MoJo Reader,
"Why would they leak a memo like that to an obscure publication, which nobody reads and very few have even heard of, Mother Jones? Why wouldn't they leak that to the Washington Post or the New York Times or a big publication?"
That is what disgraced former Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly had to say about my big scoop in March, when I obtained a Kremlin memo instructing Russian media that it was "essential to use as much as possible…the popular Fox News host Tucker Carlson" in its propaganda supporting Vladimir Putin's illegal and horrific war in Ukraine.
The story made a huge splash. It was extensively covered on cable news and by other outlets. Several million people saw it on social media. Stephen Colbert amplified the story with parody. Here we had the Kremlin acknowledging that the most influential right-wing commentator in the United States was one of its best weapons in Vladimir Putin's war on truth. Russian disinformation and the fake reality of the Trumpified right-wing media—it was merging.
And before I unpack this further, let me ask you to support Mother Jones' fearless reporting during our spring fundraising drive. We need to raise more than $350,000 from our online readers by the end of next month. Our team says this drive is off to a slow start, and I'm hoping that you can help us pick up the pace—and help us to keep doing kickass journalism—with a donation today. Just a few bucks, maybe more, would help a lot right now.
Deny and deflect, those are the tools of propagandists and authoritarians. It's what O'Reilly was trying to do by suggesting the Russian memo wasn't even real. He suggested it was a HOAX. (I wonder where he got that idea from.) O'Reilly questioned why we wouldn't identify the source of this "so-called memo" and pointed out that "the Russian government hasn't verified" it. He guessed that we must be "protecting someone inside the Kremlin." And since denying and deflecting are no longer sufficient in the era of Trumpism, he also denigrated (which makes it easier to divide people), huffing that I am "in the vile human being hall of fame," and Mother Jones is a "far-left rag." It's not the first time he's gone after my reporting, my character, or Mother Jones, and I doubt it will be the last—which might be reason enough to support our work today.
O'Reilly, no surprise, doesn't understand how investigative journalism works.
The memo was not leaked to Mother Jones by the Kremlin. Do you think Putin's handmaids want the world to know how eager they are to exploit Carlson for their own diabolical ends—or that they are leaning on Russian media to report the Ukraine war as Putin wants it reported? Disinformation thrives in the dark. The memos I obtained also instructed state-friendly media—the only media now allowed to operate in Russia—to assert that the United States was developing bioweapons in Ukraine in order to commit "biogenocide" against Russia. Carlson did amplify this dangerous disinformation on his Fox show, and conspiracy-monger and QAnon-friendly Marjorie Taylor Greene twisted this nonsense into a bill in the House of Representatives.
We at Mother Jones do not tend to get leaks that are government handouts—not from our government, not from Putin's. We're not part of the strategic leak game in Washington, DC, or anywhere else. We make our own decisions about where to dig, and we can do that because we are funded by readers like you. We work hard for our stories and have the time to go deep. I've been investigating Russian disinformation and interference in American democracy for several years, thanks to support from our readers.
Here's how that Carlson/Kremlin scoop came together: My story plainly stated that the memo was provided to Mother Jones by "a contributor to a national Russian media outlet who asked not to be identified." I guess O'Reilly, who asked why the Kremlin would leak to Mother Jones and not the New York Times, missed that part. Why did the source not want to be named? Come on, what do you think would happen to the source and anyone he or she might have engaged with regarding the memo, if he or she were identified? This person demonstrated tremendous courage by sharing the memo and was motivated to tell the world about the Kremlin's disinformation campaign and Carlson's role in it.
The source trusted Mother Jones and me because of our reputation for ferocity and independence—and for getting the story right. I cannot divulge too much about how I learned about the existence of the memos and how I eventually reached the source after days of reporting that entailed making phone calls to various corners of the globe. But I was committed to nailing this scoop, and I had the assistance of other reporters here and abroad who helped because they know and respect the work we do. People trust us because of our decades-long record of producing high-quality, independent, and fearless journalism. And let me repeat this crucial point: We can only do this because you and your fellow readers pitch in.
Our journalism is the opposite of what comes out of Fox and other outlets these days. It's no wonder O'Reilly couldn't recognize the importance of this story and felt compelled to put it down. As for Carlson, he usually punches back when criticized, but this time he was mute, declining to respond to my scoop. Perhaps Carlson—who before the war said he was "rooting" for Putin—realized that being cast as a useful idiot and propaganda tool for a war criminal was not a good look.
At the end of the day, breaking the story that the Kremlin had told Russian media to rely on Tucker Carlson is about much more than Tucker Carlson. We were revealing how right-wing media operates within a global system of disinformation. That's a damn dangerous story for conservatives and politicians like Donald Trump who rely on the far-right propaganda machine to spread the Big Lie about the 2020 election—and all the other lies and disinformation they trot out to win at all costs.
I'm going to wrap this up because asking for your hard-earned money doesn't come naturally to me. I'd rather be reporting than requesting donations. But it's not that hard a task because I believe that the journalism we do at Mother Jones matters greatly and I know that we put your contributions to great use. Our reporting, our team, our readers—Mother Jones was made for a moment like this. Just look at our coverage of the war on Roe and our prior reporting that was ahead of the curve on abortion rights. You should also check out the impressive and impactful Private Equity special report we just published after months of hard work from many tireless reporters (and editors, designers, web folks, and others).
Here's the plain and basic truth: We can only do this crucial and tough work because folks like you help us out and have our back. And right now, we need to rally a sizeable $350,000-plus in donations from our online community to finish our fiscal year on track next month. I sincerely hope that a lot of you might pitch in today so we can avoid a budget crunch as the June 30 deadline gets closer.
Here's what I am perhaps most proud of: We at Mother Jones punch above our weight. We get the crucial stories that other news organizations miss. We're not afraid to take on the targets other outlets ignore or overlook. That's all because of the independence we have that comes from being supported by readers like you. That's why I'm not shy about asking you straight-up to do what you can. My colleagues and I are beyond grateful for your support, and we try to put your dollars to good use every day, as we chase stories that can make a difference.
You have my promise that all of us at Mother Jones, with your support, will keep pursuing the stories that expose and counter the propagandists, authoritarians, and those who enable them.
Thanks for reading, and please know that if you can't or don't intend to pitch in today (or ever), I'm grateful that you look to our reporting to make sense of the world. It's an honor to work for readers like you.
Onward,
No comments:
Post a Comment