16 Comments
author

Am compelled to pat myself on the back as it's late as usual (didn't have chance to read NYT story until 4 o'clock), but in compensation it's short & sweet for a chance at around 800 words.

Expand full comment

My only disagreement is when you call the reporters "political rubes" [for taking Vance's posturing seriously]. My model is different. Vance is being marketed to Trump's base as Swamp Drainer II, who will fight for them at the big-boy table. And the NYT is just part of the marketing. Maybe the reporters themselves are political rubes and don't understand this point. Maybe. But their editors, who've given them them the Vance assignment and the framing, are part of the WWF reality show being put on to fleece the population yet again. The NYT is no better than Pravda or Der Sturmer, and maybe worse.

Expand full comment
author

Totally agree with you on the main points, though don't think the NYT is a flat out propaganda rag as there are great reporters there who do amazing work, so even if a lot of the paper serves the purpose you describe I'd never say it's no better than Der Stürmer or Pravda, though agree with something Chomsky has said many times about Soviet citizens knowing Pravda was feeding them bullshit & a lot of people view the NYT as being completely uninfluenced by the USG agenda, which is evidently false. On the Vance story you're right IMO, I was being somewhat facetious in using the word "rubes." I do think that's correct in part as most reporters have swallowed the same propaganda as everyone else & actually believe the US is the world's greatest democracy, a shining light on a hill & all the other standard garbage. Another part IMO is trying to be "objective," one of great myths of journalism as reporters should be fair, not treat both sides of an argument or any side as being honest and serving as stenographers. And another part, which is just as fundamentally dishonest, is the way the NYT and media in general desperately try to turn this and all elections into infotainment in order to breath life into their copy and mask the core issue, which is the pathetic state of our dogshit "democracy."

Expand full comment

Agreed, including about the NYT having great reporters. But they are much fewer than in earlier decades -- e.g., who are the Stephen Kinzers or A. J. Langguths of today?

Expand full comment
author

100%. It's gotten much worse.

Expand full comment
Jul 21Liked by Ken Silverstein

The truth is stranger than fiction. Complicit much! What the hell ? New York times

Expand full comment
author

Utterly pathetic.

Expand full comment
Jul 21Liked by Ken Silverstein

Expected.

Expand full comment
author

That's true too!

Expand full comment

Between the High Rollers and the Holy Rollers saving this Democracy is going to be one helluva fight. Forward this to Kamala for her 8/13 debate. That will hopefully light a fire under people who don’t have any idea what is happening.

Peter Thiel’s relationship to JDV could use some attention, when you have a minute.

Expand full comment
author

Suggestions on any particularly interesting angles would be welcome.

Expand full comment

Brilliant piece of work. I remember reading a NYT expose of what Poindexter was promoting in Reagan’s 1st term and my hair standing on end.

Expand full comment

JDV worked as a principal at Thiel’s Mithril Capital and made many “friends” in tech capital.

Expand full comment