6 ms·

Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) is that this is all caused by fears from the Obama administration

by gcb0 7y ago

Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) is that this is all caused by fears from the Obama administration personnel: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-int... Though it is also the narrative on russia propaganda sites https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-assange-trump/ https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-as...

mc32 7y ago
It’s odd, I just heard Greenwald pinning it on the Trump admin. Not the legacy of of Obama’s DoJ. I guess he’d like to see Trump personally involved to rescind the prev DoJ indictment? Also international left is still on his side defending him, but thd US left want to see him hung out to dry. Interesting split.
- kmkemp 7y ago
  Odd, that's not my impression. Seems like the center (on both sides) and non-libertarian right want to see him in jail.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    Wikileaks is reliably anti-institution, regardless of what that institution is. That implies that anyone seeking political power through control of institutions would be against him, which includes basically all non-libertarians in the U.S, as well as any major corporation, NGO, or nation-state large enough to be a target. His support would come from smaller nations (like Ecuador) or civil-rights organizations that themselves serve as watchdogs for institutionalized power.
    - kmkemp 7y ago
      "seeking political power through control of institutions" seems entirely subjective. Why is someone on the far left running for office doing this moreso than a libertarian?
      - nostrademons 7y ago
        Because they have fundamentally different ideas for how much control those institutions should have over individual people. The far left (assuming communism here, which is the historical far left, though "far left" in America today is somewhat more tame) believes that all citizens should have an equitable distribution of resources, and that it's justified to compel people to work to achieve this equality. The libertarian philosophy is that people should not be compelled to do anything. One of these necessarily involves the exercise of more power by institutions. You could look at it through the lens of positive vs. negative rights. The far left believes in positive rights (eg. the right to health care, the right to education) which require action by another party. If no party is willing to provide those services, the only way to guarantee that right is to force someone. Libertarians believe in negative rights (eg. freedom from violence, freedom from compulsion, freedom from taxation), which just require inaction. If you simply get rid of the institution, you assure the rights that libertarians care about - at least until some other institution crops up that seeks to infringe upon them. (Many libertarians make exceptions to their general anti-institutional bent to assure that no other institution crops up. For example, most support the government's monopoly on physical force simply to prevent some warlord from generating a local monopoly on physical force and using it to take away the freedoms from compulsion or theft, as long as that's the only purpose that it's used for.)
        panarky 7y ago
        > to compel people to work ... I'm not aware of any "far-left" party or politician in the US or Europe who says it's justified to compel anyone to work. Taxing income or redistributing wealth does not compel anyone to work. Indeed, it's right-libertarian policies that tend to transfer wealth from those at the bottom of the pyramid who work to those at the top of the pyramid who do not work.
        antidesitter 7y ago
        > it's right-libertarian policies that tend to transfer wealth from those at the bottom of the pyramid who work to those at the top of the pyramid who do not work Historical experience suggests the opposite.
    - 1024core 7y ago
      > Wikileaks is reliably anti-institution, regardless of what that institution is. .. unless the "institution" is Putin's government, of course.
      - mc32 7y ago
        I think we all understand that that one is one to keep at arms length lest you have unusual chemicals delivered in your drink of choice.
        vkou 7y ago
        I think we all understand that when you're being sheltered in a government's embassy, you should probably not piss that government off. Unfortunately, 'we all' does not seem to include Mr. Assange.
      - jammygit 7y ago
        I don't know the details, but Wiki leaks did publish leaked material about Russia over the years. For example, the surveillance stuff turned up after a quick search https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/
- frank_nitti 7y ago
  The "left" is too broad a stroke to paint with for this situation. The left in the US is quite split on these issues (and an increasing number of other issues). The so-called "New Democrats" (think Clinton, Biden, Kamala Harris) are surely who you are referring to; they want him crucified. The "progressive" wing of the left (think Ralph Nader) do NOT fit that description. IMHO as a lifelong Southern California resident in Los Angeles, the progressive left has more support among common people, but the Clinton Democrats have more support from the donor class. Hence, the media narrative of the American left is dominated by the corporatist dems.
  - joejerryronnie 7y ago
    I don’t believe the progressive left have more support among common people. They have more support among a small minority of very vocal people on social media which makes their influence seem much larger than it is. I think we’ll see a huge backlash against progressives in the next election cycle.
    - frank_nitti 7y ago
      I suppose we will see. The Republican establishment thought the same thing about Trump in 2016 -- a small but vocal minority. By and large, people I spoke to during 2016 were not fans of Hillary Clinton, but had resigned to the fact the she would be the candidate by virtue of her wealthy donors. Identity politics is still a big thing on the left, so the fact that Bernie Sanders, despite being an "old white man", has so much support from the common people speaks volumes about the shift away from the Clinton-era centrism
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      How come that didn't come to pass in the most recent election?
  - ataturk 7y ago
    Identify as: Those who did horribly corrupt things/committed crimes and those whose crimes are more modest.
nostrademons 7y ago
TheHill is right-center (although it's right-leaning in the old Bush/Romney sense, not the newer Trump sense): https://www.adfontesmedia.com/product/media-bias-chart-4-0-downloadable-image-and-standard-license-copy/#iLightbox[]/0 https://www.adfontesmedia.com/product/media-bias-chart-4-0-d...
- vidoc 7y ago
  I think there is a problem in this Matrix as CNN appears very close to the center :) I'm proposing another classification system based on a simple binary checkbox named "Telegraphist of the state department" and I am putting the entirety of mainstream media in it.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    In other words "they're all the same".
  - robdachshund 7y ago
    CNN are hardcore neoliberals. Very center right. You gotta remember that these days the Democrats have neolibs, socialists, and full blown communists. I'm not joking or exaggerating.
  - rrix2 7y ago
    Sounds like a pretty useless classification system for the current situation, honestly
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) TheHill is solid right (or maybe center-right if one views the neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party as center-left instead of center-right.) It's not “left-center” in any case.
belltaco 7y ago
>Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) is that this is all caused by fears from the Obama administration personnel The author isn't left-center biased. It's the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon >John F. Solomon is an American media executive and columnist. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill.[1] He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[2] He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals

by gcb0 7y ago

mc32 7y ago

It’s odd, I just heard Greenwald pinning it on the Trump admin. Not the legacy of of Obama’s DoJ. I guess he’d like to see Trump personally involved to rescind the prev DoJ indictment? Also international left is still on his side defending him, but thd US left want to see him hung out to dry. Interesting split.

kmkemp 7y ago
Odd, that's not my impression. Seems like the center (on both sides) and non-libertarian right want to see him in jail.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  Wikileaks is reliably anti-institution, regardless of what that institution is. That implies that anyone seeking political power through control of institutions would be against him, which includes basically all non-libertarians in the U.S, as well as any major corporation, NGO, or nation-state large enough to be a target. His support would come from smaller nations (like Ecuador) or civil-rights organizations that themselves serve as watchdogs for institutionalized power.
  - kmkemp 7y ago
    "seeking political power through control of institutions" seems entirely subjective. Why is someone on the far left running for office doing this moreso than a libertarian?
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      Because they have fundamentally different ideas for how much control those institutions should have over individual people. The far left (assuming communism here, which is the historical far left, though "far left" in America today is somewhat more tame) believes that all citizens should have an equitable distribution of resources, and that it's justified to compel people to work to achieve this equality. The libertarian philosophy is that people should not be compelled to do anything. One of these necessarily involves the exercise of more power by institutions. You could look at it through the lens of positive vs. negative rights. The far left believes in positive rights (eg. the right to health care, the right to education) which require action by another party. If no party is willing to provide those services, the only way to guarantee that right is to force someone. Libertarians believe in negative rights (eg. freedom from violence, freedom from compulsion, freedom from taxation), which just require inaction. If you simply get rid of the institution, you assure the rights that libertarians care about - at least until some other institution crops up that seeks to infringe upon them. (Many libertarians make exceptions to their general anti-institutional bent to assure that no other institution crops up. For example, most support the government's monopoly on physical force simply to prevent some warlord from generating a local monopoly on physical force and using it to take away the freedoms from compulsion or theft, as long as that's the only purpose that it's used for.)
      - panarky 7y ago
        > to compel people to work ... I'm not aware of any "far-left" party or politician in the US or Europe who says it's justified to compel anyone to work. Taxing income or redistributing wealth does not compel anyone to work. Indeed, it's right-libertarian policies that tend to transfer wealth from those at the bottom of the pyramid who work to those at the top of the pyramid who do not work.
        antidesitter 7y ago
        > it's right-libertarian policies that tend to transfer wealth from those at the bottom of the pyramid who work to those at the top of the pyramid who do not work Historical experience suggests the opposite.
  - 1024core 7y ago
    > Wikileaks is reliably anti-institution, regardless of what that institution is. .. unless the "institution" is Putin's government, of course.
    - mc32 7y ago
      I think we all understand that that one is one to keep at arms length lest you have unusual chemicals delivered in your drink of choice.
      - vkou 7y ago
        I think we all understand that when you're being sheltered in a government's embassy, you should probably not piss that government off. Unfortunately, 'we all' does not seem to include Mr. Assange.
    - jammygit 7y ago
      I don't know the details, but Wiki leaks did publish leaked material about Russia over the years. For example, the surveillance stuff turned up after a quick search https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/ https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/
frank_nitti 7y ago
The "left" is too broad a stroke to paint with for this situation. The left in the US is quite split on these issues (and an increasing number of other issues). The so-called "New Democrats" (think Clinton, Biden, Kamala Harris) are surely who you are referring to; they want him crucified. The "progressive" wing of the left (think Ralph Nader) do NOT fit that description. IMHO as a lifelong Southern California resident in Los Angeles, the progressive left has more support among common people, but the Clinton Democrats have more support from the donor class. Hence, the media narrative of the American left is dominated by the corporatist dems.
- joejerryronnie 7y ago
  I don’t believe the progressive left have more support among common people. They have more support among a small minority of very vocal people on social media which makes their influence seem much larger than it is. I think we’ll see a huge backlash against progressives in the next election cycle.
  - frank_nitti 7y ago
    I suppose we will see. The Republican establishment thought the same thing about Trump in 2016 -- a small but vocal minority. By and large, people I spoke to during 2016 were not fans of Hillary Clinton, but had resigned to the fact the she would be the candidate by virtue of her wealthy donors. Identity politics is still a big thing on the left, so the fact that Bernie Sanders, despite being an "old white man", has so much support from the common people speaks volumes about the shift away from the Clinton-era centrism
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    How come that didn't come to pass in the most recent election?
- ataturk 7y ago
  Identify as: Those who did horribly corrupt things/committed crimes and those whose crimes are more modest.

nostrademons 7y ago

TheHill is right-center (although it's right-leaning in the old Bush/Romney sense, not the newer Trump sense): https://www.adfontesmedia.com/product/media-bias-chart-4-0-downloadable-image-and-standard-license-copy/#iLightbox[]/0 https://www.adfontesmedia.com/product/media-bias-chart-4-0-d...

vidoc 7y ago
I think there is a problem in this Matrix as CNN appears very close to the center :) I'm proposing another classification system based on a simple binary checkbox named "Telegraphist of the state department" and I am putting the entirety of mainstream media in it.
- root_axis 7y ago
  In other words "they're all the same".
- robdachshund 7y ago
  CNN are hardcore neoliberals. Very center right. You gotta remember that these days the Democrats have neolibs, socialists, and full blown communists. I'm not joking or exaggerating.
- rrix2 7y ago
  Sounds like a pretty useless classification system for the current situation, honestly

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) TheHill is solid right (or maybe center-right if one views the neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party as center-left instead of center-right.) It's not “left-center” in any case.

belltaco 7y ago

>Interesting, as the current narrative (on thehill.com, a left-center bias news source no less) is that this is all caused by fears from the Obama administration personnel The author isn't left-center biased. It's the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Solomon >John F. Solomon is an American media executive and columnist. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill.[1] He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[2] He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals