In a lesser-noticed but revealing portion of Frances Haugen’s stage-managed PR tour last week, the vaunted “Facebook Whistleblower” took a moment to show off her “national security” credentials for Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska.
Seems like a lot of people saw through her right away. Maybe the mainstream media is kissing her ass, but her being a shameless fake spread through the internet like wildfire. She has not had nearly the impact they were hoping for.
"A lot of people" who regularly get their news through places like Twitter and Substack did see through her ruse right away, but I doubt any kind of skeptical portrayal penetrated the mainstream consciousness very much. I would estimate 99% of the coverage mindlessly venerated her. A lot of people will only see the 60 Minutes segment, then maybe a few clips of the Senate testimony, and come away with the impression that she's some incredibly brave and subversive "whistleblower."
I am mostly thinking about people in the ages between 18-40. Not many of them follow or trust corporate media. I saw them spreading the word before any Substack articles. Most of these people are what I would call anti corporate censorship. As the culture war has heated up, many of these guys found themselves under attack for not supporting the woke and/or institutional line.
Just like "working class", the term Corporate Media is meaningless without more specific context. When self-identified liberals/progressives in the 18-40 age bracket hear "corporate media", they only think Fox News and maybe even OAN and Newsmax. They tell themselves they are edgy and don't trust corporate media, but gobble up Trevor Noah, Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, etc. I've seen several polls that show folks in that age bracket support tech platforms acting precisely the way that this whistleblowhard (stolen) is suggesting, along with ancillary speech controls found on college campuses everywhere. I'm not disputing the particular people you saw on Twitter. But in the real world, what I've seen of the 25-54 age bracket is exactly as Michael describes.
Completely different group. The ones you are bringing up are the supporters of this. Reread what I wrote above paying particular attention the last sentence. The people I am talking about might self-identify as liberals but they do not as progressives. Most of them used to be apolitical until the culture war became unescapable.
The only people I know of on the left-spectrum who oppose corporate censorship are self-described progressives, if not hardcore leftists or democratic socialists (Kyle Kulinski, Krystal Ball, Jimmy Dore, etc). I don't know personally or via the internet anyone you describe above (formerly apolitical, not progressive but maybe liberal while also skeptical of corporate censorship). The bulk of people I know personally are either apolitical and not paying attention at all, blue-no-matter-who partisans, and a few center-right folks.
Most people read headlines and maybe a few paragraphs or listen to a shallow report read by a stenographer written by their handler(s). Most people do not much care to think this through. This is how Manufacturing Consent works. I simply don't believe that "a lot of people" saw through this.
And when you listen to his testimony and the "news" reports around it, it's gushing saccharine about how he shares the JFK initials, and you hear the super fake Boston accent - a speech pattern he seems to have completely lost.
So glad to see you call this out. We know it's not a real whistleblower as soon as Congress and MSM give them heroic treatment. Real whistleblowers are stifled and smeared, prosecuted and jailed. John Kiriakou the only person prosecuted and jailed for CIA torture program confirmed it was US policy to torture and there's a long list who exposed criminality and were rewarded by having their lives destroyed, Congress made a fuss about CIA leaker, Eric Ciaramella another fake whistleblower, to build their Impeachment case. Now they have their fake Facebook hero to cheer for censorship. Hard to say which is worse the regularity of corp-gov fraud or the fact the public buys the lies.
What she's proposing sounds like the best thing FB could possibly hope for: a government body tasked with regulating FB and it's competitors staffed almost entirely with former (and future) FB people and other industry insiders, essentially allowing them to regulate themselves and their competition.
Is this not what FB has been seeking all along?
I'm not the type who sees conspiracies everywhere but my goodness, are we sure she's not doing this at FB's direction? What is the downside to FB in anything she's said? A bit more reputational harm and maybe a short term financial loss, but it's nothing compared to the long term benefits of getting as deeply embedded into the government as what she's proposing.
I think the extent to which an independent journalist gins up the ire of the Twitterati is a very reliable gauge of how important that journalist's work is and how well it effectively undermines their dogma, which means that you're killing it, MT.
Always remember that for every neurotic, self-involved spaz having an apoplectic fit over some truth you've written or pointed out, there are 10 people who wholeheartedly support you. They feign self-assurance with aggression. Q.v. - the random congressional staffer today, the one who looks exactly like the sort of dude who uses windows as vanity mirrors, who felt compelled to proclaim his intent to "find and bully" you.
For a while there, in the 70s and 80s, working at the Military-Industrial Complex, Langley Donut-Pounding Division, wasn't glamorous. They weren't paid so well that status-grabbing preppies glommed onto it. Well, that's changed. (In rel phenomenon, did you know that only socially awkward nerds used computers/Internet in 1994? Strange but true)
I blame the TV show "Alias" but probably has more to do with D.C./NoVa real estate market
A Karentrepeneur is a professional attention-seeker, faux-activist, and whistleblower-for-hire who develops a personal media brand by providing public narrative support for those who will directly or indirectly provide the Karentrepeneur with a boost of self-importance, a big bump in social status, and some paid gigs/deals. (See also: bottom-feeder)
It has everything to do with the the dynamics of power.
If you are "whistle blowing" in such a way so that you demand already powerful institutions should be given more power, they will roll out the red carpet.
If your whistle blowing is done, like Snowden, to expose corruption of that power?
Heavily "credentialed"...the hottest term in biz these days is "data scientist" - in other words, you look at numbers and can say, unequivocally, that 2 is larger than 1 and explain the differences between median and average. You might even be able to (begin censoring here...) that anyone under the age of 30 is more likely to die of the flu and is more likely to develop side effects from the vaccine than COVID (end censoring). Because data science with a blue check NEVER analyzes inconvenient truths nor counter the orthodoxy. Lemmings may now continue taking a long walk on a short pier.
Good article. One point on "Facebook itself" where you'll probably catch some flack - the oversight board is nominally independent of Facebook, notwithstanding arguments made by most thinking beings, such as those at the NYT: "But Facebook funds the board with a $130 million trust, and top executives played a big role in its formation."
Excellent article. Got a little suspicious when all the articles were run by WSJ (which basically said nothing new and were more opinion than factual) AND she she was featured on 60 Minutes. It was a little obvious, preachy, and too well scripted.
Watched the Senate hearings and it was obvious that it was an orchestrated event to anyone who have been paying attention and thinking critically.
However, I was amazed that the day of the event Tucker Carlson was treating her as an actual whistleblower spilling the goods on FB's equivalency to Tobacco Companies (which is a true issue). The next day he recognized that he (or maybe his producers?) missed the big picture of this charade and admitted he was really humbled. I don't always agree with Tucker, but he usually has very good insight on framing events in context, better than most of the Fox opinion folks or the other mainstream media.
Tucker is one of the few Corporates I listen to. I noticed that he's one of the few people who will regularly have GGreenwald or MTracey on. When I saw the Democracy Nows of the world blocking truth tellers of the left, Tucker rose in stature.
"Functionary" is perfect. It's a term that deserves much wider and more frequent usage in 2021.
Seems like a lot of people saw through her right away. Maybe the mainstream media is kissing her ass, but her being a shameless fake spread through the internet like wildfire. She has not had nearly the impact they were hoping for.
"A lot of people" who regularly get their news through places like Twitter and Substack did see through her ruse right away, but I doubt any kind of skeptical portrayal penetrated the mainstream consciousness very much. I would estimate 99% of the coverage mindlessly venerated her. A lot of people will only see the 60 Minutes segment, then maybe a few clips of the Senate testimony, and come away with the impression that she's some incredibly brave and subversive "whistleblower."
I am mostly thinking about people in the ages between 18-40. Not many of them follow or trust corporate media. I saw them spreading the word before any Substack articles. Most of these people are what I would call anti corporate censorship. As the culture war has heated up, many of these guys found themselves under attack for not supporting the woke and/or institutional line.
Just like "working class", the term Corporate Media is meaningless without more specific context. When self-identified liberals/progressives in the 18-40 age bracket hear "corporate media", they only think Fox News and maybe even OAN and Newsmax. They tell themselves they are edgy and don't trust corporate media, but gobble up Trevor Noah, Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, etc. I've seen several polls that show folks in that age bracket support tech platforms acting precisely the way that this whistleblowhard (stolen) is suggesting, along with ancillary speech controls found on college campuses everywhere. I'm not disputing the particular people you saw on Twitter. But in the real world, what I've seen of the 25-54 age bracket is exactly as Michael describes.
Completely different group. The ones you are bringing up are the supporters of this. Reread what I wrote above paying particular attention the last sentence. The people I am talking about might self-identify as liberals but they do not as progressives. Most of them used to be apolitical until the culture war became unescapable.
The only people I know of on the left-spectrum who oppose corporate censorship are self-described progressives, if not hardcore leftists or democratic socialists (Kyle Kulinski, Krystal Ball, Jimmy Dore, etc). I don't know personally or via the internet anyone you describe above (formerly apolitical, not progressive but maybe liberal while also skeptical of corporate censorship). The bulk of people I know personally are either apolitical and not paying attention at all, blue-no-matter-who partisans, and a few center-right folks.
if you like joe biden, you love and trust corporate media
Substack in its entirety is a 1% proposition, MSM commands 99% - lest we forget.
Most people read headlines and maybe a few paragraphs or listen to a shallow report read by a stenographer written by their handler(s). Most people do not much care to think this through. This is how Manufacturing Consent works. I simply don't believe that "a lot of people" saw through this.
Haugen is a fraud as whistleblower, and therefore not even a whistleblower. How about political hack.
Her testimony oozed of agenda, not of fact. She clearly wants to push a narrative that her view of what should be censored, is the only correct view.
I remain not impressed, in fact far from it.
She’s a fascist.
I can easily imagine her in a black spandex SS uniform, with an assortment of torture paraphernalia.
Beauty
Reminds me of John Kerry.
For those who don't know about the Winter Soldier, ask yourself why it was Kerry who became the spokesman and ended up testifying before Congress.
The Oligarchy is so firmly in control that even the opposition is determined by the Oligarchy.
And when you listen to his testimony and the "news" reports around it, it's gushing saccharine about how he shares the JFK initials, and you hear the super fake Boston accent - a speech pattern he seems to have completely lost.
So glad to see you call this out. We know it's not a real whistleblower as soon as Congress and MSM give them heroic treatment. Real whistleblowers are stifled and smeared, prosecuted and jailed. John Kiriakou the only person prosecuted and jailed for CIA torture program confirmed it was US policy to torture and there's a long list who exposed criminality and were rewarded by having their lives destroyed, Congress made a fuss about CIA leaker, Eric Ciaramella another fake whistleblower, to build their Impeachment case. Now they have their fake Facebook hero to cheer for censorship. Hard to say which is worse the regularity of corp-gov fraud or the fact the public buys the lies.
He who shall not be named, was named.
I'm old enough to remember the Internet when there was no Facebook. It was nice.
What she's proposing sounds like the best thing FB could possibly hope for: a government body tasked with regulating FB and it's competitors staffed almost entirely with former (and future) FB people and other industry insiders, essentially allowing them to regulate themselves and their competition.
Is this not what FB has been seeking all along?
I'm not the type who sees conspiracies everywhere but my goodness, are we sure she's not doing this at FB's direction? What is the downside to FB in anything she's said? A bit more reputational harm and maybe a short term financial loss, but it's nothing compared to the long term benefits of getting as deeply embedded into the government as what she's proposing.
I think she IS doing it at Facebook's direction, coordinated with the left and mainstream media.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It's like she was sent by FB to do what would help them the most.
Bravo.
I think the extent to which an independent journalist gins up the ire of the Twitterati is a very reliable gauge of how important that journalist's work is and how well it effectively undermines their dogma, which means that you're killing it, MT.
Always remember that for every neurotic, self-involved spaz having an apoplectic fit over some truth you've written or pointed out, there are 10 people who wholeheartedly support you. They feign self-assurance with aggression. Q.v. - the random congressional staffer today, the one who looks exactly like the sort of dude who uses windows as vanity mirrors, who felt compelled to proclaim his intent to "find and bully" you.
For a while there, in the 70s and 80s, working at the Military-Industrial Complex, Langley Donut-Pounding Division, wasn't glamorous. They weren't paid so well that status-grabbing preppies glommed onto it. Well, that's changed. (In rel phenomenon, did you know that only socially awkward nerds used computers/Internet in 1994? Strange but true)
I blame the TV show "Alias" but probably has more to do with D.C./NoVa real estate market
A Karentrepeneur is a professional attention-seeker, faux-activist, and whistleblower-for-hire who develops a personal media brand by providing public narrative support for those who will directly or indirectly provide the Karentrepeneur with a boost of self-importance, a big bump in social status, and some paid gigs/deals. (See also: bottom-feeder)
It has everything to do with the the dynamics of power.
If you are "whistle blowing" in such a way so that you demand already powerful institutions should be given more power, they will roll out the red carpet.
If your whistle blowing is done, like Snowden, to expose corruption of that power?
Well, power doesn't like that
Heavily "credentialed"...the hottest term in biz these days is "data scientist" - in other words, you look at numbers and can say, unequivocally, that 2 is larger than 1 and explain the differences between median and average. You might even be able to (begin censoring here...) that anyone under the age of 30 is more likely to die of the flu and is more likely to develop side effects from the vaccine than COVID (end censoring). Because data science with a blue check NEVER analyzes inconvenient truths nor counter the orthodoxy. Lemmings may now continue taking a long walk on a short pier.
Perfect.
Good article. One point on "Facebook itself" where you'll probably catch some flack - the oversight board is nominally independent of Facebook, notwithstanding arguments made by most thinking beings, such as those at the NYT: "But Facebook funds the board with a $130 million trust, and top executives played a big role in its formation."
Excellent article. Got a little suspicious when all the articles were run by WSJ (which basically said nothing new and were more opinion than factual) AND she she was featured on 60 Minutes. It was a little obvious, preachy, and too well scripted.
Watched the Senate hearings and it was obvious that it was an orchestrated event to anyone who have been paying attention and thinking critically.
However, I was amazed that the day of the event Tucker Carlson was treating her as an actual whistleblower spilling the goods on FB's equivalency to Tobacco Companies (which is a true issue). The next day he recognized that he (or maybe his producers?) missed the big picture of this charade and admitted he was really humbled. I don't always agree with Tucker, but he usually has very good insight on framing events in context, better than most of the Fox opinion folks or the other mainstream media.
Tucker is one of the few Corporates I listen to. I noticed that he's one of the few people who will regularly have GGreenwald or MTracey on. When I saw the Democracy Nows of the world blocking truth tellers of the left, Tucker rose in stature.