The Atlantic and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics hosted a “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy” conference this past week. The purpose was to study how to combat the “organized spread of disinformation” and hash out the best ways to tackle the issue.
The irony was demonstrated in the speakers they’d invited to the conference, primarily journalists such as CNN's Brian Stelter–those who epitomize deception. However, a handful of college students were able to put them on the spot and highlight the contradictions inherent in what they were trying to convey. University student Chris Phillips, in particular, eviscerated Brian Stelter by showing how he promoted CNN's deception. Stelter did not have much of an answer aside from calling it a “popular right-wing narrative” and attempting to ignore the issue.
However, that's not all. There were other interesting and fascinating glimpses at the thoughts of liberal journalists, such as Atlantic staff reporter Anne Applebaum, whom freshman Daniel Schmidt nailed on how poorly the media had dealt with the Hunter Biden laptop story as well as the lies they’d told to cover it up.
Applebaum's comments showed exactly why people don't trust the liberal media anymore. Now that they aren't able to label it “disinformation” anymore because the label is true enough that even the liberal media have been forced to admit it, they must find a new reason to not care about it. Applebaum declared the concerns regarding the president “totally irrelevant.”
The idea of influence-peddling the person who holds the highest office on earth, on his possibly being corrupted by connections with foreign governments–this isn't fascinating? Perhaps Russian blackmail isn't interesting? What does she mean by calling herself a journalist? Here's a second question: If this story isn't fascinating while also being “irrelevant,” why did the media spend four years promoting the fake Russia-collusion hoax against then-President Donald Trump, funded in part by Democrats? Why was it important and fascinating–and relevant?
It is interesting to note that in spite of what she says now, she has pushed the “Russia disinformation” claims in relation to Hunter Biden’s laptop, which she felt “interesting” enough at the time, before the laptop story proved true. Regarding the disinformation issue, Applebaum falsely wrote in 2020 that then-President Trump had called COVID a “hoax.” This wasn't the case, but it was typical of the fabrications circulating in the media.
The media folks attending the disinformation gathering were so furious that Daniel Schmidt and other students dared to question them that they pulled out the insane Never Trumper and token “conservative” Jonah Goldberg. The difference between the young people asking intelligent questions and Goldberg propounding an anti-Trump agenda without regard to the facts and stats that Schmidt had presented–including that approximately 16 percent of the people who supported Joe Biden had claimed that they would never have voted for Biden if they had known the details regarding Hunter Biden–was stark.
However, Schmidt did not claim that if the laptop details had been uncovered that Donald Trump would have won re-election; he discussed the poll and the responses of the people who had voted–something Goldberg did not want to confront, so he skipped over those issues to disprove an assertion that Schmidt had not even made. In the case of the cover-up, we don't know what exactly would have transpired in the final election results; however, we do know that a significant number of voters wouldn't have voted for Biden in some extremely close races in those crucial battleground states. That's something Goldberg wasn't willing to face.
The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was upset that students were showing the “professional journalists” up, and he demonstrated this through an episode of snarky rage.
“I think one darkly humorous but inevitable measurement of our success is that our disinformation conference has been the subject of a disinformation campaign on social media already,” the speaker stated. Are the words “success” what they call being desecrated in real-time?
What if students who ask them truthful inquiries could be dismissed as purveyors of “disinformation” because they don't like their questions? I believe that the students have demonstrated their argument. Kudos to the students who wrote the questions for the Chicago Thinker. It's great to see there are real journalists coming up the pipe with a passion for the truth.