This sounds somewhat paranoid and like I was an insane person who went down the wrong internet rabbit hole. Usually I am pretty much of a conformist towards media outlets and on the side of mainstream newsoutlets. It is a fine line to walk. There happened a lot recently which led me to the conclusion of the title. It could also apply to the Washington post or others but I am not that much into the US media ecosystem.
Today I read an article in the German mainstream outlet "Der Spiegel". It has a very high reputation and is almost always anti-conspiracies and pro-mainstream narratives. It was about the general armageddon called Sergey Surowikin the spelling could be different on English. Even Der Spiegel suggested the NYT probably acted like the loudspeaker of US intelligence services to divide the Russian government. If I understood it correctly the NYT pretended this general was allied with Prigozhin to make a regime change in Russia. However it is unclear whether this was the case. Maybe they only pretended that to do a favor for the US intelligence services. The German article even suggested that the NYT journalists kind of admitted that such a narrative could be published to divide the Russian government.
In the article they quote the professor Marc Galeotti who posted in a tweet the following: "The NYT, which often feels like the US intel community's PR agency, is reporting that the IC suspects Gen Surovikin knew in advance about Prigozhin mutiny. Maybe so, but were I a cynic I'd wonder if this was an info op because(...)" This was not posted by Q or others alike. This dude is an expert in international security policies with a very high reputation. He went through Cambridge and the London School of economics. I don't know the details to draw a conclusion on my own. But others also suggested that the story is suspicious. And believe me I am quite the opposite of a Russia supporter.
There was another story. And here I again I might forgot some important details. But the blowup of the nordstream pipeline also was a story which sort of undermined my trust in mainstream media. It feels like Western media outlets are playing for their own team somehwhat. Most evidences suggest that Ukraine was responsibel for destroying that pipeline. It turned out the intelligence services knew it pretty early that Ukraine did it. Some will say it was the US though for the point that I want to make this is irrelevant. The intelligence services knew it before it happened and from what I have read they shared the information with some media outlets. I am not sure whether they only told it US outlets. Though of course the media outlets acted naive and pretended it could have been anyone. The evidences would be confusing and not clear. The story was leaked afterwards. They had to withhold the evidences because the US intelligence services demanded that probably after they shared the information.
Another story. It is my gut feeling which let me question the Epstein case. I could be wrong though the story sounds suspicious as fuck. I think the NYT made a research to prove that Epstein was not murdered instead that he committed suicide. I think they said they analyzed over 2000 documents etc. Still there are so many question marks. Why don't they release camera pictures to prove their point? I don't know any expert who questions their narrative but in my country there were surveys conducted and many people did not believe the suicide story. Even the German public broadcasting services reported about that survey. The NYT posted a tweet recently: "Breaking News: Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, the Justice Department confirmed on Tuesday. An inspector general report pointed to negligence and mismanagement at the jail that housed him." There were many funny responses under that tweet which made fun of it. After the prior cases where there are more hard evidences for misinformation I am questioning their reporting in this case too.
What do you think about it?
Today I read an article in the German mainstream outlet "Der Spiegel". It has a very high reputation and is almost always anti-conspiracies and pro-mainstream narratives. It was about the general armageddon called Sergey Surowikin the spelling could be different on English. Even Der Spiegel suggested the NYT probably acted like the loudspeaker of US intelligence services to divide the Russian government. If I understood it correctly the NYT pretended this general was allied with Prigozhin to make a regime change in Russia. However it is unclear whether this was the case. Maybe they only pretended that to do a favor for the US intelligence services. The German article even suggested that the NYT journalists kind of admitted that such a narrative could be published to divide the Russian government.
In the article they quote the professor Marc Galeotti who posted in a tweet the following: "The NYT, which often feels like the US intel community's PR agency, is reporting that the IC suspects Gen Surovikin knew in advance about Prigozhin mutiny. Maybe so, but were I a cynic I'd wonder if this was an info op because(...)" This was not posted by Q or others alike. This dude is an expert in international security policies with a very high reputation. He went through Cambridge and the London School of economics. I don't know the details to draw a conclusion on my own. But others also suggested that the story is suspicious. And believe me I am quite the opposite of a Russia supporter.
There was another story. And here I again I might forgot some important details. But the blowup of the nordstream pipeline also was a story which sort of undermined my trust in mainstream media. It feels like Western media outlets are playing for their own team somehwhat. Most evidences suggest that Ukraine was responsibel for destroying that pipeline. It turned out the intelligence services knew it pretty early that Ukraine did it. Some will say it was the US though for the point that I want to make this is irrelevant. The intelligence services knew it before it happened and from what I have read they shared the information with some media outlets. I am not sure whether they only told it US outlets. Though of course the media outlets acted naive and pretended it could have been anyone. The evidences would be confusing and not clear. The story was leaked afterwards. They had to withhold the evidences because the US intelligence services demanded that probably after they shared the information.
Another story. It is my gut feeling which let me question the Epstein case. I could be wrong though the story sounds suspicious as fuck. I think the NYT made a research to prove that Epstein was not murdered instead that he committed suicide. I think they said they analyzed over 2000 documents etc. Still there are so many question marks. Why don't they release camera pictures to prove their point? I don't know any expert who questions their narrative but in my country there were surveys conducted and many people did not believe the suicide story. Even the German public broadcasting services reported about that survey. The NYT posted a tweet recently: "Breaking News: Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, the Justice Department confirmed on Tuesday. An inspector general report pointed to negligence and mismanagement at the jail that housed him." There were many funny responses under that tweet which made fun of it. After the prior cases where there are more hard evidences for misinformation I am questioning their reporting in this case too.
What do you think about it?
