Although my trust in corporate media has waned over the last few years, I’ve lost *all* faith since October 7, 2023. If not for independent journalists, Al Jazeera and - yes - Twitter, I would be almost clueless about the slaughter in Gaza (and now Lebanon). Reporting, if you can call it that, has been largely pro-Israel, and the genocide has been whitewashed.
Keep up the good work, Ken. I wish everyone read your columns.
The point of "echo chamber" in our legacy media is well taken. The idea that media would expect certain of their consumers to "trust" that media's interpretation of a news item is ridiculous. In my view. Absurd, really. But the polling would indicate at least a general acceptance of the interpretation and subsequent dribble in the media and their echo chambers. It's difficult to be positive when the deep state wins again. Such activity must be called out for what it is and how it colors everything.
I understand and appreciate the Wikileaks-like role here.
And it is, indeed, totally missing from the MSM.
As well as X/Twitter in this case, at least until you screeched - which I am glad you did!
But I still wonder if there is not enough thoughtful consideration or studied discussion about ‘why these particular documents’, ‘why now’, ‘what might it be intended to accomplish’, and ‘from whom’.
These are not a full picture.
They were explicitly selected for particular reasons.
You are of course right, but I doubt the MSM will go back to the pre-Trump journalistic methods and ethics.
The new generation really does believe what the NYT said about publishing leaked/hacked documents:
"Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence."
I've been trying to parse all the subtleties here, and I keep coming back to paragraph 4 on the UAV activity at the Ramon airfield. The header info is REL TO USA, GBR. If I read this correctly (guessing), this section is only to be disclosed to US and Great Britain recipients? In that, case, I have to ask:
-Why is this shared with Great Britain and not the rest of the Five Eyes, even though other Israeli activity at the same airfield could be shared? Is the Five Eyes network not quite so open where Israel is concerns, particularly where Israeli drone activity is concerned?
-Some people, like Trita Parsi, have been pushing the idea that a non-US source is responsible for releasing this. But if so, such source could only be British.
-Why is Britain shared on the surveillance drone info anyway, if it is so secret? Is this a deconfliction item, and are Britain fighters active in patrolling the area? Are British planes preparing to aid in the Israeli strike? Alternately, is British tech used in the drones (possibly with agreements about how it can be used)? I have no idea, but I see no clear reason why Britain would be informed of this detail, but not other countries.
The breakdown of the security limitation on the various paragraphs in the other document is equally interesting.
Finally, how does the NOFORN header work? Does that trump FVEYs, or does it mean no foreign sharing except for the Five Eyes?
I appreciate any insight, and thanks for breaking all this down.
Great work, and although the MSM isn't reporting on it, so far, quite a few of the online, independent media, are. Any ideas about the motivation behind the leak?
Nice work, Ken. Great follow-up.
Although my trust in corporate media has waned over the last few years, I’ve lost *all* faith since October 7, 2023. If not for independent journalists, Al Jazeera and - yes - Twitter, I would be almost clueless about the slaughter in Gaza (and now Lebanon). Reporting, if you can call it that, has been largely pro-Israel, and the genocide has been whitewashed.
Keep up the good work, Ken. I wish everyone read your columns.
The point of "echo chamber" in our legacy media is well taken. The idea that media would expect certain of their consumers to "trust" that media's interpretation of a news item is ridiculous. In my view. Absurd, really. But the polling would indicate at least a general acceptance of the interpretation and subsequent dribble in the media and their echo chambers. It's difficult to be positive when the deep state wins again. Such activity must be called out for what it is and how it colors everything.
I understand and appreciate the Wikileaks-like role here.
And it is, indeed, totally missing from the MSM.
As well as X/Twitter in this case, at least until you screeched - which I am glad you did!
But I still wonder if there is not enough thoughtful consideration or studied discussion about ‘why these particular documents’, ‘why now’, ‘what might it be intended to accomplish’, and ‘from whom’.
These are not a full picture.
They were explicitly selected for particular reasons.
You are of course right, but I doubt the MSM will go back to the pre-Trump journalistic methods and ethics.
The new generation really does believe what the NYT said about publishing leaked/hacked documents:
"Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html
And they also see that reporters, not just sources, are now targeted for prosecution under the Espionage Act.
I've been trying to parse all the subtleties here, and I keep coming back to paragraph 4 on the UAV activity at the Ramon airfield. The header info is REL TO USA, GBR. If I read this correctly (guessing), this section is only to be disclosed to US and Great Britain recipients? In that, case, I have to ask:
-Why is this shared with Great Britain and not the rest of the Five Eyes, even though other Israeli activity at the same airfield could be shared? Is the Five Eyes network not quite so open where Israel is concerns, particularly where Israeli drone activity is concerned?
-Some people, like Trita Parsi, have been pushing the idea that a non-US source is responsible for releasing this. But if so, such source could only be British.
-Why is Britain shared on the surveillance drone info anyway, if it is so secret? Is this a deconfliction item, and are Britain fighters active in patrolling the area? Are British planes preparing to aid in the Israeli strike? Alternately, is British tech used in the drones (possibly with agreements about how it can be used)? I have no idea, but I see no clear reason why Britain would be informed of this detail, but not other countries.
The breakdown of the security limitation on the various paragraphs in the other document is equally interesting.
Finally, how does the NOFORN header work? Does that trump FVEYs, or does it mean no foreign sharing except for the Five Eyes?
I appreciate any insight, and thanks for breaking all this down.
This would be a great subject for a William Arkin guest post.
Just what do all these abbreviations mean, and how to interpret the significance of the actual source documents.
Apparently a "decapitation" strategy but also likely a psyop...
Another summation report:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/22/israel-iran-intel-leak-fbi/
Great work, and although the MSM isn't reporting on it, so far, quite a few of the online, independent media, are. Any ideas about the motivation behind the leak?