- cross-posted to:
- usa
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m no expert on the Council of Foreign Relations, but this article seems to be mostly factual. Your characterization of it as a “shadowy cabal” is much stronger than any claim made in the actual article except perhaps the line right at the end that reads
It was not until the 2016 election that the Council couldn’t, apparently, prevail.
Implying, of course, that Trump was someone whom the group couldn’t (allegedly, at least) influence.
So, as to the claim that the group is “shadowy”, I would say is provably incorrect, seeing as they have a publicly accessible website and even offer membership applications.
As to the extent that they decide US Foreign policy, well that’s a little harder to quantity. Washington has many powerful think-tanks that influence both sides of the political spectrum to varying degrees. The fact that many of the members of these organizations own, or partly own, media conglomerates is also a matter of fact.
“In 2008, CFR member John McCain lost against CFR candidate of choice, Barack Obama” didn’t also catch your eye? No source is cited, nor did some quick googling I did find any evidence. My googlefu is not the best, though.
Then Noam Chomsky is cited as a reputable source for commentary on journalism? He’s a linguistics professor.
Those both stood out glaringly to me in my first reading.
“In 2008, CFR member John McCain lost against CFR candidate of choice, Barack Obama” didn’t also catch your eye? No source is cited, nor did some quick googling I did find any evidence. My googlefu is not the best, though.
Yeah, that’s definitely a citation needed moment. All I could find regarding who the CFR endorsed in 2008 were right-wing conspiracy blogs and YouTube videos that contained only insinuations rather than provable facts.
Then Noam Chomsky is cited as a reputable source for commentary on journalism? He’s a linguistics professor.
Chomsky is also a well-regarded intellectual who co-authored the book Manufacturing Consent, which remains a highly influential text on the media and the military-industrial complex even today. His politics clearly lean towards the libertarian socialist/anarchist end of the spectrum, though, so of course he has his critics and detractors.
Thoughts on this Dutch Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics they cite?
edit: Also been digging into this Swiss Policy Research group, and they’ve actually got a page on Meda Bias/Fact Check. Not sure why I didn’t check sooner.
I haven’t heard of it before, but it seems to be a pretty stereotypical, right-libertarian site with pretensions of being a respectable organization even though it is apparently run by one guy with some highly questionable political views.
Content warning: blatant racism
I haven’t objectively examined the accuracy of the reporting on this site, but my hunch is that it would be pretty low.
