NY Times Admits It Sends Stories to the US Government for Approval Before Publication


The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication. Former NY Times reporter, James Risen, said that the publisher regularly collaborates with the government and suppresses news stories, especially after 9/11 when it happened so frequently that he was convinced the Bush administration was invoking national security to quash stories that were embarrassing and raised questions about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In 1977, Carl Bernstein published an article in the Rolling Stone magazine exposing that more than 400 American journalists in the previous 25 years had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication.

This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said: The American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing reporting that top officials don’t want made public.

On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. According to the article, “the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,” as part of a larger “digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.”

In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the Times on Twitter, calling the article “a virtual act of Treason.”

The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being printed.

“Accusing the press of treason is dangerous,” the Times communications team said. “We described the article to the government before publication.”

“As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns,” the Times added.

Indeed, the Times report on the escalating American cyber attacks
against Russia is attributed to “current and former [US] government
officials.” The scoop in fact came from these apparatchiks, not from a
leak or the dogged investigation of an intrepid reporter.

‘Real’ journalists get approval from ‘national security’ officials

The neoliberal self-declared “Resistance” jumped on Trump’s reckless accusation of treason (the Democratic Coalition, which boasts, “We help run #TheResistance,” responded by calling Trump “Putin’s puppet”). The rest of the corporatemedia went wild.

But what was entirely overlooked was the most revealing thing in the
New York Times’ statement: The newspaper of record was essentially
admitting that it has a symbiotic relationship with the US government.

In fact, some prominent American pundits have gone so far as to insist
that this symbiotic relationship is precisely what makes someone a
journalist.

In May, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen — a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush — declared that WikiLeaks publisher and political prisoner Julian Assange is “not a journalist”; rather, he is a “spy” who “deserves prison.” (Thiessen also once called Assange “the devil.”)

What was the Post columnist’s rationale for revoking Assange’s journalistic credentials?

Unlike “reputable news organizations, Assange did not give the US
government an opportunity to review the classified information WikiLeaks
was planning to release so they could raise national security
objections,” Thiessen wrote. “So responsible journalists have nothing to
fear.”

In other words, this former US government speechwriter
turned corporate media pundit insists that collaborating with the
government, and censoring your reporting to protect so-called “national
security,” is definitionally what makes you a journalist.

This is the express ideology of the American commentariat

Read full article here…




Bank of America Cuts Business with Illegal Immigrant Holding Facilities for Illegal Immigrants and Private Prisons


Bank of America announced it will stop lending to migrant detention centers and private prisons to avoid public backlash, following similar moves by JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and the US Bank. Banks are already targets of the presidential candidates and are trying to avoid being the crossfire of these issues that became even more emotional after Democrats took control of the House in 2018 and Maxine Waters became the chair of the Financial Services Committee. Bank of America is trying to avoid criticism after reporting a profit of $28 billion in 2018, according to an analyst.

Bank of America will cease lending to detention centers and private prisons, making it one of the last big Wall Street bankers to cut ties with the industry as corporations wrestle with whether to cash in on President Trump’s immigration policies or create distance amid increasing public backlash.

“The private sector is attempting to respond to public policy and government needs and demands in the absence of long standing and widely recognized reforms needed in criminal justice and immigration policies,” Bank of America said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Lacking further legal and policy clarity, and in recognition of the concerns of our employees and stakeholders in the communities we serve, it is our intention to exit these relationships.”

Dropping private prison companies is a way for banks, already targets of Democratic presidential candidates, to get out of the crossfire on another emotional issue, industry analysts have said. JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo made similar moves earlier this year, and U.S. Bank told The Post in March that it, too, was pulling back.

Banks have been conducting a cost-benefit analysis on whether the relatively small fees drawn from the prison industry are worth the political headache and potential reputational hit, said Ed Mills, a Washington-based policy analyst with Raymond James. The calculus changed after Democrats took control of the House in 2018, elevating Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) to the chair of the powerful Financial Services Committee where progressive lightening rod, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), also serves, he said. No “big bank CEO wants to go in front of Congress and have to explain why their bank is financing something politically controversial,” Mills said. “The banking fee is not worth the risk.”

The moves also come as big banks post record profits and the Trump administration rolls back regulations put in place after the global financial crisis. In 2018, Bank of America reported profit of $28.1 billion — an all-time high and 56 percent higher than the $18 billion recorded the year before. Its chief executive, Brian Moynihan, made $26.5 million last year.

Read full article here…




Psychologist, Dr. Robert Epstein, Says Big Tech Can ‘Shift Upwards of 15 Million Votes with No One Knowing They Have Been Manipulated’


Dr. Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, responded to the Project Veritas sting video, which shows Google executive Jen Gennai proclaiming the tech giant she works for is determined to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump, by saying that it confirms that Google could influence votes and is willing to do so. Epstein estimated that Big Tech could sway 15 million votes because Google and Facebook are unregulated at this time.

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” psychologist
Dr. Robert Epstein explained how a recently released Project Veritas undercover video,
which shows Google executive Jen Gennai proclaiming the tech giant she
works for is determined to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump,
verified what he has concluded from his research.

Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for
Behavioral Research and Technology, told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson it
confirmed that Google could influence votes and is willing to do so.

“I’m not surprised in the least,” Epstein said. “It confirms in
glowing terms, or in very ugly terms if you want to look at it that way,
that Google not only has the power to shift opinions and votes on a
massive scale but they exercise this power. This is what I measure in my
research. So, I can tell you fairly precisely how many votes they can
shift. I can tell you fairly precisely how many votes they shifted in
2018.”

Carlson asked Epstein how that wasn’t “hacking” an election, to which
Epstein said there was no regulation preventing it and estimated Big
Tech could sway 15 million votes.

Read full article here…




Facebook to Identify ‘Hate Speech’ Suspects to French Courts


Facebook has agreed to provide the names of French users who are suspected of using so-called hate speech on its platform to the courts when requested. Before this mandate, Facebook only provided identification information for terrorism or cases of violence. The European Commission defines illegal hate speech as public conduct that incites violence or hatred to groups of people defined by characteristics such as race, religion, and ethnic origin. One critic said that hate speech is no longer considered part of freedom of speech, it’s now on the same level as terrorism.  The policy could spread to other European countries.

Facebook has agreed to give the
names of French users who are suspected of using hate speech on its
platform to the courts when requested.

The deal is believed to be the first of its kind in the world.

In
the past, the tech giant has revealed IP addresses and other forms of
identification to French judges – but only in cases relating to
terrorism and violent acts.

Cedric O, French minister for digital affairs, called the deal “huge news”.

Illegal
hate speech is defined by the European Commission as public conduct
that incites violence or hatred to groups of people defined by
characteristics such as race, religion, and ethnic origin.

Read full article here…

Additional source:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/same-level-as-terrorism-facebook-to-give-info-of-hate-speech-suspects-to-french-courts