Friday, February 15, 2019
Headlines for Feb. 15, 2019
Click here to listen to this week's segment on Loud & Clear Radio.
Headlines with an * are the ones we managed to fit in in our allotted time slot.
Worst, Most Misleading & Funniest Headlines for Feb. 15, 2019
*U.S. Sanctions Are Aimed at Venezuela’s Oil. Its Citizens May Suffer First.
There’s no “may” about it, and it’s a present reality, not a future possibility, because sanctions, especially financial sanctions, have been in place long before new sanctions on oil. But most importantly, the first half of the headline is a lie. Sanctions are always aimed to make ordinary people suffer, so that they’ll force their government out. The mechanism may be oil (although it’s actually mostly financial), but the aim is to make people suffer.
For a reminder of what sanctions really are, you only need to read this State Department document from 1960, describing their plan for Cuba: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 An excerpt: "every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba…to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government." This is exactly the same in Venezuela today, just as in the DPRK, Iran, still in Cuba, and in many other countries now and through the years.
For a reminder of what sanctions really are, you only need to read this State Department document from 1960, describing their plan for Cuba: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 An excerpt: "every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba…to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government." This is exactly the same in Venezuela today, just as in the DPRK, Iran, still in Cuba, and in many other countries now and through the years.
As Venezuela’s opposition mounts another day of protest, Maduro’s inner circle remains intact
As with other coverage of Venezuela, what’s missing is the role of the masses. Headline could read, “Maduro’s mass support remains intact”. WaPo does mention “smaller” rally of government supporters, but not until 12th paragraph. Mercury News version only included the first 8 paragraphs, though, so no mention there at all. And still no mention in any corporate media of the massive anti-intervention petition campaign underway.
*Robert Reich: America Is a Socialist Country for the Rich
America is a kleptocracy for the rich, not a "socialist country". Reich's conclusion rests on this ridiculous basis: "In the conservative mind, socialism means getting something for doing nothing." So, based on this absurd definition of socialism provided by "the conservative mind", Reich concludes that banks and others getting huge tax breaks are the beneficiaries of "socialism". Unbelievable.
The corporate whiteout of the campaign of Tulsi Gabbard, the latest example of #FakeNewsByOmission. No major outlet (NYT, WaPo, others) had a major article (or any article) about Gabbard’s announcement, which featured a powerful speech containing, among other things, a powerful antiwar message. NYT carried a Reuters article online (don’t know if it appeared in the print edition); WaPo had nothing. CNN had a graphic that featured 12 candidates, many of them unannounced. Missing: Gabbard. An accident that she happens to be the one candidate vocally opposing U.S. regime change efforts in Syria and Venezuela? Hardly. Some more examples.
‘A Woman, Just Not That Woman’: How Sexism Plays Out on the Trail
Mentions Warren, Gillibrand, Harris & Klobuchar. But not Gabbard, making the headline more than a bit ironic.
2020 may be historic for women in more ways than one
Klobuchar, Warren, Harris, Gillibrand all featured, describing their reaction to the SOTU and something about them. Gabbard, who was also watching the SOTU (I assume!), makes it as an afterthought in 14th paragraph; other than her name, the article says nothing about her, unlike the others.
Democrats’ 2020 Choice: Do They Want a Fighter or a Healer?
Mentions Booker, Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, as well as unannounced candidates Biden, Brown, O'Rourke, Sanders & Bloomberg. But not Gabbard.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is officially running for president in 2020, joining a crowded and diverse field of Democratic candidates vying for the nomination.
Mentions Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, and Booker, as well as possible candidates Brown and Sanders. But not Gabbard.
*Crystal Meth Is North Korea’s Trendiest Lunar New Year’s Gift
Is it? How do we know? Because “several anonymous sources” told the U.S. government (in the form of Radio Free Asia) so, claims which even the NYT admits “could not be independently verified”. But that didn’t prevent them from running the definitive claim as their headline!
Inside Paul Manafort's 2016 meeting with a Russian operative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFAj-gQoxCA (Washington Post video)
Description says Konstantin Kilimnik is a "Russian political operative". He is Russian, and he is a "political operative" (as well as an employee of Manafort). But describing him as a "Russian operative" makes him sound like something very different. Media frequently describe him as "tied to Russian intelligence". However there is NO publicly known information that supports that description.
Students go wild at school as Denver teachers strike over pay
They were dancing in the hallways. OMG. The real story which should have been the headline: "Many of the students who left for the day joined their picketing teachers, according to Pence. “We all support the teachers,” Pence said. “They deserve better pay for what they put up with."
U.S. cyber force credited with helping stop Russia from undermining midterms
“one [senator] suggesting it was largely due to U.S. Cyber Command that the Russians failed to affect the 2018 vote.” Delusional. There’s zero evidence Russia had any interest in the midterms whatsoever, or that the “cyber force” actually did anything. Who exactly were they trying to get elected? “Last week the Justice and Homeland Security departments reported there was no evidence that any foreign government had “a material impact” on the election or campaign infrastructure.” There’s also evidence (that we’re told about at least) that they even tried to do so!
*New York Returns 25,000 Jobs to Amazon
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/opinion/amazon-new-york.html [NYT editorial]
Um no, no they didn’t. Amazon held out the promise of 25,000 jobs in 20 years. How many of those would have materialized is anyone’s guess, but chances are (based on past examples of such promises) it would have been less, even substantially less.
