Here’s how you play the hit-piece activity: First, you develop a “hook” that’s challenging and/or difficult to prove — like, probably, what’s discussed during the personal phone calls of a lonely world leader and a very active billionaire. Next you publish the story somewhere in the news.
Advertisement
Do n’t automatically blame the journalist who breaks the story, by the way. His cause might be a federal established with all the credentials available. ( In certain situations, the journalist would be derelict in his duties if he did n’t tell the world. )  ,
Of sure, if you’re an irresponsible state established, that gives you an enormous amount of power.
What kind of narrative, then, if we write? Here, information and positioning are crucial.
It must be something that portrays your enemy negatively, but you ca n’t directly accuse him of anything illegal. Nothing very absurd. If it’s just an “accusation made, claim denied” type of offer, the shelf-life is very small. Something overtly grifter is very easy to overlook.  ,
That’s not the wonderful location for Dark PR.  ,
Instead, a legally vague situation — where everything sounds dark, traitorous, and sinister, but the legality is n’t exactly open and shut?  ,
Eureka!
Look, they either did it or they did n’t when you accuse someone of stealing a car or shooting a gun. There’s nothing to issue — everything for TV’s talking mind to talk about. And that’s no fine. We want to maintain the spirit of this point!  ,
But vague, murky legitimate situations? Involving popular people? That has feet, girl! Legs that Tina Turner may fear in her perfect!
This brings us to our product of the day: Elon Musk, who just endorsed you-know-who, was the subject of a Wall Street Journal “exclusive” currently:” Elon Musk’s Key Conversations With Vladimir Putin”. And right beneath the title:” Standard contacts between country’s richest person and America’s chief adversary increase security concerns, topics include geopolitics, business and personal matters”.
Advertisement
The five (! ) WSJ writers do n’t reveal their source. They even note,” Knowledge of Musk’s Kremlin contacts appear]sic ] to be a closely held secret in government. Many White House representatives claimed they had no idea of them.
But that last column was the tipoff.
In my opinion, the WSJ only revealed its cause: It came from the White House.
Otherwise, the reporters would write,” All White House officials we spoke to said they were n’t aware of them”. Or” No White House representatives” who we spoke to were conscious of them.
I believe their speech embarrassed them.
So that’s my fear: This came from the Biden-Harris White House.
We absolutely know the source was n’t Musk ( duh ). The quintet wrote,” Musk did n’t respond to request for comment”, which would n’t have been necessary if he was the source in the first place.
I’m even guessing the cause was n’t Vladimir Putin. If you have n’t noticed, he does n’t talk to the media a whole heck of a lot ( he’s sort of a dictator ). And he wrongfully jailed the writer the next day he interacted with the Wall Street Journal.
Trust me, he wo n’t trust the Wall Street Journal to leak to of all the publications in the world!
So if it did n’t come from Putin and it did n’t come from Musk, where did it come from?
Well, I’ve now laid my cards on the table. You make your own decisions.
For now, let’s concentrate on the consequences: Bill Nelson, the mind of NASA, instantly called for an inspection.  ,
Advertisement
” I think it should be investigated”, Nelson told Semafor. ” If it’s true that Elon Musk and the leader of Russia have spoken in secret, it would be worrying for NASA and the Department of Defense,” he said.
Not to be outdone, the House Armed Services Committee’s leading Democrat demanded an analysis as well.  ,
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash. ) called for” we to look into what Elon Musk is up to to make sure that it is not in the way of the United States ‘ national security.”
The Senate Democrats even participated in the excitement.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N. H. ) of the Senate Armed Services Committee claimed that” Elon Musk reportedly has an open range to Putin” and that he has billions in contracts to support some of our most vulnerable military activities. The Department of Defense may look into this and assess how it relies on professional services like Musk’s, in the name of our national safety.
Actually, Sen. Shaheen did n’t” say” any of that. In the humor of contradictions, she tweeted it.
Elon Musk, who reportedly has an open range toward Putin, has billions in contracts that pay for some of our most vulnerable military operations.
@DeptofDefense may look into this and assess how it relies on professional services like Musk’s in the interests of our national protection. https ://t.co/DC3oDu01JS
— Sen. Jeanne Shaheen ( @SenatorShaheen ) October 25, 2024
Advertisement
Now, is it unlawful for Elon Musk to speak to Putin? I’m not aware of any laws that forbid a member of America from speaking with foreign leaders.
Does it offend Musk’s state contracts? Beats me. Unless you’ve read the contracts, you do n’t know either. Actually, I’d be surprised if it did: I’d believe Musk speaks to a lot of earth leaders, both directly and indirectly. ( And if President Biden wanted to give him a ring, I’m sure Musk would answer, too. )
But does it seem awful? Of program!  ,
And that’s the whole place.
Pleasant to the Dark PR earth.