Yes, yes it does. Since no other outlet seems to want hire respectable western journalists who, in your opinion should I watch? What outlet isn’t a propaganda machine or alternatively, what outlet has someone like Hartmann that I can turn to for news?
You should get your news from pretty much anywhere that doesn’t have the explicit purpose of spreading falsehoods to further a repressive government’s foreign policy and internal propaganda goals. Generally I’d caution you to avoid any 24 hour news television news operation. 90% of what they air is bullshit and bickering. Regardless of the quality of reporting they do. More over in now way, no how should you be locking in one news source. Critical thinking, and generally being aware of the world requires you to check that shit. Look at as much of it as you can. Including the stuff you don’t like. Look for confirmation from other parties, further detail, look at the actual sources of things. The truth tends to float to the top among the more reliable sources (RT not being one of them, its Kremlin owned Fox News).
They hired some one that you personally like and respect. That has convinced you that they are as credible as he is. That is the entire strategy. To use people like Hartmann to attract people who otherwise might not trust a Russian state media operation that RT is worth trusting. So that when you see that other coverage. That coverage carefully structured to make Russia and Assad’s claims that the gas attacks in Syria didn’t happen or weren’t Assad seem plausible. For example. That you will be more likely to be amenable to those ideas, or trust that they are true. Regardless of what basis in fact they have.
You’ll also notice that those articles I linked to don’t come out and say “false flag! Assad didn’t do it”. But they lace the idea in as an alternative right along with the rest of the reporting. Analogous to the Global Warming denier’s insistence that there is debate on the subject, and Trump’s “people are saying”. It gives an idea validity without openly endorsing it. Giving the speaker (in this case RT) plausible deniability about pushing the idea. Effectively hiding behind the false balance idea endemic to journalism right now (especially 24 hour news networks).
Bit of a strawman don’t you think? I never said they are as credible as Hartmann but that they are as credible as another other news channel. Which is to say none of them are in my view. I follow reporters and reporting not news channels. My point is that none of the other channels, some of which I assume you personally must classify as not being state propaganda, have anyone like Hartmann. That being the case, why would I tune in to any of them?
1 Like
See people keep making this defense of RT. “Pfft its all propaganda” And frankly its ridiculous. RT is owned out and out by a government that does not have free press, or freedom of expression. It is the international wing, of the state media org of a nation where news that is not the official outreach and opinion of the state. An official action of government. Does not exist.
That is characteristically different that journalists having a slightly too cozy relationship with politicians. Or even a situation like Fox News where there’s a direct, and disturbing connection between the media org and a particular political party. You may describe these things casually as propaganda, because you don’t like them. You can more reliably describe things like Fox News as propaganda, or propaganda like because of their direct connections to the conservative movement.
But RT is literally a propaganda engine. Like literally, actually, factually no denying it. Not propaganda because you don’t like it. Not propaganda because it has a particular political agenda or bent it likes to push. Actual propaganda in that it was founded as an arm of a government to push its very particular ideas, goals, and messages regardless of veracity. It is an actual part of the Russian Government. It is actually directly involved, not just in pushing Russian ideas. But in Russian intelligence operations.
That still means you’ve fallen for it. Because they aren’t. The credibility of news orgs is variable. And its never a 100% thing. This one may be more reliable and credible than that one. But this one can still be wrong about something while that one happens to be right (witness Buzzfeeds occasionally very good reporting). RT is not really a news org. It is a propaganda vector. It is Pravda.
As such they are not credible in any way. How ever occasionally decent reporting on RT might be. Even from individual personalities. However reliable they may be at any given moment. Is only a factor of creating a sheen of legitimacy. So that when those not true, accurate, or good things that their parent government would like to push come up. They fly as something legitimate (even if ultimately inaccurate).
If they have convinced you that they are like any other news org. Then that strategy has worked on you.
Ok you got me. Clever clever you are. Even though I only watch Hartmann and do not view any other RT content at all, I fell for something didn’t I? But still, my question remains, what outlet, in your view, has a reporter of Hartmann’s caliber?
If you only watch Hartmann, and RT doesn’t matter to you otherwise. Why defend RT? Why claim Hartmann’s presence there means anything?
I’ve already mention I don’t know Hartmann. So I can’t tell you that. I also don’t generally watch 24 hour news networks because they are awful. But unless Hartmann is the second coming of Walter Cronkite there are plenty of high caliber reporters out there. Television or otherwise, working in tons of places. That you prefer Hartmann functionally means nothing.
Generally I get my news from a handful of places. CBS News Radio’s NY Affiliate is generally good for straight forward bullshit free news coverage. NPR/PBS and BCC, particularly the radio divisions are generally considered to be the gold standard world wide. If I’m going to deal with News Networks (or TV news in general) its is generally CNN. They can generally be expected to reliably report accurate information. Its all the bullshit “discussion” and nonsense that makes these networks bad news sources. Fox is absurd, just absurd, and best avoided. MSNBC seems to be fairly accurate, but they are the Liberal fox news. So its all about talking heads, op ed bickering, and not news. As insufferable as CNN is with it Fox and MSNBC are worse. Regardless of which end of it I agree with. Other than that a collection of magazines, newspapers, blogs, and other sources I hit up online. From both the US, and the UK/Ireland (family there). Often times I’m looking for longer form “magazine” style writing, with analysis or investigative elements. I cross check things as often as I have time for. I occasionally check in with the unreliable, bizarre, biased, or generally bad sources just to see what’s doing. And how it might be effecting things outside their bubbles.
I do not follow writers or reporters. As good ones tend to pop up in multiple places. Reference each other back and forth. Cooperate and run in crews. The truth, and the interesting bits with news. Often develop over time, with reporters expanding on, checking, correcting, referencing and working off each other’s work. That’s more important than preferring a particular publication. Or liking a particular reporter. Taking it all together, examining it critically. Seeking sources that do the same.
Back to that strawman? I haven’t defended them. I did say that Hartmann being on RT makes them a better news network than most and I also said none of them RT included are credible as a news outlet. You just keep attacking them as if I have. I mean, keep going and all that. Funny stuff IMO.
I wouldn’t expect it to mean anything to you. I simply said I like Hartmann more than anyone else out there today and you went off on RT and propaganda. I’m aware there are great reporters and journalists out there but until they get a regular show, I’ll be watching Hartmann and since he is on RT that pretty much means the only show on a news channel that I’ll watch is on RT. If any of the other channels get someone who doesn’t shill for a party and who is also a great journalist, I’ll tune in.
There are only a handful of journalists I trust, and Hartmann is right up there at the top with Goodman, Taibbi, and Greenwald.
1 Like
Sure there’s general integrity here, but could that be related to how soft their coverage is? I’m certainly a fan of their human interest work. I effin’ loooove radiolab, philosophy talks, that stuff… But they simply never rock the boat. No hard news, ever. And to insult our collective human intelligence, they keep trotting out the master of meaningless, David Brooks (just like NYT) which is totally effin’ daffy, a sick joke.
My argument is that everything is propaganda. Every purveyor has an agenda, even the honest ones. Or as better put by Hunter S. Thompson,
So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here–not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
Journalism is as much about what is not said as what is said to be true. Facts mean nothing without perspective. We literally rely on billionaires to tell us what is true or not, so on a very fundamental level, the point of view of the average citizen can’t be understood. This is not to say that all corporate news is invalid, but actually that it is the opposite- because most of what they report is factual, they possess an enduring cover for the stories they leave out. Censorship in journalism is at least a cultural phenomena, probably more, than an ideological one. That clearly varies from outlet to outlet, although many seem to like the funny game of parading lightweights from the opposition in obvious mockery of objectivity.
My all time favorite Jon Stewart moment (and honestly I have to give kudos to the Tuck for coming back from this.)
1 Like
Hartmann is good if viewed in isolation, but on RT he’s the equivalent of a Fox News liberal. His sole purpose is to provide credibility to the state propaganda that forms the rest of the network.
The fact that he’s willing to do that substantially lowers my opinion of his judgement and/or ethical standards.
6 Likes
I was referring specifically to their news operations. Not the other programing, so not stuff like radio lab. Both BBC and npr/pbs news are considered the last remnants of traditional hard news. Both have a history of very deep, valid non bullshit analysis and investigative reports. Though pbs does far less of that now since their funding has been eroding. Though their science reporting is still awesome. BBC world news radio remains the world’s standard for basic news coverage. It’s how our troops get news in theater. It’s how people in dictatorial countries get real news. But for the most part both are basic, straightforward light news coverage. And both are routinely rated as among the most trustworthy and reliable news sources by independent watch dogs. BBC’s global/international coverage is about as good as it gets. And that’s the sort of thing I like CBS radio out of NY for. You get 30 second to 5 minute factual updates on what’s going on. No talking heads no spin. No false debates or pointless discussions. They tell you what’s known. And give you brief, solid bits of context and analysis. They aren’t afraid to correct themselves or call out falsehoods. They don’t linger, they don’t scare monger, And they don’t do constant 24 hour coverage of things even when there’s no new info or purpose. Just regular, timed updates on major stories.
In depth stuff and editorial is better handled by formats with the time and space to do it right. Like print/web or weekly investigative or magazine style TV.
Welp, it’s a free country, as they say, so if you wanna be that simplistic and deprive yourself of his consistently incisive critique of neoliberal abuse, then hey, go for it.
3 Likes
11 Likes
Western Civilization traditionally refers to the culture of Western Europe. There is a European influence in the Americas, but we have our own distinct American ethnicities, heritage, and culture here. If Bannon is so attached to European values and traditions I am sure we can crowdfund a ticket to send him there.
7 Likes
10 Likes
Someone else for the Rockall colony?
8 Likes
To be fair, my husband would love to live there… As long as he was the only one.
3 Likes
Consider this, if RT has him on and gives him full control of his show to make themselves seem legitimate, why don’t the legitimate channels have someone like him on to make them seem legitimate?
1 Like
Although the corporate media in the USA is spectacularly bent, it is bent in a different way to the media in Russia. They’re both shit, but they’re not equivalent.
1 Like
