From Consortium News
The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible outcome were not a nuclear conflagration and maybe the end of life on planet Earth.
A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow the whistle on Russian hacking."
Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins contained one important admission (buried deep inside the "jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially for those Americans who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.
The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a different reality: that the Russia-gate "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary foundation.
"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said.
Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers whose thinking has been fattened up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies, however, have been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."
The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt.
"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic national Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then another reminder that "Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."
By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that any deviant views on this subject must be slapped down promptly and decisively.
A Flimsy Assessment
But that gets us back to the problem with the Jan. 6 "Intelligence Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims -- was not the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, but rather the work of a small group of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of President Obama's political appointees, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who called them "hand-picked."
Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present.
(Image by (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)) Details DMCA
Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they acknowledged was not a determination of fact, but rather what amounted to their best guess based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.
The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012 presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests, and reporting on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on American democracy.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
