Consuming Journalism: A Grayzone mystery
I’m looking for alternatives to big media. I subscribe to The New York Times, but I’ve been unhappy with their reporting for a while. I thought their “What, Exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard Up To” piece was the last straw, but I’m still sending money their way. I visit CNN and Fox News online, but mainly to get material for Consuming Journalism.
I’d like to find some smaller, high quality independent outfits, and possibly switch from The New York Times to the LA Times. I’m pretty sure I won’t be going to the Grayzone for my news.
Before diving into one of their articles, let’s get to my biases. I’m skeptical. I don’t trust Max Blumenthal, and it’s got nothing to do with Russia. If you haven’t been paying attention for the last 3 years, everyone is a Russian asset now. I don’t think hysteria is an exaggeration. I need to look up hysteria. People need to stop throwing around the asset label.
But wait, it’s got a little bit to do with Russia. I like Matt Taibbi’s writing and commentary, and he consistently points to Blumenthal as a skeptic of the current Russia narrative. I think that’s a good thing. But when I’ve visited The Grayzone or read Blumenthal’s tweets, they seem to be guilty of the same bad reporting. Instead of a Russian conspiracy it’s an American one. Similar claims, similar innuendo, mysterious conspiracies, and puppet strings tied to the deep recesses of government buildings in either Moscow or DC.
So, you know some of my biases. You can keep those in mind as we look at a The Grayzone article. The article is not about Russia. If you think I’m wrong or full of BS, feel free to leave a comment below. (I think they’re turned on. I’m not all that web savvy, so if the comments aren’t enabled, it’s ineptitude and not a clever ploy.)
US government drops case against Max Blumenthal after jailing journalist on false charges (Ben Norton)
Some background is necessary. Blumenthal got arrested in October on a charge of simple assault related to an alleged incident at the Venezuelan embassy in DC. The charge looks ridiculous right out of the gate. The Grayzone’s account of the arrest is frightening. SWAT team and a couple of days in jail? Why on earth did they SWAT him?
Moving on. Ben Norton’s article about the dropped case is a confusing mess. Worse, it employs some tricky wording that seems to be a trend across the board these days.
The Grayzone has learned that Secret Service call logs recorded during the alleged incident were either not kept or destroyed. The mysteriously missing evidence included print documents and radio recordings that may have exposed collusion between Secret Service officers operating under the auspices of the US State Department and violent right-wing hooligans in an operation to besiege peace activists stationed inside Venezuela’s embassy in Washington, DC.
Keep an eye on those “call logs”, but don’t put down any money, looks like a shell game to me.
I read the first sentence in that passage above and I am under the impression that the Secret Service was present (that’s normal at an embassy) and that the Secret Service was communicating during the alleged incident. It seems implied to me that the Secret Service witnessed the alleged incident, and that the call logs were likely to have information about the incident. Here’s where things get ugly. (I’ve added the bold.)
The mysteriously missing evidence included print documents and radio recordings that may have exposed collusion between Secret Service officers operating under the auspices of the US State Department and violent right-wing hooligans in an operation to besiege peace activists stationed inside Venezuela’s embassy in Washington, DC.
Yikes, I had to bold the entire section. I skipped the The. That there folks is some bad journalism. It strikes me as exactly the same thing that Trump is doing with the DNC server and the Democrats are doing with the Russian scare. For example, remember when the media was up in arms about some private meeting between Trump and Putin on the sidelines of some conference. I can’t remember the date or place. Doesn’t matter. The narrative was that Trump met with Putin and took the unusual step of not including his advisors. I remember people using the same shady construct as above - we don’t know what was said in the meeting, but if we could see the notes, they might expose the collusion between Putin and Trump.
Bad. I need some more instant coffee level bad. Be right back.
The article then provides some more background on Blumenthal’s arrest. Again, everything about the charge and arrest sounds shady and frightening. The article also provides context for what was occurring at the embassy and how it relates to the United States and Venezuela. I am woefully uninformed about current events in Venezuela and need to read more about it. The Grayzone’s position is that the United States is pushing for regime change. Again, I need to read more about it, but the United States has a troubled past of meddling in Central and South America. Someone somewhere probably just labeled me a Russian asset.
And now we return to the call logs. Try to follow along on this if you can. I hope you too have some deliciously inexpensive instant coffee.
Disappeared Secret Service call logs ‘highly unusual’
Lawyers representing Blumenthal and Rubinstein placed multiple and highly specified discovery requests to the prosecutor for Secret Service call recordings and reports logged on May 8 at the location of the embassy food delivery. The US prosecutor was unable to satisfy the request, verbally confirming that if the documents had existed, they no longer did.
This sentence is incredible…for its awfulness. (I added the bold below.)
The US prosecutor was unable to satisfy the request, verbally confirming that if the documents had existed, they no longer did.
I can’t tell if the documents referred to actually existed. It’s definitely implied that the documents existed and have mysteriously gone missing. However, the prosecutor’s verbal confirmation introduces some doubt - “if the documents had existed, they no longer did.” If the unicorn had been in the meadow, it no longer was. Was there a unicorn?
It’s not all bad. The premise that the Secret Service was present and should have records from the day is sound. If you’ve ever walked around DC’s Embassy Row, you’ve likely seen uniformed Secret Service officers or patrols. It’s the government; the government loves records. Our government has also destroyed records. Hello Oliver North. But the article is so confusingly worded it’s impossible to sort out the known from the conjecture.
The article mentions that the lack of records is rare. It also implies that the records would have been tied to the charge. Here’s the quote indicating it’s rare.
“This is highly unusual and highly notable, almost inexplicable in the ordinary course of operations that these records were not maintained and preserved,” said Carl Messineo, the counsel to Rubinstein and a co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. “Given the false nature of allegations and that they advanced a prosecution based on these it is really questionable that this information was not produced.”
It would have been great to see examples of records from other days. Perhaps a more open ended FOIA request, with the results helping to show whether there was an unusual gap in reporting for the day in question.
The article then does a good job explaining (again) why the initial charge was questionable and taking the police to task for their subsequent actions. But then it veers back to everyone’s favorite topic - collusion. It’s worded very similarly to MSNBC’s love affair with collusion.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a civil liberties lawyer with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, was present throughout much of the embassy siege. She noticed clear collusion between the right-wing opposition mob outside and the Secret Service, who were operating at the time under the watch of the State Department.
“Throughout the siege of the peace activists at the Venezuelan embassy,” Verheyden-Hillard said, “it was apparent to those on the scene that there was what looked like a facilitated effort between the government and the mob besieging the embassy.”
I wish I could avoid using the word. Was there collusion? The Grayzone claims Verheyden-Hilliard noticed clear collusion. What does that mean? If you asked ten people to explain what that means, would there be ten similar answers? Were they syncing watches, working on a plan? Talking? Verheyden-Hilliard doesn’t actually use the expression clear collusion. And things seem less clear. “There was what looked like a facilitated effort between the government and the mob besieging the embassy.” What the hell is a facilitated effort?
Grade: Giving this article a C. It only scores that high because it does provide a response/update to what looks like a shady arrest. I hope Mr. Blumenthal gets some answers, and that someone will have to explain why the police pursued such an aggressive arrest. But the rest of the article is terrible.