uhnope
uhnope's JournalOK prove me wrong, Zeemike, that you are not a supporter of fascism in Russia
Tell us what you think of Putin and his gay-bashing anti-democratic regime, since you claim not to be a fan.
Don't forget to mention
-the anti-gay laws and demonizing gays
-the deaths and imprisonment of journalists
-the deaths and imprisonment of liberals and opposition figures
-the dismantling of the independent media
-the "Nashi" Kremlin & crony sponsored Putin Youth of who harass & beat Putin opponents & those resisting shakedowns
-the talk of "New Russia" as part Russia expanding by taking over other countries
-the lies that Russia does not have soldiers in Ukraine
-Putin's theft of millions of rubles, starting with food aid money while St. Petersburg starved in the 1990s
-the neo-nazi gangs that terrorize gays, liberals, judges and journalists--and that has been tied to Putin's advisor
I'll be glad to provide links to any of these. Here's one, while we're waiting.
billhicks76: your CT would be hilarious if not for the outright lying
billhicks76: The NSA online efforts were very specifically aimed at websites in the Middle East and were designed to cut down on the number of young Arab men being recruited into extremist beliefs via ISIS, Al Qaeda etc. The languages used were specific to that region. So not English and not in the USA. If you read those articles you know the truth--and therefore if you're trying to portray them otherwise now you're lying. So either you're sorely mistaken (ignorant of what you cite) or you are making shit up for the sake of your CT.
Stop using the term "MSM" or "Mainstream Media" It's a BS term invented by the RW.
I've noticed that it's usually CTers and what I call the Orthodox Left (those that think RT is a legitimate news source) that use the term "mainstream media" or "MSM" on DU.
Here's Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas on the subject back in 2007:
It's become in vogue by progressives to adopt the right-wing acronym "MSM" to refer to the "mainstream media". It's quite common on this site as well as elsewhere (Arianna uses it here).
I've written before about this (too lazy to search for it). It's a ridiculous term to adopt.
First of all, it's a right-wing pejorative, and I'd rather we not adopt their language and frames.
But more importantly, by calling them "mainstream media", we are saying that we ourselves aren't mainstream, and that's not something I'm willing to concede. This site gets far more readers than most "mainstream media" publications, so why are they mainstream, while we are, by definition, the fringe?
Let the right wingers place themselves out of the mainstream. That's where they belong, with Mr. 25% and the dead-enders who believe fairy tales of a pacified, democratic, pro-Israel Iraq and raft-building kangaroos.
Read more
Mouslitsas essentially predicted the future. As this analysis of Nate Silver and the 2012 election shows, it was the GOP's shunning of the "MSM" that divorced it from reality so badly that they actually thought that Romney was going to win:
Nate Silver was right. His ideological antagonists were wrong. And that's just the beginning of the right's self-created information disadvantage.
...
Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike four years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday's result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout -- Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes.... Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.
Those audiences were misinformed.
Substitute RT for FOX News, Counterpunch for the Drudge Report, "The Real News Network" (I just can't write that without quotes) plus Ring of Fire for talk radio, and sources like Firedoglake.com, ConsortiumNews, Robert Parry, & John Pilger for conservative blogs. You end up with the same separation from reality that got the GOP in big trouble.
Now, I know the New York Times, and most of the traditional media, horribly blew it during the WMD days. They will continue to be less than perfect at best and to be blowing it again at worst. But that doesn't mean we ignore the entire traditional media; what that means is we have to use these sources critically; to take the info as part of our general background of knowledge. It's totally ridiculous to say you'll never believe the "MSM" ever again; in fact I notice those that use the term as a punching bag are the first to cite the traditional media when it supports them. They just don't like the news that disagrees with their dogma.
I read tons of news from different sources. Many news magazines are doing great journalism, to not much notice. I read magazines like The Economist because the scholarship and breadth of their reporting is outstanding, but I know that their fiscal conservatism limits what they present.
I listen to Democracy Now, and I suggest that those who need convincing on this subject do what I do, in reverse. I listen to Democracy Now because they cover stories that are not covered very often in the broadcast media, but I listen to it with my critical filters turned on, because I sometimes find them to be less than thorough, a bit lazy, and a bit too Orthodox Left. That's the same way you take the traditional media--don't automatically believe everything you hear, but don't mindlessly reject it all, either.
And in the meantime, stop saying "MSM". It looks stupid.
Don't link to COUNTERPUNCH. It's a far-RW racist trojan horse (No Click On It)
Most DUers already know that Counterpunch has no credibility, but this new analysis is the final nail in the CP coffin. They draw you in with Chomsky or Amy Goodman but they mostly publish far-right, racist (white supremacist) authors.
ON EDIT: And clicking on CP gives them revenue so don't do it (Hat tip NuclearDem)
http://meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org/post/2015/07/19/counterpunch-or-suckerpunch/
CounterPunch, which bills itself as ‘America’s best political newsletter’, offering ‘independent investigative journalism’, tends to figure quite prominently in the reading lists of left-leaning activists, who doubtlessly appreciate its consistent antiwar stance, its critical analysis on US economic and foreign policy and US-sponsored Israeli apartheid, and the regular contributions from such leading Left writers as John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Paul Street, Jeremy Scahill, and Tariq Ali. Indeed, CounterPunch generally tends to be thought of as a Left media outlet. However, in writing for, and sharing articles published on, CP, Leftists are unwittingly helping to promote the agenda of the far right.
...
In addition to the authors relied on by CP for its left cred, ‘America’s best political newsletter’ also regularly publishes ‘independent investigative journalism’ by a wide variety of white supremacists, including Paul Craig Roberts, editor of the white nationalist website VDare, Ron Paul (who poses for photo ops with neo-Nazis and warns of ‘race war’), and Alison Weir, holocaust denier Israel Shamir, and that perennial saboteur of the Palestinian solidarity movement, Gilad Atzmon, author of the racist The Wandering Who.
Although there are some who have expressed concern on this problematic mix, when I have raised this issue in discussions with others in left activist circles, I have often found that it is dismissed as a triviality. In these discussions, the white supremacist contingent tends to be attributed to an unwillingness to bow to ‘political correctness’ or a mere desire to ‘piss off liberals’, and generally believed to be an insignificant deviation from an otherwise clear leftist editorial line, the sort of thing only an ‘ideological purist’ could get excited about.
My own research into the editorial practices at CounterPunch shows otherwise. Not only have white supremacist authors long been a fixture at CP; their ideology is shared by members of the editorial collective. All in all, it is entirely reasonable to say that the formation of a Querfront (an alliance between the far right and the left) is a longstanding project of the newsletter, consistently endorsed by the decisions taken by CP editors and their own stated positions.
READ IT http://meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org/post/2015/07/19/counterpunch-or-suckerpunch/
Purveyor: Your defense of linking to terrorist websites has been noted
"You stick with your propaganda and I'll stick with mine." WOW
Putin apologia and RT BS knows no limits. + Golden Rolodex
It's getting bizarre. Why does a progressive and probably antiwar website let active proponents of an actual fascist regime, that is actively waging war, run wild? Criticize them and you get:
LEAVE PUTIN ALONE! LEAVE RT ALONE
Ever notice that the Putin sympathizers repeat the same few sources over and over again?
They seem to have a fondness for the anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying website:
"Vineyard of the Saker"
Holocaust denial: http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2011/03/predictably-youtube-censors-alan.html
Here's a good DU summary showing how the website says the Ukrainian gov't is "99% comprised of Jewish Zionists" : http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016100356#post26
DU has been not allowing this website to be linked to for some time, because it's a lot like Stormfront or Vdare: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014808123#post4
The washed-up apologists club:
The most laughable: Robert Parry. Back in the 80s he did good work; now he's a bad joke. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=854333
Oh yes (Haters hate Putin because he's been too peaceful)
& his Consortium News http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=854333
Common Dreams
John Pilger. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017234336
Stephen Cohen. The once-respected scholar has so embarrassed himself lately that academia doesn't want money if his name is on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016112713#post2
see also http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251357086#post1
see also https://disunitedstates.org/?p=6170
And where does this money in Cohen's name come from? His one-percenter wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of The Nation. Speaking of which:
The Nation http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/stephen_cohen_vladimir_putin_s_apologist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.html
Lawrence Wilkerson: Good whistleblower gone bad--now he's a professional gadfly/conspiracy theorist who goes on the Kremlin media to self-promote his very wrong predictions about the always-evil US.
I hate to add:
Seymour Hersh (great work during the Vietnam War but now he's lost it, having devolved into "the US must be wrong in every conflict" territory)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=748466
Thom Hartmann--I agree with Hartmann's politics 99% of the time, but having his show on RT has really made him knuckle under to the guy paying his rent.
And these:
Of course Russia Today AKA Putin TV
Counterpunch: they've really lost it
PFIP
------------------
More:
Glenn Greenwald: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/u-s-critic-blind-to-putin-media-control-cathy-young-1.7346637
Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025726000
Someone possibly named Michael Collins: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1403/S00159/the-childrens-crusade-obama-and-merkel-go-after-russia.htm
---------------------
More:
There's definitely something fishy about "The Real News Network"
TYT Flashback: RT reporter says “Every single day we’re lying and finding sexier ways to do it.”
Earlier this year, during the Russian invasion of Crimea, RT anchor Liz Wahl resigned on-air, refusing to be "part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin." (Fellow anchor Abby Martin also criticized the network, but still works there.) Following yesterday's anti-Ukraine coverage of the passenger jet shot out of the sky, another journalist has quit in a very public way. But at least it wasn't on TV. Just Twitter."* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz (Turner Classic Movies), Michael Shure, and John Iadarola (TYT University) break it down.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/russia-today-correspondent-resigns-over-coverage-of-ukranian?bftw=main#.ctd7R3WLk
That's fascinating conspiracy theory
I've noticed that magical thinking, conspiracy theorizing and pure projection is common to many who, for whatever reason, need to defend the homophobic totalitarianism of Putin (and this thinking just happens to perfectly match Putin's own propaganda.) Your post is a good example.
You jump from an article about the distaste in academia for Cohen's embarrassing public appearances and writings, which have really gone overboard in the last year, and instantly start to talk about a conspiracy by "neocons/neolibs" to "restart the Cold War."
Some notable questions about your rant:
In what alternate universe has the Obama administration tried to "disallow" people from watching RT? What the heck are you referring to when you cite a "serious...violation of the Rights of Americans to watch, read anything they want to pay for." And don't you feel just a bit strange saying this, since Putin really has shut down nearly all independent media in Russia?
(This is a rhetorical question. Putin sympathizers on DU never answer questions about their defense of Putin's basically fascist ways.)
So let me engage in some conspiratorial speculation of my own: This Dissertation Fellowship money that Cohen's wife, a member of the 1%, wanted to donate to promote Cohen's name--I bet Cohen also wanted to control who gets it, so that he can influence the amount of Putin toadies in academia, and that's another reason the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies balked at taking his wife's dirty money.
1000 lashes for Saudi blogger for insulting Islam. Please sign Amnesty International petition
http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1770&ea.campaign.id=32768Fascinating read: In-depth story of Ukrainian president's fall from grace. Not exactly a CIA plot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html?_r=0A combination of pro-EU protests occupying the main square, rumors that the protesters might soon receive serious weapons, chaos during changing events, and incompetence/corruption at the highest levels led to Yanukovych suddenly without any supporters, without any security protecting him or even his house. He now lives in Russia.
Interviews with the main players.
Sorry, Nuland Conspiracy Buffs: not a CIA plot in sight, actually. It's more the old Eastern Europe tale of a cynical security-state apparatus that recognized when a leader was suddenly powerless (and that knew the leader was beholden to another country, anyway.)
Key line: "Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin’s line" (about a western plot) --but somehow, many Putin explainers repeat it here on a regular basis
Ashen-faced after a sleepless night of marathon negotiations, Viktor F. Yanukovych hesitated, shaking his pen above the text placed before him in the chandeliered hall. Then, under the unsmiling gaze of European diplomats and his political enemies, the beleaguered Ukrainian president scrawled his signature, sealing a deal that he believed would keep him in power, at least for a few more months.
But even as Mr. Yanukovych sat down with his political foes at the presidential administration building on the afternoon of Friday, Feb. 21, his last authority was fast draining away. In a flurry of frantic calls to opposition lawmakers, police officials and security commanders were making clear that they were more worried about their own safety than protecting Mr. Yanukovych and his government.
By that evening, he was gone, evacuated from the capital by helicopter, setting the stage for the most severe bout of
Russia has attributed Mr. Yanukovych’s ouster to what it portrays as a violent, “neo-fascist” coup supported and even choreographed by the West and dressed up as a popular uprising. The Kremlin has cited this assertion, along with historical ties, as the main justification for its annexation of Crimea in March and its subsequent support for an armed revolt by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine’s industrial heartland in the east.
Few outside the Russian propaganda bubble ever seriously entertained the Kremlin’s line. But almost a year after the fall of Mr. Yanukovych’s government, questions remain about how and why it collapsed so quickly and completely.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Sep 23, 2011, 05:20 PMNumber of posts: 6,419