Hey all, Scott here.
Here's how to support the show.
First of all, buy my book, Fool's Aaron, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
The audiobook is now available.
If you like this show, you'll love the audiobook, I guess, or something.
Sign up at patreon.com.
You want to incentivize me to do more interviews all the time?
Sign up at patreon.com, and through the magic of multiplication tables, I'll make a living doing anti-government propaganda for you here.
Sign up for my YouTube channel.
It happened, finally.
We're living in the future now where it's a done thing.
All 4,600 and something interviews are up at youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
Thank you for your decade worth of patience on that issue.
And hey, sign up for the RSS feeds at scotthorton.org or at Libertarian Institute.
We've got a lot of other great podcasts there at the Libertarian Institute as well, so check all that out.
And then find out all about how to donate to the show at scotthorton.org slash donate.
For your PayPal one-off donations, for $20, you can get the audiobook.
For $50, I'll send you a signed copy of the paperback of Fool's Aaron.
For a $100 donation to the show, you get a silver QR code commodity disc.
It's the coolest kind of currency I've ever heard of.
And anyone who donates, and this is just for this month only, for what's left of it, anyone who donates $100 or more to the Scott Horton Show gets a lifetime subscription to listen and think Libertarian audiobooks.
Find out all about that at scotthorton.org.
And yes, I accept Zen Cash and Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash and Litecoins and all those different kinds of digital currencies there as well.
If you hate holding on to those digital currencies and you want to get rid of them all, send them to me.
And hey, if you read the book and you liked it, or you listened to the audiobook and you liked it, or if you like the show, give me a good review on Amazon, on Audible, on iTunes and Stitcher and those kinds of things.
Because, I don't know, somebody said that helps or something.
Thanks.
Sorry I'm late.
I had to stop by the wax museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been had.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as a fact.
He came, he saw, he died.
But we ain't killing their army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name, been saying it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys, introducing Joe Lauria, our good friend, who's now, get this, the editor of consortiumnews.com.
Welcome back to the show.
Joe, how are you, man?
I'm fine, Scott.
Thank you very much.
Have me back on.
Hey, look, I love talking with you.
So, well, it's certainly a sad occasion that Robert Perry died.
We sure could use his journalism.
I think that every day.
But it seems like you're doing a pretty good job taking his place as editor.
You got a great bunch of writers there.
Tell us everything about Consortium News.
And congratulations.
Sorry to say that.
Yeah, thank you, Scott.
Well, obviously that's never going to be replaced.
The big hole in the website is Bob's own journalism.
And he was an enormously hard worker, I'm finding out.
He not only edited several pieces a day, but he basically wrote a piece every day or every other day.
And that was the heart and soul of the website.
So not having him there is obviously irreplaceable.
I'm not even going to try.
I'm getting a handle on the job.
So I'm going to start writing more as I move forward.
I'm also settling into here in Alexandria, Virginia, which I just moved back to from two years in the Middle East, from which I spoke several times with you.
Right.
So the thing about Bob, the website is special because, first of all, when it began back in 1995, this was, some people think it was the first news website independent of corporate media.
This is the day, these are the days of AOL dial-up modems and CompuServe and only text, no images, that kind of thing.
I'm old enough, of course, to remember that.
So when Bob started this in 95, he did it for a specific reason.
He'd had, and he could watch him on YouTube answering this question, as he's asked many times why he started Consortium News in 1995.
And the answer he gives is that essentially he was fed up with the resistance he was facing from his editors at first the Associated Press and then Newsweek.
They were blocking and putting obstacles in the way of his stories, all kinds of creative ways to stop him from telling the American people about events of great significance, such as Iran-Contra and the exchange of drugs for arms with the Contras in Nicaragua.
Ultimately, he broke the story about the October surprise as well, that Reagan had the Iranians withhold the release of the hostages during the campaign so that Carter wouldn't get the credit.
And lo and behold, they were released on the very moment that, at the very moment that Reagan was giving his inaugural speech.
Surprise, surprise.
Yes.
So lo and behold.
One editor at Newsweek told him on one of these stories that they had to suppress it for the good of the country.
And of course, that editor was talking about the good of the leaders of the country, not the rest of us, not the rest of us.
Right.
That's what they always say about the very worst stuff, right?
Like when LBJ covered up Nixon's treason in Keeping the War Going, which this is one of Bob Perry's stories too, also from 1968.
And LBJ is even recorded on the phone with a Republican senator friend of his saying, this is treason.
They ought not to be doing this.
And the senator says, I know you're right.
This is crazy.
But then they didn't say anything for the good of the country.
They let Nixon come in and prolong the war another six years.
Yes, I've heard that tape recording.
I actually just saw a stage play here in Washington about LBJ, which was very good.
And it ended on that very point.
I was thinking they would never bring this up, but they did about the fact that LBJ was aware of what Nixon's campaign had done to prolong the war.
And see Bob always said that this was the heart of Watergate, that this was what was in the Brookings Institution safe, or Nixon was convinced that it was in the Brookings Institution safe that he was so concerned about there, was these documents about using Anna Chenault to destroy the peace talks in 1968.
Could very well been.
That's right.
Yes.
So anyway, yeah, no, I'm saying that's right.
And that's the kind of story.
That was the kind of story Bob was breaking, but he was getting stopped by his editors.
So he decided to start in 1995 with his two sons, Sam and Nat, this online site called Consortium.
It was supposed to be a consortium for journalists working in the mainstream as he was, who couldn't get their articles published because of editors who were blocking this information to protect powerful interests.
So it was 16 years later after he started that, that I became one of those journalists.
And that was because I'd had similar experiences back in 2003 in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq at the UN Security Council.
I was covering the council meetings for the Canadian chain called in those days Southern, Southern News.
They published the Montreal Gazette, the Ottawa Citizen, Calgary Herald, and about 20 other newspapers.
And so I was reporting and giving equal weight in my story.
So what the Germans, the French, and the Russians were saying on the Security Council, which was that they were going to block this.
They all have veto power and they were not going to give the United States and Britain authorization to invade Iraq.
Now, the United States never made the Article 51 of the UN Charter argument, which was self-defense because no one could believe that Iraq was threatening the United States at that point.
So they, they needed then to convince the Security Council to authorize it.
And I was writing these articles saying that the Americans were getting into a lot of trouble and they were going to, they probably weren't going to get this authorization, which was exactly what was happening there.
But I got a call one day from the foreign editor of this chain.
He called me from Ottawa to berate me for not supporting the war effort in my reporting.
And at this point, you were at the Wall Street Journal?
No, no, I'm just, no, this is 2003.
I'm writing for this Canadian chain, Ottawa citizen, et cetera.
So this foreign editor from Ottawa with this chain tells me that I'm not, I'm not supporting the war effort.
And I, he told me then he had a son.
His son was a Marine, the Canadian Marines.
I said, well, I'm certain you're proud of your son, but my job is not to support the war, but to report what's happening at Security Council objectively.
Now the Bush administration, as we all know, never got that resolution, but they invaded anyway.
And it was illegal under national law, obviously.
As Kofi Annan finally had to admit after being pressured by a BBC reporter over and over again, he finally said, yes, it was an illegal war from the international law perspective.
And after that, Annan was hounded by the Americans at the UN to the point where he got a near nervous breakdown.
And the man behind that was UN ambassador John Bolton.
And as we all know, Bolton unfortunately has gotten a promotion since those days.
Whereas I, on the day of the very day of the invasion was fired from this Canadian chain.
So I obviously had not played ball.
Later at the Wall Street Journal, which I had started covering the UN for in 2009, I started seeing that a lot of my stories were being suppressed.
They weren't being accepted when I pitched them, or I did write the story and the editing was manipulating out important facts in the story.
And to give an example was that well-known now Defense Intelligence Agency document that predicted the rise of the Islamic state back in 2012.
It said that the US and Turkey and Gulf Arab allies and some Europeans were supporting the establishment of this Salafist principality in Eastern Syria in order to put pressure on Assad.
And that this could lead to an Islamic state if they team up with similar people in Iraq.
And that was declassified in a lawsuit.
It was published online in obscure websites.
I've twice pitched that to the Wall Street Journal.
I twice had it rejected.
That this story obviously would undermine the American narrative on the war on terror because it would show the US actually was supporting at least the prototype of what became Islamic state.
Not very nice people, jihadists, etc.
And we then learned later, by the way, when we got a leaked conversation of John Kerry speaking on the sides of the General Assembly in New York to some Syrian exiles in the fall of 2015, he said that they saw ISIS advancing on Damascus.
We were watching.
We were hoping that they were going to pressure Assad to step down.
Exactly what that document four years earlier had warned.
But Russia came in to help them.
So he then also admitted in that conversation, by the way, that Russia intervened not because of their imperial glory that they wanted to restore, but because they didn't want Damascus to fall to these jihadists.
Because of the danger that they posed, and they have posed to Europe and to the United States and to Russia, whereas Assad, for all his great faults, not being a small D Democrat in any way, or at least not in the ways people in the West would like, never threatened the United States or Europe.
So this story was suppressed by the Journal twice.
And then it was really earlier, though, in 2011, when I had written a series of articles for the Wall Street Journal about the lead up to the vote on Palestine becoming an observant state at the UN General Assembly.
I wrote several articles and I mentioned what I thought was a very salient fact that 130 countries had already recognized Palestine.
And so I'm at exchange embassies and ambassadors.
That mysteriously kept getting cut out of my story.
So I got fed up.
I realized for sure, at that point, the Journal had an agenda.
And that agenda wasn't to neutrally report complex international events from the multiple sides of countries pursuing their interests and clashing together and taking a position that does not promote the US agenda.
But in fact, that's what not only the Journal, but I think all of corporate media does, which is to promote US interests abroad.
That is not journalism.
That's something quite different.
So I turned to Bob at that point.
And the very first article he published of mine was in late 2011 on that Palestine issue.
So, you know, Bob Perry was without question the best editor I ever had.
He's the only one who really got what I was writing about and accepted it.
And he was a great skeptic, but never a cynic.
And he, of course, did not take government officials' word for it.
That was the key thing.
He knew governments lie, all governments lie, or people in governments lie, but that there are other parties involved in this equation.
And that's the press and the public.
And that the press had to filter and verify and challenge government officials before that information is passed on to the public.
And, you know, in the very last piece, Scott, that Bob wrote before he died in January 27 of this year, just three months ago, was very poignant in which he spoke sadly about the state of American journalism, where careerism and vanity had aligned the profession with those in power.
And that reporters live, I think, vicariously, through too many reporters anyway, through the people they cover.
They don't understand that the power they have in the press is distinct from government power.
It's a completely different one.
And in some respects, more powerful if you could stop people who command armies from doing things.
And they certainly didn't do that in the lead up to Iraq.
They did not try to stop them commanding armies to do things.
And, you know, he also knew, Bob, that the greatest sin that the corporate media commits is one of omission, leaving out or marginalizing points of view that are at odds with the U.S. agenda.
But it's really impossible for a reader or a viewer to understand, they get even a slight understanding of this complex world without knowing the various voices involved and without judging them, but by presenting them factually.
Now, for example, you never really hear the viewpoints of Iranian government or people, Palestinians, North Koreans.
By the way, it's the Koreans who are doing this, not the Americans.
So the Koreans are acting on their own in this unbelievable developments we're seeing in Korea right now.
We never hear the voices of Syrians, Russians, etc.
You know, and the supposed mission of journalism is to present all sides of the story.
Bob knew very well that they did not present all sides of the story, but that it's impossible to understand any kind of international crisis without hearing those voices.
And the dangerous thing is when you systematically or routinely shut out those voices, it dehumanizes people in those countries.
And that makes it easier for the U.S. to go to war against them when the American people don't know anything about those countries and what those people, how they see us.
That is never presented.
So, you know, Bob then realized over the decades of this kind of mission in reporting that what had been collected is really a lot of what he calls a lost history of the United States post-war America.
That was kind of one of his books.
And it's, of course, the dark side of American history that is rarely, if ever, reported on in real time or even historically.
The invasions, the interference of elections, the assassinations, now these, when you leave those things out, it gives the American people, the public, the consumers of news, a very distorted idea of their country.
It's, I think, almost a cartoonish idea that America has a morality in international affairs.
And that rather than that, they actually are just pursuing their interests mostly or very often violently, like all great powers do.
That's what the United States is.
We're not some special moral country, but that impression is given when you leave out the sins that America is committing and only concentrate on anything positive the U.S. may do or at least promote this idea that the U.S. is intervening around the world only for the good of the people that they're intervening for, which is the oldest imperialist slogans and myths going back to the British and whatnot.
So this was Bob's career.
He built his extraordinary career on these kinds of truths that are left out.
And my job at Consortium News is to keep that going as best as I can.
And it's a lot of work and I'm damn committed to doing that.
All right, guys, here's who supports this show.
The War State by Mike Swanson, the great Mike Swanson.
He'll give you great investment advice too at wallstreetwindow.com.
His book, The War State, is about the rise of the military industrial complex after World War II in the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy administrations.
You'll learn a hell of a lot.
It's really great.
And again, wallstreetwindow.com to find out what he thinks you need to do with your money in these volatile times.
And I'm sure some of what he'll tell you is you got to have at least some percentage of your savings in precious metals.
And when you go to get your precious metals, you go to Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.
That's rrbi.co, rrbi.co.
And if you buy with Bitcoin, they take no premium at all.
Of course, then there's ZenCash, zensystem.io to read all about how it works.
It's a brand new digital currency.
It's also a format for sending encrypted messages and documents and has all kinds of great things going for it.
I know digital cash people who really think it's great.
ZenCash at zensystem.io.
And Hussain Badakhchani is back.
He wrote this great book, No Dev, No Ops, No IT.
And it's about how to run your technology business like a libertarian.
No Dev, No Ops, No IT by Hussain Badakhchani.
And expanddesigns.com.
You want a brand new website?
2018 model looks good for everybody if you're looking at it.
You go to expanddesigns.com slash Scott, and you save $500.
Well, now listen, I mean, just personally, I appreciate the fact that you're a guy who's written for the Wall Street Journal and for the Sunday Times or the London Times and have had all these positions and that you prefer to do journalism for something like Consortium News, which obviously does not have the reach of the Wall Street Journal, but just so that you can get it right instead of toeing their line.
And you talked about it, too.
It's careerism and this and that and whatever.
But is there something special about you or something really wrong with the rest of these journalists that it's so easy for them to just join up?
I mean, it's not like they just see it the state's way.
They can't stand it if somebody disagrees with the government line on anything.
There must be 1,000 different little YouTube clips of CNN anchors completely freaking out when someone says, well, you know, I don't know, just because the CIA says so doesn't really impress me.
And they just go, ah!
Who are these people?
Where do they come from?
What the hell is going on here, Joe, that that people who went into journalism for their career actually are simply are so easy to turn into ombudsmen and spokesmen for the state?
Well, I've had that experience of people freaking out at the journal.
I talked to a couple of reporters about things and they went nuts when I suggested maybe Ukraine was a coup backed by the US.
Oh, my goodness.
And I brought up this defense intelligence agency document to one European reporter who was in New York for General Assembly, asked if the journal had the guts to publish a story like this.
So why they go nuts is because they have no real convictions and what they are basing it on is very fragile.
They know that if they're challenged, they are going to fall apart pretty soon.
They don't care about what's a multi-viewpoint, multi-multiple views in a story or to be objective.
They are there because they want money and fame.
That's what I think, especially in TV.
I think that they are totally careerists.
They could have been in insurance or banking and they probably should have been.
But they see this as a way to get power again through government.
They don't understand the power that they really have.
They want to be successful.
And you start talking about things that are outside of what they know is permitted to be said.
The self-censorship that goes on.
I knew what I could write and what I couldn't write, more or less, whenever I sat down to write a story.
I tried to push here or there.
I had a couple of arguments with them, but I held back because I knew I would have been fired a long time before I was.
And the reason, by the way, I was let go from the journals because somebody ratted me out that I was writing these articles for Consortium News, which I was allowed to contractually because I was not a staff reporter.
I was a contract reporter.
But they wrote and told me that I was writing opinion pieces.
So they freaked out and they had to let me go.
And I don't believe I wrote an opinion piece of writing analysis based on fact.
A different way of seeing the facts than certainly the Wall Street Journal's editorial board does.
But the essence of their...
I don't know where that comes from.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board is supposed to be separate from their reporting department, right?
Well, yeah, I suppose it is.
But obviously, it's a mentality.
And that mentality is America's right, and we're going to promote their interests.
We're the most powerful.
We are the democratic country.
We're exceptional.
And I think people take that personally.
They don't just push that line because it's a convenient line.
I think many people in government and in journalism feel that they are themselves exceptional and better than others because they are American.
So if you start challenging the American myths, basically, about that, about their superiority, they're going to freak out.
So they just know this is what you have to believe if you want to get far in journalism.
And if you just do your job, which is what I think Bob Perry was doing.
Bob Perry was a great reporter.
Look at the stories he broke.
But if you said that to him, I think, and I only met Bob four times, but I did work with him, obviously, over six years.
But my impression was he would just say, I'm just doing my job.
That's all he wanted to do.
And it was being blocked.
So he started Constortium News.
I feel the same way.
I just wanted to be a journalist.
I want to do journalism.
And that doesn't mean an oath to the U.S. Constitution or to the government in power or anything like that.
It's about reporting as accurately as you can what's going on.
And in international affairs, that means bringing in the other players in a crisis or in a situation and letting the reader know what they think and why they're acting the way they are without taking anybody's side.
And that is not what happens in international journalism in terms of the U.S. It's they take the American side completely.
And that is not reporting, but that is the ticket to a high position, to peer acceptance by the access, of course, to government officials.
You're playing the game.
You're part of it.
I'm in Washington now.
This is where it's played more than anywhere.
And it's a very sad state because the people get shafted.
They get in the short end of it, the American public.
They don't have the time to figure this stuff out.
That's why they depend on journalism.
And you could see from opinion polls from the last election that the credibility of the mainstream media has gone way, way down.
And American people do not want these perpetual wars.
They want the middle class to be saved.
This is not what the agenda of the big newspapers are.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, that's the thing, right?
There should have been some huge purge after Iraq or two when nothing worked out the way the government and the media had claimed for a year and a half in the lead up to it at all.
And there wasn't.
Everybody got to keep their jobs.
All the same journalists got to be reporters.
They all crucified Judith Miller, who Lord knows deserved it.
But she became the scapegoat for all the rest of them.
That's correct.
Bob used to love to hammer on Fred Hyatt, the editorial page editor at the Washington Post for having gotten it so wrong and having gotten more and more raises, apparently, promotions or whatever.
He's still there.
You're absolutely right.
That is a travesty.
You're right.
Judith Miller was scapegoated and they do that.
You know, they scapegoat people, they scapegoat countries, never looking at themselves in the mirror.
And this is why the Internet, at least until now, as we're starting to see more and more pressure on it, is an outlet where American people can get a different point of view.
Conservative news, I think, hopefully, is a big part of that.
Yeah.
Did you see that thing in FAIR by Adam Johnson about how every single editorial board, every newspaper in America, at least that commented on it, which was almost all of them, supported the strikes against Assad a couple of weeks ago?
No, I didn't see that, but it doesn't surprise me.
That's when they like Trump, isn't it?
It's the only time they do.
Now he's acting presidential as Fakida, whatever his name is, at CNN.
Zachariah Free.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
He called him presidential when the first strikes.
This tells you a lot right there.
What is the mainstream idea that they're peddling about what a president is supposed to be?
It's someone who bombs the hell out of innocent people without any evidence.
Without having any evidence.
Greenwald used to always quote R.W. Apple, who was a reporter for the New York Times for many years, and he had written about Iraq War I, that this was a rite of passage for a president to let blood.
This is after the war in Panama.
Why you got to do another one?
I don't know.
It's really, really chilling to think that that is what is believed, that they have to spill blood.
Jimmy Carter, who claimed that he never dropped a bomb or shot a bullet, and he really did not get the U.S. involved in any kind of hostilities, is vilified for that.
But meanwhile, he started the covert war in Afghanistan.
As Bob Perry reported, he gave Saddam the green light to invade Iran.
He declared the Carter doctrine that upped the alliance with Saudi Arabia by 600 percent and started building up bases there in the lead up to Iraq War I and all that.
So, screw him.
This is all correct.
And he was the best one we had in a long time in terms of the amount of people he killed.
But he didn't go through the rite of passage.
Yeah, I mean, this whole thing is his fault, really.
Basovich's book, America's War for the Greater Middle East, it all starts with the Carter doctrine, of course.
I mean, you could go back to Woodrow Wilson or T.R. if you want, but close enough.
Well, McKinley or even Polk invading Mexico.
So, you know, it's been a violent country, as we all know, based on slavery and the genocide of the indigenous people here.
Except for that short period of 1865 when they engaged in killing each other, it's been pretty much open game on anybody getting in their way of their expansion, which went first West and then around the world to the Philippines and Cuba and Spain.
And they haven't stopped since.
The American press has cheered them on all along the way.
It was only the 1970s when there was a short period, and this is what Bob Perry comes out of.
He was about seven years older than I am, Bob.
But I also grew up in the 70s culture in journalism with Watergate, of course.
But not only that, we had reporters turning against the war in Vietnam, famously, of course, Walter Cronkite.
I always argue that it was the public that pushed them there.
It was the mass demonstrations against the war that finally got through to the Senate and the rest of the Congress and the American media.
And then they had to take that position because they just knew that they were wrong.
But in the absence of that kind of public pressure on the media now, although we see it somehow through the internet, it's not the same as being on the streets.
I think that same cheerleading has existed from the Hearst papers wanting to start the war against Cuba to the early days of the Vietnam War, where they bought the DeVolta-Tonkin story and they were promoting the war.
The editorial board of both the Washington Post and the New York Times supported that war at the beginning, obviously, until now.
So it's the same damn thing.
The 70s was that short period.
And funny enough, Bob, as a symbol of that, has the logo of Consortium News, which I understand people born after 1985 don't know what that is.
If you go to the website, you'll see a typewriter ribbon there that's typing out the word Consortium News.
And a lot of people wanted that logo to be changed.
And I have made a decision not to change that.
A, because Bob created that.
But B, I happen to completely agree with it, because it does speak of that older age of journalism that Bob tried to keep going.
I hope, in my way, can also try to keep going.
There was a slight thought I had that we could replace it with the IBM ball, this electric ball.
But you had to be born after 1990 to know what that is.
I don't know if you know what that is, Scott.
IBM created this metal ball with all the letters on it, instead of a ribbon, instead of the individual keys would type.
That's a bad joke.
But maybe people over a certain age would have gotten it.
You know what?
Yeah, I didn't get the joke.
But now that you mentioned it, I think I've seen that before.
Yeah.
But yeah, no, you're right.
In fact, I'm trying to remember exactly the story.
But he talked about, you know, the Reagan years and the war where they officially, you know, went to war against the press in a psyops way and whatever.
And how, oh, yeah, you know, there was kind of an agreement among the press corps, where if one reporter only got to ask half his question, and they dodged it, that the next reporter would back him up and say, No, answer the question and get back to it.
And then and they would all do that.
And how that stopped.
And that was just kind of one example of it.
But, you know, at some point, the Reaganites defeated that program.
And ever since then, the tradition is held that when you don't get an answer to your question, the next guy changes the subject to puppies or whatever.
And then that's it.
I saw that exact thing at the UN.
They give a daily briefing every day that I went to every day starting from 1990.
And we always backed each other up like that.
And that somehow gradually stopped too.
So this is the whole culture of the media.
It's no longer adversarial.
It's, it's promoting very bad policies that they shouldn't be promoting any policy, they should be examining and scrutinizing them.
And, you know, Bob was very, that's why we're going to miss him so much.
Yeah.
Well, listen, man, I gotta tell you, I'm sure you could have guessed that.
I was very excited.
Of course, Eric Garrison, antiwar.com and, and all of us were really excited to hear that you were going to be the new editor and take over there.
It was sort of a period, not sure, I wasn't sure it was going to be a son who's doing great and everything, I guess, is kind of an interim editor.
But, you know, we just all were like, oh, like, almost a sigh of relief.
And like, oh, we know that Consortium News is in good hands.
And that that exact same tradition of journalism is going to be kept up now under your watch.
So that's really great.
Congratulations again.
And thank you for taking up the cudgels.
It's a hell of a good fight.
You're fighting over there, Joe.
I really appreciate everything you just said.
And yes, Nat Perry did a good job as an interim editor, but he has a full time job, so he couldn't continue it.
And this is exactly what I want to try to do.
I'm going to the core of the website, foreign policy critique of US foreign policy, challenging the Russiagate narrative.
All that's going to stay.
But I'm broadening, hopefully, the coverage.
I'd like to have some more about labor reporting, for example.
You might be too young to remember, but every metropolitan newspaper in the United States had a staff of labor reporters.
And there's none left.
Apparently, New York Times was like the last paper to have one a few years ago.
And he was covering things from the management point of view, not from the workers point of view.
So I would like to find people out there who are experienced in the labor movement, not just about unions, but about workers issues and the problems unions could create for them as well.
I'm looking for correspondents in various countries so I can get more non-American voices into the paper.
We don't want even some very good analysis that we're running just to have Westerners writing about what's going on in the Middle East, but to have people from the ground there.
And I've reached out to a few people already.
And someone here in the U.S. who's an Arab who's decided to write for us.
I'm going to publish one of his articles this weekend.
I want more women about struggles about women in developing countries.
So I'm talking to people in India and in Europe and in the Middle East.
And it would be great to find an African reporter.
And we pay our journalists, by the way, which is very rare online these days, for original content.
We pay.
And anyone who wants to contact me should write to joellorio, one word, at consortiumnews.com, to pitch an article, to tell me something you'd like to write about, or give me your qualifications.
We are open for business.
We need a broader perspective on different issues that we already covered and some new ground that I want to do.
I hope to launch this podcast, Consortium News Radio.
It will never compete with the Scott Horton Show, but we're going to put out some audio interviews from time to time with our writers, with newsmakers, if we can get them.
I'm hoping to have some conferences at the National Press Club or at the Left Forum in New York in June, sponsored by Consortium News, so we can bring people together in public to discuss and debate various issues.
And if you want to know what we're about, just look at the coverage we did of Syria of the last month.
That dominated our coverage in April, obviously, with the airstrikes.
And if you look at corporate media, they wheeled out the generals, many with undisclosed contracts with defense industry.
They were literally talking about how great these weapons work, which means they're advertising the weapons that they are promoting and getting paid for in a so-called news broadcast.
And we had people like Christiane Amanpour saying that the allies had no choice but to go to bomb Syria because they use chlorine.
And first of all, there was never any investigation.
They never mentioned that the OPCW inspectors were about to start later that day their investigation.
And they never mentioned that chlorine is not even banned by the OPCW.
It can't be used as a weapon, but it is not an illegal weapon.
So it's possible that Syria did give up all their weapons as the OPCW certified and still can use chlorine, but so could the rebels.
So we focus our coverage on two issues, the legality of this in terms of international law and U.S. law, whether this airstrike was legal or not, and the issue of the evidence that there wasn't any.
And that's not what corporate media did.
So just on that one issue, you can see the difference of how we're trying to cover a major story.
Okay, well, thanks again, Joe.
I sure appreciate your time on the show.
I appreciate it.
Give me a few minutes, Scott.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
All right, you guys, that's Joe Loria, the new editor-in-chief of ConsortiumNews.com, carrying on Bob Perry's great work there.
And of course, all our great guests.
Oh, and you know what I spaced out?
What I was going to say there was, of course, we link to them every day at AntiWar.com, one thing or another, I think that's fair to say, at ConsortiumNews.com there.
All right.
You know me, scotthorton.org, youtube.com slash scotthortonshow, subscribe.iTunes and Stitcher and all those things.
My websites are down, but usually scotthorton.org and libertarianinstitute.org.
I guess if you can hear this, that means they're working again.
And foolserend.us for my book, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, now available also in audiobook.
So, check that out.
It's on Amazon, too.
And follow me on Twitter, scotthortonshow.
Thanks, guys.
