7 ms·

An independent activist journalist has been digging into the case and has come up with some interesting and alarming connections and history. Worth a read: htt

An independent activist journalist has been digging into the case and has come up with some interesting and alarming connections and history. Worth a read: https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2019/07/08/the-jeffrey-epstein-rabbit-hole-goes-a-lot-deeper-than-you-think/ https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2019/07/08/the-jeffrey-epstein...

bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
I find it interesting that both the words independent and activist had to be brought out to qualify the wonderful journalism from Michael Krieger. Wasn't there a time when it was somewhat assumed that journalists were both independent and activists to some extent? Thanks for sharing the link!
- techntoke 7y ago
  No, news and media companies use paywalls and still bombard you with ads. Activist and independent journalist likely just care about spreading truth for the betterment of humanity.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    The example of an "independent" "journalist" linked above is choke-full with pleads for donations. They are far less likely to be unencumbered by the need to generate income than someone with a job at the Washington Post or the like.
- burkaman 7y ago
  No? Independent is unusual, most journalists work for an organization. Activist is also unusual and probably somewhat controversial; I'm guessing many journalists would say their job is to be objective, not to be an activist.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    I find activist refreshingly honest. I've found that you can read a pretty clear agenda from most writers when you read enough from them - in what they report, but mostly in what they do not report. They are activists, but they claim not to be, because that claim makes their activism more powerful.
- binarymax 7y ago
  Indeed! I only discovered him through chance on twitter recently and have been reading his articles and really enjoying his work.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  Journalists at quality publications (Economist, NYT, AP) still are independent, at least in the sense that they are not accepting bribes from Epstein or the oil industry etc. The linked site has all the markers of being untrustworthy: conspiratorial headlines ending in "What's really going on"; A fascination with cryptocurrencies; Incessant calls for donations, the name, etc. FWIW the Epstein angle – that he is a Mossad agent – isn't "buried" by the mainstream media. I have seen this theory mentioned. It is just not featured prominently because there is no substantive evidence for it. It's just a Deus Ex Machina that could conveniently explain the dereliction of duty of the criminal justice system in the case. Journalists never were supposed to be "activists", except for some universally accepted concepts such as democracy and transparency. There is a memorable scene in a documentation of the NYT called "Page One", where Brian Stelter is filmed asking Assange if he considers himselself a journalist or an activist. What has changed are the widely-shared "assumptions". It's become a marker of one's smartitude to rail against "mainstream" journalism.
  - danenania 7y ago
    Every journalist is an activist for some point of view. An establishment-friendly bias is just as much a bias as anti-establishment bias. There’s nothing wrong with this—journalists are just people. But it’s dishonest to pretend that your own bias doesn’t exist and you are doing ‘objective journalism’ while other perspectives are ‘activist’. An informed reader should understand the biases present in anything they read and weigh the arguments accordingly—pretending objectivity discourages this kind of responsibility and is very harmful to good-faith discourse.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      Yes and no, but mostly no. Every person who is a journalist has a bias. But the point of the practice/process of journalism is to mitigate those personal influences. Just because you're investigating and writing does mean you're a journalist. Maybe you're doing glorified op-ed. Maybe you're being a wannabe reporter. But being a journaliat is a higher level. If you're not aware of the difference between op-ed, reporter, and journalism then...you're not a journalist. One of the biggest communication problems we have today is that too many assume they understand the definition of journalism (and the processess and ethics on which its built), but they do not. Yet they continue to use the word inappropriately. Others blindly follow. And so on. Long to short, people use "journalism" like they use "literally"; most of the time in the wrong way at the wrong time.
- smolder 7y ago
  Once upon a time, yes, I think that was the perception of journalism. Activists in the sense they sought to expose the public to interesting information for the good of transparency.
edoo 7y ago
That is called journalism, not activism. Activist journalist are a stain on the industry.
- Liquix 7y ago
  Some prefer an (occasionally abrasive) activist journalist to a 'pure' journalist observing the world from sealed towers. The former may be more in touch with or passionate about their subject material. Different strokes for different folks
  - edoo 7y ago
    Journalists are supposed to have ethics. They are supposed to report the facts. About as activist as you could get without ditching ethics would be to only do real journalism on what you think matters. I bet it would be fairly easy to create a tool nowadays that reads articles and highlights objective journalism vs subjective activism. Most 'journalism' nowadays is thinly veiled propaganda.
    - eropple 7y ago
      Once you actually noodle on what journalism is, "objectivity" to this sort of mindset boils down to "print box scores and shut the presses down after." An intern recording singles versus walks is fine but it's neither reporting nor journalism any moreso than a phone book is. There is no, has never been any, and never will be "objective journalism" because it is a contradiction in terms. Journalists are tasked with telling the truth as they understand it. This involves research and the understanding of facts, sure. It also, inescapably and to the real dismay of a certain segment of the universe that, candidly, often seems generally indisposed to having a society, means having an opinion and informing that reporting through it. That opinion is as much "this is worthy of being discussed" as it is "this is wrong and an affront to decency" and both of these are necessary, inescapable, and inextricable components of journalism. It's definitional. It's what the thing is. "Objective journalism" is a contradiction in terms. Where journalism can fail, and there is certainly a historical record of it, is believing oneself entitled to one's own facts. But that is separate from one's interpretation of those facts--and, generally though not universally, the invention of one's own facts does not end well for a journalist who attempts it (see Stephen Glass for an example).
starpilot 7y ago
> It seems like the whole Epstein thing was an elaborate professional blackmail operation intended to ensnare the rich and powerful. But who was really behind it, who was really bankrolling Epstein? Is there any doubt at this point? It was Mossad. It couldn't have been an American agency, the fallout would be too great. Edit: This has been suspected as early as 1992. This is not pizzagate/qanon bullshit. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ch7bnm/the_mystery_of_ghislaine_maxwells_secret_love/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ch7bnm/the_myst...
- rrggrr 7y ago
  Zero chance Mossad. Zero. - MI6 had to have known of Price Andrew's association with Epstein. There's no way the Royal Family isn't on their grid. - CIA & SS had to have known of Clinton's association with Epstein. Again, no way former Presidents are not under a tight CI net. No way. - It was reported an expired Saudi passport was found in Epstein's safe; and it was also reported/speculated that Ehud Barak was caught in Epstein's web. - After the 1987 Pollard affair Israel and the US came to an understanding Israel would not operate in the US. At risk was/is more than $3b in aid to Israel, access to US intel and a seat under the US security umbrella. - Epstein appeared to be trafficking Russian women. No way this wasn't noticed by FSB. "Best" case Epstein was operating independently for a time, blackmailing private businesspeople. "Worst" case he was operating on behalf of a foreign power (Saudi? Russia?). However, ultimately the US IC had to involve itself (see above) and it could be he was being run by several competing interests at once. Highly unlikely anyone will ever know what really happened. Trial is about a year away. One wonders if he will still be alive.
  - everdrive 7y ago
    Glad to know you're so well informed about about both the details and incentives of the various worldwide spy agencies.
  - xxpor 7y ago
    > It was reported an expired Saudi passport was found in Epstein's safe; That's not exactly true. It was reported the passport listed a residence in SA, but the country that issued the passport was undisclosed.
cletus 7y ago
That is interesting although I'm wary of any allusions to a suicide or accident (of Robert Maxwell) being nefarious without some pretty significant proof. Like... it's just a recipe for getting painted as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. As for the relation to Robert Maxwell, didn't his connection to underage girls at that time come from him being a teacher at an elite school? Wouldn't you expect such students to have famous and/or rich parents? But here's the big one... can we please stop shoe-horning long form content into "Twitter threads"? That's not a thing. It's a terrible way of presenting long form content and it needs to die.
- anbop 7y ago
  That’s true in average cases but at the highest levels of power, having inconvenient people killed is just another power like getting caviar delivered by private jet.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Even ignoring conspiracies there's many, many people in our government who have people killed as a legitimate and legal part of their job. If you include legitimate killings by military personnel, there's a LOT of killers walking the streets. It's a very standard part of life that's hard for most people to really grasp. Once you consider that there are literally thousands upon thousands of legitimate, legal killers in the country, and a smaller set of people with the power to order those killers to do killing, it really doesn't make sense to assume that all the killing is above board.
  - el_cujo 7y ago
    I don’t think what you’re saying is wrong, but all of these people live in the real world where accidents/sudden illness/etc do happen every day, so it would be nice to have some evidence beyond “this guy benefitted from this other guy dying.” I’m not a lawyer or anything, but even the legal system isn’t really supposed to look at motivation as evidence in a case, though I’m sure it sways juries.
    - 7y ago
13415 7y ago
> https://libertyblitzkrieg.com https://libertyblitzkrieg.com As far as I can see, this site is not trustworthy and does not produce any news or employ any journalists.

bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago

I find it interesting that both the words independent and activist had to be brought out to qualify the wonderful journalism from Michael Krieger. Wasn't there a time when it was somewhat assumed that journalists were both independent and activists to some extent? Thanks for sharing the link!

techntoke 7y ago
No, news and media companies use paywalls and still bombard you with ads. Activist and independent journalist likely just care about spreading truth for the betterment of humanity.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  The example of an "independent" "journalist" linked above is choke-full with pleads for donations. They are far less likely to be unencumbered by the need to generate income than someone with a job at the Washington Post or the like.
burkaman 7y ago
No? Independent is unusual, most journalists work for an organization. Activist is also unusual and probably somewhat controversial; I'm guessing many journalists would say their job is to be objective, not to be an activist.
- luckylion 7y ago
  I find activist refreshingly honest. I've found that you can read a pretty clear agenda from most writers when you read enough from them - in what they report, but mostly in what they do not report. They are activists, but they claim not to be, because that claim makes their activism more powerful.
binarymax 7y ago
Indeed! I only discovered him through chance on twitter recently and have been reading his articles and really enjoying his work.
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
Journalists at quality publications (Economist, NYT, AP) still are independent, at least in the sense that they are not accepting bribes from Epstein or the oil industry etc. The linked site has all the markers of being untrustworthy: conspiratorial headlines ending in "What's really going on"; A fascination with cryptocurrencies; Incessant calls for donations, the name, etc. FWIW the Epstein angle – that he is a Mossad agent – isn't "buried" by the mainstream media. I have seen this theory mentioned. It is just not featured prominently because there is no substantive evidence for it. It's just a Deus Ex Machina that could conveniently explain the dereliction of duty of the criminal justice system in the case. Journalists never were supposed to be "activists", except for some universally accepted concepts such as democracy and transparency. There is a memorable scene in a documentation of the NYT called "Page One", where Brian Stelter is filmed asking Assange if he considers himselself a journalist or an activist. What has changed are the widely-shared "assumptions". It's become a marker of one's smartitude to rail against "mainstream" journalism.
- danenania 7y ago
  Every journalist is an activist for some point of view. An establishment-friendly bias is just as much a bias as anti-establishment bias. There’s nothing wrong with this—journalists are just people. But it’s dishonest to pretend that your own bias doesn’t exist and you are doing ‘objective journalism’ while other perspectives are ‘activist’. An informed reader should understand the biases present in anything they read and weigh the arguments accordingly—pretending objectivity discourages this kind of responsibility and is very harmful to good-faith discourse.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Yes and no, but mostly no. Every person who is a journalist has a bias. But the point of the practice/process of journalism is to mitigate those personal influences. Just because you're investigating and writing does mean you're a journalist. Maybe you're doing glorified op-ed. Maybe you're being a wannabe reporter. But being a journaliat is a higher level. If you're not aware of the difference between op-ed, reporter, and journalism then...you're not a journalist. One of the biggest communication problems we have today is that too many assume they understand the definition of journalism (and the processess and ethics on which its built), but they do not. Yet they continue to use the word inappropriately. Others blindly follow. And so on. Long to short, people use "journalism" like they use "literally"; most of the time in the wrong way at the wrong time.
smolder 7y ago
Once upon a time, yes, I think that was the perception of journalism. Activists in the sense they sought to expose the public to interesting information for the good of transparency.

edoo 7y ago

That is called journalism, not activism. Activist journalist are a stain on the industry.

Liquix 7y ago
Some prefer an (occasionally abrasive) activist journalist to a 'pure' journalist observing the world from sealed towers. The former may be more in touch with or passionate about their subject material. Different strokes for different folks
- edoo 7y ago
  Journalists are supposed to have ethics. They are supposed to report the facts. About as activist as you could get without ditching ethics would be to only do real journalism on what you think matters. I bet it would be fairly easy to create a tool nowadays that reads articles and highlights objective journalism vs subjective activism. Most 'journalism' nowadays is thinly veiled propaganda.
  - eropple 7y ago
    Once you actually noodle on what journalism is, "objectivity" to this sort of mindset boils down to "print box scores and shut the presses down after." An intern recording singles versus walks is fine but it's neither reporting nor journalism any moreso than a phone book is. There is no, has never been any, and never will be "objective journalism" because it is a contradiction in terms. Journalists are tasked with telling the truth as they understand it. This involves research and the understanding of facts, sure. It also, inescapably and to the real dismay of a certain segment of the universe that, candidly, often seems generally indisposed to having a society, means having an opinion and informing that reporting through it. That opinion is as much "this is worthy of being discussed" as it is "this is wrong and an affront to decency" and both of these are necessary, inescapable, and inextricable components of journalism. It's definitional. It's what the thing is. "Objective journalism" is a contradiction in terms. Where journalism can fail, and there is certainly a historical record of it, is believing oneself entitled to one's own facts. But that is separate from one's interpretation of those facts--and, generally though not universally, the invention of one's own facts does not end well for a journalist who attempts it (see Stephen Glass for an example).

starpilot 7y ago

> It seems like the whole Epstein thing was an elaborate professional blackmail operation intended to ensnare the rich and powerful. But who was really behind it, who was really bankrolling Epstein? Is there any doubt at this point? It was Mossad. It couldn't have been an American agency, the fallout would be too great. Edit: This has been suspected as early as 1992. This is not pizzagate/qanon bullshit. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ch7bnm/the_mystery_of_ghislaine_maxwells_secret_love/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ch7bnm/the_myst...

rrggrr 7y ago
Zero chance Mossad. Zero. - MI6 had to have known of Price Andrew's association with Epstein. There's no way the Royal Family isn't on their grid. - CIA & SS had to have known of Clinton's association with Epstein. Again, no way former Presidents are not under a tight CI net. No way. - It was reported an expired Saudi passport was found in Epstein's safe; and it was also reported/speculated that Ehud Barak was caught in Epstein's web. - After the 1987 Pollard affair Israel and the US came to an understanding Israel would not operate in the US. At risk was/is more than $3b in aid to Israel, access to US intel and a seat under the US security umbrella. - Epstein appeared to be trafficking Russian women. No way this wasn't noticed by FSB. "Best" case Epstein was operating independently for a time, blackmailing private businesspeople. "Worst" case he was operating on behalf of a foreign power (Saudi? Russia?). However, ultimately the US IC had to involve itself (see above) and it could be he was being run by several competing interests at once. Highly unlikely anyone will ever know what really happened. Trial is about a year away. One wonders if he will still be alive.
- everdrive 7y ago
  Glad to know you're so well informed about about both the details and incentives of the various worldwide spy agencies.
- xxpor 7y ago
  > It was reported an expired Saudi passport was found in Epstein's safe; That's not exactly true. It was reported the passport listed a residence in SA, but the country that issued the passport was undisclosed.

cletus 7y ago

That is interesting although I'm wary of any allusions to a suicide or accident (of Robert Maxwell) being nefarious without some pretty significant proof. Like... it's just a recipe for getting painted as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. As for the relation to Robert Maxwell, didn't his connection to underage girls at that time come from him being a teacher at an elite school? Wouldn't you expect such students to have famous and/or rich parents? But here's the big one... can we please stop shoe-horning long form content into "Twitter threads"? That's not a thing. It's a terrible way of presenting long form content and it needs to die.

anbop 7y ago
That’s true in average cases but at the highest levels of power, having inconvenient people killed is just another power like getting caviar delivered by private jet.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Even ignoring conspiracies there's many, many people in our government who have people killed as a legitimate and legal part of their job. If you include legitimate killings by military personnel, there's a LOT of killers walking the streets. It's a very standard part of life that's hard for most people to really grasp. Once you consider that there are literally thousands upon thousands of legitimate, legal killers in the country, and a smaller set of people with the power to order those killers to do killing, it really doesn't make sense to assume that all the killing is above board.
- el_cujo 7y ago
  I don’t think what you’re saying is wrong, but all of these people live in the real world where accidents/sudden illness/etc do happen every day, so it would be nice to have some evidence beyond “this guy benefitted from this other guy dying.” I’m not a lawyer or anything, but even the legal system isn’t really supposed to look at motivation as evidence in a case, though I’m sure it sways juries.
  - 7y ago

13415 7y ago

> https://libertyblitzkrieg.com https://libertyblitzkrieg.com As far as I can see, this site is not trustworthy and does not produce any news or employ any journalists.