Yves Engler says - Why is rabble.ca publishing puff pieces from the Halifax NATO Forum?

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture
Yves Engler says - Why is rabble.ca publishing puff pieces from the Halifax NATO Forum?

Yves Engler, a contributor to rabble.ca, has a bone to pick with the editorial choices here. His comments in full, so far:

Yves Engler wrote:
In recent days rabble.ca has run three interviews from the Halifax International Security Forum. This is sponsored by NATO, Department of national defense and a whole slew of military companies. For years, I’m not sure if they’re still doing it, activists in Halifax picketed the conference. This is serious neoconservative kind a crowd. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives research affiliate Christopher Majka published interviews of him asking a bunch of softball questions to Halifax International Security Forum invitees regarding Libya, Syria and Russia.
Taken to account by some readers for interviewing a NATO sponsored pro-war Libyan feminist, Majka responded with something I believe sums up what is wrong with social Democrats on foreign-policy. Basically Majka says we should trust the pro-invasion Libyan feminist because the powerful institutions that run global affairs do. Here in his own words:
“In terms of an understanding of the social and political situation of Libya, both under the Gaddafi regime and at present, there is a reason why Alaa Murabit has earned a sheaf of international honours (from Jordan, Italy, and the United States); runs a national Libyan organization (The Voice of Libyan Women); is invited to address International fora from Canada to Singapore (including the United Nations Security Council, the Halifax International Security Forum, The Snow Gala, a TED Talk, etc.), serves as an advisory board member on two United Nations institutions, is a board member for the German Marshall Fund's MENA Partnership, and is a fellow of Ashoka Innovators for the Public. In other words many key thinkers and international institutions recognize her experience, insights, understanding, and expertise in this area. For that reason I, and I suspect many others, will be more inclined to trust her analysis of Libyan politics and society rather than yours.”

Please join me in telling the good people over at rabble and CCPA that the Halifax Security Forum – and the Speakers It Chooses – Do Not Represent Progressive Values.

[email protected] rabble.ca
[email protected]

 

I've got to agree with Engler's critique. More to follow.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The more is this: I just read another puff piece by C. Majka - an interview with Russian politician Ilya Ponomarev and gave it the all sided criticism it deserved.  

I mean, c'mon. Is this the criteria now, that if it's Russophobic then it's gotta be OK? This is worse than the worst of the Cold War.

See the Russia 2 thread for more of the same.


swallow swallow's picture

The posts Englser doesn't like are all apparently from a blog hosted by rabble.ca, by CCPA research associate Christopher Majka, and seems to raise the same issues as other blogs as to whether rabble.ca should have a say over the blogger's content. 

swallow swallow's picture

Majka writes: 

Quote:
The Halifax International Security Forum (held in the Westin Nova Scotian hotel) is an unusual venue in which to delve into classical mythology. Now in it's seventh year (and I've covered the event for the last four) it's an ultra-high power think tank that annually draws 300+ delegates from over 60 countries to discuss security issues. It attracts a large number of hawkish attendees, from defence ministers and top military brass from virtually every NATO country, to some very conservative politicians. But also some exceedingly sharp and progressive activists.

[url=http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/christophermajka/2015/11/voice-libyan-wo... of the blog entries[/url]

 

lagatta

Yes, no reason rabble can't host Engler and Malka. I'll try to dig up some truth abot the Russia stuff, beyond the Putinist and Ukrainian echo chambers; fortunately I know a few people who have some knowledge about the issues (which I don't claim to).

Slumberjack

I take ikosmos' point here.  Majka's stuff does seem like pure reactionary bullshit and disinformation.  As a private venture though it is for rabble.ca to decide if pure reactionary bullshit belongs here, and for readers to draw their own conclusions about the site as it plays host to it.  

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I'm not all that convinced by swallow's point (sharp and progressive activists) I mean, there is a long history of using legitimate activists as window dressing for some very nefarious causes. Like NATO sponsored conferences in which chosen ideologues get paid enormous sums to talk shit.

Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Slumberjack

I'm not buying it either.  It certainly doesn't leave a favorable impression that such threadbare window dressing for NATO's aggression against Libya and against the people of eastern Ukraine is given space here at rabble.ca.  And what kind of outfit is the Canadian Center for Policy "Alternatives?"

NDPP

Hopefully not our only ones..

Arby Arby's picture

Lagatta: There's tons of info on the Ukraine ploy and NATO. It does help if you read books I might add. Anyone who has read, from a Left perspective, history knows what NATO is about (http://bit.ly/1MWVlnu). A good (but flawed) book that will bring you up to speed on the Ukraine move by the US (as it continues it's great game maneuvers that involve encircling Russia and China) is "Zbig's Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated," by Natylie Baldwin and Kermit Heartsong.

Another Rabble contributor, who has done amazing research and writing for years (and who got my attention with his research and writing about raped over Haiti) is Roger Annis. I don't know what Rabble thinks of him. (I think Rabble is disintigrating.) His last piece (or recent) here was quite beefy and worth looking up. They get buried pretty quickly on this tired, old site. You compare Rabble with Common Dreams (.org) and it makes you wonder what their problem is. CD is current but they get right to it and stuff isn't buried deep after one bloody day. It's useful to bloggers like myself. Anyway, Roger has been the main force behind a new website that's absolutely indespensable for those who want to know what the US and it's allies are doing in Ukraine. It's called "The New Cold War: Ukraine And Beyond." I also visit RT News often, but it's funny. It has the feel of proganda to me. I participate in the forums, but they are so hard to use that's it's rather clear that the people behind RT would rather we all just didn't bother looking into things too much. But it's a slick site and, as usual, the hosts on it's many slick shows are good at talking at us. Actually, I do appreciate the panels. Even if RT is selective in assembling it's panels (for shows like CrossTalk), you can always get a better feel for an issue when panelists question each other or disagree with each other. Then it's up to us to get info elsewhere. And there's many sources: ZNet, Consortium News (with Robert Parry), Canadian Dimension magazine (better than Rabble) and the Real News Network, where reader interaction is allowed, just to name a few.

Slumberjack

Sites like RT and Sputnik News are useful to see what the other side's propaganda is saying.  Also, for anyone in the arms trading business, they often serve as handy brochures for the latest Russian weaponry.

lagatta

Arby, I know Roger Annis, but I'm very disappointed, given his background, that he has fallen into the Putinist line. It is very hard to find material that isn't propaganda either for the Ukraine oligarchs or the Putinists.

I'm not at all ignorant of progressive news sources available, and my ability to read them is not limited to English. Unfortunately I don't read either Russian or Ukranian, but have colleagues who do.

I disagree with many rabble bloggers, but don't think there should be some kind of rabble party line, except for the general "what side are you on".  And there, I'm talking class and other forms of exploitation and oppression, not the campist outlook.

swallow swallow's picture

ikosmos wrote:

I'm not all that convinced by swallow's point (sharp and progressive activists) I mean, there is a long history of using legitimate activists as window dressing for some very nefarious causes. Like NATO sponsored conferences in which chosen ideologues get paid enormous sums to talk shit.

Sorry, I ain't buying it.

It's not my point, it's Majka's words. Thus the quote tags. 

NDPP

Slumberjack wrote:

Sites like RT and Sputnik News are useful to see what the other side's propaganda is saying.  Also, for anyone in the arms trading business, they often serve as handy brochures for the latest Russian weaponry.

With respect to news, a wide variety of sources are available. I survey a lot of them in my own attempts to seek out  accurate information especially on the  half dozen or so big stories constantly developing that I am currently following. This would not be close to possible if I were relying on, say CBC or the Guardian solely. The coverage is simply not there. The bias and inaccuracy too obvious. So you'll get no argument from me on the need for multiple sources of information. That being said, RT provides a greater degree of more or less accurate information quicker and better on a wider variety of stories than most of the conventional sources many seem to rely on here. For anyone seriously interested in following international stories especially, RT should certainly be among your sources.

Saluting RT's contribution to a world of more diversified news and opinion

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/325484-rt-10-year-anniversary-comments/

 

 

Roger Annis Roger Annis's picture

To lagatta, I don't follow a "Putinist line" on the events in Ukraine. My views parallel a very broad swath of left-wing as well as liberal opinion being voiced in the world, notably in the United States (alas, too little in Canada). Let me name just a few: Counterpunch, The Nation, Consortium News, Salon.com (Patrick L Smith). Heck, how about James Risen in the New York Times yesterday exposing the business interests in Ukraine of the son of the hawkish US VP Joseph Biden? Risen is a Pulitzer Prize winner, no less. Serious analysis even crops up occasionally on the BBC, Der Spiegel and some other mainstream outlets. Scott Taylor (Hfx Chronicle Herald) and David Climenhaga (Rabble.ca) stand out as all too rare, critical analysts in Canada.

Views such as mine appear to be blindly supportive of the Russian government because mainstream media and political parties are utterly blind to the reality in Ukraine. They are corrupted by prejudice against all things Russian and blindly supportive of all things NATO. In the words of Thomas Mulcair during the party leaders' debate August 6, 2015, "We stand with NATO!" This is a very disturbing and dangerous political reality in Canada.

I could write many things critical of Russia. It is a capitalist country with much economic inequality and which contributes its share of to the global warming emergency. I wrote a lengthy analysis last year of Russia's economy. (I argue that it should not be considered 'imperialist'; that it ranks, instead, as a non-imperialist capitalist power along with China and Brazil, with very important consequences in the global political realm.) But my overriding concern is the terrible war that has been imposed on the people of eastern Ukraine, the threat that such a thing could be imposed on the people of Crimea, and the grave attacks on social and political rights throughout Ukraine due to the turn of Ukraine's economic elite towards 'association' with austerity Europe.

The crisis in Ukraine is a consequence of a series of factors which I explain in my video talks, including NATO aggression and the political and economic failures of post-1991, capitalist Ukraine. Russia's response to the 'Maidan' movement and changes it brought about has been reactive and defensive throughout. NATO's historic goal is to weaken and subjugate Russia. If NATO were to succeed in this, it would be a disaster for humanity; more serious, even, than the cumulative, 'regime changes' disaster unfolding in the Middle East.

Yes, I recommend that people read the views of Russia's leaders and take seriously what they have to say. If that makes me "pro-Putin", then I plead guilty as charged. As for books, see the 'Books' page of the New Cold War.org website; listed there are Richard Sakwa's 'Frontline Ukraine' and Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe's Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. You can also subscribe to receive the once-per-day notification of articles appearing on New Cold War.org.

NDPP

Thanks very much for all of your excellent work Roger Annis and your generous, reasoned response here to the dangerous  Russophobia which seems to dominate a Canadian left, with little or no knowledge of the issues and determined to remain so.

 

 

lagatta

Québec left here - though I do follow Canadian left sources as well. And I'm not a Russophobe, nor a supporter of the Ukranian oligarchs. And certainly not of Nato, or on most things Mulcair says about foreign policy.

I'm just trying to make sense of a situation about which I make zero claim to expertise, but read wildly divergent descriptions and analyses from sources that are squarely on the left.

Counterpunch has published some absolutely horrible articles about France (which I know very well, unlike Ukraine or Russia), but of course that doesn't mean that what they write about the Ukrainian situation is equally deplorable. All I can call for at this point is not to censor voices from the left as we try to muddle through the conflicting lines on this very complex issue.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Good to see you here, Roger, interesting psots to add to your interesting analysis in other places! Thanks also for having the courtesy to engage with others and not to simply dismiss them as "Russophobic." 

Calls for better understanding of Russia remind me of the Cold War days, when many of us in the peace movement made the same request in a much more hostile environment than we have today. There's a lamentable lack of awareness among many people, both left and right, yes. I think that there's also a shortage of understanding, ironcially enough, of France by many American leftists in particular. We probably all need better understanding of other political cultures! 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

A welcome to Roger Annis as well.

swallow wrote:
Calls for better understanding of Russia remind me of the Cold War days, when many of us in the peace movement made the same request in a much more hostile environment than we have today.

Annis mentioned The Nation but I think it is worth mentioning that US patriot Stephen Cohen, whose partner is the editor of The Nation and, who is considered the doyen or dean of Russian Studies in the USA, had something very specific to say about this recently. Cohen has been around long enough to remember the corridors of power in the USA in the "old" cold war. And he has made it very, very clear that it is MUCH WORSE now.

Cohen has basically noted that anyone who does not share the knee-jerk Russophobia in government and mass media in the US today is written off as a dupe of Putin, etc. There were dissenting views, and they were aired in the cold war of old. Not now, says Cohen. And he says that this is dangerous to the security of the USA, because the lack of diversity in opinions on foreign policy truncates discussion and solutions to important global problems. Like the civil conflict in Ukraine, Daesh terrorism, and so on. So Cohen calls himself a patriot in this context, not only because the virulent Russophobic views often try to smear those who disagree as "unpatriotic", etc. but because the genuine best interests of the US are being harmed by this political pathology.

The threads here on babble about Russophobia have, literally, hundreds of entries.

The New Russophobia - one

The New Russophobia - two

The environment isn't as hostile, perhaps, for those who do not consider pathological Russophobia to be that harmful, or who aren't personally targetted by this new hostility. But we should be patriots as well, like Cohen, and note that our own peace movement is pretty damn moribund and weak. That weakness may very well relate to an unwillingness to confront these aggressive and hate-filled political ideologies, such as the new cold war version of Russophobia, etc.

Ideas matter a lot, and sometimes it's just a dirty fight because the other side makes it so.

I would only maybe add to Annis' analysis that, for Russia in particular (not speaking about the other BRICS-member states, for example) , there seems to me a kind of post-Soviet residue in foreign policy in today's Russia, in matters of policy and in the way the Russian state conducts foreign policy generally, that seems still, to linger, almost inexplicably perhaps, more enlightened and deserving of praise - internationalist and so on. Of course Russia, like China, looks at foreign policy completely differently from the way the hegemon does and it is much easier for them to seek out and support a multi polar world - they are not the hegemon and never will be - but that sort of realism doesn't explain everything. Putin's response to the Turkish shoot down is a case in point; another state would have found a way to go tit for tat militarily (they still might, mind you) and quickly too. I have read a number of American writers recently who have noted this as well and gave praise where praise is merited. The new Russophobia makes such praise practically "criminal" politically speaking. And that is worse than it was.


NDPP

How Kremlin Propaganda Works (and vid)

http://off-guardian.org/2015/12/12/rt-self-parody-video-how-kremlin-prop...

"Is that how you imagined it all...?"

Roger Annis Roger Annis's picture

Fair comment, lagatta. And to be clear, I did not interpret your original comment at all as being Russophobic, etc.

You mentioned France. I have not followed what C'Punch has published on politics there; I will try to catch up. But I know that opposition to the French government's participation in the NATO gang-up in eastern Europe has very weak. (I welcome being corrected on this point.) Some groups on the French far-left, notably the NPA, support the Euromaidan movement. I consider the NPA's views to be downright Russophobic and just plain ignorant concerning the conflict in Ukraine as well as present-day Russia.

I can't help but think there is a link, here, to the near-unanimous vote in the French National Assembly on Nov. 25 for France to increase it's participation in the war in Syria. That's in contrast to Britain and Germany where there were sharp debates and strong opposition voting to the 'more-war' resolutions in the Parliament and the Bundestag, on Dec 2 and 4, respectively (details on all the voting here). (And on Nov 19, the French National Assembly voted near-unanimously to extend by three months state of emergency laws decreed following the Nov 13 attacks in Paris. Recall the banning of protests during the COP21 summit, including violent attacks by police on protesters defying the ban.)

This takes me back to Haiti and 2004, even. The Socialist Party-led French government of the day was a key player in the overthrow of Haiti's elected president, in February 2004. The coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide was also supported by the Communist Party. Much of the far left in France turned a blind eye, including the NPA. Later, the NPA published articles to the effect that Aristide got what he deserved because he was a "reformist", he wasn't a "revolutionary". Though we tried hard, the Canada Haiti Action Network was never able to find and connect up with like-minded activists in France.

France remains a key player in the ongoing, imperialist military occupation of Haiti (11 years and counting!). Less known is France's occupation force in Mali. France invaded northern Mali in early 2013, in the name of--you guessed it--"fighting terrorism". It helped establish the UN Security Council occupation regime called 'MINUSMA' (Wiki here). MINUSMA has app. 45 participating countries (doesn't include Canada). It is a very similar force to the MINUSTAH regime in Haiti but with a very big difference--France's occupation force in Mali operates separately from MINUSMA. That's because France learned in Haiti (and probably from elsewhere in Africa) that it is better to be free of the guidelines that are supposed to govern UN "peacekeeping" forces, pathetic as those already are. These are the guidelines, for example, that failed to prevent UN soldiers from introducing a cholera epidemic to Haiti in 2010 which has since killed more than 9,000 people. The Security Council as well as Ban Ki-Moon himself ARE FIGHTING TO THIS DAY AGAINST ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CULPABILITY OR PROVISION OF COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS. Nine thousand-plus have died, but hundreds of thousands fell ill and to this day there is stalling and failure to fully establish safe and sanitary waer systems. To paraphrase our new prime minister, whose party was a key player in the 2004 coup, "It's the year 2015 and the UN and the big powers are still failing to help provide universal, potable water systems in Haiti?"

Northern Mali (in and on the fringe of the Sahara Desert) is populated by national minorities, such as the Tuareg, who have long fought for autonomy and self-determination from the south of the country. The Mali military overthrew the elected president in March 2012 because he was being "too soft" in seeking dialogue in the north instead of pursuing a failed war. Following the coup in 2012, a similar right-wing intervention as was taking place in Syria by so-called Islamist fighters occurred in northern Mali. This provided a key pretext for the French intervention. My website page tells this whole story in detail. Some of the articles there appeared originally in Rabble. I have not been able to keep the page fully up to date.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

more from NATOstan and the Empire of Chaos.

NATO, of course, is blameless, as it is in all articles by Christopher Majka. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

6079_Smith_W

Some of us think his articles are worthwhile reading, ikosmos.  You seem to be happy getting your news from other sources, so what is your problem here?

 

6079_Smith_W

That doesn't answer my question about what your problem is. You get to read and post whatever sources you want.

You don't think others should have the same freedom?

As for your smear that any writer (in this case a fellow babble poster) with an opinion different than yours isn't really following his convictions or professional ethics, but must be getting paid for it, I'll leave the question of how much sense that makes - and what it constitutes in terms of a personal attack-  open for everyone's consideration.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Some of us think his articles are worthwhile reading, ikosmos.  You seem to be happy getting your news from other sources, so what is your problem here?

 A mouthpiece for NATO in one circumstance is forever tainted by that association. Unless he wants to repudiate his previous animal droppings.

And he must have been paid very well - long before the piece was published here on rabble  - to put together such an enormous and detailed steaming dung heap in this latest piece.

So wolf down as much as you like. That shit-eating grin isn't fooling anyone.

 

Next.

6079_Smith_W

How is that your decision to make? You aren't on the editorial board.

And if you think that every article here needs to conform to your view of the world it's probably good that you don't apply for a position there.

For that matter, for a writer to criticize another's article is fair game; to presume to tell another what they should and should not write is frankly bizarre. That anyone feels he needs to silence others says more about the validity of his own case.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
As for your smear that any writer (in this case a fellow babble poster) with an opinion different than yours isn't really following his convictions or professional ethics, but must be getting paid for it, I'll leave the question of how much sense that makes - and what it constitutes in terms of a personal attack-  open for everyone's consideration.

 

im not the least surprised that, since you don't have a leg to stand on supporting such pro-war writers, you'd try such tactics. I notice as well that you've resorted to editing your replies after Ive responded to them. Gosh! Aren't you clever?!

So you noisily claim that Im silencing others while you try to silence me. Pathetic.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

It's not you but rabble.ca that is publishing Majka's stuff. And it belongs elsewhere - like on a pro-NATO, pro-war website. Not rabble.ca. That's the point, smart ass.

6079_Smith_W

Engler is the writer I was talking about.

And questioning your belief that an article doesn't belong here is not silencing you.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Isn't there a valuable distinction between publishing something of interest and endorsing it?

This raises a couple points that the opening post seems to be getting at and we might want to consdier:

The opening post has a problem not with the subject matter or even the writer but the fact that they are "puff-pieces" with "softball questions."

To me such a criticism is not silencing at all.

Perhaps the resolution could be in making sure the view is not taken as an endorsement -- by haivng opposing points of view given equal space and allowng the community to respond from the POV of this community.

Or the question might be to instruct those covering an issue to be more critical.

But any of the complaints I see here are at the least legitimate arguments to make. So too is a defence form rabble that it wants to bring a conversation here for discussion. How that is framed, what biases are there and the quality of the examination are of course worthy of comment. That this is supposed to be a alternative progressive media outlet where there are very few of those is a given.

So again, I see no attempt to silence but a worthy debate about what and how should be covered.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well, Engler claimed they were puff pieces. But what his letter seems to be implying is that Rabble shouldn't cover events like the NATO Forum because, in his words, they don't represent progressive values.

As someone who as covered Socred, Conservative Party, and Reform Party events, I think it is a pretty bad idea to put your pencils down and turn the cameras off based on that. If anything, those events deserve even greater scrutiny, in my opinion. If Engler disagrees with something in the article that is one thing; a moratorium on coverage of anything connected with NATO? Seems kind of dumb for an organization which is supposed to inform people.

As for what does and doesn't belong here, we have been through this before with respect to articles, and it seems to be a perennial complaint about individual posters and their opinions.

Almost invariably it comes form people who think the only valid interpretation of progressive is their own, and really just don't want to hear anything, progressive or not, which conflicts with their world-view.

My response? If I can put up with reading things here which I consider crap, they can as well. Some might want it to be so, but this is not an echo chamber.

And you want to have a "worthy" debate about what should be covered, and how?

As I said upthread, fortunately babble isn't in control of the editorial  board. If that were the case not a damned thing would get published for all the hand wringing and denunciation.

 

Sure I think a debate is worthy.

I probably agree with you on much of it. There is good reason to examine what an alternative place like this should cover and how it should cover it. Resources are not unlimited.

I do think that things like this should be covered.

Now the tone and the depth of the coverage is another issue.

I don't see a big disagreement here between you and I but I do think there is room to discuss it without calling it silencing.

 

6079_Smith_W

Well, ikosmos claimed they were puff pieces. But what Engler's letter seems to be implying is that Rabble shouldn't cover events like the NATO Forum because, in his words, they don't represent progressive values.

As someone who as covered Socred, Conservative Party, and Reform Party events, I think it is a pretty bad idea to put your pencils down and turn the cameras off based on that. If anything, those events deserve even greater scrutiny, in my opinion. If Engler disagrees with something in the article that is one thing; a moratorium on coverage of anything connected with NATO? Seems kind of dumb for an organization which is supposed to inform people.

As for what does and doesn't belong here, we have been through this before with respect to articles, and it seems to be a perennial complaint about individual posters and their opinions.

Almost invariably it comes form people who think the only valid interpretation of progressive is their own, and really just don't want to hear anything, progressive or not, which conflicts with their world-view.

My response? If I can put up with reading things here which I consider crap, they can as well. Some might want it to be so, but this is not an echo chamber.

And you want to have a "worthy" debate about what should be covered, and how?

As I said upthread, fortunately babble isn't in control of the editorial  board. If that were the case not a damned thing would get published for all the hand wringing and denunciation.

 

6079_Smith_W

I believe we do agree on a lot of this.

Even so, asking that something not be covered very definitely is silencing. I find it surprising that any journalist would support anything like that.

Furthermore, implying that a writer is being paid to toe a certain line, or otherwise compromise his ethics is a smear. Whether you agree with the writer or not (and I have taken this same position in cases of writers I largely disagree with) underming of someone's reputation is an attack on the independence of the press.

I

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I believe we do agree on a lot of this.

Even so, asking that something not be covered very definitely is silencing. I find it surprising that any journalist would support anything like that.

Furthermore, implying that a writer is being paid to toe a certain line, or otherwise compromise his ethics is a smear. Whether you agree with the writer or not (and I have taken this same position in cases of writers I largely disagree with) underming of someone's reputation is an attack on the independence of the press.

I

 

 

okay -- I can accept all you say here. I read it as silencing of a person but you have a point.