iBankCoin
Wake up. Break the cycle. Teach your children.
Joined Oct 24, 2016
955 Blog Posts

‘The Atlantic’ Commits Malpractice, Selectively Edits To Smear WikiLeaks

Originally published on Medium by Caitlin Johnston (@Caitoz). This must-read rebuke of The Atlantic republished with permission.

—–

‘The Atlantic’ Commits Malpractice, Selectively Edits To Smear WikiLeaks

Everyone was buzzing about the shocking, bombshell new report by The Atlantic yesterday, which revealed that Donald Trump Jr. and the WikiLeaks Twitter account had engaged in a “largely one-sided” conversation in private messages over the course of several months.

Don Jr. actually comes off looking fairly normal in the report, while WikiLeaks comes off looking weird and sleazy in a way that will likely damage its reputation even further than the mainstream media campaign to smear the outlet already has. WikiLeaks is seen asking for favors Trump never fulfilled, making recommendations Trump Jr. didn’t act upon, and asking for leaks Trump Jr. never gave them, which when you step back and think about it are actually fairly normal things for a leak outlet to do, all things considered. But the following passage from the Atlantic report makes the whole thing look far darker:

It is the third reason, though, Wikileaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” Wikileaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.”

See that full stop at the end of the last sentence there? That’s journalistic malpractice. We learned this when Donald Trump Jr. published the entirety of his private messages with WikiLeaks in response to the Atlantic article:

The author of the Atlantic article, Julia Ioffe, put a period rather than a comma at the end of the text about not wanting to appear pro-Trump or pro-Russia, and completely omitted WikiLeaks’ statement following the comma that it considers those allegations slanderous. This completely changes the way the interaction is perceived.

This is malpractice. Putting an ellipsis (…) and then omitting the rest of the sentence would have been sleazy and disingenuous enough, because you’re leaving out crucial information but at least communicating to the reader that there is more to the sentence you’ve left out, but replacing the comma with a period obviously communicates to the reader that there is no more to the sentence. If you exclude important information while communicating that you have not, you are blatantly lying to your readers.

There is a big difference between “because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source” and “because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with.” Those are not the same sentence. At all. Different meanings, different implications. One makes WikiLeaks look like it’s trying to hide a pro-Trump, pro-Russian agenda from the public, and the other conveys the exact opposite impression as WikiLeaks actively works to obtain Donald Trump’s tax returns. This is a big deal.

And it made a difference in the way WikiLeaks was perceived, as evidenced by the things people who read the article are saying about Ioffe’s version:

At first I wasn’t sure who was responsible for this highly egregious omission. It could have been Ioffe, an editor, the source of the leaked DMs or an intermediary deliverer who cut out the rest of the sentence. But then I read in The Guardian’s version of this story that Ioffe had actually tweeted to Don Jr. erroneously accusing him of excluding “a couple of missing pages” from his three-part release of his DMs with WikiLeaks. Ioffe eventually deleted the tweet, after it had been seen and reported on by many people, and clarified her error.

From The Guardian, http://archive.is/TWaqv#selection-2753.0-2761.62

Screenshot

“My bad,” she says. Cute.

What Ioffe’s tweets tell us is that she had full copies of the DMs, since she knew that there were more pages missing from the single tweet by Don Jr. that she had read. The deceitful omission that is the subject of this article was clarified in the first Don Jr. tweet she replied to. She read it, she analyzed it enough to figure out what was missing, but she said nothing about the fact that there were a lot more words in the sentence that she selectively edited out to convey the exact opposite of its meaning.

I’m no detective, but it sure looks like this was a willful omission on Ioffe’s part made deliberately with the intention of damaging WikiLeaks’ reputation. I have been attempting to contact Ioffe, whose other work for the Atlantic includes such titles as “The History of Russian Involvement in America’s Race Wars” and “The Russians Are Glad Trump Detests the New Sanctions”; I will update this article if she has anything she’d like to say.

Also worth noting is Ioffe’s omission of the fact that we’ve known since Julythat WikiLeaks had contacted Donald Trump Jr., as well as the fact that Julian Assange’s internet was cut at the time some of the Don Jr. messages were sent, meaning they may have been sent by someone else with access to the WikiLeaks account.

As happens every single time these pro-establishment manipulations take place, the rest of the mainstream media is picking up the Atlantic’s deceitful omission and running with it as fact. GQ ran with it quoting the selectively edited text. ABC and CBS both ran with the same fake quote even after including Don Jr.’s tweets which make it clear that text was omitted. The Guardian went so far as to use the Atlantic’s selectively edited quote, and then publish an update saying that Julian Assange had “suggested that the Atlantic had selectively edited the messages” without updating the original selectively edited quote or publishing the omitted text.

What percentage of Guardian readers do you think went and read the private messages published by Don Jr. for themselves and learned that they’d been manipulated? One percent? Half of one percent? Why would they go read the published DMs if their trusted Guardian was presenting itself as conveying the full truth?

The Atlantic’s senior editor is neocon David Frum, who is credited with coining the phrase “axis of evil” used in George W Bush’s jingoistic schtick, and its editor-in-chief is the neocon Jeffrey Goldberg. Its corporate owner, Atlantic Media Company, is chaired by New America’s David G. Bradley. New America is a DC think tank whose team includes representatives from Northrop Grumman and Raytheon along with big name media and corporate giants like CNN and Walmart, and whose top donors include Bill Gates, Google’s Eric Schmidt, and the US State Department.

So this immoral manipulation is not exactly surprising. These are virulently pro-establishment people.

Every time. This happens literally every single time there’s a new “bombshell” report on the Russiagate phenomenon, without exception. Twitter explodes, I’m bombarded with social media notifications telling me “HAHAHA I BET YOU FEEL LIKE AN IDIOT NOW”, then it turns out to be a basically innocuous revelation dishonestly blown up into something explosive by liars and manipulators in the establishment media. It’s fueled entirely by Trump derangement syndrome, not by facts.

And people ask why I’m skeptical of the establishment Russia narrative. I’m skeptical because we’re being lied to every single step of the way by the news media who claim to be helping the public discover the truth. Trump lies because he’s a corrupt billionaire who knows he can get away with it, but that doesn’t make him a Russian agent. The media lies because they’re bolstering the stranglehold of America’s unelected power establishment, and that makes them traitors to our species.

I stand with WikiLeaks. They’re doing more than anyone else to shake loose the nuts and bolts of the omnicidal death machine that is driving our species toward extinction, and that’s why that same death machine pours so much energy into tarnishing their reputation so their leaks will be dismissed. Even my fellow leftists have been largely won over by the ongoing psyop to paint Assange as an evil Nazi, and I simply have no respect for that perspective. When there’s such a massive, concerted effort by America’s unelected government to sabotage someone’s reputation, your belief that they’re bad is probably a deliberate and artificial construct.

The mainstream media is not your friend, America. It’s time to send them the way of the dinosaur before they do the same to us.

UPDATE 5 PM EST 11/14/17: Surprise, surprise, here’s Chris Hayes on MSNBC regurgitating Ioffe’s selectively edited quote on MSNBC. There will be others. There is no way to undo the damage that was done by this lie. At the end of the clip Ioffe actually asserts that her story confirms Russia-WikiLeaks collusion, without at any time acknowledging that the only thing in the story that makes it look that way is her selectively-edited quote.

If Russiagate was valid, the people selling it to us wouldn’t have to lie about it every single step of the way.

_________

Hey you, thanks for reading! My work is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, and maybe throwing some money into my hat on Patreon , on Paypal, or with Bitcoin: 1DguEVyWJU1eVDei25RH4Xj1eTLnxiS562

If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter

6 comments

  1. ironbird

    None of this matters. The Commies have no morals. The fake news will be fake until one submits. MeToo motherfucker. You all will obey. MeToo. MeToo.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  2. nancy

    don jr. met with russians to get dirt on clinton. didn’t russia want to get the magnitsky act removed. was the republican (trump)platform softened re: ukraine. the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSA all testified about the russian interference are they also fake media. untill just recently the President denied it. why?
    if Hillary was compromised why wouldn’t russia try to achieve their desires thru her. therefore What do they have on Donald J Trump?? why hasn’t the President enforced the sanctions passed overwhelmingly by congress.

    “I Love Wikileaks”, Don Trump, even jeff sessions doesn’t. is he also a leftie?

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  3. zeropointnow

    By the time Don Jr. met with the Russian lawyer, it was clear Don Sr. had a non-zero chance of winning the election – probably *very* clear to the Obama admin which undoubtedly had access to “behind the curtain” Google, Twitter and Facebook analytics which would have revealed nationwide preferences in real time based on searches and conversations. Many think the Don Jr. meeting was a setup in order to justify surveillance..

    Consider the following:

    The meeting was set up by Fusion GPS. There were at least two Fusion GPS employees present and either 4 or 5 other people in the room.

    Fusion GPS was behind the 34 page pissgate dossier. After its publication, John Podesta met with the founder of Fusion GPS, according to the NY Times.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/us/politics/john-tony-podesta-mueller-russia-investigation.html?mtrref=t.co&gwh=B3202955103DADAD67F26A8E6D8B8FAF&gwt=pay&_r=0

    Perkins Cole, the law firm which represented the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to investigate Trump. They paid Fusion GPS $1 million as part of this effort, and $168K of that went to former British spy Christopher Steele who assembled it for Fusion.

    Who hired Perkins Cole? The DNC and the CLINTON CAMPAIGN. Hillary and the DNC she controlled (per Donna Brazile’s new book) literally paid for the dossier.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.cbd38505c337

    An important note: the Fusion GPS dossier was created with the assistance of high level Russian government officials.

    “Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was ‘a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.’ Source B was ‘a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.”

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele

    So – Russian government officials collaborated with Hillary Clinton and the DNC in an effort to compile damaging opposition research on Trump, facilitated by a DNC law firm and Fusion GPS – all paid for by the Hillary Clinton and the DNC she controlled. Then, after the Dossier dropped, the founder of Fusion GPS met with Hillary’s campaign chairman John Podesta.

    Whether or not the Don Jr. meeting was the basis for a FISA warrant is unknown (to me anyway), however the 34 page dossier Russian officials collaborated on was used for that purpose.

    Russia preferred Hillary. She offered a pay-for-play scheme they had already directly benefitted from, and the brother of her campaign manager – Tony Podesta – had been peddling Russian influence around DC for years along with Paul Manafort. Many think Manafort was a plant in the Trump campaign. He was fired 48 hours after Trump’s first classified intelligence briefing, where the fact that Manafort had fallen under FBI suspicion for pro-Russian influence peddling was likely revealed.

    Whatever Trump’s ‘ties’ to Russia – unsuccessfully seeking opposition research on Hillary and improved relations between superpowers, pale in comparison to the on-record provable relationships Clinton and her circle had and have. And look at geopolitics… The US and Israel are backing Saudi Arabia in a very hostile situation against Iran – which Russia is in a coalition with.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  4. sarcrilege

    I trust this surprises exactly nobody. The Atlantic is another tentacle of the deep state which celebrated a serial arsonist Shalom Bernankestein as a hero who saved the World. With regards to (((Julia Ioffe))), senior editor (((David Frum))), editor-in-chief (((Jeffrey Goldberg))), and the rest of (((them))) at The Atlantic, I mean, what is to say? Lying and deception comes very naturally to (((them))) and is part of their pedigree and talmudic beliefs. That’s just the way they are.

    The Press has fallen into our hands. It fashions the thought of the people. Its role is to express and create discontent. Thanks to the Press, we have the Gold in our hands though we sacrificed many of our people. Each… in the sight of God is worth “a thousand goyim.”
    #2, The Protocols of Zion

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"
  5. WrongView

    Too many words, but I am going to guess this is wrong.

    • 0
    • 0
    • 0 Deem this to be "Fake News"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *