Veteran Journalist Blasts Networks for Being complicit with MIC

Original headline formated to fit.

Veteran NBC/MSNBC Journalist Blasts the Network for Being Captive to the National Security State and Reflexively Pro-War to Stop Trump

Glenn Greenwald is a self defined resident of the progressive left, though recent environments have brought him and other journalists (the few who deserve the title) to speak out on the bastardization of establishments that cast influence into the realms of society.

A veteran national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in a Monday email for becoming captive and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President Donald Trump, and now the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine’s promotion of militarism and imperialism. As a result of NBC/MSNBC’s all-consuming militarism, he said, “the national security establishment not only hasn’t missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength” and “is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism.”

Arkin has worked with NBC and MSNBC over the years and continuously since 2016. But yesterday, he announced that he was leaving the network in a long, emphatic email denouncing the networks for their superficial and reactionary coverage of national security, for becoming fixated on trivial Trump outbursts of the day to chase profit and ratings, and — most incriminating of all — for becoming the central propaganda arm of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI in the name of #Resistance, thus inculcating an entire new generation of liberals, paying attention to politics for the first time in the Trump era, to “lionize” those agencies and their policies of imperialism and militarism.

The Intercept

I encourage people to read the full article, but that's the gist.

Its little crums like this that keep me from losing all hope.

I'm happy to see people rise above the bs for the sake of "their side winning", and pointing out the toxicity of where we've gotten.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I can get behind him on buttoning up Syria. For those who see it as an opportunity to try and throw wrenches in the cogs, you're using soldiers and civilians as pawns in a game of pride and pissing contests.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Original headline formated to fit.


I'm not a Trump supporter

Ummm...why did you feel the need to preface area's that you obviously support the President in...with a qualifier such as that...?

Stop being disingenuous and admit that you do support the President...just because you don't support him in every instance and every utterance...doesn't equate equivocal non support...

Especially as you then go on to itemize areas and positions of his that you do in fact support...


Look...you don't have to...sell...us on anything...we understand and get your position...you've enunciated it enough already...

If every one of you that constantly boohoo's triviality would just be honest with yourselves for once...real conversations might just happen...

Please...continue to hoist yourselves on your own petards...

I doubt you'll ever find anyone...that is in total agreement with the president on everything he utters or promotes or accomplishes...not one...


By posting here...I assume your attempting to have a conversation...or perhaps merely orate to hear your own voice echo...

But please...start from a place of honesty...otherwise your attempt becomes parody...non paradoxically...





YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

YouSir l, thank you.

That's one of the most serious and personalized posts I've seen from you in some time.

Message received loud and clear. I don't agree with all of it, but as a whole I think you were right about alot.
cheers.

The liberal media would jump onboard and support virtually anything against Trump, even if it was certain to end with the entire country burning to the ground.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: YouSir

YouSir l, thank you.

That's one of the most serious and personalized posts I've seen from you in some time.

Message received loud and clear. I don't agree with all of it, but as a whole I think you were right about alot.
cheers.

Ummm...your welcome good sir...I very much enjoy and appreciate your opinion and how your mind works...

I just want to see more honesty on this site...

Beyond that...I really do love to dig my way into a persona so that I can observe the real individual...hiding out there in the core...

As far as your OP is concerned...Both Arkin and Greenwald are absolutely correct...and I lay the blame for this totally at Obama's feet...where it belongs...

The question is...short of enacting new protections through the house and senate...there's nothing we can do about it...other than shudder...and become even more insular...


Thank you for bringing this topic to the floor...I read the article and concur with your opinion of it...even though you never gave it...

You see my friend...I know you well enough by now to realize where you stand on this...and why...









YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

Thanks again, and all of it was well received and noted for future posting.

Per the article, I think it is very significant so long as these voices don't just get buried and replaced (which will probably happen).

Greenwald has dealt with that apparatus first hand and chooses to live in Brazil as a result of his lifestyle and career choices not being in line with the current environment. I think he does a hell of a job hiding the chip on his shoulder even though in my opinion I can perceive he has one. While he was doing the Snowden story, his boyfriend was picked up while flying out to Hong Kong to visit Glenn, and interogated for nine hours. They confiscated his electronic devices and sent him on his way as the UK can't hold someone more than 9 hours without charges.

The reason I find that important to point out is if Glenn was working on the story and it hadn't been released yet, how would they know to target his boyfriend? My opinion is they had been spying on them and knew that Greenwald was doing Snowden's story.

That kind of instance could ruin an individual's perception on the direction the west is going and rightfully so. I think it comes through in Greenwald's work, but he does so with class and will defend most any point if it's for reason.

Let's be honest, the MIC learned their lesson with Vietnam and ever since they've had the networks walking in lock step with them. This isn't a new phenomenon but it is definitely one that should continued to be condemned. So bravo to these journalists even if it is too little too late.

Did this guy just wake up out of a coma? Anyone that has been paying attention has seen the MSM is in bed with the MIC. It became blatantly clear when Trump called to pull the troops out of Syria the first time. Hopefully, more of these "journalists" can pull their heads out of their asses.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Let's be honest, the MIC learned their lesson with Vietnam and ever since they've had the networks walking in lock step with them. This isn't a new phenomenon but it is definitely one that should continued to be condemned. So bravo to these journalists even if it is too little too late.

Excellent point.

I wouldn't say too little too late, but rather we as a society are at a tipping point one way or the other.

The difference between the Vietnam era and today's is that we have access to other sources of information than just the conglomerate entertainment media.

This isn't a left vs right issue, this is an everyone issue.

There is a reason we see Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup Grumman ads on "news" networks. They throw a few million a year and bad stories don't get done on them, and if the networks have a gun to their head to run a story, it will be sugar coated.

Hopefully people will wake up and give the real journalists more attention, because if we're honest, real journalism is the only (or most effective) weapon against corruption.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Good read. Thanks for sharing.

There is clearly a profit motive for opposing Trump. Anti-Trumpism is lucrative, and the profits and subscriptions of anti-Trump outlets are soaring in what researchers call the "Trump Bump". Even I, a Trump defender, maintain my subscriptions to the NYT and WaPo, if only to see the hopeless drivel presented by Trump's eternal opposition.

The problem is, as the article suggests, is that the media is joining forces with the very powers they should be criticizing.

I've been warching you, you make sense regardless of political allegiance.

I like it and thank you.

As to the op... Just after the second World war it started, and it has simply grown since then.

Think about this... JFK assassinated, who took over?

It literally is what it is.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Thanks for the kind words.

Your remark about the military industrial complex getting traction post WWII brings Eisenhower's farewell speech to mind.


Short version for those who haven't seen.

a reply to: Propagandalf

They helped get him elected, their lopsided coverage of him was estimated to be billions in free advertising for his campaign.

And they continue to prosper by exploiting the environment.

Jon Stewart elegantly points out the current MSM positions on Trump. I miss him being part of the media, though it was parody or satirical, he had an incredible way of interjecting truth in a way others couldn't with the protection under comedy.

(short video, first two minutes are all that matter on this point)

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Propagandalf

They helped get him elected, their lopsided coverage of him was estimated to be billions in free advertising for his campaign.

And they continue to prosper by exploiting the environment.

Jon Stewart elegantly points out the current MSM positions on Trump. I miss him being part of the media, though it was parody or satirical, he had an incredible way of interjecting truth in a way others couldn't with the protection under comedy.

(short video, first two minutes are all that matter on this point)

They absolutely did.

Not only that, but they also gave massive free publicity for folks like David Duke, the alt-Right, the KKK, neo-Nazis. They reported on those silly racist marches unlike they have ever done in the past, as if the same sorts of marches haven't been occurring for generations with little to no fanfare. There would not have been a Charlottesville incident had they not reported on them incessantly. They blame their popularity on Trump, of course, but no one would have even known about these losers had the press not trotted them out as a sign of the times.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

He made a prescient speech. Most people act like idiots. As I said, it really is what it is.

a reply to: Propagandalf

The article is a medium length read, if you haven't checked it out, I at least implore you to read Arkin's email to other outlets warning of the direction the media is taking.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: CriticalStinker

He made a prescient speech. Most people act like idiots. As I said, it really is what it is.

Question is will it stay that way?

We as a country have gotten to the point where we are able to almost fully insulate ourselves from the ramifications of war.

My life aside from technological advances goes day to day as it did in 2000, yet we are in the longest active war of this countries history.

While I think it is possible that people of our nation don't wake up to the reality, someone somewhere will and they will demand balance through either a pen or a sword.

Unfortunately, American exceptionalism is so deeply rooted, you may even be called unpatriotic in the midst of Democrats should you question the motives of our foreign projection. The left at least used to provide a small amount of balance in this realm, forcing people at least to discuss and humor other ways of looking at foreign policy.... those days are gone though.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I never heard of him. And I watch MSNBC almost exclusively. Funny...
I googled his image and I never saw him.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

ok can someone please tell me what MIC is?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I never heard of him. And I watch MSNBC almost exclusively. Funny...
I googled his image and I never saw him.

Probably because MSNBC and the likes use Bush era "nation security" advisors as a guise for journalists.

How many true journalists do you hear speak about war? Jeremy Scahill is the only one that comes to mind for me.

And while Jeremy and I have very different ideologies, I think he is incredibly important in the context of questioning our foreign projection. Check out the documentary "Dirty Wars" (I believe it's on Netflix and Amazon) if you haven't before.