I got (rotf) here: "the New York Times is clearly and obvious a pro-communist publication" and tried to stop reading but this bandwidth-waster was just too fucking entertaining to quit. Ps. You have a 'assignment of culpability' problem. There would have never been a 'pol pot' if the US hadn't attempted to destroy southeast asia. You're just another intentionally myopic 'Merican idiot. Rr On 07/04/2017 04:35 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
Muckrock has long been publishing the writings of Michael Best, now Emma Best. I have previously pointed out that Muckrock is unwilling to contradict the powerful, who as I pointed out, includes John Young of Cryptome.
Now Best has been writing quite a bit about spicy topics regarding the CIA. But how does a limited hangout work, and when you see it in action, why is it so effective? It is quite a mystery why no one has espoused this in plain English. A limited hangout serves to satisfy people's curiosity in predominant narratives or explanations in what is going on. It is only by merely being curious that you can succeed against limited hangouts.
Sometimes a limited hangout serves multiple ends, it may even operate as framing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)#Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29#Media ), and how something is framed can also display different points with the same message to different audiences.
But to go into detail ( see attachment for PDF of article "One of the CIA’s private press contacts was a suspected Soviet spy" ), this article presents the best example of limited hangouts. It frames Tad Szulc's possible communist ties as a surprise. Automatically one thinks that this was an unfortunate situation, that the agency would have to disclose classified information to make a case, or to at least tell the New York Times that he shouldn't be allowed to deal with certain matters.
Now I guess Best can't help that some people form those sorts of initial conclusions. You know how people treat responsibility, how the law treats responsibility. It's just an unfortunate thing.
But the New York Times is clearly and obvious a pro-communist publication. To digress, every liberal publication was repeating the same story from Pyongyang on Otto Warmbier. But the New York Times has done worse than defend trumped up charges on a poor kid. The matter of Walter Duranty is available to anyone over the internet. Defended what is now known as the Holodomor, which ranks around the Holocaust in deaths. He defended Stalin's show trials.
His name was maintained on a list by George Orwell (!) as a person unsuitable as a possible writer for the Foreign Office's Information Research Department. And here's Sculc's real scoop : https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/12/26/1961-the-c-i-a-readies-a-cu... He wrote an article about "Anti-Castro units trained to fight at Florida bases". Best mumbles about Sculc writing about AMTRUNK, but he leaked the Bay of Pigs! Who is responsible for the Bay of Pigs disaster? Well, I googled for what the CIA officially says, and they don't say anything about Szulc ( https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2016-featured-st... ).
In fact, I googled "new york times communist" I get this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/opinion/sunday/when-communism-inspired-am... Still, more examples can be found here: http://www.conservapedia.com/The_New_York_Times#Newspaper_of_Record
Similar cases re-occur by numerous dishonest individuals, even those not closely associated with the New York Times, Chomsky defends Pol Pot as not that bad and the news reports on Pol Pot as exaggerated.
Although the concept of modifying the limitation of a hangout is some piece of linguistics.
I leave this for your to chew on, why is this Best person so protective of the New York Times' reputation? There is no easier way to tweak the nose of a commie by defending conservatives (not fascists) they condemn so harshly, particularly since conservatives make it so easy to be defended.