The Western Corporate Media Cannot Be Trusted.

[sabrina 1]

I remember Judith Miller and the New York Times.

I remember Curveball.

I remember MSNBC firing Donohue the day his show covered the evidence from the UN Inspectors that Iraq had no WMDS. The most highly rated show on MSNBC.

Judith Miller was convincing. She was respected as a Journalist AND she worked for the NYT.

I also remember the Rendon Group.

I remember too what they did to Ashley Banfield.

And I stopped watching them and turned to International News.

I discovered Al Jazeera and was impressed with their courageous coverage of the Iraq War.

I remember that two foreign reporters were killed in the Bethlehem Hotel at the very beginning of the Iraq War.

And I remember Al Jazeera's headquarters in Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed.

I also remember being called a Saddam Lover for watching 'that Terrorist Government owned foreign news media'.

The Government of Qatar owned Al Jazeera.

Of course they have been vindicated now while the Corporate Media, so much of it owned by Murdoch, was exposed as pushing the lies through people like Judith Miller, who was funneled information from the Rendon Group.

And I remember the Valerie Plame Affair, Libby, Miller, who went to jail to protect Libby and of course the arch criminal Cheney.

Thankfully now we have so many other sources from all over the world.

I also remember what happened at the BBC when a reporter published a story from an anonymous source regarding Iraq.

The UK Govt, Tony Blair, forced the BBC into revealing the identity of the Whistle Blower, That Whistle Blower ended up dead, suicide they claimed, but few believed it. The BBC, state sponsored btw, has never been the same.

If you don't recall any of this, then this OP isn't for you as I don't have time to document it all again. But for those who do, perhaps you remember how we could not even watch the Corporate Media anymore, as we could not tolerate the lockstep propaganda they were pushing.

104 votes, 5 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I trust the Western Corporate and State Owned Media
	5 (5%)
	I do not trust the Western Corporate and State Owned Media
	99 (95%)
	5 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. !!!

[maddezmom]

4. I don't get it. Western media can't be trusted...and yes I agree to some point

But RT.....they are spot on.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Which does more damage to the American People our corporate media or RT?

I contend our corporate media has done far more damage to our democratic republic than RT could ever hope too.

[maddezmom]

13. Sorry, do not agree....

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/from-russia-with-love

[Uncle Joe]

25. If your friend or family member lies to you, you will be hurt far more deeply than

if a stranger or opponent did the same.

In the article that you linked, RT is only exploiting fissures created between the American People and our so called "fourth estate" these lack of trust fissures didn't occur in a vacuum, they're self-inflicted wounds.

Our corporate media has sold out the American People in favor of mega-corporate interests time and again, over and over, this has greatly diminished the people's trust in America's "free press."

If our corporate media had more journalistic integrity instead of kowtowing to the powerful while worshiping at the altar of the almighty dollar, RT would not have near the following that it does today both here and abroad.

[maddezmom]

57. Like I said we disagree

[Uncle Joe]

62. Do you disagree, with my statement that family and friend lies will hurt you far more than

lies from strangers or opponents?

[maddezmom]

65. I never have felt the MSM were my family....they are all in the business to sell a product.

There are some great media outlets out there I trust, but still read everything before I make up my mind on something.

[Uncle Joe]

74. I agree with you, they are all in the business of selling a product but to most Americans

the fact that MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS the AP etc. etc. are American Institutions they would be closer in the analogy of being family or friends than RT.

It was the American corporate media, institution that convinced an overwhelming majority of the American People that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that Al Qaeda was firmly implanted in that nation despite common sense, logic and the preponderance of evidence being against such claims.

The American People trusted our "free press" to tell them the truth about such a grave matter.

RT could never have pulled that off.

[maddezmom]

75. RT has an audience that buys into anything they say as long as no one in the Western media

Agrees. Kind if odd to me but YMMV.

[Uncle Joe]

80. What does YMMV mean? n/t

[hfojvt]

83. your mileage may vary

What they used to say in every auto ad that mentioned mileage.

[Uncle Joe]

84. Thank you, hfojvt.

[Uncle Joe]

85. That takes us back to my previous post #25

In the article that you linked, RT is only exploiting fissures created between the American People and our so called "fourth estate" these lack of trust fissures didn't occur in a vacuum, they're self-inflicted wounds.

Our corporate media has sold out the American People in favor of mega-corporate interests time and again, over and over, this has greatly diminished the people's trust in America's "free press."

If our corporate media had more journalistic integrity instead of kowtowing to the powerful while worshiping at the altar of the almighty dollar, RT would not have near the following that it does today both here and abroad.

[alp227]

248. abso friggin lutely!

i think the appeal of alternative media - whether sensible sources like Democracy Now or crazy sources like RT and Infowars - comes from the establishment media's failure to speak truth to power. It sucks, but that's life with a corporate infotainment media!

[sabrina 1]

95. RT has an audience that is skeptical of everything so they watch everything they can to get as many

different perspectives as they can to see if somewhere in all all the hype, they might find some semblance of truth.

I care much more about OUR media. Not sure why people care so much more about the media of other countries, that is THEIR problem.

Ours seems to be we can't mind our own business, which badly needs minding, and insert ourselves into the business of the entire world, with mostly disastrous results, most of all for those we interfere with, and for ourselves, losing lives, stealing the SS fund to pay for our foreign adventures, propping up liars and warmongers and supporting dictators wherever we feel the need.

I leave the people of other countries to worry about their media, I'm deeply concerned that we have no real news media anymore.

[Enthusiast]

179. I share your deep concern.

We cannot maintain a democracy with such a media.

That is why we enacted the Fairness Doctrine. You know, back when politicians wanted to maintain a democracy. It was long ago......

[2banon]

196. Sabrina, RT News is just as skewed as U.S. News Media.

Although I have observed a few programs RT carries that I happen to give credibility to. Programs are different than the "News" .. It's important to make the distinction in this discussion.

We have lots of News Media, just none of them can be trusted to be honest brokers in reporting the news. I agree with your concerns with what I consider as bizarre reactionary obsession with RT or Al Jazeera etc. as if we had anything that could be held up to any standard of journalism that isn't simply the mouthpiece of the TPTB. Wall Street, Pentagon/Govt Admin. etc. ..

Indeed the obsession is nearly pathological in my view.

[sabrina 1]

200. I think it is to be expected that all state sponsored media will be biased. That doesn't mean

we should not read all of it and then try to find the facts somewhere amid all the hype.

What I am seeing here is an attempt to 'shame' DUers for choosing to take advantage of all the sources available to them, which is what happened, coming from the Right which can be expected, during the Bush era regarding any media that wasn't publishing the scripted propaganda they had so carefully prepared.

I abhor censorship, more than bias which we are more than capable of discerning. I will read and watch and continue to state what I watch and read as, to my knowledge, there is no law yet in this country forbidding people from doing so, no matter what tactics are used to try to intimidate people.

In a healthy democracy people are free, without harrassment, to read and then intelligently discuss what they read. I am detecting the same kind of tactics that are so familiar to those of us who spoke out during the Iraq debacle, right here on DU and that is shameful. I can handle it as it is like deja vu all over again, but some DUers feel they can no longer admit to what they are watching or reading. Never though back in those days, I would see that here.

Thanks for your comment, I trust most DUers to have the intelligence to read and watch all forms of media and then form their own intelligent conclusions. Those hoping to prevent that, are afraid of what those conclusions might be. If they are on the right side of the issues, they should NOT have that fear. So that alone is creating distrust.

[2banon]

204. I'll say it again, their reaction seems to me to be somewhat pathological, it is certainly

pathetically reactionary. Reminds me of a time in the 50's, 60's, & 70's during the height of Red Baiting.. some of the dialogue resembles the thinking straight from The John Birch Society's pamphleteering material. Again, no wonder we're so fucked as a party and a country.

[sabrina 1]

206. I agree. And the only way to combat that is to NEVER be intimidated by it imho.

Thanks for your comment, 2banon.

[2banon]

208. Not intimidated, just bewildered and frustrated.

[JDPriestly]

263. And I disagree on that point.

The sort of people who watch RT think for themselves. (Otherwise they would not be watching a network that is by its very name suspect in our culture.) And those people are not gullible but rather are looking for a variety of sources of information so that they can sift through and differentiate between the plausible and the implausible. I like to get as many versions of a story from as many sources as I can so that I can catch the lies and mistakes.

[deafskeptic]

255. I think this is a case of apples and oranges.

I've got pathological liars in my family who can not tell the truth to save their lives. I don't feel hurt as they do this to every body who has ever known them. All I feel is a sense of distrust. It has been my experience that it's usually not just me. They affect others as well.

There's nothing personal about corporate media but those blatant lies have harmed people in the past. Witness the lie that Bush told(Cheney was behind this lie.). He was enabled by the corporate media as well. Not many believed Bush regarding the WMD. As a result of that lie, a lot of people in Iraq were killed including the repellant Saddam Hussein. Far more people get harmed by corporate media than by my family.



All the media corporate does to me is to lose credibility with me, and it breeds cynicism in me and much of USA. I don't ever use mainstream media these day. CNN was the last mainstream media before it became Fox-lite.

[Uncle Joe]

266. Back in the day, the American Press used to have some measure of credibility and trust with the

American People.

Today most Americans still get their disseminated information from the corporate media although that number is dropping as the Internet gains in strength and access to foreign sources have increased.

The fact that most of the corporate media is American is akin to the family or friends analogy, they're more closely connected to our nation and thus most Americans do accept their point of view or propaganda at some level first.

If RT or any other foreign source lied to the American People, the damage and impact wouldn't be as severe because more Americans cast a more cynical or disconnected eye on them because they're foreigners, strangers, them not us.

Having said that, the major deterioration of trust between the American People and the U.S. corporate media, weakens our nation in a multitude of ways, decreasing the chances of our nation having an informed citizenry and an ignorant nation much more often than not, gets bad government which in turn can only allow disastrous laws and policies to follow.

You may have pathological liars in your family but I would venture most people don't and even if you do, the first time those people lied to or betrayed you was/is the hurtful damage that I'm speaking of, even if you had been warned by a another family member beforehand, the damage just goes further back in time, but it's still there.

If you can't or don't trust your own family anymore, that's an intangible loss to both them and you.

As for Bush/Cheney lies, a majority of the American People at one point believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, Al Qaeda was firmly entrenched in Iraq and WMDs were a major threat to us because the corporate media as an institution simply reinforced their point of view or just took dictation from the Republicans, without any major rebuttal.

[Shivering Jemmy]

276. Yes I disagree

[Uncle Joe]

279. Then tell that to all the women or men whose spouses have betrayed or lied to them about an affair

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2014, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

or some other serious matter.

Of course it's all dependent on the lie told or level of betrayal, but the ones closest to you have a greater capability to hurt you, if nothing else at least emotionally.

[RufusTFirefly]

90. I like your analogy, Uncle Joe. That's why I'm harder on Democrats.

When Republicans do something regrettable, I'm not surprised.
But when Democrats disappoint, I take it personally.

"It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to."

[Uncle Joe]

96. Your post is screaming for a theme song, RufuTFirefly.

I also agree with you regarding judgment of the political parties, My expectations for the Republicans are pretty low but I expect better from the Democratic Party, not to mention our so called "free press," that's why I'm hard on them.

Peace to you. Rufus.

[RufusTFirefly]

98. Thanks for the audio-visual accompaniment, Uncle Joe!

Peace to you as well. (And to all people, the world over!)

[Eleanors38]

297. Yep. I'm old enough to see the diff.

[Enthusiast]

180. PLUS ONE!

Exactly.

We fully expect Republicans to act like assholes.

[markpkessinger]

311. Damn straight! /nt

[JDPriestly]

261. Have you read Greenwald's book No Place to Hide.

He explains why our news media is so corrupt.

The book will change your mind. I guarantee it.

And Greenwald is a lawyer. He relies on evidence. He is not spinning theories out of thin air. I highly recommend his book especially for anyone who thinks our press is more honest and reliable than RT. The slant is different, and RT is really obviously following a government line, but Greenwald shows how our press is muzzled and rewarded by our government so as to be very corrupt and unreliable.

[sabrina 1]

358. I haven't read it yet, JD, but thanks for the reminder, it is on my list of books to buy.

RT is not going to push this country to war, our Corporate Media has already done so and airc, both China and Russia, tried to stop our disastrous invasion of Iraq. For those who want to focus our attention away from this fact and on to RT, I keep wondering why. I remember the last time, who could forget it, and yet, some appear to have done so.

[Enthusiast]

178. PLUS ONE!

A whole bunch.

[Cha]

272. RT pimps for the Russian government and Putin.. US media pimps for Kochs and corps.. everyone

on this board should know that. I get my news from earned trusted sites over the years on the internet.. since Nov 2002 when I cancelled all corporate news from my head.

Oh and fuck RT and fuck US corporatemediawhores.. just fuck 'em.

[Uncle Joe]

275. RT; is more effective because of the U.S. Corporate Media, both here and abroad.

If the corporate media hadn't sold its credibility down the river years ago, RT wouldn't have so much influence.

[Cha]

277. RT has "influence" with the Russians and anyone else who gets sucked in.. and I heard that

on Rachel's show last when she and Nina Khrushcheva were discussing it on "Consider the Source".

[Uncle Joe]

280. I'm not making a particular judgement about RT but people are less apt to get sucked into a foreign

source of propaganda if they have a high level of trust in their own nation's primary news sources.

[tiny elvis]

289. i heard that from my chosen corp media authority

full circle

[sabrina 1]

15. Are they?

[maddezmom]

59. According to some here, yes.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. Who the fuck is defending RT?

RT is a lying tool of the Kremlin.

US media are lying tools of the Corporate State.

Neither statement invalidates the other.

[sabrina 1]

52. Since it keeps being referred to, RT I mean, one thing I've never seen on RT is Dick Cheney, liar

and war criminal, calling President Obama 'the worst president in history' with the gall to blame HIM for Iraq. But I did see that spectacle on CNN and I saw the soft ball responses, like 'but do you think you had any responsibility for Iraq'? If only we had real journalists, what an opportunity to expose that war criminal, instead he is treated like an elder statesman. That, I have not seen on RT, so far.

[tea and oranges]

88. Well said.

None of them (news orgs) are to be trusted. That's why we have brains, isn't it? To sort through the info overload.

[cprise]

222. True, western media are bringing the warhawk talking heads back

People who opposed the Iraq war increasing get short shrift. Its really inexcusable.

[SidDithers]

110. The OP is one of the most vocal defenders of RT on DU...nt

Sid

[MrMickeysMom]

120. I'm sure you'll get back to us on the stats behind that one, Sid...

I wonder what number I would fall in the list of who advocates what news source and what the hell THAT'S supposed to mean. You miss the point.

[sabrina 1]

133. What he means is that I dare to watch 'unapproved of' sources and worse, dare not to be intimidated

into watching only approved sources and joining the small chorus of would be censors. I watch RT which has some excellent reporters from all over the world. For some reason stating what you read and watch, unless it's 'approved' by some non official ministry of truth or something, is supposed to make you feel ashamed. Lol, in a DEMOCRACY!

What I don't get on a forum like this is why people are being bullied into feeling scared to state openly what sources they read. I know Sid is watching out for our reading and viewing material, but I've tried to explain to him that we Americans are perfectly capable of discerning truth from fiction and as a nation, I will add here, abhor censorship of any kind.

I'm sure he means well!

I've had this fight before, but definitely not on DU. It was due to the fact that I was masochistic enough to post on a forum populated by Bush supporters. I regularly spoke about news reports from Al Jazeera. They were OUTRAGED and tried, though failed as I am not easily bullied, to 'use' it 'against' me. I was called a 'Moooselim lover', which while a bit of an exaggeration, is mostly true, at least for those I have met. And I was told I was reading 'propaganda' from a Moooselim owned network, Qatar, they're not very informed, to put it kindly.

So this is nothing new to me. It's as if they think you can, in a democracy, USE people's reading material against them. Don't you find that very disturbing, or am I the only one? Which is why of course I continue to inform people that I do and will continue to watch RT, I will read and watch whatever I want and the more people attempt this type of bullying, the more I will do so.

Whenever someone tries to stop you from watching and reading something, I become very suspicious.

Btw, just watched a very respectful and somber piece on RT focused on the victims, filmed in the Netherlands. It was refreshing to see the VICTIMS be the focus of the news rather than the finger pointing.

So just for Sid, RT is one of my sources of news and will continue to be. Other people here have been intimidated unfortunately, which is shameful.

[LiberalLovinLug]

207. +1000

Thanks for the OP sabrina

I too have been reported on by Sid for a post with a link not on his own unofficial sanctioned list of websites. Some just do not have the capability to handle wading through multiple sources of news to come to consensus. The obvious ultra extreme of this kind of mentality is the Fox Bots.

I don't watch RT very much, but when I do I find that, sure they try and embarrass the US with stories that may shame them...but no one else is doing that. And if some news stories cause this kind of reaction, the American MSM won't even touch them, so I'm grateful to have other sources where I can get pieces of the story missing from even MSNBC.

[sabrina 1]

209. Thank you for your post, LLL, there are few greater evils than censorship and we were subjected to

that throughout the Bush era, something that we on the Left fought to prevent. I remember learning of the Bush policies towards tracking people's reading material through their book purchases and library cards. We were rightfully shocked at the time. I will not forget any of that, how easily it can happen, and how when it begins, that is when it must be addressed.

The attacks on those who are not reading the approved 'list' here, are very troubling and again, a sign that people have to be very diligent when this kind of thing begins.

[malaise]

378. +1,000

Let a thousand flowers bloom. Truth will out!!

[sabrina 1]

127. ...

[jeff47]

119. The OP loves RT. (nt)

[Octafish]

258. That's what SidDithers said.

What a coincidence.

[jeff47]

282. He'd also say the sun rises in the East.

My god....the depth of the conspiracy!!!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. Here you go. You should read the whole thread. It's loads of laughs & unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

[Octafish]

259. There's nothing at your link by sabrina 1 to be ashamed of.

Point is: Those who think there's something wrong with freedom of the press and information are the ones who should be ashamed.

[sabrina 1]

309. Thank you Uncle Joe, I am proud of every post I've made online, so I laugh when this particular

poster struggles so hard to find something, ANYTHING to argue against my firm stand for Liberal values. Because s/he will never find such a post. Otoh, if I ever came to be known as someone who consistently argued against liberal values, and as in this thread, gave high fives to an obvious right wing troll, I would delete them myself.

[Octafish]

341. Uncle Joe?

I am honored.

[Uncle Joe]

346. Now I am honored by you, Octafish.

[sabrina 1]

350. Lol, Octafish, I am so sorry, I was reading Uncle Joe's comments when I read yours, it was a 'slip

of the fingers', which hopefully you will understand,' and no fault of the mind'. I hope you know how I much I respect you AND Uncle Joe, two of the reasons for still being here despite how much DU has changed.

[2banon]

150. EXACTLY! ON POINT!

I don't get the blind obedience or defense of either. I don't get the obsessive focus on RT.. why should anyone give a shite more or less about what they say anymore than what CNN broadcasts?

I feel like a lot of du members are so locked into the MY TEAM right or wrong USA USA USA mindset that they're completely deluded themselves to thinking that the U.S. news media is somehow more trustworthy. It's pathetic. No wonder we're so fucked with regard to any hope in hell of political socio-economic progress in this country.

[mazzarro]

176. B-I-N-G-O!

I feel like a lot of du members are so locked into the MY TEAM right or wrong USA USA USA mindset that they're completely deluded themselves to thinking that the U.S. news media is somehow more trustworthy. It's pathetic. No wonder we're so fucked with regard to any hope in hell of political socio-economic progress in this country.

[AndyTiedye]

66. I Don't Trust RT Either

[sabrina 1]

67. One thing I have never seen on RT, and I do watch it among dozens of other media, is Dick Cheney

the liar who bullied us into war, war criminal, coward, treated like an Elder Statesman, calling President Obama 'the worst president in history' over Iraq, to have the GALL to even MENTION that massive war crime he and his fellow war criminals forced on this country. No, never saw that on RT, but if he had the guts to do an interview with one of their actual journalists, he sure never would have been allowed to spew the lies he got away with last week on our Corporate Media.

It was sickening. And that is why I do not trust anything on the Corporate Media until it has been thoroughly verified by more credible sources.

[maddezmom]

72. But have you seen Alex Jones?

Cuz he is almost as putrid as Cheney. Granted he did not lead us to war, etc but he is a hate monger none the less.

[sabrina 1]

93. No, the last time I saw Alex Jones was about ten years ago and airc, he was screaming about Bush

which was fine by me. Sometimes people who are wrong about everything, get something right once in a blue moon.

[47of74]

192. Yeah I saw a guy with an infowars.com license plate frame on the highway the other day

And very, very seriously considered speeding past and giving him a one fingered opinion of himself and Alex Jones.

[Tarheel_Dem]

116. Quit it maddezmom, or you'll have 50 gajillion US households after you. And Latin America too.

[roody]

226. It is not either/or. One has to seek

out credible information.

[Stainless]

260. I avoid MSM, RT and BBC!

Al Jazeera America and Free Speech TV are my main sources. I will watch some MSNBC but with a healthy dose of skepticism. Fox of course is pure garbage. CBS and ABC are inane drivel.

[Uncle Joe]

5. One would think the corporate media would know that by now and I believe they do,

Last edited Sat Jul 19, 2014, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

they just don't care or care enough.

[Eleanors38]

298. They're resigned to 'sink or swim" model of bidness.

[Uncle Joe]

300. That's right Eleanors, it's all about "show me the money" now.

Peace to you.

[Eleanors38]

303. Have a good night!

[sabrina 1]

16. Does that mean you trust the Corporate Media?

[rhett o rick]

22. I will give you cute. I hope that's what you are going for. Much easier than trying

to come up with an intelligent response.

[zappaman]

91. But...but....

"RT is watched now by over 50 million US households."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

So it MUST be trustworthy!

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. Shhhh! Maybe no one will notice that grand declaration.

[sabrina 1]

103. More than that now as they will be seen in Latin America's largest nations not to mention their

online audience which is huge.

I expect they will be censored off the air here, banned in the US, as Al Jazeera was. We are so fearful of different cultures which of course is why we are always at war with someone.

I will watch it online if we sink to the level of banning it of course, and no doubt their online audience will grow even bigger, as happened with Al Jazeera. Censorship is evil but fear causes even powerful nations to do irrational things, like invading other people's countries, then censoring media like Al Jazeera. Sad, isn't it, how closed minded we are in supposedly the greatest democracy in the world.

[Tarheel_Dem]

105. Since when the hell does "Latin America" count as "US households"? You're priceless.

[sabrina 1]

108. Thanks, lots of people have told me I am priceless!

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. Intellectually dishonest, but "priceless", nonetheless. You're a perfect fit for RT.

[sabrina 1]

122. Thanks! I seem to have a regular fan club. I don't sign autographs though, without a fee

When so many people tell you how priceless you are, what can you do?

[Tarheel_Dem]

128. Not so much a "fan club" as a truth squad. Still waiting on links for some of your more...

outlandish claims, but I've learned to just dismiss them out of hand. Seems like that feeling is slowly catching on.

[sabrina 1]

136. I don't know, you don't seem to be able to 'dismiss' them! You seem to remember things from

years ago that I myself have long forgotten. I find that a little creepy, like a fan who becomes obsessed with the object of their fandom. To be honest, it IS a bit creepy, but it's the internet, we expect a little of that so long as it doesn't go any further. I can't imagine following someone around for years on the internet like that with stuff that is years old. But to each their own.

[sabrina 1]

215. I can't feel 'dismissed' if you just won't do it! Lol!

[Bobbie Jo]

231. That

And rarely have I seen anyone so thoroughly enamored with themselves.

Teh awesomeness!

[Number23]

295. And with the itchiest alert finger to boot!

We hit the jackpot here!

[sabrina 1]

310. I alerted on no one, this third party routine falsely accusing people when nothing could be further

from the truth. I have not alerted on a single post in more than a year, airc, but perhaps I should have.

Apparently others feel differently than I do, and alerted to try to maintain some kind of community standards and apparently several juries agreed.

Do not speak for me. You are willing to accuse someone of something without a shred of evidence. Amazing.

This is for those reading to correct your false statement,

I alerted on no one have only alerted about four times in over eight years on DU. Shameful behavior. If I did have an 'itchy finger' I would have alerted on many of your posts long ago. But I prefer that others make their own judgements and they have.

You are free to ask the admins who alerted on the posts you just falsely accused me of doing. I believe they will verify MY statement that it was certainly not I, and I have no idea who did.

[Number23]

337. Holy shit.

Wow. Just... wow.

A simple "I didn't alert" would have more than sufficed rather than that overly indignant, just a hair away from incoherent tangle of words over absolutely nothing. But then that would be uncharacteristic.

[sabrina 1]

339. You made a false statement about me, holy shit indeed. Go to the Admins

I will not allow anyone to outright lie about me even when they try to do it through the old third party method. I prefer to totally ignore your posts, unless they are false statements about me, then I will respond strongly to correct those false statements.

Wow, just wow, that ANYONE would have the gall to lie so blatantly about another DUer. I may change my mind about my policy on alerting, lies SHOULD be alerted on.

Either post your proof of what you stated so confidently, or it is obviously a false statement.

[Number23]

340. I don't care enough to go to the Admins. And the fact that you do so TERRIBLY deeply

is more than a little hilarious. Certainly not atypical, but hilarious nonetheless as is your need to scream "You've IMPUGNED me honor!!1one" over something so stupid when a simple "I didn't alert" was more than enough. Again, not atypical.

And change your policy about alerting or not. Who gives a shit?

Edit: And it tickles me greatly that you are more upset about being accused of alerting on a post than being accused of being one of the most self-enamored people others here have had the pleasure of coming across. But you've got your priorities in order, that's for sure.

[SidDithers]

343. I demand satisfaction, sir!!...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

353. Hey, Sid, thanks for kicking my thread, again!

[SidDithers]

354. I'm happy to give this foolish push poll more exposure...nt

[sabrina 1]

355. Over 300 got 'pushed' so far. It's an easy question for most, sorry to have created

a quandary for you.

I appreciate all your contributions especially to my threads.

[SidDithers]

356. It's still a push poll...

And RT is still shite.

Sid

[Number23]

362. If s/he's so "flattered" by all the folks who point out how absurd all of this is

That would certainly explain the unending "self adoration" that has been pointed out already by others.

I love how Blue_Tires really honest, thought provoking question resulted in a hidden post. His question that if the Western media is so unreliable then what about The Guardian didn't even rate a typically rambling, eight paragraph thesis, apparently. Oh well. I'm sure he'll just have to find an answer somewhere else.

[SidDithers]

366. Omidyar's billions are different too, I guess...

Sid

[Number23]

367. Ah, those pesky roving "principles" that some love to claim so loudly that they have

What's interesting is that I am typically a very vocal critic of the American media. I just don't try to slip in any pro-RT sentiment on the side.

[sabrina 1]

351. I'm satisfied that people know your statement was completely false now. That's all I wanted to

establish. The fact that 'you care so little about facts, screaming false accusations at people over something so trivial, when a simple question 'did you alert on these posts', was more than enough to save your credibility is not atypical at all.'

Thanks for providing the words above so I didn't have to waste any more time on this. Correcting lies is important not just for the individual but the Forum itself suffers when false statements are allowed to stand.

Lol, as to your comical 'psychological evaluation' of me, I take false accusations and would be personal attacks from those for whom I have no respect as a compliment generally, which doesn't mean I won't correct them.

I am truly flattered by your attentions to me btw. I generally don't even notice your comments until someone points out something likes this, a thoroughly false statement which most people would apologize for.

[Number23]

361. Wait... you're talking about credibility?? YOU? You, are seriously talking about...

you actually typed out the word "credibility?" You?? I'm rambling like you usually do now! The person who has had more themes/meme shot down and disproven more than anybody here except perhaps, Catherina, is talking about CREDIBILITY???!!!

Between your RT is watched by over 50 million households; Snowden must have known that he was being watched by authorities and that's the only reason to explain his comments about seniors and that whistleblowers should be shot in the balls YEARS before he stole the classified data; your fascinating "article" from the National Enquirer that Obama's DHS was responsible for beatings at Occupy that was so shittily sourced and written that even the author of the piece eventually stated that he was not sure about what he'd written (and this is just the top of the iceberg) I'm surprised your fingers would even let you type out the word!! Absolutely UNREAL.

I read your posts every now and again with half an eye but I am always, ALWAYS far more interested in the responses to your posts which usually range from "is there a point in there somewhere?" to "what are you talking about?" to "thanks for the laugh." You of ALL people here talking about credibility. I have seen it all.

[sabrina 1]

365. After being exposed so thoroughly making a totally false statement

the right thing to do would be to apologize. I don't have time to read your long rantings, didn't read past the headline.

The point has been made, that's all I am interested in. I won't be responding to any more of your rants so feel free to continue.

[SidDithers]

368. My fave was the time she used veteranstoday, an anti-Semitic hate site according to the SPLC...

as a source to support the argument that the comments made by Helen Thomas weren't anti-Semitic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8594379

What a surprise. The owner of an anti-Semitic website didn't think Thomas's comments were anti-Semitic.



Sid

[Number23]

369. Like I said, tip of the iceberg Sid

My favorite is post number 310 in this thread saying:

I alerted on no one have only alerted about four times in over eight years on DU.

and then you click the profile which clearly says:

Account status: Active
Member since: Sun Mar 30, 2008, 05:51 AM

Hmmmm.... "credibility" indeed...

[rhett o rick]

195. I find it interesting that you and your "reality based community" (I guess calling it a community is

better that a group) are always seeking someone or something to hate. Now you hate the Russians and want to censor everything that doesn't denigrate them. Sounds like neocon "reality". Is this part of the "lead up" to the next war? I guess the hatred of Snowden, Greenwald and the conspiratorial The Guardian, is calming down.

[sabrina 1]

210. We always have to have an enemy. As Rove said 'we are an empire now' and empires

need wars. I wonder, ten years from now, who our next enemy will be? Meantime our media is not reporting on the results of that other war we on the Left opposed so vehemently, to no avail.

And they are entertaining the war criminals who started it, Dick Cheney eg, asking for their opinions on the very crime they committed.

[rhett o rick]

216. I think that someday the "war" will be fought via the internet.

We'd wake up one morning and not have any access to our bank accounts, the stock exchange wouldn't function, our weapon systems would be useless, and no food would be able to be delivered to our stores. It wouldn't take a super power to pull off such a thing.

[rhett o rick]

228. During the buildup of our empire we had wars to acquire resources and wealth from other nations

and peoples. Now we have wars to transfer wealth from the lower classes to the 0.01%. As far as The Great American Empire, the greed of the Power That Be (B613) struck a mortal blow when they decided to take Iraq's oil and put the war on the credit card of America's lower classes. The Middle East is the graveyard of Empires. China is vying for the next great empire but I think it will be a corporate conglomerate. The Exxon Empire has an interesting ring.

Sadly some among us think that the distraction of hating people like Snowden will take their minds off the world's problems.

[sabrina 1]

234. Very well said. Re the ME, we are being distracted, again, from that failure which is rapidly

deteriorating. Meantime the old war criminals who started it, rather than being condemned and prosecuted are being sought out for their 'advice' by our Corporate Media.

Yes, hating people like Whistle Blowers and Journalists is a distraction, calculated to cause people to fight among themselves and ignore the disasters heading their way. It is getting more and more difficult for them though, which is evident by the desperate attempts, some seen here, to silence people.

I kind of think the Exxon Empire is already here, has been for a while, especially in Third World countries, not moving into the first world. It can't go on though, as history shows, sooner or later there will be a 'correction'.

[stonecutter357]

375. .

[KittyWampus]

372. wtf are you jabbering about? you think there's hatred of Russians? That's like saying

you have to hate Americans because of Dick Cheney.

Or Israel because of Likud.

In the end, those fastest to throw around the words like Authoritarian are most intolerant and lacking in self awareness.

[zappaman]

374. Just the usual blather.

But impressive he got thru an entire post without using "authoritarian".

[hrmjustin]

2. A healthy skepticism is good and understandable.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Hell no, I don't trust them.

Thanks for the thread, sabrina.

[TBF]

6. Nope - and don't trust RT either.

A lot of propaganda flying from both directions.

[stillwaiting]

9. I believe all large corporate media outlets have been co-opted by the elite.

I'd love to find one somewhere that wasn't co-opted to give me hope.

[TBF]

11. Agree - and that's on a global level.

All one has to do is look at the economic inequality charts to know that it's not just two Americas, it's two separate worlds between the haves and have nots.

[Union Scribe]

44. +1

[LuvNewcastle]

71. That's how I feel.

I trust RT and NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox about the same. They're all lying tools of their owners. I'm just glad that now we have the ability to get news from the people who are on the ground, the victims of these governments who are doing the damage. That's a big help in discerning the truth of the matter.

[Enthusiast]

183. Me too. Nice post, LuvNewcastle.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[LittleBlue]

7. Never

I only read between the lines and decide what is most probable. The western media's judgments are brought to you by big business. Its only goal is to advance the agenda of their corporate masters.

[Autumn]

8. I don't trust them, I don't trust RT, both are filled with propaganda. But once in a while the

truth will out. So I will read or watch anything, and decide on my own what is truth. Except fox news, I will not watch that.

[Purveyor]

82. ^^^this^^^ I read and watch them all and after everything is thrown

into the hopper, sometimes you can figure out the 'real story'. Sometimes.

[DirkGently]

12. Always good to keep in mind the lies we've been told.

This time, have to say, "Russian-backed rebels screw up and shoot down airliner" tracks well enough for the moment.

I don't think the administration is champing at the bit to get us to war in Ukraine.

It makes rational sense to me that Russian-backed rebels might have a piece of equipment whose reach exceeds their grasp.

In any case, I don't think Russia can be trusted to tell the truth, at all, regarding the situation in the Ukraine.

Putin seems to be the one with the malicious agenda here.

Just my impression so far.

[BlueCheese]

14. I try to properly skeptical of everything.

But I distrust RT much more than I distrust the New York Times. When the US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner, it was acknowledged immediately. Neither the government nor the press pretended otherwise.

The NYT has really screwed up at times. But except in the cases of outright fraud, I think the NYT and other Western sources believe that what they're writing is true. Probably even Judith Miller believed what she was peddling. RT and other propaganda outlets say things that are knowably, objectively, false.

Think of it this way: If the NYT, or WaPo, or ABC News, etc. found out something personally damaging about the U.S. president (say, tax fraud, or infidelity), would they print it? If RT found out something like that about Putin, would they?

[sabrina 1]

18. Well, I wasn't referring to foreign media, I was asking if people here trust the corporate media.

[BlueCheese]

21. Well, I guess it depends on what they're reporting about.

I believe what they're saying about MH17, for example. I'm much more skeptical when they say what about the NSA, though. Or, rather, I'm skeptical of the government officials they're quoting when they report about the NSA.

[sabrina 1]

41. Thank you for your response. I saw Dick Cheney on the corporate media calling our

President the 'worst president in history' this week. He was barely challenged about Iraq. A liar and a war criminal. This is why I trust nothing I see on the Corporate media regarding anything to do with our foreign policies. But I appreciate your position, it is a reasonable position to take.

[BlueCheese]

55. I think we mostly agree. I do think they need to challenge the government a lot more.

Whether it's current or former officials. They are far too trusting of what their sources tell them, for example.

[sabrina 1]

58. Perhaps they are afraid. They probably saw what happened to those reporters, Dan Rather eg,

who tried to do some real investigative reporting, Ashley Banfield, who dared to make a fairly benign comment regarding what she saw in Afghanistan that she was not allowed to report on. For some, it's probably not worth risking the kind of smear campaign and job destroying tactics they know they would face if they went against the grain.

[BlueCheese]

64. A lot of them value their status as insiders.

They're too afraid that if they were more critical or challenging, they might not get the same leaks or be invited to the White House Correspondents Dinner or something like that. They think they're part of the Washington elite. Greenwald devoted a chapter of his book to this, and how a lot of reporters more or less accused him of committing crimes when the Snowden leaks first started coming out.

By the way, I should apologize for my initial response. I mistook this thread as a counterpoint to the other thread about how RT shouldn't be trusted. Thus the talk about RT in my first reply. I didn't mean to go off-topic or downplay your points about the flaws of our media establishment. I always enjoy your posts and comments.

[sabrina 1]

217. No problem, thanks for the rational discussion, we need more of it on DU. I agree that some

treasure their 'access' and all the cocktail parties etc, which real journalists should avoid other than for information that might be of interest to the people. I guess it's a mixture of things. I saw eg, that staff members at NBC were upset when the network did not air their own on the ground reporter's piece on Gaza. That gave me hope that there are still people there who WANT to report the facts. However, they should have done more to support him than simply express discontent. But that would require a majority being willing to do so.

I remember eg, in Canada when their right wing PM treated the press like peons at a press conference, emulating Bush. The next time he called for a press conference, no one was there. THAT is what journalists need to do, no point showing up for a press conference when you are afraid to ask relevant questions.

[Spider Jerusalem]

256. Except that you are, indirectly, referring to foreign media.

Since this entire thread is a response to a post about RT being approximately as trustworthy as a televangelist who moonlights as a used-car salesman. Claiming otherwise is either disingenuous or blatantly dishonest.

[sabrina 1]

291. Yes, I directly referred to Al Jazeera. Are you disputing the OP, that Al Jazeera was not only

banned in the US, but that Al Jazeera reporters were killed, detained, tortured by the US military, and their headquarters targeted? That Liberals who linked to their excellent coverage were called Saddam Lovers and Traitors and enemy supporters?

I am SURE the Right Wingers who did that were as certain they were correct as those purporting to be on the left are now doing to the, well Liberals again?

I despise this kind of garbage. I despised it then and I despise it now, censorship, an evil worse than any biased media. And I told those Right Wingers exactly that, because censors need to know that they cannot in a democracy bully or intimidate people into being fearful of anyone knowing what they reaad or watch.

Thanks for your comment, too bad you didn't address the actual topic, but did exactly what I become so familiar with all those years ago. We liberals who were targeted at that time, bye Freepers and other morons on the right, are pretty sensitive about it still.

[Spider Jerusalem]

299. I'm sorry, but "liberals" aren't citing RT as a valid news source

Kremlin dupes and useful idiots are citing RT as a valid news source. I don't think it should be banned, but it should be pointed out for what it is.

[sabrina 1]

312. Liberals are working for RT and appearing frequently on their programs. Too bad Liberals are

pretty much banned from the Corporate Media so Liberals will go to whoever allows Liberal voices on their networks.

Maybe tell the Corporate media to allow people like Amy Goodman eg, on their ridiculous 'discussion' shows and maybe Liberals will consider returning to watch intelligent, liberal voices rather then the stooges and right wingers they regularly present as 'experts'. People like Breitbart eg, now dead but treated like a legitimate journalist by the Corporate Media.

I never see such people on RT thankfully, nor have I seen any of our war mongering politicians, such as Cheney or Rove or Bush on RT. That alone raises them notches above the Corporate media.

Your are free to point it our 'for what it is', and so am I. And you can be sure, I will, truthfully.

[Spider Jerusalem]

319. Dupes, and useful idiots

sorry, but you know...I can't really respect anyone who takes Putin's money. (I don't really much respect anyone who needs some talking head on television to tell them how to think, either, but that's another discussion.)

[sabrina 1]

321. I don't care who needs a talking head or who doesn't, that's their business, not mine. This

obsession with other people's 'reading material' is what fascinates me and makes me all the more determined to read and watch exactly what it is they are so 'concerned' about. The more people try to censor material, the more it should be accessed before it becomes okay to intimidate people into fearing they might be doing something wrong if they dare to read 'unapproved' material. What a dangerous thing this is. You can read whatever you want, I can assure you it doesn't concern me in the least, but you seem very concerned about what I and others read or watch. Why is that?

Btw, 'useful idiots' is a Limbaugh term for Liberals. Just fyi.

[Spider Jerusalem]

323. I'm sorry, but have you noticed where you are?

This is a political discussion forum. That means that we discuss...can you possibly guess? Politics, and current events.

And you should buy a dictionary: no-one is trying to "censor" RT. I haven't heard anyone say it should be banned. I haven't heard anyone calling for people to ring up their cable TV providers and demand that it be dropped, if it's available.

And other things you don't know the definition of, apparently: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/useful-idiots-defined/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[sabrina 1]

326. Do you actually think I don't know where I am?

Is there some reason why you object to an OP, one of thousands in the history of this forum on the same subject btw, criticizing the MSM, reminding people of their history when Cheney and McCain are pushing for war?? Or are you FOR war? I really do not know what your problem with this OP is, it is strange for any DUer, most of whom well remember their outrage at the lies being pushed by the Corporate Media, would object to this OP which is standard for DU.

[Spider Jerusalem]

328. My problem with it? Timing and context

Backhanded defence of RT disguised as critique of US media; it's really rather transparent. US and Western news media can be and have been dishonest, yes. Are they as consistently dishonest as RT? I don't think so; I would imagine that an objective analysis would bear that out.

Are you going to start telling us about how 50 million people watch RT, again?

[sabrina 1]

331. You are imagining things. RT is not mentioned in this OP at all. People seem to be obsessed with RT

well a handful in this thread at least.

Why don't you ask ME what it is about, I wrote it after all. But since you chose to try to mind read, let ME tell you why I wrote it.

I wrote it because I am deeply concerned that there are people in this country, war criminals, Cheney et al, who are attacking THIS PRESIDENT for 'not showing leadership' meaning he has NOT RUSHED TO WAR in Syria, in Iran and now in Russia.

I am getting a sense of Deja Vu from watching the coverage of something that should have NOTHING TO DO WITH US, ramping up the rhetoric, asking War Crimninals for their 'expert advice', the same tactics, the emotional manipulation they used in the run up to the Iraq War.

And I see people here writing subtle support for their rhetoric, as we all saw during the Iraq War debacle. Drumming up the hatred for our latest enemy.

And I am horrified, horrified as I was back then, to think there is even a minute chance that these neocons and their online lackeys are pushing this President, who clearly is reluctant to do their bidding, by calling him 'the worst president in history, CHENEY ON THE MSM. NOT on RT, on the MSM, AGAIN.

Do not try to read my mind, I am not ever hesitant about speaking out and speaking for myself.

Let me put it plainly, I do not want this country to go to war with ANYONE, but especially RUSSIA, and the attacks on all things Russian right now is the exact same formula we got with Iraq. I will NOT fall for it, nor will allow anyone to get away with it without at least trying as I did with Iraq, to stop them.

This president needs all the help he can get to STOP the War Criminals and War mongers from pushing him into a disastrous war, which will make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

I have allowed people in this thread, the few who appear to be falling for the rhetoric, try to ascribe motives to my OP, without ASKING.

I wrote similar OPs to this before the Iraq War on other forums. I was attacked then too.

The anti Iraq rhetoric, the demonizing of the country, led us into war. You may be okay with this, for all I know you were okay with the same thing last time. BUT I AM NOT, THAT is what this OP is about. I see the propaganda here, and I have every right to counter it and will.

[Spider Jerusalem]

332. it's all too clear what it's about; as I said, you're pretty transparent.

And I don't see anyone anywhere calling for "war"? (Certainly not with Russia; they have nukes, in case you've forgotten.) I think you are perhaps overwrought.

And I've been here for over a decade; my opinions on the Iraq war are a matter of record here, and I was against it from the beginning. However the Iraq war, where there were no WMD, is not in any wise directly comparable to an incident in which pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists, using weapons possibly supplied by the Kremlin, shot down a civilian airliner (after, most likely, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military transport).

[sabrina 1]

334. I am always transparent, is there a problem with that? Thank you, transparency is a good thing imo.

So I assume you for a war with Russia? You think Russia wants a war? Dick Cheney and McCain do, we know that.

You are entitled to your opinion, I will oppose any war with Russia or any other country, as I did with Iraq, but this one, if it happens, will have dire consequences for the world. THAT is what this OP is about, to protest the Corporate Media once again doing what they did back then.

[Spider Jerusalem]

335. I don't particularly want a war with Russia, no. If you assume I'm "for" one...

then your reading comprehension is apparently even worse than I thought. Did you think I was pointing out that Russia has nukes just as a random and unconnected aside? The possibility of escalation is why I don't expect war. That's something that anyone involved is going to be acutely aware of. I expect sanctions, probably, but chance of any military action by the West against the Ukrainian rebels is slim to none while they remain supported by Russia, and chance of any military action against Russia is about as likely as Napoleon rising from the dead to lead the assault on Moscow in person.

[sabrina 1]

336. If you think there are no plans for a war with Russia, you haven't been paying attention over

past number of years. This didn't just start now. Your attempt at insults rather than simply stating your case, makes me doubt everything you say, sorry.

I don't feel the need for that, the issue is serious enough to me, not to waste time trying to play gotcha with people on the internet.

Iran, still on the table, neocons still dreaming of it, but Russia? The old cold warriors are salivating right now. Just as the neocon dreamers were salivating after 9/11. They are not going away, they have enormous influence AND support from the MIC, in this country, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PROSECUTE THEM.

Dream on if you think this isn't the dream come true of the war mongers. To get use those nukes, finally!!

Yes, Russia has nukes, and anyone who helps in any way to ramp up the rhetoric, the propaganda, the demonization of the Russian people, in order to lead us into another war, anyone who doesn't openly oppose it NOW before it's too late, will have more blood on their hands than even those who supported Iraq.

So I will continue to do the little I can regardless of the stupid attacks, the obsessions with RT, part of the tactics btw, been there before, to help this president fend off the warmongers. You do as you wish.

[JEB]

371. The hounds can smell the blood and the money.

[sabrina 1]

373. Yes, they can. Too bad they have support, now apparently from some claiming to be on the Left.

They sure know how to manipulate people. Nothing ever changes, really. They will get their war if they want it until people everywhere stop supporting them, stop falling for their propaganda, and finally start prosecuting them and putting where they belong, to protect the public, here and everywhere else.

[Uncle Joe]

327. This entire thread isn't about that as many of my posts upstream point out, our corporate media has

done more damage to our democratic republic than RT or any foreign media source could hope to.

This has nothing to do with RT's trustworthiness so much as what the total lack of trust in the U.S. corporate media has done to our nation.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. Dan Rather.

I rest my case.

[hunter]

70. Yep.

.

[Denis 11]

308. Truth

They're making a movie about that sad saga. I hope it conveys at least some fraction of the huge injustice Dan Rather suffered.
The American media = Pravda, however I doubt Soviet citizens were ever as gullible as the American public.

[rhett o rick]

27. So you do trust the corporate media?

"If the NYT, or WaPo, or ABC News, etc. found out something personally damaging about the U.S. president (say, tax fraud, or infidelity), would they print it?" If it was a Democrat, maybe, if it was a Republican, no they wouldn't print it. What makes you think they would print it? There was a hell of a lot that the corporate news knew about the Iraq war that they didn't print.

[BlueCheese]

29. I trust them on some things and not others.

So I guess the answer is no, I don't trust them entirely.

I'm certain they'd talk about the personal scandals of everyone. It's one of their favorite pastimes, often ridiculously so.

[BillZBubb]

32. Heck, the corporate media were the biggest cheerleaders for the war.

They had their "embedded reporters" who were essentially propaganda operatives in the field.

Before the war, there were numerous very well informed people who knew the bush/cheney lies were just that. They got little air time, while the war panderers were hired as on air consultants.

[BillZBubb]

28. When the US shot down that airliner, the corporate media lined up to

accept any and all excuses. They never questioned the story coming out of the Pentagon.

I disagree that they believe what the are writing/saying is true. Under the guise of reporting and being "fair and balanced", they say what they are expected to say--some eagerly so.

[BlueCheese]

30. Fox is an exception, of course.

But I remember knowing that day that it was the US that shot down that airliner.

[gwheezie]

78. I remember it also

the initial response like with so much news was not accurate but I do remember we found out rather quickly we shot down that plane

[BillZBubb]

130. So?

There was no way the US could deny it. Every country in the region had the images on radar. They knew who shot the missiles. It was world wide news.

Damage control required the US to get the admission out as quickly as possible and to blame the plane for not using the proper radio channels and being in an "attack" posture. The corporate media ran with it.

[BlueCheese]

152. I'd rather not get into an argument about this. It's not really important enough. eom

[NuclearDem]

20. Down with the corporate media!

Pay no attention to Gazprom or UAC though.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Of course I don't trust the US corporate media.

And I remember all that stuff, and could see through the bullshit immediately, it was so transparent.

And I still think the pro-Russian rebels did it. All of the evidence that I've seen points overwhelmingly in that direction. My BS detecters are not going off, apart from the lame crap coming from the side of Russia and the rebels.

If you were not trying to make a point about that, then I apologize for bringing it up.

[sabrina 1]

46. Lots of people believed the Curveball stories too. I was even wondering considering it

was the NYT.

No, I was not trying to make a point about RT. I watch RT, Al Jazeera, the BBC, even the Corporate Media, except for Fox which would probably make me ill, CCTV and Canadian TV, and as many other media outlets from around the world as I can.

I saw what appears to be a change of heart on DU regarding the Corporate Media and wondered if there really was, as I know we never trusted them since the stolen election, right through the Bush years, and the coverage of ACORN, using Breitbart as a credible source, etc.

So I wanted to know if something had changed.

Btw, if I had wanted to make a point about RT, I would have said so, and might do so in the future. I judge media by how often they turn out to be right. Al Jazeera eg, despite the hatred for it during the Bush years, turned out to be right, so all the naysayers, worried that it was owned by Qatar, turned out to be wrong.

[Coventina]

36. This is actually a continuation of a previously locked thread.

[sabrina 1]

315. Link, please? I saw no locked thread on this topic.

[Uncle Joe]

38. It's 34 now and why would we be lying about not trusting the corporate media?

Posting an article from the Guardian or any other major news source is no reflection on overall trust, I have done so but as an institution I absolutely don't trust them.

I know there are good, conscientious journalists in the profession but as an institution, the corporate media is dangerously concentrated, authoritarian and dysfunctional.

[DirkGently]

39. Check your own broad brush first, maybe?

I don't believe the poll asks people whether all Western corporate media lie all the time, or any such thing.

If you read the accompanying post, the point is clear that one would have to be rather stupid, however, to say you "trust" them, given the massive, deliberate lies emanating from such sources.

Best you can really do here is quibble that a narrower question such as, "Do you recognize that even large, Western corporate news sources, are often untrustworthy?" would be clearer.

[MohRokTah]

26. PUSH PUSH PUSH that stupid poll

[rhett o rick]

31. I bet that's worth snark points in the BOG. nm

[MohRokTah]

33. I've never been to the BOG. eom

[Bobbie Jo]

186. Doesn't matter

You've been "grouped."

[maddezmom]

60. Huh, I agree it is a push poll and I don't post in the BOG

[snooper2]

81. how are your pro-Rus-Si-A "freedom fighters" looking now?

[rhett o rick]

131. Your attempts at trying to smear me are really low. Go pick on someone else. nm

[joshcryer]

34. Worst case I've ever seen.

[MohRokTah]

35. Yep, I've been push polled, and this one was done poorly. eom

[sabrina 1]

48. Thanks for your contribution. Of course I am 'pushing' a poll I put up as I am curious to see

whether DU has changed regarding the Corporate Media's credibility. Did you have a point other than that?

[MohRokTah]

54. No, you put up a push poll. eom

[sabrina 1]

63. If you don't like, don't respond. That's what I do when I see polls I feel are 'pushing' something.

I want to know if DU has changed its position on the Western Corporate Media, that is all. You are ascribing motives now to people who use a feature that is provided by the admins to do just as I did with the tool, that is not my problem.

[MohRokTah]

77. No, you posted a push poll. eom

[zappaman]

87. I get the feeling someone doesn't know

what a push poll is.

[sabrina 1]

97. Then post your own. I posted a poll, period.

[NuclearDem]

99. No, you posted a push poll.

You'll go far in life not assuming people are stupid.

[sabrina 1]

100. You are free to be as wrong as you want to be.

[NuclearDem]

101. No, you posted a push poll.

[sabrina 1]

106. Lol! You seem peeved. I asked a simple question, that's all.

[NuclearDem]

112. No, you posted a push poll.

I'm not an idiot, sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

114. I didn't say you were. Did you know that you are repeating yourself?

[NuclearDem]

121. You seem to assume so.

Considering how you keep asserting that your push poll is just a "simple question."

It's not.

[sabrina 1]

123. Asking a simple question re the Corporate Media on DU is a push poll? How so?

Why don't you post a poll demonstrating how to ask this question the RIGHT way? I'm always willing to learn.

[snooper2]

181. I think they are trying to explain you posted a push poll

[sabrina 1]

219. I get that, but they haven't explained why asking a question is pushing something, they

don't have to participate if they think someone is trying to manipulate. But since when, on DU, is asking if people here who never trusted the Corporate Media going back to the 2000 election, a problem? I guess it does tell me what I wanted to know, if DU had changed in any way. Apparently not, judging by the poll, but for some reason it appears to be bothering a few people to even ask the question. Not my problem as their solution is to post one of their own.

[harun]

243. Don't waste your time

There's a group here that live to cry "push poll", "ad hominem" and "hyperbole".

Always been here, always will be. Just ignore them.

[sabrina 1]

313. True, thanks for the advice.

[harun]

237. You mad bro?

[snooper2]

254. that is soooo 2009 LOL, there are newer memes out there

FYI

[Tarheel_Dem]

109. Remember when Kooch used to win those things in a landslide? DU. The only place in America....

where Dennis Kucinich could actually win a presidential poll. That should tell you what they're worth.

[JI7]

148. well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4339396

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4339414

[Tarheel_Dem]

158. That's exactly what I was talking about. It's cognitive dissonance, or willful intellectual...

dishonesty at the very least. I've never seen someone (outside of RT & Fox News) so prone to making such grandiose claims, and never have to provide anything in the way of proof. It's like they think we don't all have computer access & Google.

[sabrina 1]

191. I assume your answer to the poll would be 'yes' then?

Where so you find the time to follow people around the forum digging back years to find their comments, I'm not sure whether to be completely creeped out or flattered.

[MattSh]

170. So who gives a shit?

Besides you, that is...

[JI7]

37. maybe the moon landing was fake also

[rhett o rick]

40. Now there's another intelligent addition to the discussion. nm

[JI7]

42. how can we trust the media ? remember, it was the cold war and we wanted to beat the soviets

at everything.

[rhett o rick]

47. I am confused. Do you agree with the OP or not? nm

[JI7]

49. western media reported the moon landing , the OP is about western media

[rhett o rick]

50. So you agree with the OP that the corporate media can't be trusted. Thanks for

the clarification.

[JI7]

51. we saw what they did to Michael Hastings

[sabrina 1]

213. No, that was real, we did not have a totally corporate owned media back then, we still had the

fairness doctrine. Do YOU believe the Moon Landing was fake?

[malaise]

43. Most media cannot be trusted

The media's primary role is impression management. And their role is to convince us that the owners' interests are our interests.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. FINALLY! It took 43 posts until somebody got it.........

And of course it was my bud, malaise.

In today's world, NO MEDIA CAN BE TRUSTED. They push the owners viewpoints, whether that's the oligarchs in Moscow, Kiev, DC or NYC, London, Berlin, Beijing, etc. If the story is AGAINST the owners, it likely won't get printed in the MSM in ANY of those places.

The old saying goes, "Follow the money". When it comes to media, I would amend it to: "Follow the benefit". Whoever comes off looking best in any story is likely the owner with the most control over that media.

[malaise]

76. Socialists of the world unite

Gramsci nailed it.

[Enthusiast]

185. ...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[malaise]

190. It's all there for us to read and understand

We ignore at our peril

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/masscomm.htm

[Enthusiast]

250. Thank you, malaise.

We are living it.

[2banon]

198. There seems to be a pathological resistance in understanding this, Tn.

As I said somewhere else in this thread, no wonder we're so fucked politically and socio-economically. We don't even have a majority in the Democratic Party who seem able to exercise critical thinking, especially with regard to our news information and dissemination or lack of it in our own Media.

[ctsnowman]

189. Nailed it.

[hue]

220. Yup! I'm in this camp. Corporate media is designed to give their desired impression,

created by industrial psychologists and other mass media managers. It is also a background for corporate commercials which stimulate the viewers libido and other essential hungers to enhance sales. Some news items are actually commercials.
For example, most corporate news shows follow a successful program algorithm and end with a fluff, feel good "story". Their goal is to captivate their "audience"/followers.

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/media/

[malaise]

224. As a good friend likes to say

Correct is right

[alp227]

265. Could you please edit out your link?

The website seems to be a wannabe infowars.

[Rex]

267. Yep, I wish more DUers realized that and didn't believe the misinformation

they get from the M$M.

[rhett o rick]

45. As you can see from the snark from the "reality based community" that they apparently don't agree.

I am guessing they trust the corporate media.

[maddezmom]

61. Nope, but I don't trust RT or Alex Jones types either

I read everything with a grain of salt and make up my own mind.

[rhett o rick]

132. As I do. And I object at the same few people here that try to lock and hide OP's that

they don't like.

[malaise]

187. Imagine you can trust corporations more then the governments they are buying. Hilarious indeed.

Cogita ergo sum

Not one of them can fool me.

[obxhead]

53. Greenwald....

I barely even trust DU now.

[cantbeserious]

56. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

eom

[AndyTiedye]

68. Of Course the Media Can be Trusted…

…to do the bidding of its owners.

[Throd]

69. I miss Brezhnev too.

Hugs.

[Flatpicker]

79. I don't

Think you can trust any organization to report unbiased news.

Best you can do is try to catch 2-3 differing viewpoints and create as close to the truth as possible.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

86. wyldwolf, you are such a rebel.

[Jefferson23]

89. They can be trusted sabrina, to be complicit. They're great at it too. K&R

[stonecutter357]

92. I Don't Trust RT Either

[totodeinhere]

94. Don't trust Al Jazeera either.

WikiLeaks cables claim al-Jazeera changed coverage to suit Qatari foreign policy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy

Al Jazeera also has an agenda.

[SidDithers]

107. Keep trying, sabrina...

Pretty weak attempt to deflect from your ridiculous defense of RT with respect to the Malaysian plane.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

111. My old friend Sid. Thanks for stopping by.

[sabrina 1]

169. Aw, he's just looking out for our best interests. I keep trying to reassure him that

we citizens of the US are not in danger of harm from reading or watching varied sources even if they are not 'approved' by whoever. Lol!

[SidDithers]

201. When I see the RT defenders speaking with just1voice...

I wonder why they keep coming back over and over and over and over.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

232. Correc tion, you mean when you see Americans who live in a democracy opposing censorship

of any kind, 'you wonder why they keep coming back over and over and over'. Well, you should have asked.

We will always oppose censorship in this country. We are passionate about the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I eg, would vehemently oppose banning Fox, which I despise.

You simply don't seem to understand why, when Americans see an all out attack on any form of information, good or bad, they will react to protect their right to access to any and all information.

I have told you before, but you don't seem to understand, we do not need anyone monitoring our reading material. Americans on the whole, are pretty smart people and are perfectly capable of discerning fact from fiction.

Thanks for your concern, but your frustration would be far less if you accepted the fact that censorship is far more evil than any biased news sources, even Fox.

[sabrina 1]

117. Have we met? Welcome to DU btw, for a first post, you sure got in all the talking points.

So who are these 'puppets for Putin' and 'Greenwald and Snowden 'fans' you seem so familiar with? And what does RT have to do with this OP?

[sabrina 1]

146. And how would someone with, now 3 posts, 'know' all these fringe talking points that occasionally

appear even here on DU? Slamming the left are we, on a left forum? With all the same talking points generally reserved for the left? Snowden/Greenwald 'fans' are from the left, the Right hates them with a burning passion. So you agree with the right then regarding the Left? Interesting. Welcome anyhow, I am interested in all opinions, no matter how wrong they are.

[MattSh]

171. Quite an expert about DU, for someone who's been a member < 1 day.

Account status: Active
Member since: Sat Jul 19, 2014, 04:52 AM
Number of posts: 7

[hrmjustin]

223. Reminded me of pretzel warrior.

[Tarheel_Dem]

164. Sad, but true. It's a malady, and most sufferers present with absolutely no sense of irony.

Welcome to DU.

[sabrina 1]

205. I didn't see the hidden post, but I am judging from your response that it

contained some nasty reference to mental illness. A shameful tactic if so. The poster was clearly a troll and sock puppet. I was under the impression that using mental illness, or as you put it,' suffering from a malady' was against the rules here, for simple differences of opinion.

Thanks for your most enlightening comment.

[hrmjustin]

247. I think it was pretzel warrior.

[sabrina 1]

314. Definitely sounded familiar whoever it was. That is probably a good guess.

[Half-Century Man]

118. Here is a trick

Use a variety of sources, like American MSM, BBC, AL-J, RT, and the web; put all the information in your head and use the filter of Think. Where is the money coming from or going? Who wins what, Who loses what?

There will be some bias from every news source. People gather the news, so what is gathered reflects the personality of the gatherers, the sources, the witnesses, and any organization attached to the delivery of what was gathered.
Remember that when you gather the news and filter it through your own bias.

[sabrina 1]

167. I do gather news from various sources around the world and believe we are capable of filtering out

obvious propaganda. My first question always is 'who benefits'. When you start with that, it's not so hard to form opinions, as we did re Iraq.

[wundermaus]

124. Are you kidding?

What is there to trust?
The spin is the message.
Turn off your television.
Turn off your radio,
Get to know your neighbors.
Grow a vegetable garden.
Buy only necessaries.
Starve the beast.
That is all.

[sabrina 1]

126. Thanks, that is very good advice which I mostly follow. I don't watch the Corporate Media

since they helped lie us into a disastrous war, for news.

I have a wonderful vegetable garden and neighbors and try not to feed the 'beast'.

I just wondered if DU had changed its mind about the Corporate Media.

[rhett o rick]

134. That's good advice but how do you vote? nm

[wundermaus]

269. I'm a registered voter.

I vote when there is a candidate running for office that is worthy of my vote.
I only vote on issues I am well informed on.
I do not guess.
I am well informed by visiting this discussion forum among others (such as FDL and C&L) and get an ear full from family, friends, and neighbors.
Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman are the only exceptions to the media news I consider valid and worthy of my time.
All others are worse than useless.
I see that you have Elizabeth Warren as your Profile Icon.
She is the only person I would consider for President of the United States.
All others do not even get close.
The M$M does a good job of muddying up the waters so it's easy to get side tracked or distracted.
I find that minimizing contact with the M$M calms the mind (and emotions) so I can think more clearly.
Brain washing is a fine art, and it is practiced relentlessly 24/7 by the corporate owned media.
Corporate ownership of our government is a cancer on our democracy and our liberty.
Corporation "persons" are man-made, non living creatures much like the fictional character Frankenstein.
We all know how that story ended.
See why gardening is a good idea?
(((Pitchforks)))
See you in the Garden!

[whatchamacallit]

125. Wow, what a fucked up thread!

Sabrina states the obvious about the corporate media and DU's Tom Parsons clones crap themselves with snark and false linkage to Alex Jones. Weak Bleat.

[sabrina 1]

137. It's fun though, isn't it? Revealing too although that was not the intention.

I wondered, as many have, what has happened to DU over the past few years. I remember when DU was a refuge from what we are seeing in this thread. And from the 'pootie/saddam' lover garbage Liberals were subjected during the Bush years. I like to know where I am, so I posted a poll to find out and it's been VERY interesting.

Nice to see you whatchamacalit!

[whatchamacallit]

141. Carry on Sabrina

I know you will, thankfully.

[JI7]

138. many things are fucked up, but i knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 back then, and i know Obama

didn't order the malaysian plane shot down.

the same way i believe it was Bin Laden behind 9/11 is the same way i see the Russian connections behind the shot down malaysian plane.

[MrMickeysMom]

140. Actually… the thread's pretty good...

It's the people who don't waste an opportunity to stink up the place over subjects they don't seem to understand very well.

[sabrina 1]

149. Thanks MMsMom, I'm thoroughly enjoying it myself. Far more than I had expected.

[jeff47]

143. Well, there's a lot of other things going on than what can be seen on the surface.

For example, the OP believes RT over any media source. Even when every other media on the planet disagreed with RT's claims about Ukraine during the rebellion, she believed RT.

It's most of the basis for her "distrust" of "Western media".

[whatchamacallit]

145. As she detailed in the OP her mistrust of the MSM

goes way back for good reason.

[jeff47]

212. The problem is she doesn't distrust all media.

If the media agrees with her opinions, she believes it no matter what. Show her evidence that the story is made up, and she launches into personal attacks instead of reevaluating the story.

RT could claim the sun rises in the West, and she'd approvingly quote them as long as they also claimed "The sun rises in the East" was a CIA plot.

[sabrina 1]

318. I have asked you this before, politely. Do NOT speak for me. I do not know you and you certainly

do not know me, so for those reading, I do not know this person and s/he has zero knowledge of what I think other than what I have posted here. The above comment contains NOTHING I have ever said on this forum. Therefore all of it is false.

I speak for myself and have given no one else other a few who I deeply respect, to ever speak for me.

Post those personal attacks you falsely claimed I 'launch into' I want everyone to see them for themselves.

I will return to check your links to personal attacks from me.

Hint, disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack, just to save you some time.

[jeff47]

344. I'm not. I'm recounting your posting history.

Your hatred of neocons and neocon-like policy overrides your skepticism. Over and over again. You will believe any story that attacks them, no matter how impossible.

Post those personal attacks you falsely claimed I 'launch into' I want everyone to see them for themselves.

Why? They can easily find them in virtually every reply to me in this very thread. Heck, just peruse the "push poll" subthread.

[sabrina 1]

347. So there are none, as I already knew. Making false statements about others only loses credibility

for the one making them.

Thank you for admitting that at least.

[sabrina 1]

197. Did I give you permission to speak for me? You don't, making stuff up, putting thoughts in people's

heads is a very bad strategy to try to distract from important issues. It is too transparent a tactic especially when the target of the mind readers is perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

As always with this kind of comment, I notice you did not address the subject of the OP. I take you believed the Corporate Media's lies about Iraq then, but I will give YOU the opportunity to speak for yourself. I am merely guessing since you switched the topic from the subject to ME.

[jeff47]

211. Yeah, it's such a pain in the ass when one's history catches up with them.

You don't, making stuff up, putting thoughts in people's heads is a very bad strategy to try to distract from important issues.

Such as RT does on any issue where reality makes Russia look bad.

Say, the rebellion in Ukraine, which you claimed was a CIA plot. Because RT did.

As always with this kind of comment, I notice you did not address the subject of the OP.

That's because it wasn't a reply to the OP. It was explaining the back story to someone who isn't familiar with your penchant for discarding reality when it doesn't fit your opinions.

I take you believed the Corporate Media's lies about Iraq then, but I will give YOU the opportunity to speak for yourself.

Hey look! Doing exactly what is supposed to be so horrific in your previous paragraph.

But consistency has never been your strong suit.

I am merely guessing since you switched the topic from the subject to ME.

You'll never read this far into the reply, so I'm just going to do my usual thing with you and quote a random Wikipedia page.

A roundel (not to be confused with the rondel) is a form of verse used in English language poetry devised by Algernon Charles Swinburne (1837–1909). It is the Anglo-Norman form corresponding to the French rondeau. It makes use of refrains, repeated according to a certain stylized pattern. A roundel consists of nine lines each having the same number of syllables, plus a refrain after the third line and after the last line. The refrain must be identical with the beginning of the first line: it may be a half-line, and rhymes with the second line. It has three stanzas and its rhyme scheme is as follows: A B A R ; B A B ; A B A R ; where R is the refrain.

[sabrina 1]

214. Another personal attack is all you have? I am proud of all my comments on DU, wouldn't change one

of them as they are all supportive of Liberal Values. You'll have to try some other way for your extremely weak attempt at 'gotcha'.

But to try to keep this on topic, how do you feel about the Corporate Media inviting war criminal, Dick Cheney to comment on President Obama's handling of Iraq? Cheney had the gall to call President Obama 'the worst president in history', and GOT AWAY WITH on the Corporate Media. Never saw anything like that on RT, but you can count on it on the Corporate Media, using liars like Cheney as 'experts' on this president's policies.

[SidDithers]

203. +1...

Nailed it.

Sid

[MattSh]

172. So true...

Everybody's so skeptical about all media, (or so they say), yet in the end most seem to end up supporting the USA version of events.

[MrMickeysMom]

135. I remembered most of those things, sabrina 1...

…except for Ashley Banfield, but I follow what you are saying.

It's amazing when you consider that out of all the corporations (even the corporation for public broadcasting), they are all owned for reasons. They are political or consumerism. Few seem to include approaching world news as it should be reported.

I think after exploring news networks, you can tell the cheerleaders holding down 7 figure jobs from those who are hungry for telling the news. The hungry ones seem to be on Al Jazeera right now. They were on Current TV. You only need to study the corporate media since the 60s to get a clear picture of why they exist. I trust no Western corporate news. I do watch alternative sources that include some RT shows. You know, when a financial expert and political analyst like Max Keiser (Keiser Report, RT) tried in the past to infuse their insight on cable, they were pushed aside. So, when people tell you they trust no one, including RT, to that, I'd say, "Well, you should feel that way, but follow who goes where when they can't get a break." RT is naturally interested to throw some cold water on what backs the dollar these days, so I'm frankly okay with reasons they run Keiser Report. I'm wise enough to know the politics… I'm after the truth. I can follow the dots.

I've sough out the news for world politics, science, health and finance, and let's face it, western corporate media don't excel in looking for the truth. I have never seen the degree of truth being vetting by the experts the way Keiser does in the criminals of Wall Street and their connections to all things in world politics. No country is sacred. I've also watched some informative documentaries on both RT, Science Channel and a few unknowns, but they are outside that corporate structure.

So, I don't trust our United States Corporate to deliver the story beyond the obvious. There are some on DU who perhaps look no further, and therefore, push no boundaries of what or why the story is, and why events keep happening over in the same way. That is intellectually lazy.

[sabrina 1]

151. Good post, thank you. Keiser used to post here, but I guess as DU began to change, he doesn't bother

anymore. I remember years ago reading his posts here. He was right about everything as it turned out. If I want to watch actual Liberal voices, I won't find them on the Corporate Media, the 'left' is forbidden on our media. MSNBC is the only place where we get a few liberal voices, but as keith olbermann learned, even there, they are restricted and if we go to war again, they will have to REALLY careful, as Donohue found out.

I watch media from all over the world. Indian media has some excellent news sources eg, and Africa has very interesting news media. Americans are so uninformed compared to other populations mainly due to the restricted media we have.

Ashley Banfield was a 'star' embedded reporter in the beginning of the Iraq War. She was one of the best reporters at the time but as we all learned, 'embedded' really meant 'controlled'. After she returned she was at a function, a private function airc, and she explained that while in Afghanistan she was disturbed that she was only allowed to show the 'bombs being dropped, or other weapons being fired' but could not show what happened afterwards, which as a journalist, she wanted to do.

After she made those comments, she was taken off the air, despite the fact that no one other than those present at the function even heard them. I wondered at the time what happened to her as I always enjoyed her reporting. It was not until years later that we found out. They had a contract with her, but would not allow her on the air, nor would they release her from her contract, so she spent years sitting in a room basically wasting her talent and time, and it ruined her career.

Today I have seen her back, on CNN I believe, but she is nothing like she was, a hard-hitting reporter. I guess she has learned her lesson.

[JI7]

139. can Rachel Maddow be Trusted ? how about the BBC ?

[sabrina 1]

144. The BBC is state sponsored and was coopted during the Blair era after they published

material from a Whistle Blower regarding the claims of the liar, Blair/Bush/Cheney regarding Iraq's WMDs. They were forced to reveal the identity of the Whistle Blower, you must remember this, a prominent scientist and an honorable man who was treated like a terrorist and ended up dead. Most people still believe he was murdered. The BBC is no longer what it was before the Blair/Bush/Cheney alliance. I guess they learned 'their lesson' as many in our own media have.

Rachel is an excellent reporter.

[samsingh]

147. it absolutely cannot be trusted or respected

I have nothing but contempt and hatred for western media. I will not give them my advertising any more

[MannyGoldstein]

153. Why do you love Putin?

Have you no shame?

[sabrina 1]

157. I don't know, I can't help it, I loved Saddam too and I love Assad and ...

wait, who else am I supposed to love? Surely we have more enemies I can sing kumbaya with? That's what I wanted to do with Saddam, my right wing friends said.

I remember some of my old Right Wing 'friends' accused me of, as a Liberal, wanting to put my 'arms around Saddam' because I thought he was just misunderstood and needed love'. I told them that was a great idea, I hadn't thought of it. I'm expecting someone will suggest that here regarding Putin but I already thought of it myself!

Deja Vu, all over again. And on a supposed Democratic site! Keep up the good work, Manny, DU needs rational people right now.

[MannyGoldstein]

159. Hey, me too!

Hey, now there's proof of rampant Putin-love on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5260917

We're totally busted.

[sabrina 1]

162. Wow, that's creepy, stalking DUers on Twitter now? This place is beginning to scare me.

Where do people get the time for this kind of 'research'? I can barely find my own Twitter acct let alone go searching for other people's. That really IS disturbing.

We have to worry about being 'shadowed' by 'agents' now all over the internet. Despicable.

[MannyGoldstein]

163. You're right.

It's creepy as hell.

But on the bright side, that post gave me the best laugh I've had in a month!

[Eleanors38]

301. And people are in a panic 'cause I got a gun.

[Enthusiast]

188. Yeah! Have you no shame?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Rex]

154. Looks like a washout vote, no doubt the usual suspects will...

oh nm...I see they already tried to take a poop on the thread. You ever wonder if they get tired of being fake DUers?

[gvstn]

156. There really are so few reporters anymore.

Just talking heads that read the script no matter what it says.

Wolf Blitzer is the most prominent one. He will say anything with "feeling" that is on the teleprompter in front of him. Truly an embarrassment to journalism in every form. Once in a while he gets it right if his puppet masters are on the correct side of the story and only want to report straight news but the rest of time he just sounds sincere. Perfect actor/newscaster for today's media.

[sabrina 1]

161. What a tool he is. I read he was originally a 'reporter' on a Christian network.

He is 'safe' totally complicit with whatever is required of him. And he's one of the better ones. Have you ever watched the morning 'news' lately? I decided to check it out last week and it is even worse than I expected, starting around 7 AM airc, we get entertainers selling things. I could go into detail, but that about covers it. Kathie Lee and her pal take up several valuable hours, drinking wine, wearing cocktail dresses, showing us all their 'puppies' and 'kitties' and generally acting like high school kids. Nothing to 'bother the beautiful minds of the viewers, certainly nothing to inform them of anything other than how to make a toasted swiss cheese sandwich.

Thanks for the comment, I agree with totally.

[sabrina 1]

165. Great post, PP. I couldn't agree more. A democracy cannot survive without a free press and we

can see the proof of that every day as we lose more and more of our rights.

I did not know that about Watergate, I did wonder why, for what by today's standards, would be nothing, was ousted. Woodward was CIA wasn't he? Or Army Intel or something, I didn't know that until fairly recently.

And I know about the collaboration of the media and the CIA which is truly frightening.

I do not trust them one bit.

I don't have your belief that all humans can turn around and become better people. I agree it is possible and some have, but Cheney eg, I cannot imagine it, he is an evil man.

I also didn't know that about the polls on Iraq either, thanks for that information. I did believe that a majority supported it. Shameful deceptions.

It doesn't surprise me however, that they would lie about polls, they lied about War so we should expect nothing better of them.

[Octafish]

218. Redemption

Thank you for putting it into words, Peace Patriot.

For those new to the subject: CIA used media extensively in their first big overthrows in Iran and Guatemala.

THE PLAN The planners decided to employ simultaneously all the tactics that had proved useful in previous covert operations. PBSUCCESS would combine psychological, economic, diplomatic, and paramilitary actions. Operations in Europe, [xxxxxx] and Iran had demonstrated the potency of propaganda-"psychological warfare"-aimed at discrediting an enemy and building support for allies. Like many Americans, US Officials placed tremendous faith in the new science of advertising. Touted as the answer to underconsumption, economic recession, and social ills, advertising, many thought, could be used to cure Communism as well. In 1951, the Truman Administration tripled the budget for propaganda and appointed a Psychological Strategy Board to coordinate activities. The CIA required "psywar" training for new agents, who studied Paul Linebarger's text, Psychological Warfare, and grifter novels like The Big Con for disinformation tactics. PBSUCCESS's designers planned to supplement overt diplomatic initiatives-such as an OAS conference convened to discredit Guatemala-with "black operations using contacts within the press, radio, church, army, and other organized elements susceptible to rumor, pamphleteering, poster campaigns, and other subversive action." They were particularly impressed with the potential for radio propaganda, which had turned the tide at a critical moment in the Iran operation.

SOURCE: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1119

Those interested in the Big Con in Dealey Plaza, DUer Bill Kelly's outstanding blog and post: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/big-con-at-dealey-plaza.html

[LarryNM]

285. Agree On All Points n/t

[bvar22]

239. "They don't believe in democracy. They believe in making people STUPID. "

The evidence is on display in THIS thread.

You should post this and OP.

[KoKo]

273. Demise of the "Fairness Doctrine"....Opened the door....

and now look at our FCC and who it protects...

[LeftishBrit]

173. Other. I don't totally trust ANY media.

The statement makes it sound as though non-Western media is more trustworthy. I would certainly not trust e.g. Chinese media or the Iranian PressTV, any more than I'd trust e.g. the Murdoch press.

[Enthusiast]

177. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

I cannot imagine anyone trusting Western Corporate Media after what we have witnessed since the year 2000.

Western media grows less trustworthy by the hour.

We had the Fairness Doctrine for a good reason and we no longer have the Fairness Doctrine for a diabolical reason.

[Quantess]

182. I like this poll, apropos of the recent polls on the same topic.

I take it at face value.

No, of course most of us trust neither Pravda, Faux Snooze, RT, nor Chicken Noodle News. And this is a very big deal! Too much of the world's media is biased, slanted, or just unreliable.

[Octafish]

184. Mass Media ignoring 'RFK Believed in Conspiracy' shows corrupt nature of America's Press

Additional evidence to remember:



Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his sister Rory Kennedy told Charlie Rose that their father, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, believed there was a conspiracy behind the death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. For the first time in almost 50 years, members of the slain president's family were on the record about their father's thoughts about the assassination.

The story made news, as it were, for a day or two -- it was on page 8 here in Detroit (try finding it using The Free Press or Detroit News web site search engines) -- and apart from several threads on DU, that's about it as coverage goes. The Charlie Rose interview was part of a program put together by the media and good people in Dallas to celebrate JFK's life.

What bothers me about the media coverage is the constant attack, not on the government's lousy investigation of the assassination and its attendant cover-up, but, rather, the attack on anyone who brings up the subject of conspiracy in the death of the president, even when it's children of attorney general who also was the brother of the slain president.

Check out this condescending piece of opinion from the Dallas Observer:

Not Even Charlie Rose Could Rein in RFK Jr. in Dallas Last Night. Also: Conspiracy Theories!

By Betsy Lewis Sat., Jan. 12 2013 at 11:01 AM

It got weird when he went into a historical lecture about his father's investigation into the JFK assassination. He was speaking about it as if he had been part of it, then cited a book called The Unspeakable by Jim Douglas (sic - actually "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass) as being the best book on the subject, then kept referencing things from the book. He was losing the audience, so he burst out, "My father believed that the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship," to the delighted applause of the mostly Baby Boomer audience.

Whenever Charlie Rose would ask about the family, RFK Jr. would evade the question until he heard either delighted Boomer applause or delighted Boomer laughter. One of his responses to a family question was an unrelated story about World War II. A lady behind me who must have recently Netflixed The Iron Lady kept saying, "Here here!" for the benefit of us unfortunate people around her.
Some of the strangest RFK Jr. outbursts with the biggest applause were:

"We're becoming a national security state!" (applause, "Here here!&quot

"Corporations want profits!" (applause, "Here here!&quot

"Corporations are great things, but we'd be nuts to let them run our government!" (applause, "Here here!&quot

"Nationalism in Africa! The end of colonialism!"

At this point, I don't think anyone knew what the hell he was talking about. It was something about the Kennedy family airlifting President Obama's father out of Kenya to begin a new life in America.

RFK Jr.: "Yes."

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/mixmaster/2013/01/charlie_rose_live_the_kennedy.php

Me, I don't believe any of that stuff was "out there." Why writer Betsy Lewis chooses to believe what the media tell her is true I'll guess lies in allegiance to a pay check.

Likewise for the lack of coverage given the story in the national media, where the same few corporations that swore up and down there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, both in 1990 and 2002, now want no part of "conspiracy talk" during the 50th anniversary observance. So far, as far as I'm aware, the Charlie Rose program has not aired.

What's more telling is what didn't get noted in the nation's corrupt mass media at all: The fact that Attorney General and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy also was assassinated. Some think that was a coincidence, because the mass media told them so. One thing's for certain, the questions still surrounding the deaths of two liberal icons doesn't get discussed at all today in our supposedly "free press."

Thank you, sabrina 1, for an excellent OP and thread!

[gtar100]

193. And yet, people keep sucking it in like it's a lifeline to what's happening in the world.

How many times does a person have to lie to you before you stop listening to them. It's nuts that they are given any form of legitimacy.

[etherealtruth]

194. Sometimes yes, sometimes no

I tend to look at "things" with a skeptical eye. I gather information from a multitude of sources ... comparing and contrasting information.

In many ways our "corporate media" provides accurate information quickly ... in many ways information is presented in biased ways or to misinform .

Our media is a mixed bag ... major network/ cable news is provided as infotainmment (sometimes misinfotainmnet) .... I like the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA times ... but "trust" them no more/ no less than al Jazeera, the BBC

To me the poll has no answer as any answer requires the statement of situation, subject ....

[JEB]

199. I trust them to promote endless distraction from real issues.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

202. Wow, meta-trolling is support of RT...

Could you be any more obvious?

[MrMickeysMom]

225. …"could you be any more obvious?"...

… and, could you be anymore obtuse?

Go back and see if Yoda can help you with understanding what is being discussed on this thread.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

227. I know what is going on with this thread...

It's a response to yesterdays "RT is not a legitimate news source" thread". This one is written by DU's most ardent supporter of RT.

Maybe help YOU should seek with discussion thread understanding, hmm?

[MrMickeysMom]

241. Already understand communication 101, doc

I already understand it.

So, what's your point with which news sources offers what to those seeking information do you find offensive? Is it the part about Western Corporate run "news"? Perhaps it's the fact that what is supposed to function as impartial to world events has not been found here, versus other news sources? Perhaps you think the acronym "RT" denotes a special interest on behalf of those who seek information?

Do tell…

[Dr Hobbitstein]

245. RT stands for Russia Times...

A wholely owned news network of the Russian government. The OP is an ardent supporter of said network, to the point of believing all the propaganda coming out of Russia re: Ukraine. There was a post yesterday denouncing RT (once again, that's Russia Times). This thread is an OBVIOUS response to that thread.

Trying to conflate "western news" with RT is dishonest at best, and that is what the OP is doing...

You're either oblivious to that fact, or are being dishonest yourself.

RT is PURE right-wing, pro-Putin propaganda. Even the SPLC (that's Southern Poverty Law Center) has stated as much.

[MrMickeysMom]

251. I find everything you've explained...

… to be the antithesis of what informed individuals learn. You prefer your own brand of Kool Aid? Fine. Believe what you want, with as much propaganda as you choose. You've obviously followed the credo, "pit yourself amongst the one who exposes more than one view (including RT's)

I don't fear my own or your own ignorance as much as the perception of our knowledge. So, before you put your helmet on and charge after the "pure right-wing" propaganda, be sure you're doing your homework.

By the way, RT stands for "Russia Today".

[Dr Hobbitstein]

271. Well, you're right on one thing...

It does stand for Russia Today...

But if you're reading/watching Russia Today, you are FAR from informed. Unless you consider InfoWars readers "informed". Your slip is showing.

EOC

[MrMickeysMom]

274. I hope you realize that your argument is spurious

Your doctorate sure doesn't seem to be in logic. Attempting the argument, "If you're reading/watching RT", then you'd be doing these other things, shows an illusion of your own knowledge.

A hasty generalization like that is based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence. It is a false analogy. It suggests only two alternatives exist. Because of one thing, another thing must follow, when in fact, you have no idea, just suggestions to keep other posters or OPs "in line". Your enforcement of good behavior efforts would be more representative of someone in country like Germany, circa 1938.

Here's a suggestion, Why don't you end your conversation with me by beginning the practice of not trying to suggest or bully your way through an ideology based on ignorance. What you've touted is about as undemocratic a principle as one can demonstrate in these parts of the internet. I fear that kind of ideology and advice in a forum like this.

Go inform yourself. This brings a happy ending to my conversation with you.

Have a nice day!

[sabrina 1]

324. What is going on this thread has been going on since I first discovered DU in 2004. Criticism of

the MSM. Do you dispute anything in the OP, is there anything there that has not been discussed on DU since its inception when the MSM ignored the theft of the 2000 election and didn't stop supporting the lies of the disastrous and war criminal administration of Bush/Cheney?

The OP is simply a repeat, a synopsis of possibly thousands of OPs slamming the MSM in far less detail than most, here on DU. Why do you object so strenuously to something that DU is proud of, that it was THEY who pointed out the lies and helped raises awareness of the deceptions during those dark times?

Frankly I cannot believe that anyone on DU would ever object to criticism of the documented complicity of the MSM, the shameful role they played in helping the war criminals start their criminal wars. I am stunned frankly.

Who else was going to do that back then, certainly Free Republic and all the other Right Wing sites, who outnumbered Liberal sites like this, were not going to do so, they were PART OF IT.

Sick to death of the deceptions, the lies, the wars, the killings, the war mongers, the war criminals treated like elder statesmen on that same media that helped them start their wars.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

342. A long diatribe for your agenda...

You're mad that people called out RT, so you're trying to conflate the MSM with RT. It's obvious.

You are siding with a RIGHT WING NEWS ORGANIZATION. Deception, lies, wars, killings, war mongers, war criminals treated like elder statesman... That's RT.

No one is arguing your criticism of MSM. They are arguing your transparent attempts to defend your precious RT (with your laughable 50million+ US audience claim).

RT is Russian right wing propaganda. Through and through. That is NOT defense of the MSM. That is a denunciation of RT. Quit with your meta-defense bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

348. My agenda is Liberal. Thank you for noting that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

352. RT is NOT liberal. n/t

[sabrina 1]

357. Censorship is not Liberal. The Corporate Media is not Liberal.

[sabrina 1]

235. You meant to say in support of a free and open press and access to all sources of information.

I trust the judgement of the American people to be able to discern the truth from lies given the opportunity.

Whenever I see a calculated effort, as I did during the Bush era, and now, once again, to censor the American people's access to information, good or bad, I will oppose it. Sorry you so completely misunderstand. Not my problem, mine is to join those who believe there are worse things than bias, censorship being one of them.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

236. So you're opposed to RT...

RT performs more censorship than the US media, and pushes more out their right-wing crap than US media.

[sabrina 1]

240. I oppose censorship of all sources of information, books, media and speech. I don't care how

biased or outright BAD they are. I hope that is clear now.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

246. So you're not going to link to RT anymore?

Because you're opposed to their censorship and all...

[MrMickeysMom]

268. ...

… "So, you're going to be a GOOD American by not going THERE anymore??!?!?!?"


Meanwhile, those you've admonished previously stand waiting….

[sabrina 1]

320. I know, MMM, I read that post with a sense of awe. That anyone on a Dem forum at least,

could actually think they can intimidate people into NOT reading books not approved by the Ministry of Truth! Hillarious, they don't understand Liberals very well, do they? Lol!

[MrMickeysMom]

270. Sorry, sabrina 1...

I've been tripping all over your responses to some of these posts (which were directed to you) but I have to say you've centered the answer to what you said last here -

"Mine is to join those who believe there are worse things than bias, CENSORSHIP being one of them."

THAT response outshines them all.

[Spider Jerusalem]

221. Your memory is kind of faulty

the BBC didn't reveal the identity of David Kelly; the Ministry of Defence did.

On 22 May 2003, at the Charing Cross Hotel in London, Kelly met Andrew Gilligan, a BBC journalist who had spent some time writing about the war in Baghdad. Kelly was anxious to learn what had happened in Iraq, while Gilligan, who had discussed a very early draft of the dossier with Kelly, wished to ask him about it in light of the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. They agreed to talk on an unattributable basis, which allowed the BBC to report what was said but not to identify the source. Kelly told Gilligan of his concerns over the 45-minute claim and allegedly ascribed its inclusion in the dossier to Alastair Campbell, the director of communications for Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Gilligan broadcast his report on 29 May 2003 on the Today programme, in which he said that the 45-minute claim had been placed in the dossier by the government, even though it knew the claim was dubious. In a subsequent article in The Mail on Sunday newspaper, Gilligan directly identified Alastair Campbell as the person responsible. The story caused a political storm with the government denying any involvement in the intelligence content of the dossier. The government pressed the BBC to reveal the name of the source because it knew that any source who was not a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee would not have known who had a role in the preparation of the dossier.

As the political fight ensued, Kelly knew he had talked to the journalist involved but felt that he had not said exactly what was reported. He also told his friend and work colleague Olivia Bosch that his meeting with Andrew Gilligan had been "unauthorised" and therefore outside his terms of employment. On 30 June 2003, he wrote to his line manager at the Ministry of Defence to report his contact with Gilligan though he added "I am convinced that I am not his primary source of information."

Kelly was interviewed twice by his employers who concluded that they could not be sure he was Gilligan's only source. Eventually they took the decision to publicly acknowledge the fact that an employee had come forward who might be the source. The announcement contained sufficient clues for alert journalists to guess Kelly's identity, and the Ministry of Defence confirmed the name when it was put to them. This was not an everyday procedure (it usually refuses to comment on such matters), and it was alleged by some critics of the government that the Ministry of Defence was implementing a government decision to reveal Kelly's name as part of a strategy to discredit Gilligan. Andrew Rawnsley has claimed that Blair on 8 July sanctioned a strategy designed to reveal Kelly's identity;[12] Lord Hutton found that the decision was only to confirm that a civil servant had come forward, without giving a name, because there was uncertainty that Kelly was in fact Gilligan's source.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_%28weapons_expert%29

But the government knew – and this is what makes its behaviour towards the BBC and David Kelly so incredible. He came forward to his bosses as my source under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, but was effectively given up to the world after Campbell, in his words, decided to “open a flank on the BBC” to distract attention from his difficulties over the dossier.

Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the FAC, was inquiring into the dossier. After it failed to denounce me to Campbell’s satisfaction, he confided to his diary that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. That afternoon, on Downing Street’s orders, Ministry of Defence press officers announced that a source had come forward, handed out clues allowing anyone with Google to guess who he was, then kindly confirmed it to any reporter who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly’s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html

That's all on Blair's government, not the BBC.

[cprise]

229. Yet Blair still retaliated for fiecely questioning his judgement on Iraq

He was grilled by the BBC, one very hot-seat interview by Paxman stands out in particular. They were not uncritically swallowing the official justifications.

After the rigged Hutton inquiry, Blair had the BBC reorganized with conditions that turn the Board of Governors into lapdogs. Combine that with the fact that foreign reporting is financed from the government budget (not the license fee) and the re-made BBC fit the classic profile of state-owned / state-controlled media.

[sabrina 1]

242. Thank you, it's difficult to remember details of all the assaults on the press during that time.

Sadly they succeeded. We no longer have even once credible sources, like the BBC or even PBS here which is now funded airc, by the Koch brothers.

[sabrina 1]

230. The BBC has never been the same since the Blair government's

interference at that time. I don't recall every detail about every aggression against the free press over the past decade or so, but both the Guardian and the BBC have been intimidated into being 'careful' of what they publish, and into giving voice to what should be the fringes of society, such as Cheney et al without much challenge.

I am not against giving Cheney et al a voice, all voices should be aired, but I am against the lack of tough questioning of these war criminals when they decide to insert themselves, again, into our politics. Seeing Cheney on our media blaming THIS PRESIDENT for Iraq was simply nauseating, especially since he was treated with velvet gloves.

[Billy Budd]

233. You mean to tell me Rupert Murdoch

can't be trusted ??

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

CIA Instructions to Media Assets


This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

[sabrina 1]

238. Thanks for that link. Who would have thought that the CIA would

try to 'manage' public opinion on major political events?

As for Murdoch, I was told, right here on DU recently that Murdoch can be trusted, just not Fox, because, I was told, Murdoch doesn't run Fox, Ailes does. I thought Murdoch employed Ailes, but what do I know, I don't trust Murdoch no matter who tries to defend him, even on DU.

[emsimon33]

244. Corporate media is little more than propaganda

Or, in the case of FAUX Nonews...is propaganda.

[jillan]

249. I remember the media fail during the Bush V Gore recount & how they were reporting on it like it was

some kind of a ping-pong match. This side did this, the other side did that.
When will it be over? Gore could still win IF. Bush will win IF..... blah blah blah.

I was so angry. Where was the in-depth reporting? What the hell was really going on??

Same thing in 2004 when I was watching Dan Rather reporting the election results and suddenly - out of NOWHERE the numbers jumped from Kerry to Bush.

The silence from the media was deafening.

And one day I watched this large man on MSNBC named Keith Olbermann say on the airwaves that the election in 2004 was stolen and here is why. I almost jumped out of my skin from excitement.

Then Dan Rather got fired for reporting the truth about Bush.
And then the corporate media got to Keith.

I find myself watching FSTV more and more and more. It's not only Amy Goodman and Hartmann but they also have news on from France and I find out more about what is really going on in the world - including the US - vs hearing the same stories over and over again every hour and hearing rw wacko talking points making their way to the other networks as news.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

252. A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom...

A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad. Albert Camus

[sabrina 1]

253. Good quote, thank you. Thomas Jefferson expressed similar sentiments, despite being the

target of a vicious 'tabloid of the times' attack campaign against him. It is part of the price paid to ensure a healthy democracy, he argued. And he was more than willing to pay it. Me too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

257. Here's another from Tom.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

[blkmusclmachine]

262. Damn "lib'rul" Media !!!

[Chan790]

264. I don't trust any corporate or state-owned media.

Russia Times and Al Jazeera included. Propaganda mouthpieces are propaganda mouthpieces no matter what side they are on.

Mark that, RT especially. If they reported tomorrow the sky was blue, I'd have to look up to confirm it and that they weren't lying again.

[aquart]

278. All or nothing is how babies see things.

Strive for a little adult awareness of complexity.

[sabrina 1]

281. Thanks for the advice, who would have thought I had no adult awareness of complexity. I just asked

a few people here who actually know me, they all think I don't need that advice. But thanks anyhow, I'm sure you meant well.

[aquart]

304. Thanks for the laugh.

[Number23]

338. Amen.

[mainer]

283. Wait. Weren't you all "Rah Rah" about the western media taking down Ghadafi?

I seem to recall you were really happy about their push to take him down. That turned out well, didn't it?

[sabrina 1]

292. Wrong, I totally opposed the invasion of Libya by NATO.

And was attacked here of all places for daring to question what we were being told in the Corporate Media. Clearly your gotcha moment has not worked out too well. Too bad you felt the need to do so, though, rather than simply discuss the topic.

[mainer]

293. Then I apologize. I too was firmly against our Libya intervention

and I was attacked here for that opinion. I'm one of the few who'd actually been in Libya and understood the situation, and I was appalled by the support to take down Ghadafi. I thought I remembered you as one of Catherina's league who cheered on the takedown of Ghadafi.

[Rex]

284. One of the reasons I don't get into a lot of this stuff, is because I got rid of the M$M a long time

ago. Their agenda is not pro-help. I will never trust corporate or state media...they live to make money and report sensationalism to bring down the level of journalism to pure trash.

[mainer]

286. So what's the alternative? Blogsites, which are OH so accurate?

Rumors? Gossip?

Unfortunately, we must gather information from those with access, and mainstream media tends to have that. What we must learn to trust are certain journalists who have a reputation for telling the truth.

[Rex]

287. The internet yes it is so scarrrryyy that people snark about blogs and twitter.

The M$M sounds like a dinosaur whistling past a graveyard imo. There are much better ways to get news than the M$M and the internet is exactly it!

So I take it you think the M$M does NOT do rumors and gossip? Ever actually watch the M$M in action? It is bullshit garbage in and out then a commercial for a drug/insurance plan/investment...THAT is what they care about.

NOT informing you or me of actual news. The alternative is a NEW system that reports the news in an unbiased way and without any sensationalism...which you can do if you look for it on the WWW.

[mainer]

290. I'd take the MSM over blogsites and internet rumors

At least the MSM employs journalists with real names who have graduated with journalism degrees.

I don't know who the internet rumor mongers are -- they don't bother to post their qualifications.

It's important to always question everything, but I find that internet sources throw out more crap, word for word, than the MSM does.

[Rex]

305. Yes take the word of 6 conglomerates over the free voice of the WWW.

Your choice, but don't be mad when you are wrong on something because the M$M lied to you.

[CJCRANE]

325. The MSM takes a lot of stuff from the internet nowadays

so it isn't that clear cut anymore.

I often find that I learn more from reading the comments at news sites than reading the actual articles.

[Billy Budd]

288. MEDIA CONTROL

MEDIA CONTROL

The global oligarchy controls all of the major media.
In the United States, six global media corporations control 90% of what we see, hear and read. These media mega-corporations own each others stock, and in turn are owned and controlled by an oligarchy of transnational corporations, international bankers and European dynastic families.

COMCAST (NBC / Universal)
NEWS CORP (Fox News / Wall Street Journal)
TIME WARNER (CNN)
VIACOM
DISNEY (ABC)
CBS
The global oligarchy controls major media around the world, including:
NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON POST
REUTERS
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BBC (BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION)
THE TIMES OF LONDON

And, most of the major print and broadcast institutions worldwide.
The global oligarchy also controls the most influential alternative news sources.

http://www.beyondthemediamatrix.net/

[SidDithers]

296. Don't forget Pierre Omidyar...nt

Sid

[Rex]

306. But but but...yep

it's all crap controlled by the elite...but don't tell anyone, certain people here love their little dream world.

[Eleanors38]

294. Push-poll. In fact, I pushed out a butt-splattering

Big one to express my distrust. Anyone keeping tied-in with the 'on-the-left, on-the-right' bilge of ballance? Shit tv news looks worse than a regional burger ad.camp.

[JI7]

302. do you think Sandy Hook didn't actually happen either because it was reported on the media

i mean there are people who claim it was "false flag".

[markpkessinger]

316. I don't think Sabrina was saying that the corporate media NEVER reports events truthfully. . .

Each of the examples of false or misleading reporting by the corporate media cited by Sabrina in her OP is a matter of documented historical record. They aren't merely the allegations of crackpot conspiracy theorists. But the credibility of ANY source should be interrogated for any conflict of interest that could motivate tha source to give a less than full and truthful account of something. Attemp6ting to smear Sabrina's OP by equating her well-documented examples of false reporting by the corporate media to the rantings of crackpot conspiracy theorists is a tad disingenuous, don't you think?

[JI7]

317. and that has been the case with this plane being shot down, it's mostly the Sandy Hook was false

flag types who are bringing up all these conspiracy theories.

the reports of the plane being shot down and likely russian backed rebels is based on actual facts.

[sabrina 1]

322. Thank you markpkessinger. You are exactly correct. I was under the impression that Liberals didn't

need to be reminded of those examples of why the MSM lost all credibility during the decade starting with the 2000 election. Nor did I say everything they publish is not true, but on events that, eg, might lead us into yet another disastrous war, I believe nothing from the MSM until it has been verified by several other sources.

[sabrina 1]

329. I think the OP explains exactly what I don't believe. Do you NOT believe that the Corporate Media

helped lie this country into war? Are you disputing anything in the OP?

They lie when it involves POLITICS. Was that not clear to you? They cannot be trusted, due to their record of publishing false information, see Judith Miller among others, on major political issues that involve foreign policy, taking this country to war, eg, as we KNOW. If you trust the MSM, fine, and if you are questioning anything in the OP, then say so. But you seem to be trying to make some point which is not getting across as none of it is related to this OP.

[JI7]

330. i know the media sucks, but i was able to see through all of that , just as i am with RT

[sabrina 1]

333. RT will not lead this country into another disastrous war. THE MSM HAS and is dangerously on

same path as it was with Iraq, now. THAT is what this OP is about.

The focus on RT is part of it. That is obvious.

The same recipe

1) Identify an 'enemy', Iraq back then. Russia now.

2) Demonize the enemy and all things related to the enemy. Especially their leader and culture.

3) If lucky enough an event of catastrophic proportions can be used to blame the for.

4) Saturation coverage of the 'problem' by the complicit Corporate Media.

5) Interview 'experts' (war criminals like Cheney in this case and back then) to 'push public opinion towards war.

Etc etc and of course use the internet to push the rhetoric. The sudden focus on RT, Al Jazeera back then after its inception, is part of the whole thing.

And there are people who are falling for it on the Left this time, the Right last time. And then there are those who are part of it, on the internet I mean.

And then there are those who saw through it back then, were called Saddam lovers blah, blah, now called Putin lovers blah blah. RT, propaganda from the enemy, Al Jazeera, propaganda from the enemy. And they see through it now.

We were here on DU and other Dem forums, we remember and we recognize those who are either falling for it or are working for it. And we recognize the tactics, the formula and the rhetoric. They don't change it much, just the enemy.

If you want war with Russia, the neocons love you, well, they NEED you. I do not, so they will attack me, as they did then.

[stonecutter357]

376. .

[Rex]

307. Wow, look at the usual suspects freakout at the truth!

They are so pathetic!

[treestar]

345. Some media must be trustworthy enough

or you'd have to admit you have no idea what is going on.

[sabrina 1]

349. On some things all media is trustworthy such as reporting disasters if the have no political

consequences, like 9/11 eg, or the latest horrible tragedy. And all media is biased which is why it is necessary to take everything that has political consequences with a grain of salt no matter where it is coming from, use as many sources as possible to try to try to find the facts. That is what we did regarding Iraq, those of us who knew they were lying.

Thankfully we have more access now to worldwide sources than we did then.

[Rex]

360. The M$M and RT are just different sides of the same coin.

It is the amount of accurate reporting that you don't get...reporting done completely unbiased and with no agenda. Corporate media cannot do it and neither can state run media. They are to indentured to their paymasters for objective reporting imo.

[Rex]

359. Western Corporate Media = M$M. State Run Media = RT.

I just see no reason to trust either group.

[sabrina 1]

364. Much of the Western Corporate Media is also state supported. Al Jazeera is entirely funded by

the Qatar Government. So yes, no one should be trusted until there is some consensus from multiple outside sources of the facts.

We have access now to media from around the world, from all continents so we are not dependent on just the Western or Russian media.

[Rex]

370. Very true. Taking news from just one source is always a bad idea.

It is one reason that Foxnews viewers actually know LESS about current events than people that do not watch any news.

[leftstreet]

363. DURec

[samsingh]

377. they shouldn't be called media

[stonecutter357]

379. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017205001