"Disobedient Media has previously reported on the Guccifer 2.0 persona as analyzed by Adam Carter, and the NGP-VAN metadata analysis performed by The Forensicator. Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on the findings published by the Forensicator,
which found that the NGP-VAN files published by the Guccifer 2.0
persona last summer were most likely locally copied in the East Coast of
the U.S., as opposed to hacked. We have been very happy that some
legacy media has begun to report on this important story, and that the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) used the
information provided by the Forensicator as the basis for their
memorandum to President Trump. Outlets such as The Nation, Salon and Bloomberg have given the issue very fair coverage.
Some establishment press, including the Washington Post, New York Magazine and The Hill have provided very biased reports on the matter. Disobedient Media previously reported the attack on the part of New York Magazine against Patrick Lawrence of The Nation.
It has also emerged today that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks may settle the matter by revealing additional information which would prove the DNC was never hacked by Russia or any other entity. If this takes place, it would not only put an end to increasing U.S. tension with Russia, but would reveal the depth of corruption to which the DNC has sunk, not only as revealed in the content of the DNC emails, but in the prolonged efforts to hide the true origins of this information. To be very clear, the information received by Wikileaks is very likely not the same data that is examined in the Forensicator‘s analysis.
Adam Carter has also responded to dishonest legacy media coverage of this topic, with an article specifically refuting a number of points made by the New York Magazine. Carter wrote: “Feldman saw fit to omit critical qualifiers that were actually in Lawrence’s article, so, while Feldman’s misrepresentation of the argument was bizarre, the original argument was not.”
The Washington Post also published an article on the Forensicator‘s work, admonishing The Nation’s Patrick Lawrence for his report on the subject. In doing so, the Washington Post makes a number of false and misleading statements regarding The Nation’s report as well as claims made in the Forensicator’s analysis. The Washington Post article even goes so far as to insult The Nation for engaging in ‘an intellectual free-for-all.’
Some establishment press, including the Washington Post, New York Magazine and The Hill have provided very biased reports on the matter. Disobedient Media previously reported the attack on the part of New York Magazine against Patrick Lawrence of The Nation.
It has also emerged today that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks may settle the matter by revealing additional information which would prove the DNC was never hacked by Russia or any other entity. If this takes place, it would not only put an end to increasing U.S. tension with Russia, but would reveal the depth of corruption to which the DNC has sunk, not only as revealed in the content of the DNC emails, but in the prolonged efforts to hide the true origins of this information. To be very clear, the information received by Wikileaks is very likely not the same data that is examined in the Forensicator‘s analysis.
Adam Carter has also responded to dishonest legacy media coverage of this topic, with an article specifically refuting a number of points made by the New York Magazine. Carter wrote: “Feldman saw fit to omit critical qualifiers that were actually in Lawrence’s article, so, while Feldman’s misrepresentation of the argument was bizarre, the original argument was not.”
The Washington Post also published an article on the Forensicator‘s work, admonishing The Nation’s Patrick Lawrence for his report on the subject. In doing so, the Washington Post makes a number of false and misleading statements regarding The Nation’s report as well as claims made in the Forensicator’s analysis. The Washington Post article even goes so far as to insult The Nation for engaging in ‘an intellectual free-for-all.’
That freedom of thought would be hurled as an insult by the outlet which broke the Watergate scandal, towards the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in America, is a severe indictment against the current state of legacy media integrity.
The Washington Post wrote of the Forensicator’s analysis:
“the piece relies to a significant degree on a finding that hackers working remotely couldn’t possibly have downloaded all the information that they allegedly secured and passed along to WikiLeaks.”
The Forensicator never made the statement that this was impossible, only very unlikely. Additionally, his analysis has nothing to do with files which were later published by Wikileaks. Discussion of the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files – which are the subject of the Forensicator’s analysis – are completely separate from any information received by Wikileaks in whatever fashion.
This focus purely on dismissing transfer speeds leaves out a whole host of technical details which provide a strong indication that the most likely explanation for the metadata from the NGP-VAN files is that the information was locally copied on the East Coast of the US, in the physical presence of a computer which had access to DNC data. The Forensicator never claimed to have proven that the information was leaked by an insider. Gross misrepresentations of the Forensicator‘s findings are the latest in a string of legacy media debacles which have unfolded during months of repetitious Russian hacking claims, including the infamous, falsified ‘pissgate‘ dossier.
The discussion at hand is not in regards to Wikileak’s source; it is a discussion about whether the information published by Guccifer 2.0 was the result of a hack, as the Guccifer 2.0 persona claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC.
At this point there is no publicly available evidence which would indicate the DNC was ever hacked, and authorities have still, to date, not examined the DNC servers. Despite this deeply concerning lack of evidence, Guccifer 2.0 is still referenced as having “hacked” the DNC.
The Forensicator, Disobedient Media, The Nation and others who have honestly reported on this issue have stated explicitly that the metadata in question was only relevant to the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files, and should be understood separately from data which made its way to Wikileaks for eventual publication as the DNC emails. When the Washington Post sarcastically portrays the analysis as having claimed that the DNC was never hacked, the Post’s statement is completely incorrect and mischaracterizes the report entirely. However, should Julian Assange reveal more evidence that the DNC was never hacked, then the argument that there is ‘no proof’ would be utterly nullified.
The Washington Post cites an article published by New York Magazine which was extremely biased in its coverage of this topic, going so far as to stoop to character attacks while providing no substantial evidence to counter the Forensicator’s report. Disobedient Media has reported on New York Magazine‘s disgraceful attack on The Nation.
Worse, The Washington Post then attacks The Nation on the grounds that Breitbart had published a positive article regarding the story written by Lawrence. This is a framing device, where the Post implies that The Nation and the substance of its content is tainted by the reaction of separate outlets. In this way, the content of the report itself is disingenuously framed as ‘tainted’ by the opinions of individuals or groups who had nothing to do with writing the article.
As Lawrence specifically pointed out in his article, Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on this story. We are an independent entity, which focuses on being factual, and to the best of our ability we do not engage in politically biased reporting.
The Washington Post‘s report sank lower when it accused The Nation pejoratively of participating in an “intellectual free-for-all.” Such an accusation indicates that intellectual freedom is an insult, and explicitly appears to accuse The Nation of having committed a ‘thought crime,’ in publishing a report which questioned the Crowdstrike’s statement that the DNC was hacked last summer by Russian Hackers.
The lack of journalistic integrity which emerges from The Washington Post’s coverage of this issue would not come as a surprise to most. The Washington Post has been dogged by allegations that it has a conflict of interest when reporting on deep state rhetoric. The Nation related that The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, had received a $600 million contract from the CIA, saying of the large sum: “That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year.”
Independent journalists including Caitlin Johnstone, H.A. Goodman and others have also been deeply critical of the Washington Post’s connection to the CIA. Johnstone wrote:
“WaPo continues to violate universal journalistic protocol by failing to disclose that its sole owner has received a 600 million dollar contract directly from the CIA, despite the fact that the CIA is mentioned by name no less than 19 times in the article itself….”
The fundamental issue at play in the reporting of this story by The Hill, The Washington Post and New York Magazine is that they have continued to disingenuously portray The Forensicator as having made absolute claims that were never stated in their analysis. These outlets also engage repeatedly in character attacks against those few who report on the subject honestly, such as The Nation‘s Patrick Lawrence.
This is an important ongoing story, and Disobedient Media will continue to provide coverage as it unfolds."
...................
Added: The CIA is a major problem: "Three Days of the Condor," a 1975 movie about the CIA way ahead of its time starring Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Max von Sydow, directed by Sydney Pollack. Robert Redford has learned what a smug, murderous bunch of thugs the CIA is and that he's on their hit list. He writes about it and gives his story to the NY Times for publication. At the end of the movie Redford, standing near the NY Times building, tells one of the CIA thugs who's been trying to kill him that the NY Times is going to run his expose about the CIA. As Redford walks away (at 1 min, 05) the CIA thug says, "Hey Turner, how do you know they'll print it?...You can take a walk but how far if they don't print it?" The implication being that Redford would be dead in short order or would have to go into hiding for the rest of his life.
From You Tube page:
No comments:
Post a Comment