What kind of balance are you speaking of? For the sake of argument, I'll assume that you mean spending somewhat equal time and effort on different sides of an argument.

That kind of balance can be expected from a news outlet. Many of them, especially American ones, overcook is massively by refusing to make judgements on the validity of opposing arguments. If argument A is backed by empirical evidence and argument B is smoke and mirrors, argument B should receive ridicule, not the same kind of respect that A receives.

Now, applying this kind of balance to individuals strikes me as wierd. They are not obliged to give a balanced view: they are obliged, as journalists, to present facts, and offer interpretations. The issues we're talking about here are not disputes between neighbours. We are talking about the war on terror, macroeconomics, propaganda, things of the utmost importance. And the media is doing a woeful job at presenting any dissenting view.

Thing is, you can get the major consensus narrative from countless news outlets out there. Want to here about the supposed benefits of multinational trade agreements? The NYT and the WaPo have dozens upon dozens of articles with praise of TTIP and TPP. If, however, you would like to hear about the consequences of previous trade agreements, or just some hard math on the numbers they like to throw in there, you won't find any. You'll have to go to Dean Baker at the CEPR, to Yves Smith at NakedCapitalism, you'll read Rick Wolff's take on it.

These people do everything in their power to restore the balance that the media drowned in buckets of party-line puff pieces. People recognise RT for propaganda, but somehow think propaganda stops when ownership is private.

Try to find proper articles about the global assassination program (drone warfare) and its effect on sovereign people abroad -- won't find anything in the media, you'll have to go to Jeremy Scahill.

Try to find proper articles about the desolation brought to communities in the developed world by (the current form of) capitalism, the epidemic of loniliness, the breaking apart of the social fabric, the monetarisation of every aspect of life -- silence. What about the slavery-like conditions it creates through indebtedness? The absurd inequality? Nothing.

What about the massive atrocities in Jemen? There was plenty about the atrocities committed by Russia in Syria, but when Saudis use US weapons to destroy an entire country, mum's word.

There is no balance in the media. They are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and anything outside the establishment's agreed upon consensus is ignored, marginalised, ridiculed, or straight up demonized.

CJ Hopkins had a great piece at Counterpunch the other day, titled Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works. He puts it more succinctly than I ever could. Reality doesn't matter, not for the mainstream media. The narrative matters.

And that's why I listen to dissenting voices like Chris Hedges, Abby Martin or Thom Hartmann, even when they are employed by a state propaganda outlet.

>> ^deathcow:

Well, where I work, the CEO formed the company and now has 1700 people working for him. How much is that worth?


I don't know if your company is private (all of the profits belongs to the owner), or public (everything belongs to the shareholders--and the originator has the money from selling the company--or stocks).

The corporations Thom is talking about are huge--probably multinational--corporations which are run by a Board of Directors. These boards are comprised of people who are either: CEO's themselves, related to CEO's, married to CEO's, or--at least--belong to the same country club as all the CEO's. The incestuous nature of the corporate structure which we are dealing with now is so bad--and the interconnections so intertwined--that no one corporation is going to knock the top tier salaries down. That would eventually mean that their own income would go down significantly. It is in the interests of the board members (note: not the shareholders, or the company) to keep top salaries very high.

Did you know that I make just under that and I can't afford to feed my kids or even take my family on a holiday, or go for a drive, just for pleasure etc. We don't even have cable TV, credit cards or insurance.

Just sayin' what's your point.

I work a decent job with a fair wage and I can't afford the basics in life. The cost of living is beyond the wage. So when you state that 40,000 is the one percent "Globally" - you need to remember, it's all relative to the living expenses.

>> ^rebuilder:

Did you know that if you make about 41,000 USD per year, after taxes, you are in the top 1% income-wise?Globally.

>> ^marinara:

really like thom hartmann on the russia tv channel.
can't credit it to just one thing, but it's better.
IMHO it replaces Olbermann and Cenk


I really liked Thom Hartman when he was on the radio here (before all progressive radio was bought out & replaced by Catholic radio). I should probably try and watch his show on RT.

really like thom hartmann on the russia tv channel.
can't credit it to just one thing, but it's better.
IMHO it replaces Olbermann and Cenk

Very little.

A lot.

Your point?

>> ^notarobot:

How much interest do you get on a savings account?
How much interest do you get charged on a loan or credit card?
>> ^budzos:
The banks don't give a living shit about your savings deposits.

How much interest do you get on a savings account?

How much interest do you get charged on a loan or credit card?
>> ^budzos:

The banks don't give a living shit about your savings deposits.

what?! @quantumushroom??! is that you?



>> ^volumptuous:

But...but...but....Barney Frank is gay and Barack Hussein Obummer is has the word "Hussein" in his name!

That's terrific!

They should pick up Thom Hartmann, too.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?
This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.


I took that from this, starting around 0:53:

The more liberal stations some of them wouldn't dare want to talk to me because their agenda is Democratic party politics and they're not for liberty, they're just for Democratic party politics and big government. But even on those stations, you will have a few very honest people.

Which is followed by his comments about Stewart being "honest" because "when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em." Because apparently it's rare that liberals ever deviate from just toeing the line on "Democratic party politics".

Because, you know, nobody like Olbermann, or Maddow, or Cenk Uygur, or Ed Shultz, or Lawrence O'Donnell, or Sam Seder, or Thom Hartmann, and nobody on blogs, or anywhere else has ever "gone after" Democrats for screwing up.

Granted, I didn't get my entire view of Ron Paul from this video alone. I've been listening to this guy off and on for years now.

I guess I know Paul best from the Campaign for Liberty e-mail list. See, way back in 2007, I used to think Paul was a different kind of Republican -- a softer, kinder, more honest sort, who would be willing to work with liberals on important issues, so I signed up for his e-mail list. Back then, the e-mail he sent out matched that first impression.

At least, they did right up until Obama became President. Ever since it's been 3 years of pure vitriol and hatred. Here's some highlights from one from earlier this year:

Fellow Patriot,

Big Government took a huge leap forward in 2010. And you and I will suffer the consequences unless we take action today.

You see, the statists look for every opportunity to gain more power over our lives – and they found another one in the ObamaCare scheme.

It is a huge step toward a full takeover of our personal medical decisions, as well as a massive tax increase and a huge loss of liberty. It will also cause further destruction to our already fragile economy.
...
Please read the email below from Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. Campaign for Liberty has a great plan to help me win this fight, but they are going to need every Patriot in our Revolution to join them.
...
[Letter from John Tate that Paul wants us to read]
Dear NetRunner,

The ObamaCare scheme is designed to do two things statists love more than anything else: vastly increase the size and power of government and give our federal masters more control over our personal business.

Power over our very lives.

It's getting harder and harder for them to conceal their true intentions - and people are waking up to it.

You and I saw the results of this in the recent elections, giving us an opportunity to take action.

Ron Paul has a plan to fight back and END THE MANDATE, but Campaign for Liberty needs your help today to get the battle really moving.

You see, the debate over nationalized health care isn't about what Congress wants to "give" Americans.

It's not even about health care at all.

It's about power.

It's about what THEY take.

It's always been about what they take.

And their "take" is staggering.

Delightful bunch of two-faced psychopaths, if you ask me.

Full Disclosure always helps.


Thom Hartmann is the #1 progressive radio talk show host in the US

New York Times:

Lawrence Mishel, Heidi Shierholz and Kathryn Edwards, all of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, are three such economists, and they have laid out their arguments against structural unemployment in a report released today.


How to Identify Liberal Media Bias

It's Thom Hartmann!

I guess he's part of RT's network now too?

*news

Hey,

This is the source, but it's not much of one.

I distinctly remember reading, from a more credible source (CNN, WP, etc.) that Cheney had threatened Wellstone and also said something along the lines of "We'll take you out" but, I'm sorry, I couldn't find one of those sources.

If I tried harder I think I could, but I'm not in the mood tonight.

See ya 'round!

In reply to this comment by ObsidianStorm:
rougy -

Verrry eenterestink.

Do you have a link for this?


In reply to this comment by rougy:
Did Cheney have Paul Weller whacked?

That was another cover-up bullshit investigation of a very convenient death.

"At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."

dude his homeschooled.... quite articulate, but kind of sheltered. I heard him on Thom Hartmann's radio show, and he really has no idea what is going on and made some shit up about al-Queda training camps operating in northern Georgia....

I think he'll get older and have some experiences that will blow his mind, and he'll swing left. The universe will moderate him (I hope)

>> ^quantumushroom:
Are these the "objective journalists" liberalsifters crave after weathering those biased talking heads at FOX?


No.