Cornel West: As Obama becomes ‘a puppet,’ America in the midst of a ‘radical democratic awakening’

[Playinghardball]

Source: RawReplay
By Stephen C. Webster

Black intellectual and Princeton professor Cornel West was once a vocal supporter of President Barack Obama. Today, that’s changed — a lot.

Speaking to Russia Today, West explained that in his view, Obama has morphed into “a centrist leaning toward the right” who acts as “a puppet of big business” at home and promotes “liberal neoconservatism” in lands abroad.

Amid it all, West said that Americans of all political stripes are in the throes of a “radical democratic awakening,” at least partially brought about by the lack of change brought by the so-called change candidate, Mr. Obama.

This video is from Russia Today, broadcast Monday, April 4, 2011

Video at: http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/cornel-west-as-obama-becomes-a-puppet-america-in-the-midst-of-a-radical-democratic-awakening/

[emulatorloo]

1. Russia Today? seriously? n/t

[villager]

4. Cornel West. Seriously.

n/t

[Bandit]

37. Barack Obama...seriously

:shrug:

[villager]

51. agreed -- we were seriously misled.

Alas.

[roguevalley]

62. someone has already called people who disagree with Obama's

actions and policy 'cornell wilde dems' on the list already. cute.

[gimama]

117. awwwsome! :D nt

[defendandprotect]

227. Democrats have to understand Repugs didn't do all this damage alone -- DLC/Koch ...

The Democratic Party haa harbored Koch-funded DLC for almost two decades now!!

Rahm Emmanuel, DLC headed up the Obama administration in the White House!!

Was that by accident?

Wm. Greider back in 1992 -- in his book "Who Will Tell The People?" makes clear

that in 1978 -- pre-Reagan -- Demcorats were collaborating with Repugs on knocking

out the Tax Code for the benefit of the rich!!


This is sure going to be one hell of a brutal awakening when it comes!!!

[Deep13]

250. With respect, not all of us were. nt

[RZM]

13. RT is apparently pretty popular here

I think it's rather sad, actually. Unfortunately, for many people a 'real' news organization is one that tells them exactly what they want to hear.

I don't think it's wrong to give Cornel West some time and I certainly think this piece accurately reflects his views. But don't hold your breath for a follow up with a guest that presents an opposing viewpoint. This is the perception of Obama that RT wants to sell.

[EFerrari]

19. West is consistent no matter where he appears.

Democracy Now, RT, AJ, Tavis Smiley, BookTv, Thom Hartmann, Grit Tv.

[RZM]

27. I'm not faulting West for believing what he does

I said as much in the post above. I've seen him elsewhere too and this piece seems to accurately reflect his views. It's not West's responsibility to get a different take on this, it's RT's. And rest assured, they won't be doing that, because they are in the business of presenting one side of the argument.

[truedelphi]

82. Can you name any newsorganization that does present both sides ?

I sure haven't seen any news org present two sides of the political spectrum in this day
and age.

The mainstream media seems very Rah Rah Rah Reagan, while forgetting that Reagan was far more liberal than almost anyone in office today.

The mainstream media presents a view point that adores money, big money, banking, big banking, RW views, and deplores any view point that might actually consider the needs of the working person (Whose taxes actually pay for the Bank Bailouts, the Defense proggrams etc)

Then you have Obama cheerleaders like Rachel Maddow. (she used to be a bit more balanced, but then Obama gave his approval to one or two things she wanted, and now she seems very much a cheerleader.)

I just don't see much that is "fair and balanced."

[RZM]

94. This isn't about our media

Our media isn't perfect. Much of it is inane bullshit. But there's some good reporting here and there. I think that painting the entire MSM in the US with the broad brush of 'useless' oversimplifies things to say the least. I see POVs in our media that I like and I see those that I don't like.

Now, my turn.

Are you troubled by RT's funding sources? Does it matter to you that its content is brought to you by a regime that suppresses democracy and receives the lowest ranking possible by Freedom House? Are you troubled that they are using the Western left to promote said regime's agenda, despite the fact that many Russians who share the same progressive ideals strongly oppose the same government that funds RT? Do you think Alex Jones' views are credible?

[truedelphi]

213. I used to laugh myself silly over Alex Jones' statements.

And the views of his guests. Now don't take this to mean that I believe every single thing that is said on one of his shows BUT

But so many things that he has worried his listeners about, from the housing bubble predictions experts made on his show, several years before the 2006 housing crunch, to the demise of just about every thing that makes this nation a democracy have come true.

I think he may be part of a disinformation program, but he often has extremely valid people on, who bring to light views that the Big Industry Lords and Masters want to suppress.

And when I need to find out something about an issue, I look to any place where information might be stored. For instance, my article on the "2004 Stolen Election" was published on Rense, (not because I asked or even knew they put it there) long before it went viral on two hundred and fifty other sites. And it was a very well documented article, only the Powers that Be didn't want us to realize that Bush had not really won the election.

That's my two cents.

[freshwest]

247. Agreed.

[defendandprotect]

278. Agree --

[reggie the dog]

261. do you have a link to that article?

[truedelphi]

272. Oops, I spoke too soon.

For about six months, the back issues were unobtainable.

But apparently they' re back up.

here is the URL for the article I wrote:

http://www.coastalpost.com/04/12/01.htm.

On November 2, 2004, for the second time in 48 months, George W. Bush and his minions illegally altered the Presidential election results by enough of a count that he will again illegally occupy the White House for another four years.

How did this happen? Due to the new machinery purchased under the "Help America Vote Act," at least 29% of the American electorate had their vote counted on equipment that is tamper-friendly and that leaves no auditable paper trail. According to some observers, that statistic is shy of the actual reality-they say sixty to sixty-one million votes were counted on such machinery. This would mean that more than HALF the vote was counted by defective machinery.

Although Bev Harris and Andy Stephenson of Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org) had been patiently making the rounds of radio talk shows, and demonstrating to the press, to college campuses and to various Secretaries of State all across the nation, their pleas for the citizenry to demand a paper trail before November elections seemingly went unheard. Even MoveOn directors did not get it. A full year before the election, Harris tried to explain it to them: they could hold all the garage sales, and have all the voter registration drives that they wanted, but if it was left possible for the Dark Side to play around with a pool of 61 million votes, well, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the sad result.

Full article at the Above Listed URL

[freshwest]

285. Thank you. Never forget the coup. They're still using the same tactics, either.

[Hannah Bell]

304. get a grip. i stopped believing US media reported what was actually happening

when i went to wto in 1999. completely false reporting by both national & local media. if i hadn't been there i would have thought it was riots all day long for a week & black bloc on every corner.

freedom house is funded by the smith-richardson foundation; they also fund the right-wing think tanks aei & hudson institute, as well as RAND Corp & the council on foreign relations. they're also funded by the bradley foundation; they fund aei, heritage, federalist society, heartland society, & a host of other right-wing venues.

US media has a long history of collusion with intelligence services. US media is owned by the class that runs the country, i.e. the rich.

us media speaks for the most part from the pov of that class.

rt speaks for the ruling elites in russia.

you can't trust either. neither are "progressive" even when they pretend to be. big money funds both the right & the left & uses both, even here in the US.

[LooseWilly]

305. Interesting that you want to pretend our media, and relativity, aren't relevant.

That seems like an argument that can be paraphrased "do as I say, not as I do"... insofar as you are arguing against judging RT relative to concrete "examples" set by our own media... but rather seem to prefer to judge RT against the standards of US rhetoric that has been recycled as propaganda since WWII.

You admit, of US media, "Much of it is inane bullshit"... yet you hold RT to some sort of higher idealistic standard—why?

If "much of" US media "is inane bullshit"... why would you expect media competing in the same global corporate context out of Russia to—not also be "inane bullshit"?

And, while we're at it... I feel obliged to point out that you have not, by any stretch of the imagination, established that RT is, in fact "inane bullshit".

Where we stand now, in terms of proved/agreed points, is that much US media is "inane bullshit" and Russia Today is... also media (though not necessarily inane or bullshit... we haven't agreed on that... and no one has even tried to establish the point).

As to your assertions that Freedom House gives RT "the lowest possible ranking"... well that's not true (the honor goes to Eritrea—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index)... and the fact that your unsupported assertion is in fact untrue does tend to cast doubt on the veracity of the rest of your unsupported assertions (which would be all of your assertions).

Your further assertions that "its content is brought to you by a regime that suppresses democracy" is curious... as it doesn't actually say anything about the quality/integrity of the journalism in question, but rather something about the integrity of the process of voting and vote counting (and much the same could be said of Florida in 2000, or Ohio in 2004, not to mention Mexico under the PRI for most of the last century... none of which irregularities seem to lead to any condemnation of media associated media outlets by you... why not start pillorying Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty because it's US funded and there were so many recent irregularities in the US democratic process lately? ... and likewise I hear no praise for the 2007 Mexican reforms that banned political parties from advertising at all on major televisión networks {http://www.nowpublic.com/politics/mexican-reform-change-relationship-between-media-and-government}...)

I find the unbalanced nature of your criticisms to be unfair... (unfair and unbalanced... you like the way I weaved that in?)

But—let's just get to the real heart of the matter, why don't we. Wiki has a paragraph that sums it up nicely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_Russian_Federation)

Russian Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin reported in 2006, that suggesting that freedom of speech is non-existent in Russia would be an exaggeration, the constitutional right for speech freedom is basically observed, as well as there's no institutionalised censorship. Apparently for these very reasons journalists and publishers seldom appeal to the Commissioner protesting restrictions of their right of seeking, receiving, transferring, publishing or distributing information. Yet disguised restrictions exist to a considerable degree, they are often put through the economic pressure on mass media by the authorities and loyal business. The so-called "self-censorship" which induces journalists to refrain from disseminating information which, in their opinion, may not please the authorities, is also widespread. So in many places the right to praise the authorities is ensured, while the opposite right is just formally declared.<10>

My dear sir, the section I bolded is ironic, I would say, because it rather precisely defines, also, the system of "disguised censorship" that is practiced in the US media, by means of advertisers (Glen Beck might even be fired over it) as well as prosecutions of whistleblowers than might've mis-interpreted campaign talk of "transparency" (I recently remember hearing that Obama has been prosecuting whistleblowers at a rate that makes the W administration seem like amateurs... ohh, what the hell—I'll even spend the 85 seconds required to find a link: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/06/promises-promises-is-the-obama-doj-going-after-whistleblowers/ )

So, between the threats of advertisers pulling, the bosses doing whatever the bosses do (the Mystery of Keith Olbermann, which I haven't bothered to delve into actively), and the stepped up prosecution of whistleblowers ("economic pressure... by the authorities"—and legal as well)... it looks like the allegations leveled against RT could as easily be leveled against any US media organization.

If every allegation that can be leveled against RT can also be leveled against US media... then I propose the theory that what we are witnessing isn't something "shadowy" being perpetrated by RT... but rather one of two things: things "shadowy" being perpetrated by both Russia and the US to manipulate public opinions... or something capitalistic-esque being perpetrated by both Russian and US media companies looking for viewership.

So I, for one, am not troubled any more by RT being funded by the Russian government than I am by MSNBC being funded by GE... and I don't trust either of them on any point that doesn't "smell right"... any more than I have any faith whatsoever in your unfounded accusatorial innuendos.

[reggie the dog]

244. Le Monde, the BBC and the Guardian

[truedelphi]

245. Ah you are right about those three.

Thanks. (Though sometimes the BBC falls a bit short.)

[JackRiddler]

271. BBC? OMG, they're a state-run network! From an aggressor country!!!

Soon as UK soldiers gonna be in the dirt, they drop pretenses of showing all sides.

David Kelly would sing you a different song about them, if only he were alive to do so.

[reggie the dog]

289. i thought that the bbc were very critical of blair for his going to war

in Iraq

[JackRiddler]

290. Read up on David Kelly.

Everyone's "critical" afterwards, when it no longer counts.

[reggie the dog]

292. he is the guy that killed himself by shooting himself in the back of the

head isnt he? quite the feat shooting ones self in the back of the head

[JackRiddler]

294. No. Slit wrists with a near-crippled hand and many other inconsistencies.

[reggie the dog]

295. i got my unlikely suicides that are confirmed as suicides

mixed up.


your point has been taken

[Vincardog]

184. This 'both sides of the argument' meme is a typical of RW tactic to avoid the truth of a statement

and instead argue about process. Do you disagree with the view expressed in the OP?

[freshwest]

286. Thanks for working to get us back on the topic of the OP...

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

228. You're asking for a side which says Obama's corporate policies have helped America?

[RZM]

277. I'm asking for a counter to the view that he's a 'puppet'

Apparently on a 'democratic' board, that's too much to ask nowadays.

[Grinchie]

251. The Sad thing is that RT actually presents facts and alternative points of view

They also present stories that present things in a light favorable to certain people. Unfortunately, RT is only one of the outlets that the Alternative view has a chance to be presented, simply because the Mainstream Media is wholly invested in 99.5 percent Propaganda beneficial to the status quo and interested parties.

It is truly sad that one has to seek out facts on media presented by a foreing concern because it is blacked out on our own media channels.

For those people that dismiss RT outright, due to the fact that is Russian, are fools, because there is much valuable information available that is not tainted by the PTB controlling the American media. It is up to the viewer to interpret the data presented, and by all means verify through alternative means, but ridiculing it is no better than wearing blinders and sticking your head in the sand.

I can assure you that the NSA watches RT 24 hours a day...

Some of the first video of the Fukushima Reactors blowing up came from RT. Why? Because Vladivostok is just a short distance away and is directly in the line of contamination if the wind shifts..

In our indebted society, the PTB can easily make sure that certain people "NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN", so it is important that this vice grip control over free speech be dismantled by alternative sources that are not afraid of pissing off the PTB, like RT, and other foreign interests that are fully aware of the Hypocrysy of the US Government.

It's not a crime to lie, and the US Government knows this. It is a crime to collude to prevent a certain message that might damage a product line or harm public safety from being distributed.

[freshwest]

287. I'd trust (up to a point) any foreign source above our corporatist media.

We need data to make decisions, and they are suppressing it.

[Grinchie]

301. As always, one needs to verify just about everything these days

But the fact remains that we are all responsible for seeking out the truth, whatever the source, and determining if it is for real or for propaganda purposes. No media outlet is immune from Propagandaand misinformation, but it's usually very easy to spot.

Having said that, I tend to respect RT more than Fox News, as RT tends to present News and issues that are based on common sense and not emotion and fear.

[yngdip]

67. Agreed

West has been offering some heavy truths for Obama since the election. Critique is not hate. It should be the job of the (at least the progressive) intellectuals to hold the POTUS accountable to the American people. Being a YES MAN for Obama doesn't do anyone any favors.

[EFerrari]

74. Welcome to Du, yngdip.

[Le Taz Hot]

175. Another welcome to DU.

:hi: "Being a YES MAN for Obama doesn't do anyone any favors. " I agree.

[valerief]

188. It helps the 1%. nt

[freshwest]

187. Love him or hate him, he's honest about his journey and ideological shifts.

I ususally avoid him because he grates on my nerves at times. Othertimes, he is spot on and gives me glints of things I would not have comprehended without hearing him.

Hopefully, his criticisms will be taken to heart and not seen as more Tea Party bashing.

[girl gone mad]

26. You never told us what it is we don't want to hear..

that they are keeping secret from us.

[RZM]

28. How about a guest who argues that Obama isn't a 'puppet?'

There are plenty of people out there who would argue that. I wonder why we won't see them on RT???

BTW, your post violates DU rules. Although I would have responded in the other thread had I actually seen your post when the discussion was active.

[girl gone mad]

36. It's not that I don't want to hear that point of view..

It's that I don't need to hear it anymore. I've heard it many times and hearing it again is a total waste of my time.

I've weighed the evidence. Time after time, Obama goes to bat for Wall Street, for big oil, for big pharma, for the nuclear industry, for anyone who can write him a fat check. He appoints corporatists and cronies and insiders. He caves to the right over and over. He refuses to prosecute the criminals who took down our economy, but sics his Justice Department on whistleblowers.

No, I don't need to be told that he isn't a puppet any more than I need to be told that he's a socialist who was born in Kenya.

[RZM]

40. So, what you're saying is, you don't want to hear it?

Because 'I don't need to hear it' is pretty close to 'I don't want to hear it.'

I rest my case ;)

[StarsInHerHair]

54. yeah, like I don't need to hear how 'the Earth is flat'

so yeah, it's like that to me too

[RZM]

63. Well RT is right for you then

No pesky opposing views to get in the way.

'RT . . . nothing that you don't want/need to hear'

[LiberalLovinLug]

211. What is your point?

So if the OP ended with the line
"Some say Obama is actually playing a multi-level chess game and is actually working against the corporations while pretending to favor them"

...all would be in balance in the world? (Even if you know deep down that that statement is not true)

There are countless examples of the MSM interviewing some "expert" to get insight into a particular topic. 9 times out 10 its someone on the Right.If its a military topic they ask a General (as opposed to a peace group rep), a business friendly person if its a federal budget topic (as opposed to a social needs worker), a health insurance friendly doctor if the topic is health care reform (as opposed to a single payer advocate doctor)....etc..

To ask the opinion of a respected brilliant American professor on the state of the Presidency does not need some rude rightie screaming and interrupting and not adding anything to the conversation along for the ride to make what professor West says legitimate.

[ProudDad]

219. So faux-noise is enough for you, eh

or the rest of the USAmerican "press corps" who are on bended knee to power and the powerful?

[RZM]

288. Where do you get this stuff?

No, Fox News is not enough for me. Nor is the whole US press corps.

[CoffeeCat]

174. He is a puppet--that's obvious...

I was a precinct captain for Obama. You couldn't have found a more loyal supporter. I was "all in"
and I consider myself conservative on some issues. The entire reason that I became a precinct captain,
was because I was recruited by two women who were former Bush supporters (voted for Bush twice) who
felt that Republicans were kow towing to the corporations and becoming too war happy and extremist.

I agreed.

It's not like I had a litany of liberal issues that I wanted met the first year of Obama's administration.

I want the frickin corporate power out of our government. We no longer have a democracy. That's
not hyperbole. It's a fact. When corporations buy power from spineless politicians who are willing
to craft policy and alter the tax structure--BECAUSE THEY WERE PAID--"We The People" are no longer
running the show. The corporations are.

Obama touted himself as a Constitutional Scholar--who was a college professor who taught Constitutional
Law. I assumed that he would *at least* try to follow the Constitution and put the smack down on the
lobbyists and the biggest industry offenders (Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Health Insurance).

Hell no! Those industries have only grown more powerful under Obama--as they shape policy at the expense
of our economy, our health and our safety.

I think Barack Obama is a great guy. However, I think as a President he simply perpetuates the horrendous,
anti-American, anti-Democratic foundations of this country that metastasized during the Bush Administration.

It's highly certain that Obama is limited as a President. It's possible that the neocon corporatists call the
shots and quickly schooled Obama on how things work. How they *will* work.

I'm just so done with all of this. It's obvious that the answer to this huge, systemic cancer on our
government cannot be found within any politician. It's up to us now.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[russspeakeasy]

Hilarious, depressing, hilarious. Thanks, 90%

[Puregonzo1188]

66. Don't we hear that point of view all the time?

When I was doing anti-Iraq War organizing in high school and I organized a teach-in against the War people critized it for not presenting the other side. Yet the pro-war side was presented all the time. Same with the Palestinian Rights work I did in college.

That's part of how ideas become hegemonic--they can be presented without "another side" since they're the official line and therefore "not biased," but a counter-hegemonic idea can only be discussed when "balanced" with the hegemonic one.

Think about the effects of that.

[RZM]

68. In RT land, your 'counter-hegemonic' ideas are most assuredly 'hegemonic'

Because no other views are aired. So really, they are doing what you don't like, just in reverse.

[Puregonzo1188]

195. You entirely missed my point. But somehow I suspect you know that.

I've never seen RT other than occasional youtube clips and what's been posted at DU.

My point was about how certain ideas are presented continuously and unquestionably, but as soon as anyone presents an alternative point of view they're immediately smacked down as being bias and the other side--which has already been continuously presented unchallenged, now needs equal side.

When you have ideas that are systematically marginalized and hidden I don't see anything wrong with giving them them time. People who clamour for "equal time" ignore the fact that there's already been an unequal amount of time presented to these ideas and in fact the so-called calls for equal time are just hopes to further make unequal the discussion.

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see an honest open debate--but we don't have honest open debates in America. That being said I did see a debate on capitalism versus socialism between a member of the Libertarian Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation on RT. Now neither one of the individuals is who I would have picked to represent those sides, but it's a lot more than we get in the so-called "land of the free."

[ProudDad]

218. There's no one who has any credibility

who doesn't agree that Obama's a puppet... :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

235. It's just coincident that Obama's corporate agenda is what Big Pharma and H/C industry wanted?

[Occulus]

38. RT appeared on the radar here VERY suddenly from what I could see.

I'm here every day and often read and browse for a couple hours at a stretch, and one day *poof* there was RT, bag and baggage, and several people were citing it, all of a sudden.

I smell a rat, frankly. It's too similar to the appearance "on the scene" of Politico, and in too many ways.

[RZM]

41. I can't really say anything definitive here

Though I will say that RT knows full well whom they are targeting and DU fits the bill quite nicely. I don't know if they orchestrated an effort to get their name out on DU. It's certainly plausible, but who knows . . . They are pretty slick, so it was probably only a matter of time before they became a presence here, orchestrated effort or not.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RZM]

161. LOL I agree with the first part of your argument (not the part about me being paranoid)

Though I'm not sure a whole lot of people rushed out to watch them after Hillary's comments, which BTW, weren't really all that positive. RT itself interpreted them as a shot across the bow. She said they were good at getting Russia's message out, not that they were particularly truthful. She probably doesn't trust them anymore than I do.

http://rt.com/news/information-war-media-us/

No I don't watch Alex Jones. I utterly despise him and I'm hostile to most conspiracy theorists. I never said there was a conspiracy here, just that it was plausible. As usual with conspiracies, that is wrong - I'm sure the spike here has to do with Time Warner adding it.

'Conspiracy theories . . . I'm doing it wrong.' :)

[Puregonzo1188]

65. And guess what--we're probably not going to see too many people with Cornel West's view over here.

[RZM]

70. Maybe not too many

But you won't see ANYBODY on RT whose views counter the message they are selling.

[ZombieHorde]

81. Not true. Go check out the website. I saw different point of views on their show, Crosstalk.

I only check it checked it out for a few minutes, and I saw different point of views.

[RZM]

89. I saw Anthony Weiner on Fox News too

That doesn't change the basic thrust of the operation

[ZombieHorde]

212. It does contradict the claim one won't hear opposing viewpoints. nt

[sabrina 1]

127. I've been watching it for a month since Time Warner added it

to our cable lineup, and you are correct. It presents many points of view, it has some very good programming. The commenter you responded to has been on a crusade against them since they were first mentioned here. It's really annoying to be honest.

Hillary Clinton mentioned Al Jazeera and RT as news orgs that were 'delivering real news' to the world, when she was asking for funds to help 'spread our message around the world'. She complained that the U.S. is no longer competing effectively. I think she mentioned Fox as being seen as the U.S. media also, airc. I guess her concerns about these relatively new and very popular news orgs, including Wikileaks has started party loyalists on a mission to smear them, as happened with Wikileaks.

RT has some great programming, some great shows on Alaska eg, Antarctica, Science, History, Business and I've seen Bush Admin people on there also. They definitely do show many points of view.

[defendandprotect]

237. duple --

Apologies -- have had a rash of the "WARNINGS" your post wasn't successful

msgs over the past two days or so!!



And trying to shun Michael Moore -- ?

This is DU in denial -- head in the sand!

[defendandprotect]

238. That would be "dumbing" ourselves down ... for what? Like trying to keep Huffington Post at bay?

And trying to shun Michael Moore -- ?

This is DU in denial -- head in the sand!

[sabrina 1]

69. RT is one of the best International news orgs comparable

to Al Jazeera, and far less biased than any of our Coporate owned MSM media outlets.

Many American politicians from both parties have been on RT.

It's not 'just popular here' it's fast becoming one of the most watched news orgs worldwide. To keep their status as an unbiased source of news, they will have to continue to do what they've been doing, act professionally rather push a pov.

[RZM]

73. If you don't think they are pushing a POV

I think you just don't get them. I many people on DU are blinded by the fact that the POV they are pushing very much mirrors their own. While that may feel good, it's not a good thing. It's not a coincidence either. RT obviously knows the audience they are going for quite well. If the Russian government decided that appealing to right wing nuts was in their interest, RT would look like Fox on steroids.

[sabrina 1]

78. Well, if they are pushing a DU pov, that is a good thing, isn't it?

Our own MSM pushes a corporate and righgtwing pov for the most part. I think our POV is the right one. Don't you?

[RZM]

85. RT's POV isn't all that different from Democracy Now's

But you don't hear me criticizing them. I think that they do what they do because they sincerely believe it. RT does what it does because the Kremlin deems it beneficial to Russia. That matters to me. When the mouthpiece of an authoritarian government tells us how unfree our system is, my inclination is to write them off as hypocrites of the highest order.

What you seem to be arguing is that 'right wing views are prevalent in our media, so what the hell is wrong with this left wing alternative?' I can see where you're coming from, though I would not characterize our MSM as 'right wing' (yes I know, that puts me in a club of one here). But let's assume that is the case for a second. The rationale behind a network producing content with only one point of view in order to counter what else is out there is antithetical to the principles of journalism, IMO. It's the exact same reasoning behind Fox News too, as that network was specifically designed to be a right wing alternative to CNN and the news divisions of the major broadcast networks. A real news operation does not determine its content based on its competitors. It presents the news fairly and gives equal time to opposing views. RT doesn't do that . . . not by a long shot.

What's more, as somebody who is familiar with the Russian language and Russian affairs, I can tell first-hand you that media in Russia itself is pretty much the same as RT, especially on television, which is where most Russians get their information. It's not a coincidence because the same gang controls all of it. While we have access to other views on television, Russians don't. That's especially troubling because that situation serves to perpetuate the anti-democratic regime in charge there.

I'm not saying people shouldn't watch RT either. I'd be a hypocrite if I did because I follow it myself (though only here on DU). I'm just saying that it sucks.

[sabrina 1]

106. I don't think we're talking about the same network.

I am not arguing for 'leftwing' or against 'rightwing' views. Some things are not left or right, they are just facts. RT covers International News, such as what is happening in Egypt, in Libya, in Tunisia, in Yemen. The news is straight news. 'Today, Qaddafi's forces pushed back the rebels' or 'Anti-Qaddafi forces are still holding on to (insert town)'.

I have seen no sign of bias in their reporting on current Global affairs, just reporting on what is going on. They DO have other programming which include, 'Crossfire' type discussions, with less yelling. Obviously in programs like that there are various viewpoints and all get a chance to make their points.

Their documentaries, the ones I've seen so far, are excellent. Eg, a documentary on Alaska recently which covered immigrants from Russia and are gradually being more integrated into the culture there. There was no bias at all, just a history of the people, why they left Russia etc. If anything, it didn't make Russia look too good.

They do programming on Antarctica, on Space, on Science. I have seen only one program that is 'left' hosted by an American woman who appears to be trying to emulate Rachel Maddow and not doing a very good job imo. It is trying too hard to be funny about politics and even though I probably agree with much of her views, it seems unprofessional compared to the rest of their programming.

Their Russian news focuses on issues that mostly mean little to me, their business news, political issues etc. their economy etc.

They are attempting to attract a global audience, and are apparently succeeding. They would not be able to do that if they were pushing a Russian viewpoint.

That is not to say they may not have their biases, there is no network that doesn't. Al Jazeera eg, owned by Qatar has been criticized for not covering Morocco's uprisings and Bahrain's because of the close ties of Qatar to Saudi Arabia. I watch Al Jazeera far more than RT and their programming, especially their production is far superior imo. They also seem to have many more reporters assigned to more countries. But the actual news that I have seen so far on both networks simply covers what is going on in the world.

Al Jazeera's interviews with political figures are excellent, so are RT's. They challenge their guests and do not let them simply make statements. Both networks ask hard questions, something you don't see here much. A Bush official eg, on RT recently was asked the kind of questions I always wanted someone to ask them. He handled them well and the discussion was very civil, but the questions were asked. Very professional. People could decide for themselves about his answers.

And I don't ever have to worry about seeing Andrew Breitbart or James O'Keefe holding forth on their views and being presented as legitimate news reporters. So far.

[Justitia]

107. wow, you are so, so wrong - RT is a massive propaganda organ

and they provide a cushy platform for whackjobs of several stripes

World Net Daily, Alex Jones, racists and hate groups are regular featured guests

You really need to do better research

[sabrina 1]

116. I have watched it every day for over one month now and

have never seen Alex Jones once, not that he should be silenced, which is what you appear to be saying. I have no 'hate groups' or 'racists'. But what I am seeing here is a real attempt to slime a news source and by someone who admits he has not watched it.

I want to know what is going in this world, if there are hate groups, I want to know where they are what they are up to. I do not want anyone silenced, Alex Jones or anyone else.

Your outrage over people being allowed to see and hear people the U.S. has censored for years, and now cannot do so anymore apparently, is telling.

Do you think we are babies? Why are you afraid of people seeing things YOU think should not be seen? What is going to happen if I see Alex Jones eg?

Far more outrageous to me is that Andrew Breitbart is viewed in this country as a credible source. speaking of RACISTS. James O'Keefe was all over our TV, another RACIST, presented as a credbile source, a 'rising star' in the political arena, we were told.

You need to open your mind and not be so afraid of the rest of the world. I know it's hard for this country to accept that we do not rule the world anymore. We cannot control the world media the way we have here. And attacking other country's media, as Al Jazeera was attacked here, won't do much good as can be seen. Al Jazeera was kept off U.S. networks, and still is. Why? What are we so afraid of?

Americans are the least informed and the most insular people in the world because they are not allowed to see other povs. Don't worry about us, we're pretty good at spotting bias and sorting out the truth from fiction. I knew, eg, that WMDS was fiction from the start and that we were being lied into a disastrous war. A lot of people told me back then that I was being influenced by nefarious sources, enemies of the U.S. That's how it goes sometimes. The facts are not always what we'd like them to be.

It's a bigger world now than it was before. I resist and deeply resent attempts to censor what grown up people watch or read or hear. Our news media ranked around 54 on the World Free Press Scale a few years ago. It has improved since them. It has to compete now with many other sources which is a good thing and the improvement in the ratings, while still not great, prove competition is good.

Try watching RT and you can skip the programming you don't like. That's what I do.

[Justitia]

119. I've seen LOADS of RT - obviously more than you have.

If you don't want to hear a warning about an outfit that has been labeled as propaganda from all over the world, that's your problem.

Such is the insidious nature of propaganda.

However, do as you please, I was trying to help out a DUer who was embarrassing themselves all over this thread.

[sabrina 1]

124. Don't worry, I'm not the least bit embarrassed. And I always

do as I please whenever possible. Clearly you are biased and afraid of how popular these foreign news agencies have become. But you shouldn't be. The more there are, the better. Eg, if RT had been around when Bush was lying us into war, and our media was totally censored and reporters like Ashley Banfield were being fired for trying to tell the truth, they might have been able to get the truth to a few more people here.

And if Russia ever tries the same thing, I'm sure we can count on CNN to try to let the Russian people know the truth. It all works better when one country doesn't have a monopoly on the 'message'.

As I said below, Hillary doesn't share your views of RT. She is worried she said, that RT, Al Jazeera and others are 'delivering real news' and that 'they are good'. She's worried that the U.S. can't spread its propaganda around the globe anymore without challenge but she seems to get that people actually do want 'real news'. So, I'm hoping all these new news organizations will force each other to be better.

And don't worry about me at all. I remember being called a traitor for watching Al Jazeera and told I was being programmed by propaganda. It's fine, I didn't become a jihadist and I won't become a commie. I'm pretty hard to indoctrinate, which is why I never bought our MSM propaganda either ~

[disillusioned73]

149. Sabrina, thanks for your reasoned responses throughout this thread..

I am starting to smell a smear campaign here.. I will check out this RT network now that I have become aware of it. I recently began tuning into Al Jazeera - fact based news orgs. seem to be the enemy of our corporate sponsored propaganda giants... not surprised.

[RZM]

162. 'Smear campaign?'

I don't like what they are about and I'm challenging people who do. Is there anything wrong with that?

In all of the back and forth on this thread, not one pro-RT person has addressed the issue that the same people who fund RT have created a restricted, pro-regime media climate on Russian television. While they are telling us to 'question more,' they are limiting their own citizens' ability to do just that. Apparently nobody wants to see what's going on behind the curtain here. If you pull it back, you will see hypocrisy of the rankest order.

[sabrina 1]

183. And what is different about that and the U.S.

promoting democracy when they did have a monopoly on International News while they were passing laws like the Patriot Act and the MCA here at home, and firing journalists who dared to question the government's illegal wars? The war news here was totally controlled which is why they were actually bombing News Orgs like Al Jazeera who were showing the real results of our 'democratic bombing' on the ground?

You don't seem to understand that we are all aware that governments will try to keep their citizens from learning the facts. We are now much more aware of it since our own media has been taken over by Corps and there is little independent news here about the most important issues.

So we can watch Al Jazeera and RT and the BBC without being convinced that the governments of their countries are paragons of virtue. Eg, if I want to learn facts about Russia, I will go to other sources than RT. I would expect to get a biased view of Russia from them.

Many people abroad used to watch CNN. Their coverage of the first Gulf War eg, did NOT show how deadly that war was. Reporters like Peter Arnett, a highly respected war correspondent who was one of the few to report from the ground, was smeared in this country and eventually banned from the war zone. Because the U.S. wanted to control the news. And they did.

It was only later we discovered how many people were killed in that war. So, telling us that there is hypocrisy in Russia because they censor their own news, is NOT news to us. We know they do and we know our government does also.

[Mimosa]

198. US News sources are controlled.

Sabrina, you are correct, of course. It's wise to read and watch every source we can.

People who don't like certain reports which lead us to question will always smear the source first.

[disillusioned73]

191. I've never watched it, this is the first time I've heard about it..

I just don't get your fervor over this topic.. I mean, if there is a "news" network that should receive your angst and efforts that would be faux "news" - they have propagandized this nation more than any small fairly unknown network from overseas ever will.

[sabrina 1]

205. Thank you, I think everyone should make up their own minds

about it. I discovered it on our cable lineup a few weeks ago and was impressed with their coverage of the revolutions in the Arab world. I didn't know who they were at the time, but checked them each day for news after that. Then I saw Hillary's comment about them and Al Jazeera.

Their documentaries are good too. I also like their discussion programs, sort of like 'Crossfire' only with less yelling. Anyhow, you may get it now on your cable network, and if not, they are available online.

[KoKo]

248. +1

[freshwest]

185. Sabrina, your comments are part of the reason I joined DU. Thanks for supporting freedom of thought.

I've seen and listened to all sorts of media and views. I read Mein Kampf and Das Kapital in high school. We do not automatically become everything we are exposed to, like a plague. We can make choices by virtue of our own will and heart.

I'm not scared of RT, Alex Jones, Beck, Rush, SPLC, or any group. When I see people I know getting very emotional, I work with that.

I decipher what I hear and read to my own compass, question how their words are meant to appeal to in me, as well.

You made great points for freedom of speech and learning which I'm going to save to think about in my discussion with those on the right who are so hateful to dissident views.

[sabrina 1]

203. Thank you for your kind words.

I am not scared of Alex Jones either, or Beck et al. Let all voices be heard. The only one of your list that appears to be silenced on our MSM though, is Alex Jones. So I will have to go check him out. Odd to see more anger over a foreign news agency allowing him to speak than if they had had Beck on. I'm definitely curious now :-)

Good luck with your discussions with the right. That is how I started out online, arguing with rightwingers during the Bush administration. It was an education and it was they who taught me the most about what I know now. Which is why I'm all for hearing all points of view. It keeps us thinking and learning ~

[freshwest]

207. You're welcome. Jones got on the radar of the Russians because he opposed invading Iran.

There were a lot of people driven to distraction during the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld reign of terror because they couldn't stop the wars and couldn't get anyone elected because of electoral fraud. We were hit and hit hard in a million ways from the coup of 2000.

Those seeking to find an answer, any answer at all to why the heck all of this was all this happening, why protests and other tools didn't do any good, looked to alternatives such as internet radio stations and stumbled onto Alex Jones. I found him while talking to people online hoping to see either Kucinich or Gravel do well in the primaries. But they were shut out just as Paul was and all their supporters began to feel they were only going to be nominally represented. The discontent was larger than party boundaries.

Ron Paul was so opposed to wars abroad, that for a while he was even beginning to look good to some Dems. Anything, anything at all, to stop the soul-rendering agony of seeing what was being done in our names. And to find the answer to why America was now openly endorsing torture and disregarding habeas corpus, etc.

In the Vietnam War years, the MSM was much different. They covered protests and we had non-corporate owned debates, the Fairness Doctrine and had an FCC that vigorously enforced the rules against media monopoly. There was balance. The last of that balance was destroyed in the final days of the Bush administration by Colin Powell's son as head of the FCC. There were hearings across the country where well-informed people spoke against letting go of the last vestiges of regulation of consolidation. They were ignored, and it's gotten worse than ever.

It is the reason why people are seeking their news from other sources, because the MSM is only giving us a left and right that are trapped within a corporate box, never really allowing those questions people yelled at the television, their voice and their concerns never being answered.

What we found in opposing Bush, was that we were invivsible to MSM and thus the world. People abroad now believe that we all supported whatever he did, after all, we who opposed the crimes commited by Bush are invisible. We were not invisible before an imperfect, but more honest media was in place in here.

People around the globe came to see all Americans willing to behave like savages abroad, no matter what we were told at home. It was obvious that the American ideals, of freedom of speech, equality and any others one might hold dear, could never be applied to any of our actions. Those notions are universal, yet we had expressed them and people sought to emulate them and our government across the globe. Now we are the world's pariah. The election of Obama gave people hope that we would once again return to the path of truth and justice and I give him credit for not invading Iran, because we surely would have if the GOP was in the White House now, even though many are unhappy with Obama for not being able to fulfill all his promises.

He wanted Gitmo closed, and people hate him for that, but if they looked a little further, they'd realize that course of action required funding. Because he wanted him to come to the USA to be tried under our laws and under our protections. Some may not remember the RW furor over his daring to suggest such a thing. His move to get their confinement awaiting trial could not get funding form the GOP in Congress.

IMHO, Obama inherited and cannot get out from under most of what Bush did. And if he is a puppet, than there is no reason to hate him. Reserve that for the ones holding the strings, and remember that he is a human being, just like any of us. I would not want the job. Part of this is what is being reflected in the comments of those calling Obama a puppet with outrage. But Bush was called a puppet, too. But who was pulling the strings?

Seeking for the answer to that question is going to lead the USA and the world to some remarkably unconventional conclusions. WE live in a time that is allowing us to find the answers to things which a thousand generations of human being had no clue.

[ProudDad]

222. I don't know many people who "hate" Obama for being a puppet...

They're disappointed, frustrated, hard-pressed and underpaid...

But "hate", naw...

Terminally disappointed at the waste of an opportunity, yeah, but "hate"?

Naw...

[freshwest]

239. His name has become a term of contempt, even here on DU.

Just because it's not all Rush Limbaugh here yet, doesn't mean it's not going in the same direction.

Rush says he doesn't hate him, he just plants the seed. And lots of people are watering that seed.

IMHO, we need less focus on the POTUS and more on ourselves. He said in his campaign we would all need to be more self-sufficient and expect less from government.

That was not from some plot or puppet, but a plain and honest statement of just how badly we have been screwed and that he wasn't going to be able to restore it all.

And the rightwing meme is universal now, that it all went to hell under Obama's watch. It's going to hell way before the man was a gleam in his daddy's eye.

The attacks on Obama only intensified when he got elected, moved from the crude Palinesque race baiting the faithful, until after fighting with a bare technical majority against the GOP, he has had to make concession after concession.

Guess who bought into the meme, although they won't admit it? Democrats who stayed away and decreased his power to do what they said they wanted to have done. A self-fulfilling prophecy that uprogressives brought on themselves in indignation from poor knowledge of just how thin the Dem majority was.

The GOP keeps winning the propaganda wars because Dems are buying into it. We proved its effectiveness by not voting. Now we have more of that. This government is not going to go away because we're mad or dont' like it. It'll only change when we prove that we believe it can be better.

[ProudDad]

291. "The attacks on Obama only intensified when he got elected"

And changed from "Progressive Candidate" Obama...

To Status-Quo Defender Obama...with his appointments...

That's when the "attacks" intensified, when it became obvious that the Demo wasn't what we were going to get...

[sabrina 1]

224. I did not see him on RT, but it's fine by me that he was.

Apparently people object to him stating that Americans don't accept the official story of 9/11. I don't see why since that is true. Most polls show that people feel they do not know the facts about that crime.

I have noticed the censorship of anything to do with people even asking questions about that event. That imho, is reprehensible. And it makes you wonder why.

I don't blame Obama really. I wonder if any president now actually can do much to change the way things are. I look at video of him as a candidate, speaking about issues like Gitmo, and it's hard to believe he was not serious about it. Same thing with mandated insurance, offshore drilling, war and whistle-blowing and the PO re HC. Also his promises of support for teachers and his apparent appreciation for them, a breath of fresh air after the Bush war on teachers' unions.

I don't think someone could fake all that. I knew he was fairly conservative but there are many good, decent conservatives who do not object to social programs that help the poor eg. I imagine when he got there he learned who is pulling the strings and how limited the power of the president is. The solution to that imho, is to focus on Congress until it is filled with progressives who can overcome the executive branch when it is necessary. Seems we are always caving to Republicans even when they are in the minority. But if there was a strong progressive Congress that would be much less likely to happen.

But as far as trying to figure out who is pulling the strings, apparently we are not supposed to try to do that and censorship of those asking the questions is how they think they can prevent it.

So, for that reason alone, I am very glad there are other media outlets that do not have an incentive to censor those who speak about these things. It's really something how successful the censorship of anything to do with 9/11 and election fraud has been. Makes me want to know why!

[freshwest]

243. 100% on all of that. I won't be bowed by the single source prejudice.

[freshwest]

189. Right. We're suffering from a diversity of opinion about things MSM won't allow.

[truedelphi]

293. Great post, sabrina. Thanks for

Brightening my day.

[freshwest]

179. Thom Hartmann a wack job? Major anti-Bush, anti-corporatist. Only RT allows him airtime.

[Justitia]

182. who said that? Not me, certainly.

[freshwest]

204. Well, I'm going to quote you so we're on the same page:

"wow, you are so, so wrong - RT is a massive propaganda organ

and they provide a cushy platform for whackjobs of several stripes

World Net Daily, Alex Jones, racists and hate groups are regular featured guests

You really need to do better research "

The only people that gave Hartmann a platform was RT. There are agendas being pushed by organizations large and small. Even people on DU have agendas, but suppressing the open flow of information and ideas is not a traditional Democratic Party idea. Nor is labeling something as unacceptable and dismissing it out of hand. If that had been done, would the stories of those disenfranchised been given any credence?

If they have others that you regard as wackjobs, fine. I will continue to read and listen to what you regard as wackjobs from all the major propaganda sources as much as my puking response permits, because if nothing else, it lets me know what I'm up against.

Sometimes this appears to be some knee jerk reaction to the word 'Russia' as if we're still in the old Cold War. And the SPLC is not a divine source of inspiration, either. Stories about their funding have not always put them in the best light, although I will never forget or fail to have gratitude for their work.

[Justitia]

209. Nope, sorry, no mention of Hartmann - that's all your doing. -eom

[freshwest]

215. Don't agree with your parsing after the blanket condemnation. Have at it. Bye.

[JTFrog]

152. Fuck no.

It might have been a good thing 5-10 years ago.

:shrug:

[MattSh]

84. So I guess...

American media run by rich billionaires is so much better?

[RZM]

87. Does wikipedia work for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

154. Ah, the delicious irony.

[RZM]

158. I don't see the irony

Maybe you don't trust wikipedia? I don't fully trust it either, though the information about funding in that article is correct. BTW the post I responded to was edited and originally asked me to provide a link proving RT's sources of funding.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

163. Fair enough on the edit issue.

My point is that all media has to be distilled through reason.

[RZM]

166. Absolutely true

When I try to do that with RT, alarm bells go off. I guess for other people they don't, but for me they do.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

214. When I look at NBC, NYT, WP, FOX, my neighbor... alarm bells go off.

Pick your poison.

:shrug:

[RZM]

96. RT is only one outlet

But yes, I like plenty of other outlets much better. Including those owned by the mega-rich (which I would guess is most of them).

A better comparison to the American MSM as a whole would be the Russian MSM. Trust me, it's RT writ-large. There are some differing viewpoints in print and on the internet, but their influence can only go so far.

[freshwest]

193. Oh, yes, they've had such great results informing the American public so far...

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

241. I'm sure Cornel West is also pushing a point of view -- which we deserve to hear--!!

Especially since he supported Obama for presidency!!

[sendero]

269. Guess what..

.. Cornel West's view coincides almost perfectly with mine. I don't care who is saying it through what medium, the truth is the truth and you are not going to hear ANY important truth on ABC, NBC, CBS, or NPR. Maybe once in a while on PBS.

It is not a "right wing" view that Obama is a puppet or a person with no convictions to carry out any of his promises, it is a demonstrable fact.

[JackRiddler]

296. What's with the Wikipedia editor jargon?

How would "not pushing a POV" look? Would that be BBC, Al Jazeera, NBC, CNN, FOX or TMZ? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Justitia]

99. Are you fucking kidding? Obviously, you are not a mbr of the SPLC

or you would have seen this article recently:

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

[sabrina 1]

112. Wow, there really is a concerted effort to slam this network.

What are they afraid of?

"New Yorkers unsure whether 9/11 was terrorist attack or inside job"

And what is wrong with that statement? As a NYer I can assure you most people there, and polls confirm it, from the beginning did not believe the 'official' story they were being told. That is a fact. Are you saying these facts should be censored?

As for the 9/11 Commission? A Commission btw, the never would even happened since the Bush gang wanted NO investigation of the biggest crime on American soil. How insane was that? Ask any NY fireman what he thought of the 9/11 Commission's 'findings'. I watched every day, being that two of my neighbors died that day. It was infuriating. A joke to most NYers who wanted a real investigation. Bush/Cheney eg demanded that their testimony be secret!! Secret???

Sorry if the facts bother you and whoever wrote that article, but if the U.S. took care of its own business, like prosecuting torturers and war criminals eg, and investigating its own crimes, they wouldn't have to worry what anyone else has to say.

I have not seen any of these programs on RT however, and it sounds like the author of that article was looking for stuff to have a fit over. Very bad article, imo, and it makes the U.S. look bad.

I guess they got the funding Hillary asked for 'to get our message out'. Did you know we spend millions to get articles placed in news media that make people we don't like look bad?

I love the network and will continue to watch it. I am an adult thank you very much, and can watch news from all over the world, which I do, and decide what I believe and what needs to be discarded.

Most of us can. This attempt in the U.S. to censor news is the reason why people are turning to other news sources more and more.

Let everyone speak, all points of view. That is why Europeans in general are far more informed than Americans.

That article reads like a letter from the Mother Superior warning her students against watching movies that might cause them to commit sin.

[Justitia]

113. Oh my. So you really are in it for the Alex Jones conspiracy stuff.

It's not a single article, RT has been under a microscope since it's inception.

You are simply among the blissfully unaware.

Do you simply ignore the birther and racist stuff?

The false translations?

I find this vulnerability kind of shocking.

[sabrina 1]

120. I have never watched Alex Jones. Are you confusing me with

someone else? Or do you just make stuff up when you have nothing else to say?

I find your concerns about what other adults choose to watch kind of shocking in a free country.

How about you watch what you want to, and I continue to do what I've always done, use every source of information I can find. I know our government censors what we see. And I know they go after news organizations like Wikileaks and Al Jazeera and even have killed reporters and targeted for bombing the headquarters of Al Jazeera who were reporting on a war zone.

Their attempt to shut down Wikileaks, their illegal interference with their business, and their efforts to prosecute a news editor for spying, has made us look as bad if not worse than the old Soviet Union in the eyes of the rest of the world.

That article you linked to is so biased it is hard not to laugh at the notion of them calling RT biased.

The focus on a few programs out of hours and hours of programming gives the wrong impression, which is probably deliberate, of the network entirely. Absolutely no balance at all, just an angry 'we hate you because you had someone we have successfully censored here in the U.S. on your show'. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the U.S. media.

A far more effective approach would have been to give credit where it was due and criticize where it is due. But this attack approach just turns people off. We've seen too often.

Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, you are free to gather news from whatever sources you wish. As an adult I'm sure you can judge what is worthwhile and what is not. I assure you, I am equally capable of doing the same thing. Don't worry, I won't turn into a commie or anything. I do watch dozens of other news organizations :hi:

[Justitia]

121. Rejecting the Southern Poverty Law Center in favor of Russia Today over "bias" is ludicrous

in the extreme. This shows that you really know nothing about either organization.

No one is trying to stop you from absorbing all the propaganda you seek.
I simply tried to point out that you are gobbling up what a large portion of the world easily recognizes as propaganda output.
I would have thought you would have seen it in the content, if you are watching as much as you say.
Or simply googled 'Russia Today'

You don't want to know what you are being fed, so be it.

You can put your fingers back in your ears now.

[sabrina 1]

122. I rejected an article from the Southern Law Center. That is not

the same thing as rejecting the entire organization. Did they ever cover the bombing of Al Jazeera and the murder of its reporters by the U.S. Government, being that they are so interested in media? I would call that the ultimate 'bias'.

And what did they have to say about the attempt to criminalize a respected International News organization and the taking down of its website? That was more than slightly biased.

When you live in a country that goes to such extremes to control the news, it becomes necessary to seek other sources of information.

I think it's great that other countries are now funding their own news organizations. When their governments censor stories for their people, other news orgs can make sure they get the information. When RT cheers Russia on if lies its people into war, CNN can be the one to let the Russian people know they are being lied to.

It's great, I wish we had had more of this when Bush lied this country into war. Everyone has to be more aware now that they can no longer censor the news. Even China, who are better at it than most, can't stop the information completely from getting to their people.

All media pushes propaganda. The U.S. as Hillary said so plainly, got used to be able to push 'our message across the world' without competition for a long time. Now, as she said, there are so many others reaching a world audience and, she said 'They, RT, Al Jazeera, are good, I've seen them'. She was far more informed about RT's programming than you appear to be. 'They deliver real news' she said. And 'we are not competing anymore'.

So, I'll go with Hillary's take on RT and Al Jazeera. She may not like the fact that the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on what the world sees anymore, but at least she was honest about it. Otoh, it is not 'our message' not getting across that is the problem, it is the fact that people around the world do not like our foreign policies. And they are not buying that we are 'bringing democracy' to the world. So, my suggestion to her is to change our foreign policies rather than try to sell it. People are not buying our wars and our torture policies and our support for dictators.

I'll let you know if I see any harmful propaganda on Al Jazeera or RT, if they start telling lies about WMDs in some country their governments are planning to invade. Other than that, trying to make Russia look good to the world is to be expected since they're footing the bill, but until they do something about their internal problems, people won't buy it, just like they are not buying our propaganda either.

[freshwest]

242. :)

[JackRiddler]

297. Please give us a list of acceptable media so that we don't get in the SPLC's way. Thanks.

[BobbyBoring]

201. I'm glad to see ANY media raising questions about 9/11

I wish ours did. 9/11 was the catalyst needed for the PNAC to launch it's misadventures in the ME campaign. I hope they start writing about the 2000 selection of GWB as well. The truth needs to be aired somewhere~

[DeSwiss]

77. Condescending much? n/t

[RZM]

79. If that's how you perceive it, then perhaps I am

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm trying to make sense of why RT seems to be popular here. What I wrote above is an attempt to understand that. I believe that part of their popularity has to do with their calculated appeals to the Western left. They have identified their target audience and they are keen on pleasing that audience.

Problem is, I don't think RT presents itself that way because of some noble commitment to a set of ideals. I think they do it because Kremlin decision makers have determined that it furthers the agenda of the Russian government, which btw, is a nasty, illiberal, authoritarian regime that stands squarely against basic progressive ideals at home.

[DeSwiss]

103. "...because of some noble commitment to a set of ideals..."

- Oh, do you mean the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6sYB5d1Bu4">ideals Secretary Clinton spoke of in the Senate last month?

“During the Cold War we did a great job in getting America’s message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, ‘Okay, fine, enough of that, we are done,’ and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it,” she said....We are in an information war and we are losing that war. Al Jazeera is winning, the Chinese have opened a global multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English-language network. I’ve seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive,” http://rt.com/news/information-war-media-us/">she stated.

"Our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact, our private media, particularly in terms of cultural programming, often works at counter-purposes to what we are as Americans and what our values are." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6sYB5d1Bu4">Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

[sabrina 1]

128. Do you have some problem with the 'American left'?

I mean you ARE posting on an American left political forum. It's odd that your problem with RT would be that it appears to you to be catering to a group that you are a member of. At least I am assuming you are.

Is there something wrong with the American left? I thought there was something wrong with the American right. I could understand your obsession with RT if it was catering to the American Right.

I mean, NO ONE caters to the American Left in this country. It's only recently that talk radio wasn't 100% Rightwing, and TV was so censored that no reporter would dare to talk about issues such as the poor, or the waste of lives and money on wars eg.

Frankly, I don't see RT as 'left' except for one show. I wish it was more biased towards the left actually.

Btw, RT is not just aiming at the U.S. We are NOT the only country in the world. They are seen and pretty popular in Europe eg. and in many other countries. As far as Russia itself is concerned, no one is going to be influenced by any kind of propaganda, but it is a good thing to learn more about other countries, even former enemies isn't it? The more we know about other people, the less likely we are to allow our governments to influence us to hate them.

[RZM]

165. I said 'Western left.' They cater to people who gets news in English, which is alot of people

And not just Americans. No I do not have a problem with the American left. Propaganda is propaganda, plain and simple. Propaganda is designed to be received positively . . . that's the whole point. But it's almost never the whole story.

[freshwest]

208. Many Dems are suffering self-hatred after listening to MSM and alternative news.

[ZombieHorde]

80. I just checked the RT website, and I did see opposing viewpoints to various stories. nt

[Thunderstruck]

197. GOOD ENOUGH FOR THOM HARTMANN!!!

[Mosaic]

249. I rarely watch RT

And it gave exactly the truth any serious political junkie, such as me, knows about Obama. It seems you're the one trying to sell out the truth.

[liberation]

253. "for many people a 'real' news organization is one that tells them exactly what they want to hear."

I don't think you understand the levels of projection you're displaying right there. When you're blasting RT for not being a "real" news organization because they are not telling you exactly what you want to hear.


Whenever I think irony has passed away, here do some people come bursting in with the crash cart and yelling "not on my watch!"

[LooseWilly]

16. What? You don't like Russian media?

Or do I detect some sort of snide dismissal of "dirty commies" in your judgement of an English-speaking news outlet (http://rt.com/)?...

Do I detect a knee jerking? :+

[RZM]

29. Russia, like China, is no longer Communist

But they have yet to jettison the authoritarianism.

[LooseWilly]

146. Russia has democratic elections and a privatized media...making it no more authoritarian than the US

I'd be interested to see a real substantive argument to the contrary, rather than casual innuendo.

Russia Today seems every bit as substantive as the LA Times. Again, I'd be happy to peruse a substantive argument to the contrary... rather than casual innuendo.

As for China—I'm pretty sure they're still communist... though I'm not sure they're doing it right. Again... care to provide some argument beyond casual innuendo?

[RZM]

160. I'm not wasting my time exhaustively explaining things to you that everybody else knows

You know full well Russia is an authoritarian regime. United Russia has a monopoly on power and several 'opposition' parties are more or less their stooges. Since Yeltsin (who had his own issues with Democracy, such as using tanks to shell the parliament building) both presidents have been hand-picked by the sitting one. There are international monitoring organizations that observe political systems all over the world. If you can find a respected one that doesn't have serious concerns with Russia's political system, I'll eat my hat.

As for China, again, find someone besides you that argues they are really a 'Communist' country. They've been transitioning to a free market system for a very long time now.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5469

[RaleighNCDUer]

169. So you cite a RW think tank to support your charges of their bias?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

Perhaps you should do a little "consider the source"ing yourself.

[RZM]

171. I was refuting the poster's wrong assertions about the Chinese economy

I know all about the Hoover Institution. I've been to their archives. How about you point out any problems at all with the scholarship I cited.

Don't accuse me of using materials from the Hoover to say anything about RT. I didn't do that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

173. IMO, anything coming from the Hoover Institution is tainted, just as

you see anything that connects with Alex Jones as tainted.

Just because there is a patina of scholarship attached to it, that doesn't mean it is not equally delusional. It is just propaganda with an embossed cover.

[RZM]

177. False equivalence

The scholarly community does not share your black-white take on this. The piece I cited does not have only a 'patina' of scholarship . . . it's actual scholarship and the people who produced it are actual scholars. If you can point out problems with what they wrote, be my guest. But you'll have to do better than just saying 'Hoover bad.'

[RaleighNCDUer]

196. Cornel West is not part of the scholarly community?

I'd give you odds he'd disagree with 90% of the crap the Hoover Institution comes out with. There are a great many scholars who would take issue with Hoover Institution propaganda. Hoover Institution is the original RW think tank, and has been promulgating RW 'solutions' for 60 years.

I suggest that if you want to make your points on a Democratic left-leaning board you not cite Republican RW sources.

[RZM]

234. Any problems with the actual article?

It isn't about our political system or left/right in the US. It's about the Soviet and Chinese economies in the 1980s. Do you take issue with what it argues or not?

[RaleighNCDUer]

246. Yes. Plenty of them.

The article is way too long to go into depth, and off topic, besides. But look at the writing - the biased terminology ("harebrained schemes" is one that stood out, one of many) that has no business being in a scholarly work. The entire piece is "free markets good, communism bad" and it is couched in rhetoric to drive home that point.

As per your original contention, that China is not communist, since when does communism depend on Soviet style collectivism? If anything, the Chinese peasants deciding, in a communal fashion, on how to divide up the state farms (a goal pursued by communist revolutionaries the world over for the past hundred years, from Mexico to Russia) is one of the highest exemplars of communism - to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

Try some critical reading and recognize propaganda when you see it.

[RZM]

273. 'Harebrained Schemes' is a common theme in Soviet history

The term is most often used to describe Khrushchev's 'quick fixes' in the 1950s-60s, such as his 'Virgin Lands' campaign, which resulted in widespread environmental damage and negative impacts on Soviet agricultural production and economic output. Their failure was a big factor in his ouster in 1964, when other Politubro members unceremoniously removed him from power.

Gorbachev was a well-intentioned guy, but the problem was that he was a true believer in the system. And the system was simply beyond reform in the 1980s, which the article gets at.

Had the article been 'communism good, free markets bad' would you have been supportive of it? Because by the 1980s, Soviet planned economics was a thoroughly discredited model.

[RaleighNCDUer]

279. And that differentiates this propaganda from scholarship.

Had they said "poorly planned" or "fundamentally unsound" - that is scholarly critique. "Harebrained schemes" is political propaganda, not meant to impart information but to evoke an emotional response. IOW, bullshit. Propaganda is less about what is said than how it is said.

Read that article again with that in mind, then tell me it is not propaganda.

[LooseWilly]

252. You're refuting my assertion that China is communist *but doing it wrong*?

... by asserting that China is instituting a shift to free-market capitalism?

Really?

And meanwhile your assertion about Russia is... "You know full well Russia is an authoritarian regime. United Russia has a monopoly on power and several 'opposition' parties are more or less their stooges."—funny, I'm pretty sure that the Chinese government owns controlling share of power companies, and most other companies... Let's ask the Brookings Institute (http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/07_china_oil_companies_downs.aspx).

National Oil Companies (NOCs), state-owned energy enterprises that behave like private corporations largely free of government control, are emblematic of the complex political arrangements that have bolstered China’s explosive state-led economic growth. Today, NOCs are one of the most powerful groups shaping in policy within China’s one-party system.

Hmm... sounds like they're saying that the energy companies are state-owned... but behave like private corporations. Funny, that sounds like they're saying "they're communist, but they're doing it wrong".

Ohh, and before we go much further, let's hear what sourcewatch has to say about the Brookings institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution)

Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

I think we all know what sourcewatch would say about the Hoover Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hoover_Institution_on_War,_Revolution_and_Peace)
—I particularly like the part that says "A number of fellows have connections to or positions in the Bush administration, and other Republican administrations. A non-political figure who played a key role in the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, Retired Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), recently joined the Hoover Institution " ... which reassures me to no end that everything said by the "scholars" can be "trusted" to be as accurate and free of bias as the analysis that led up to the Iraq war...

Let's take a short trip back to Russia. Your assertion of their "authoritarian"-ness seems based solely on the above mentioned monopoly and more-or-less lack of an opposition party. We have just demonstrated China's government monopoly of power corporations, and no one seems to be disputing the lack of even "stoogey" opposition. So, whatever assertions you make about China would seem to apply also to Russia, and vice-versa.

And, while we're at it, let's look at something else from the Brookings Institute.

As a strategic sector of the economy, the industry has had access to the top leadership and made its voice heard in the policymaking process. It has produced successive generations of leaders who used their accomplishments in the oil sector to advance their political careers—especially in the 1950s and 1960s when the discovery of the Daqing oil field and the achievement of self-sufficiency in oil was one of the country’s few success stories. Historically, the most prominent national leaders from the oil industry were Vice Premier Yu Qiuli and several of his associates from the State Planning Commission. Viewed as a “petroleum faction,” this group had a large impact on economic policy, especially in the 1970s.

Funny, that almost sounds like it is describing the US political system...

As for the spin on the article you actually cited, namely—that the "reforms" in China are not the result of a "gradualist" government-managed "reform" but rather a "grass-roots" embracing by the farmers/people of Smithian liberal capitalist gospel... the foundation for that argument is based on their quote

This standard account is incorrect. Deng Xiaoping and his supporters, contrary to popular legend, did not agree on a reform program at the Third Plenum of the Eighth Party Congress in 1978, which installed him in power. A Chinese reform official by the name of Bao Tong later admitted as much: “In fact, reform wasn’t discussed. Reform wasn’t listed on the agenda, nor was it mentioned in the work reports.”1

The footnote leads you to "Radio Free America’s Mandarin Service"... which is a government propaganda service.
(http://www.ecoi.net/index.php?id=0&command=help&about=assessment&entry=151088)

RFE/RL, Inc. was formed in 1975 as a merger of two corporations – Free Europe and Radio Liberty Committee, both created to broadcast news to Soviet countries and funded principally by the US Congress, through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Today, RFE/RL is under the oversight of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) – an independent federal agency responsible for all US government and government-sponsored, non-military, international broadcasting (RFE/RL Website, http://www.rferl.org/about/organization/history.asp, accessed on 18 February 2008).

The bold is my addition... and causes the same doubt to be thrown on the veracity of the sources underpinning the scholarship you so cherish coming out of the Hoover Institute.

Maybe, next time, you should read what I actually write and respond to it, rather than knee-jerking a response to what you'd like to pretend I wrote... and in the process "outing" yourself as a fan of Hooverian "scholarship"?

[RZM]

274. You didnt' say a single substantive thing about United Russia

Are you troubled by their monopoly on political power? I sure am, as are other international monitoring organizations that observe democracy all over the world. Any thoughts on them?

[LooseWilly]

283. If your point is about Russia, why did you post a Hoover Institute link about China?

Your link was about China, hence I assumed that was what you wanted to change the subject to, so I responded in kind.

As we're now changing the topic back to Russia (which has apparently now become 'United' with something... which you don't feel like bothering to elucidate)... I thought I'd do a little experiment. I googled your apparently arbitrary premise ("United Russia monopoly on political power") + Hoover Institute (since I know you're fond of them).

I found an interesting policy review (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/64571) which I do indeed have some thoughts on.

Though market capitalism has taken a severe beating in the recent global financial crisis, he insists that it remains the best model for creating wealth, promoting growth, and delivering prosperity worldwide. Yet, as he explains in his new book, The End of the Free Market, market capitalism now faces a major threat from within capitalism itself.

That threat is state capitalism, and around the world it appears to be the new fad. Its adherents range from powerful former communist countries like Russia and China, to Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to energy-rich authoritarian states like Iran and Venezuela. Democracies such as India and Mexico showcase elements of state capitalism too, and vibrant emerging markets such as Brazil flirt with it.

The bold is, of course, mine... and once again the Hoover Institute seems to have cogently summed up your point. You, your friends/associates at the Hoover Institute, as well as "other monitoring organizations" (by the way, the use of other there... was that meant to imply that you, also, are an international monitoring agency?—You can tell me, are you CIA? Some sort of propaganda operative affiliated with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty? I won't tell anyone...)—are concerned about State Capitalism... but specifically State Capitalism in Russia, not so much in China.

So what, I ask myself, is the difference between the two? And the difference I see immediately is that China has invested so much cash/resources into the US that any totter in the US economy is a threat to them... while Russia hasn't. And with that difference comes a xenophobic right wing concern (enter, the Hoover Institute) about what might happen if a political/industrial/economic/military power might re-emerge in Russia to challenge US hegemony.

To be honest, I don't really care if it happens. Unlike thinkers at the Hoover Institute, I'm against monopolies... including super-power monopolies on global power. I welcome the threat of Russia's Pepsi intruding on the US Coke marketplace.

Obviously, you aren't really troubled by the "monopoly" on political power either, or you'd also be talking about China... and their State Capitalism. You'd've taken my point about anything that can be said about China can be said about Russia... if you were concerned about a "monopoly on political power".

You're not concerned about a monopoly of political power, you're concerned about a lack of opponents/dissidents to covertly use to undermine a State Capitalist potential power which might threaten the US monopoly on global political power.

(Ohh, and one last thought I had... has it ever occurred to you or your mates at the Hoover Institute that "State Capitalist" is an oxymoron?... "State Capitalism" in a State which is responsive to it's citizens is—Communism... the citizens/state controlling the means of production... and "State Capitalism" in a State which isn't responsive to its citizens is—Fascism...) :+

[sabrina 1]

302. Very interesting posts, excellent research, thank you! n/t

[LooseWilly]

303. I've been reading your sub-threads as well... and your contributions were invaluable- thank you too.

I know nothing about RT, but a cursory poking around the website (I have no cable, so I didn't even realize it was a cable channel now) looked, to me, as reasonable as any other news site/source. Reading what you posted about it... confirms what wasn't anything more than an educated initial guess.

Thank you. Some specifics and details... increasingly unusual around these parts.

:toast:

[emulatorloo]

52. dunno, it just seems kind of a lame media outlet to go to

[LooseWilly]

147. So... you don't like the news outlet?... which means that the news... what—isn't news?

How is it lame? The site seems reasonable and seems to have news content.

Sounds to me like you just can't take anything Russian as being anything but propaganda... because generations of Cold Warriors said so?

But please... explain in your own words, and support with some examples/evidence (preferably compelling)... why the media outlet seems "kind of lame" to you...

In the meantime, maybe you'd like something so whitebread that it's virtually translucent... have a link to the Iceland news (http://www.icenews.is/) ... maybe that'll make you feel less "lamed" (stories about bicycles and dress codes for taxi drivers... you know—"hard hitting news"... unlike that "lame" Russian news.)

[JackRiddler]

32. Would you complain if he was on FOXNEWS?

Or would you say good for him, for getting a different view on?

Do you think the lead war cheerleaders at CNN (which in the past has used interns provided by Army Intel) are less of a propaganda outlet than Russia Today?

Do you think when a major foreign state network calls, he should reject the opportunity to appear?

West also has a show on NPR. If he says the same thing on NPR as on RT, does the meaning differ?

[emulatorloo]

53. I'm not "COMPLAINING". Just seems like an odd choice of media outlets

[JackRiddler]

55. Your comment is odd, because West is unlikely to choose which outlets invite him...

He's well-known but not in the select category of those who go on wherever and whenever they like. It's unlikely he got up in the morning and said, "CNN, FOX, NBC, or Russia Today? Where should I give an interview today." They called him, he gave an interview, someone posted about it here, and you tried to distract from what he said by making an issue of the channel on which he happened to say it.

[emulatorloo]

57. So he is unable to turn down an interview? interesting.

[JackRiddler]

58. Explain for us why he should turn down the interview...

it should be entertaining.

[emulatorloo]

61. If I were him I would turn it down because 1) it is funded by the Russian Govt 2) it is a marginal

media outlet.

Now tell me why it is soooooooooo verrrrrrrrrrrry important for you that Cornell West associate with RT?

Actually I don't care so don't bother.

I simply think is a lame outlet, and he dimishes himself by associating with it.

That is my opinion, you have yours.

[MattSh]

86. Well, I"ll trust RT

over most USA media.

[JackRiddler]

123. Maybe he should also turn down NPR? (Funded by the USG, sort of marginal media outlet.)

Are you some kind of Turing test?

Because you don't have logical responses, did you know?

It's not important to me that "Cornel West associate with RT." You're the one who chooses to distract from West's statements by making an issue of the outlet.

You're also avoiding the general outlet problem, which is that they are almost all state/corporate propaganda vehicles of one kind or another. Appearing on RT cannot be more shameful or "lame" than appearing on any of the major US networks. West wants to speak to people, so he takes the offers he receives.

[sabrina 1]

129. Why would he turn down an interview on one of the more popular

International News networks? Former Bush officials don't turn down invitations to RT do they? Nor does Tom Hartmann or any other American political figure.

Maybe you're just not familiar with the network. They have a huge viewing audience around the world. Most American politicians and prominent commentators have been interviewed on RT.

[DeSwiss]

76. Yeah.

You know, they're the ones whom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6sYB5d1Bu4">Secretary of State Clinton recognizes as being one of the few real news organizations left in the world. RT and al-Jazeera. Remember, the US media only covers Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and the Palins, etc.

- So if that's where you've been getting your news, I can understand why you're confused.

K&R

[RZM]

167. You are misconstruing Clinton's comments

She's saying that RT is good at propaganda, not that they are a 'real news organization.'

[sabrina 1]

186. Yes, I know she is and that is the height of hypocrisy coming

someone who is asking for more funds to push OUR propaganda. She's bemoaning the fact that we do not control what the world sees anymore, and she wants us to get better at spreading propaganda so that we win the 'information war'.

She is part of the government that tried to silence an International News Organization and called the dispensation of real facts 'spying and treason'. So it is almost amusing to see her infer that Al Jazeera and RT might be biased.

When I watched Al Jazeera's coverage of the uprisings in the ME and N. Africa in the beginning, there was nothing on our media at all about them. Their coverage was excellent, and if people think that just covering news is propaganda, then they are the ones with the problem.

At that time the US was still supporting its friendly dictators. Hillary probably believes that if the people had not had the media and social media coverage of their revolutions, our 'friend and ally' Mubarak might hae survived. She certainly wanted him to. But his people did not and she is going ot have to accept the fact that the US will now have to start acting like a real democracy and stop supporting these despots who crush their own people because people all over the world are sick and tired of oppression.

You made your point, not that you needed to. The Russian Govt is hypocritical. That isn't news to us at all.

[RZM]

275. That is patently false

The US media covered Egypt the second it began, just as RT and AJ did. Like it or not, the US media, which has mega $$ behind it, has the resources to cover things all over the world. They did so during the 'Arab Spring,' so please don't argue that they didn't.

[inna]

102. RT is definitely more trustworthy than certain American mainstream sources. seriously.

educate yourself.

[Justitia]

104. I think it is YOU that needs an education about Russia Today.

I cannot believe people are treating RT as a serious source.

What's next? Pravda?

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

[inna]

108. lol, better than Pravda-on-the-Potomac, that's for darn sure.

[Justitia]

109. Oy. Vey.

[inna]

110. my thoughts exactly when i saw your previous comment

[Justitia]

111. So, you really are that clueless about RT?

See kiddos, this is how efficient propaganda can be.

Which are your favorite segments - the Alex Jones conspiracy theories, the Orly Taitz interviews or just the mainstreaming of virulent racist groups?

[inna]

114. "Which are your favorite segments" etc - I object your defamatory and uncalled for insinuations.

fucking despicable, man.

:thumbsdown:

[Justitia]

115. They are FACTS. Which is a world of difference from RT propaganda.

I'm sorry that cognitive dissonance is so uncomfortable.

[sabrina 1]

132. You're really working hard to try to stop people from making up their

minds. I agree with Inna.

What are YOU so frantic about? Seriously, it's just another news outlet, and a pretty good one whether you like it or not.

Relax, people can make their own judgements, they don't need a nanny

You're free to watch U.S. propaganda and no one really cares, why do you care so much what other people watch? This isn't your job, you don't have to work so hard! :eyes:

[freshwest]

280. Why all this heat, only one link with no real argument, derailing the whole thread?

Keep trying Sabrina, I'm done, this thread is spammed with this. Perhaps that is the intention, since we've forgotten what the OP was now. Excellent diversionary tactic.

[sabrina 1]

284. Interesting isn't it?

'we're losing the information war' ~ I guess it's hard to see your propaganda machine that was so effective for so long, begin to crumble. I imagine we'll see a lot of this kind of thing for a while.

Yes, we did get distracted. But, all in a good cause ~ :-)

[DeSwiss]

131. Maybe you should inform Secretary of State Clinton of your insights.....

...because she http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/hillary-clinton-calls-al-_n_830890.html">seems to think they matter. Or maybe it's just YOU who is clueless.

- Yeah, that makes more sense.....

[sabrina 1]

134. I have met Hillary Clinton, if I meet her again, I certainly will.

Of course she thinks they matter. I think I already said that. 'We are in an information war and we are losing'. Why are we losing? Maybe our 'message' is the wrong message. War and torture policies and support for dictators aren't popular messages with the people of the world these days.

[DeSwiss]

137. If you'll note my reply was to #113.

:) - TY

[sabrina 1]

200. Oops, sorry about that!

:-)

[freshwest]

281. Thanks, it had to be said!

[Justitia]

176. That link was about Al Jazeera, not RT - bizarre.

Did you confuse the two????

:shrug:

[DeSwiss]

206. No.

The link was to an article that related to her testimony before a Senate committee over the State Department's budget request for more propaganda money. In the article, she did refer to RT as well as al-Jazeera and the Chinese efforts to reach the youth of the world with REAL NEWS.

“During the Cold War we did a great job in getting America’s message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, ‘Okay, fine, enough of that, we are done,’ and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it,” she said....We are in an information war and we are losing that war. Al Jazeera is winning, the Chinese have opened a global multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English-language network. I’ve seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive,” http://rt.com/news/information-war-media-us/">she stated.

"Our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact, our private media, particularly in terms of cultural programming, often works at counter-purposes to what we are as Americans and what our values are." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6sYB5d1Bu4">Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

;) - Let me know if you need anymore links.....

[Justitia]

210. Uh, no. There was not a single mention of RT in either the article or the clip you linked to.

Then, you link to the RT site itself, indirectly providing a classic example of propaganda.

Sorry, you can't link to something nonexistent in a legitimate source, then switch your focus to the very "source" in dispute.

[DeSwiss]

220. "....the Russians have opened up an English-language network."

That would be RT she is referring to. If you'd watch the RT video you'll see and hear it for yourself if that's any easier.


- Geeze......

[Justitia]

221. No thanks, not interested in your RT links.

[Name removed]

262. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Justitia]

267. self delete

[ReggieVeggie]

142. already lost your argument, kiddo

[sabrina 1]

133. + 1000 n/t

[Corruption Winz]

151. A few points.....

1. The channel/show obviously has it's slant, but the guests have virtually nothing to do with that. West, for example, didn't seem to sell his viewpoint for the sake of appearing on the channel. He seems consistent with his views of the president. He's not responsible for bringing in a guest that will oppose his views. The station/show is.

2. I agree with a lot of what he said. He's also a fun listen and he's a very intelligent man. However, it'd still be nice to hear an opposing view.

3. As a fellow poster said, I don't really blame RT for not showcasing the other side of the coin. Most channels fall short of that mark to begin with. However, that's still not a reason to go with that trend. Even when some shows/channels attempt to "show the other side," it's typically in a far more hostile situation that involves more bickering than discussion.

[HankyDubs]

240. Still fighting the cold war eh.

Have fun with that.

[Arkana]

2. Oh, good--another black man the right can use as "evidence"

that the "African-American community" has "turned on Obummer".

[liberation]

257. Wow...

Come on say it... say it... I know you want to... uppit...

[Arkana]

268. No, I really don't "want to say it". Care to explain why you went there so quickly?

[MineralMan]

3. Russia Today?

Well, that's special...

[EFerrari]

9. Dr.West was on Al Jazeera last week, if you'd prefer that.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0oGdVUgMZpNXTEAq0BXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=Cornel%20West%20&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-352

[JackRiddler]

56. Democratic Underground?

Is that the best you can do?

[sabrina 1]

130. Yes, it is. One of the more popular International News orgs

similar to Al Jazeera.

I remember being called a traitor for watching Al Jazeera, a 'jihadist gobbling up terrorist propaganda'. Rightwingers, they say the silliest things, but they weren't the only ones.

Bush bombed Al Jazeera and killed a couple of their reporters. But they kept on reporting. A great news organization, finally getting the credit they deserve.

Same thing is happening now with RT. We're all 'pinko commies for watching them. It's a great source for International News with a huge worldwide viewing audience, and I've seen many prominent Americans being interviewed by them, both Democrats and Republicans.

Why the snark? Have you ever watched them? Hillary Clinton was very impressed with their programming and Al Jazeera's.

[Keith Bee]

5. Kicked & Recced

[Starry Messenger]

6. I'm not sure what he means by "morphed"

Apparently Obama was always the way he was and the rest of us were too dumb to notice, according to people here.

[Dokkie]

34. yes, I do understand

what he means by morphed. Just listen to video of Obama during the campaign and you can clearly see that he is not the Obama we have now. Virtually all the promises he can completed without any compromise has been the ones that leaned pro war. Domestic and economci policies for the middle class have all be compromised in favor of the big corps or dropped all together. I sure know that this is not the person I supported and voted for in the 2008 elections.

You and everybody else who come out with this stupid meme that we weren't paying attention or that Obama has been the same are wrong. Look at the campaign speeches and outlined policies and come back and tell me that he hasn't changed.

[Starry Messenger]

45. It's not my meme.

Guess I should have used the sarcasm tag? But no, I don't think he's changed actually. I get frustrated with the people who claim that he's the leftest president evar and also claim that he wasn't hiding his conservatism, that it was all out in the open for anyone to find. It's only in the last couple of years that I've dug up writings from leftists that analyze Obama's early tendencies to neo-liberalism and imperialism. It was not in the mainstream reports at all. He hasn't "changed", but his message is more adapted to his real views now. IMO.

[hulka38]

7. I don't believe the medium distorted his message

in any way and what he said rang true.

[Teaser]

8. How to "Cornel West" a phrase:

Insert the word "radical" in front of the phrase.

"Radical democratic awakening"

"Radical academic practice"

"Radical shopping trip"


or affix the term "consciousness" to the end of the phrase.

"post modern consciousness"

"econo-social consciousness"

"breakfast cereal consciousness"

If you can use "radical" and "consciousness" together in the same turn of phrase, you will level up and achieve a Cornel Westplosion!

"Radical Millennial Post-Christianizing Consciousness"

[Itchinjim]

10. Cornel who?

[whistler162]

153. Yup... basically my question!

[FormerDittoHead]

11. He should shut the fuck up! Everyone hates him! He's nobody! What has he ever done?

Hey, I just want to fit in around here.

I usually enjoy Cornel West when he's on Bill Maher and respect his work.

Certainly when he was on Obama's side no one was questioning what he said, but he's now under the bus, so, FUCK YOU Professor West! Come back when you have something to say supportive of Obama!

[Teaser]

25. I don't care if he supports Obama or not

I just wish he wasn't so bloody overrated.

Publish a seminal article sometime, Professor West.

[RandomKoolzip]

168. What, his books aren't enough?

[Youth Uprising]

31. Seriously...

Someone should make a list of all the people who have been thrown under the bus by this administration's supporters. So far we've got:

Cenk Uygur
Keith Olbermann
Glenn Greenwald
Jane Hamsher
Adam Green
Cindy Sheehan
Ed Schultz
Matt Damon
Michael Moore
Cornel West

Any takes on who's next?

[RZM]

33. I'm not sure how these people were 'thrown under the bus?'

I really hope you're not arguing that Olbermann's firing is evidence of that, because your list also includes the guy hired to replace him.

[Youth Uprising]

49. All of those people have been attacked personally on DU

for speaking out against the president.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FormerDittoHead]

155. WTF? I forgot the :sarcasm: emoticon! Can't edit it now...

I could have sworn I put the :sarcasm: tag in there for people like you who aren't used to my writing style.

[Cherchez la Femme]

159. I think your Snark-O-Meter's broken nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

14. K&R

I have really enjoyed watching Cornell West on the late night talk shows over the years.

[treestar]

15. does he think former Presidents weren't

This kind of crazy cynicism usually goes for all - the whole system is corrupt, blah, blah, we can never win. Let's all move to Russia.

[asjr]

17. I am beginning to understand just what that

expression "Talk is cheap" means.

[Siouxmealso]

18. I kinda doubt

if ol' Cornel will be voting republican anytime soon.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

21. Yeah and that is the bottom line

If your a liberal, where else do you have to go?

[ProudDad]

299. Cuba, Belize, Europe, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador

lots of places...

The Empire's dying, it may be time to bail before it gets too dangerous to stay...

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, Dennis Kucinich, Congressional LIBERALS, Cornell West

The list is growing. Pretty soon, there will be no one left for the war/nuke/oil supporters to immensely dislike. All of the above were admired when the idiot-in-chief was squatting in the WH. Go figure.

[ecstatic]

23. That's an awesome way to stay relevant

Even the "black intellectuals" have turned on Obama!!!11

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[otohara]

30. Bashing The President on Foreign TV

isn't that a NO, NO, or is it only a NO, NO if it's Huckabee or other loons on the far-right doing the bashing?

[JackRiddler]

59. Please, tell me you're just play-acting Joe McCarthy for fun.

Terrors! Bashing! The President! To Furrners!!! Treason!

[creon]

35. Comes with the territory.

This sort of thing has happened again and again in american politcal history; West is another in a long line of former friends accusing a president of betraying them.

Presidents have a bad habit of betraying politcal friends.

West, basically, found Obama useful for a time; and West knows full well that Obama never had any intention of doing what West wanted Obama to do.

[kas125]

98. I think it's more like Obama found Dr. West and the rest of

us useful for a time. Once we'd given more money than we could really afford (at least in my case) and knocked on doors and made hundreds of phone calls and got him elected, he had no further use for us. Ya know, us, the "fucking retards" who expected him to be different than his predecessors.

[creon]

145. he is not that much different

[LoZoccolo]

39. Cornel West: now on the automatic unrecommend list. n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

42. kinda like all of your threads

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

46. .

:spray:

[Lucian]

92. Oh snap!

[kas125]

105. Ain't that the truth! n/t

[sabrina 1]

135. Lol!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

60. This is it. Russian TV + Black Leftist = Communists Taking Over! Better join up with the Tea Party!

[RZM]

64. It's not really 'Russian TV'. It's Englsh langauge material produced by the Russian government

Specifically for the foreign audience. Though seeing as much of the media in Russia is also co-opted by the Kremlin, television news there really isn't that much different.

[JackRiddler]

125. It's a Russian government TV project, yes. Which makes it Russian...

In the same way that Deutsche Welle is a state-sponsored German network for the world, and VOA does the same thing for the US. China has one, so does Iran, so do presumably other countries I'm not thinking of. Really Al Jazeera is one too, state-owned and aimed at a world audience.

So?

Luckily, we're not in Russia!

One of the US networks surely was never owned by a leading war contractor until a few weeks ago.

The most famous US news network internationally is surely not a war-cheerleading outfit with a former CIA anchor.

Thank god there isn't a US network run pretty much directly as a 24/7 attack vehicle for delivering the talking points of the Republican Party and stirring up as many people as possible into hating the poor and other.

It's not like six oligarchs own all of the television networks. We have free media in this country! It's very embarrassing for Cornel West that he should accept an interview offer from a TV project out of Russia, where conditions are so enormously different.

[tomp]

138. thank you! nt

[liberation]

255. Zing!

Doncha love American exceptionalism.

[freshwest]

282. Oh, no, you said oligarch! I'll bet you claimed Bush wasn't wearing any clothes, either! Commie!

:rofl:

:hi:

[QC]

43. He's just jealous! n/t

[Scurrilous]

44. Fancy that!

:P

[democracy1st]

47. K & R

[BlueIris]

71. "'Becomes' a puppet"?

As if he has not been a puppet all along.

[tomp]

139. yes. nt

[ProSense]

72. Cornel West

has been saying the same thing for years, he simply added Obama to the list.

Cornel West on the Election of Barack Obama: "I Hope He Is a Progressive Lincoln, I Aspire to Be the Frederick Douglass to Put Pressure on Him"

<...>

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cornel West, you were a big supporter of Barack Obama, but you also have been giving speeches about holding him to account. What are the issues you are most concerned about right now?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think, as a deep Democrat, I recognize I have some significant differences with Brother Barack. He’s a liberal. It looked like he wants to govern as a liberal-centrist, given the choices of Emanuel—Rahm Emanuel and others. And one has to be honest and candid in terms of one’s criticism, because in the end, it’s not about Barack Obama, it’s about empowering working people and poor people. It’s about trying to accent the dignity of those Sly Stone called “everyday people.” And when he moves in that direction, it’s good. When he doesn’t move in that direction, we need to criticize him. Same is true in terms of foreign policy: Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. We have to be honest about it.

For me, my criticism of Barack has to do with trying to acknowledge the degree to which, one, thank God we’re at the end of the age of Ronald Reagan, we’re at the end of the era of conservatism, we’re coming to the end of the epoch of the Southern Strategy. For the first time now, we’ve got some democratic possibilities. This has been a political ice age, and the melting is just beginning. And Barack Obama is a symbol, but we’ve got to move from symbol to substance. We’ve got to move from what he represents in a broad sense—and it’s a beautiful thing to have a black man in the White House, we know that, and black slaves and laborers and other white immigrants built the White House. And to have a black family there, significant; black face for the American empire, fine. Can we revitalize democratic possibilities on the ground with Barack in the White House? I think we can. We can put some serious pressure on him, and we can actually continue the democratic awakening among working people and poor people and push Barack in a progressive direction.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about just this latest news that came out last night—of course, not the official announcement, but Eric Holder, the former deputy attorney general under President Clinton, being tapped as the next attorney general, if confirmed?

CORNEL WEST: Well, two things. First, on a personal level, I know Brother Eric Holder. I’ve spent good time with him in meetings and so on. He’s a brilliant lawyer. He’s a very decent human being. I know he was very upset about Clinton’s attitude toward crime. We know during the Clinton administration we got the tightening of the mandatory sentences that’s had devastating effects on poor communities, especially disproportionately black and brown poor communities. And Eric took a strong stand in that regard. I appreciate that, because there’s a sense that we kind of whitewash the Clinton administration—welfare bill, crime, deregulation and so forth. We’ve got to be honest about some of the flaws during the age of Reagan and the Clinton moments during the age of Reagan. And Eric did take a stand.

<...>

Video: The Precarious Fate of Barack Obama

Transcript:

Cornel West: I think that my dear brother Barack Obama, President Obama, he's a very complicated fellow. He has a sterling democratic rhetoric at his best that reminds you of Saul Alinsky and the others at times. He has a technocratic team when it comes to policy, so there's not just a tension but oftentimes there's contradictions between the two, you see. He comes out of a black tradition that has been explicit about telling the truth about white supremacy, but he himself holds race at arm's length until there's a crisis: Jamal right here, and Skip Gates there, you see. And it's partly because he's such a masterful politician. He's brilliant, he's charismatic, he's a masterful politician. And he's concerned about cutting the deal and winning the election. And I think in the end this is going to be a major challenge for him.

He has to decide whether he wants to be an Abe Lincoln, who began as a mediocre politician -- remember, Abe Lincoln supported the first proposed thirteenth Amendment that set slavery for ever in the U.S. Constitution. Frederick Douglas bought a ticket to go to Haiti; he said, I would never live in a nation that has an unamendable amendment. Lincoln supported that. That was opportunistic at the core; he hated slavery, but he was willing to say keep these people in slavery for ever to preserve the union. You see, that's not the Lincoln that we talk about as great. Lincoln became great because of Harriet Beecher Stowe, Wendell Phillips, Charles Sumner, who was beat up by Preston Brooks from South Carolina, Frederick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman. It was the abolitionist movement that helped make Lincoln great. Barack Obama has a choice between the greatness of a Lincoln and the masterful Machiavellian sensibilities of a Bill Clinton, who was brilliant, charismatic, masterful, but tended to be too opportunistic. So far, Barack Obama has leaned more toward the Clinton side than the Lincoln side. That was partly because he doesn't have an abolitionist movement equivalent. He doesn't have a social movement. That's what we need to do: we need to put pressure on him.

Question: What would this effort look like?

Cornel West: Well, it's a very good question. I mean, the kind of thing you're doing here on the Internet is very important, because it won't take the old traditional form of just hitting the streets. Hitting the streets will be one form; it's got to take a whole host of different forms, different voices, different views, different visions put forward, critiques of what's going on behind the scenes to reveal the contradictions of the Obama administration. We need young people who are looking at the world through a very different set of lenses than even myself, because I'm old-school, you know. And no school has the monopoly on truth. Yes, I do still see classes, and I see empires and so forth and so on. But there's also ways of looking at the world through popular culture that young people have that I don't fully understand, so that some of their criticisms would take forms that it will take me time to understand and grasp, you see. But we have to have the courage to not just raise our voices, but connect into organizations so that people can begin to see there are alternatives than the old neoliberalism dressed up in fashionable form, with a democratic rhetoric that hides a concealed technocratic policy. And it could be that, you know, Barack Obama himself, you know, he's waiting to make his turn toward Lincolnesque greatness. He hasn't made it yet, and of course the decision on Afghanistan is going to be very important. It's going to be difficult to have a peace prize and be a war president.

His current statement is being pushed as if it's an epiphany based on the President's first two years in office.

[EFerrari]

83. Yes, the man's values have been consistent through out his career. n/t

[Solomon]

156. Easy to do when you don't have to do anything but talk.

[EFerrari]

192. You'd be surprised.

:)

[frylock]

223. another winning campaign slogan!

[Le Taz Hot]

178. I was just going to point that out.

Also, and, so, what's changed to the advantage of the poor and middle class in all these years? If the results had been there, the message would have changed. Some days this place just doesn't make any damned sense.

[EFerrari]

194. Early on in the Obama admin, there were roundtables

of black leaders that tried to warn, the black community wasn't participaing in whatever "recovery" was happening.

They were right. And now we know, neither was anyone else, really, except the financial sector.

At one of those roundtables, West had brought some object with "love" printed on it -- I don't remember if it was a paper weight or what it was. But it was to remind people to refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the president and to offer their critique in a "loving" way. People kept handing it back and forth.

[Nevernose]

101. So how do we give Obama a social movement?

Dr. West, as usual appears correct. In one part of your transcript, he says we have to change Obama with a social movement just as a centrist, compromising Lincoln was changed by the strong abolition movement.

So how do I -- and DU in general -- do that? How do the DUers without PhDs in poli sci and gobs of money or much of a voice at all create a social movement from scratch, or even just resucitate the one on life support?

I'm tired of mostly sitting around and bitching on the internet, so what can I do tomorrow to fuel this social movement? Tell me where to start and I'll do it.

[ReggieVeggie]

143. West supported Obama

now, like so many others, he feels betrayed

[me b zola]

75. Excellent interview

Dr West has been slow to criticize Pres Obama this deeply. For many of us the realization of Obama is not on our side has been a slow, painful process.

[Lucian]

88. I wish I was a student of Dr. West.

I like him.

[Dystopian]

91. KandR

peace~

[Safetykitten]

93. Well I guess he's off the donor list for cash.

[Divernan]

170. It's impossible to get off Obama's donor list. I've been trying for 2 years now.

[robcon]

95. 'America in the midst of a ‘radical democratic awakening' No it's not

Dems will have political power for a while, then Repuglicans will.

Why has anything changed? That's the way it's been for a long time.

[SnakeEyes]

97. LOL... Glenn Beck will have a field day with this.

[Le Taz Hot]

180. So, we're supposed to hold our criticism

because of what Glenn Beck might say? Of all the excuses of why no one should ever criticize Obama, "Glenn Beck will have a field day with this" is the weakest I've seen so far.

[Justitia]

100. Putting aside the Cornel West thing, people need to educate themselves on Russia Today

you do not want to use them as a source for anything

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

[sabrina 1]

136. I do! Great source for International news and now available on

Time Warner's Cable lineup.

Biased article from SPLC. Did Hillary get the funding she was asking for to 'get our message across' and some of it went to SPLC?

[Divernan]

172. I'm looking forward to following RT-thanks for the heads up

I'm particularly inclined to find RT credible after reading the snarky, Joe McCarthy, witch-hunt, better red than dead attacks on it.

[Le Taz Hot]

181. It does tend to pique one's interest,

doesn't it? I didn't have an opinion one way or the other with RT but seeing the responses on this thread, and from which notorious posters, NOW I'm interested.

[Starry Messenger]

202. Especially the ones citing the Hoover Institute.

That's about as right wing as you can get without falling off the wing.

[frylock]

225. no shit..

i have yet to see that poster refute ANYTHING in the article.

[ReggieVeggie]

144. West was giving an interview

because it was aired on RT does not de-legitimize what he was saying

[Mimosa]

199. Some people want to distract us from West's words. n/t

[JTFrog]

157. Useful tool

for useful idiots.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gimama]

118. way to start a Discussion!

Welcome to DU!

[tomp]

140. once which was effectively turned away from obama's...

....rightism to xenophobic drivel by american media sychophants.

[spicegal]

141. I don't think Obama's a puppet, but rather walking a political

tight rope. The rich and their money are not easily parted. He's now working with a hostile House. The Republicans have done everything in their power to gum up the works and sully his character. They've been quite successful at wielding power even when they had no power. Add to that the fact that money is power, and money is required to win elections. Unfortunately, that's our political system, and until we fundamentally make some changes, our politicians will primarily work for the elite. We won't make changes until things get so bad that Americans finally wake up and understand what's been ripped away from them over the past 30 years. Unfortunately, our young people will pay the price.

[Poboy]

148. Recommend!

[disillusioned73]

150. K&R..

:dem:

[ProudDad]

216. I saw Brother West here in Tucson the other night...

He's a brilliant man with the (mostly) right take on events and what we need to do about them...

He's an exciting, dynamic, interesting speaker -- the hour FLEW...

And for you knee-jerkers, he mentioned your little tin god twice in passing in a substance and inspiration filled hour...

Hell, anyone who's paying attention knows that Obama is a "puppet" for the Plutocrats...

[frylock]

226. tucson is in arizona, right?

arizona is full of right-wing whacko politicians, isn't that correct? you actually believe something that was said in arizona?!! :sarcasm:

[ProudDad]

230. Tucson is a Progressive oasis

in an otherwise fucked up state...

We have arguably the 2nd MOST Progressive Congressman in Raul Grijalva from here (the most Progressive is probably my old congressperson, Barbara Lee)...

I'll take your post as being based on ignorance and not malice... :hi:

[frylock]

236. i was being completely factious based on the theme of the thread..

because, after all, it really doesn't matter what's being said, rather the venue where it is said is what counts around here, apparently.

[kjackson227]

229. I've just about had it with WTMW (West The Media Whore). So,

exactly what does he wish to accomplish with these negative rants??? Going overseas and bashing our president is not only counter productive, but it also lacks class.

[ProudDad]

231. What lacks class is commenting on someone

with whom you are obviously unfamiliar...

Edumacate Yourself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=810770&mesg_id=817615

Or actually listen to the man before forming an "opinion", OK?

[kjackson227]

232. Oh, so you're going to try and tell me what I know and don't know...

about West The Opportunist??? I know all I need to know about him, and I'm not impressed. His performances are geared towards people who don't know any better...

[digidigido]

233. With all due respect to all the posts

1) I don't particularly care for West. I think he's the Don King of intellectuals
2) No matter what media site we are talking about, the issue should not be the site, but the content
3) Obama is working for the benefit of same rich and powerful interests that Bush was, and to deny
it is folly. In many respects he's worse then Bush, he knows better.

[ProudDad]

298. I think you would have enjoyed seeing nearly 2000 University of Arizona Students

Completely energized to continue or begin a Progressive path thanks to Dr. West...

It was inspirational to me...

Even though I disagree with him about religion I still think he's a good soul...and it comes across...

[liberation]

256. Not that long ago it wasn't classy and very counter productive to bash Bush

The more things change...

[kjackson227]

260. I can always tell when someone doesn't have...

a credible argument because they bring in the Bush digs. President Obama has an 88% favorability rating among LIBERAL Dems... your analogy is a F-A-I-L. But, maybe you can answer my questions... how are West's negative rants helping Americans at the moment??? What is West trying to accomplish???

[upi402]

264. uhhh, TRUTH!

Facts annoying you?


LOL, it wont hurt long for some of us.

[kjackson227]

266. How about answering the questions instead...

of making nonsensical remarks.

[upi402]

270. LOL, well alrighty then!

You call Cornell West a whore. First, have you viewed this entire interview:
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2011/03/201132863311584728.html

Then we can have a bit of a go about all his money-grubbing, attention whore lies...:rofl:

[liberation]

254. Apparently some posters in this thread have not gotten the memo that Russia is no longer Soviet

... if all you can say about the message is that it is being carried out by a Russian news outfit, I am having a tough time decoding what is the angle some are going for: intellectually disingenuous, or xenophobe. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

Almost nothing of substance to juxtapose the message of Cornel West, just massive shooting sprees against the messenger. Quite telling, in its desperation. LOL.

[JackRiddler]

258. Meanwhile, I'm told Cornel West said something about Obama, but we're not allowed to discuss it...

unless we first spend 700 posts debating why he said this thing on the "wrong" channel.

Well played, Talking Points Team!

[ZombieHorde]

259. I have been noticing an increase in distraction tactics.

Pretty interesting.

[QC]

265. It is surely the purest of coincidences, though. n/t

[upi402]

263. I saw his wonderful interview...

on Al Jazeera IIRC. Cornel West was brilliant. No wonder the propaganda media here wont air his views. He tags Obama as a big disappointment and a corporatist. 100% true (shhhhh)

And the side Obama sucks up to hates him and call him a commie. LOL@corporate-whores and their delusions!

[Little Star]

300. I hope that radical democratic awakening is about the

class war going on in this country. (prob. all over the world)

We need to have this war right now, out in the open, and the rich need to be brought down to their knees! Greedy crooks all!

We peons need to bring it to them! Now!