You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I think it is a well trodden path with journalists like Hersh, who expose establishment crimes and corruption. They get their big story maybe a few years of respect, then the establishment takes its retribution. The sources dry up, the editorial support evaporates and the article commissions get less frequent and from less established outlets.
The west doesn't have a free media, we have an owned media which is overwhelmingly and increasingly a mouthpiece for the oligarchy and the establishment. iirc it was the Levenson report which revealed the cosy triangle of backscratching, support and corruption between the media, the police and politics in the UK, in the US it is clearly even worse.
Given that environment, when a journalist is effectively "blacklisted" by the establishment, it is no surprise that all they can do is theorise and become increasingly paranoid, they have a reason to be paranoid, unfortunately imposing that paranoia onto everything they subsequently report on pushes them further into the side-lines.
but they would frame it as such if so
Did you read the stuff about Fox News pushing a conspiracy theory that they knew was such, without framing it as such?
I don't think this is something that The Times (paper) or Sky News would do, but I don't know enough about how Times Radio is structured yet in terms of editorial control and standards of journalism... let's just say I'm suspicious and wouldn't consider them publishing a story as lending any credibility to it at all... they are so far unproven and are part of the Murdoch family... I wouldn't rule out the "interest" of stories outweighing other factors as they try and grab an audience.
@kelvin whoops, I must have blanked out you mentioning Fox. Yea, I don't trust them one bit.
I trust Times, but haven't looked into them a huge amount tbh.
The really worrying thing about this is that if it was indeed Russia, and among the top of the potential explinations as to why is that Putin's actions have become insane and irrational, rather than just violent and poorly calculated, then, well, shit, he has a lot of nukes he could lash out with irrationaly
The only reason Russia would do it would be as a false flag type operation. It goes against logic. Team USA much more likely imo.
Did you read the stuff about Fox News pushing a conspiracy theory that they knew was such, withoutframing it as such?
What, this?
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/joy-reid-fox-news-lawsuits-rcna71292</span>
Like all Republicans and their glove-puppet media drones, you can always tell when they’re lying, their lips are moving and sounds are coming out of their mouths.
<div id="post-12730912" class="bbp-reply-header d-flex justify-content-between w-100">
<div class="bbp-reply-author d-flex align-items-center flex-wrap"><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.8rem;">The only reason Russia would do it would be as a false flag type operation. It goes against logic. Team USA much more likely imo.</span></div>
</div>
<div>Why? False flag operations are an integral part of Russia’s warfare and propaganda strategy, which they likely adopted from similar Nazi WW2 tactics, like Operation Himmler.</div>
<div></div>
<div> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler</div>
<div></div>
<div>Just look at the Salisbury poisonings, Putin absolutely denied any involvement, blaming it on our Government trying to destabilise Russia. The whole thing was utterly inept, but played well for those back home who believe implicitly everything they’re told. A false flag operation.
Russia has submersibles specifically designed to carry out this type of attack on foreign targets while allowing Russia to deny involvement and claim its a foreign false flag operation to make Russia look bad internationally.
Putin ran the KGB/FSB, he’s spent his entire life and career doing this stuff and using Russian media to create the Russia-as-victim narrative at home.</div>
BTW, I’m getting really fed up with all of the extra formatting crap that keeps appearing, I thought that had been dealt with ages ago. 🤬
The west doesn’t have a free media, we have an owned media which is overwhelmingly and increasingly a mouthpiece for the oligarchy and the establishment.
Really? Have you been paying any attention at all to what’s happening in Russia, India, Hungary, China…?
🙄
False flag operations are an integral part of every country’s warfare and propaganda strategy
😉
Really? Have you been paying any attention at all to what’s happening in Russia, India, Hungary, China…?
What's you point? That western media outlets aren't owned? That they are honest a reputable? That because other countries have blatant propaganda ours don't? That the western media works in the interests of the general public?
Shouting "look a squirrel" really isn't a coherent or valid argument that refutes any of my original point.
The Leveson report was deliberately limited in scope, but still managed to expose the collusion between the media, the police and the body politic. Of course any potential changes that might benefit the public interest were given time to fade from memory then quietly dropped.
But "Putin's bad" so "hooray for Murdoch". Lies are easy when so may want to believe.
Former Bush/Obama/Trumpet advisor mentions Nord Stream in this interview.
Initially, I did think it was the Russians. There was just so much about the whole eruption that reminded me of the kind of sabotage the Soviets undertook during the Second World War, and that Putin’s father was actually engaged in during the siege of Leningrad. He talks a lot about how his father was part of a destruction battalion, going behind enemy lines and getting rid of any infrastructure the enemy could use. And there was just something about the way Putin talked about it that made me think the Russians did this — that they think this will teach the West a lesson.Now, I’m not so sure. I don’t believe it was the United States. If the United States had done that, by now, somebody would have laid claim to this. The United States can be a leaky sieve in terms of information. Some of my colleagues who have been looking at this think Ukraine could have done it. And this isn’t implausible, because they already managed to launch a pretty significant strike on the Kerch (Crimean) Bridge, but I haven’t seen any evidence.
If not the US per say, then possibly at the behest of
More theories...
The Truth is out there
Photos and everything, you wont beleive who did it etc...
https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1633502129498333192?t=vqNY9YkerpqeNjTlufk-wg&s=19
Ariel is looking wired but still young.
(Bellingcat put some work into trolling, but it makes a good point about anyone pretending to be even fairly sure about who did it)
An interesting take
Very good point on the decompression. You'd need a ship with those kind of facilities, none of which are going to fit onto a small sailing vessel.
Both the US and UK have swim in/out SF capabilities on submarines that would allow a team of divers to be deployed and recovered without anyone knowing they were there. Amusingly known as the “caravan of death” when being trialled and developed.