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!

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'newswipe, oil spill, Charlie Brooker' to 'newswipe, oil spill, Charlie Brooker, voice of america' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'newswipe, blog, charlie brooker, cnn, pretends to care' to 'newswipe, blog, charlie brooker, cnn, pretends to care, voice of america' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BBC, Doug Stanhope, Charlie Booker, Newswipe, News' to 'BBC, Doug Stanhope, Charlie Booker, Newswipe, News, voice of america' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Charlie Booker, BBC, newswipe, Doug Stanhope, Oprah' to 'Charlie Booker, BBC, newswipe, Doug Stanhope, Oprah, voice of america' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'charlie brooker, newswipe, news wipe, doug stanhope' to 'charlie brooker, newswipe, news wipe, doug stanhope, voice of america' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Doug Stanhope, abortion, newswipe, carbon footprint, prius, douchebag' to 'Doug Stanhope, abortion, newswipe, carbon footprint, prius, voice of america' - edited by xxovercastxx

A video that uses one of the greatest voices in America, Paul Harvey, to help debase one of the greatest shows ever made is not going to win lots of votes, imho.

I <3 the voice of America's Best Christian!

I'm not really against these guys in an way. However, if I'm honest I am little uncomfortable with this whole interview. I think that it's kind of important to remember who is funding them.

wikipedia: Voice of America (VOA) is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. Its oversight entity is the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). VOA provides a wide range of programming for broadcast on radio, TV and the Internet around the world in forty-four languages, promoting a positive view of the United States.

A man with access to the googles brings you fresh copypasta:

Uygur has appeared on television on numerous occasions on MSNBC, CNN Headline News, E! Entertainment Television, Aljazeera, ABC News, Voice of America, NPR and the Fox News Channel.

He is a regular guest on The Dylan Ratigan Show for a segment opposite various conservative commentators. On several occasions, Uygur has guest hosted the show in Ratigan's absence, and has also served as guest host for The Ed Show in the absence of Ed Schultz as well as the guest host for Keith Olbermann on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

On October 21, 2010 msnbc announced that Uygur had been officially hired as a contributor and substitute anchor for the network. Previously, Uygur had periodically guest hosted and appeared on numerous msnbc programs.

>> ^rottenseed:
Correction: I NEVER cared!>> ^brycewi19:
Rottenseed just doesn't care anymore either. It's Jack Cafferty, not Jeff.



Touche.

Correction: I NEVER cared!>> ^brycewi19:
Rottenseed just doesn't care anymore either. It's Jack Cafferty, not Jeff.

Your video, Doug Stanhope: Voice of America "Jeff Cafferty Doesn't Care", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.