There is already a serious problem in modern discourse with the term “independent media,” a phrase commonly defined as any media outlet, no matter how big an empire it is, that is not owned or funded by the state (as if that is the only form of dependence or control to which media is subject). But even at this extremely low bar, all these outlets fail. Indeed, Weimers’ warning underlines the fact that none of them are independent in any meaningful way. They are, in fact, completely dependent on USAID for their very existence.
Not only that, but some USAID-backed journalists candidly admit that their funding dictates their output and what stories they do and do not cover. Leila Bicakcic, CEO of Center for Investigative Reporting (a USAID-supported Bosnian organization), admitted, on camera, that “If you are funded by the U.S. government, there are certain topics that you would simply not go after, because the U.S. government has its interests that are above all others.”
While USAID specifically targets foreign audiences, much of its messaging comes back to America, as those foreign outlets are used as credible, independent, and reliable sources for newspapers or cable news networks to cite. Thus, its bankrolling of foreign media ends up flooding domestic audiences with pro-U.S. messaging as well.
An American in America does something stupid in a deeply American way:
BlueAnon liberals: “this is clearly the fault of foreigners!”
It’s hard for me to believe that Occam’s Razor applies here. It’s hard for me to believe that someone this stupid can become president and think he’s doing something good for America.
So he became president to do something bad to America, and he does it in the way Putin says to.
LOL! Occam’s Razor is a universal principle, it applies everywhere. Ohhh but, “it’s hard for you to believe”, never mind then, clearly let’s just reject all reason.
Amazing how shitlibs have decided to create their own version of Qanon.
Ok buddy dude
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”