4 ms·

This is crazy. Ben Watson writes/edits for DefenseOne, which has certainly published a fair bit critical of Trump & his team; but then if you are a member of t

This is crazy. Ben Watson writes/edits for DefenseOne, which has certainly published a fair bit critical of Trump & his team; but then if you are a member of the reality-based community, and a public writer about stories in the national interest, it would be hard to not do that. Calling him a propagandist harkens back to dark American behaviors of the past rather than aspirational American values. It's also not like he writes for one of the publications that would be considered a particular gadfly to the Trump community, like NYT or Washington Post, so it would be good to investigate how this CBP officer even specifically knew to "call out" Watson.

smadge 7y ago
I don’t think the CBP officer has any specific knowledge of Watson or DefenseOne, but instead believes that generally journalists are propagandists and “enemies of the people” as Trump would phrase it.
- V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
  That's a fair point - I had taken it as a specific political targeting as opposed to part of the whole "the press is the enemy of the people" line of rhetoric. On the other hand, anyone pushing that line probably approves of Fox News, Washington Times, etc. - how would this CBP person have known to let such a person through? I guess maybe with some response back from the individual of "Naw, I work for Fox News - we fight the liberal propaganda!"
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  There's also very valid criticism that the media only started covering caging children in the last two years when it was a standard and awful practice since at least 2014.. and that story is just one of many. When you portray something as "unprecedented" when it has a long history, you're telling a story with an agenda, not reporting facts. Since CBP is the target of these stories, it makes sense that this officer - and many other targets - consider more and more journalists as simple propagandists. The answer is getting journalists to separate fact from fiction from conjecture and make it clear which is which. Society as a whole benefits from that, regardless of who is President.
  - V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
    To imply that there hasn't been some kind of serious inflection point with the current administration is to be disingenuous. That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with holding all administrations to equal account. But that doesn't in any way mean, grossly speaking, we should immediately cry bias if the amount of "negative" reporting isn't equal across administrations. >> Since CBP is the target of these stories, it makes sense that this officer - and many other targets - consider more and more journalists as simple propagandists. What makes sense is that they may be having an emotional reaction to feeling like they're being criticized or accused. That in no way supports the leap that the press are propagandists on the whole, or that they are specifically if they work for a critical publication. Even worse to not keep these very personal feelings out of doing your professional duties. I do work for the DoD, and strive to keep my political views out of my job performance and interactions with others in the USG, including valued colleagues that happen to support Trump. This episode reflects poorly on the United States, period.
    - caseysoftware 7y ago
      You are correct that there was an inflection point: The Press started doing their jobs again. Further, you don't have to have that many of the press are propagandists. You just need to experience Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect a few times and realize notice that 100% of the coverage is negative towards you, your work, your colleagues, and you get the above reaction. Not good, not acceptable in a professional context, but makes sense. Former DOJ/FBI here, wife was a Capital Hill reporter attached to the White House in 2 administrations.

smadge 7y ago

I don’t think the CBP officer has any specific knowledge of Watson or DefenseOne, but instead believes that generally journalists are propagandists and “enemies of the people” as Trump would phrase it.

V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
That's a fair point - I had taken it as a specific political targeting as opposed to part of the whole "the press is the enemy of the people" line of rhetoric. On the other hand, anyone pushing that line probably approves of Fox News, Washington Times, etc. - how would this CBP person have known to let such a person through? I guess maybe with some response back from the individual of "Naw, I work for Fox News - we fight the liberal propaganda!"
caseysoftware 7y ago
There's also very valid criticism that the media only started covering caging children in the last two years when it was a standard and awful practice since at least 2014.. and that story is just one of many. When you portray something as "unprecedented" when it has a long history, you're telling a story with an agenda, not reporting facts. Since CBP is the target of these stories, it makes sense that this officer - and many other targets - consider more and more journalists as simple propagandists. The answer is getting journalists to separate fact from fiction from conjecture and make it clear which is which. Society as a whole benefits from that, regardless of who is President.
- V_Terranova_Jr 7y ago
  To imply that there hasn't been some kind of serious inflection point with the current administration is to be disingenuous. That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with holding all administrations to equal account. But that doesn't in any way mean, grossly speaking, we should immediately cry bias if the amount of "negative" reporting isn't equal across administrations. >> Since CBP is the target of these stories, it makes sense that this officer - and many other targets - consider more and more journalists as simple propagandists. What makes sense is that they may be having an emotional reaction to feeling like they're being criticized or accused. That in no way supports the leap that the press are propagandists on the whole, or that they are specifically if they work for a critical publication. Even worse to not keep these very personal feelings out of doing your professional duties. I do work for the DoD, and strive to keep my political views out of my job performance and interactions with others in the USG, including valued colleagues that happen to support Trump. This episode reflects poorly on the United States, period.
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    You are correct that there was an inflection point: The Press started doing their jobs again. Further, you don't have to have that many of the press are propagandists. You just need to experience Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect a few times and realize notice that 100% of the coverage is negative towards you, your work, your colleagues, and you get the above reaction. Not good, not acceptable in a professional context, but makes sense. Former DOJ/FBI here, wife was a Capital Hill reporter attached to the White House in 2 administrations.