Censorship is coming to the internet. First PropOrNot and the Washington Post; now Harvard Library have come out with censorship lists. Who will come out against open discussion and truth telling on the internet next? Google is going to censor it’s listings to exclude, or at least flag ‘fake news’. Chrome is going to enforce a requirement for websites to have SSL Security Certificates, which are quite expensive. What next?
Before the Obama Presidency, there were radio channels devoted to left/Democrat pundits. Ed Shultz and Tom Hartman were on the air daily. Now they are relegated to the Russian News Channel, RT.com while Rachel Maddow joined MSNBC where she currently spouts hyperbolic anti-Russian propaganda to undermine the Trump Presidency. (I don’t like Mr. Trump either, buts lets keep or reason). The radio stations that supported them are gone. You might say, “Well, the age of talk radio is ending.” No. Absolutely not! Not if you are a conservative Democrat or Republican. Not if you are a war mongering, racist or anti-racist, LGTBQ or anti LGTBQ spokesperson.
Years ago we tried to bring Democracy Now! into the local PBS lineup. They were adamantly opposed. They were, in fact, quite rude in their dismissal. Seeing that DN! has continued their sentimental coverage of the history of left politics and identity movements in this country while solidly supporting the current US policy of bloodthirsty humanitarian interventions that kill the patient to same him, I’m sure they probably regret this decision.
During the Iraq War, Al Jazeera, recently acquired by the Qatari Emir from a UK Company, was a breath of fresh air in news coverage. They covered the war from the point of view of Iraqis. They questioned U.S. policy. We like them so much that they were able to get on the Time Warner Cable lineup. But, Al Jazeera has since faded from U.S. view because they couldn’t make enough money. No loss there as they couldn’t tell the truth about the wars they were funding either. They became openly what they always were, a mouthpiece for the Qatari Emir that presents the same propaganda as the Saudi news outlet, Al Arabia, in a slightly more literate formulation. My Arabic speaking friends have pointed out that there are truly bloodthirsty talk shows on Al Jazeera Arabic, the native station, calling for death to all Shia and the expulsion of Christians from Syria and Iraq.
Back to the Harvard Library. I guess I’d like to see the whole list before making a comprehensive judgement. But, the subset of websites listed by Tony Cartalucci’s article on Global Research is like a reading list for those who want to know what is really going on in the world. Pretty much every site listed is linked on the sidebar of this website. Not only that, numerous reporters with long histories of breaking important stories and covering the news around the world and inside our government publish regularly on these so called ‘Fake News’ websites. Seymour Hersh and Patrick Cockburn come to mind. U.S. activists and intellectuals; retired ambassadors from around the world publish here because the Mainstream Media won’t print the results of their investigations and the analysis that is the fruit of their experience. It is stunning, and sad.
Wikileaks is on the Harvard List. WikiLeaks isn’t analysis – it’s information! Information might change your viewpoint, yes, but its verifiable. While everyone is busy crying about the possibility that Russia ‘hacked’ the Democrat emails that Wikileaks published, they have repeatedly affirmed that those email leaks came from insiders. While people bicker about where the information came from, there has been no assertion that it isn’t true. Even so, little attention is paid to the contents which show systematic corruption within the Democratic Party procedures leading up to the election. Ah well, corruption is the norm. Why should we care? Then, one might ask, “what is the significance of the leaks and what difference does it make who leaked them?”
But Harvard is supposedly a bastion of learning. It’s reputation is for the highest level of education. What does it say that Harvard is promoting a soft form of censorship the purpose of which is to undermine the credibility of the most respected open forums of intellectual discussion on the internet? When the PropOrNot list was highlighted in the Washington Post, it was disturbing and clearly the work of an amateur group. The website was less than professional. Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and a lot of real estate in the ‘Cloud’, including a big area rented by the CIA, is a highly partisan actor. I suppose, though I don’t know the names of the members of the Board at Harvard, the same is the case there.
Ignorance has become openly respectable, and intellectual discussion, sharing of facts and expert analysis by those outside the government controlled propaganda organs are ‘fake’. Take this as you will.