Demanding uncritical fealty to a media personality

[BainsBane]

74. "proof of fealty to Russia"

There is a lot deeply disturbing about your post, and I wrote a long response yesterday but didn't post it.
I will try to edit it down to a couple of responses now.

I have read similar things about The Nation, and similar suggestions of a fealty to Russia.
View profile
What I have not seen to date, about either The Nation or Thomm Hartmann, is actual proof of any such fealty.

Where do I say Hartman is loyal to Russia?

The point of this post was to respond to effort to ensure that someone purporting to convey an argument by Hartman not be fact checked. No amount of posts about how Harman is a hero or how people who citicize anything he says are "unprogressive' or unAmerican", or whatever fucking ruse is drummed up, changes the fact that the post claiming to convey Hartman's message relied on factual errors.

Ronald Reagan did not promise Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand in 1990 because Reagan wasn't president in 1990. And Gorbachev himself has said no such promises were made to him in those negotiations.

Editorial bias is not something that is "proved" through receipts. It is something readers with critical thinking skills can discern from the content of the publication. The Russia coverage in the Nation is obviously influenced by vanden Heuvel's marraige to Steve Cohen, who is a Putin apologist. Now obviously that doesn't concern you since you've decided the important message to convey is that there is "no proof" of Russian interference in the election.

If Hartman is in now way influenced by the fact he appears on and is paid by the propaganda arm of the Kremlin, I'm sure you can point to stories he's done critical of Putin and Russian interference in our election. Or how about something on the billions of dollars the Kremlin has funneled to Trump and his associates?