|
Wait it's not just RT? Everyone who has ever appeared on Fox is also an enemy of America?
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
You'd think that by the 15th time someone gets a basic fact about Greenwald wrong they'd go "hmm, maybe i am the one in the wrong here"Willa Rogers posted:I don't understand why Greenwald (or, say, Kucinich) shouldn't appear on Fox News. What, they should only appear on liberal outlets like CNN or MSNBC? (As if either outlet would deign to have either of them on, given that they fired people for heinous stuff like arguing against the Iraq war or for announcing Bernie's race in 2016.) It's obvious that in their minds the right place to criticize a democratic politician is "nowhere." It's pretty obvious why Greenwald attracts the level of vitriol he does (compared to, say, David Frum or Bill Kristol, actual horrible human beings). Because he ruins the democratic self image of being the good ones. It's hard to pretend to care deeply about immigrant's rights or human rights in the middle east when you also wholly support someone who essentially built the infrastructure that Trump is using. It's hard for the Neera Tandens to act concerned about human rights when she was advocating 19th century style imperial conquest of Lybia just a couple of years ago, or about human rights of immigrants when Obama was putting high school students in solitary confinement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:You'd think that by the 15th time someone gets a basic fact about Greenwald wrong they'd go "hmm, maybe i am the one in the wrong here" The same people who regularly spew poo poo like: Bernie lives in a Papa John's style castle with a moat He drives an Audi R8 He specifically excluded POC from all of his proposals He was actually the Sandy Hook shooter He hates women He'd power a nuclear reactor with POC if he could Hmm i'm starting to notice a pattern with these folks....
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
I’d be pretty loving embarrassed to have screenshots of me talking to Tucker Carlson on his show, or Hannity, or whoever. Going on their show also lets them control how the narrative is presented. You’re also not going to convince anyone who genuinely watches Fox. Like I’m not sure it’s morally wrong to go on Fox, but it is a waste of time. RT is... sort of different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I don't understand why Greenwald (or, say, Kucinich) shouldn't appear on Fox News. What, they should only appear on liberal outlets like CNN or MSNBC? (As if either outlet would deign to have either of them on, given that they fired people for heinous stuff like arguing against the Iraq war or for announcing Bernie's race in 2016.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’d be pretty loving embarrassed to have screenshots of me talking to Tucker Carlson on his show, or Hannity, or whoever. Going on their show also lets them control how the narrative is presented. You’re also not going to convince anyone who genuinely watches Fox. If only they'd had the sense to appear on the MSNBC- and CNN-pharma & defense industry programs... then they would have controlled the narrative, surely! (The last time CNN covered M4A + Kucinich was a week before the ACA passed--which was 7.5 years ago.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
J.B. CURES KANSAS posted:Fox News is a straight-up propaganda outlet and appearing on it in any capacity allows it to claim some legitimacy as an actual news source. It should be boycotted completely including Presidential debates and all the rest. That doesn't really happen though so singling out Greenwald for it is pretty weird and indicates that you just want to single out Greenwald, not that you give a poo poo about Fox News. Nah; I'm ok with any proggie appearing on any outlet as long as they're promoting good ideas, especially good ideas that a majority of Republicans support such as M4A. I also see CNN & MSNBC as "straight-up propaganda outlets" too: They've never backed away from supporting the military-industrial complex, they are beholden to evil corporations for advertising money, and they have narrowed the allowable frame of political discourse to the space between Mitch McConnell & Chuck Schumer, at a time when it's clear by voting patterns that Americans at large want political alternatives and/or don't see the value in voting at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Yeah I thought about that more after I wrote the post and sort-of agree. Fox News is a much more egregious propaganda outlet though, in that they're trying to narrow the allowable frame of discourse to anything to the right of Mitch McConnell. I get the sense that they bring on Greenwald and Kucinich, etc., as token leftists in furtherance of that goal knowing that their viewership will obviously consider their ideas as out of bounds, whereas in the case of CNN and MSNBC a lot of their viewers would be receptive to that stuff and call foul if they didn't get a fair hearing (and so they don't invite them on at all). As I said, singling out Greenwald or Kucinich for it is pretty hypocritical either way, since mainstream Democrats are still eager to pretend Fox News is a legitimate news source anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
I think we're far beyond the point where "legitimizing Fox News" is a thing to care about. They've had a firm grip on America's throat for a decade at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
I mean I'm not entirely against the argument that anyone who has ever appeared on Fox news is a Republican shill who should be shunned out of politics and discourse forever, if Harik wants to make a consistent case for it   
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean I'm not entirely against the argument that anyone who has ever appeared on Fox news is a Republican shill who should be shunned out of politics and discourse forever, if Harik wants to make a consistent case for it How else do you expect the Democrats to reach the Baileys?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:If only they'd had the sense to appear on the MSNBC- and CNN-pharma & defense industry programs... then they would have controlled the narrative, surely! I don’t think going on MSNBC or CNN is necessarily more worthwhile but you’re more likely to connect with that audience than with the people who watch Fox News, demographically speaking. There isn’t a cable news channel that is going to present favorable conditions for leftists, given the nature of cable news as corporate owned. Edit: I’ll amend what I said previously and say that it’s worth going on Fox if you’re going to explicitly be a hostile interviewee and challenge their bullshit. If you just want to shoot the poo poo with Carlson or whatever you’re going to end up looking bad tho. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
B B posted:How else do you expect the Democrats to reach the Baileys? Painstakingly creating an alternate reality where opposition to #MeToo is in good faith and then spending time that could be spent of Kavanagh coverage discussing their fanfiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Appearing on BBC, the propaganda wing of the united kingdom
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don’t think going on MSNBC or CNN is necessarily more worthwhile but you’re more likely to connect with that audience than with the people who watch Fox News, demographically speaking. There isn’t a cable news channel that is going to present favorable conditions for leftists, given the nature of cable news as corporate owned. Nah; Anderson Cooper's not going to be any more conciliatory toward M4A than Sean Hannity is; the only difference is that Hannity will try to smear it as a commie program while Cooper questions where the funding will come from while he knits his brows and tries to convey empathy & sincerity. A case could even be made that Cooper's reaction is more insidiously toxic to the left than Hannity's is. Being a "hostile interviewee" is what those hosts (including CNN & MSNBC) love having happen with lefty guests, bc that immediately alienates the audience and shuts down the possibilities of their ideas resonating with the audience. Someone like Bernie, otoh, explaining how the olds love their medicare--and rather than mocking them maybe we should let everyone have what the olds have and love--is a concrete action that helps propel the good policy positions. Doing so, however, requires that one puts down one's pompons & tribal alliegance to do so--something Bernie & Greenwald have mastered (which is why your standard Trump-thread poster detests them; those two have the temerity to point out when Dems suck, or when Dems propagate policies they once claimed to oppose). Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean I'm not entirely against the argument that anyone who has ever appeared on Fox news is a Republican shill who should be shunned out of politics and discourse forever, if Harik wants to make a consistent case for it Hey keep inventing things I believe in guys, doing a bangup job so far. Except forbidden dialectics forgot bernie's three homes so I'm going to have to dock points for that. Harik fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Harik posted:Hmm this is a tough one, are triangulating neoliberals bad and need to leave politics. No this is actually pretty reasonable, maybe there's a decent criticism of Greenwald there and maybe Democratic politicians are also legitimizing Fox News and they should stop. It's at least something that can be debated and discussed, unlike fanciful allegations that merely appearing on state-owned TV means he must secretly love the GRU
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but I don't think Jeremy Corbyn has done many interviews with Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Times of London, The Sun in the United Kingdom. Major Democrats here need to start pissing on Fox or ignoring them, the rank and file are already there, and have been for years. Obama tried but hesitated when criticized by other media, those days are over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-obama-drink-flint-tap-water-679355459845?v=raila& He is an accomplice in Rick Snyder's crimes and he should be tried as such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:appearing on state-owned TV Let me help you: When Dennis Rodman goes to north korea and appears on "state-owned TV" hugging Supreme Leader and calling him an awesome guy, he is actively participating in propaganda. When US actors do PSAs for the government, they are also participating in propaganda. This is not something that's up for discussion. When Edward Snowden appears on Russia Today, he's participating in propaganda. Aside from arguably snowden, everyone I listed has a choice to participate or reject propaganda outlets. Deciding to film a video to be shown as propaganda is endorsement. It's not a complicated process to get from A to B here. That's why you're so desperate to call RT anything but a propaganda outlet. Harik fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
*propaganda descriptor not viable for Iraq War boosters, that's just sensible reporting, claiming otherwise is giving aid and comfort to the enemy
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Nah; Anderson Cooper's not going to be any more conciliatory toward M4A than Sean Hannity is; the only difference is that Hannity will try to smear it as a commie program while Cooper questions where the funding will come from while he knits his brows and tries to convey empathy & sincerity. A case could even be made that Cooper's reaction is more insidiously toxic to the left than Hannity's is. I mean, on the other other hand, Tucker Carlson and Hannity literally deploy white nationalist and fascist talking points and I don't really think anybody should be engaging with them. Obama and Hillary shouldn't be doing interviews with Fox News. Nobody should treat them as anything other than the joke they are. "Should we go on Fox News" is like asking "should I sit over a dunk tank full of piss?" You're just gonna look bad no matter how that goes. It's a waste of everyone involved's time. But again, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to go on Fox News and attempt to abuse the platform to get exposure for whatever pet issue you think you can get across to the audience. I just think it's futile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:"Should we go on Fox News" is like asking "should I sit over a dunk tank full of piss?" You're just gonna look bad no matter how that goes. It's a waste of everyone involved's time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
Also if someone puts together a decent to middling "it is a piss analogy" smilie I will buy it. Try to make it Trump-themed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Is American news media not propaganda? They sure as gently caress propagandize the Iraq War and more recently Trumps actions in Syria. Look, it's just different when the US does it. Something about it is just normal, you see. Another poster mentioned Harik's argument relying on an axiom, and that's basically the reason it's impossible to argue with someone like them. To them, "RT is fundamentally different than other media" is basically an axiom that doesn't need to be justified. It doesn't matter that the same things they say about RT can also be applied to other media; it's just obvious that it's fundamentally different. As they read the post I'm writing right now, they will think "look at this rube, who does not realize that RT is different" because in their mind RT is like Goebbels-esque stereotypical propaganda and other media is just "yeah it may technically also be propaganda, but it isn't the same because it feels normal to me." I would actually argue that the sort of propaganda you see from US media is more dangerous than something like RT, because US media creates the illusion of not being propaganda (through allowing a range of opinions, but a limited one that excludes any opinions that would seriously threaten the status quo from the left). RT's intent is at least clear; something like the NYTimes will instead create the illusion of a forum of free discussion, while obviously still pushing a certain narrative (or set of narratives).
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
Now more than ever FOX is blatantly a white supremacist network, with Tucker Carlson and Jeanine Pirro spending plenty of time lamenting how America needs to be more white and how the diversification of the country is ruining it. Democrats should be ignoring the network on those grounds alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Harik posted:You just can't help yourself. Harik made an attempt at a witty dismissal, implied that the person he quoted posts irrationally or involuntarily. Harik equivocated Dennis Rodman and people who appear on RT. Harik finished by using the word propaganda in an attempt to conjure forth some emotion that would be useful to the nonargument he is making. As was stated before, Harik has no rebuttal and so must desperately avoid engaging the contents of arguments against the economic system that will likely be the foremost cause of human extinction. They pretend at a commitment to truth or human dignity, but they, in their anger have posted enough to reveal that it is they who post in anger and they who post involuntarily. The use of "propaganda" or "regime" to dismiss state enemies is a massive yellow flag.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
That one episode of the Golden Girls is propaganda, but do you see me repeatedly using the word propaganda as the sole descriptor of the wooden episode where a hateful charicature of a defeated state enemy is taught the virtue of [virtue] and becomes a successful [noun]
Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Now more than ever FOX is blatantly a white supremacist network, with Tucker Carlson and Jeanine Pirro spending plenty of time lamenting how America needs to be more white and how the diversification of the country is ruining it. Democrats should be ignoring the network on those grounds alone. Doesn't everyone who isn't a mega chud ignore Fox News?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Maybe ignore was the wrong choice of word there, I meant Democratic politicians should not appear on Fox. As noted above you see people like Obama and Hillary doing interviews with them. E: I mean I'm aware that Obama and Hillary are lovely right wingers but Fox news just shits on them constantly so I wouldn't think they would need any extra motivation to tell them to gently caress off. Axetrain fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
If they don't appear on FOX where else will you hear Obama admit he's a Nixon man?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
it's "propaganda" when the perfidious Slav does it, it's "incisive commnetary" when our guys do it
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
J.B. CURES KANSAS posted:Fox News is a straight-up propaganda outlet and appearing on it in any capacity allows it to claim some legitimacy as an actual news source. I don't think anyone who isn't already gulping down the Kool Aid is under any illusion that it's a legit news source.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
Harik posted:C) RT is a vastly different beast than the BBC. lol, the BBC:s political reporting department has been stuffed full of Tory sympathizers for the past decade. About two days ago a BBC interviewer literally demanded that the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition should apologize to everybody who doesn't like him on live television, whereas government ministers are given the softest of softball interviews. When it comes to domestic politics the BBC is an obvious propaganda outlet that supports the Tories to the hilt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 10:25
|
|
|
Harik posted:You just can't help yourself. Okay I am with you so far. Harik posted:When US actors do PSAs for the government, they are also participating in propaganda. This is not something that's up for discussion. No argument here. Harik posted:When Edward Snowden appears on Russia Today, he's participating in propaganda. Wait you deleted important qualifiers. Why? Let me help you by emphasizing the distinction you elided between the first half of your post and the second half: Harik posted:When Dennis Rodman goes to north korea and appears on "state-owned TV" hugging Supreme Leader and calling him an awesome guy, he is actively participating in propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Harik posted:Hmm this is a tough one, are triangulating neoliberals bad and need to leave politics. This "literally everyone is bad and I'm just going to nitpick literally everything" schtick is pretty tired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:lol, the BBC:s political reporting department has been stuffed full of Tory sympathizers for the past decade. About two days ago a BBC interviewer literally demanded that the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition should apologize to everybody who doesn't like him on live television, whereas government ministers are given the softest of softball interviews. When it comes to domestic politics the BBC is an obvious propaganda outlet that supports the Tories to the hilt. As long as the interviewer's surname doesn't end in -ov or -ski it's all OK. When in doubt use calipers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Like I mentioned, the only practical difference between RT and a lot of Western media (like the BBC or whatever) is that the Western media is more sophisticated in its propaganda. There is no doubt that Western media also actively supports the interests of their country's governments (or at least one of the main factions in those governments); it just does so in a way that creates the illusion of giving "multiple sides" (as mentioned, this is usually through giving multiple perspectives that don't threaten the status quo and ignoring or minimizing those that do). You could argue that RT acts on direct orders of the Russia government, but is there really any significant practical difference between that and private media organizations acting on the behalf of the US (or UK or whatever) governments due to being heavily incentivized to do so? Seriously, just step back for a moment and ask yourself "what is the actual effective difference in the impact between these things." You just keep repeating as an axiom that they're fundamentally "different beasts" but not really justifying it beyond acting like it's common sense. vvv It's propaganda, but it doesn't make the fact that it's propaganda clear and obvious, which is better for, uh, reasons Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
I really don't see how you can look at the Iraq War coverage in Western media and not conclude that it's government propaganda. The administration called them up, told them what to print, and then went on TV and said "hey you don't have to take our word for it, look it's in the New York Times"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Look, it's just different when the US does it. Something about it is just normal, you see. Axiom: there's a difference betweeen: * privately owned free press that's got a lovely history of wanting access to the government while also having owners that stand to profit selling lots of bombs to drop on civilians. * state-owned media that explicitly exists to serve the interests of the state. additionally: * state-funded media that theoretically has freedom but knows where their funding comes from. (BBC, NPR, etc). I fundamentally disagree that "Oh, all media is equal" which is the core of what Vitalsigns keeps saying. VitalSigns posted:I really don't see how you can look at the Iraq War coverage in Western media and not conclude that it's government propaganda. Harik fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Sep 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2018 17:54
|
|