LETTER

Reply to my critics . . .

 

I was called a vacuous right-wing extremist Neanderthal in your newspaper recently for conveying concerns about Hillary Clinton's emails as posted by WikiLeaks. Two writers suggest that I no longer be published. Apparently criticizing a Democrat is enough to be called a right-wing extremist. For the record, I am a classical liberal, social libertarian, and fiscal conservative, supporting legalized drugs, gay marriage, civil liberties, and balanced budgets. I guess in Canada that last part could be called extreme though!

One writer mentioned that their lack of refutation didn't mean anything. They misunderstood my point (my fault). The Chair of the DNC was forced to resign on the eve of their convention over the contents of WikiLeaks after facing criticism from Bernie Sanders himself (a right-ring extremist?). There was turmoil in the party over their awful treatment of Sanders. Even the New York Times (right-wing extremists?) covered the leaks/fallout. Yet they are fake?

WikiLeaks has a perfect journalistic track record and to see them disparaged as "fake news" is ghastly. Julian Assange was rightly hailed as a hero by the left for exposing the war crimes (60,000+ civilian deaths) of George W. Bush and his cronies in October 2010. Is Assange right or left, or simply a truth teller?  I suppose Edward Snowden is fake as well. I refuse to believe that all of your readers are dinosaurs who have never gone online. Do some homework: read the content first, then read about DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) digital signing for good measure.

(As for) Fred Ryan, the very things he claims about Trump are also found in the WikiLeaks emails, like racism. And Democratic operatives (who resigned!) were covertly recorded by an independent blogger explaining in detail how they provoke violence at Trump rallies and conduct voter fraud. How can you ignore primary sources? Why is it called “fake news” and no “layers” of reporting done at all? Just Google it and watch the videos (primary sources). One of these disgraced operatives visited President Obama personally 42 times at the White House (primary source: whitehouse.gov).

My entire point is that media people (gatekeepers) who don’t like what they see tend to call it “fake news”, even when the primary source is rock solid as in WikiLeaks. It’s an attempt to discredit and silence thoughtful dissent by big media. It’s a pity that a more independent paper like the Bulletin doesn’t escape that box.

Eric Russell
Aylmer

NOTE: We at the Bulletin would appreciate a toning down of the accusations and name-calling by all letter writers, although a re-read of the letters Mr Russell refers to shows no one asked to have him barred from the Bulletin; rather, they asked why we are not applying our no-falsehoods goal to some of his assertions. Please stick to verifiable facts or clearly-stated opinions, everyone. It is our ambition to avoid name-calling and also to avoid outright falsehoods or unsupported assertions of fact.

It is here that Mr Russell is hardly the victim he claims to be, since he is picking out the criticisms which he can answer, while ignoring the rest. Our understanding of the letters, and certainly of our own editorials, is that “fake news” comes from all directions and sources, including mainstream media. Wikileaks, a reputable source, is but a tiny source, and not necessarily fake. Reports of Russian hacking and Russia-sourced fake news appears uncontestable at the moment – as are the thousands of far-right and white militia-based sites claiming to be legitimate news sources in the US. Mr Russell ignores these, yet they constitute the majority of fake news sites. It is surprising that Mr Russell appears unaware of them, or finds them more convenient to ignore than the few mainstream sites like the DNC or White House, in building his case.

To claim the violence at Trump rallies was instigated by Democrats when it was obviously encouraged by Mr Trump -- in public, which we all saw, not via “covert recordings” of “operatives” –  falls among the very falsehoods we wish to avoid.  The only systematic fraud verified has been the moves by some state legislatures to suppress voting (in minority areas). To repeat Trump’s charge of  “voter fraud” by the Democrats when all evidence points to almost no voter fraud in this or the last four presidential elections is another falsehood.

- The Editor