Identifying a limited hangout

[Razer]

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-cuban-invasion-and-the-times-blinks/
>  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-story-archive/the-bay-of-pigs-invasion.html
> ). 
>
>
> In fact, I googled "new york times communist" I get this
> article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/opinion/sunday/when-communism-inspired-americans.html
> 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.