Posted on 12/16/2017 8:13:08 PM PST by Kaslin
On Friday, Fox News's Tucker Carlson interviewed Stephen F. Cohen, a contributing editor at The Nation. Cohen sharply criticized coverage at the Washington Post and the New York Times, and more generally stated that he has "never seen media malpractice" like the establishment press's year-long effort to breathe life into what he insists has been a completely ginned-up claim that Russia tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Given that it has leaned hard-left during its entire existence, it might stun readers here to know that Cohen, who is married to magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, strongly believes, based on what he claims is his own extensive research, that there is no evidence of Russian U.S election influence.
Readers should keep in mind, as they view and digest Cohen's contentions, that they, if true, completely refute the "fact-checkers" at Politifact, who have decided that "Russian election interference is a 'made-up story'" is 2017's "Lie of the Year."
Politifact, which concedes that "It seems unlikely — though not impossible — that Russia interference changed the outcome of the election," contends that "one man" — President Donald Trump — "keeps saying it didn’t even happen," strongly implying that Trump is all alone in his belief. That's wrong — and Cohen is on Politifact's side of the aisle.
Carlson began by pointing to the print edition version of a Friday Washington Post story. The print story, which has a different headline ("How Trump's pursuit of Putin has left the U.S. vulnerable to the Russian threat") from the online version ("Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked"), has a subhead — "Hacking Democracy" — which assumes facts Cohen contends are not in evidence.
The full video segment from the show is here. The first excerpt which follows begins after Cohen was introduced, and deals with that Washington Post item:
Carlson And Cohen on WashPost, Media, Russia Snip 1 — 121517
Transcript (bolds are mine throughout this post):
(Snip 1, from 0:28 to 1:47 of full segment)
TUCKER CARLSON: So I'm reading the Washington Post today, which is the Jeff Bezos publication. And right on the front page, there's a piece about Russia. And the subhead says here, "Hacking Democracy," as if it is a known and universally accepted fact that our democracy was, quote, "hacked."
Do we know that?
STEPHEN COHEN: We do not. It's been alleged. Originally it was said that 17 intelligence agencies made that finding. Turned out it was a few people in a couple intelligence agencies.
If you read on in the Washington Post story in the first paragraph, they go back to this claim that it's the consensus of intelligence agencies. So it's simply not true.
I have to say that in addition to being a professor, for a long time I was also a paid consultant of a major American television network. I admire mainstream media. I learned a lot. But I have never seen media malpractice like this before in my life.
What that constitutes is essentially making allegations for which there is no verified facts, information, or evidence, and then basing your commentary on it.
So briefly put, it said that somehow Trump has been compromised by Putin, the leader of Russia. Then, when Trump does diplomacy with Putin, the New York Times literally calls it "treason." I haven't seen anything like this before.
The next video below contains two snips. In the first, Cohen reacts to the press's heavy reliance on leaks in the absence of substance, and notes the heavy irony in the left completely switching sides on the intelligence agencies' presumptive credibility. In the second, Carlson directly asks Cohen if he seen any evidence of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election:
Carlson And Cohen on Trump, Russia, Media 2 & 3 — 121517
Transcript:
(Snip 2, from 2:12 to 2:35 of full segment)
COHEN: ... A leaker, by definition, has a political agenda. We'd agree on that, right?
CARLSON: Yes, of course.
COHEN: You may not be old enough to remember, but I remember when the media, and particularly the liberal media, was deeply suspicious of intelligence agency sources.
CARLSON: Yes.
COHEN: And now we have a situation where they seem to be the Holy Writ. If they whisper it to you on the telephone, it's true, and you print it.
(Snip 3, from 3:20 to 3:48)
CARLSON: ... Do we have and have you seen any evidence at all that the Russian government materially affected the outcome of the 2016 election?
COHEN: I have heard you say repeatedly there is no evidence. I've looked harder than you have. I've looked here in America, but I also have looked in Moscow. I mean, when I am there, as people I know, and yes, I confess, I do know people who are or have been Russian intelligence agents. I haven't found anybody in Moscow who believes this story.
Cohen has been consistently critical of media conduct and the Russian narrative for months. Headlines at a few of his recent columns at The Nation include the following:
How utterly fascinating it is that a longtime leftist fellow traveler at one of its furthest-left publications completely disputes the Washington Post's "Hacking Democracy" assumption, and insists, in the face of Politifact's contention that there is "a mountain of evidence" supporting Russia's alleged attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, that there is none.
The MSM is the Country’s greatest threat. Parent companies: Disney, Comcast.
Thanks Kaslin. I wonder how long before sexual allegations are made against Stephen F. Cohen?
Cohen has been a Soviet apologist and disinformation spreader since at least the 1980’s, esp. on the John Batchelor Show.
Here is at least one Wash. Post Opinion column of Cohen that says it all.
Wash. Post, Sunday, August 21, 1983, Page C3, “The Soviet Union Is No Basket Case: It is strong and stable because the Kremlin keeps its promises”, “Stephen Cohen is a professor of politics at Princeton University and writes a monthly column for The nation, from which this article is taken.
He writes the “Every generation or so, Western opinion embraces a new myth about the Soviet Union.
Now it is the ‘Failure and crisis’ of the Soviet system at home...”
“If this picture of a crisis-ridden Soviet regime tottering on the abyss were not so dangerous, it could be dismissed as just another piece of passing foolishness. {KEY PROPAGANDA LINE HERE>]. Unfortunately, it underlies the idea, so popular in the Reagan Administration and other influential circles, that an American policy based one a new arms race and all-out economic warfare will destroy the Soviet Union or “bring it to its knees.” Critics of that apocalyptic analysis risk being labeled “appeasers” or Soviet “apologists”. ...
Last paragraph:
“A Soviet émigré to the United States recently expressed surprise at the opinion that “almost all Soviet people are anti-communist and hate Soviet power.” In an article recounting conversations with many “typical representatives of Soviet people at all levels,” he called this view a “self-deception.” Instead of dangerously deceiving ourselves about the Soviet Union’s “crisis” and what it calls communism, we should ask ourselves why a system with so many problems is so stable. The answer may lead us to wiser and more compassionate policies.”
THAT LAST PARAGRAPH WAS COHEN’S JOB, TO STOP REAGAN’S SDI AND OTHER DEFENSE PROGRAMS WHICH HELPED TO BREAK THE SOVIET PIGGY BANK AND BRING THEM DOWN ECONOMICALLY, AS WELL AS TO DESTROY THEIR INVASION/OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN BY THE USE OF STINGER MISSILES TO DENY THE SOVIETS AIR SUPERIORITY AGAINST THE MUJAHIDEEN.
Another article in the Wash. Post a few years earlier, as I recall, had one American foreign affairs specialist (possibly an Administration official), calling Cohen the top Soviet apologist in America.
That assessment still stands valid today.
Beware of Soviet Wolves in Sheeps’ Clothing/Writing.
Bfl
Is he Orthodox or something? His lack of susceptibility to media mass delusion as a leftist himself is otherwise inexplicable.
I take it, then, due to your grave warning about wolves in sheep’s clothing, that you believe the MSM Trump-Russia narrative.
Absolutely not. I do not “believe the MSM Trump-Russia narrative” and have written extensively here at FR Pings/post about how it was part of a “covert coup” effort by the Democrats and the Marxist left (Soros funded groups, esp. in the media, hardcore leftists in Congress, kooks in academia, TV show hosts, the mainstream Trump hating media, and conspiracy nutcases).
I have also written as a speculation, the other day, that perhaps Putin started some limited types of electronic/cyberspace probings of U.S. election sites, etc. so as to get the MSM and leftist Trump haters to start hysterical rumors that Trump was being aided by the Russians.
Well, the left did exactly that, aided by corrupt FBI and DOJ officials, gullible leftist media voices, and aided by organized leftist “bot” operations to make their voices seem nationwide instead of fake-wide.
I’ve been around long enough, and had really great teachers/mentors on Soviet/communist disinformation programs and psy-ops (Dr. Stephen Chowe - Am. Un), “Edward Hunter” of “Brainwashing in Red China” fame, Herb “I Led Three Lives” Philbrick, the well-known FBI undercover agent, and Herbert Romerstein (Ex. CP, Korean War vet, about 35 years as a government internal security analyst and investigator for Congress, etc). And there were others.
The Soviets have been the best psy-ops/disinformation practicioners in the World (though the Red Chinese are no slouches either). I wouldn’t be surprised if Putin’s hand is one day exposed in setting off the fake “collusion” propaganda campaign. After all, Steele relied on Russian intelligence people (whom you can always trust to tell the truth), the FBI bought Dossiergate hook, line and sinker, Fusion GPS stinks to hell, and some of the Soviet diplomats involved in even innocent meetings may not be so “innocent” after all.
I can recognize a wolf in sheep’s clothing because I believe that a wolf can wear sheep’s clothing as a tactic.
Can you?
That’s a lot of yelping to cover a basic logic error. Also so equivocation, as you justify the Russian election interference narrative immediately after dramatically harrumphing ABSOLUTELY NOT. Do you understand the meaning of the word “absolute?” It doesn’t appear as if you do.
What other conclusion can true Americans come to? This is about real revolution which will set up a ruling class and a slave class, call it socialism or communism, that is what is being attempted. Enough people saw what was happening and Trump was elected to stop it. That is the main reason they hate him, among others, of course. Is the “deep state” afraid he knows or can find out about illegal or treasonous matters they have been partaking in for a long time? Herbert Hoover was a very controlling head of the FBI, but only in his dreams could he have envisioned such power as this bureaucratic establishment has garnered for itself. Americans think our government resides in the Presidency, the Halls of Congress and the Judiciary. It is time that the truth is revealed and I hope we have enough courage left in Washington D.C. and in the media to do just that.
Re Logic. I said that Putin may have lit a match that started the forest fires of “Collusion” as a disinformation operation.
One you light the fire, you leave without leaving any fingerprints, match sticks, or other signs that you were there.
If you knew anything about Soviet disinformation ops, or even some of their “gray” ops, then you would know exactly what I’m talking about.
If there were coordinated but widespread Russian hacker attempts, or more likely just attention getting probes made to look like a major cyberattack on the election processes, then they were the equivalent of lighting the initial leaves on fire in a forest. Then the cyberists disappeared just enough for a few of them to be traced to the old Soviet bloc. How convenient!
The Democrats and their puppet media just threw gasoline on the small fire in order to make it into just what Putin wanted, a great “Collusion Conflagration” and the subsequent attacks on Donald Trump.
That is one alternative to explain some of the Russian activities that smell like some good old KGB operations during previous US elections starting at least in 1964. See the Soviet bloc propaganda they put out about Goldwater and nuclear weapons and you’ll know what I mean.
Did the RT consistently support Bernie Sanders as Cohen contends, or is this yet another very clever subterfuge to hide his Soviet-apologist self under a sheepskin, as if the USSR hadn’t collapsed nearly thirty years ago?
The Fourth Estate is The Fifth Column in this country!
I don’t know what rock this guy has been living under but the media has be malpracticing for the past 50 years..
OMG!! Katrina vanden Heuvel is MARRIED to a GUY?? I am shocked!
A left-liberal pushing back against a leftist narrative is worth noticing, especially when the guy pushing back is knowledgeable. Cohen was a longtime professor of political science at Princeton. His field was Soviet studies, with an emphasis on the revolution and post-revolutionary period. He wrote a definitive biography on Bukharin and, while I don't follow the field, he may still be the go-to guy on that subject. He's a thoughtful guy. Yes, he's always been sympathetic to the socialist project -- one of those people who regrets that the Russian revolution became monstrous -- but his historical point of view has always been anti-Stalinist. You don't have to agree with him, but I'd pay attention to what he has to say about Russia.
That’s because it’s a coup.
WOW...bada boom!
L8t
No, he was the 31st President of the United States. J. Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI.
HELP! Are they not saying the same thing? His contention is “no evidence” and Politifact calls it a “made up story - 2017 lie of the year.”
I just don’t get it. Are they not one and the same? Where’s the refutation? Have I developed a habit of reading backwards after all these years?
“”based on what he claims is his own extensive research, that there is no evidence of Russian U.S election influence.””
“”Readers should keep in mind, as they view and digest Cohen’s contentions, that they, if true, completely refute the “fact-checkers” at Politifact, who have decided that “Russian election interference is a ‘made-up story’” is 2017’s “Lie of the Year.”””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.