We never let it leave.
Mildly NSFW:
3 Likes
The other half of that NYT story is that Bananas threatened to quit if he was removed from the NSC and Grump and/or McMaster called his bluff. He just got big-dogged and Grump seems like the kind of guy who can’t respect anyone he thinks of as a little dog.
10 Likes
Nice bit of F.U.D. raking there but little actual substance. Now, if you can give me an example of Hartmann pushing a Putin spin or an RT talking point I’d be happy to discuss it. But all you are doing here is attacking not the source, but the employer of the source. Your grade school use of sarcasm is cute but simply fluff.
My point is that Thom Hartmann is the only news person on television these days who understands the progressive movement and refuses to let people on his show get away with lies. He manages to do that without shouting people down. Now, if you have a specific problem with something he has said then by all means bring it up. But trying to imply his reporting is comprimised because his show airs on RT is a weak argument when you don’t back it up with anything more than F.U.D. and sarcasm.
I can’t take theists seriously.
2 Likes
“Can you believe the nerve of these guys – trying to convince people that they’re a legitimate journalistic outfit by doing legitimate journalism?!”
This is like the silliest attempt to discredit a news org I’ve ever seen. NYT is also a propaganda machine, but they don’t even bother with the legitimate journalism. Bet you don’t have a problem with them, though…
1 Like
Worth noting that it was only the indians who took bullets during Watergate, Iran/Contra, etc.
All that winning! I’ve kind of come to love Breitbart. They can take any turd that the administration shits out and put a lovely gold plate on it.
3 Likes
14 Likes
I implied nothing of the sort. What I said, said not implied. Is it’s in keeping with RT’s propaganda goals to hire respectable western journalists and have them do their jobs. It bolster’s RT’s overall credibility. While several overall reliable and respected western journalists working for RT have reported some RT partyline Bullshit. I don’t know enough about Hartmann to know if he’s one of them. His reporting or punditry can be entirely above board and high quality. And that’s probably exactly why he’s there. Because having people like that makes RT look reliable. When its primary goal is to push Russian Propaganda. The point of having Tom Hartmann is not to have Thom Hartmann be untrustworthy but convince you that he is. It is to convince you that RT is a better news network than most. So you’ll be more amenable to the other things its pushing.
Their coverage of this past election was more conspiracy theory laden and anti-Hillary than even Fox News. They routinely report on events worldwide and in Russia using the word for word interpretation offered by the Kremlin. They routinely report things known to be false in a frame that makes Russia look good and everyone else look bad. And it is to their interest to make you amenable to that by throwing Thom Hartmann on the air. It is hardly FUD to point out the base way a known propaganda venue operates.
And sarcastic though it be. My statement is essentially the argument that RT uses to defend itself. The Myth under which it operates.
I was unaware that The New York Times is owned by the US government. Funded by the NSA. And the direct extension of other State owned media operations, in a nation that lacks free speech, a free press, and where journalists are routinely killed for disagreeing with the current administration.
You can call the NYT a propaganda machine, because you dislike its editorial bent, all you like. But RT is actually owned and operated by the Russian Government. And in Russia media does not exist (openly) unless it is actively working for the government. Unless it is actively pushing the information and interpretation that the Kremlin wants published.
11 Likes
We did it BoingBoing?
1 Like
Despite never attending any meetings?
4 Likes
…oh and anyone singing the “ding dong” song goes on a watch list.
5 Likes
Trump did say that it was a witch-hunt.
8 Likes
The Breidbat spin. I expect that they’re playing footsie about which NSC meeting he attended. As I recall, there are a few layers of meetings. (Funny how they’re bragging that he attended a meeting when he never did before, right?)
1 Like
I can’t tell if you’re serious or not. If you are, that’s the silliest ad hominem I’ve heard in a long time.
6 Likes
What about ‘My Dingaling’?
In all seriousness, this seems more like something I’d have as backstory for a cyberpunk shithole tabletop campaign explaining why and how america became a scorched land. What… in the hell? I always thought no matter how selfish people were they’d understand that at the highest levels they need to act at least somewhat intellegantly and cooperativley to ensure their own survival.
1 Like
No, they just get all their editorial decisions from the insider parts of the Democratic party.
By their fruits you shall know them. NYT is absolutely, cravenly supportive of naked US imperialism. If its journalism isn’t even as good as a state-owned Russian rag, that really says more about the state of American news media than anything else.
Does that mean all journalism in the RT is bad? Or does it just mean that you can’t trust RT on the subject of the Russian government?
The NYT has a history of printing naked propaganda on behalf of the US government. It also has a history of providing cover for CIA ops, like all major US news orgs that date back before the 70’s.
The respective ownership of the two organizations does nothing to change their actual records of journalistic output. RT is a propaganda outfit with a sideline in legitimate journalism. NYT is a propaganda outfit that…I guess used to have a sideline in legitimate journalism, I haven’t seen anything impressive come out of NYT in a while.
You can think for yourself, you know. You don’t have to just believe what connected Democrats and their media mouthpieces tell you to believe.
It’s a lot broader than that. You can’t trust any of their middle east coverage, or refugees in Europe, or a number of other issues.
They might have some mighty fine journalism at times, but it’s a lot of bother to pick the chocolate balls out of the rabbit turds.
3 Likes
As I’ve already pointed out, this same principle applies just as strongly to US news outfits. You think you can trust NYT on middle east coverage or refugees in Europe? Based on their record so far, I certainly don’t.
But this is also irrelevant to the point I was making originally, which is that if you want to dismiss all journalism done by RT on the basis of provenance, then you should be consistent and give e.g. NYT or WaPo the same treatment.
I think if you’re going to try to discredit a bit of reporting you should do so on the basis of facts rather than insinuations about hidden motives.
1 Like
Yeah, I know. It’s silly but it’s true. When I find out someone believes in iron age desert superstitions enough to be ordained a minister, I can’t seem to shake that from the back of my mind. Everything they say is colored with “yeah but this person is irrational and is not only a member but an actual minister of this weird zombie desert death cult that believes a magic man in the sky who hates gay people and wants to punish anyone who doesn’t worship him made the universe 5000 years ago” and then I can’t take them seriously.
