When you read something published in The Nation” know that you have just experienced journalism written from a perspective that is about as far to the left as possible. Such is the nature of one of the standard bearers of liberal ideology in America. No one does liberal journalism much better than The Nation.
Hence, whenever you see a piece in that publication that seems to be critical of the Democrats, you should pay close attention. Such a piece was not written because a writer or editor had a sudden change of heart and has chosen to embrace a conservative or traditional viewpoint. More likely is that whatever the Democrats have done to merit criticism from The Nation involves such actions or policies not being liberal enough.
The problem with that is that The Nation has just published a piece that turns that argument on its head. The publication has concluded that not only were DNC systems not hacked by the Russians, but that they were not hacked at all. Instead, the information was leaked by someone inside the DNC itself. What do we have here?
Breitbart reports that “Author Patrick Lawrence assembles the findings of months of investigation by forensic computer experts and former NSA officials to conclude, quite categorically, what Breitbart News and other independent media outlets have suggested for nearly a year: there was no hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by the Russian government or anyone else last summer. An internal leaker is a much more likely source of the confidential internal DNC emails that upended the presidential campaign season when they became public last June.”
With the alleged hack of the DNC computer systems by the Russians now passing as accepted leftist dogma, one would expect publications on the left to simply be waiting for Special Counsel Mueller to confirm what the Democrats have been claiming all along. In other words, in their minds, the facts are settled, it’s just a matter of Mueller putting his official stamp of approval on the Democratic Party’s position.
What is to be made of this?
In one scenario, the piece can be taken at face value. Lawrence simply did an excellent job at investigative journalism, and has reported the truth of the matter. He might dislike the Russians almost as much as he dislikes President Trump, but he’s discovered the facts and wants to be one of the first to publish them. Hence, he gets “bragging rights” when this truth is widely accepted and verified by Special Counsel Mueller.
That might be what the piece says at face value, but is that all there is to it? Why the refutation of such an important part of the DNC’s agenda? Even if this is what The Nation firmly believes is true, why even publish it? Are we to believe that The Nation is willing to sacrifice the DNC in the name of journalistic integrity?
Perhaps The Nation has become incensed by the bungling that has brought the Democrats to their current position, and has decided that the party needs a wake-up call.
Perhaps the publication is trying to save the Democratic Party from itself. If its investigative journalism is accurate, and DNC emails were truly leaked from the inside with the Russians having nothing to do with any of it, perhaps The Nation wants to get the story out there before the DNC digs themselves an even bigger hole. Better The Nation be seen as a pillar of truth by breaking the story rather than let the simpletons at the DNC put all their chips on a bad bet.
Lawrence writes that “All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths.”
So, according to Lawrence, the whole story of the violation of the DNC’s mail server by the Russians is nothing more than a case of a plausible theory taking on a life of its own, eventually becoming one that contained apparently established facts. “Facts” that just are not so.
That’s a nice theory in that it gets a lot of people off the hook including those at the DNC. The thing just got out of hand, confounding virtually everyone.
The snag is that there must have been people who have known better who were either drowned out of the discussion, or chose to sit on the truth and let the false story of Russian hacking run because it was politically expedient to do so.
And we did have a supposed thorough government investigation into all of this which supported the Russian hacker theory.
“The central text of the Russiagate gospel became the ‘Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)’ issued in January of this year, days before President Barack Obama left office. Presumably this ICA, quoted for months in the mainstream media as being the work of ‘all 17’ American intelligence agencies, is the basis of the DNC’s continued claims of a Russian hack.
“The reality, as the New York Times finally admitted in June, was that only three intelligence agencies participated in the creation of the ICA. The ’17 intelligence agencies’ line, a fixture of pro-Russiagate media since Hillary Clinton used the figure in her second presidential debate performance, was and is fake news.”
And further, “The intelligence agencies, according to Lawrence, did not even examine the DNC’s computers, an omission he calls ‘beyond preposterous,’ and instead relied on a third-party report from Crowdstrike, a non-profit co-founded by Dmitri Alperovitch, described as ‘vigorously anti-Russian.”'”
So what is to be made of The Nation’s piece by Lawrence?
For one thing, we can safely conclude that the publication has not just turned pro-Trump. We must also realize that to do a good job at promoting a particular viewpoint, it is very helpful if your publication appears objective, and not a purveyor of wild conspiracy theories that are later proven to be wrong.
Hence if The Nation has it right, this is a good time to get out ahead of the crowd, discredit a faulty theory, and help get the investigation turned in a direction that The Nation believes is more likely to cause some real damage to President Trump.
On the other hand, we might just have an example of honest journalism. Wouldn’t that be a shock?
Source: Right Wing News