MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and of course FOX are not news organizations

[Taverner]

They are English-language outlets for Corporate and Right Wing propaganda. They (especially FOX) tailor their message to the proles by selectively 'reporting' what people already want to hear, making up other items out of thin air, and omitting anything and everything that might call into question the views they are peddling.

Don't believe the hype.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Taverner.

[freshwest]

2. Nice reply. I just put that gang on Ignore and it's not lunch time yet.

[cali]

20. lol. people who put folks on ignore because their opinions differ

crack me up.

[phleshdef]

21. I consider it pure cowardice.

[dionysus]

3. this is the lamest way to defend russian and iranian propaganda, really it is...

:rofl:

[Taverner]

4. OK - so you honestly believe RT is propaganda, and MSNBC and co. isn't?

Their coverage of the Iraq war - was not propaganda?

Their coverage (or non-coverage) of the Wisconsin protests was not propaganda?

Now, I would agree that pretty much all news orgs are biased - that's impossible to avoid

And yes, RT is biased in favor of Russia. Just like our news orgs are biased in favor of corporate America. After all, a news org almost always reflects the opinions of its owner.

Christian Science Monitor (can't you just feel the irony here?) is the closest to 'objective' reporting out there - and even still there's bias

But most of RT stories include multiple sources. There is NEVER more than 2 sources in Corporate News

[dionysus]

5. our media has a lot of garbage in it. that's not a reason for me to trust RT and pressTV.

[Taverner]

6. Hell don't trust ANYONE

Or rather, Trust, but verify

When you read a story, check out other versions of that story

Look for holes

Ask yourself "what questions weren't answered in that story?" Then go looking for those questions.

Newsreading is an active search, not a passive one

[bvar22]

29. Absolutely!

+1

[oldlib]

15. What is RT?

[JohnyCanuck]

17. Russia Today (rt.com)

In their own words:

At RT we are set to step beyond the boundaries of bare facts and bring you the human side to every story. Broadcasting in English 24/7 in over 100 countries spread over five continents, RT is here to show you how any story can be another story altogether.

Our correspondents in New York and Washington, London and Paris, Delhi and Tel Aviv focus on international headlines whilst giving an innovative angle set to challenge viewers worldwide. RT was the first television station in the world to set up a bureau in Tskhinval, the capital of South Ossetia after the August 2008 conflict.

The channel

Launched in 2005, RT has speedily reached the heights of broadcasting popularity. In 2008 the monthly audience among those who have access or are aware of RT’s broadcasts on Time Warner Cable in NYC exceeds the one of BBC America by 11%. The daily audience of RT exceeds that of Deutsche Welle tenfold, within the same network.*

snip

RT anytime, anywhere

We are available around the world on cable, satellite and online. In Europe, South Africa and North America, RT has an audience of around 200 million paying viewers among the pay-TV subscribers. RT was the first Russian news channel to harness intercontinental potential and have its live broadcast show on America’s “most important screens” – NASDAQ and Reuters.
Likewise, in August 2007, RT was the first channel in television history to report live from the North Pole.

http://rt.com/about/corporate-profile/

[sabrina 1]

31. Hillary did say they wanted money to 'get their message out'

because news orgs like RT and Al Jazeera were 'real news' and 'they are good, I've seen them'.

Congratulate yourself for falling for the propaganda.

I watch RT now that we are getting it here and it is, so far, the best International news programming we get.

Great unbiased coverage of world news, it is balanced and has great documentaries and discussions where people are actually challenged on all sides for their views.

I knew it wouldn't be long before the attacks would begin just like they did on Al Jazeera.

They should not waste their money, both networks have a huge worldwide audience, and few will be influenced by U.S. propaganda against them.

I hope we'll be getting Al Jazeera soon also but if not, it's available online.

:kick: for RT

[dionysus]

34. Al Jazeera isn't the same as Iranian or Russian state sponsored propaganda.

but hell, if you like iranian TV because it tries to make us look bad, knock yourself out.

[sabrina 1]

35. RT is not Iranian tv. And Al Jazeera is a Qatar sponsored

organization.

RT and Al Jazeera are very similar in their international coverage.

Talk to Hillary about it, she views both RT and Al Jazeera as 'real news'. But hey, if you want to join the propagandists who attack anything that gives balanced news to the American people, knock yourself out.

[dionysus]

36. ok, let me specify. this thread came about because in a different thread,

someone (rightly) pointed out the PressTV (thats the iranian state sponsored channel) was a biased source.

i personally like AJE broadcasts that i've seen. i have nothing against them.

[sabrina 1]

37. Yes, I saw the thread. I am not familiar with PressTV so

cannot comment on it. But I am familiar with RT as we now get it on our cable lineup.

I remember when Al Jazeera was demonized in this country also, the Bush administration called them a 'terrorist supporting organization' and actually killed one of their journalists at the beginning of the Iraq War. Then they bombed their headquarters.

I decided to check them out at that point, since nothing the Bush War Criminals had to say was credible to me. And I understood after viewing them for a while why they were targeted by the Bush administration and have used them as a source ever since.

Now I see the same thing starting regarding RT. But it's a shame to see it coming from our side this time.

I find their programming to be very similar to Al Jazeera's on international affairs. They have good discussions with many prominent Americans both Democrats and Republicans. And some of their documentaries are excellent. There are a few of their programs I do not like very much like every other network, but I agree with Hillary Clinton, they are 'doing a very good job' of bringing 'real news' to the public.

I think it's a good thing to see news from different sources. We are capable of putting it all together and making up our own minds as to what is fact and what is propaganda.

Oh yes, and their weather coverage is probably the worst I've ever seen.

[SidDithers]

7. nevermind...

Edited out needlessly snarky comment.

Sid

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. many of us have known this for a few decades...I'm glad to see that many more are waking up. oh it

also hold true for print news ...and publishing houses. they are all corporate owned.

[truebrit71]

9. This is to many the same as discovering that water is wet...

..some have known it all along, others have just recently figured it out..

[indimuse]

10. KNR! n/t

[Obamanaut]

11. .

[AsahinaKimi]

12. There is no such thing as news anymore..

its Infotainment, apparently.

[xchrom]

13. recommend

[JohnyCanuck]

14. Just one example of why it's silly to trust mainstream media

to provide accurate and relevant coverage of events.

In a 1999 civil suit brought by the King family against a suspected conspirator, Loyd Jowers, and unnamed co-conspirators, the jury found that the MLK assassination was a result of a conspiracy involving, not just Jowers, but agencies of the US government. The trial and the jury's verdict itself got next to no coverage in the mainstream media. There might have been a one-off mention in a few newspaper at the end of the trial when the verdict was announced, and then the matter was just dropped and forgotten.

Dr. Martin Luther King assassinated by US government: MLK civil trial verdict

Martin Luther King’s family and his attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty in the wrongful death of Martin Luther King. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were denied, as suspect James Ray’s recant of what he claimed was a false confession was denied.

For comparison, please consider the concentrated media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials. (my emphasis /JC)

The overwhelming evidence of government complicity introduced and agreed as comprehensively valid by the jury includes the 111th Military Intelligence Group were sent to Dr. King’s location, and that the usual police protection was pulled away just before the assassination. Military Intelligence set-up photographers on a roof of a fire station with a clear view to Dr. King’s balcony. 20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day. Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper team. Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.

http://dailycensored.com/2011/01/16/dr-martin-luther-king-assassinated-by-us-government-mlk-civil-trial-verdict/

During the course of this trial expert testimony was provided to the court by lawyer William Schaap on the extent to which mainstream media (and not just in the USA) has been co-opted by US government agencies like the FBI, CIA etc. for propaganda purposes and for use in psyops against targets of US government displeasure.

To watch Schaap's testimony on Youtube, click on this link and check for "MLK - Testimony of William Schaap" in the playlists on the right. Click on it, and the list of 8 videos will pop up and if you click on the first video they should play in a continuous stream so you don't have to start each one individually. The closing summation to the jury by the King family lawyer, Dr. William Pepper, (10 videos) is also interesting as in it he reviews the evidence the jury has heard over the course of the trial which lead them to conclude MLK died as a result of a conspiracy involving agencies of the US government. Check for the playlist MLK Closing Statement at the above link.

[JohnyCanuck]

26. Mainstream journalists know that there are areas where they dare not tread

And if they don't, they will find out when they meet the buzzsaw.

Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press

Snip from Publishers Weekly editorial review posted at Amazon.com:

In this uneven yet illuminating anthology, editor Borjesson succinctly explains the journalist's predicament: "The buzzsaw is what can rip through you when you try to investigate or expose anything this country's large institutions be they corporate or government want kept under wraps." Indeed, if members of the general public read this book, or even portions of it, they will be appalled. To the uninitiated reader, the accounts of what goes on behind the scenes at major news organizations are shocking. Executives regularly squelch legitimate stories that will lower their ratings, upset their advertisers or miff their investors. Unfortunately, this dirt is unlikely to reach unknowing news audiences, as this volume's likely readership is already familiar with the current state of journalism.

http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-LEADING-JOURNALISTS-EXPOSE/dp/1591022304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301667053&sr=1-1

Flexing the Power of the Press
Kristina Borjesson talks about "Into the Buzzsaw" and her excommunication from mainstream journalism after she began challenging government assertions about TWA Flight 800.
April 23, 2002


Kristina Borjesson never expected to write an exposé of the business she'd devoted her life to. A 20-year veteran of mainstream journalism, she was a successful insider who produced for the country's most well-regarded news shows, including Frontline and 60 Minutes. Working with industry stars including Dan Rather, she'd won one Emmy and had been nominated for others. She said she imagined spending the rest of her life "going around the world, doing the stories, doing documentaries, having a great time and putting out important information."

As she writes in her book "Into the Buzzsaw", "Trust me, never in a million years did I ever imagine that I'd find myself in my current position as some kind of rebel trying to take on America's journalism establishment. I was reared a member of Haiti's Morally Repugnant Elite‚ and educated, for the most part, in private institutions, including Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. Not a thing in my frankly elitist background prepared me for this experience."

The experience she's talking about is her excommunication from mainstream journalism for digging too deep on the TWA 800 story, which she'd been assigned to research for CBS. Like the other reporters whose stories she collected in "Into the Buzzsaw," she essentially lost her job for doing it too well.

snip

Besides, those who challenge the powerful are likely to be denied access in the future, and a journalist without access to top people is at a huge professional disadvantage. Michael Levine, a DEA agent turned drug war critic and best-selling author who now works with Borjesson, recalls "icing out" a CBS executive who challenged the authenticity of a major DEA raid. "He had no access and it hurt his career," says Levine. More often than not, the threat was enough to make news organizations compliant. "Quite frankly, when I was a DEA officer, I was astonished at how easy it was for our public affairs people to put out anything they wanted," Levine says.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12941/?page=1

[Junkdrawer]

16. K&R

[cali]

18. I'm not going to argue whether they are or aren't but with the exception

of Fox, they all do a lot of legitimate reporting.

[cali]

19. I'm going to expand on my first response.

Sorry, but a propaganda outlet would not air Rachel or Ed.

[Shagbark Hickory]

23. Oh Please. Ed and Rachel are the biggest propaganda of all.

They make you think they're on your side with their friendly-speak and their apparent stance on some issues. But ya ever notice that the bulk of those shows is spent re-airing what was aired on the other networks? And ya ever notice how these two set the tone with their opinion?
The last time I watched Rachel and Ed was when during the wisconsin demonstrations. Both of them carried on about how these demonstrations were going to be so effective because people were being so well behaved. Obviously Government in Wisconsin didn't want any resistance and they didn't get any.
Rachel also mentioned at the time there was this very common-sense bill by some rethuglican in texas, trying to create a law (in texas) that penalized corporations for hiring undocumented workers but didn't penalize individuals. This would be the stance that our side would take. Go after the corporations that put slaves in the fields and food processing plants. Not the people. She accused this politician in texas for being a hypocrite instead of pointing that it was something both parties could agree on. You know, we don't have to argue with them on every single thing. If the thugs came out with a universal nationalized healthcare plan TODAY, these two clowns would try to tell us how it's bad. And I find out now that Ed supports the Libya war? There's something fishy about that network.

They don't give you any news at all on that network. And between the hours of 5 and 11, it's all highly suspect. I also think they have too much loyalty to the administration just as fox did with the bush white house.

msnBS lost me as a viewer because I'm not a sheep.

[cali]

24. right. Rachel is just pretending. she's really on their side. She's just a clown.

oh please.

[Upton]

27. Both Rachel and Ed have become cheerleaders

for the war in Libya. Nothing more than administration mouthpieces. It's propaganda.

[Shagbark Hickory]

28. That's all I'm sayin'.

[RZM]

22. Not sure I totally agree with this post. But at least it's well-written

;)

[hifiguy]

25. They are every bit as trustworthy

as Pravda and TASS were for Russians back in the Soviet days.

[Mnemosyne]

30. All propaganda, all the time. K&R n/t

[sabrina 1]

32. Karl Rove is a respected 'brilliant political strategist'

on the U.S. media. Newt Gingrich, and until he was actually convicted, Tom Delay (often seen on Chris Matthews expressing his 'views' on politics), Dick Cheney, I think they fall all over themselves to get his opinions, Rumsfeld, and now on Libya, Paul Wolfowitz (CNN), are some of the very reputable guests from whom we get our political views here in the U.S. Not once have I ever seen anyone stop them and bring up the lies they told and ask they why anyone should believe a word they say.

Take CNN eg, on the woman who was raped in Libya. It's right to cover that story, but where are their stories on the Somali women, some raped, others missing? I haven't seen anything about them yet because to report that news would be to interfere with the message which is to get people to cheerlead for an invasion.

CNN used to be good, but now they are Fox lite. People now have other options though, so the 'message' isn't working so well anymore.

We get no investigative journalism. I wonder if there are any investigative journalists left in this country, other than on PBS. Even NPR falls all over itself to try to appease the right in order to keep their government funding.

Americans are the least informed people regarding news in the civilized world.

[liberal life]

33. This is exactly the reason this site was created

It is a news feed like google without the corporate crap


http://fucorporatemedia.com/