The Democrat-Media Complex Narrative is that the US Intelligence Agencies (who are completely non-partisan and never make mistakes) have determined that evil foreigners (Russia) “hacked the election” to install Trump as their puppet president. And the Low-Information-Voters seem to be lapping up this narrative, just like they lapped up “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” and “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
Digging into the actual “Intelligence Report” doesn’t support the DMC Narrative so much, according to people who have dug into the actual “Intelligence Report.” While it is generally accepted that attempts to hack into communication networks is a form of espionage any Government with an intelligence agency does, the report provides very little hard evidence that Russia provided the Wikileaks emails at the center of the controversy and even less evidence that Russia’s intent was to help Trump win. Rather, according to the report (that the media is relying on to advance their narrative), if Russia did provide Wikileaks with the emails, the purpose was more likely to undermine the expected presidency of Hillary Clinton (by releasing emails that accurately portrayed the Democrat party as corrupt, incompetent, and contemptuous of its voters) whom the Russians expected to win.
The report says Putin ordered the 2016 campaign “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” The report goes on to say that at some point Putin “developed a clear preference” for Trump. But it also says that, “Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.”
That actually makes a lot more sense than the Conspiracy Theory that the Russians were out to help Donald Trump. But you have to think about it to get there, and thinking is harder than lapping up a narrative.
Am I supposed to get mad that Russia was seeking to “undermine an American president?” Not after spending eight years watching the BBC, Al-Jazeera, and CNN International (and most of the American news media, BTW) seek to undermine President George W. Bush.
Speaking of the role in media, the “Intelligence Reports” spends more time discussing the state-owned “Russia Today” network than it does discussing the hacking of DNC emails.
The IC report says, “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine — comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls — contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.” Indeed, the report devotes more space to analyzing RT, the Russian TV network, than it does to hacking.
Is it wrong for foreign-owned media to try to influence American politics? Let me check that out with the New York Times… which is owned by a Mexican billionaire.
Again, it seems hard to believe that one rather obscure network could have more influence on an American election than the combined forces of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC/MSDNC, PBS, NPR, and basically FoxNews (except Sean Hannity) who were wall-to-wall for months telling us that Hillary was going to win and Trump was the worst thing that could happen to America (and in some cases covertly collaborated with the Clinton campaign). Are the news media in America so weak and disrespected that a network from Russia has more influence? If so, the media have problems beyond an email hack.