Alternate History Tour of Seattle

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

newtboy says...

No, being on RT does not negate his reputation, but it tarnishes it, imo. It doesn't make him a liar, it makes him SUSPECT....less trustworthy, not untrustworthy.
I think using the reporter's chosen organization's reputation as one piece of evidence to make that determination is proper, I think we may just disagree on the weight we give that piece of evidence.

I explained that he doesn't have to stoop to the level of demagogue to serve the propaganda machine by lending them his reputation, and that harm's his rep. He may be 100% honest and factual, but he still helps spread obvious propaganda just by his presence, and I think both he and they know it well, and that's a huge disappointment from him for me.

Yes Chomsky is a good example of how, even though he's correct in his assertions, he gives a skewed view by omitting a comparison with the only alternatives (in speeches).

Again, imo, all news is suspect, there is hardly an example of "hard hitting journalism" in main stream media today that's not tainted with bias either by the reporters or the news organization that employs them. I'm not special, I don't have access to good news, and I'm not sure I could recognize it if I did, at this point. I think most reporting done today is at least in part an echo chamber/bubble meant to reinforce bias, which is why it bothers me so much when one of the few decent reporters takes a job with a propaganda factory...choices matter, who you surround yourself with matters, and surrounding yourself with unapologetic liars should hurt anyone's rep, especially a reporter with a reputation for telling unbiased truth.

Being critical of power doesn't cut it for me if it's designed to hide or excuse other criticism of another power....that's why I need to see him be critical of Putin on RT to regain some trust...until then, bye Felicia.

enoch said:

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

eric3579 says...

I would be interested in a handful of names of who you think qualify in this way. Just curious. And or any news outlets that would qualify.

bcglorf said:

I'm gonna be old school and insist that anybody wanting to be referred to as a journalist MUST meet the bar I laid out of putting the whole truth above and beyond bias, agenda and profit. If you are collecting, presenting or commentating on things but fail to meet that bar your not a journalist, your a commentator, propagandist, political hack or some other designation but journalists are supposed to look for the truth.

As you suggest though, they are slowly becoming extinct .

has rachel maddow lost her mind?

newtboy says...

I'm not at all sure if you're referring to me in your description.
I thought I explained well why a respected reporter working for a propaganda site is both making themselves suspect and lending veracity to the propaganda machine, and that you mostly agreed.
I also mentioned Maddow specifically as being willing to fudge the news for her bias....BUT it bears mention that here she did NOT say what the narrator said she said, she said "we are about to find out if Russia MAYBE has something on our president." That's arguing that, if Trump does what Russia wants, it MIGHT be because they blackmailed him into it...or might not. If he goes against Russia on something serious like securing our allies borders from an expansionist Russia that indicates they MIGHT not be blackmailing him. This guy totally exaggerated and misstated her statement to feign outrage, he's a complete bombastic liar....sorry @enoch. That's not to say she doesn't also exaggerate and omit.

As to the troops on the border, that's what Russia did, and claimed it was just defensive until after they took Crimea and part of Ukraine proper.
As to the treaty with Russia, we also have a treaty with the Ukraine (and so did Russia) that, in return for their nuclear disarmament, we would guarantee their borders and come to their aid militarily if anyone attacked them....and we completely failed to stand up when Russia invaded TWICE. Of course now our allies want our troops ON the border, if American troops aren't killed, we don't care if Russia invades them, and they want us to keep our word, so we need our troops in harm's way to force us to live up to our responsibilities since we've horrendously failed to do so incredibly recently and now look even less likely to oppose Russian expansion.

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

enoch says...

i think that a fair bar.

bcglorf said:

@enoch,

i hear ya,but that is our responsibility,not the journalist or speaker.

I'm gonna be old school and insist that anybody wanting to be referred to as a journalist MUST meet the bar I laid out of putting the whole truth above and beyond bias, agenda and profit. If you are collecting, presenting or commentating on things but fail to meet that bar your not a journalist, your a commentator, propagandist, political hack or some other designation but journalists are supposed to look for the truth.

As you suggest though, they are slowly becoming extinct .

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

enoch says...

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

bcglorf says...

@enoch,

i hear ya,but that is our responsibility,not the journalist or speaker.

I'm gonna be old school and insist that anybody wanting to be referred to as a journalist MUST meet the bar I laid out of putting the whole truth above and beyond bias, agenda and profit. If you are collecting, presenting or commentating on things but fail to meet that bar your not a journalist, your a commentator, propagandist, political hack or some other designation but journalists are supposed to look for the truth.

As you suggest though, they are slowly becoming extinct .

Things aren't always as they seem

newtboy says...

I bought it for my wife for Xmas....$100 through 23 and me. Results aren't back yet.
Her grandparents are both 1/2 Filipino, so she's interested to find out what the other halves are, and what mixture made up the 1/2 Flip parts. There could be any number of nationalities in that soup.
What she'll do with that information, I have no idea.

Xaielao said:

You can buy this test online, friend of mine did. Costs about $60 I believe. She was adopted and never new her parents so it was extra-special to her. All she knew is she was born in PA, currently living in upstate NY. Her test revealed she had like 20% south-american and a small % native american and a large portion german, which makes sense as there's a large population of germans in PA called 'pennsylvania dutch'.

Pulling a Steel Beam Apart

newtboy says...

Rebar comes in all sizes. That was rebar.

worm said:

If it weren't so incredibly think, I would call it rebar... But wow that is thick. I was scared something might have flown out almost explosion-like when it finally broke.

Things aren't always as they seem

Xaielao says...

You can buy this test online, friend of mine did. Costs about $60 I believe. She was adopted and never new her parents so it was extra-special to her. All she knew is she was born in PA, currently living in upstate NY. Her test revealed she had like 20% south-american and a small % native american and a large portion german, which makes sense as there's a large population of germans in PA called 'pennsylvania dutch'.

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

newtboy says...

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that complete, unbiased, factual reporting is the reader's responsibility to find and consume, not a reporter's responsibility to produce?
How would one even go about that without being an investigative reporter themselves? The fact checking and filtering needed to find factual unbiased complete information is a full time job, completely impossible for most people. IMO, when reporters are found to be "reporting" biased opinion that confuses fact with hyperbolic opinion it should be considered a crime against humanity and prosecuteable, not applauded and rewarded, or even tolerated, no matter what side of what issue they support.

enoch said:

@bcglorf
i hear ya,but that is our responsibility,not the journalist or speaker.

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

newtboy says...

I agree we need dissenting voices, but I also feel that those repeatedly proven to use their soapbox to lie, or intentionally obfuscate, confuse, exaggerate, minimize, omit, misrepresent, etc. have lost their right to have their voice heard. If their issues are shared by others, the others have a responsibility to honestly and truthfully explain, removing proven liars as the issue's spokesman, or they leave themselves open to being completely ignored...some of us don't dismiss lying and see it as a disqualifier for a spokesperson or reporter.
I'm speaking generally here, not accusing anyone specifically.

enoch said:

.

but i will add that we NEED dissenting voices.
we NEED people critical of power,the excesses of power and the abuse of power.

i totally agree with you Bc that we need balance,but for that balance to even EXIST,we have to have all voices heard.



the dynamic is NOT republican vs democrat,nor liberal vs conservative.

the dynamic is power vs powerlessness.

RT -- Chris Hedges on Media, Russia and Intelligence

enoch says...

@bcglorf
i hear ya,but that is our responsibility,not the journalist or speaker.

for example i am reading david cay johnstons book "the making of trump".
johnston is a pulitzer prize winning journalist from the la times and the washington post.who also happens to be a republican.

the fact that he is republican does not automatically equate to his investigations being rightwing,slanted or biased.

the time for putting the onus on the outlet,or the individual was destroyed by FOX and it's "fair and balanced" bullshit.

we can lament the passing of walter cronkite,wooward and bernstein and I.F stone,or edward morrow.

but those days are gone,and it is up to us..all of us..to push back the ever increasing avalanche of propaganda and fake news.

Pulling a Steel Beam Apart

worm says...

If it weren't so incredibly think, I would call it rebar... But wow that is thick. I was scared something might have flown out almost explosion-like when it finally broke.

Betsy Devos Embarrassed by Sen. Al Franken

newtboy says...

Franklin, as an ELECTED public servant, has consistently represented his constituents well enough to be re-elected.
Betsy Devos has never held office, never run a loan organization, never run an educational business, been hyper critical of the department she is tapped to run, and doesn't understand the issues this office entails at all, much less have a grasp of the details involved in the life changing decisions she'll be in charge of making, AND she refuses to answer questions when she knows her answers look terrible AND she has not yet finished her application (they've conveniently ignored the ethics forms nominees fill out BEFORE they get a hearing, so she shouldn't receive a hearing at all yet, like the rest of the nominees, which clearly indicates they have something to hide that would disqualify them all). In fact, it's obvious that she's only been nominated because her family bought the post with $200,000,000 in donations to Republicans and her vocal push to privatize education (but not it's funding, leaving us with something like our quasi-privatized prison system), meaning the Republicans plan to hand her the post with no real hearings and no matter how incompetent and unprepared she is....she already bought it, the hearings are just a formality.
...so no, not at all the same.

bobknight33 said:

SNL writer Al Franken to be senator is the same as Betsy Devos being in charge of Education.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon