What the El Mozote Massacre Can Teach Us About Trump’s War on the Press

The answer had been articulated by Richard Nixon years earlier. As was borne out by Nixon’s direct experience during Watergate, few things are more dangerous to conservative priorities than good journalism. Therefore, as a top Nixon aide later recalled, Nixon believed that it was necessary to “fight the press through … the nutcutters as (the president) called them, forcing our own news. Make a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition.”

The Reaganites shared this perspective. News outlets were “the opposition” that had to be brutally, viciously attacked, and individual journalists were fair game as a way to discredit their employers. Bonner was therefore caught in the White House crosshairs.

The pushback began with congressional testimony by Enders. “There is no evidence to confirm that government forces systematically massacred civilians,” he told a House subcommittee.

What about the number of victims? Bonner’s article had mentioned a list of 733 compiled by villagers, as well as a tally of 926 from a human rights organization. Elliott Abrams, who’d just taken office as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs, informed the Senate that “the numbers, first of all, were not credible. … Our information was that there were only 300 people in the canton.” This was clear, conscious deceit on the part of Abrams. Both the Times and Post articles had mentioned that the massacre had taken place in several locations.

Then came the assault from the administration’s outside allies. On February 10, the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy editorial headlined “The Media’s War.” Americans were “badly confused” about the situation in El Salvador thanks to the U.S. press. El Mozote was not a massacre, the Journal wrote, but a “massacre.” On the one hand, the number of dead had obviously been exaggerated and on the other, maybe the killing had been carried out by rebels dressed in government uniforms. Bonner was “credulous,” “a reporter out on a limb,” and, like reporters in Vietnam, a sucker for “communist sources.” One of the editorial’s authors appeared on PBS to proclaim that “obviously Ray Bonner has a political orientation.”

Accuracy in Media, the conservative media criticism organization, went further. Bonner, it declared, was waging “a propaganda war favoring the Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador.” Meanwhile, a Times editor later said, the administration was engaging in a “really vicious” whisper campaign about him.

Sinclair Broadcast Group drops Boris Epshteyn's “must-run” segments

 R_P wrote:
Salon received the following statement from a spokesperson for The New York Times:

While, as a general matter of policy, we do not comment on personnel matters, Mr. Cunha makes claims in his story that merit a response. We can say that there was a broader pattern of issues including when he ignored our standards and removed the administration’s on-the-record response from a news article. Responsible news organizations allow the subjects of their coverage to respond.

Mr. Cunha’s insinuation that The New York Times has been soft on President Trump does not stand up to the facts. Without our newsroom covering Trump and his administration, the world would not know that Trump had ordered his staff to fire Mueller, or tried to have then FBI Director James Comey commit to a loyalty oath. They wouldn’t know about the "instances of outright fraud" in Trump’s tax practices, which led to investigations that are still unfolding. But aggressive coverage that holds power to account still needs to meet our standards for fairness and accuracy.

And far from courting Mr. Trump, our publisher A.G. Sulzberger has met with the president in person twice to voice concerns about the real and tragic consequences around the world of the president’s anti-press rhetoric.

 

Fired from The New York Times over Trump
I was told there was concern, even at the publisher’s level, about one small edit I proposed to a story

Russia Has ‘Oligarchs,’ the US Has ‘Businessmen’

'We can do better': New York Times columnist quits Twitter after being called a 'bedbug'

Stephens has written extensively in defense of speech that provokes "discomfort," especially against what he has characterized as the "siege of the perpetually enraged." Some on Twitter accused Stephens of wanting discomfort for others but not for himself.

To Media, No Democrat Can Possibly Be Right-Wing

 R_P wrote:
Great video from Greenwald.  Like Iraq, media totaled missed the boat on Russia story (or did they?...seems they all made $). 

Jeffrey Epstein's arrest shows the power of one newspaper's investigation

The Herald and Brown "took on immense risk in reporting this story," Poynter Institute vice president Kelly McBride wrote on Twitter on Monday. "When journalists expose the wrong-doing of the rich/powerful, they invite a libel suit. Many rich/ powerful people would like to make it easier to win those cases, to discourage such reporting."

Dictator: Media Code for ‘Government We Don’t Like’
Or don't buy some of our stuff or buy some stuff from our competitors...

Watch: a Contentious, Constructive Debate on the Media and Political Humiliation from the Mueller Report (Greenwald)

---

It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD (Taibbi)

NPR’s Source on Mosque Murders Can’t Recall People Ever Being Murdered in a Mosque Before

 sirdroseph wrote:

Must have mistaken you for someone else.

 R_P wrote:
 

Musta been fake news

 R_P wrote: 
Well we are all human even you make mistakes, I have faithfully voted every election for as long as I remember and have never stated otherwise.  Full disclosure, I may have missed a couple of runoffs, but certainly every Presidential election.

 black321 wrote:
 
When it comes to Trump/Russia (which was the context), sure. I can think of some other subjects though...

 kurtster wrote:
 

Not reluctant at all.  My comment only was meant to say that i have no horse in this race.  The surprise is that the right seems to be  doing a "cleaner" job pushing its agenda, relative to the liberals (see below) 

 sirdroseph wrote:

I thought I read once you weren't a voting man...

 R_P wrote: 
More proof that war is truly bipartisan and fully supported by the media. I will be voting for her in the Democratic primary even tho the apparatus will crush her.

NBC News, to Claim Russia Supports Tulsi Gabbard, Relies on Firm Just Caught Fabricating Russia Data for the Democratic Party