(February 12, 2024 at 8:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 12, 2024 at 12:57 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I take it I have no credibility with you here, at least on matters of politics.

You are temperate in your approach to things. I respect that. 

You are capable of having conversations with people you disagree with, and don't go immediately for insults or bullying, like so many people. 

As to whether we should believe each other, I suppose (as in most cases) we should go case by case. I have been wrong before and if you think I am wrong again I have no problem with you pointing that out. Respectful dialogue is how we progress.

Again, with the passive-aggressive crap.

Go edit your post.  It will still be here.

(February 12, 2024 at 1:11 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The judge did not say she is not to be believed.

Are their any news commentors with their own  opinion shows who do not state things as if they are fact?  

The main statement she made for which she was sued was (IIRC) that an OAN staff member also writes for a Russian newspaper. That was factually correct. The bloviating surrounding that statement was opinion, and the judge ruled, protected speech.

I suppose we'd have to go back to the original broadcast to see its exact language and tone. 

The issue is whether her statements were clearly presented as opinion or not. Lots of people are paid by Russian publishers who aren't lying for Putin, and a responsible person would take care not to cast aspersion where it's not due. 

Maddow is paid millions every year, and has a large staff of writers. It wouldn't kill her to differentiate entertaining speculation from carefully sourced journalism. Or if she wants to argue that her program is free not to make that distinction, then I see no reason to believe anything she says. 

Anyway, the larger issue is that corporate media are not objective. They push their propaganda. We all know what Fox pushes, but too many people remain unaware that the other channels are bad in their own way.

^It must be so comfy there in Putin’s pocket.

Boru

(February 12, 2024 at 8:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Anyway, the larger issue is that corporate media are not objective. They push their propaganda. We all know what Fox pushes, but too many people remain unaware that the other channels are bad in their own way.

Yet you'd defend Russian writers who work under such draconian press laws that many are currently sitting in prison? Has it occurred to you that those who are still free are free because they toe the party line?

All sources should be vetted, and that includes opinion outlets though they aren't sources per se.

You can also read in small local news organizations that Trump is an evil Russian asset if you don't like the corporate ones.

(February 12, 2024 at 9:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 12, 2024 at 8:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Anyway, the larger issue is that corporate media are not objective. They push their propaganda. We all know what Fox pushes, but too many people remain unaware that the other channels are bad in their own way.

Yet you'd defend Russian writers who work under such draconian press laws that many are currently sitting in prison? Has it occurred to you that those who are still free are free because they toe the party line?

All sources should be vetted, and that includes opinion outlets though they aren't sources per se.

But there are US-based journalists who write for RT, who say that they have no trouble being censored or controlled. Not every word printed by a Russian company is vetted by Putin. 

We can talk to Julian Assange about who gets to sit in prison and who doesn't. 

The artist Ai Wei Wei made a name for himself in the West by criticizing censorship in China. Recently his exhibition in London was cancelled because he said publicly that the Palestinians shouldn't be bombed. 

You are certainly correct that all sources should be vetted.

There's a good joke about this.

A Russian guy and an American guy are seated next to each other on a flight from Moscow to New York.

The American asks "Why are you going to America?"

The Russian says "To study how the Americans make their propaganda so effective."

The American says "What propaganda?"

The Russian says "Exactly."

(February 12, 2024 at 8:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Anyway, the larger issue is that corporate media are not objective. They push their propaganda. We all know what Fox pushes, but too many people remain unaware that the other channels are bad in their own way.

I am neither watching FOX nor any other US news source. Yet i am coming to the same conclusion as so many others here. So go ahead and tell me that all my non-US new sources are also propaganda...........without knowing what they actually are. Mr. Poisoning-the-well..

(February 13, 2024 at 3:54 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(February 12, 2024 at 8:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Anyway, the larger issue is that corporate media are not objective. They push their propaganda. We all know what Fox pushes, but too many people remain unaware that the other channels are bad in their own way.

I am neither watching FOX nor any other US news source. Yet i am coming to the same conclusion as so many others here. So go ahead and tell me that all my non-US new sources are also propaganda...........without knowing what they actually are. Mr. Poisoning-the-well..

New, more accurate translation of the Putin interview.

I saw it on the Internet so it must be true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfEje1DSOTo

(February 13, 2024 at 4:41 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 13, 2024 at 3:54 am)Deesse23 Wrote: I am neither watching FOX nor any other US news source. Yet i am coming to the same conclusion as so many others here. So go ahead and tell me that all my non-US new sources are also propaganda...........without knowing what they actually are. Mr. Poisoning-the-well..

New, more accurate translation of the Putin interview.

I saw it on the Internet so it must be true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfEje1DSOTo

Its kinda fun that you don't realize how stupid you sound.

Boru