... our attention

to trust these voices as we don't know who writes their checks.

Any one who has their check written by the Kremlin isn't creditable when it comes to talking about oligarchy.

Last edited Fri Apr 7, 2017, 12:59 AM - Edit history (1)

for RT? I don't know him personally, so I'm not privy to the real Thom Hartman, but as far back as Air America, he has always been a solid liberal voice that I've appreciated. Amy Goodman is also on RT(apparently I'm totally wrong about this. Dont' know what I station I was on or what logo I thought I saw to give me that impression). Why does RT pay these people? Probably because they like anything that exposes anything sordid and embarrassing about America.

We should be wary of that, and hopefully they themselves are. But it is a sad day when on some topics listening to a foreignly funded news source about what is going on in our nation, is better than what passes for journalism and political discussion in this country. If only our own media didn't also have an agenda.

that said, I would be very interested to hear how the two of them talk about Russia. I would be very surprised and disappointed to learn that they either avoid those topics altogether, or cover them with delicacy or pro-Russian spin. That wouldn't change whether I thought they were a good source for certain kinds of information, but it would change my ability to take all of their reporting at face value, not just the Russian stuff. Its always better to corroborate anyway, and to constantly evaluate one's own sources.

Obviously I haven't listened to them in a while, save for when Amy Goodman was one of the first to be reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline.

You can't whine about "oligarchy control" when that is who is funding your show.


That was my point. In terms of "foreign funded outlets" any outlet that is funded by a dictatorship is not creditable in my opinion. In particular a country like Russia where journalists who print or talk about information that embarrass the government risk their lives.

It doesn't matter that they are a "solid liberal voice." By appearing on Russian propaganda they are helping a dictator who has anything but liberal value.s

I understand a perspective that would present it like this...these issues are very important...I care about our American values and American suffering...I can't get these issues heard through the American channels. I'll use what I have and hope to turn America away from those actions that are embarrassing by exposing them, even if what I have is the support of an oligarch who has an entirely different agenda. Maybe I think his agenda and approach is foolish for that matter, and I'm taking advantage of his misstep.

It is like Michael Moore making documentaries that are funded by the corporations that he attacks. Is it hypocrisy to take that money and promote that message? Is it better to have his message go unheard than to turn a profit for one of these industry giants? However, it is not like Moore if they treat Russia with kid gloves and refuse to acknowledge that it is a cess-pool of human rights abuses under Putin. That doesn't have to be their focus, because we care about our culture here. We care about making America better, first and foremost. But to hide or skirt around that reality, let alone to put forward pro-Putin or Russian state propaganda, is certainly beyond the pale.

another based upon my own attempt at perspective. I'm not making bold declarations of Thom's affiliation. People want to ignore the specific work and simply look at the connection out of context. I don't think yo can do that, with Thom or any other pundit working for any network.

you responded to, when there is certain news and information that our corporate media doesn't even touch unless finally shamed into doing so, I'm glad that there are at least places where that information can be heard by the American public. Would you say coverage of Flint or the water protectors is a good thing or a bad thing, because these alternative voices are the ones who were bringing these issues to people's attention. MSNBC, CNN etc. They got there eventually.

Do you patronize corporate media?

I wasn't aware of that.

Who reported on how Russia hacked our election?

why I advise getting your news from numerous places and not just one, and taking all of your sources with a healthy serving of salt. Being aware of who stamps their paycheck isn't at all a bad thing. We she do more of that, with everybody who delivers us our news.

They thought I needed to subject myself to Infowars, Breitbart, NewsMax, World Net Daily, Shawn Hannity, Mark Levin, ....

I don't think so.

there is no reason to sit through the tilted propaganda of the list you just laid out, but I did think it important that at least some point, i listen to those voices and see what they're saying.

Hell the thing that made me really start paying attention to politics was hearing fucking BillO and Hannity and Colmes and going "what the fuck is wrong with our country..." back in 2004.

But does coverage of the water protectors and Flint and 7 million people purged from voting roles by republicans in numbers far larger than Trump's margin of victory in many of these places, or money in politics, etc. etc. come anywhere close to the rhetoric you hear from that list? You have a nice day with your corporate media, as if THAT is what should be trusted without question.

I can't take anyone who uses that ploy seriously. You ought to be able to understand that and be disciplined enough to stick to the subject.

I have learned that the radical right, like Holly and Caroline, are and always will be useless.

about you. So to figure out what your line is, I was asking you who you are willing to subject yourself to. I did make an assumption that you must listen to or read somebody, and that if you aren't listening to the likes of Hartmann or Goodman or TYT, there is at least a good chance that you are privileging a corporate news source. That may be presumptuous, but you can't have it both ways. You can't bring yourself into the conversation and then be bothered when I attempt to challenge your privileging of certain pundits or columnists or journalists, etc.

Nor should you try so hard to make this about me. That says more about you and your agenda than anything else.

to some sort of metric by which you are judging some pundits and journalists. What better way to do that than to know what you think is good punditry and what kind of financial associations you find acceptable. And I know from a previous conversation that either you watch, or have watched recently, Joy Reid, who I find personally to be a safe political water-carrier, right at home on corporate media. I think she puts in effort to demonize the Sanders camp on illegitimate, dishonest grounds, and frankly, attacking the left is NEVER something a corporate organization will have a problem with.

I don't see any future for the radical left. I'm not impressed.

have made in the last 50 years without it.

The word unappealing comes to mind but it's not strong enough. Obnoxious is good, but not quite right.

It's like the agenda of the radical left is to be obnoxious.

your opinion, and you've certainly reached a point in this conversation where you don't care...you just want me to understand how much disdain you have for the "radical" left without letting any specifics or issues of potential hypocrisy or double-standards get in the way of your judgement.

Which side are you on? I'm not sure.

make it easy for you that anybody who disagrees with you must be the enemy, by all means, you do you.

Democracy Now is mostly on Public stations https://www.democracynow.org/stations/view_all

RT doesn't list her on their website.

It looks like Im' just spreading bullshit. I was sure I found her show on RT on dish because of what came after and before, but looking at their own page, that was probably Free Speech TV? Maybe they share a channel with other things, or maybe my own powers of observation & memory sucks.

I edited my first post by adding on an acknowledgement of the error and my foolishness.

Since I know he's on RT, I guess I assumed I was watching RT and by extension of that flawed logic, that Amy Goodman was on RT as well.

sham on you Thom Hartmann.