@radx and @enoch

radx said:
Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive.

enoch said:
i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

All of the outlets and authors listed above have been very thorough or exhaustive in documenting the evils of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). The length, depth and detail they have all given and time spent documenting any and every instance is almost breath taking. For a long time, I sort of sat closer to you both by looking at the merits of each instance and case weeding through which stories were accurate, which ones were complete, which ones were misleading or fair. Lots and lots of the coverage from those groups and individuals were very accurate.

Here's the counter balance though, how much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to any positive outcomes of America or Capitalism(as represented by America). How much time, detail and effort have all of those groups combined given to the evils of any alternatives or opposing forces that would or did fill the voids were America isn't involved? It's crickets all around.

Chomsky's work alone could fill a library with the thorough documenting of America's evil corporate execution of class war on the workers of the world. How many books and documentaries can we count form the entire group that attempt anything similar for China, Russia, Middle Eastern nations, heck, the rest of the world combined?

I don't draw attention to this to point out that anything they have all observed is even wrong or incorrect. I draw attention to the glaring omission of similar documentation of alternatives. As it stands, a country like Russia couldn't dream of a better and more effective propaganda coup than the work of these groups and individuals. That doesn't in anyway say any of them are in allegiance with Russia, or even like anything about Russia. It still stands that even if Russia set out to discredit and smear America and leave itself looking clean, it couldn't pay people to do a better job of it. That's something worth considering and the deep, deep absence of balance and perspective that the listed sources represent is DAMAGING when taken in isolation.

Perhaps more pointedly, is the problem with Breitbart merely with it's fact checking department? They are, in as close as investigated them both, about on a Howard Zinn level for accuracy/honesty. None the less, it's the facts they willingly and knowingly leave out that makes them so damaging. The fact they fall right wing instead of left wing doesn't make their damage so much more appalling to me.

@newtboy
can you show me where hedges promoted russian propaganda?
i ask this sincerely,because i have not seen any evidence of what you are accusing him of.

i get that we disagree,but hedges has earned my respect for his journalistic veracity.

you have earned my respect for being a decent human being,who i happen to agree with more often than not,but in this case i will not simply disregard hedges stellar work because you accuse him of being a propagandist.

i have read his books.
watched his lectures.
and sifted through his sources.

you have openly admitted you have done none of these things,yet..you have formed an opinion on his work by the venue he has chosen.you have even gone as far as to presume his intent on WHY he is on that venue.

now..you are free to speculate all you wish in regards to hedges motivations,and even be skeptical of his work due to him being on RT atm (he was also on Telesur,and al jazeera english).


i do not find this skepticism unwarranted nor unreasonable.i understand why you may feel this way.

but i am the captain of my own ship.
i do consider hedges respectable and worthy of consideration,because i have considered his words,read his books and watched his lectures.

i have considered his works and found them informative and reflective of our current situation.

just as i have found:howard zinn,noam chomsky,amy goodman,jeremy scahill,laura poitrus,glenn greenwald,paul jay,richard d wolffe.

does this equate to everything that they postulate the unerring word of GOD?

of course not.
i can disagree with someone and still respect them for their views.

example:@bcglorf

i really do not see an issue here.
i also do not understand why i am being put in a position to defend why i may respect a reporter/journalist for the good works they have produced.

i am sure there are authors/journalists/academics that you admire and trust their work,because they have earned that trust by being consistent with their methodology.

so i do not see a rub at all.
i see you making conflations and comparisons based loosely on associations,and not tangible and concrete evidence.

if you have evidence,and i am simply being biased and residing in my own bubble.then by all means..pop that bubble...i am human after all,and just as prone to confirmation bias as the next person.

Two days ago, there was a forum/panel about freedom & democracy, where the lineup included: Jeremy Scahill, Edward Snowden, Paul Jay (of TRN), Rick Wolff, and others.

Now, I know I'm biased when it comes to the topics of surveillance, the war on terror, capitalism, etc, but that does sound like a panel worth reporting on, doesn't it? It's not frontpage stuff, sure, but a column/comment online...

Nothing, last I checked. Not a peep.

Who did report on it? RT Germany.

As far as I am concerned, RT is a valid source, as long as you remain aware of their (pro-Russia) angle. It's actually a great source for stuff on the US or the UK, most of the time. Just like I've seen good stuff on Russia in the Swiss media, unlike the red-baiting so prevelant in the WaPo these days.

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'the real news network, paul jay, ralph nader' to 'the real news network, paul jay, ralph nader, philanthropy' - edited by kronosposeidon

Well cheers. Paul Jay is refreshing even though he reports depressing stories. >> ^Boise_Lib:

promote
I have no idea if I can do this--the FAQ just confuses the shit out of me.
Preemptive note to siftbot:
Bite me!

>> ^geo321:

quality


>> ^siftbot:

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by geo321.


Show-off.

It's never a good idea to ask the citizens to take the law into their own hands. The point of the video and others is that the security was not there to stop the anarchists! They were there to sent a message through the Canadian police about how the countries of the G-20 might deal with opposition to their plans. The police charged peaceful protestors, kidnapped people, and assaulted numerous reporters!

I suggest reading Paul Jay's blog:
http://bit.ly/duSEIR

They utilized this model successfully in US [and throughout history]. Use a boogyman (eg. Al Qaeda) to justify over reaching powers for the authorities and have people's civil rights fade away. Last week CIA chief say that Fewer than 100 Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan, and US has over 100 Thousand troops there. Its the same scenario being played out in Canada now. The anarchist group is so insignificant and containable, but they are being used to fulfill the role of boogyman!

Canadians need to contact their MPPs and MPs to let them know that we won't be scared into giving away our civil rights and tax dollars. We demand a public inquiry into everything that happened.

>> ^cracanata:

Why nobody tries to stop them or investigate and identify these individuals? The genuine protesters should create a security "force" to deal with the black bloc/anarchists if they don't want police to play the coin of repressing violence in the streets.
There must be some counteractions that can be made to stop them.

She's a terrible interviewer. It's like she was more of an obstacle than a conduit to getting information. Paul Jay always seems to manage well.

"Paul Jay" - Pretty amazing.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'economy, bailout' to 'economy, bailout, howard zinn, paul jay' - edited by thinker247

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chomsky, vote, obama, election' to 'chomsky, vote, obama, election, the real news, paul jay' - edited by fissionchips

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ahh, there is a part 3. Cool. Does this news station happen on cable TV? Anyone know what name it would be listed under?

As NetRunner said it's web only. They are still a very new organization and working up to a full cable news program. The special thing about them is they don't accept advertisements, corporate sponsorship or government subsidies. They rely purely on donation from viewers. This means that they are totally independent and can offer Real News. Paul Jay the founder explains it better.
I really hope this model succeeds, but it will need donations.


Hmm, well, I would still be a little worried about where the money does end up coming from. But it is at least a step in the right direction. Though, I don't think they could ever get on TV without actual sponcers...perhaps radio though.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ahh, there is a part 3. Cool. Does this news station happen on cable TV? Anyone know what name it would be listed under?

As NetRunner said it's web only. They are still a very new organization and working up to a full cable news program. The special thing about them is they don't accept advertisements, corporate sponsorship or government subsidies. They rely purely on donation from viewers. This means that they are totally independent and can offer Real News. Paul Jay the founder explains it better.

I really hope this model succeeds, but it will need donations.