My drug of choice, however, is X—though using it doesn’t really feel like much of a choice. I’m the editor of a daily politics-focused newsletter, where my duty is to provide readers with a more or less comprehensive digest of everything they need to know from the day’s news. On a normal day, the first thing I do when I wake up in the morning is check X. The last thing I do before going to bed is check X. I browse X while I sip my morning coffee. Throughout the day, I take breaks from writing to see if anything new has hit X that I might need to incorporate into my writing. After I’m done for the day, I keep monitoring X throughout the evening to get ahead of the next day’s stories. When I try to ignore X and source my writing from the “mainstream” press, I inevitably find that The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal has omitted some critical piece of context without which it is impossible to truly understand the story. If I take too much time away from X—on weekends, for instance—I inevitably find I lose the thread of the news, and have to work doubly hard on Monday to catch up.
– Park MacDougald (£) in an article about actual drugs of the performance enhancing kind.
Yes – even the supposedly conservative parts of the media, such as the Wall Street Journal, either ignore much of the news (the parts that the establishment do not like), or even push leftist establishment lies themselves.
Too many people at the Wall Street Journal or Fox News are “School of Journalism” types – indoctrinated in a certain way of working (relying on press releases – rather than seeking out the truth, “on the streets”, for themselves) and a certain view of the world.
This is why alternative sources of news are vital – but one must be careful of them, as they may also be unreliable.
For example, I was astonished when Rupert Murdoch fired Tucker Carlson – who was number one in the ratings. Then Mr Carlson started coming out with stories (which he claimed to believe) about Space Aliens landing in the United States, and then about Jews supposedly ruling the United States and slaughtering Muslim women and children for fun (Mr Carlson even claimed that Jews boasted of doing such things) – in short Rupert Murdoch had seen something in Mr Carlson that the viewers on his old Fox News show had not seen, that there was either an extreme dishonesty in Mr Carlson – or (and this is also possible – and we should have sympathy if it is true) that Mr Carlson was starting to suffer from a mental illness.
It is a similar story with Candice Owens – once also a respected alternative voice who (and this is forgotten now) broke some stories that had been covered up – tragically now Candice Owens goes around saying the Moon landings were faked and that the wife of the President of France is really a man.
So be careful of the establishment mainstream – but also be careful of alternative voices, as dissent (doubting the establishment line) can, sometimes, topple over into madness.
In short – the establishment press releases may indeed be a pack of lies, but what you hear (as an alternative “citizen journalist”) “on the street” may also be a pack of lies.
And I am not immune from being conned myself.
Part of the problem is that people who make their name uncovering an establishment cover-up are always looking for the next “scoop”.
They dread the question “what you found out last year was incredible – but what have you found out this year?”
The temptation to just go with incredible seeming stories (especially from previously good sources) can be too great.
But, most certainly, such people are vital – as the establishment media (including the supposedly conservative parts of it) leave out much of the news – and often wildly distort the news they do report.
When your primary income source relies on constant engagement (likes, retweets, etc) ,the temptation to resort to slop, sensationalism. and outright fake news must be very great. I’ve stopped using the ‘For you’ tab on Twitter because it’s just wall to wall slop accounts.
Martin – you make a good point.
There is a trap here – if you income is a salary then you may be compelled to go along with organization – for fear of losing your job.
But if your income depends on “scoops” you may be drawn, bit-by-bit, into pushing stories that are not just not true.
This is not just a trap in journalism – it is also a trap in intelligence work.
Indeed the work of a journalist and the work of an intelligence officer is much the same – including the need to be able to defend yourself against attacks and “accidents”.
Most of the time you will NOT find out important things – you just will NOT (no matter how hard you work). And on those rare occasions you do find out something of importance – other people or organizations may decide that the world would be a better place without you in it.
Sir Francis Walsingham, perhaps the best head of English (there was no United Kingdom back then) intelligence, solved this situation by funding a lot of work himself – that way he did not have to justify his budget.
But it did leave him close to bankruptcy.
By the way – death is certainly not the worst thing that can happen to an intelligence officer.
For example, the head of the CIA section in Beirut was taken alive – that was very unfortunate for him (and also very unfortunate for other persons).
Sometimes people just do not have time to take their own lives – someone can be “snatched” very quickly, a person may have no time to think and act.
Paul:
Candace Owens is not being mad in theorising that Brigitte Macron may have been born a male. She cannot speak French, and is merely following the work of a French journalist, Xavier Poussard. He now lives in Italy for his safety, but Mme Macron has brought a lawsuit against him alleging “cyber bullying”!
Mme Macron has brought a suit against Candace Owens alleging defamation. I doubt it will succeed, given the protections of the First Amendment. In any case, the official account of Mme Macron’s seduction of a teenage pupil is so vile that the suggestion she may also be a transgender hardly matters.
Mme Macron could settle this rather easily by offering a blood sample. If she has XX chromosomes, she is a woman. For some reason, she does not do this.
Hardly matters? It kinda does matter as being “transgender” is the accusation.
Or Mme Macron could just ignore the raving of a delusional lunatic like Candace Owens, which is what makes bring a lawsuit that’s certain to fail so absurd.
Mme Macron may or may not be a transgender. That is a matter for debate. But the fact that he/she is a borderline paedophile is not. I think it’s rather more serious, but in France it does not seem to be a big deal.
Perry:
Candace Owens may be a raving lunatic, I don’t know. However, she is really only the English language mouthpiece for the research conducted by Xavier Poussard, a French journalist who has moved to Italy in an attempt to be beyond the reach of the Macrons.
Mme Macron has not sued him for defamation, but for “cyber bullying”, the poor thing. If his claims are so hurtful to her, she has merely to show she has XX chromosomes and the matter must end. But she won’t. I am sure she has her own good reasons for this.
JohnK
Candace Owens believes that the Moon landings were faked.
Tucker Carlson believes, or claims to believe, that we are being visited by space aliens.
I rest my case.
Paul:
Candace Owens may believe that, but as I have said, the research into Mme Macron’s background is not hers, she cannot even speak French. The work has been done by Xavier Poussard, who wrote the book on the subject. Mme Macron would be well within her rights to sue him for defamation and then produce evidence she has XX chromosomes. Case closed. She does not do this, merely suing him for “cyber bullying”, which I assume does not require her to prove her sex. There must be a reason for this, I wonder what it is?