|
I don’t think you could reasonably argue that there’s a significant moral difference between going on the BBC under the May government and RT under Putin. Both are right wing authoritarian governments and both press outlets are mouthpieces in some capacity for said governments. (I would think this implies that both are bad, not that both are good, however) I’d argue there’s a difference between say, Corbyn going on the BBC as an elected British official versus going onto RT, however, and that it would be different calculus from a left-wing journalist or activist.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2018 17:56 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:42 |
|
I never said all media was equal, I asked you to defend your position that going on any media program is not just an endorsement of everything their editors believe but also incontrovertible proof that the person actually shares all the same opinions as the editors such as "the GRU is good", and so far you've been unable to do that. E: Well you've been unable to do that except by question-begging "going on RT is loving the GRU by definition" and special pleading "unless someone I don't feel comfortable accusing of being a GRU shill does it" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Sep 25, 2018 |
# ? Sep 25, 2018 17:58 |
|
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. Then, many years later, the same NYT which unashamedly helped drive public opinion toward war managed to publish a worthwhile piece which rapidly got memory-holed: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html Who can forget the innumerable "military experts", often being paid by the networks to be the Bush Administration's mouthpiece, strewn across every major media outlet, not just Fox, and not just cable news. David Barstow posted:In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure. Of course they all largely brushed off accountability for it, if they addressed it at all. It all became just one more scandal the Obama administration covered for. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html David Barstow - Relegated to Page 20, fuckin' lol posted:The inquiry found that from 2002 to 2008, Mr. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon organized 147 events for 74 military analysts. These included 22 meetings at the Pentagon, 114 conference calls with generals and senior Pentagon officials and 11 Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Twenty of the events, according to a 35-page report of the inquiry’s findings, involved Mr. Rumsfeld or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or both. But I'm inconsolably enraged about Glenn Greenwald going on Fox or RT a few times, because none of the good(???) networks will have him. hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Sep 25, 2018 |
# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:10 |
|
Fox is absolutely worse than RT. RT is fairly conventional in the way it presents propaganda, Fox News has been presenting unabashed white nationalism for years now.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:18 |
|
Harik posted:Depends on which media you're talking about. Not everybody was pro-war going in but lovely rags like the NYT absolutely were. Which major US outlet(s) do you not consider pro war?
|
# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:23 |
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Which major US outlet(s) do you not consider pro war? The Onion.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2018 18:54 |
|
Harik posted:That really is a fundamental divide, yes. Of course there is a structural difference between three differently-structured media apparatus. The question is whether these differently-structured apparatus create meaningful distinctions in output. I don't believe they do. Further, you are completely underestimating the systemic factors at play in determining what stories get covered by capitalist media. A fairer description would be: * privately controlled media that must, as an systemic necessity, retain access to government sources and maintain credibility with its advertisers. An even fairer description could probably be shortened to: * privately-controlled media that explicitly exists to serve the interests of capital. Edit: Read Manufacturing Consent. The book is slightly dated at this point as evinced by Trump's election, but its model of how media functions in a capitalist system is still convincing. Edit2: or at least watch the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Sep 25, 2018 |
# ? Sep 25, 2018 19:32 |
|
Yeah, the key point of disagreement here isn't that differences exist between RT and a lot of Western media; it's that those differences are substantial enough to matter, particularly in the specific context that causes people to ridicule RT (to the extent that merely appearing on it is sufficient to completely discredit an individual).
|
# ? Sep 25, 2018 20:58 |
|
I wouldn't care if Glenn did a guest column on the Daily Stormer if he said true poo poo in it. This whole argument just boils down to people trying to ignore facts because they're on the wrong TV channel. And honestly who even owns a TV in 2018 when all the best definitely true and good information is on Twitch streams. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 25, 2018 |
# ? Sep 25, 2018 21:13 |
|
I mean ridicule RT all you want, but the charge that just because somebody appeared on it means they love the Russian secret police is weak as hell
|
# ? Sep 25, 2018 21:23 |
|
walking up to an RT reporter and demanding shrilly that my face be blurred out lest i be mistaken for a russia lover
|
# ? Sep 25, 2018 22:25 |
|
RT unironically owns because their entire propaganda strategy atm is to just give a platform to all the people MSNBC fired for saying the Iraq war was bad and let them say true poo poo about the US.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 00:53 |
|
readingatwork posted:RT unironically owns because their entire propaganda strategy atm is to just give a platform to all the people MSNBC fired for saying the Iraq war was bad and let them say true poo poo about the US. yea RT's American stuff is 90% people blackballed here for saying 'maybe cops aren't heroes actually' or 'the war is bad' in 2003 so making it the new red scare target #1 super won't wind up with white rich libs telling people not to listen to minority voices because they're too radical and stupid to know they're mere pawns... Oh nooooo!
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:07 |
|
My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose. This is the very definition of an useful idiot.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:13 |
|
Skex posted:My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose. Only if you use an extremely loose definition of "align." Greenwald is not pro-Trump or Republican. (Plus there's the whole point I've repeated about how even if you emphasize his flaws, he still comes out looking better than most liberal-aligned political/media figures, who for some strange reason don't receive nearly the same level of dismissive and hostile language. A good example of this might be Obama; Obama is undeniably worse overall in terms of both ideology and the results of his actions than Glenn Greenwald, but he would never receive the same sort of language aimed at him by most of these people.) Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Sep 26, 2018 |
# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:15 |
|
Skex posted:My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose. Which architects are these now? I don't see him sucking up to the neocon crowd unless I missed something. I do see more mainstream liberals doing this quite a lot though.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:20 |
|
Skex posted:My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose. Just like how opponents of Japanese internment chose to align themselves with archconservatives at home and Nazis abroad.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 02:59 |
|
Skex posted:My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose. hey skex can you remind us what your stance on people splitting the vote is again
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 03:16 |
|
Skex posted:My problem with Greenwald is that in his zeal to attack the American intelligence community and military industrial complex he has chosen to align himself with the very architects of the very policies he purports to oppose. to put it simply I'd give more of a poo poo if the libs weren't constantly rehabbing bush/reagan sub-humans and never-trump republicans just to score points. I genuinely would rather a smug dick with right views kinda sorta give a bit of clout to Putin's regime (not much but whatever we're pretending Greenwald is some earth shaking titan that suddenly empowers Putin when he says 'the FBI is bad') than Ellen dancing with Bush and people pretending James Comey is a good man because he got fired by our most overtly retarded president.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 04:53 |
|
No, but you see, if you point out that Bush was a murderous ghoul that led to millions of deaths and the institution of a global torture regime, you are directly supporting all former Bush staffers currently working for Trump. The only effective way to protest murderous wars and policies is to go "aww" when Bush and Michelle Obama share a piece of candy.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 05:13 |
Actually the real danger is pointing out the deadly results of their policies and that politics is a struggle with real life and death results and not a club where you hang out with your drinking buddies. https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/1044744163097497601?s=19 These decorum obsessed idiots with large exposure are doing way more damage than any sort of legitimacy a bunch of people exiled from our cable news and big name papers are doing by going on RT. That's not taking into account Democrats are allowed to go on Fox News all the time and their hosts are spouting straight white nationalism and hate for rape victims daily.
|
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 12:48 |
|
I think Greenwald's work is important, and I don't give a poo poo what network he uses to get his message out. But it's hard to know what to make of his association with Pierre Omidyar and his outfit's shameful bungling of Reality Winner. Land of contrasts and all that.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 13:16 |
|
Nothus posted:I think Greenwald's work is important, and I don't give a poo poo what network he uses to get his message out. But it's hard to know what to make of his association with Pierre Omidyar and his outfit's shameful bungling of Reality Winner. Land of contrasts and all that. Greenwald was completely unrelated to the Reality Winner thing (Greenwald is a columnist and holds a ceremonial title at the intercept). In addition, while the whole showing the printing marks thing was an obvious gently caress up, it is important to understand that the main reason Winner was caught wasn't that. That was a minor thing used to provide confirmation. Winner emailed the intercept from her work email, and then later from her work computer. The printing marks thing may have given them additional evidence, but she was pretty much done the second she did that. There's no publication that can ensure your anonymity if you keep emailing them from your work email and work computer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.86e9c4413138
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 15:25 |
|
I had to look up who Pierre Omidyar is. What is Greenwald’s association with him? He seems like a run of the mill techbro but I’m just looking at Wikipedia. Edit: oh I see, he started a media company. Is that a bad thing? Is it a bad media outlet? Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Sep 26, 2018 |
# ? Sep 26, 2018 15:33 |
|
https://twitter.com/joelcifer/status/1044949943637725189?s=21quote:“I mean, we do get along,” Manchin said of the president, almost as much to himself as to me. “We get along. And there's things he's done that I like and support, okay? And there's things I would love to help him with and make him better.” Soon Manchin stopped speaking to me—or himself—and began addressing Trump. “ ‘Mr. President, these Democrats are not all that bad—just because we have a D by our name,’ ” Manchin said. “ ‘It seems like you're the president of the Republicans. I want you to be the president of all of us. You're my president.’ ” Manchin is a rube: quote:Eighteen months later, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he stubbornly stands by his assessment. “Every time I've hung around the president, he is always much more comfortable trying to work something in a bipartisan way,” Manchin told me this past summer. “He tries to do the reasonable thing, the responsible thing.” As for why that attitude hasn't been reflected in the White House's legislative priorities or his public rhetoric, Manchin could only speculate and make excuses. “I think the political people around him or whatever have gotten him to believe we don't need to be bipartisan,” he offered. No hugs. Only man bumps: quote:About the only time Manchin expressed any annoyance over Trump was when I asked about the president mocking Manchin for hugging him so much. “He's grabbed me more than I've grabbed him, okay?” Manchin bristled. “Anyway, there's no hugs. You know how guys do the man bump.” Riding lawnmowers without a care in the world: quote:A few weeks before that stormy afternoon in Charleston, Manchin was in Washington, hustling across the grounds of the Capitol when he stopped abruptly. With his broad shoulders and labored gait, the 71-year-old Manchin resembles a long-retired professional athlete, which he might have been were it not for the knee injury that ended his promising football career as a quarterback at West Virginia University. As we paused suddenly near Constitution Avenue, I worried that maybe his knee was acting up or he'd succumbed to the heat. But no, something had caught the senator's eye. Gazing out into the middle distance, he began to study a Capitol grounds landscaping crew toiling in the afternoon sun, blithely tending to the grass. A loving houseboat: quote:When the Senate is in session, Manchin lives on a houseboat that he keeps anchored about eight miles south of the Capitol. He's christened his floating home Almost Heaven—which is how John Denver describes West Virginia in “Country Roads.” He daydreams about the possibilities that living on a boat in Washington present. “I can untie the ropes and away I go,” Manchin says. “I can go right to the front door of where I live in West Virginia.” He concedes that such a trip would be tricky—and it might take him two to three weeks to reach his home on the Kanawha River in Charleston. But what's important, he says, is that he could do it. Senator Joe Manchin everyone: quote:Even when Manchin's in the right, his lack of understanding can hobble him. One day in May, he was headed to a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing where Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin would be testifying. On matters of trade, Manchin favors protectionist policies to place tariffs on Chinese goods. He's been frustrated with Mnuchin—“a balls-to-the-wall free trader,” as Manchin calls him—who persuaded Trump to adopt a gentler tack with China. Do it you coward! quote:In recent years, as Manchin has found himself increasingly out of step with his state's partisan makeup—not to mention the national Democratic Party—he's fielded numerous entreaties to jump to the GOP. “They all come to me. Donald Trump comes to me. Everybody comes to me: ‘Oh, just be a Republican, Joe,’ ” Manchin told me. Decorum.exe quote:In the meantime, Manchin tries to do what he can to change Washington. One afternoon recently, he decided to propose an amendment that he hoped might protect West Virginia V.A. facilities from closure. It didn't stand a chance of passing, but he thought it could be useful nonetheless to send a signal. “Everything's just posturing,” he explained.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 15:46 |
|
I read the pictures on the Twitter link and I’m confident I don’t have to read more to know that he is trash.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 16:17 |
Manchin will flip the second he has something to gain. If the Democrats ever have a one seat majority they can celebrate that for one second before he decides he needs to be true to his conscience and switches to the GOP. Counting on him is for suckers and the party should have backed his opponent in the primary if they actually gave a poo poo about anything they claim to. Manchin is racist and bigoted trash and it's an embarrassment he's in the party leadership and constantly begged to for his loyalty. Imagine a world where Blue State Republicans acted like Red State Democrats are allowed to. The idea of any Republican kissing Obama's rear end like Manchin does for Trump is beyond fantasy. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 16:18 |
For instance compare Manchin to this: https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1044796222589063168?s=19 And ask which one is the Democratic party always kissing the rear end of and which they are silent about one of their ex-high ranking members running a soft spoiler campaign against and offering little vocal support for. Yeah a Senator is more powerful than a House representative but it's telling which one they are chummy with and which they obviously see as an enemy. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 26, 2018 |
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:00 |
|
sexpig by night posted:to put it simply I'd give more of a poo poo if the libs weren't constantly rehabbing bush/reagan sub-humans and never-trump republicans just to score points. I genuinely would rather a smug dick with right views kinda sorta give a bit of clout to Putin's regime (not much but whatever we're pretending Greenwald is some earth shaking titan that suddenly empowers Putin when he says 'the FBI is bad') than Ellen dancing with Bush and people pretending James Comey is a good man because he got fired by our most overtly retarded president. Yeah, it's the bizarre double standard that stands out to me. There are many other individuals who are considerably more influential than Greenwald and who do things a hell of a lot worse, yet they don't receive nearly the same sort of attacks. Of course, from my perspective it's super obvious that this is just because of liberal political/cultural norms that "normalize" most mainstream figures, but it's difficult for them to see this because they usually value "being objective/fact-based" and aren't really willing to consider the possibility that maybe they aren't as clear-minded as they thought. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Sep 26, 2018 |
# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:16 |
"Facts have a liberal bias" Watches as liberal fact checkers use a conservative study to purposely mislead people and discredit MFA.
|
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:27 |
|
Actually it's good that Manchin writes good legislation for appearances' sake and teams up with his Republican buddies to kill it, because looking good is how he gets reelected and you don't want a Republican in that seat who will use his power to kill good legislation do you, idiot.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 17:40 |
|
I feel like there's a discussion to be had about stylistic preferences. Both Glenn Greenwald and Nathan Robinson (of Current Affairs) reviewed Michael Moore's new movie recently, and I think Robinson's is a much better piece of writing because it more clearly articulates why the film is useful from a leftist point of view, rather than spending a bunch of time trying to pretend like it (the review) doesn't have a clear viewpoint the way Greenwald's piece does. Greenwald's piece isn't bad per se, however, though I think it's hilarious that he's offended by "Trump wants to gently caress Ivanka" jokes and comparisons to Hitler. I use these pieces as examples because they both have the same subject, but I think one of my big problems with Greenwald's writing is that he's usually trying to project a kind of smug detachment, like he has no politics of his own but everyone else isn't good enough for him. It's why I think his writing on animal welfare is his best, because he clearly and unabashedly takes a position and writes passionately about it instead of being a smug little shitlord. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Sep 26, 2018 |
# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:01 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:I had to look up who Pierre Omidyar is. What is Greenwald’s association with him? He seems like a run of the mill techbro but I’m just looking at Wikipedia. He's the money behind first look media and the Intercept. He also appears to tied into western funding of the recent Ukrainian coup (and associated nazi groups) and the investment arm of the GCC. Maybe it affects Greenwald's reporting and maybe Glen just sees him as a means to an end. It's murky and weird.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:17 |
|
joepinetree posted:Greenwald was completely unrelated to the Reality Winner thing (Greenwald is a columnist and holds a ceremonial title at the intercept). In addition, while the whole showing the printing marks thing was an obvious gently caress up, it is important to understand that the main reason Winner was caught wasn't that. That was a minor thing used to provide confirmation. Winner emailed the intercept from her work email, and then later from her work computer. The printing marks thing may have given them additional evidence, but she was pretty much done the second she did that. There's no publication that can ensure your anonymity if you keep emailing them from your work email and work computer. He's listed #2 on the masthead as founding editor and columnist, so forgive me if I don't buy that he's purely emeritus. Regardless of the relative role the Intercept's sloppiness in the ultimate prosecution of Winner, it's a bad look for the organization.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:27 |
|
I'm not gonna lie, if you somehow get into a government position with a security clearance and still think it's a good idea to send a whistleblower email from your work email, you might be an idiot. Like I'm sure the Intercept maybe could've done better but like... lol.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:28 |
|
Nothus posted:He's listed #2 on the masthead as founding editor and columnist, so forgive me if I don't buy that he's purely emeritus. Regardless of the relative role the Intercept's sloppiness in the ultimate prosecution of Winner, it's a bad look for the organization. Another person who doesn't know what ceremonial titles mean.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 18:55 |
|
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1044748414188244997?s=21
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 19:05 |
|
The next time a Democrat is complaining about Greenwald remind them of this:quote:MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue’s talkshow after an internal memo (leaked to the All Your TV website, 2/25/03) argued that he would be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war…. He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives.” The report warned that the Donahue show could be “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.” An email from a network executive, also leaked to All Your TV (3/5/03), suggested that it would be “unlikely” that Donahue could be used by MSNBC to “reinvent itself” and “cross-pollinate our programming” with the “anticipated larger audience who will tune in during a time of war” by linking pundits to war coverage, “particularly given his public stance on the advisability of the war effort.”
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 19:15 |
|
Or Jim Risen detailing all the times the government got the NYTime to kill or hold off on one of his stories. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/ quote:In late 2002, for instance, I called the CIA for comment on a story about the existence of a secret CIA prison in Thailand that had just been created to house Al Qaeda detainees, including Abu Zubaydah. In response, Bush administration officials called the Times and got the paper to kill the story.
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 19:42 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 13:42 |
|
Helsing posted:The next time a Democrat is complaining about Greenwald remind them of this: Their argument, from my experience, would be something along the lines that Democrats (and thus affiliated media) have changed and are different now. This is usually the angle they use if you bring up stuff like Democrats having been opposed to gay marriage or having supported the Iraq War. Either that, or they will claim it is "whataboutism."
|
# ? Sep 26, 2018 20:26 |