Julian Assange Takes Job for Russia Today

[NoZed Avenger]

You may remember Mr. Assange, he's the guy who releases government secrets? Some time back, he said he had lots of government secrets, including of Russia.

Bets on whether he releases any?

That’s right: Assange, self-styled foe of government secrets and conspiracies of the powerful, is going to be a star on a TV network backed by the Kremlin. The same Kremlin that has done suspiciously little to investigate or prevent the killings and beatings of journalists that have plagued Russia for more than a decade. The same Kremlin accused of blatant fraud in December’s parliamentary elections. The same Kremlin whose control of the country’s broadcast media allowed it to suppress coverage of the massive protests mounted in response to that fraud. The same Kremlin whose embrace of corruption led to Russia being named “the world’s most corrupt major economy” by Transparency International in 2011.

And so on. That Kremlin is Julian Assange’s new patron. The same Julian Assange who accused President Obama of putting “a chill across investigative journalism” by prosecuting Army leaker Bradley Manning.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/01/25/the-breathtaking-hypocrisy-of-julian-assange-kremlin-pawn/


Maybe he's going undercover to break the story of the dozens of journalists who have dies under mysterious circumstances in modern Russia. . . .

[rwguinn]

You may remember Mr. Assange, he's the guy who releases government secrets? Some time back, he said he had lots of government secrets, including of Russia.

Bets on whether he releases any?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/01/25/the-breathtaking-hypocrisy-of-julian-assange-kremlin-pawn/


Maybe he's going undercover to break the story of the dozens of journalists who have dies under mysterious circumstances in modern Russia. . . .
And you are surprised at this? I'm not...

[Gazpacho]

The same Kremlin whose control of the country’s broadcast media allowed it to suppress coverage of the massive protests mounted in response to that fraud.
RT covered those protests, while exposing western sham reports of riots during the protests that the western media then had to back away from.

[fuelair]

You may remember Mr. Assange, he's the guy who releases government secrets? Some time back, he said he had lots of government secrets, including of Russia.

Bets on whether he releases any?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/01/25/the-breathtaking-hypocrisy-of-julian-assange-kremlin-pawn/


Maybe he's going undercover to break the story of the dozens of journalists who have dies under mysterious circumstances in modern Russia. . . .

I can wait, but I will not halt breathing whilst doing so.

[Checkmite]

I think Assange is disillusioned. He expected that announcing he had classified information leaked from several governments would make him internationally feared or respected or whatnot, and was dejected when, as they say in EVE, "not one damn was given".

Now he just needs money.

[Travis]

Don't tell me he exhausted his supply of Swedish honeys so quickly that now he's going for the Russian babes.

[Sam.I.Am]

Don't tell me he exhausted his supply of Swedish honeys so quickly that now he's going for the Russian babes.

Olga will probably rape him instead... probably not rape-rape of course.

[timhau]

I think Assange is disillusioned.

Or a douche.

[bit_pattern]

So by appearing on Russian TV it makes him a Kremlin operative? My god Americans are an obtuse bunch of crypto fascists :rolleyes:

[Travis]

So by appearing on Russian TV it makes him a Kremlin operative? My god Americans are an obtuse bunch of crypto fascists :rolleyes:

Kremlin spy? Probably not. An unethical tool? Definitely.

[bit_pattern]

Kremlin spy? Probably not. An unethical tool? Definitely.

How is it anymore "unethical" than appearing on, say, the ABC in Australia?

[timhau]

How is it anymore "unethical" than appearing on, say, the ABC in Australia?

You don't know much about Russia Today, do you?

[Gazpacho]

You don't know much about Russia Today, do you?
I wouldn't care if they painted Putin's face big-brother-style on their set backgrounds as long as they continue releasing interviews and raw footage. Oh, and kicking sand in the face of US media when they deserve it.

[thaiboxerken]

Yea, I hate it when people leak government corruption to the public. Julian is a bastard.

[SezMe]

You don't know much about Russia Today, do you?
No, actually, I don't. Educate me.

[The Dark Lord]

Russia Today is a state owned propaganda channel that gives airtime to conspiracy theories, presumably to make the US look bad.

[bit_pattern]

Sounds like Fox News sans the public ownership.

[timhau]

Russia Today is a state owned propaganda channel that gives airtime to conspiracy theories, presumably to make the US look bad.

Yeah, it specializes in all sorts of fringe weirdness. As an example ccording to RT's experts, the financial crisis put the US in an unavoidable course towards a new civil war, which was to break out before the end of 2009. And 2010. And 2011. They give a lot of air time to kooks like Gerald Celente, because they never met a destruction of the West -theory that they didn't like. Sometimes watching it makes you think they missed the part where the USSR fell and the Cold War ended.

[Childlike Empress]

Hillary is afraid the sheeple will notice the propaganda when exposed to alternative viewpoints:

NBsALgjLK0U

[timhau]

I was going to add that cranks and kooks naturally love RT.

[Childlike Empress]

I was going to add that cranks and kooks naturally love RT.


That would indeed have looked stupid under Hillary's counter-evidence. yw.

[Gazpacho]

As a matter of full disclosure could you identify the TV news networks whose entire program lineup you approve of?

[bit_pattern]

As a matter of full disclosure could you identify the TV news networks whose entire program lineup you approve of?

Yes, I'd be interested to hear an answer to this. And can anyone clarify for me, as the article was heavy on rhetoric and light on clarity, is he just being interviewed by RT or is he being employed by them?

[bit_pattern]

OK, so he's being employed by them essentially. That is pretty **********

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16716904

[Childlike Empress]

From the press release (http://wikileaks.org/New-Assange-TV-Series.html):

The series will begin airing in mid-March, in ten weekly half-hour episodes. Initial licensing commitments cover over 600 million viewers across cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcast networks. To enquire about licensing the series for your region contact contact@quickrollproductions.com.

[DC]

Russia Today is a state owned propaganda channel that gives airtime to conspiracy theories, presumably to make the US look bad.

state owned or not has nothing to do with it being propaganda or not, FOX has propaganda running also and are not state owned, other stations that are state or public owned are not propaganda stations at all. Also FOX has its conspiracy nuts on air.

but i agree that Rt is terribly onesided just as is FOX news or PressTV.

[Gazpacho]

Margarita Simonyan, the channel's editor-in-chief, tweeted: "Assange will record the programme under house arrest.
Talk about a short commute.

OK, so he's being employed by them essentially.
He's producing shows for sale to RT.

[timhau]

As a matter of full disclosure could you identify the TV news networks whose entire program lineup you approve of?

Comedy Central.

[Childlike Empress]

Comedy Central.


Shows.

[Arcade22]

Don't worry. RT is about as fair and balanced about the west (The US) as western (American) newspapers and tv stations are about Russia, so it evens out.

[NoZed Avenger]

Assange announced he had information harmful to the Russian government and he has never released it. The Russian government is suspected (that is not a strong enough term) to have had tens of journalists outright killed, more beaten, for being negative about it. RT is Russian's non-secret propaganda arm.

And that's all ok in some quarters because at least they put their thumb in the eye of the real enemy, the U.S.


Give the people what they want, I guess.

[Childlike Empress]

Yeah, yeah, we get it. Assange evil. RT evil. Birds of a feather. Five minutes of hate.

If I were you I would be more concerned that you always have to peel layers and layers of propaganda from a "news" item to get from the idiotic ramblings in your OP quote to the competition bashing of the BBC to the fact that Assange produces the show himself and only licences it to RT.

Like RT reports (and understandably "hopes" that they will have it exclusive):

dWIal1rakvw

[bit_pattern]

Assange announced he had information harmful to the Russian government and he has never released it.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia

I agree though that he shouldn't involve himself or Wikileaks with an organ of the Russian government. I'm not convinced that the sentiments expressed in the OP or in the thread are necessarily accurate, I will wait to see what actually happens, but if it is how it seems then its unconscionable.

[bit_pattern]

RT really doesn't sound any worse than most American news service, I could find a parallel criticisms for every US MSM outlet. I think Americans find it shocking because it gives different views to the propganda that passes for news over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Controversies_and_criticisms

[Childlike Empress]

RT is the propaganda arm of the Kremlin in exactly the same way as "Voice of America" is the propaganda arm of the White House. Not more, not less.

[bit_pattern]

RT is the propaganda arm of the Kremlin in exactly the same way as "Voice of America" is the propaganda arm of the White House. Not more, not less.

Sounds about right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America#Controversy

On April 2, 2007, Abdul Malik Rigi, the leader of Jundullah, a militant group with possible links to al-Qaeda, appeared on Voice of America's Persian service. VOA introduced Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement".[60] The interview resulted in public condemnation by the Iranian-American community, as well as the Iranian government.[61][61][62][62][63] Jundullah is a Sunni Islamiist militant organization that has been linked to numerous attacks on civilians, such as the 2009 Zahedan explosion.

[WildCat]

I wouldn't care if they painted Putin's face big-brother-style on their set backgrounds as long as they continue releasing interviews and raw footage. Oh, and kicking sand in the face of US media when they deserve it.
Yeah, like when they showed that 9/11 was an inside job (http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-job/print/). That's some serioius journalism they practice at Russia Today!

I wish Assange well in his new role as Putin's hand puppet.

[WildCat]

RT really doesn't sound any worse than most American news service
If the late great Weekly World News was typical of American news service. :rolleyes:

[IDB87]

Olga will probably rape him instead... probably not rape-rape of course.

Snu snu?

[WildCat]

PD-Mn2kKlts

1TvPO36JqmY

It's Russia's version of prisonplanet. Anything is fit to broadcast, so long as it's anti-US.

[bit_pattern]

PD-Mn2kKlts

1TvPO36JqmY

It's Russia's version of prisonplanet. Anything is fit to broadcast, so long as it's anti-US.

Glen Beck.

/argument

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yeah, like when they showed that 9/11 was an inside job (http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-job/print/). That's some serioius journalism they practice at Russia Today!

Or how the US used "cold fusion neutron bombs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0MnIbcq7jnU#t=235s)" in Fallujah?

[WildCat]

Glen Beck.

/argument
Who's defending Glenn Beck?

Here you are defending Russia Today, who you correctly peg as the equivalent of Glenn Beck, except Glenn Beck isn't a mouthpiece of the US government like Russia Today is Putin's personal propaganda machine.

[WildCat]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7961283) bit_pattern cites the Washington Times and Debka as reliable news sources.

[timhau]

RT really doesn't sound any worse than most American news service, I could find a parallel criticisms for every US MSM outlet.

I'm sure you can. I'm also pretty sure I can find some scathing reviews of Rear Window, which obviously means it's as bad as Uwe Boll movies.

I take it you've never actually watched RT.

[WildCat]

RT is the propaganda arm of the Kremlin in exactly the same way as "Voice of America" is the propaganda arm of the White House. Not more, not less.
Do you have any examples of the Voice of America pushing ridiculous and nonsensical conspiracy theories?

[Gazpacho]

Glenn Beck isn't a mouthpiece of the US government like Russia Today is Putin's personal propaganda machine.
Glenn Beck was far more focused on propaganda than RT has ever been. You can continue the parade of RT horribles all day if you want. It just shows how effective the US has been at boxing people in ideologically.

I listened to Radio Moscow too. Good jazz shows.

[Arcade22]

Yeah, like when they showed that 9/11 was an inside job (http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-job/print/). That's some serioius journalism they practice at Russia Today!

I wish Assange well in his new role as Putin's hand puppet.

Seems fair considering that western journalists air unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russia all the time.

[Childlike Empress]

Do you have any examples of the Voice of America pushing ridiculous and nonsensical conspiracy theories?


What you consider to be ridiculous is completely irrelevant and you falling into your usual ad hominem routine shows exactly that: you have nothing of value to add.

[Pardalis]

Except a big tu quoque, I haven't see you advance any argument CE.

[timhau]

Seems fair considering that western journalists air unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russia all the time.

Like ... ?

(And please, no 'alternative' news sites; we all know many of them never saw a conspiracy they didn't like.)

[Checkmite]

I think he was being ironical.

[theprestige]

Assange announced he had information harmful to the Russian government and he has never released it.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia

bit_pattern, did you post those links to support NoZed's assertion?

Because if that's what Wikileaks considers "harmful" information, then I have vastly overestimated the significance of Assange's work.

[WildCat]

What you consider to be ridiculous is completely irrelevant and you falling into your usual ad hominem routine shows exactly that: you have nothing of value to add.
How is that an ad hom?

Do you have any examples of the Voice of America pushing ridiculous nonsensical conspiracy theories?

[WildCat]

Seems fair considering that western journalists air unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russia all the time.
Which ones are employed by government?

[Childlike Empress]

Anybody caught Michael Hastings' long interview (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-assange-the-rolling-stone-interview-20120118?print=true) with Assange in Rolling Stone last week? Quite interesting.

[SezMe]

Aha, now I know where I've seen the green RT before. I've seen snippets of Thom Hartmann on youtube which are, apparently, outtakes from a show he does for them. He's also on commercial radio in the USA (but not in my area). Hartmann seems to be a standard -issue liberal, not some anti-USA kook. Or is he RT's equivalent of Playboy's interviews.

[BenBurch]

So, the little pervert sold out?

[BenBurch]

Aha, now I know where I've seen the green RT before. I've seen snippets of Thom Hartmann on youtube which are, apparently, outtakes from a show he does for them. He's also on commercial radio in the USA (but not in my area). Hartmann seems to be a standard -issue liberal, not some anti-USA kook. Or is he RT's equivalent of Playboy's interviews.

I know Thom quiet well. He's very smart but somewhat prone to CT thinking.

[Marduk]

You don't know much about Russia Today, do you?

You don't know much about ABC in Australia do you ?
:D

[The Dark Lord]

Isn't Alex Jones a frequent guest on RT? Real solid work they do.

[Travis]

How is it anymore "unethical" than appearing on, say, the ABC in Australia?

If I make that claim then I'll try and defend it.

Glenn Beck was far more focused on propaganda than RT has ever been. You can continue the parade of RT horribles all day if you want. It just shows how effective the US has been at boxing people in ideologically.

I listened to Radio Moscow too. Good jazz shows.

And Glenn Beck was rightly derided by everyone except his little cult following for focusing on propaganda. Why does Russia Today get a free pass to make up anything they want and use a hypocritical narcissist like Assange to do it?

Seems fair considering that western journalists air unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russia all the time.

Such as????????????
And how is that constructive? Retaliatory lying would be a great way to make sure the world stays divided.

[Gazpacho]

There is literally nothing shown on RT except conspiracy theories. (This is what Americans actually believe.)

[bit_pattern]

Who's defending Glenn Beck?

No-one. The point is that you said you don't see CT's on MSM news in America. That's BS, Beck was one of the highest rating presenters in the country for awhile there.

And if we want to talk about CT, how come I've never seen a serious Birther argument outside of the US media? People laugh in disbelief here at that sort of crap yet it gets a serious run in America and not just on Faux news either. You guys live in some bizarre twilight zone from what I can tell. Seriously, RT doesn't seem any worse in comparison to the unbelievable crap I see in the US media everyday.

And what of the Great CT that was te lead up to the Iraq War? The ENTIRE media was culbable in spinning a web of lies that anyone with half a brain outside of the American media bubble could tell was a complete farce. I'm sure Russia would just LOVE to have their entire media landscape marching in lock step with no apparent coordination. At the risk of Godwining myself (and I'm sure the usual suspects will be relieved to be able to focus on this rather than anything of substance), THAT is true feat of total indoctrination that even the Nazi's would have had trouble achieving.

And now its happening again with Iran.

But, of course, RT are the CT'ers *nod nod* *wink wink* :rolleyes:

The only difference being is that RT is only one station, not an entire media institution, and that people such as yourself seem incapable of recognising propaganda within your own media.

Really, the whole argument in this thread is the "we" are in the right, pure as the driven snow, and "they" are teh evilz empirez who engage in scurrilous propaganda.

[bit_pattern]

If I make that claim then I'll try and defend it.



And Glenn Beck was rightly derided by everyone except his little cult following for focusing on propaganda. Why does Russia Today get a free pass to make up anything they want and use a hypocritical narcissist like Assange to do it?

Unfortunately, not being a Russian speaker, that's a very hard claim to verify.

I was about to ask you for evidence then realised that would be asking you to prove a negative so I started googling but quickly found English language google is flooded with English language perspectives of RT. I don't know what Russians think or say about the station other than what RT has said to defend itself.

Since we can't demonstrate one way or another I would have to say that your claim they get a "free pass" is unsubstantiated and I am very sceptical of what I consider a very dubious assertion and will regretfully have to leave it at that.

[bit_pattern]

So, the little pervert sold out?

Way to slander a man who hasn't been proven guilty of anything :rolleyes: It's not like the feminazi's in Sweden would ever stoop so low as to be recruited as honey-pots by the shadowy intelligence community. No, that would never happen :rolleyes:

[bit_pattern]

bit_pattern, did you post those links to support NoZed's assertion?

Because if that's what Wikileaks considers "harmful" information, then I have vastly overestimated the significance of Assange's work.

No, I posted them in the interests of openness and honesty, i.e. let's all have a look at exactly what Wikileaks has released on Russia. The OP made out like they'd never released anything critical of Russia, but that much is at least demonstrably false, there is plenty of criticism there, although maybe lacking in the sensationalism that you seem to demand from them.

[bit_pattern]

Here you go, Travis, I realise it is only one opinion and not at all comparable with the widespread condemnation of Glenn Beck that I used to see here among other places, but it's at least some evidence that RT doesn't get a "free pass" as you suggest:

Criticism

Russian sociologist and political commentator Boris Kagarlitsky described RT as a "continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services".[3] The channel is also accused of having close ties with the Russian state authorities[5][6] and of helping the Kremlin to project an overly positive image of Russia by refraining from criticizing the government, particularly Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.[6]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT

[Merko]

RT does have a lot of truly awful stuff. On the other hand, they also have some interesting bits every now and then. If you compare it to, say, CNN, whose content range from the mid-awful to the just slightly awful, I'd say RT wins out. CNN never ever have anything even remotely clarifying or interesting.

RT is the sort of 'soft propaganda' that isn't all bad, where they basically give a lot of people who are vaguely in line with some part of the owners' agenda free reigns. It's very different from PressTV where you have this scripted and carefully censored stream of nonsense.

[bit_pattern]

Which ones are employed by government?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090528210958971

PBS, as close as your going to get to "government owned" media in America (the private sector does a fine enough job of disseminating American propaganda in unison that they don't need a state-owned organ *cough* Valerie Plame *cough* :rolleyes:)

Game. Set. Match.

[bit_pattern]

RT does have a lot of truly awful stuff. On the other hand, they also have some interesting bits every now and then. If you compare it to, say, CNN, whose content range from the mid-awful to the just slightly awful, I'd say RT wins out. CNN never ever have anything even remotely clarifying or interesting.

RT is the sort of 'soft propaganda' that isn't all bad, where they basically give a lot of people who are vaguely in line with some part of the owners' agenda free reigns. It's very different from PressTV where you have this scripted and carefully censored stream of nonsense.

That sounds like the most even handed assessment I've seen so far in this thread

[bit_pattern]

And, for the record, I still think this is a poor decision by Assange and it reflects poorly on Wikileaks. I hope they rethink it after the furor it has unleashed, where even staunch Wikileaks supporters are feeling decidedly uncomfortable.

It's just the rhetoric being spewed in this thread about RT is hypocritical at best and mindlessly chauvinistic at worst

[bit_pattern]

I haven't see you advance any argument CE.

That's funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you! Just the usual, true-to-form one-liner put downs lacking in any substance whatsoever.

[bit_pattern]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7961283) bit_pattern cites the Washington Times and Debka as reliable news sources.

Please cite where I claimed they were reliable?

I'll admit I wasn't aware at the time that the WT was the paper run by Mr. Moon-Bat himself, so that was a poor judgement on my part and I'm glad you pointed it out tbh, though was too proud at the time to admit it. The Debka link was very obviously a piss-take though, as evidenced by my statement it was the sort of source your ilk would probably like, i.e. the blind apologists for Israel.

If I thought they were reliable sources I probably wouldn't have skulked away from the thread and would still be there arguing the point like I am in this one.

Whoops, looks like I started posting in it again last night! Damn it, that was going to be such a good point too! :D

But I don't doubt for a second you will continue to roll out that call-out link as a way of discrediting me as an opponent rather than actually addressing the argument, I expect you to stay true to form.

[Childlike Empress]

Unfortunately, not being a Russian speaker, that's a very hard claim to verify.

I was about to ask you for evidence then realised that would be asking you to prove a negative so I started googling but quickly found English language google is flooded with English language perspectives of RT. I don't know what Russians think or say about the station other than what RT has said to defend itself.

Since we can't demonstrate one way or another I would have to say that your claim they get a "free pass" is unsubstantiated and I am very sceptical of what I consider a very dubious assertion and will regretfully have to leave it at that.


No no. That's a misunderstanding on your part. Travis didn't assert that Russians give it a free pass, he pretended that the "skeptical" audience here gives it a pass for their alleged sins. I know that this is difficult to grasp, but i'm afraid you have to lower yourself to this level of "critical thinking" if you want to be accepted by the hive mind. Not to speak of the really dull fascist enablers or the conscious shills. No way to keep it in the "respectable" realm with those people so you should either shut up or stop giving a damn and speak your mind freely, like i decided to do. :)

[Gazpacho]

Why does Russia Today get a free pass to make up anything they want
It's not a question of whether they get a free pass, but apparently a disagreement on what the response should be: assign complicity to everyone and everything that appears on RT for any reason and call them "anti-american" whatever that is, or use your own **** judgement in watching their reports.
and use a hypocritical narcissist like Assange to do it?
You are talking about a program you have not seen.

[Checkmite]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090528210958971

PBS, as close as your going to get to "government owned" media in America (the private sector does a fine enough job of disseminating American propaganda in unison that they don't need a state-owned organ *cough* Valerie Plame *cough* :rolleyes:)

Game. Set. Match.

PBS? So the best America's propaganda machine can dish out is that Lawrence Welk is a big hit and for a donation of $250 you can have a CD of all his greatest tunes (add this beautiful commemorative photo book for $350)?

[bit_pattern]

PBS? So the best America's propaganda machine can dish out is that Lawrence Welk is a big hit and for a donation of $250 you can have a CD of all his greatest tunes (add this beautiful commemorative photo book for $350)?

No. The best America's propaganda machine can churn out is the privately owned MSM networks that, despite being apparently independent from the government, manage to speak in near perfect unison on anything other than vacuous domestic debates on "values" and whatnot. A truly impressive feat for which I'm sure Dear Uncle Vlad would be green with envy over.

[bit_pattern]

or use your own **** judgement in watching their reports.

A novel suggestion for self-professed "sceptics" :Dhttp://forums.randi.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Arcade22]

Such as????????????

Well just a week ago i read on the news that the UK admitted that it had spied on Russia with a 'spy rock'. When i heard about the first time all the western 'experts', commentators and journalists simply said it was a lie dreamed up by FSB for 'internal consumption' and no one questioned this. It was, just like everything from Russia, lies and government conspiracies (and evil).

Hell a couple of months ago i saw a documentary where it said just this, on ultra-fair, ultra-honest and ultra-unbiased Swedish public television.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Way to slander a man who hasn't been proven guilty of anything :rolleyes: It's not like the feminazi's in Sweden would ever stoop so low as to be recruited as honey-pots by the shadowy intelligence community. No, that would never happen :rolleyes:

...
So, this has got to be the first time I've said this, but are you SERIOUS?

[KoihimeNakamura]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090528210958971

PBS, as close as your going to get to "government owned" media in America (the private sector does a fine enough job of disseminating American propaganda in unison that they don't need a state-owned organ *cough* Valerie Plame *cough* :rolleyes:)

Game. Set. Match.

:facepalm:

Citing 911truth? And debka?

ETA: Well, ok. I withdraw debka, but not 911truth.

Source fail.

[bit_pattern]

:facepalm:

Citing 911truth? And debka?

ETA: Well, ok. I withdraw debka, but not 911truth.

Source fail.

Sigh... if you look BEYOND the link they're trumpeting the fact that their woo was broadcast on PBS.

I mean, really, are people really this obtuse that they ignore the argument, the context of the argument and what the source actually says, all on the basis of the URL that you refuse to even click?

Critical thinking at its finest :rolleyes:

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, yes. You just linked something and went on a propaganda rant, so I never had a reason to go beyond the mental filter.

[bit_pattern]

Well, yes. You just linked something and went on a propaganda rant, so I never had a reason to go beyond the mental filter.

Yet you had a reason to make a comment about something you clearly haven't understood?

Like I said, critical thinking at its finest.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I believe I said source fail. You know, when you use a bad source?

ETA: Also, to be clear, even if I had looked, that wasn't sufficient evidence of your argument. So, this is just bickering and I'm not going to continue down this path.

[bit_pattern]

I believe I said source fail. You know, when you use a bad source?


How is it a bad source when the point being made is that they are celebrating the fact that their woo got aired on a particular network? The source is perfectly adequate for the point being made, who the hell else is going to advertise the fact? The problem here is that you didn't look before you leaped and attacked the source without actually reading the argument.

Critical thinking, JREF style :rolleyes:

Also, to be clear, even if I had looked, that wasn't sufficient evidence of your argument.

Yes it was. The argument was that 9/11 woo has been promoted on American TV. How is pointing to Twoofers celebrating their "victory" in getting their stupid documentary aired not sufficient evidence of that argument? I'm guessing you still haven't taken the time to actually understand the argument tbh.

I'm not going to continue down this path.

Yes I think cutting your loses and moving on would be the best thing right now.

[KoihimeNakamura]

ETA: Nevermind.

[theprestige]

No, I posted them in the interests of openness and honesty, i.e. let's all have a look at exactly what Wikileaks has released on Russia. The OP made out like they'd never released anything critical of Russia, but that much is at least demonstrably false, there is plenty of criticism there, although maybe lacking in the sensationalism that you seem to demand from them.

NoZed said "harmful to", not "critical of".

I didn't see anything there that seemed particularly harmful to Russia. Some of it, like the CRC materials, might actually be helpful to Russia, as an indication of the current thinking of other governments regarding Russia (though I suspect Russia probably didn't need Wikileaks to tell them what the US Congress research department thinks of them).

As to sensationalism, I don't demand it. I do, however, wonder where the harm is, without sensationalism. The people who actually have influence over Russia--lawmakers, diplomats, etc.--already know these things about Russia. Everything Wikileaks has to offer about Russia are materials produced by and for the only people in a position to actually harm Russia in any way. So there's no harm to Russia in telling them this stuff.

On the other hand, if the leaked materials were to cause a massive public outcry, this might influence policy-makers to change their policies. A policy beneficial to Russia might be replaced by a policy harmful to Russia, as a result of public outcry stemming from sensational revelations by Wikipedia. Or the Russian people themselves might put the current regime in jeopardy, if they were sufficiently offended by the sensational revelations by Wikipedia.

But since the revelations aren't particularly sensational, and not particularly harmful, I think we can all agree with NoZed's claim--supported by the evidence you provided--that Assange has yet to release anything harmful to Russia.

Which leads us back to the question: If he hasn't already, why would we expect him to do so now that he's entered into a business arrangement with a propaganda arm of the Russian government?

[WildCat]

No-one. The point is that you said you don't see CT's on MSM news in America. That's BS, Beck was one of the highest rating presenters in the country for awhile there.
For a while he lead a niche market, big deal. On his best night he was watched by less than 1 in 300 Americans.

And if we want to talk about CT, how come I've never seen a serious Birther argument outside of the US media? People laugh in disbelief here at that sort of crap yet it gets a serious run in America and not just on Faux news either. You guys live in some bizarre twilight zone from what I can tell. Seriously, RT doesn't seem any worse in comparison to the unbelievable crap I see in the US media everyday.
RT is funded by the government of Russia, that's the difference.

And what of the Great CT that was te lead up to the Iraq War? The ENTIRE media was culbable in spinning a web of lies that anyone with half a brain outside of the American media bubble could tell was a complete farce. I'm sure Russia would just LOVE to have their entire media landscape marching in lock step with no apparent coordination. At the risk of Godwining myself (and I'm sure the usual suspects will be relieved to be able to focus on this rather than anything of substance), THAT is true feat of total indoctrination that even the Nazi's would have had trouble achieving.
Even if what you said was true it's completely irreelevant to Assange becoming Putin's hand puppet.

And now its happening again with Iran.
Yeah, this time even the IAEA is completely in on it too.

But, of course, RT are the CT'ers *nod nod* *wink wink* :rolleyes:
Pretty much... do you thionk 9/11 was an inside job?

The only difference being is that RT is only one station, not an entire media institution, and that people such as yourself seem incapable of recognising propaganda within your own media.
It's also the media mouthpiece of Putin and his ilk.

Really, the whole argument in this thread is the "we" are in the right, pure as the driven snow, and "they" are teh evilz empirez who engage in scurrilous propaganda.
No, it's that Assange is now shilling for Putin. He's a mouthpiece for a corrupt and ruthless regime that steals elections, assasinates opposition journalists, and intimidates and even kills political opposition.

[theprestige]

How is it a bad source when the point being made is that they are celebrating the fact that their woo got aired on a particular network?

You claimed their woo was getting aired on PBS. It wasn't, though. It was getting aired on a single local TV station. It wasn't a PBS program, and it wasn't aired on the PBS "network". It's doubtful PBS had anything to do with the airing, or even knew anything about it.

If your example of US government-employed news outlets is one single local TV station, then you should probably reconsider the strength of your argument. I dunno if it counts as "source fail", but it certainly counts as some kind of fail.

[WildCat]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090528210958971

PBS, as close as your going to get to "government owned" media in America (the private sector does a fine enough job of disseminating American propaganda in unison that they don't need a state-owned organ *cough* Valerie Plame *cough* :rolleyes:)
No one in PBS is an employee of the federal government.

Game. Set. Match.
You keep saying that...

[bit_pattern]

Even if what you said was true it's completely irreelevant to Assange becoming Putin's hand puppet.

This is why I have no time for you. Obviously the conversation has veered to the nature of RT compared to US media. But nice try.

Yeah, this time even the IAEA is completely in on it too.

No they're not. There has been considerable dissent within the agency. There's nothing "complete" in their latest assessment of iran that ignores the last decade of investigations done by the agency.

[theprestige]

No, it's that Assange is now shilling for Putin. He's a mouthpiece for a corrupt and ruthless regime that steals elections, assasinates opposition journalists, and intimidates and even kills political opposition.

This. I used to struggle mightily, trying to reconcile what I consider despicable betrayals of trust and acts of espionage with the noble ideal of righting the power imbalance between a government and its citizens.

But there's nothing noble or idealistic about choosing to work for the Putin regime. Occam's razor says that Assange was acting despicably all along.

[Lucian]

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090528210958971

PBS, as close as your going to get to "government owned" media in America (the private sector does a fine enough job of disseminating American propaganda in unison that they don't need a state-owned organ *cough* Valerie Plame *cough* :rolleyes:)

Game. Set. Match.

Except it wasn't PBS; it was a single PBS member station. The PBS ombudsman discussed the controversial airing of the conspiracy documentaries:

As has been pointed out many times, all member stations are independent and can air what they choose, and only programs that bear the PBS logo at the beginning and end identify programming that was distributed and approved by PBS.

Link (http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/09/pbs_yes_and_no.html)

Even your source indicates that it was a single station rather than the PBS network that aired the film.

ETA Ooops, I should have hit refresh before posting.

[bit_pattern]

You claimed their woo was getting aired on PBS. It wasn't, though. It was getting aired on a single local TV station. It wasn't a PBS program, and it wasn't aired on the PBS "network". It's doubtful PBS had anything to do with the airing, or even knew anything about it.

If your example of US government-employed news outlets is one single local TV station, then you should probably reconsider the strength of your argument. I dunno if it counts as "source fail", but it certainly counts as some kind of fail.

I was sure I saw PBS somewhere when I posted that late last night. Fair point. I concede to what you have said here.

[bit_pattern]

Except it wasn't PBS; it was a single PBS member station. The PBS ombudsman discussed the controversial airing of the conspiracy documentaries:



Link (http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/09/pbs_yes_and_no.html)

Even your source indicates that it was a single station rather than the PBS network that aired the film.

ETA Ooops, I should have hit refresh before posting.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not american and am not familiar with the fragmented nature of your networks. I was wrong, obviously, but it does make me feel better because I was confused as to where I'd got the PBS idea from. At least that has been cleared up in my mind now.

[bit_pattern]

No one in PBS is an employee of the federal government.


Is this like terrorism, where you start adding your own qualifiers (like randomness :rolleyes:) on what constitutes propaganda to make yourself feel like your getting one over your opponent?

I don't not know for the life of me why I you're not on my ignore list already. I might just fix that now...

[bit_pattern]

Which leads us back to the question: If he hasn't already, why would we expect him to do so now that he's entered into a business arrangement with a propaganda arm of the Russian government?

I guess time will tell. Can anyone please link to his claim to have material harmful to the Russian government which has not yet been released? I'm not doubting it necessarily I'd just like to see it confirmed.

[Gazpacho]

Except it wasn't PBS; it was a single PBS member station.
When we're talking about US media, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to assume that everyone involved is driven by a huge pulsating brain in the capital.

[Lucian]

When we're talking about US media, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to assume that everyone involved is driven by a huge pulsating brain in the capital.

What? I haven't said boo about Russia Today or any media outlet except PBS. I have nowhere suggested that "everyone involved [in whatever] is driven by a huge pulsating brain in the capital." I merely noticed that what bit_pattern had said about PBS and the 9/11 documentary was misleading, which he has graciously admitted twice, both in response to me and to theprestige.

[theprestige]

When we're talking about US media, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to assume that everyone involved is driven by a huge pulsating brain in the capital.

It's also not acceptable to assume that the US armed services include political officers among their ranks, even though other countries in other times have had political officers.

[Ferguson]

When we're talking about US media, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to assume that everyone involved is driven by a huge pulsating brain in the capital.

What?

RT is a global, state-owned, state-run, news network.
A 9/11 documentary was aired by a single, local, broadcast station in the US.

You're really trying to compare the two? This is just deliberate obfuscation.

[bit_pattern]

What?

RT is a global, state-owned, state-run, news network.
A 9/11 documentary was aired by a single, local, broadcast station in the US.

You're really trying to compare the two? This is just deliberate obfuscation.

Have you read the whole thread and the context of the thread? There are plenty of other examples of CT in the American media being passed of as "news"

[theprestige]

Have you read the whole thread and the context of the thread? There are plenty of other examples of CT in the American media being passed of as "news"

And yet there are absolutely no examples of CT in the American media being passed off as "news" by a government propaganda outlet, since there isn't actually any such thing in the American media. When challenged on this, the best you could come up with was a single local TV station that is funded in part by government grants and sometimes airs programs funded in part by government grants.

Russia, meanwhile, really does have a government propaganda outlet, and it really does pass off CTs as "news".

Really, why is this such a problem for you? Russia can do no wrong, unless the US does it too? Why not compare Russia Today to the BBC World News, if you've got that much of a hard-on for moral equivalence?

Or if you think that Assange is doing the right thing here, and acting in the interests of citizens and not their governments, why don't you just make that case directly?

[bit_pattern]

And yet there are absolutely no examples of CT in the American media being passed off as "news" by a government propaganda outlet, since there isn't actually any such thing in the American media. When challenged on this, the best you could come up with was a single local TV station that is funded in part by government grants and sometimes airs programs funded in part by government grants.

Russia, meanwhile, really does have a government propaganda outlet, and it really does pass off CTs as "news".

Really, why is this such a problem for you? Russia can do no wrong, unless the US does it too? Why not compare Russia Today to the BBC World News, if you've got that much of a hard-on for moral equivalence?

Or if you think that Assange is doing the right thing here, and acting in the interests of citizens and not their governments, why don't you just make that case directly?

Why is "government owned" some kind of special qualifier? That was just a distraction put out there by WC that is irrelevant to the the thread, private media is just as capable of promoting government propaganda and woo woo conspiracy. In fact, the only real distinction between RT and the American media that I have seen demonstrated in this thread is the fact that RT is state owned. No wonder that is what everyone is choosing to focus on that.

[bit_pattern]

Or if you think that Assange is doing the right thing here, and acting in the interests of citizens and not their governments, why don't you just make that case directly?

So you really haven't bothered to follow the thread have you? I've made it quite clear that it is something I'm not comfortable with.

Maybe if you take the time to read the whole thread you might answer some of the rhetorical question you posed for yourself. A novel suggestion I know :rolleyes:

[Gazpacho]

RT is a global, state-owned, state-run, news network.
... which has agreed to buy episodes that Assange will produce, the content of which hasn't even been revealed with any detail, and for this people have eagerly denounced him as a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. Yes, I'm comparing them.

[Childlike Empress]

Why not compare Russia Today to the BBC World News, if you've got that much of a hard-on for moral equivalence?


I compared it to Voice of America, which is a global, state-owned, state-run, news network.

[DC]

the best news sources are state owned / public owned in my oppinion.
Especially for TV news. Private sources in this region suck. while the public station still have proper news.

[MarkCorrigan]

Freedom House, those damn America lovers who support the US whatever they do (note for the slow, this is sarcasm) published a report in 2011 called The Freedom of the Press Report.

In it, they rated the freedom of the presses in all countries they could gather data from. Who wants to know what they found?

The rating goes from 1 (Totally free) to 100 (Not at all free. Totally corrupt and in the pocket of the government/army/whatever) and depending on the ratings, the nations are then classified as "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free".

Here are the results for the US, UK and Russia, with a few others for comparison's sake.

Nation|Rating|Classification
USA|17|Free
UK|19|Free
Russia|81|Not Free
Mali|24|Free
Sudan|78|Not Free
Haiti|49|Partly Free
Israel|29|Free
Finland (lowest/best score in the world)|10|Free
North Korea (highest/worst score in the world)|97|Not Free


When your press rates lower than Sudan, you're in trouble.

[DC]

Freedom House, those damn America lovers who support the US whatever they do (note for the slow, this is sarcasm) published a report in 2011 called The Freedom of the Press Report.

In it, they rated the freedom of the presses in all countries they could gather data from. Who wants to know what they found?

The rating goes from 1 (Totally free) to 100 (Not at all free. Totally corrupt and in the pocket of the government/army/whatever) and depending on the ratings, the nations are then classified as "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free".

Here are the results for the US, UK and Russia, with a few others for comparison's sake.

Nation|Rating|Classification
USA|17|Free
UK|19|Free
Russia|81|Not Free
Mali|24|Free
Sudan|78|Not Free
Haiti|49|Partly Free
Israel|29|Free
Finland (lowest/best score in the world)|10|Free
North Korea (highest/worst score in the world)|97|Not Free


When your press rates lower than Sudan, you're in trouble.

pfff you go away with your facts. ;)

[timhau]

Freedom House, those damn America lovers who support the US whatever they do (note for the slow, this is sarcasm)

Actually, they're owned by the Finnish government. A little-known fact: the 'Freedom' part of their name is actually an acronym (Finns Reporting on Everyone Else's Democracy Out of Malice).

[WildCat]

Is this like terrorism, where you start adding your own qualifiers
I added no qualifiers, it was there from the begining.

[Childlike Empress]

Freedom House, those damn America lovers who support the US whatever they do (note for the slow, this is sarcasm)


Why is this "sarcasm"? Freedom House's main financier (about 80%) is the US government.

When your press rates lower than Sudan, you're in trouble.


No, when you rate Russia lower than Sudan you are in trouble, because nobody takes you seriously anymore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House#Criticism)

[WildCat]

Why is "government owned" some kind of special qualifier?
You really can't understand the significance of that?

[WildCat]

I compared it to Voice of America, which is a global, state-owned, state-run, news network.
And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that VOA pushes ridiculous nonsensical conspiracy theories, such as claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

[Childlike Empress]

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that VOA pushes ridiculous nonsensical conspiracy theories, such as claiming 9/11 was an inside job.


How come? I told you where to stick it.

[WildCat]

Why is this "sarcasm"? Freedom House's main financier (about 80%) is the US government.




No, when you rate Russia lower than Sudan you are in trouble, because nobody takes you seriously anymore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House#Criticism)
Any examples of other press freedom lists where Russia ranks highly? No? Didn't think so.

How come? I told you where to stick it.
Ah, so you can't support any of your claims and a hissy fit is all we'll get from you.

[Childlike Empress]

Ah, so you can't support any of your claims and a hissy fit is all we'll get from you.


You don't even know what I claimed. Go back to page one. It stands and has nothing to do with your silly derails.

[WildCat]

You don't even know what I claimed. Go back to page one. It stands and has nothing to do with your silly derails.
So you couldn't find any rankings of press freedom where Russia rates higher than 3rd world [feces]holes?

[Childlike Empress]

So you couldn't find any rankings of press freedom where Russia rates higher than 3rd world [feces]holes?


Higher than Sudan? Reporters without Borders just released their 2011 report (http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043) this week. Russia does bad - nobody claims that the domestic situation there is rosy -, with a point score of 66 (the more the worse). Sudan has a score of 100,75. North Korea and Eritrea are the least free (141/142). Thats a reasonable differentiation.

They say 2011 was a bad year for freedom of the press in general, and for the US in particular. It fell from place 20 to 47 and ranks with a score of 14 behind Ghana and Botswana. Let's see if Freedom House will come to similar conclusions regarding their financier.

[WildCat]

Higher than Sudan? Reporters without Borders just released their 2011 report (http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043) this week. Russia does bad - nobody claims that the domestic situation there is rosy -, with a point score of 66 (the more the worse). Sudan has a score of 100,75. North Korea and Eritrea are the least free (141/142). Thats a reasonable differentiation.

They say 2011 was a bad year for freedom of the press in general, and for the US in particular. It fell from place 20 to 47 and ranks with a score of 14 behind Ghana and Botswana. Let's see if Freedom House will come to similar conclusions regarding their financier.
"In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation"

I'd like to see the documentation for that. "Lack of accreditation"? No state has laws requiring journalists be acredited, such a law would be unconstitutional. Ironically, the Occupy movement is demanding that corporate news media (which is the overwhelming majority of news media in the US) be stripped of all their Constitutional rights.

[Childlike Empress]

:rolleyes:

[uke2se]

I actually wach RT from time to time. It is included in the cable package I get. It's bad. Really bad. The RT supporters here must have never actually sat down and watched it.

Yes, FOX News is equally bad. The difference is that FOX News isn't owned and operated by the US Government.

ETA: I have watched RT reporters fawn over Alex Jones and Richard Gage. It sickened me.

[WildCat]

:rolleyes:
What are you rolling your eyes at? The Occupy ovement represents the greatest threat to fredom of speech and the press (actually there's little or no distinction between the 2 these days) I have seen in my lifetime. They even got an proposed Constitutional amendment introduced in Congress which would gut the 1st Amendment, something I never thought I'd see.

[Gazpacho]

If reversing the Citizens United ruling is treason, I say make the most of it.

[Travis]

No-one. The point is that you said you don't see CT's on MSM news in America. That's BS, Beck was one of the highest rating presenters in the country for awhile there.

Of course when Beck was popular most of those that watched him were doing so because he was loony and therefore controversial. Being ruthlessly skewered by Jon Stewart and South Park didn't hurt either for publicity.

And if we want to talk about CT, how come I've never seen a serious Birther argument outside of the US media? People laugh in disbelief here at that sort of crap yet it gets a serious run in America and not just on Faux news either.

The only advocates I ever saw of Birtherism were on the internet. Fox News, for the most part, disavowed that movement with some even offering blistering critiques of it. Not that this made me like Fox News more.

You guys live in some bizarre twilight zone from what I can tell. Seriously, RT doesn't seem any worse in comparison to the unbelievable crap I see in the US media everyday.

What you seem to not grasp is that if there are any conspiracy theories in the US media they are there because people want to watch them. They are in a business to give people what they want. That's why The History Channel is almost all conspiracy nonsense these days. They get higher viewership with conspiracy crap so they continue to air it. I dislike it greatly but I understand that they need to make their money.

And what of the Great CT that was te lead up to the Iraq War? The ENTIRE media was culbable in spinning a web of lies that anyone with half a brain outside of the American media bubble could tell was a complete farce.

Well I only have half a brain. So what were those lies?

That Saddam was connected to 9/11? An absurd idea I only saw on the news when the networks were presenting sobering polls on how many believed in it irrespective of evidence.

Here you go, Travis, I realise it is only one opinion and not at all comparable with the widespread condemnation of Glenn Beck that I used to see here among other places, but it's at least some evidence that RT doesn't get a "free pass" as you suggest:



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT

Well I've certainly seen lots of criticism of it. I was just surprised that some here seem to be defending it.

No no. That's a misunderstanding on your part. Travis didn't assert that Russians give it a free pass, he pretended that the "skeptical" audience here gives it a pass for their alleged sins. I know that this is difficult to grasp, but i'm afraid you have to lower yourself to this level of "critical thinking" if you want to be accepted by the hive mind. Not to speak of the really dull fascist enablers or the conscious shills. No way to keep it in the "respectable" realm with those people so you should either shut up or stop giving a damn and speak your mind freely, like i decided to do. :)

Have you not been paying attention? This entire thread became a tu quoque circle jerk.

It's not a question of whether they get a free pass, but apparently a disagreement on what the response should be: assign complicity to everyone and everything that appears on RT for any reason and call them "anti-american" whatever that is, or use your own **** judgement in watching their reports.

You are talking about a program you have not seen.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that not everyone on Russia Times are political lackeys or tools of Putin. Assange, however, has always bugged me with his phoney "warrior against The Man" posturing while being a huge hypocrite when his own organization---ostensibly founded to disseminate secrets in order to end "secrecy"---kept secrets to themselves when it suited and benefited them.

So I would be outraged if his program were bought up by anyone. That it was Russia Times is simply gravy.

Well just a week ago i read on the news that the UK admitted that it had spied on Russia with a 'spy rock'. When i heard about the first time all the western 'experts', commentators and journalists simply said it was a lie dreamed up by FSB for 'internal consumption' and no one questioned this. It was, just like everything from Russia, lies and government conspiracies (and evil).

Hell a couple of months ago i saw a documentary where it said just this, on ultra-fair, ultra-honest and ultra-unbiased Swedish public television.

I'm not following. What is the conspiracy theory here?

[Childlike Empress]

What are you rolling your eyes at?


Your well-known and predictable MO.

[WildCat]

If reversing the Citizens United ruling is treason, I say make the most of it.
Free speech ain't your thing?

[WildCat]

Your well-known and predictable MO.
You're drowning in your own ineptitude.

[bit_pattern]

I suggest the ignore function CLE, at least then I don't have to read the posts of certain people you might happen to quote :p

[timhau]

I actually wach RT from time to time. It is included in the cable package I get. It's bad. Really bad. The RT supporters here must have never actually sat down and watched it.

Yes, FOX News is equally bad. The difference is that FOX News isn't owned and operated by the US Government.

ETA: I have watched RT reporters fawn over Alex Jones and Richard Gage. It sickened me.

There is, of course, the possibility that they have watched the same RT programs as you and love it for just that reason.

[bit_pattern]

es, FOX News is equally bad. The difference is that FOX News isn't owned and operated by the US Government.


Why is that such an important distinction?

[The Dark Lord]

Why is that such an important distinction?

Because Fox News will be critical of the US government. At least if it suits their purpose. Do you think that RT says anything negative about Putin?

And also, within the context of the discussion about Julian Assange working for RT. Well, he pretends that he is some champion against corruption but then shills for one of the most corrupt regimes in the world? I'm sure he will produce many stories about how evil the USA is but you think he will dare say anything about corruption in Russia?

He's a hypocritical douchebag. The whole WikiLeaks thing was about inflating his massive ego.

[timhau]

Why is that such an important distinction?

You can classify Fox as propaganda, but it's not US government propaganda. RT is Kremlin propaganda. BBC or CNN may have a western-oriented point of view, but they're not propaganda (which isn't to say that they don't make mistakes; they do, and unlike the likes of RT, they also at least occasionally own up to them later).

It seems to me like some people have a problem differentiating between point-of-view and shilling. If you want a news outlet that has a non-western POV but isn't shilling for anyone, go to Al-Jazeera. They're a quality news network.

[JihadJane]

So, the little pervert sold out?

Did you come when you wrote that?


'Propaganda: Nobody Does It Better Than America (http://www.purewatergazette.net/propagandainamerica.htm)'

by Paul Weber:

"Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting and having discussions with people who came to America from countries known for their adherence to totalitarianism: China, Russia, and former east European satellites of the Soviet Union. When we discussed how the state managed to control public opinion under totalitarianism, these people would usually produce a weary, knowledgeable, cynical smile and point out that propaganda in those countries was really done quite incompetently. If you really want to know propaganda, they said, you need to study American propaganda technique. According to them, it is, undeniably, the best in the world.

...

Propaganda in those countries was too obvious, they told me. As soon as you read the first sentence you knew it was a bunch of propaganda, so you didn’t even bother to read it. If you heard a speech, you knew in the first few words that it was propaganda, and you tuned it out.

...

...American propaganda, however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one can object to."


And yet there are absolutely no examples of CT in the American media being passed off as "news" by a government propaganda outlet, since there isn't actually any such thing in the American media.

The US corporatocracy doesn't need a state-run propaganda arm. The US media does that work (mostly) voluntarily and very well. It also tends to faithfully report State propaganda as if it were objective news.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

'Propaganda: Nobody Does It Better Than America (http://www.purewatergazette.net/propagandainamerica.htm)'

by Paul Weber:

"Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting and having discussions with people who came to America from countries known for their adherence to totalitarianism: China, Russia, and former east European satellites of the Soviet Union. When we discussed how the state managed to control public opinion under totalitarianism, these people would usually produce a weary, knowledgeable, cynical smile and point out that propaganda in those countries was really done quite incompetently. If you really want to know propaganda, they said, you need to study American propaganda technique. According to them, it is, undeniably, the best in the world.

Propaganda in those countries was too obvious, they told me. As soon as you read the first sentence you knew it was a bunch of propaganda, so you didn’t even bother to read it. If you heard a speech, you knew in the first few words that it was propaganda, and you tuned it out.

American propaganda, however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one can object to."

What a steaming pile of BS.

How convenient for Mr. Weber that all these vast throngs of people from totalitarian countries repeat to him things that he's already decided are true.

BTW, you forgot to copy this other tidbit about "American Propaganda" from the page you linked to, Jihad:

During the eighties, . for example, one could not read a newspaper or hear a broadcast news program without enduring several exposures to the government's "AIDS" epithet-- "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." You've probably heard it ten thousand times.

And you can gauge the effectiveness of this simple
"AIDS" campaign by the fact that almost everyone now believes that "HIV causes AIDS," although no one has yet proved that HIV causes AIDS . People believe in the "AIDS virus" so strongly that they'll almost fight to defend it. The "AIDS" virus epithet is propaganda at its finest--the triumph of endless repetition over common sense.

You need to stop reading crap from people who are insane and stupid.

[DC]

What a steaming pile of BS.

How convenient for Mr. Weber that all these vast throngs of people from totalitarian countries repeat to him things that he's already decided are true.

BTW, you forgot to copy this other tidbit about "American Propaganda" from the page you linked to, Jihad:

During the eighties, . for example, one could not read a newspaper or hear a broadcast news program without enduring several exposures to the government's "AIDS" epithet-- "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." You've probably heard it ten thousand times.

And you can gauge the effectiveness of this simple
"AIDS" campaign by the fact that almost everyone now believes that "HIV causes AIDS," although no one has yet proved that HIV causes AIDS . People believe in the "AIDS virus" so strongly that they'll almost fight to defend it. The "AIDS" virus epithet is propaganda at its finest--the triumph of endless repetition over common sense.

You need to stop reading crap from people who are insane and stupid.

wow a good find, and a very disgusting and extremely dangerous and ignorant find.... there just is nothing that would be denied by some freaks....

[Stellafane]

I can scarcely believe that some have equated the USA tolerating Glenn Beck (oh, that pesky Constitution!) with Russia paying for RT. Shucks, they're not even remotely in the same phylum. And if Fox News is a government propaganda mouthpiece, it's certainly news to me (which from Fox would be a first) since all they ever seem to spout is anti-government stuff these days. Oh, and did someone actually bring PBS into the discussion?? PBS, a government mouthpiece? That's certainly a first, given their history of being anything but. All things considered, that's one possibility I never did consider.

As for Mr. Assange, let's face it, something like this was all but inevitable eventually. No matter how much they may try to hide it, sooner or later a zebra will show his true stripes -- and a skunk his true smell.

[Caper]

I find Russia TV just embarrassingly bad. I mean. Why would Russia do this? Why would they fund this garbage? I mean it has no influence. The only people who would believe their drivel are people that would believe it anyway.

I'm a big Adam Carola and I'm with him on his point that we don't talk about just how bad an influence Russia has been (after they pretty much won WW2 that is).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt_GSSogI2Y

[WildCat]

I'm a big Adam Carola and I'm with him on his point that we don't talk about just how bad an influence Russia has been (after they pretty much won WW2 that is).
I wouldn't give them much credit for that since they also helped start WWII by forming an alliance with Germany in invading Poland.

[rwguinn]

Maybe the dude thinks Russia will protect him from the E-vil West...

[Gazpacho]

Because Fox News will be critical of the US government. At least if it suits their purpose. Do you think that RT says anything negative about Putin?
You mean like interviewing members of the opposition? Reporting on the election controversies? Filming opposition rallies?

I don't doubt that there are sources in Russia more critical of the government, but to claim that RT is nothing but the Russian government PR line is just a lie.
There is, of course, the possibility that they have watched the same RT programs as you and love it for just that reason.
Or the possibility that someone watched it to see, just once, how Alex Jones would articulate his views in a situation that wasn't under his own control.

[uke2se]

I don't doubt that there are sources in Russia more critical of the government, but to claim that RT is nothing but the Russian government PR line is just a lie.

No, I don't think it's a lie at all.

[DC]

You mean like interviewing members of the opposition? Reporting on the election controversies? Filming opposition rallies?

I don't doubt that there are sources in Russia more critical of the government, but to claim that RT is nothing but the Russian government PR line is just a lie.

HeS3Eq4e8Qs

http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday/search?query=Putin

i dont think its a lie at all.

[Gazpacho]

So much the worse for your thinking. In any case, I have never watched RT to find out what is happening in Russia.

[Polaris]

I recall him saying once that he lived for "crushing bastards." Good thing there aren't any in Russia. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Yet, when it comes to, say, the lead up to the Iraq war EVERY major news network operated in lock step promoting government lies and propaganda? An impressive achievement!

At least one man's lies and propaganda. Ever heard of Curveball?

[JihadJane]

Here's an example of RT broadcasting capitalist propaganda, from Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert, in the Keiser Report . In this week's show they discuss the banana republic US economy, with real bananas:

T-aaziL6EDo

[bit_pattern]

0xWoni68k60

:D ;)

[bit_pattern]

In1988, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government used the 1981 Broadcasting Act to keep British television and radio stations from airing the actual voices of any person representing or supporting the Irish Republican Army or its political arm, Sinn Fein. For nearly six years, listeners and viewers were allowed to see, but not hear, the likes of Irish Nationalist Gerry Adams. Broadcasters hired actors to read his words, or displayed them in captions accompanying video of his speeches.

In March 2000, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported that Russia's Information Ministry declared that news organizations airing interviews with Chechen leaders would violate the Russian anti-terrorism law, which prohibits dissemination of information that could incite or justify violence. Sergei Ivanov, secretary of Russia's Security Council, urged journalists to "take part in the information war against Chechen terrorists" and warned that media that broadcast voices and images of the rebels would face legal action.

On October 10, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice asked the major U.S. television networks to edit videotaped statements by Osama bin Laden and his followers rather than broadcast them live and in their entirety. The next day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer urged newspapers to withhold the full text of such statements.

The Bush administration justified its requests on two grounds. First, the tapes might contain coded messages to bin Laden's worldwide network. Second, by airing the tapes intact, the media were providing a platform for vicious anti-American "propaganda."

The television executives jointly acceded to the government's demands, pledging to screen any al Qaeda materials before airing them. ABC News went further, announcing, in an undertaking reminiscent of the IRA broadcasting ban, that it would not run the bin Laden tape "in such a way that the Arabic language can be heard. Instead, viewers will see a single frame of the speaker and will hear an English translation, accompanied when appropriate with a written text of the statement."

http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=2364

[theprestige]

Tu quoque, b_p? Really?

If Assange were to take a job with Fox News, I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that he's a horrible person. But he takes a job with the state-owned Russian equivalent, and suddenly anybody who points out that he might be a horrible person needs to shut up. Why? Because Fox News, that's why!

Personally, I think your tu quoque is badly flawed, but I'm really not interested in arguing those points with you. Especially not in this thread, which is about Assange and Russia Today, and not about whatever it is you're hoping will distract from that topic. And especially not so long as you fail to recognize and admit that Assange working for any propaganda outlet does not reflect well on him.

[bit_pattern]

Yeah, you're happy to argue when it was just me saying it and you weren't confronted with undeniable facts. Only THEN does it become tu quoque :rolleyes:

I'm not at all surprised...

[DC]

At least one man's lies and propaganda. Ever heard of Curveball?

yeah the guy wich the germans warned the CIA that he was not trustworthy, yeah i heard that name from the BND.

[theprestige]

Yeah, you're happy to argue when it was just me saying it and you weren't confronted with undeniable facts. Only THEN does it become tu quoque :rolleyes:
It's been tu quoque all along, as I've previously suggested. And I think the facts are eminently deniable, but like I said, why bother? If your defense of Assange going to work for a propaganda outlet is that there are other propaganda outlets, it's not much of a defense at all.

Do you agree that you're employing the tu quoque fallacy? And do you agree that it necessarily means admitting that Assange is working for a propaganda outlet?

[uke2se]

In any case, I have never watched RT to find out what is happening in Russia.

So? That's hardly the issue here.

[uke2se]

Bit_Pattern, what is your deal? Why does it bother you that we call RT a propaganda outlet. They demonstrably peddle conspiracy theories about the West, and they are demonstrably in the employ of the Russian government.

[Gazpacho]

Bit_Pattern, what is your deal? Why does it bother you that we call RT a propaganda outlet. They demonstrably peddle conspiracy theories about the West
They interview people whose views are excluded from the US media and broadcast what those people say.
and they are demonstrably in the employ of the Russian government.
Tell us something we don't know. What's your deal with the existence of journalism programs beholden to something other than US business and geopolitical interests?

[bit_pattern]

Bit_Pattern, what is your deal? Why does it bother you that we call RT a propaganda outlet.

It doesn't. It bothers me that people can only see propaganda when it comes from the inscrutable "other" and flat out deny that "our" media is just as bad.

[bit_pattern]

It's been tu quoque all along, as I've previously suggested. And I think the facts are eminently deniable, but like I said, why bother? If your defense of Assange going to work for a propaganda outlet is that there are other propaganda outlets, it's not much of a defense at all.

Do you agree that you're employing the tu quoque fallacy? And do you agree that it necessarily means admitting that Assange is working for a propaganda outlet?

Please cite where I have defended Assange's choice to syndicate his show through RT? In fact, I have quite plainly and categorically condemned it. I'm not particularly interested in Assange but I am interested in the reflexive denial of American propaganda when put in the context of the criticisms levelled against RT. I'm still to be convinced that RT is any worse than any major US news network.

[theprestige]

Please cite where I have defended Assange's choice to syndicate his show through RT? In fact, I have quite plainly and categorically condemned it. I'm not particularly interested in Assange but I am interested in the reflexive denial of American propaganda when put in the context of the criticisms levelled against RT. I'm still to be convinced that RT is any worse than any major US news network.

Here you are calling people "an obtuse bunch of crypto fascists" for condemning Assange's decision to work for Russia Today, before anybody was even talking about other media outlets:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7966525#post7966525

And here you are, introducing the very first tu quoque in thread, just three posts later:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7966583#post7966583

Like I said, I think your attempt at moral equivalence is debatable; clearly other people in this thread have been happy to debate it. But they're only debating it because you brought it up, after you had already started insulting people for condemning Assange.

So don't come crying to me now with "I'm not particularly interested in Assange but I am interested in the reflexive denial of American propaganda". The record clearly shows that you were particularly interested in being a dick even before you bothered to raise the question of American propaganda.

Might I suggest that if "American propaganda when put in the context of the criticisms levelled against RT" is what "particularly" interests you, then you should start a thread specifically to discuss that topic, instead of derailing this one, and instead of using this one to insult people you will later make a point of agreeing with?

[bit_pattern]

Here you are calling people "an obtuse bunch of crypto fascists" for condemning Assange's decision to work for Russia Today, before anybody was even talking about other media outlets:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7966525#post7966525

I learned more about the situation since then. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?

And here you are, introducing the very first tu quoque in thread, just three posts later:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7966583#post7966583

Like I said, I think your attempt at moral equivalence is debatable; clearly other people in this thread have been happy to debate it. But they're only debating it because you brought it up, after you had already started insulting people for condemning Assange.

So don't come crying to me now with "I'm not particularly interested in Assange but I am interested in the reflexive denial of American propaganda". The record clearly shows that you were particularly interested in being a dick even before you bothered to raise the question of American propaganda.

Might I suggest that if "American propaganda when put in the context of the criticisms levelled against RT" is what "particularly" interests you, then you should start a thread specifically to discuss that topic, instead of derailing this one, and instead of using this one to insult people you will later make a point of agreeing with?

You were happy debating it before I started posting undeniable evidence that the US government uses the news networks to promote their propaganda. I think it is even MORE insidious than in Russia because at least everyone KNOWS RT are working for the Kremlin. A lot of people in this thread seem quite unaware of the level of propaganda they are exposed to everyday, they even deny it is propaganda on the basis that the government doesn't own the networks.

I don't care if you think it is a fallacy and I don't care if you would have preferred to have a passive thread where everyone dumped on Assange and cheered on America. The conversation has evolved naturally and it is a much more interesting thread subsequently.

[Childlike Empress]

Dear Lord. Less than 5 pages to make a thread about a supposed anti-government secret guy takes a job being paid by a government with a terrible record for secrets and for how they treat journalists, and make it into yet one more screed against the US/Iraq/9-11 "questions." I can see why discussing Assange's actions might be unpalatable, but perhaps the change of topic could have been done in a less "wrench the steering wheel from the hands of the driver" way in order to hide the operation better?


Some people would support Ted Bundy if he was willing to criticise the US or western governments heavily enough. If that thought had been unsupported before, there's plenty of evidence in this thread.


Laughable. You should be thankful that this thread turned into something more interesting than the dull and whiny "five minutes of hate" nonsense quoted in your OP.

btw, this infographic just came in via the RIA Novosti ticker (the mother company of RT): Who owns Russian media (http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20120128/170987173.html)

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, and you can repeat it as often as you want - Assange did not "take a job" for Russia Today. He licenses a show he produces himself to them.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

btw, this infographic just came in via the RIA Novosti ticker (the mother company of RT): Who owns Russian media (http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20120128/170987173.html)

It confirms that RIA Novosti (and therefore also RT) is state-owned.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oh, and you can repeat it as often as you want - Assange did not "take a job" for Russia Today. He licenses a show he produces himself to them.

So he's not geting paid to produce content for the official russian government propaganda agency, he is in fact getting paid to produce content for the official government propaganda agency of russia?

[NoZed Avenger]

Duh.

So the distinction that he is being paid to produce programming for a state owned/state controlled news agency for a regime listed by many sources as corrupt and as antithetical to press freedoms, but not actually employed directly in an hourly position for a state owned/state controlled news agency for a regime listed by many sources as corrupt and as antithetical to press freedoms, is the key difference that makes this decision by him -- as a supposed enemy to government secrets -- acceptable?

[Childlike Empress]

So the distinction that he is being paid to produce programming for a state owned/state controlled news agency for a regime listed by many sources as corrupt and as antithetical to press freedoms, but not actually employed directly in an hourly position for a state owned/state controlled news agency for a regime listed by many sources as corrupt and as antithetical to press freedoms, is the key difference that makes this decision by him -- as a supposed enemy to government secrets -- acceptable?


I would have no problem if he would work directly for Russia Today, and I look forward to the show. The distinction is important for showing the nonsense spread by your sources to be the propaganda that it is.

[Travis]

Out of curiosity what could Assange do (in terms of employment and broadcasting) that would not be approved of?

[Childlike Empress]

Out of curiosity what could Assange do (in terms of employment and broadcasting) that would not be approved of?


He could go on a rant calling Putin a demon over and over again. Or call Russia a barbarian backward ********. Or something similarily silly.

Most likely he will discuss pressing global issues with his guests of choice like Pilger or Ellsberg and that will be just fine with the russian overlords.

[bit_pattern]

Out of curiosity what could Assange do (in terms of employment and broadcasting) that would not be approved of?

He really should have looked at getting broadcast on AJ imo. But, wait, aren't they also owned by a repressive state regime?

[uke2se]

He could go on a rant calling Putin a demon over and over again. Or call Russia a barbarian backward ********. Or something similarily silly.

If he did, it would not be broadcast on RT.

[bit_pattern]

If he did, it would not be broadcast on RT.

Are you saying RT never publishes anything critical of Putin?

[DC]

Are you saying RT never publishes anything critical of Putin?

do they? and as often as they show his photoops?

[DC]

Assange isn't going to be given a slot on any of these "more balanced" US TV stations, though, is he? That's why Western dissidents are now popping up on RT and PressTV instead.



No.

an Us station would propably not give him airtime, as might fear problems for publishing secret material.

We will see how well this show will be, if its fair and balanced or if its fair and balanced towards Russia.

[JihadJane]

an Us station would propably not give him airtime, as might fear problems for publishing secret material.

This is how censorship works in the US.


We will see how well this show will be, if its fair and balanced or if its fair and balanced towards Russia.

I predict that his show will be more "fair and balanced" than fearful US TV stations would allow.

[Childlike Empress]

If he did, it would not be broadcast on RT.


That's what I was saying. Hello echo.

Assange isn't going to be given a slot on any of these "more balanced" US TV stations, though, is he? That's why Western dissidents are now popping up on RT and PressTV instead.


That's exactly right. Here's one of those "dissidents", old-school journalist, film maker and media critic Danny Schechter, who doesn't get a voice in today's corporate US media anymore, after a long career including working with CNN in it's founding years, in a rather funny RT piece about Hillary/Isaacson's "info war":

YWlImkcFFDE
For the record: I don't watch RT other than occationally on youtube. I don't have a TV. It's evil.

[NoZed Avenger]

I would have no problem if he would work directly for Russia Today, and I look forward to the show.


Such sound and fury over a distinction without a difference., then


To sum up, Assange is being paid to produce programming for a state owned/state controlled news agency for a regime listed by many sources as corrupt and as antithetical to press freedoms, and you look forward to seeing what the Russian government is going to pay him to produce.

Coincidentally, that piece will not disclose anything about the russian government, but might, just might, qualify as anti-western or -- even better -- anti-US propaganda. Thus not only the tolerance of his position, but the heartfelt approval in some quarters.

[Childlike Empress]

Such sound and fury over a distinction without a difference., then


To sum up, Assange is being paid to produce programming for a state owned/state controlled news agency for a regime listed by many sources as corrupt and as antithetical to press freedoms, and you look forward to seeing what the Russian government is going to pay him to produce.

Coincidentally, that piece will not disclose anything about the russian government, but might, just might, qualify as anti-western or -- even better -- anti-US propaganda. Thus not only the tolerance of his position, but the heartfelt approval in some quarters.


Nice job ignoring the second part of my post. You have no interest in critical thinking and enjoy being lied to, have fun.

Oh, and: poooor USA. My heart brakes. Will it survive this assault? :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Assange isn't going to be given a slot on any of these "more balanced" US TV stations, though, is he? That's why Western dissidents are now popping up on RT and PressTV instead.

Alex Jones and Chris Busby are "dissidents" now?

[WildCat]

an Us station would propably not give him airtime, as might fear problems for publishing secret material.
:rolleyes:

All these foreign "experts" on US news media...

[Childlike Empress]

Wow, I can't remember encountering you before, but now I sure know that you picked a proper usertitle. I offered it on page one already, let me repeat it larger and in colour:

Assange evil.
RT evil.
Birds of a feather.
Five minutes of hate.

Ok? Now satisfied? Can we carry on?

edit: Oh, and your signature isn't funny. :p

[DC]

:rolleyes:

All these foreign "experts" on US news media...

i never claimed expertise. i guess i am not allowed to have an oppinion huh?

[uke2se]

So, have we all agreed that RT is a government funded Russian propaganda outlet?

[WildCat]

i never claimed expertise. i guess i am not allowed to have an oppinion huh?
What are you basing your opinion on? Conjecture? Speculation? Blind assertions?

[WildCat]

So, have we all agreed that RT is a government funded Russian propaganda outlet?
Yes, everyone agrees on that.

[Childlike Empress]

So, have we all agreed that RT is a government funded Russian propaganda outlet?


In the correct definition of propaganda, absolutely. Just like Voice of America is a government funded US propaganda outlet.

[The Dark Lord]

In the correct definition of propaganda, absolutely. Just like Voice of America is a government funded US propaganda outlet.

True as that may be, I somehow doubt that VoA routinely spews conspiracy theory garbage like your beloved RT does.

[uke2se]

So, since it appears both "sides" of this discussion agrees that RT is a government funded Russian propaganda outlet, what does it say about Assange that he agrees to contribute to it?

Personally, I think it makes him a hypocrite as he practically allies himself to the Putin regime.

[Childlike Empress]

So, since it appears both "sides" of this discussion agrees that RT is a government funded Russian propaganda outlet, what does it say about Assange that he agrees to contribute to it?


Nothing, because he doesn't have the freedom of choice. What would it mean if he would license his show to VoA (which you dishonestly avoided to give the same "reputation" to as to RT)?

[uke2se]

Nothing, because he doesn't have the freedom of choice. What would it mean if he would license his show to VoA (which you dishonestly avoided to give the same "reputation" to as to RT)?

Assange doesn't have the choice not to contribute to RT? Do they hold his children as hostages or what?

The reason I haven't mentioned VoA is that I know absolutely nothing about it, and the fact that it isn't relevant to this discussion as Assange hasn't to my knowledge been asked to contribute to VoA.

CE, can I expect an apology from you for calling my actions dishonest for not discussing Voice of America in a thread about Russia Today and Julian Assange?

[WildCat]

Nothing, because he doesn't have the freedom of choice.
He doesn't? :boggled:

[Childlike Empress]

Assange doesn't have the choice not to contribute to RT? Do they hold his children as hostages or what?

The reason I haven't mentioned VoA is that I know absolutely nothing about it, and the fact that it isn't relevant to this discussion as Assange hasn't to my knowledge been asked to contribute to VoA.

CE, can I expect an apology from you for calling my actions dishonest for not discussing Voice of America in a thread about Russia Today and Julian Assange?


"Dissident" channels are the only outlet for the show Assange produces. Don't you think he would be happy to have it aired on CNN or MSNBC or even FOX? I think he would but that won't happen, as with VoA of course.

You deserve no apology at all. You included me in your little "all agree" thingie and went on constructing an "argument" ignoring my reply and the general state of discussion. Dishonest.

[WildCat]

"dissident" channels are the only outlet for the show assange produces Putin hand puppets.
ftfy

[uke2se]

"Dissident" channels are the only outlet for the show Assange produces. Don't you think he would be happy to have it aired on CNN or MSNBC or even FOX? I think he would but that won't happen, as with VoA of course.

Or he could not produce a show. Here's a couple of suggestions for what he could chose to do instead:

- Work in a factory.
- Study to be a doctor
- Flip burgers
- Be a housewife
- Go to Sweden to face rape-charges like an innocent man would.
- Keep wikileaks from being tied to any particular government.


You deserve no apology at all. You included me in your little "all agree" thingie and went on constructing an "argument" ignoring my reply and the general state of discussion. Dishonest.

What are you talking about?

I asked, do we all agree. You went off on a tangent, but I read your reply as a general agreement. Are you really that paranoid?

ETA: Here's your reply

In the correct definition of propaganda, absolutely. Just like Voice of America is a government funded US propaganda outlet.

The first part of your reply agrees with my post. The second part is off topic in this thread.

Now, apologize for yet again calling me dishonest when I am demonstrably not being dishonest.

[WildCat]

If only there was a way for Assange to get his message out, like an internet site where users could upload videos for free.

I guess he had no choice but to become Putin's pet attack poodle to sic on the west.

[Childlike Empress]

Or he could not produce a show. Here's a couple of suggestions for what he could chose to do instead:

- Work in a factory.
- Study to be a doctor
- Flip burgers
- Be a housewife
- Go to Sweden to face rape-charges like an innocent man would.
- Keep wikileaks from being tied to any particular government.


You're kidding, right?

[bit_pattern]

- Go to Sweden to face rape-charges like an innocent man would.

What rape charges? :confused:

He hasn't been charged with ANYTHING. He is wanted for questioning, which prosecutors could over do a live link and then decide whether to proceed with charges and base their extradition on that

[uke2se]

You're kidding, right?

No, why would you say so?

You are seemingly arguing that Assange has to work for RT. I am saying that he doesn't have to, and that doing so damages his credibility.

Also, there is a second part to my post. Not including that in your response could be seen as dishonest.

[MNBrant]

I will say that most of the missing reporters were covering the war in Chechnya, organized crime, and corruption and RT does acknowledge briefly that this is a huge problem and they are taking what steps they can to combat it.

[uke2se]

What rape charges? :confused:

He hasn't been charged with ANYTHING. He is wanted for questioning, which prosecutors could over do a live link and then decide whether to proceed with charges and base their extradition on that

I'll put the wording up to my being a non-native English speaker. He is suspected of rape, let's call it that.

When has police questioning ever been done via live-link? What does Assange have to fear by going back to Sweden to face his accusors? I very much doubt he's guilty, but I find him running off and hiding to be doing much to reduce my doubt.

Now, so that you don't jump on the opportunity to draw the thread even more off-topic, I'm more interested in seeing you answer the last item on that list: the issue of wikileaks being independent. I find Assange allying himself with RT to destroy the credibility his organisation had built up in my eyes.

[bit_pattern]

I'll put the wording up to my being a non-native English speaker. He is suspected of rape, let's call it that.

When has police questioning ever been done via live-link? What does Assange have to fear by going back to Sweden to face his accusors. I very much doubt he's guilty, but I find him running off an hiding to be doing much to reduce my doubt.

There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA [2007] 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute.

http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html

Now, so that you don't jump on the opportunity to draw the thread even more off-topic, I'm more interested in seeing you answer the last item on that list: the issue of wikileaks being independent. I find Assange allying himself with RT to destroy the credibility his organisation had built up in my eyes.

Already have. I agree, it's not a good look and it has caused considerable consternation among his supporters, if Twitter is anything to go by. But let's wait and see what actually happens and what the show actually broadcasts. I don't care what network it is on I'll still be watching it. What will you say if, for instance, he does give Russia a spray and RT still broadcast it?

There's a lot of prejudicial judgement of Assange, both in Sweden and in this thread.

[WildCat]

In this article (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/846/assange_to_host_talk_show_on_russia_today) Ghaffer Hussain nails it:
Have you heard the one about the world’s most famous advocate of transparency working for a TV channel backed by one of the world’s least transparent countries? Or the one about the anti-imperialist war-critic working for the mouth piece of the world’s leading supporter of terrorism and state repression?

Certain so-called ‘left wing icons’ never cease to fascinate me; just when you think they can’t possibly do anything more bizarre and self-contradictory, they go ahead and do just that. This doesn’t seem to be a recent phenomenon either, in fact many on the Left have been slowly but surely drifting into a moral abyss for a number of years. After all, trying to remain relevant whilst having to contort complex reality to fit a narrow political framework is not easy.

The Left today can be broadly split between the anti-totalitarian and the anti-imperialist. The former, in theory, seek to oppose all forms of totalitarianism in the world whilst the latter, in most cases, merely confines themselves to discussing Western imperialism, often ‘seeing’ western imperialism even when it is not there. Such a narrow and unbalanced focus completely blinds them to political reality, resulting in the formation of alliances which completely undermine their own credibility and message.

[bit_pattern]

I will say that most of the missing reporters were covering the war in Chechnya, organized crime, and corruption and RT does acknowledge briefly that this is a huge problem and they are taking what steps they can to combat it.

Thanks for that. Do you have any examples you could cite for us?

[MNBrant]

In this article (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/846/assange_to_host_talk_show_on_russia_today) Ghaffer Hussain nails it:

Hmm, not too much imperialism going on elsewhere in the world. Russia is still in chechnya. We pretty much are everywhere. We got pirates. Anybody else invading anybody recently besides us? Oh yeah Tibet.

[MNBrant]

Thanks for that. Do you have any examples you could cite for us?

I got that from Wiki awhile back. Theres alot more than 23. I think it happened awhile ago. This would include lower level corrupt party officials however. I dont know its been awhile since I read it. Russia has been a lawless place at times. The RT reference meant corruption in general not reporters.

[WildCat]

Hmm, not too much imperialism going on elsewhere in the world. Russia is still in chechnya. We pretty much are everywhere. We got pirates. Anybody else invading anybody recently besides us? Oh yeah Tibet.
Pretty odd definition of "imperialism" you are using.

[MNBrant]

Pretty odd definition of "imperialism" you are using.

Not really considering the amount of troops we have deployed around the world. Lets take Gadaffi for instance. We told him to leave and when he didn't we killed him. pretty much we can do what we like for the most part.

[WildCat]

Not really considering the amount of troops we have deployed around the world. Lets take Gadaffi for instance. We told him to leave and when he didn't we killed him. pretty much we can do what we like for the most part.
Like I said, pretty odd definition you are using. Also an odd use of the word "we" to refer to other people.

[uke2se]

There is also a legal precedent from the Swedish Supreme Court from 2007, which acknowledges questioning via video link as proportionate when the subject is abroad. The same ruling (NJA [2007] 337) finds that it is disproportionate to issue an arrest warrant for a person who is cooperating with the judicial authorities at the preliminary investigation stage, before a decision has been made whether to prosecute.

http://justice4assange.com/Prosecution.html

I'd say that it doesn't apply in this case as the case in question was regarding a resident of Dubai who had had a fixed adress in Dubai for several years and did not move to Dubai close in time to him having legal trouble (tax crimes). Assange has been somewhat of a vagrant, moving constantly and the crime he is accused of is of a different nature. However, I am no lawyer. Assange's appeal is in the Supreme Court as I understand it. I hope he submits to the court's decision should it uphold the two previous rejections of his appeal.



Already have.

Did not see it. Could you link it, please?


I agree, it's not a good look and it has caused considerable consternation among his supporters, if Twitter is anything to go by. But let's wait and see what actually happens and what the show actually broadcasts. I don't care what network it is on I'll still be watching it. What will you say if, for instance, he does give Russia a spray and RT still broadcast it?

I'll probably do as Tim Minchin in "Storm":

"... when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my ****.”


There's a lot of prejudicial judgement of Assange, both in Sweden and in this thread.

To be honest, I haven't heard any on Swedish media. Doesn't mean it isn't there. I know that people who did support wikileaks are a bit miffed that Assange seems to be doing his best to get out of Dodge.

[MNBrant]

Like I said, pretty odd definition you are using. Also an odd use of the word "we" to refer to other people.

By we I mean the president and his circle. The guy is telling the whole world what to do. He told Egypt not to suppress their people. Pretty much threatening Iran with war, unwinnable war in afghanistan. Told the chinese that they dont threaten us much. I don't know, thats just what gets reported in news, you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.

[Childlike Empress]

Also, there is a second part to my post. Not including that in your response could be seen as dishonest.


The kind of propaganda outlet I agreed upon is not WildCat's "Putin mouthpiece", it is a serious journalistic outlet which also has an (open) agenda of making the sponsor state look good/spread its message. Like VoA does for the USA. So "agreeing to contribute", as you put it, has nothing to do with mindlessly submitting to a script provided directly by the Gentlemen Obama or Putin Medvedew. Am I "paranoid" to suspect ill intent? Experience shows that such suspicions are warrented and dishonest "arguments" are legion here.

[uke2se]

The kind of propaganda outlet I agreed upon is not WildCat's "Putin mouthpiece", it is a serious journalistic outlet which also has an (open) agenda of making the sponsor state look good/spread its message. Like VoA does for the USA. So "agreeing to contribute", as you put it, has nothing to do with mindlessly submitting to a script provided directly by the Gentlemen Obama or Putin Medvedew. Am I "paranoid" to suspect ill intent? Experience shows that such suspicions are warrented and dishonest "arguments" are legion here.

The "paranoid" remark was regarding you ascribing some sort of ill intent on my part for failing to mention a news network that is not a subject in this discussion.

Could you please just get on with the apology now? I've heard your explanation, and you've learned that no dishonesty was present on my part.

I don't think "serious journalistic outlet" is how I'd describe RT's openly pushing conspiracy theories, but I suppose you use a different definition than I.

[WildCat]

By we I mean the president and his circle. The guy is telling the whole world what to do. He told Egypt not to suppress their people. Pretty much threatening Iran with war, unwinnable war in afghanistan. Told the chinese that they dont threaten us much. I don't know, thats just what gets reported in news, you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes.
So any time a world leader conducts foreign policy it's "imperialism"? In that case every leader is an imperialist. Or does this only apply to the US President?

Yep, a strange definition you're using.

[MNBrant]

So any time a world leader conducts foreign policy it's "imperialism"? In that case every leader is an imperialist. Or does this only apply to the US President?

Yep, a strange definition you're using.

I think we have 100k troops in the asian command, Central (middle east) command is now the largest. I am too lazy to look it up. 300k troops in europe. 11 aircraft carriers, bases in nearly every country that will take one. I don't know, what is your definition of an imperialist country?

[Childlike Empress]

Could you please just get on with the apology now? I've heard your explanation, and you've learned that no dishonesty was present on my part.


I learned nothing of the kind. I witnessed the usual "give me the little finger and i'll take the whole hand" routine, experimentally giving the little finger.

[uke2se]

I learned nothing of the kind. I witnessed the usual "give me the little finger and i'll take the whole hand" routine, experimentally giving the little finger.

What are you talking about?

I explained to you why I didn't bring up VoA - that I am not familliar with it and that it has nothing to do with the discussion. There was no dishonesty on my part.

It seems to me that you are just unable to admit that you were wrong. It would go a long way to explain why you are a twoofer.

[Childlike Empress]

It seems to me that you are just unable to admit that you were wrong.


Yup, like #290 clearly shows. :rolleyes:

[uke2se]

Yup, like #290 clearly shows. :rolleyes:

Why is it so hard for you to say "I apologize for saying you were being dishonest"?

Do you still think I was being dishonest? If so, why?

Also, could you please answer my whole post next time? Quoting and answering just a part of it when the rest of it contains information pertinent to the discussion could be seen as dishonest.

[JihadJane]

Please, we've been over this. Apparently the Iraq War counts. Let's just drop it and focus on the issue at hand: Assange's credibility.

What's the point of focussing on Assange's credibility?

[uke2se]

What's the point of focussing on Assange's credibility?

That's the topic of this thread. If you fail to see the point, don't post here.

[WildCat]

What's the point of focussing on Assange's credibility?
It's the topic of this thread. Perhaps you didn't notice, but Assange has become a paid shill for an oppressive regime that murders journalists, steals elections, stifles political opposition, enriches his cronies, and supports murderous despots like Bashir Assad. Name a repressive regime, and Assange's puppet masters probably sold arms to them. Don't expect any comment from Assange on any of this, he's bought and paid for.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's the topic of this thread. Perhaps you didn't notice, but Assange has become a paid shill for an oppressive regime that murders journalists, steals elections, stifles political opposition, enriches his cronies, and supports murderous despots like Bashir Assad. Name a repressive regime, and Assange's puppet masters probably sold arms to them. Don't expect any comment from Assange on any of this, he's bought and paid for.

It's not just one regime either. As a former KGB agent during the Cold War Vladimir Putin was a cog in the 2nd most genocidal regime in history. He has openly longed for a return to the "bad old days" calling the collapse of the Soviet Union the "major geopolitical disaster of the century".

[SpacemanSpiff]

Assange has become a paid shill for an oppressive regime that murders journalists, steals elections, stifles political opposition, enriches his cronies, and supports murderous despots

Now I'm confused!

[Stellafane]

Aw geez...as a public service, I offer the following to those who wish to defend Mr. Assange:

"Julian Assange has provided a great deal of value through WikiLeaks. In particular, the material he revealed that demonstrates the ongoing duplicity and evil of Western imperialism has been of great service to the world. It is somewhat unfortunate that he now feels it appropriate to associate himself with Russia Today, and to some extent I may agree with his critics who insist such an association can be considered hypocritical in view of his previous positions. But it does not detract one iota from the ongoing importance and value of his WikiLeaks work."

That wasn't so difficult, was it? Feel free to cut-and-paste this whenever the topic comes up; it can't work any worse that inexplicably throwing the likes of VoA and Glen Beck into the argument.

[Harpo]

Now I'm confused!

Some reading material for you:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

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

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

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

Come back when you're less confused. :)

[Childlike Empress]

Aw geez...as a public service, I offer the following to those who wish to defend Mr. Assange:

"Julian Assange has provided a great deal of value through WikiLeaks. In particular, the material he revealed that demonstrates the ongoing duplicity and evil of Western imperialism has been of great service to the world. It is somewhat unfortunate that he now feels it appropriate to associate himself with Russia Today, and to some extent I may agree with his critics who insist such an association can be considered hypocritical in view of his previous positions. But it does not detract one iota from the ongoing importance and value of his WikiLeaks work."

That wasn't so difficult, was it? Feel free to cut-and-paste this whenever the topic comes up; it can't work any worse that inexplicably throwing the likes of VoA and Glen Beck into the argument.


Nothing works against cartoonishly overblown accusations thrown around if the reader is stupid and indoctrinated enough to buy it, so thanks but no thanks. I'm not defending anything.

[JihadJane]

That's the topic of this thread. If you fail to see the point, don't post here.

I mean on a broader level. What is to be gained from focussing on Assange's credibility? I'd like to see it spelled out. What changes if Assange has no credibility?

[tyr_13]

Aw geez...as a public service, I offer the following to those who wish to defend Mr. Assange:

"Julian Assange has provided a great deal of value through WikiLeaks. In particular, the material he revealed that demonstrates the ongoing duplicity and evil of Western imperialism has been of great service to the world. It is somewhat unfortunate that he now feels it appropriate to associate himself with Russia Today, and to some extent I may agree with his critics who insist such an association can be considered hypocritical in view of his previous positions. But it does not detract one iota from the ongoing importance and value of his WikiLeaks work."

That wasn't so difficult, was it? Feel free to cut-and-paste this whenever the topic comes up; it can't work any worse that inexplicably throwing the likes of VoA and Glen Beck into the argument.

There you go! Now like you I don't agree with that defense, but at least it isn't fallacious.

[uke2se]

I mean on a broader level. What is to be gained from focussing on Assange's credibility? I'd like to see it spelled out. What changes if Assange has no credibility?

The public face of wikileaks is tarnished, leading those interested in surpressing the information much more well equipped. Pretty simple stuff.

[trustbutverify]

The partnership of Assange and RT is long overdue. I've always considered them unofficial partners.

[Moss]

The public face of wikileaks is tarnished, leading those interested in surpressing the information much more well equipped. Pretty simple stuff.

Well, Assange was never the best public figurehead for WL. And there is nobody to take his place. Seems like WL is effectively dead in the water since the whole Sweden debacle.
I still think working for RT has been the strangest action of Assange thus far. I'm curious what kind of deal happened in the background.

[theprestige]

The public face of wikileaks is tarnished, leading those interested in surpressing the information much more well equipped. Pretty simple stuff.

Cracks appear in the noble facade of Wikileaks, revealing that the people involved are not all high-minded idealists with a strong commitment to truth and justice. People who were previously swayed by romantic notions may now be more inclined to give Wikileaks a more critical review, before assuming that its work is right and good.

[Childlike Empress]

Hahaha, you guys are so funny. Cracks appear? I thought Assange was already evil and discredited for "raping" those women in Sweden, and of course for being an anti-american snob and doo-doo head. Surprising to read that you still held him in such high regard... :rolleyes::D

[theprestige]

Hahaha, you guys are so funny. Cracks appear? I thought Assange was already evil and discredited for "raping" those women in Sweden, and of course for being an anti-american snob and doo-doo head. Surprising to read that you still held him in such high regard... :rolleyes::D

Personally, I always thought Wikileaks looked like the work of a douchebag. That's all I ever needed to hold Assange and his associates in low regard. Some people, on the other hand, have trouble admitting that he might be a douchebag even after they learn he's made a deal with Russia Today.

[Mycroft]

I mean on a broader level. What is to be gained from focussing on Assange's credibility? I'd like to see it spelled out. What changes if Assange has no credibility?

I'm puzzled. If you think his credibility makes no difference one way or another, why are you bothering to participate in the discussion?

[uke2se]

I'm puzzled. If you think his credibility makes no difference one way or another, why are you bothering to participate in the discussion?

A (n educated) guess:

iwGFalTRHDA

[trustbutverify]

Hahaha, you guys are so funny. Cracks appear? I thought Assange was already evil and discredited for "raping" those women in Sweden, and of course for being an anti-american snob and doo-doo head. Surprising to read that you still held him in such high regard... :rolleyes::D

Having a bad day? :)

[Childlike Empress]

Having a bad day? :)


No worries.

You at least were honest above in #347. Chant with me:

Assange evil.
RT evil.
Birds of a feather.
Five minutes of hate.


;)

[kmortis]

Keep it civil and on topic. The topic is neither the Iraq War or the other posters.

[JihadJane]

The public face of wikileaks is tarnished, leading those interested in surpressing the information much more well equipped. Pretty simple stuff.


Do you care if public face of Wikileaks is tarnished, or that the kind of information it has revealed may now be suppressed?

I haven't noticed any indication that you do.

I'm puzzled. If you think his credibility makes no difference one way or another, why are you bothering to participate in the discussion?

I don't think Assange's credibility makes no difference one way or another.

I get the impression that some posters on this thread are keen to reduce Assange's credibility as far as possible. I'm curious to find out which interests they think would be served by this.

Cracks appear in the noble facade of Wikileaks, revealing that the people involved are not all high-minded idealists with a strong commitment to truth and justice. People who were previously swayed by romantic notions may now be more inclined to give Wikileaks a more critical review, before assuming that its work is right and good.

Do you think its work is bad and wrong, then?

[tyr_13]

I don't think Assange's credibility makes no difference one way or another.

I get the impression that some posters on this thread are keen to reduce Assange's credibility as far as possible. I'm curious to find out which interests they think would be served by this.


Do you have a better way to test out home built scanning electron microscopes?

[uke2se]

Do you care if public face of Wikileaks is tarnished, or that the kind of information it has revealed may now be suppressed?

I haven't noticed any indication that you do.

I don't care what you believe. I argue for my beliefs just as you do for yours.



I don't think Assange's credibility makes no difference one way or another.

I get the impression that some posters on this thread are keen to reduce Assange's credibility as far as possible. I'm curious to find out which interests they think would be served by this.

I'm sure there are posters here who want that, yes. Assange isn't the unquestioned son of God. Some people like what he's done, some don't.



Do you think its work is bad and wrong, then?

I think the idea of Wikileaks is good. I support civil disobedience and even what could be called criminal disobedience (Wikileaks, Anonymous etc). I don't support a supposed neutral Wikileaks being tied to a very non neutral Russia Today.

[Childlike Empress]

The show starts coming Tuesday. Guests are still secret but RT tells us to "expect controversy".

zacWhPT-Ngo

[theprestige]

The show starts coming Tuesday. Guests are still secret but RT tells us to "expect controversy".

zacWhPT-Ngo

YouDontSay.jpg

[trustbutverify]

The show starts coming Tuesday. Guests are still secret but RT tells us to "expect controversy".

zacWhPT-Ngo

I'm hoping he interviews Israel Shamir.

[Childlike Empress]

I'm hoping he interviews Israel Shamir.


Sure you do. I'd say Galloway would already be exciting enough for you, think about the health. :D

Anyway, would be kind of lame if the name of the first guest won't get leaked before Tuesday, wouldn't it? :p

edit - website: http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/

edit2: allegedly (http://www.geekosystem.com/julian-assange-world-tomorrow/) it's M.I.A.

[Darth Rotor]

There is literally nothing shown on RT except conspiracy theories. (This is what Americans actually believe.)
Your attempt to speak for all Americans is an utter failure. You score no points.
When we're talking about US media, suddenly it's no longer acceptable to assume that everyone involved is driven by a huge pulsating brain in the capital.
Why would you assume it is?
What?

RT is a global, state-owned, state-run, news network.
A 9/11 documentary was aired by a single, local, broadcast station in the US.

You're really trying to compare the two? This is just deliberate obfuscation.
Actually, it is simple stupidity.
If reversing the Citizens United ruling is treason, I say make the most of it.
Actually, it would not be treason, it would be the right thing to do via due process, cases presented, and the old "Supreme Court overturns previous decision" deal. Likewise with Kelo.

I still think working for RT has been the strangest action of Assange thus far. I'm curious what kind of deal happened in the background.
The sound you might be listening for is 'Cha Ching' which is indicative of a cash transfer. :D

[carlitos]

The sound you might be listening for is 'Cha Ching' which is indicative of a cash transfer. :D
Assange strikes me as more a Bitcoin guy, no? Dark internet, super seekrit, Most Important Creation in the History of ManTM, yada yada.