Journalist Hammers Media for Making 'Bombastic Claims' About Declassification

May 29th, 2019 3:23 PM

In news that is surprising to nobody, the mainstream media is suffering once again from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. The cries and demands for the declassification of documents relating to the Mueller investigation were ubiquitous across CNN and MSNBC for weeks on end. 

“We need transparency” was the rallying cry across all the broadcast networks. The hypocrisy of liberal talking heads, otherwise known as “fair and balanced journalists,” was placed on full display once President Trump ordered Attorney General Barr to declassify all information and documents regarding the Mueller investigation within legal limitations. CNN and MSNBC anchors were roiled, as they referred to the declassification order as dangerous and authoritarian.

During an appearance on Tuesday's Tucker Carlson Tonight, independent journalist Michael Tracey pointed out the lack of probing on the part of MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes in speaking with former CIA director, John Brennan. “It will be one thing for Chris Hayes to have his colleague John Brennan on for an extended rant as to why it would somehow compromise national security for this classified material to be released, but Chris Hayes didn't even challenge any of his bombastic claims.”



It would appear as though Chris Hayes and his fellow MSNBC employees are in a state of turmoil, considering President Trump destroyed their claims of a “cover up.”

Tracey opined: “You know, all the incentives on somebody in the position of an MSNBC anchor is to elevate the most fanatical and alarmist interpretations of anything Trump does on a given day.”

At the end of a long news day, it seems indisputable a member of the liberal media would prefer the classified information remain under lock and key rather than do the work of a journalist to uncover it. 

To see the relevant transcript, click “expand”:

Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight 
8:12 p.m. Eastern

TUCKER CARLSON: Michael Tracey is an independent journalist we want to emphasize that, an independent journalist, one of the very few and one of the most honest, he joins us tonight. What do you make of -- you've complained for years, literally years now about news organizations hiring the heads of government, law enforcement and spy agencies and allowing them unchallenged to repeat their propaganda. It seems like we are reaching a new level of that now. 

MICHAEL TRACEY: will be one thing for Chris Hayes to have his colleague John Brennan on for an extended rant as to why it would somehow compromise national security for this classified material to be released but Chris Hayes didn't even challenge any of his bombastic claims. He just let him spout unimpeded and it's incredibly ironic that it's now being cast as some kind of authoritarian power grab for President Trump to delegate to Attorney General Barr the authority to declassify information that would shine a light on the conduct of the country's most secretive spy institutions in 2016. Supposedly we are now to believe that it's authoritarian to release that information to the public and let them view it and somehow saving democracy to have spy chiefs go on TV and declare that it would somehow jeopardize national security or put lives at risk to keep that information concealed. It's truly an inversion of the highest order and, you know, more indication that we are in this weird bizarro world. 

CARLSON: The anchor you mentioned who I know is a perfectly smart person and sort of aware of irony and not unsophisticated.  How can people like that say that it's totalitarian for the public to know more without tripping some kind of internal sensor that says whoa, whoa, stop lying that much?


8:14 p.m. Eastern

TRACEY:  I can't get inside a television anchor's head. I wouldn't presume to get inside your head either, Tucker. Frankly although that might be an enjoyable venture. You know, all the incentives on somebody in the position of an MSNBC anchor is to elevate the most fanatical and alarmist interpretations of anything Trump does on a given day. So, if there is an alternate explanation for why it might be a decent idea to release information in the public interest that would shed light on the activities of, I don't know, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the institutions that no so long ago we were told it's a progressive ideal to want to apply scrutiny to. That's why people heralded the Edward Snowden revelations, it's why throughout history it's been a pillar of the liberal interpretation of national security, really, to want to apply maximum transparency to these institutions which have it as their institutional interest to keep as much information as possible concealed. And, yet, it's all totally flipped now because Trump, apparently has some interest in putting out that information and the point that you mention about his subordinates, Trump's, and the executive brunch not carrying out his will, we are told Trump is ruthless unbridled authoritarian who can get anything he wants done with the snap of a finger, yet, his direct employees' in the executive branch are constantly ignoring his directives and as you mentioned in a way are subverting the democratic will. They are doing so. And nothing seems to happen.