He created needless controversies throughout the general election, while her problems were far fewer. Only in the final days did he seem surer of himself. In other words, Trump came out the loser on virtually every aspect of how campaigns are usually evaluated."  "Her problems were far fewer..." GAK!  Rabid dog ...

Poorly Timed Jennifer Rubin Screed

"Here come the GOP excuses" No, my dear Republicans, if Trump loses, they have themselves to blame — for adopting a white-grievance mentality, for burrowing in a right-wing media cave, for pretending that the country is supposed to be what it was in 1950 when white Christian America was supreme ... . Under the stewardship of (Amazon owner) Jeff Bezos, the WaPost has gone from being a liberal rag that sometimes tries, to a reliably rancid clone of the New York Times. File this snotty election eve Jenifer Rubin article, "Here come the GOP excuses," under COMEUPPANCES. If, as appears increasingly likely, Hillary Clinton wins today, the Republicans most responsible for the calamity will stand ready to spout a load of excuses they've been accumulating since the Republican National Convention, when it became reasonably apparent that Donald Trump was going to run his general-election campaign just the way he did his primary race. Let's save them the trouble: It's the media's fault. How long are inept and out-of-touch Republicans going to blame the media? They've got Fox News, Breitbart, talk radio, etc. — advantages some Republicans never had before. They had multiple debates to get their message out. Oh, yes, and the media handed Trump a couple of billion dollars' worth of ad time in the primaries, making his nomination possible. If they cannot win with all that, they never will. There is no electoral majority of right-wing, older white males who resent women in the workplace and immigrants in their country. It's the FBI's fault. We thought James B. Comey was a hero. Oh, I know, that's so pre-Nov. 6 (the day of his last letter). Seriously, if Republicans need a criminal prosecution to beat a flawed opponent running for a third Democratic presidential term, they have real problems. Saying that Clinton never should have been allowed to run assumes that she was a really good candidate, not a weak one. It's the #NeverTrumpers' fault. C'mon, guys. The people who warned that Trump was a disaster are not to be blamed. The people who ignored the #NeverTrumpers are. To our chagrin, the large majority of Republicans will vote for Trump. It's everyone else — that means Democrats and independents, in addition to a small but determined batch of Republicans — who would be responsible for his defeat, if Clinton wins. The argument blaming #NeverTrumpers ignores why they voted against Trump and presupposes that the highest obligation Republicans have is not to country, but to party. Many Republicans emphatically reject the argument. It's a one-off problem unique to the Trump candidacy. Nonsense. The GOP has not won the presidency since 2004 because it insists on relying on a diminishing segment of the electorate and infuriating everyone else. The chickens are coming home to roost as millions of women, African Americans, Hispanics and millennials turn against the GOP in ever greater numbers. It's the way the system works; there was nothing to be done. That's the excuse we may hear from Republican National Committee officials who were so worried about losing Trump that they sold their party's principles away to keep him in the fold. At several instances, the RNC could have made a difference if it had repudiated him, demanded that he release tax information or allowed delegates to vote their conscience. Moreover, this doesn't explain why GOP primary voters failed to reject an ignoramus, a racist, a xenophobe and a dangerous narcissist. By the time the primaries rolled around — and certainly the general election — they knew exactly what they were getting. They voted for him anyway. It's the fault of white voters who didn't turn out. This sort of magical thinking is what got the GOP into trouble in the first place. There is no electoral majority of right-wing, older white males who resent women in the workplace and immigrants in their country. Americans are a diverse, tolerant nation of immigrants who, generally speaking, do not hate government; the GOP's resistance to that reality has led to its current, sorry state. It was closer than the [Goldwater/McCain/Romney] race. If Trump goes down to defeat, the margin may be big or small. Nevertheless, he will have lost to Hillary Clinton, for goodness' sake, who is the most flawed, disliked and untrustworthy major-party candidate in history with one exception. It's not enough to say that Trump (perhaps) made it close. Any other Republican should have cleaned up against a candidate with this many faults. No, my dear Republicans, if Trump loses, they have themselves to blame — for adopting a white-grievance mentality, for burrowing in a right-wing media cave, for pretending that the country is supposed to be what it was in 1950 when white Christian America was supreme, for listening to anti-immigrant advocates spout untruths to justify xenophobia, for getting cowed by the irrational mob, for becoming anti-government ideologues, for forgetting the essence of modern conservatism (humility, caution, respect for fellow Americans, dedication to equality of opportunity), for losing interest in good governance, for following religious charlatans who laughably claim the moral high ground, for giving way to all-or-nothing purists who make money from obstructionist tactics and for refusing to denounce hucksters and con men who plowed the way for Trump. If the party doesn't attend to those very real, serious problems, it will keep on losing presidential races — and maybe fade away altogether. Jennifer Rubin writes The Right Turn blog for The Washington Post. Pass the crow Ms. Rubin.

The Washington Post on Thursday became the latest ...

We’re way beyond media bias. They are all-in. The media is the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. There’s not even a pretense of objectivity. It’s so bad, the New York Times had to write a front-page story last weekend talking about how painful it is for real journalists for the first time in their careers out of a sense of duty to adopt an oppositional stance to a candidate. They’ve never done that before, and since they’ve had to do it with Trump, it also looks like they’re pro-Hillary, and they’re so uncomfortable with this!  (Rush Limbaugh 8/15/2016)

TheWashington Post on Thursday became the latest US newspaper toemphatically endorse Hillary Clinton for the White House, saying it wasswayed as much by her competence as by the alarming specter of a DonaldTrump presidency. Rush Limbaugh- 16 hrs ago Never been through anything like this before, except that we all think we have. This is topping anything. I think it's establishing my point that we don't have a media, folks. There's no media. And we're so far beyond bias to describe what's going on here, that doesn't even get close to touching it. "Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation," the influential US daily wrote, adding, "no, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms Clinton's chief opponent is dreadful." Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee "is dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart," the newspaper wrote while acknowledging her many political and personal missteps of the past -- failings it said are outweighed by her strengths. "She has executive experience. She does not let her feelings get in the way of the job at hand. She is well positioned to get something done," the daily wrote. Under the stewardship of owner Jeff Bezos (Amazon), the WaPost has gone  from being reliably liberal to full fledged New York Times clone. I think what Rush is saying in the insert is, we're at a point where it's possible for Hillary forces to blatantly steal the election and the media would refuse to question it. The solution?  A groundswell of Trump votes so great that they would fear for their lives to even try. I'm just saying. Say Amen.

Trump will trump Bezos

I had hopes that Amazon owner Jeff Bezos's purchase of the WaPost would lead to something a little less left-wing doctrinaire. I don't know why I did, but I did.  It took  about a month to watch the chips fall, and they were not falling the right way.  Anyway, I just Googled the Redskin Insider to see the shakeout from last night's  20-13 victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  This is what I saw on the page. I wait eagerly to read about a successful "interception" of an Amazon delivery drone. THIS JUST IN Shameless WashPost Buries Its Own Poll Showing Record Low in Popularity for Hillary

Washington Post blog site joins the WP conga line

Democrat Media Monkeys

A Washington Post blog site joins the conga line of the busted. The reporter for the Washington Post’s blog, The Plum Line, is described by the news outlet thusly: “Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant – what you might call ‘opinionated reporting’ from the left. He joined the Post in early 2009, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer.” So, Sargent is identified as the go-to-guy that enables the DNC to “help control the narrative on the front end.” He delivers the mail for the Party. Wikileaks revealed, within the 74 emails where Sargent’s name in mentioned in Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, that the substance of Sargent’s “opinionated” columns comes not from his keen analysis of political events, nor is it rooted solely in his liberal, political philosophy.  Instead, his particular slant leans heavily on DNC input where support for the Clinton candidacy is, and has been from the start of this election cycle, firmly established. In short, Sargent is a DNC-Clinton shill on the payroll of the Washington Post. [Full, with examples] In addition to coordinating his blog columns with DNC communicators, Sargent is a conduit for DNC talking points that travel through him to rank-and-file Washington Post (WaPo) reporters. Most of us have known for what seems like forever that the Left media are shills for the Democratic Party. Now we have the Mona Lisa example, framed in gilt. What difference will it make?  None.  People who might benefit from this knowledge will never read, nor hear about it in their social media cocoons.

WaPost Names Reaganite Publisher

The Last Graham Crumb ...

*snort*