All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Friday, May 15, 2020

WaPo's new mantra is Just Don't Report



As the walls close in on Obama's use of the FBI to spy on political opponents, the Washington Post has a simple solution for a press that aided and abetted him: If something looks bad "just don’t report that it does."

The full quote by columnist Greg Sargent is, "There is a legitimately difficult editorial challenge in figuring out how to scrutinize a mostly conventional politician who is running against a bottomlessly corrupt and dishonest opponent like Trump, as Brian Beutler has noted, without placing a similarly sized question mark over both of them.

"There’s just no doubt that this happened in 2016, as has been widely documented.

"This is plainly on its way to happening again. But it doesn’t have to. One way to avoid this: If something doesn’t actually 'boost' or 'lend fodder' to a big claim that Trump is making, just don’t report that it does.

"It’s simple, but it’s a start."

Just don't report.

Even by the Bizarro World standards of Washington, this call by a newspaper not to report the news is odd.

But the Washington Post believes democracy dies in darkness, and so it makes sense that it wants a news blackout of anything that proves the Russian Collusion hoax is a hoax.

Sargent's column is an ostrich denial of the truth.

He wrote, "Republican senators have just released a declassified list of Obama administration officials — including Trump opponent Joe Biden — who requested information that ended up 'unmasking' Flynn during the transition.

"Trump and his campaign have seized on this to further their claim that the Russia investigation was corrupt, and that Biden was key to that. Trump rails that this 'unmasking is a massive thing' that raises new questions about Biden’s role.

"Meanwhile, Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale insists this illustrates 'the depth of Biden’s involvement in the setup of Gen. Flynn to further the Russia collusion hoax.'

"This is steaming nonsense."

Steaming nonsense, he said without evidence.

Sargent and the Post attempt to make the release of the list of people who used the FBI to spy on President Trump the crime, not the illegal spying. Remember, Obama's FBI lied 17 times to get FISA warrants from judges.

Sargent wrote, "Biden’s presence on the list could turn it into an election year issue, though the document itself does not show any evidence of wrongdoing."

Hahaha.

People in Washington believe the rest of the nation is foolish enough to believe that using the FBI to spy on political opposition is not wrong.

The Washington Post rightly fears the unmasking of the unmaskers. It headline Sargent's column, "The 2016 nightmare is already repeating itself."

I sure hope so because Sargent's nightmare is the re-election of President Trump. Let us not reward Obama's evil spying with a third term by proxy.

47 comments:

  1. Media for 2 years:

    It didn't happen.
    It didn't happen.
    It didn't happen.

    Media now:

    Of course it happened, so what? It's perfectly normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some English Beat to honor the OCD narcissism of today’s talking/writing heads...

      Mirror in the bathroom
      Please talk free
      The door is locked
      Just you and me
      Can I take you to a restaurant
      That's got glass tables?
      You can watch yourself
      While you are eating
      Mirror in the bathroom
      I just can't stop it
      Every Saturday you see me
      Window shopping
      Find no interest in the
      Racks and shelves
      Just a thousand reflections
      Of my own sweet self, self, self, self, self
      Mirror in the bathroom
      You're my mirror in the bathroom
      You're my mirror in the bathroom
      You're my mirror in the bathroom
      Mirror in the bathroom
      Recompense
      For all my crimes
      Of self defense
      Cures you whisper
      Make no sense
      Drift gently into
      Mental illness

      Delete
    2. Fantastic response. I love it and the song quoted.

      Delete
  2. I have been trying in recent weeks to limit my use of Amazon. Not easy, as practically every fooking non-grocery store around here has been closed, but it’s still worth it, especially the smaller business support. Mr. PotatoHead (Bezos) needs to be sent a message, even if it’s only one person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hey, psst, zregime... your use of the sophomoric word 'fooking' is long past it's 'sell by' date. Seriously, it's annoying and .... no, just annoying.

      Delete
    2. Says the self-identified intellectual talking down to a well-liked contributor. I was going to say more, but I have to look up "sophomoric." - Gary B

      Delete
    3. man when y'all don't have a cogent rebuttal for me stating my opinion that zregime's repetative, banal and puerile use of 'fooking' is old, obtuse and annoying - well, bring out the namecalling and put-downs.

      Sorry if I know words you have to 'look up', I was told in 10th grade that a sophomore was translated as 'wise fool'. Guess it fits mr/ms Anonymous.

      Anonymous, get a room with Richard and zregime - or just let Z speak for himself. Hell, he may agree with me for all you two know.

      And sorry Don, I'm just tired of 'fooking', I didn't expect a ruddy Spanish Inquisition!

      Delete
    4. You've done it again. Now, I have to look up both "cogent" and "obtuse." Boy, do I feel dumb. - Gary B

      Delete
    5. I for one, appreciate Mr./Ms./Mrs. Regime's use of euphemisms for vulgar speech. In a house, where our five little ones are aged eleven down to four years, we employ the SpongeBob curse words of: "Fish Paste!"; "Tartar Sauce!"; and "Barnacles!"
      ...If any reader wants to read the most vile words and ad hominem attacks, please matriculate over to Politico and away from Mr. Surber's site.
      Rock on, Zregime. ZB

      Delete
    6. My aunt used Jesus Crime-in-Italy - that is also silly - why even hint at the obscene ZB? Why use a 'close' word as a placeholder? I used to call people a 'mother' in junior high until my dad said, you know, people will fill in the rest, so don't use that explative.

      Z can do what he wants, as I'm saying now for the THIRD time. But I will CONTINUE to deride that word, it's a silly word, a placeholder for the vulgar, and in America I should be able to say that without being told to let it be. Not gonna happen.

      Delete
    7. Here's to the lockdown ending, soon all over the States....Obsessively commenting/ re-responding to a semantics choice by a poster, demonstrates 'cabin fever' is rampant among us. Let's get out into the warm Sun and get some fresh air perspective... ZB

      Delete
    8. umm, xxx / ZB - 'fooking' is not semantics, it's volcabulary. My calling it out as a silly, because Z has been using it for months, has brought on myself a Spanish Inquisition of 'leave him alone anti-gay intellectual hater'. the only reason I keep replying is there is more going on here, and it's troubling.

      Don's blog is one of my first stops when cruzin', but I'm seeing more 'my way or the highway' from the posters here. the 'Susan' Anonymous has apparently gone away, but now when I comment as either Bandersnach [the Jabberwocky] or Old Laughing Lady [Neil Young song] I get ripped. Yes, I use two to see if it's the poster or the post readers.

      Lighten up folks. I never called anyone names, I complained about what I consider a silly placeholder 'fooking', and I'm assumed to be all sorts of things. Free speech for thee but not for me.

      I'm done here - I haven't seen ONE thing to support why I shouldn't say that 'fooking' is annoying. Not Z, not gays, just a word that's a useless placeholder for vulgarity.

      Delete
    9. I say, you are worse than a fooking grammar nazi, Baldsnatch.

      Delete
  3. Stay true Z.... Don't drink the Haterade!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. c'mon. I'm no hater - it's just dumb. and annoying. He has every right to keep using it. And I have every right to say it's dumb, Richard.

      Delete
    2. And Richard, get a room, or let him defend it himself. sheesh.

      Delete
    3. So, Bandy unmasks as anti-gay! Good to know...

      Delete
    4. Not a hater, just a name-caller. Isn't that what Democrats do? Wait a minute, did just call a name-caller a name-caller? Sorry for the name calling. - Gary B

      Delete
    5. so, Z speaks. Anti-gay!? I have know idea what sex you are Z, I called you 'he' cause the alternatives are way too long. And Gary B, I have used no name-calling - show me where. I called the word 'fooking' dumb, annoying, etc, and I defended Z's right to use it - I'm not name calling him - just that stupid, dumb, banal, obtuse word 'fooking'

      You folks sure are touchy - guess free speech in the public forum is fine unless you DON'T agree. Y'all get kerfuffled and downright prejudice - pre-judging me for not liking a word.

      Oh, is calling you 'touchy' namecalling. Tough!

      Delete
    6. btw I set a 'trap' in my last comment. See who gets caught. hehehe this is fun.

      Delete
    7. Bandersnach...thank you!!! Some time back I wrote that Z's use of the euphemism was "tedious."

      For that the hounds set upon me. Had there been tar and feathers, I would have been covered.

      Yea! I'm not alone in my opinion.

      Probably the best course is to skip over anything posted by the big Z.

      Poor thing. He thinks he is being genteel in his substitution.

      Delete
  4. What bothers the hell outta' me is that, regardless of the strength of the evidence, political crimes are not prosecuted unless the press approves. - Gary B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is a crime to be a leaker, is it a crime to b a leakee? Could it be that many members of the press fear being prosecuted themselves in connection with Obamagate?

      I, for one, want to see that lawyer friend of Comey's to whom he leaked stuff prosecuted, convicted, and disbarred. Willing to be he would still keep his job at Columbia Law School.

      Delete
    2. Woodward and Bernstein didn't, but they were targeting Nixon. The liberal press is a protected class. Was the Pentagon Papers a milestone regarding this issue? Who published that stolen information? Did they go to jail? If not, why is Julian Assange in jail? - Gary B

      Delete
  5. The Washington Post is hellbent on turning the National Enquirer into the gold standard of professional journalism. Who reads the WaPo anyway, with its ripoff paywall?
    NB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Enquirer shouldda won the Pulitzer for outing Mr. John Edwards' hypocritical lifestyle when no bi daily wanted to report negatively on one of their famed Dem. candidates; not unlike the Miami Herald's catching Gary Hart with Donna Rice back in the '80's. ZB

      Delete
  6. How come they never specify what corruption they're talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't always comment but when I do I project into future media narratives


    The release of the "unmaskers" is the latest salvo in a full on declared information war.

    It was a well timed salvo. Covid is winding down. It has connections with the "now" due to Biden being named. It's moderately sticky given Biden's bad handling of being asked about it. And if it were not supporting Trump it would have legs.

    But this salvo of information war does not have legs.

    Why? Because Barack the Great (blessed be his name) is a assumed by the DC press to be pure of heart and motive. No bad thing like using government spies to spy on a political opponent would EVER be done by Barack the Magic Community Organizer.

    But again this is just one salvo.

    The next info salvo should be interesting.

    Someone GOOSED Judge Sullivan BIG TIME to keep the Flynn case in limbo. Promised a Circuit appointment did we? Promised Sully to be a replacement for even RBG perhaps?

    Defensive Info War ammo is being prepared to be fired in Sullivan's court count on it.

    Republicans most likely have telegraphed a bit of their info war strategy by what will show up in long lead time stories for weeklies/monthlies. THOSE stories and headlines have leaked out (of course) and the Dem Deep Staters are pulling out all the stops to counter program.

    But at the end of the dark hearted deep state day. There is no getting around that Gen Flynn (a US Citizen, protected by our bill of rights) could ever be spied upon without a warrant.

    To quote the Bill of Rights

    Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    They needed probable cause
    They needed a warrant (specifically describing what they were looking for)
    They had neither for knowing that Gen Flynn talked to the Russian Ambassador

    But still they FBI asserted under OATH they did.

    And they CERTAINLY did not know anything to trap Flynn in a lie. Unless they cheated. And cheated
    they did.

    It's complex it will have twists and turns but ultimately the Obama Administration took on Spy powers against a US Citizen that violated Gen Flynn's Forth Amendment Rights.

    People WILL go to jail over this. They must.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we are at the beginning of the digital information war, aimed at the internet generation. It's gonna be mind numbing watching things I have known for MONTHS or YEARS, get slow rolled out. But, it might get interesting from time to time.

      Delete
  8. And just like that.... Democrats are no longer fans of investigations

    ReplyDelete
  9. When I try to have a conversation with my few Leftist friends and they say something that is totally false and I refute it with facts, they always say, "Show me where it says that. Go online right now and prove it." If I do the same thing to them they feel they don't have to prove it because, well, it's Trump. I don't try anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And when you show them the proof, they say the site you go To is unreliable and part of the conspiracy.

      Delete
    2. Yeah or just tell ya you are wrong and you are brainwashed. I don't try any more. I just nod and go on my way. If they have that big of a wooden stump in their eyes, I'm not going to get them to change. I'm less stressed now.
      TJ

      Delete
  10. Outstanding post, Mr. Surber.

    It's hard to tell who is a liar, who is in denial and who is just too plain stupid to grasp the truth about all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My old standby: If a tree falls in the wood and the NYT doesn't report it, did it make a sound?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends on whether that tree is going to fall on a Republican or a Democrat.

      Delete
  12. Repeat after me, "Democratic Party Propagandists of the Press."

    J in StL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Journalism is covering the news. With a pillow. Until it stops breathing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give credit where credit is due. Quote is from David Burge at iowahawkblog.

      Delete
  14. New motto should be "Coup conspiracies die in sunlight."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bandersna(t)ch ~ Honey turn on your fooking spell checker.
    Bessie May Moochoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the way I want it to be spelled... honey! When I created it on another site they had a length limit. so I cut the T - but why ask, just assume.

      I used it specifically for grammar nazis like you, who pick apart imagined error because they have absolutely no cogent replies.

      'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves,. And the mome raths outgrabe.

      and Bessie, honey... please, keep using fooking. Next time may I suggest all caps?

      Delete
  16. Modern jouranlism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats. - Jim Treacher

    ReplyDelete
  17. BanderFOOK - As you wish sir or madam, as the case may be. I was referring to your wretched orthography in your comments of 11:33 (repetative) and 2:38 (volcabulary). It detracts from the flow of your otherwise impeccable grammar, even if you are demeaning Zregime, who is certainly a more worthy commenter than you sir (or madam as the case may be).
    Bessie May Moochoe

    ReplyDelete
  18. During the height of the Russiagate inquisition a couple of years ago, these guy thought they sounded like roaring lions as they chorused out 'collusion and treason'. You know what they sound like now? They sound like babbling underclassmen who have inhaled helium at a frat party.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To Sargent and the Bezos Post a “ mostly conventional politician” is one who repeatedly told the most egregious lie in American political history — “If you want keep your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance; if you to keep your doctor, you an keep your doctor. And your family will save $2500 every year.”

    ReplyDelete