General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPat Buchanan just said that Russia Today "is in many ways a good channel"
He said it on McLaughlin
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sad to see Al Jazeera America shutting down.
kimbutgar
(21,148 posts)And Ed Schultz is also a propagandist because Thom is on RT and Ed is starting a new show later this month.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I can even watch the Faux News channel with no ill effects (beside a small rise in blood pressure). The choices of good news channels is getting slimmer and slimmer.
i can also admit that RT does have some good programs on.
brewens
(13,586 posts)else they put on.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)That's my problem with Hartmann and the rest on there. It's like watching "liberals" on Fox.
kimbutgar
(21,148 posts)On his show he has right, center and left panelists and the discussions are insightful and get heated. It is Nothing like the fake liberals on fox.
brewens
(13,586 posts)is more than happy to see their attacks on the western elite Thom and Max can be giving it to us straight, even though they are on RT. Now Ed's going to be on there too.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)does with them, but he and his show are not under any paradigm where RT would 'give him control'. It's a deal favorable to Thom's bottom line for the use of the facilities which includes their right to broadcast his show, which is not an exclusive right. The show is not an RT production an it is entirely owned by Hartman and his production company, meaning him and his family. Any influence they had on content would be because Thom allowed it, the only thing they could do to control what he puts on air would be to pull that show.
That said, I was a huge Thom fan and I do not care for any legitimization of non Union TV facilities nor for media owned by anti gay entities, private or government. I would never do that myself. I would not be on any outlet to make profit if that outlet was owned by people who oppressed Hartman's faith group or people of his sexuality or ethnicity. I wish he had the same standards I do but he does not. I have no reason to offer him my custom.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)and that's disgusting
Hartmann did not address the crisis in Ukraine on his television program, but during his radio program earlier in the day he discussed the situation with Stephen Cohen, who has written recent pieces in The Nation magazine entitled "Demonizing Putin" and "Distorting Russia." During the interview, Hartmann and Cohen accepted as fact the conspiracy theory thatsnipers on the side of the new anti-Russia government fired on their own side in the main square in Kiev so that the now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych would be blamed.
Hartmann and Cohen also referred the new anti-Russian Ukrainian government as "extremists." "The extremists came to power sharing, they are sharing power now," Cohen said, to Hartmann's agreement. "Obama unwisely keeps declaring the government in Kiev as legitimate," Cohen added.
The Ukrainian governing coalition involves power-sharing between several parties, one of which, Svoboda, is ultranationalist with fascist roots.
Hartmann suggested that the new anti-Russia government in Ukraine were neo-Nazis. "If you listen to the words of these guys in the cabinet, if you listen to the words of the party, they are openly antisemitic, they are openly nationalistic, they are open aggressive," Hartmann said. "Some may think calling them Nazis is a slur, some of them wouldn't refer to themselves that way, but some of them embrace swastikas."
Hartmann has in the past defended Russia on issues like gay rights, saying that Russia is not as bad as Saudi Arabia in terms of gay rights while pointing out that the United States did to give women the right to vote until 1920.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)The networks would never touch Hartmann. He definitely does his own thing. He debates rightwingers all the time, and his ideas are liberal. MSNBC is like watching "Fox" for liberals. MSNBC lost it's objectivity in the run up to the IIRC the 2010 elections. Rachel used to be a truth seeker. Then they figured out that objectivity leads to criticism, and criticism might cost Dems seats. So MSNBC became Fox.
MADem
(135,425 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)Damned propaganda! It's everywhere: NYT, WashPost, LATimes, Chicago Tribune...and that's just print media!
You are truly poutraged! Don't blame you...it's a bitch out there.
PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)seems like something a right-wing reactionary would like, seeing that there are very few bleeding-heart platitudes to fuck with his head.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)For some reason these old cold warriors have embraced Russia over the last couple years. I think it's because they see Putin as an opponent to Obama. And when it comes to choosing Obama or Putin, they chose Putin. It's pathetic how much they have devolved.
dembotoz
(16,804 posts)if we accept as true the possibility that main stream media leaves ...... holes in there coverage
tried to be civil.....
alternative media fills a void
i used to listen to shortwave a fair amount and was always amazed that there was stuff going on that we had nary a clue about...
something big happens in africa or south america and we are all shocked and surprised.
if we had been paying attention....well that is quite the request isn't it.
understand they may have an ax to grind but so does fox