Some of what RationalWiki says, sometimes tongue in cheek (the words are theirs but edited here for length):
RationalWiki – Liberal bullshit.
InfoWars & PrisonPlanet (Alex Jones) – Fake or distorted news/clickbait from an anti-government, anti-“globalist”, and generally pro-conspiracist stance.
Breitbart – Far-right (or alt-right) exaggerations of news. Racially-tinged news (often bordering on white nationalism).
PolitiFact – has frequently been accused of muddled thinking and the balance fallacy.
Snopes – a surprising number of myths actually turn out to be true … a fun way to kill your day, right up there with TV Tropes and Cracked.
RawStory – Center-leftist exaggerations or distortions of news.
Fox News – a blatantly right-wing and dishonest presentation of the news.
MSNBC – representative of the chaotic nature of the Democratic Party, with the hosts having a wider range of views than is seen on the more ideologically pure Fox News.
CNN – Pew Research found CNN to be the least biased of the three major cable news networks (with Fox and MSNBC having a much larger right and left wing slant, respectively).
BBC – has been accused of being anti-war, pro-war, left-wing, right-wing, socialist, liberal, and when all else fails, simply wasteful. Previously, it was being extremely Anglocentric, although that record has improved.
The Guardian – a British centre-left newspaper (beloved of organically-grown, muesli-wearing, sandal-hugging, tree-eating, disabled lesbian atheistic feminist social workers and teachers) with one of the most popular websites in the UK.
The Economist – Most of its writers … are young and fresh graduates of Oxbridge. Because of the serious tone of the magazine, readers may be deceived into thinking they must be experienced and distinguished journalists.
Daily Mail – gossipy tabloid “journalism” for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. … notorious for … hate directed at various minorities (lately focusing on Muslims), and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.
The Young Turks – spoke out against the Iraq War before it began, and consistently criticizes Democrats as much as Republicans … a lot of frankly frivolous entertainment content.
Democracy Now – news items with in-depth 10-15 minute segments rather than puerile slogans and sound bites. Its stories lean towards social justice, pacifist …, anti-imperialist, protectionist points of view.
Huffington Post – has a lot of good news and political content, albeit with an annoying tendency toward progressive orthodoxy (read: U.S. Democratic Party).
Yahoo! News – a mediocre news website that mostly reprints news sources from ABC News, Associated Press, and Reuters, in addition to hosting original news coverage.
Al Jazeera – based in Qatar, broadcasting news from the perspective of the Islamic world. … founded by former CNN employees … Most people in the “international affairs” business find the online English-language version invaluable.
RT (Russia Today) – comes off like a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against “the West” in general and the U.S. in particular and indulging in conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs.
SputnikNews – Mindful of RT’s unfortunately accumulating reputation as batshit insane propaganda, the same government department has launched the totally unrelated SputnikNews.
Zero Hedge – batshit insane Austrian school finance blog … has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions.
– Abagond, 2016.
Source: RationalWiki (2016).
Update (December 21st 2016): Shortened the Young Turks description and added Zero Hedge since it has been cited by commenters as diverse as nomad, biff, v8driver and michaeljonbarker.
See also:
550
I was a heavy Democracy Now! news consumer for years until I became more aware of their biases. They are tied to the Nation magazine and tend to echo their news slants.
I still listen to Dem Now, but I compare their take on things with Free Speech Radio News (FSRN) and The Real News Network (TRNN).
FSRN usually has local journalists on the ground and give a short, but nuanced view of what is happening in various parts of the world.
TRNN can have indepth coverage, but sometimes gets unfocused.
The Economist was never credible to me because their articles don’t include bylines. The articles all seem to be dictated by oligarchs in Davos, Switzerland.
The Daily Mail is a silly, sensationalist gossip rag.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Afrofem
Oh cool. I did not know about FSRN. Thanks!
LikeLike
I always found Snopes and Cracked entertaining.
LikeLike
You forgot that ‘gem’, “the National Inquirer’!:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/
Fantastic toilet reading news!
@Afrofem, thanks for the new site.
LikeLike
There is no “cabel of Hillary supporters” on this blog. That’s totally imaginary just like your sock puppet.
The “cable of Hillary supporters” work at CNN and MSNBC.
LikeLike
@ Mary Burrell
Entertaining, hmmm. I will have to check them out more often.
Good to see your comment again….
LikeLike
@Herneith
The National Inquirer, only good for lining bird cages. (chuckle)
LikeLike
@Abagond
FSRN is small and underfunded. They are also quite dedicated. Their collection of independent correspondents have been plugging away for over 20 years now.
LikeLike
@Afrofem: A coworker turned me on to Snopes and Mental Floss and I discovered Cracked when learning about debunking conspiracy theories and urban myths.
LikeLike
I might be mistaken, but my impression is that American media doesn’t strictly seperate reporting and commentary. While reporting can never be completly bias free, it is a useful safeguard.
LikeLike
May I ask how these media outlets were selected? Are they perceived to be those most followed by Americans?
I also want to know more about how some of the major news agencies fit into all this, eg, AP, UP, Agence France-Presse, Xin Hua, Reuters, and those of other countries (eg, India, Japan, etc.). What about Canada?
Is there any media guide that analyses the different takes on issues as presented by the popular media sites without necessary taking a biased slant themselves?
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
American media claimed to separate reporting and editorial commentary prior to the Reagan presidency. After Reagan’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, reporting, commercialism and commentary merged into the mush that most Americans slog through in print, radio, television and electronic media daily.
More information about the Fairness Doctrine:
http://fair.org/extra/the-fairness-doctrine/
LikeLike
@jefe
There are several sites that claim to evaluate media bias. One such example is: mediabiasfactcheck.com. There’s others… it can be fun to google them and see how they differ on their opinions.
There’s even at least one site that I’ve seen that presents left/center/right stories on the same topics side-by-side: allsides.com. Again, can be fun to read the various loaded headlines and such.
Anyway, just google any news agency followed by the word “bias” and you’ll get a list of sites claiming to have an opinion on their bias (or lack of it)… if they all agree, then maybe they’re on to something. 😉
LikeLike
Obvious biassed evaluations. TYT and Huff Post are more fake than Breitbart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ jefe
I selected them. There is no way I could do all the websites and news outlets they cover. Instead I chose the ones that come up on this blog or which come up in my searches or which I have used as sources.
There are also plenty of sources they do not cover, like Xinhua, the New Yorker or Vox, which I would have added if they had.
LikeLike
@ jefe
All the ones I have seen take a side. I certainly do not always agree with RationalWiki, but at least they are willing to trash both the left and the right – and admit to their own liberal bias.
LikeLike
choose your poison
LikeLike
“RT (Russia Today) – comes off like a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against “the West” in general and the U.S. in particular ”
and that’s a good thing. by far the most accurate. also coverage of black americans unparalleled. for example. ever seen interview of black panther party on msm?
(https://youtu.be/Myiz05beTVI)
RT: the antidote to American presstitute propaganda
LikeLike
“Mindful of RT’s unfortunately accumulating reputation as batshit insane propaganda, ”
that statement is untrue and absolute nonsense and amounts to propaganda in itself. I have seen nothing batshit crazy on RT and if you, abagond, have seen it, point it out to me.
LikeLike
“RT (Russia Today) – comes off like a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against “the West” in general and the U.S. in particular and indulging in conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs.”
I’m not sure who this statement is attributed to, either abagond or rationalwiki. Obviously it is made by someone that does not watch the channel. I watch it. I’ve never seen them focus on conspiracy theory, in what has come to be the meaning of that word, something patently untrue. And even the pristine meaning of the word, I have found no emphasis on conspiracy theory. And I watch it every day. And the ‘fringe beliefs’ discussed seemed to be shared by most of the world outside of the US. These lies about RT need to be pointed out. That statement is completely false.
LikeLike
OHhhh. I know! Conspiracy theory means anything that contradicts the US government’s narrative. It’s phony war against ISIS for example. Conspiracy theory, like fake news, is anything that isn’t government propaganda. Yeah. I forgot about that particular definition of conspiracy theory. So, yeah. When you look at it that way I guess RT does indulge in conspiracy theories.
LikeLike
I always make sense groji. you just fail to understand. glad that didn’t happen this time.
LikeLike
of all the sites listed here, which poses the biggest threat to the power structure? and which do they want most to shut down? as I think they tried to do in Australia.
it’s all about Russia. this whole fake news scam. as long as RT exists, putin has a nuclear option. immediate and deadly to the us power structure. he could decide to release what he has on 911 thru RT. so RT represents a bit of potential blackmail.
he can release to the American public what our leaders don’t want us to know.
and he’s already doing that. on a smaller scale than Armageddon.
It’s info wars, babies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
At the top of the post I added: “the words are theirs but edited here for length”. What you see in the post is their opinions in their words. I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but offer it for thought and discussion.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Re: RT
“Batshit insane” may be in the eye of the beholder, but propaganda they most certainly are: both RT and SputnikNews are run by the Russian government. They are Putin mouthpieces, as is most of Russian media.
Abby Martin, who is from the US, used to work for RT. She said they never told her what to say. I believe her: even when she criticized the Russian government they did not kick her off. BUT she is very outspoken against US imperialism, which is why she pops up in places like Russia’s RT and South America’s TeleSur, and not, say, in the US on CNN or even MSNBC. She seems to be perfectly sincere in what she says, which makes her words all the more powerful, but that hardly mean her words are not being rented for a particular purpose.
LikeLike
“She seems to be perfectly sincere in what she says, which makes her words all the more powerful, but that hardly mean her words are not being rented for a particular purpose. ”
Yeah. Like our teleprompter readers aren’t.
I say black Americans need to embrace their Russian comrades.
Bet you never saw this picture.
Russian students at the US Embassy in Moscow
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ferguson protest in Moscow
LikeLike
abagond
“@ nomad
At the top of the post I added: “the words are theirs but edited here for length”. What you see in the post is their opinions in their words. I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but offer it for thought and discussion.”
I accuse you of plagiarism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
““Batshit insane” may be in the eye of the beholder, but propaganda they most certainly are: both RT and SputnikNews are run by the Russian government. They are Putin mouthpieces, as is most of Russian media. ”
They are more honest and accurate and truthful than American corporate media, amply proven by the Hillary Clinton debacle and the loss of its last shreds of credibility. The fourth estate is dead and our crooked government is trying to quash the fifth with censorship of so called fake news and with the aid of pieces like this. Lies and all. “conspiracy theories”. “fringe beliefs”. Lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
“They are Putin mouthpieces, as is most of Russian media.
Abby Martin, who is from the US, used to work for RT. She said they never told her what to say”
Come to think of it, I’ve gone through the list before. Abby Martin is not unusual. Larry King is certainly not a Putin mouthpiece. Thom Hartman, staunch Democrat, is not a Putin mouthpiece. Chris Hedges is not a Putin mouthpiece. Former Governor Jesse Ventura is not a Putin mouthpiece. Nor are the other lesser known journalists. Lies. Lies. Damn lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RT focuses on U.S. imperialism. However you wouldn’t want to trust RT to report on what’s going on in the Ukraine.
LikeLike
why not?
LikeLike
our government and presstitute media would not lie to us about Ukraine. would they?
LikeLike
@Nomad
U.S. Media is biased against the Russians in the same way the Russians are critical of U.S. foreign policy and interventionist meddling. So it does require some parsing and researching other sources to get a clearer picture of a situation.
In the U.S. media you wont hear that Ukraine is dominated by white centric nationalists who oppose Russian influence because these fascists are U.S. “allies”. Then you have another group of ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine who support Russian influence.
When the Soviet Union collapsed that created a vacuum that NATO stupidly decided to fill it. It would have been better to have a buffer zone of neutral nations between Europe and the Russians.
LikeLike
damn right. but we are the nation where the leaders are criminals. Russia is not. we are the ones doing illegal invasions and regime change. Russia is not. We are the nation murdering innocent people all around the world. Russia is not.. Our media is not in the same class with RT. US media is government and CIA controlled. Much more government controlled than RT. RT is much more trustworthy than US media. The only reason you don’t know this is because Rationalwiki, Abagond and the rest are lying about it. you folks need to wake up and smell the coffee.
mmmmm…romantic roast
LikeLike
bite me
(https://youtu.be/RyCZUpFgkmk)
LikeLike
I know this because I watch RT.
Wake up Nomad. Both governments are full of criminals who represent their own corporatacracy.
LikeLike
you re entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to mine.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
“I know this because I watch RT. ”
Then you know it doesn’t indulge conspiracy theories and fake news and that the journalists there are not Putin mouthpieces and that Rationalwiki and Abagond are lying about it.
LikeLike
I meant ‘conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs. It merely has a political perspective that does not conform to American propaganda. And propaganda is what our corporate news has become.
LikeLiked by 1 person
State Department takes the same attitude towards RT as rationalwiki and abagond. Or rather the other way around. It’s propaganda, handed down to these sources ultimately from the government. Conspiracy theory. Fake news. One nation under thought control. It’s all about Russia. See how RT is singled out and denied legitimacy.
(https://youtu.be/XWJIod5Z4Rg?t=12m48s)
this is so unprofessional. its embarassing
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
You are missing point. Those people are no different than the Rented Negroes you see on Fox News, like Stacey Dash and Sheriff David Clarke. They may be perfectly sincere in what they say, but they are still being used for propagandistic ends. Just as Fox News uses Black faces to push White opinion, so RT uses US faces to push a Russian viewpoint.
Just because what you see on RT disagrees with the US propaganda you see on CNN and so on, does not mean it is not propaganda too. After all, MSNBC and Fox News disagree, but they are still mouthpieces for the Democratic and Republican parties. They are not speaking truth to power – they are speaking FOR power. They are dressing up powerful interests as “truth”. RT is no different in that regard.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ nomad
If The Root is questionable because it is owned by Univision, then RT is certainly questionable because it is owned by the Russian government.
LikeLike
@abagond
@ nomad
“If The Root is questionable because it is owned by Univision, then RT is certainly questionable because it is owned by the Russian government.”
Does not follow. Remember the fallacy of ‘the everyone does it argument’?
Each source stands on its on merit. The Root is questionable because it is thought control of black people by the white corporation that owns it and the conservatism and accomodationism of its black staff.
LikeLike
If they are propaganda they are a healthier form than American propaganda because they are more truthful, by far, You’re missing the point too. My point is that you lied about them indulging conspiracy theory, fringe beliefs and about the journalists being mindless mouthpieces for Putin.
LikeLike
liked by shainair and mjb. what a surprise. by theway mjb, I didn’t mean anything by that ‘bite me’ crack. just my way of titling the video I was high lighting. mmmmmm…romantic roast. get some today.
abagond.
My point is that you lied about them indulging conspiracy theory, fringe beliefs and about the journalists being mindless mouthpieces for Putin. Thus furthering the empire’s agenda and becoming a part of American propaganda and its brainwashing program yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Root’s fawning over Obama for 8 years is shameful.
LikeLike
“They are not speaking truth to power – they are speaking FOR power”
I’ve heard them. They are speaking truth to power. Especially truth to the greatest threat to peace on this earth. The US government. And, as illustrated by Abby Martin, they speak truth to Putin as well. Do I have to post the video of her blasting Putin? They are speaking truth to power. Something MSM rarely does. Especially on black issues. And that’s why I watch them.
LikeLike
My points are that..
RT is a valuable tool.
Because of the problem we have with our media. Our MSM is like the firemen in Fahrenheit 451. The firemen that race to start fires rather than put them out, as traditional firemen did. Our news media does the opposite of what news media is supposed to do. Instead of reporting the news it hides the news. Behind a façade of lies. Exhibit A, the Clinton debacle. MSM has been stripped bare as the fraud it is. They hide the truth. From 911 to NSA surveillance. They cannot be trusted. They have to be checked. RT is a way of checking them. Just as alternative media is another way. And that is why they are trying to shut both down with propaganda like what you just spieled. “Conspiracy theory and fringe beliefs. As I say, RT boasts, and rightfully so, that they report the news they don’t reveal on American MSM. And that’s why I watch them. I don’t want to be kept in the dark by MSM, by the Root, by rationalwiki and this blog. RT. The antidote to American propaganda.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
As usual, you misrepresent what I say and then dismiss it. So I am going to stop right here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What RationalWiki says about RT and conspiracy theories:
Source;
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not misrepresent what you said. The rationalwiki take on RT is nonsense. I just rejected it. What rationalwiki says is a lie and russophobic propaganda. Your repeating it is spreading russophobic propaganda.
“Alongside nutty conspiracy theorists, RT had also given voice to genuine whistleblowers from the Western world, like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, ” Just proves my point.
“Uber-conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been interviewed on numerous occasions by RT,[12][13][14][15] and other conspiracy theorists that have appeared as guests on his radio program and been interviewed (in most cases several times) by RT include Mike Adams,[16] Mark Dice,[17] David Ray Griffin,[18] Jesse Ventura,[19] Lyndon LaRouche[20] and Gerald Celente.[21] It’s a needle-thread away from Scopie’s Law status.”
I’ve never seen Alex Jones on RT, and as I say, I watch it daily. If he’s been on it certainly hasn’t been frequent. And even if he has. So what? RT gives voice to people you won’t see on MSM. And that’s good. Conspiracy theory of the AJ kind is certainly not their focus. I misrepresent you? Oh contraire, mom frere. I represent you perfectly. You lied about RT. Or you promoted rationalwiki’s lies about RT. The only reason I am commenting thusly is because you and rationalwiki grossly misrepresent RT. And if you don’t watch it, which I don’t believe you do, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m just setting the record straight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“For example there is a compilation of, originally no less than 56 Russia Today YouTube videos on 9/11 (7 now deleted).[6] The majority publicise, and clearly support, conspiracy theories. The remainder involve other criticisms of the United States”
That’s a good thing! Unless you’re an American propagandist. You are making my point for me.
LikeLike
@ nomad
You did.
!. I did not say that Abby Martin, etc, were “mindless” mouthpieces. I was very clear about their role.
2. Where did I lie about RT indulging in conspiracy theories? What I have presented is RationalWiki’s opinion on that, presented as THEIR opinion, I said point-blank: “I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but offer it for thought and discussion.” But now you want to paint me as a liar.
So, yes, you are misrepresenting me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I stand corrected, Kind of. You said they were mouthpieces. I assume mouthpieces to be mindless. ” Where did I lie about RT indulging in conspiracy theories?” I was probably thinking about comments you’ve made elsewhere about RT. And I do kinda think you agree with rationalwiki. But as you say, you do offer a disclaimer. So you are not lying. Rationalwiki is lying. You are just presenting their views.
But this that you said is not true. “They are not speaking truth to power ”
That is exactly what they are doing.
“So, yes, you are misrepresenting me.” Abagond
Gee, I wonder what that feels like.
LikeLike
In presenting dissident voices that never appear on MSM, they are speaking truth to power. The fact that they speak out against regime change, economic predation and black focused police brutality in America means that they speak truth to power. Watching the Hawks in particular is very much dedicated to speaking truth to power.
On top of that, they do a damn fine job of journalism, far outclassing their American counterparts who, by contrast accept everything that comes out of government officials’ mouths as gospel truth. RT puts American news media to shame.
Exhibit A of great journalism and of speaking truth to power.
Okay. I’m glitching up again, so this will probably my last (long) comment.
Exhibit A: Speaking Truth to Power.
“Readers may wonder who is in fact producing the «fake news»? In mid-November the State Department spokesman, John Kirby, stated during a briefing that Russian jets had «deliberately» bombed five hospitals and one mobile clinic in Jihadist occupied E. Aleppo. An RT journalist was present, and asked a question. «Can you specify which hospitals and what mobile clinic were hit?»
Mr. Kirby could not name them. We got our information from «aid organisations», he replied, and that is good enough. But which aid organisations, the RT journalist wanted to know? The exchange went on for a while, the RT journalist asking for names and details which Mr. Kirby did not have and could not give her. «You are citing reports», she replied, «without giving any specifics». Eventually, Mr. Kirby lost his temper and tried intimidation.”
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/11/fake-news-who-really-making-war-truth.html
Read the entire article
LikeLike
@ nomad
If that is your standard, then CNN speaks truth to power too.
RT speaks truth to US power. That is no different than CNN speaking truth to Russian power. In both cases it is one-sided and propagandistic. As RationalWiki notes:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not saying CNN doesn’t speak truth to power. I don’t watch cnn so I don’t really know. But I doubt it. Their speaking truth to Russian power is merely part of the imperial agenda. I know MSM. And CNN might be the exception, but MSM does not speak truth to power. But that’s not the issue. You said that RT does not speak truth to power. That statement is false. Whether some other news media speaks truth to power does not effect the veracity of my claim. And Of course they are going to have their own particular journalistic biases just as MSM does. But MSM does not offer platforms to dissident voices, does not speak out on behalf of police victims or predatory capitalism in any significant way. RT does all that. That constitutes speaking truth to power.
LikeLike
“then RT is certainly questionable because it is owned by the Russian government”
Once again, abagond is touting outright lies or “misinformation” since I’m sure he pretends he doesn’t lie.
The fact is that RT is not “owned by the Russian government”. It’s owned by a nonprofit that receives funding from the government, similar to PBS, BBC, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
This is not done out of a love of truth but because part of Russian propaganda is to bash the US. Just as part of US propaganda is to bash Russia. Do you think the Western media’s Russophobia comes from “speaking truth to power”? Why should RT be any different?
If you reject RationalWiki’s Russophobic propaganda, then why would you not also reject RT’s Americanophobic propaganda?
LikeLike
I stand corrected. RT is not owned by the Russian government, though it seems to get nearly all of its money from it.
LikeLike
“This is not done out of a love of truth but because part of Russian propaganda is to bash the US. ”
LOL. So real journalism, i.e. reporting what actually happened, is done to “bash the US” because abagond says so.
And abagond wants us to equate real journalism with outright conspiracy theories, which abagond has pushed, such as Trump being a Putin “puppet”, among others.
Abagond, we see right through your B.S.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
“If you reject RationalWiki’s Russophobic propaganda, then why would you not also reject RT’s Americanophobic propaganda?”
You tell me. You’re the expert on other people’s motives. I’m sure you’ve looked in the hearts of all these excellent RT journalists. And have concluded that
“This is not done out of a love of truth but because part of Russian propaganda is to bash the US. ”
You their motives better than they do. Just as you know mine better than me.
Thank you resw for another information gem.
“The fact is that RT is not “owned by the Russian government”. It’s owned by a nonprofit that receives funding from the government, similar to PBS, BBC, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, etc.”
I did not know that. I was believing the russophobic propaganda.
“If you wanna know what’s going on in your city and your streets
Never back down like Tyrel if the truth is what you seek
To analyze investigate from the bottom to the top.
You speak your mind like nomad whether they like it or not.”
(https://youtu.be/R7K7SaEgB7w)
LikeLike
@ nomad
It has nothing to do with motive of individual journalists or even your motive. I am making a structural argument.
Abby Martin and Chris Hedges seem to be sincere people. But the reason you see them on RT is because they further its propaganda aim of bashing the US. Just as David Clarke, say, appears on Fox News because he furthers its aim of whitewashing US racism. It is propaganda either way.
The trouble is, any sufficiently large news outlet, one that can afford journalists, fact checkers, lawyers, etc, is going to be propagandistic for structural reasons. It would be wonderful if RT were the exception, but it is not.
The best (but hardly perfect) answer is to read from a broad range of sources.
LikeLike
“The best (but hardly perfect) answer is to read from a broad range of sources.”
Yes, read from a “broad range” of Univision Communications, Inc. subsidiaries like abagond.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yep. everybody does it
LikeLike
“The best (but hardly perfect) answer is to read from a broad range of sources.”
So ironic. You also need to recognize the ones that lie. And crosscheck them with the ones that are accurate. RT is, as I say, much more accurate than the MSM, whose whole enterprise is lying to the American people, from 911 to NSA surveillance. When a more accurate than RT comes along, I’ll rely on them. Until then, RT is the best.
LikeLike
Oops. I should say ‘from 911 to the Clinton debacle’. Just to be current. No. ‘911 to Russian hacking and pizza non gate’. Lies. Lies. Damn lies
LikeLike
@ nomad
No. They all lie. You can have truth or you can have power. You cannot have both. Power corrupts. RT is no exception. I wish it were.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everybody does it fallacy. They are not all the same. MSM is much worse than RT.
Notice here whose exposing fake news.
Keep being blind, abagond.
Why You Should Never Trust The Mainstream Media
(https://youtu.be/khwERBhf1eE)
LikeLike
‘I wish it were.’ no you don’t. youre a Russophobe.
LikeLike
I don’t buy your truisms pulled out of thin air
LikeLike
@ nomad
Just because the MSM is bad it does not mean RT is good. They can both be bad and are – dangerously bad, in fact: the MSM gave us Trump, RT supports Putin.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Why do you say I am a Russophobe?
LikeLike
Relative to MSM, RT is good.
“Why do you say I am a Russophobe?””
Because I have read what you have said. For example.
” RT supports Putin.” So what? Putin’s not a demon. Just as our media is far worse than RT, our leaders are far worse than Putin. Exhibit A. Trump. Exhibit B. Clinton. Exhibit C: Obama Exhibit D. Bush
When you demonize Putin, that’s russophobia. When you malign the motives of RT journalists, that’s russophobia. You are definitely a Russophobe.
Nevertheless, One of your truisms I like BTW -maybe it doesn’t originate with you= is the everybody does it fallacy. Probably not because you constantly fall victim to it.
Got to give the devil its due. RT beats the hell out of MSM, by all measures.
LikeLike
@”Why do you say I am a Russophobe?”
LOL! I love the little ignorance act.
LikeLike
@”the MSM gave us Trump,”
Another beauty. The MSM was working with your girl, and we have plenty of evidence of that. But not even that was enough for you to win.
” RT supports Putin”
Why don’t you ever give some specifics for once?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t follow any specific news agencies. If something in the news interests me I Google it and read different takes on the event to get an idea about what is happening. .
I follow people on Twitter who have different political and idiological beliefs. I follow Rand Paul, Glen Greenwald, Snoden, Bill Crystal, Wikileaks, Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal, The Young Turks and others including Abagond. I also follow anarcho-libertarians Kevin Carson and Richard Sheldon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this chart useful?
A decent breakdown of all things real and fake news
https://imgur.com/7xHaUXf
LikeLike
@ jefe
An interesting way to think about it!
I would shift it to the left (NYT is pretty liberal) and push television news down/up to Basic AF (Fox News does NOT meet high standards). I would add a bottom level for fake news.
It makes a good point that if something is too partisan it is speaking to the choir.
LikeLike
^ yeah, Found it interesting that they rated CNN as borderline clickbait, even below USA today and way below FOX.
LikeLike
Cnn at least says ‘sponsored posts’ now for those ads that pretend to have a byline heading or whatever down at the bottom of each section. Then there’s the cookie warning, edition selection for ‘non-US’ users, breaking news floating thingies and scrolling autoplay video ads, etc that make it painful to use their site on a phone
LikeLike
Update: Shortened the Young Turks description and added Zero Hedge since it has been cited by commenters as diverse as nomad, biff, v8driver and michaeljonbarker.
LikeLike
Zero Hedge – “batshit insane Austrian school finance blog … has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions.”
More:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rational Wikileaks has some background insights on Zero Hedge I wasn’t aware of.
What it doesn’t mention is that besides their apocalyptic view of Kenesian economics they are Gold and Silver believers as well as Bitcoin and cyber currency advocates.
From Rationalwiki :
“Tyler claims to be a “believer in a sweeping conspiracy that casts the alumni of Goldman Sachs as a powerful cabal at the helm of U.S. policy, with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve colluding to preserve the status quo.”
I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy but rather a business modle. That statement is far more true then it is not. The banksters are part of the corporatacracy and wield much influence.
You could say that it’s the Banksters dollars that are the life blood of white supremacy.
The Austrian school is classical liberal not Authortarian. That doesn’t keep bat sh*t crazy people from corrupting his work.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
The Misis Institute is run by Lew Rockwell who is known for penning the infamous Ron Paul newsletters. His group is zenophobic, racist, closed border and pro Trump. That is the opposite of Misis’s Laissez-faire open boarders liberalism.
Another way to understand Zero Hedge is that they are writing from a contrarian, Devils advocate perspective. I have found unique perspective their though like every thing else you read it needs to be parsed.
LikeLike
“What it doesn’t mention is that besides their apocalyptic view of Kenesian economics they are Gold and Silver believers as well as Bitcoin and cyber currency advocates.”
@MJB
What exactly is their apocalyptic view of Keynesian economics?
What are gold and silver believers?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Fan
Zero Hedge are “hard money” people meaning they think the U.S.dollar should be backed by gold instead of monitized debt. Ron Paul and others have advocated for gold back currency.
John Keynes was an early economist whose ideas underlay are present economic order.
“Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle.[3] Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions.”
Thus the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Keynes also advocated monetizing debt as the underling value of currency as opposed to a currency backed by gold and silver.
The Economist has a “World debt clock” that you can view. The nationl deficits world wide are ticking over 60 trillion dollars which represents the human value of the presumed productivity of 7 1/2 billion people.
http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock
The only banks that are not part of Imperial currency are Venezuela and North Korea. The Iran deal is in part about bringing Iranian banks into the fold because Europe needs those petro backed Iranian Rials to shore up the Euro. All banks world wide are systemically linked through the trade of Sovreign bonds which Central Banks use to underscore their currencies.
The Apacolypse that Zero Hedge is referring to is the implosion of the dollar.
Their argument is that this type of debt backed banking as well as running massive deficits is ultimately unsustainable and will eventually implode.
“Black Swan on the Wing” is a classic made famous by Anonymous during occupy Wall Street.
(https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=NCQKznnkT-o)
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Fan …
I know, I had to lol @ “apocalyptic view of Keynesian economics” and lmfao @ “gold and silver believers”
LikeLike
Capitalism takes an asset like a tangible piece of property and borrows on that to get the needed capital to invest. But what Central Banks do is claim ownership of your labor and they leverage that to create capital. Central Banks are betting that you will make your house payments on time so they are leveraging your property that you haven’t paid for yet.
Central Banks act as a financial partner between a nations economy and their corresponding state which is structurally how the corporatacracy is organized. The Central Bank will raise or lower interests rates to soften hi’s and lows within the economy. The idea is to slow down boom cycles or stimulate bust cycles.
Sovereign Bonds in the U.S. are mostly made up of real-estate mortgagees and these are traded or “sold” to other central banks to underscore their banks assets. This is how debt is monetized to create a value that supports the creation of money.
The other aspect of currency value is whether a country is considered “productive” and has “resources” that Western bankers can indirectly control. So a country like Zimbabwe is considered unproductive and not Western friendly thus their currency has little value.
LikeLike
“Their argument is that this type of debt backed banking as well as running massive deficits is ultimately unsustainable and will eventually implode. ”
.
Well, something has to give when money is created out of thin air. The problem is that there will never be enough money in circulation to pay the interest on the principle. It’s impossible. Literally impossible
This leads to at least 2 more CT:
JFK wanted to do away with the Federal Reserve – a private (and profitable – FOR THEM) banking entity. Hence – his death. Oswald was the cover-up.
The founders of the USA got at least one thing right, their goal was to keep lawyers from attaining public office. Research the missing 13th amendment.
LikeLike
^^^^ @MJB
LikeLike
@Fan
I have a comment in mod
LikeLike
@ MJB
“The other aspect of currency value is whether a country is considered “productive” and has “resources” that Western bankers can indirectly control.So a country like Zimbabwe is considered unproductive and not Western friendly thus their currency has little value.”
productive = exceedingly profitable
resources = WEALTH that’s easily exploited by WHITE banksters/corporatists
I’d bet my right (and left) arm that if Zimbabwe possessed some resource that the Western bloodsuckers wanted badly enough, it would send in economic hit-men (bank gangsters) via the IMF and/or the World Bank to further impoverish that nation for profitable gain. Of course under that situation their currency would experience an immediate increase/resurgence relative to the world’s current default currency!
But I digress…
What really happened, in a nutshell, when the banks were permitted to wrest away control of a country’s currency from supposedly sovereign nations:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/slavetobanks.php#axzz4Tkc6ZCBf
Can’t call this a CT – unless one has severely overdosed on …
Happy Holidays
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Fan
I generally agree with the ideas within the articale you posted though the author describes everyone as slaves which deflects away from real slavery and the history of slavery. I think “involentary servitude” is more appropriate in the sense that people have to work there whole lives to pay for something they didn’t ask for, nor necessarily approve of.
The reason Central Banks moved away from the gold/silver standard is that it’s a lot easier to run deficits and expand the economy if the currency isn’t weighed down by a hard asset.
Moving away from the gold/silver standard has depressed the value of wages. In 1963 the minimum wage was 1.25 cents an hour. An ounce of sliver was a 1.29 an hour. Today silver is hovering around 15.00 an ounce, a new low for silver over the past 7 years. Silver got as high as 30.00 but on average has been around 20.00 and ounce. My point is minimum wages have not kept up with commodity prices and if 1963 is a guide then the minimum wage should be closer to 20.00 an hour.
LikeLike
*1.29 an ounce
LikeLike
@MJB
” Today silver is hovering around 15.00 an ounce, a new low for silver over the past 7 years. Silver got as high as 30.00 but on average has been around 20.00 and ounce.”
One of the biggest ongoing swindles is that the world-wide/US banking cartel has managed to control/suppress market prices of precious metals. But with that much power like — like the ability to render consumer based US banking regulations/laws meaningless, who’s surprised?? After all the harm they’ve done, we’re told by their cronies in gov’t that they’re too big to fail (or go to jail) just like their counterparts on Wall St.
The world is being run by a bunch of insatiable crooks, right in front our faces. But there are ordinary people, even here, still insisting that they are not yet convinced that they are being robbed, raped and murdered, figuratively and literally, in broad daylight. They are unsure if so many of these so called theories are true DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that they are!
STUPID PEOPLE!!!
That’s the absolute pinnacle of a well managed, ordered, controlled, dumbed down, manipulated, programmed Amerikan society. That the controllers can lead the people around by their nose! How else could the controllers deliver two candidates like ____ and ___ not have a revolution? Or convince people that their vote counts and still carry on wars for (PROFIT) oil and gas pipelines overseas while pretending to be going after so called terrorists – while the people in their zombie-like state patriotically and dutifully repeat to US servicemen, servicewomen and veterans alike, this new mantra: “Thank you for your sacrifice and dedication to our country and our freedoms.”
If people are fighting/dying for our supposed freedoms, why are more and more of these freedoms being methodically removed from the people?
What the hell will it take it shake the people out of their la-la-la REM SLEEP mode of existence? The future doesn’t look good for the US, or for those who will be chosen as the scapegoats when things go south. Very troubled times are coming.
LikeLiked by 1 person