WaPo and MSNBC know why Russia-gate isn't working

MSNBC finally got curious about why the Russia-gate conspiracy theory isn't working. They probably couldn't avoid it, as a recent poll revealed the depth of the disconnect between American coporate media coverage of the story and Americans' interest. Whilst seventy-five percent of US corporate media news coverage is devoted to Russia-gate, only six percent of Americans are interested in the story.

 

MSNBC journalist, Hallie Jackson, ventured outside the media echo chamber and asked Trump supporters but apparently couldn't understand their answers. Their lack of interest and concern in Russia-gate was a troubling enigma. So she invited Washington Post reporter, Ashley Parker, to explain. He told her that Trump supporters were just too stupid to understand the narrative.

 

Whilst this explanation obviously works for MSNBC and the Washington Post (and the rest of the corporate media), it hardly seems likely. People who do buy the Russia-gate conspiracy theory do not strike dispassionate observers as impressive. Take Lousie Mensch, for example. She has tweeted that her sources (anonymous as is way with Russia-gate stories) claim that Steve Bannon is facing the death sentence for espionage.

 

Lousie Mensch may well be completely delusional, but the difference between her Russia mania and the corporate media's and the Democrats' is only matter of degree. This is nonsense that the intelligent people in the corporate media doubtless find interesting. But ordinary people do not, as it is a completely evidence free fantasy. Steve Bannon, far from facing the death penalty, is not under investigation - for anything.

 

Frankly, I cannot decide whether the corporate media loons are as stupid as their words imply or sincerely think that they are so much smarter than everyone else that they can make up any nonsense and get away with it. Maybe it is both.

 

CNN's Chris Cuomo told the world that it is illegal to read WikiLeaks and so "you" (ie, the public) could only know from "us" (ie, the corporate media). Did he believe this absurd falsehood? Who knows - but he certainly looked and sounded sincere. But then that is almost the job description for a corporate journalist: apparent sincerity whilst promoting falsehoods.

 

 

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (7)

  1. Munkyman

    I wish you couldn’t make that stuff up. It’s sad because there are far too many people who simply cannot differentiate emotion from just cause & firmly believe they can make anything they want happen… if they can just get past the “mean people.” THEY simply wouldn’t believe Russia Gate if it wasn’t true & this just proves to them they are smarter than the average person who doesn’t get how critical it is & therefore care more about things like personal economics… getting out of foreign wars that have run 15 years too damn long.

    July 20, 2017
  2. EZWAYZ

    As long as the deep state is pulling media strings we’ll continue to hear the same old tune.

    July 20, 2017
  3. fuall

    IMHO the disconnect here is in that you still believe that the MSM of today is about news or journalism. You don’t seem to see that the traditional outlets for news and information have shifted their focus to entertainment. A perfect example was on the evening news just a couple of hours ago where all the major networks devoted from 1/3 to nearly 1/2 of their broadcast (the commercial-free part at the beginning no less) to covering OJ-fucking-Simpson….again He’s not newsworthy in any way, let alone half a broadcast, but it’s still sensationalistic and salacious to re-litigate and re-hash all of the past to get people to tune in or click away so their advertisers can put their shit in your face. And that’s all it’s about any more. Doesn’t matter what the content is as long as it gets your attention and makes you go to them for the rest of the “story” behind the so-called “click-bait” with which they seed every possible platform. Parsing the actual information from all the rest is becoming increasingly more difficult for even the most aware and informed of the population, and leaves those lesser so at a pitifully ignorant level.

    July 21, 2017
    1. fuall

      Was not intending to insert a pic. I had “…still!” after the “…again!” and it must have been interpreted by the site as trying to insert a pic due to the two exclamation marks so close together.

      July 21, 2017
    2. stevehayes13

      I have not idea why you think I believe the MSM is about news or journalism. I have devoted many posts to demonstrating the contrary.

      July 21, 2017
      1. fuall

        Then why do you keep posting tirade after tirade about the lack of integrity of the media and journalists in general? If you know they aren’t in it for the dissemination of information as opposed to pimping products, why then do you always seem surprised when they live down to your lowest expectations? You go on and on about the lapses in their reporting as well as their morals as if there were some mandate that they perform to a predetermined standard by which they have all agreed to abide when no such standard exists in their profession, let alone among society in general. We can barely count on civility anymore from the average person, and certainly can’t trust the word (I miss Cronkite, Jennings, etc.) of everyone with a camera and a microphone; everyone has an agenda and theirs is never going to change. Click-bait is their stock-in-trade now and the advertisers are their masters, all worshiping the almighty $$. Welcome to the new normal.

        July 21, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          There is an objective standard: it is commonly known as journalistic ethics.

          July 22, 2017