1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

Just hook us all up into the matrix why don't ya!!

Schmidt, chief CEO of the wonderful entity envisions Big Google Brother's future....

".....At the Techonomy conference in 2010, Eric Schmidt predicted that "true transparency and no anonymity" is the way forward for the internet: "In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it." He also said that "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"

What threats, motherfucker?? Thanks anyway INGSOC, I can handle alleged threats myself.

Interesting interview but a damn fine example of it's not as easy as some people think to be a GOOD interviewer. Eric Schmidt is painful to watch do this, painful

This is one-sided fear mongering. The Eric Schmidt quote clearly pertained to activities done in public. And yes, if you don't want people to know about something, don't do it on the freaking sidewalk of a public street. Regardless, Google goes to great lengths to preserve locally applicable privacy laws in places like Europe.

Google isn't trying to steal your DNA. They invest in a gene sequencing company that discovers diseases before they strike, oh that's so insipid <sarcasm>.

What other corporations were brave enough to call out China on their censorship?

>> ^Payback:
I wonder if the CEO wants where he lives, and where his children go to school, and what times they go there, to be shared with the pedophiles of his community.


He most certainly would not. For example, this article from CNET got Google CEO Eric Schmidt very upset when they published information about him that they obtained from Google searches.

Allegedly, Schmidt demanded a one year boycott of CNET.

Marinegunrock: Trying very hard not to downvote.

This is nothing but fear mongering. What? You think Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page are all sitting somewhere petting a cat in a dark cave? Come the fuck on. You got caught leaving a porn shop? OH NO! It's not like regular people passing by the shop couldn't see it. A naked baby!?!? Seriously? Ugh.