America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Paradoxical]

Hey Paradoxical. Quite a speech you gave there . I think I agree with what you're saying for the most part. As to Trudeau being a dictator, I don't know about that, although I definitely disagree with what he did in regards to the truckers.

What he did with the truckers is what dictators do and his bullying on vaccines is well known. The left likes to scream "science" but there never was any science that said the vaccine is needed for those under about 55 and in good health. To demand that someone put chemicals in their body based on no science or junk science is what dictators do. All one needs to do is to look at charts of EXCESS deaths for the various age groups and then refine that to deaths for various ages and with pre-existing conditions. Remember also that hospitals made a premium for CLAIMING that someone was in the hospital WITH Covid. You could find Covid on a lampshade. In any event, I can't stand that pompous ass, Trudeau.

 

[Scott]

NPR does get a bit of money from CPB, but it's a negligible amount. I think it might be best if I simply quote what Wikipedia says on NPR's funding between 2009 and 2012 and see if we can agree:

**
According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB;[48] in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources.[49]

In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.[31] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[31] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[31][50] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.[31]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding_in_the_2000s

No. I don't agree that it is 2009.

Did I say it was 2009?

 

[Scott]

That's not the only thing that laptop revealed. I found a good article published last month that gets into the main points. Quoting from it:

**
Just over two years ago, on October 14, 2020, the New York Post revealed to the world that it had acquired a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. This laptop contained documents that tied Hunter to a litany of potential criminal activity that also implicated Joe Biden. In the reporting that followed, the Post detailed how Biden’s son used his father’s influence as Vice President to help secure jobs and contracts with foreign state-backed companies. Once in these positions, Hunter allegedly acted as a liaison in securing additional lucrative business opportunities for the entire Biden family.

Normally, the facts of a story like this would send shockwaves throughout the political world. Here was apparently clear evidence of Joe Biden peddling his influence as Vice President so his family could rake in millions. Yet almost every mainstream publication refused to cover the story. Instead, they baselessly and relentlessly asserted that the laptop and all documents contained in it were one giant “Russian disinformation campaign.”

But denying the veracity of the story wasn’t enough. The authors of the Post exposé, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, faced relentless criticism, accusations of incompetence, and even conspiracies that they were colluding with Russian foreign agents. The Delaware computer repair shop owner who alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop also faced anonymous death threats and harassment from the IRS and other government agencies.
**

Source:
New York Post Deserves an Apology and A Pulitzer for Hunter Biden Coverage | Association of Mature American Citizens

The original article excerpt has more links than I put in, I just included the 3 I found most relevant.

You are relying on an opinion piece by someone that doesn't even use his real name?

Phoenyx isn't my legal name, but you still converse with me. Is Poor Richard Saunders yours?

I don't consider you a valid source for facts. I presume you don't consider me a valid source for facts. Conversing with someone is not the same thing as claiming without any other evidence that what they are posting is factual and the complete truth.

Agreed. However, as I already mentioned, the author I chose had links to evidence.

Which links do you think led to actual evidence? Linking to stories in the NYTimes is now evidence? If anything the NYTimes story doesn't support the claim that other media refused to publish it. The link is a story about how the reporter that wrote the story for the Post refused to put his name on it so the Post cited the story as having been written by someone that had never done a previous article for the Post. That would point to the Post story being suspect since reporters at the Post thought it wasn't well researched.

Up until now, I had assumed you were referring to the Association of Mature American Citizens article which I'd quoted back in post #215 and which I quote again at the start of the nested links above. That article certainly has a named source, Andrew Abbott. Turns out, you were apparently referring to some New York Post article. I doubt it's the one linked to above, as that article has 2 authors, not one. Would you mind linking to the New York Post article you're referring to?

 

[Scott]

The fact that the author is not using his real name should show that it isn't a valid news source and therefore is opinion.

No. In this day and age, where honest reporters like Julian Assange are persecuted relentlessly, it makes sense that some reporters would wish to become anonymous.

Reporters do actual reporting. They talk to sources. The piece you linked to has no source other than other media stories. It is an opinion piece. AMAC is not a news organization. It is an advocacy 501(c) non profit. AMAC lists all their authors as columnists. That means they write opinion pieces.
https://amac.us/columnists/

For starters, do you have any evidence that Andrew Abbott is not the real name of the journalist who wrote the AMAC article? I do note that he is not listed amoung that list of columnists, but perhaps he just writes for AMAC occassionally. Secondly, Andrew Abbott links to sources to back up his claims.

As if using one's real name ensured that a source was reliable. I've found that most mainstream news outlets generally aren't even worth the time to read that much.

Then you will always be ill informed.

According to who, you? I'm hardly alone in my distrust of the mainstream media:

Fewer Americans Than Ever Before Trust The Mainstream Media | Forbes

Mainstream news is the only news that at least attempts to be unbiased.

Plenty who disagree with that assertion:
The overwhelming bias of the mainstream media | Julian Almanza

Former CBS Head Admits: Yes, Mainstream Media Is Biased | thenewamerican.com

PRS, you've just made a trap for yourself. You say not to trust people who don't use their real name. You don't use your real name. So why in the world should I trust your opinion as to what is an opinion piece?

I didn't ask you to trust me as to whether it is an opinion piece. I asked you to use your brain that you seem determined to not use under any circumstances. There are criteria for objectively deciding for yourself whether something is an opinion piece. That you refuse to even consider any of that criteria speaks volumes about your ability to conduct critical thinking.

Using ad hominem attacks does nothing for your credibility.

And right there is the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to think that everyone would agree with what you consider to be reputable sources. I strongly suspect that many of the sources you consider reputable are -not- the sources that I would consider reputable. Feel free to list some and I'll let you know.

I have already stated that I rely on primary sources whenever possible. I read court filings and court rulings. Just as an example, the news stories on the 11th circuit court ruling are not complete. I went and read the actual ruling. My primary news sources are probably the NY Times and the Washington Post but I use several other aggregators and don't rely on one source. The NYTimes and WaPo often have links to original sources.

Linking to original sources means little if those sources are known to be corrupt and lie all the time. The New York Times frequently relies on the Ukrainian government as to what's going on in the Ukraine war. Problem being, the Ukrainian government are serial liars and immensely corrupt. Patrick Lawrence, who has written for the New York Times amoung other publications, wrote a good article on just how bad the mainstream media has become. I'll quote a notable part of it:

**
The New York Times published a piece on Oct. 20 under the headline, “How Disinformation Splintered and Became More Intractable.” In it, Steven Lee Myers, formerly of the Times’s Moscow bureau, and Sheera Frenkel, a technology reporter in the San Francisco bureau, made the point very plain, although hardly did they intend to do so: Those flinging around all these charges of disinformation with notable vigor and conviction are crusaders in the cause of a dangerous form of liberal absolutism.

Much has been written about disinformation these past few years, of course. I have read nothing to date that so exposes the malign design that is implicit in the war against it. This war rests squarely on the cynical use of disinformation in the service of power as it intrudes ever more stealthily into our lives and rights.

We have heard talk of “liberal authoritarianism” and even “liberal totalitarianism,” which I consider excessive for its extreme connotations, over the past half-dozen years. My own coinage since 2016, when Russiagate was all the rage and we still had Hillary Clinton to kick around, is “apple-pie authoritarianism.” To one or another extent, these terms seem in line with de Tocqueville’s “soft despotism” as he explained the phenomenon 190 years ago in the second volume of Democracy in America.
**

Full article:
Patrick Lawrence: Disinformation, Absolutely | Scheerpost

I go to the sources that wiki uses if possible to confirm that wiki is telling the truth.

I frequently do the same.

Really? When did you go look at the NPR financials that were linked to? If you bothered to go read the link for the CPB, you would have seen that the money you think went to NPR actually went to local public radio stations.

Quote me where you think I got it wrong if you wish.

And I have already explained why I disagreed with your reasoning. That doesn't mean I always agree with RT.

Actually, you agreed with the majority of the points I made about why it is propaganda. You then were willing to say that in spite of all the things I said being true and all the parts of the article that were incomplete or false, you still believed the article.

Quote me doing this then.

Your credulity is pretty obvious. Let me give you an example. You claim RT at least gives you pro-Russian information. Have you ever seen an anti-Russian story in RT?

No, nor would i expect it to have such information. The western media more than makes up for any biases it has towards Russia.

Compare that to the NY Times. Does the NY Times ever do stories that are critical of the US government?

I imagine it does once in a while. But it seems to be fundamentally against any criticism of the U.S.'s role in the Ukraine war. This is why it's good to read alternative media sources, as well as Russian sources, to balance this clear imbalance in the New York Times and other western mainstream media outlets in regards to said war.

 

[Scott]

You really need to read what I say more carefully. I didn't say that the NPR was owned by the U.S. government. I said that NPR was -financed- by the U.S. government.

Where do I say that the U.S. government controls what and how NPR reports stories?

I'm confused about your position on this because you seem to be all over the place.

I think it's more that you didn't carefully read what i actually wrote.

As I have repeatedly pointed out NPR is NOT local public radio stations which are funded by CPB which in turn gets some money from the government.

NPR did get some funding from CPB, though it was a small part of its budget:
**
While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues.[31]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding_in_the_2000s

CPB was specifically set up to prevent government interference in public broadcasting. If the government has no control over NPR stories then how can NPR be a propaganda arm of the US government?

From what I've read, I think the larger concern is not the U.S. government, but the corporations that fund the political campaigns of the politicians who run it. Reading more on NPR, I found that the Reagan administration cut off most of its direct federal funding in the 1980s. So whether they get their money from federal grants or advertisters, the corporations that tend to run both certainly have their influence.

Again, I made no such claim above. However, there is certainly evidence that the BBC is involved in pushing government propaganda. Some articles with evidence of this:

Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com

As leaks expose UK op to ‘weaken’ Russia, suppression of Grayzone reporting backfires | thegrayzone.com

BBC assault on antiwar academics was apparent product of UK intel plot | thegrayzone.com

Once again, you appear to not have checked out the original sources. The links seem to want to download malware in order for me to view them. Not what I would call a great source. I have no desire to spend the time to set up a virtual machine to see what happens when I do download.

Are you referring to the links to thegrayzone.com articles? If so, I have in fact checked them out. I got no download requests myself. In any case, I'll quote the start of the first article I linked to, which includes sources of its own, which I have linked to below as well:

**
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have sponsored Reuters and the BBC to conduct a series of covert programs aimed at promoting regime change inside Russia and undermining its government across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, according to a series of leaked documents.

The leaked materials show the Thomson Reuters Foundation and BBC Media Action participating in a covert information warfare campaign aimed at countering Russia. Working through a shadowy department within the UK FCO known as the Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD), the media organizations operated alongside a collection of intelligence contractors in a secret entity known simply as “the Consortium.”

Through training programs of Russian journalists overseen by Reuters, the British Foreign Office sought to produce an “attitudinal change in the participants,” promoting a “positive impact” on their “perception of the UK.”

“These revelations show that when MPs were railing about Russia, British agents were using the BBC and Reuters to deploy precisely the same tactics that politicians and media commentators were accusing Russia of using,” Chris Williamson, a former UK Labour MP who attempted to apply public scrutiny to the CDMD’s covert activities and was stonewalled on national security grounds, told The Grayzone.
**

Source:
Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com

Again, I made no such claims above. However, there is certainly evidence that the CBC has been used as a propaganda tool by the Canadian government in the past, apparently by your namesake, Richard Saunders:

The CBC’s “Voice of Canada”: Weapon of Cold War propaganda | canadianpatriot.org

There's also evidence that the propaganda there continues to this day:
CBC Journalist Quits; Admits Network Is ‘Deep State’ Propaganda | newspunch.com

It appears you didn't read your sources.

It appears you're confusing me reading my sources with reading whatever it is you've read from them.

*Disclaimer
The views expressed in the Canadian Patriot Review are inspired by the philosophy and strategic outlook of Lyndon LaRouche.

Know the bias of your source. It helps understand where they are coming from.

I'm not sure where you read the above (I couldn't find it), but it doesn't change the fact that the article I sourced from them was well referenced. The numbers at the end of lines all go to endnotes at the end of the article. I'll quote the introduction to the article of theirs that I linked to for the audience if no one else:

**
Throughout the Cold War, Canada’s Department of External Affairs wielded the CBC’s International Service (CBC-IS)1 as a propaganda weapon in what it called “political warfare.” The CBC-IS (aka “The Voice of Canada”) was, Liberal Foreign Minister Lester Pearson boasted in 1951, “doing valuable work for Canada and playing a useful part in the psychological war against communism.” As he explained to the House of Commons, this “psychological war” is “an important part of the total war against communism—the struggle or the battle for men’s minds.”2

As Canada’s leading Cold Warrior, Pearson was key to orchestrating the psy-war operations of a top-secret interdepartmental group called the “Psychological Warfare Committee.”3 Like others dedicated to fighting what he called the “total war against communism,” Pearson’s dream was not only to collaborate in the subversion, breakup and eventual destruction of the Soviet Union, he also wanted to rid the entire world (including Canada) of all communists.

Although planning for the CBC’s international reach began in the late 1930s, not until 1942 did Prime Minister Mackenzie King issue an order-in-council to create it. Two years later, just as the Soviets were finishing the liberation of Eastern Europe, having forced the Nazi war machine back to Germany’s borders, the CBC-IS began broadcasting. It was Christmas Day, 1944. From head offices in a former Montreal brothel,4 the CBC-IS began its military mission to beam messages in English and French to Canadian soldiers, and in German to Nazi troops. But with the Allied victory almost complete, CBC-IS broadcasts soon made an about-face. Canada’s German-language transmissions quickly redirected their propaganda attacks against the citizens of East Germany, and communism across Eastern Europe became Canada’s prime target.

The first language to be added to CBC-IS broadcasts was Czech. This began in 1946 because Czechoslovakia’s communist party won that year’s democratic election. To anticommunists around the world, the communists’ election victory was an intolerable precedent to be nipped in the bud. Canada soon began a steady barrage of politically abusive Czech programming. Commenting on these broadcasts, an article in the Czechoslovak daily, National Liberation said “from Canada we hear nothing except large doses of anti-Soviet insults and a lot of slander against people’s democracies.” This harsh critique of Canadian propaganda was later quoted by CBC-IS director Ira Dilworth as proof that Canada was doing an excellent job fighting the global war against communism.5
**

Source:
The CBC’s “Voice of Canada”: Weapon of Cold War propaganda | canadianpatriot.org

The newspunch story is ridiculous. Defend it if you can. "Deep State" is infiltrating CBC? Talk about absolute nonsense. It doesn't even know what deep state is supposed to refer to.

To be fair to Tara Henley, the "longtime and respected mainstream media journalist from Toronto", as newspunch put it, she never used the words deep state. To be fair to counterpunch, they used single quotes, not double quotes as you did. So it's their interpretation that Henley referred to a deep state. The counterpunch article makes no attempt to define the deep state itself. I think a good definition would be something like the media-military-corporation complex, or something to that effect. I think the counterpunch article itself is much more informative as to the point Henley did clearly get into. I'll quote the introduction to it, for the audience if no one else:

**
CBC Journalist Quits; Admits Network Is ‘Deep State’ Propaganda

January 4, 2022


CBC’s Tara Henley, a longtime and respected mainstream media journalist from Toronto, has resigned from her job with CBC while admitting the network has become infiltrated by Deep State operatives.

In a bombshell Substack article, Henley revealed that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been infiltrated by ‘woke’ far-left operatives who are hellbent at dismantling journalism and burying the truth about what’s really going on in the world today.

“People want to know why, for example, non-binary Filipinos concerned about a lack of LGBT terms in Tagalog is an editorial priority for the CBC, when local issues of broad concern go unreported,” Henley wrote. “Or why our pop culture radio show’s coverage of the Dave Chappelle Netflix special failed to include any of the legions of fans, or comics, that did not find it offensive. Or why, exactly, taxpayers should be funding articles that scold Canadians for using words such as ‘brainstorm’ and “lame.’ “

The answer, according to Henley, is that working at CBC now “is to accept the idea that race is the most significant thing about a person, and that some races are more relevant to the public conversation than others”.

“It is, in my newsroom, to fill out racial profile forms for every guest you book; to actively book more people of some races and less of others,” she declared.

Straight.com reports: Henley suggested that the focus on racial issues is resulting in less scrutiny of other issues that affect large numbers of people, such as the housing crisis, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, accumulation of wealth by billionaires and power by bureaucrats, and the rising total of overdose deaths.

She linked the CBC’s current approach to “a radical political agenda that originated on Ivy League campuses in the United States and spread through American social media platforms that monetize outrage and stoke societal division”.
**

Full article:
CBC Journalist Quits; Admits Network Is ‘Deep State’ Propaganda | newspunch.com

If you want to understand my screen name, you should learn some American history.

I certainly know some american history, but that doesn't include any Richard Saunders. Feel free to enlighten me on this aspect of American history if you wish.

RT was required to register as a foreign agent under FARA because it is owned/controlled by the Russian government. BBC and CBC have not been required to register.

Ofcourse not. They are pro western news outlets. Russia clearly isn't.

Russia has labelled a BBC reporter, as well as the Bellingcat news outlet as foreign agents as well:
Russia labels reporters foreign agents after Nobel award | BBC


It stands to reason, doesn't it?

Russia has also jailed dissidents on trumped up charges.

You're actually making my point for me- any government can slander a news organization or even jail a dissident or reporter on trumped up charges. The BBC would be wise to look a little closer to home. I'm sure you know of the story of Julian Assange.

 

[Scott]

No. You aren't forced to pay the fee if you don't watch BBC media. You can opt out of a license.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence

It seems clear you didn't read the linked article. Quoting from it:

**
No TV? Not watching TV live on any channel or service, or BBC iPlayer*? Empty property? You can let us know here by completing a No Licence Needed declaration.

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:

watch or record TV on any channel - via any TV service (e.g. Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview, Freesat)
watch TV live on any streaming service (e.g. ITVX, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go)
watch BBC iPlayer*.

**

You notice the bit about watching -any- TV, or even any streaming service?

 

[Scott]

Hey Paradoxical. Quite a speech you gave there . I think I agree with what you're saying for the most part. As to Trudeau being a dictator, I don't know about that, although I definitely disagree with what he did in regards to the truckers.

What he did with the truckers is what dictators do and his bullying on vaccines is well known. The left likes to scream "science" but there never was any science that said the vaccine is needed for those under about 55 and in good health.

I'd go a lot further than that. I'd say that the good science shows that vaccines don't prevent anything and are generally quite harmful.

To demand that someone put chemicals in their body based on no science or junk science is what dictators do. All one needs to do is to look at charts of EXCESS deaths for the various age groups and then refine that to deaths for various ages and with pre-existing conditions. Remember also that hospitals made a premium for CLAIMING that someone was in the hospital WITH Covid. You could find Covid on a lampshade.

I don't even believe the Covid virus exists. From what I've read, the Covid tests are testing for nothing more than bits of biological debris. I think a good article that delves into the lack of evidence that a Covid virus exists is this one:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

In any event, I can't stand that pompous ass, Trudeau.

I liked him a lot better before Covid, that's for sure. I'd voted for the NDP candidate, though based on what the NDP has said recently, I think they may be even worse in terms of their Covid policies.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Up until now, I had assumed you were referring to the Association of Mature American Citizens article which I'd quoted back in post #215 and which I quote again at the start of the nested links above. That article certainly has a named source, Andrew Abbott. Turns out, you were apparently referring to some New York Post article. I doubt it's the one linked to above, as that article has 2 authors, not one. Would you mind linking to the New York Post article you're referring to?

It is this article from the AMAC. https://amac.us/new-york-post-deserves-an-apology-and-a-pulitzer-for-hunter-biden-coverage/
It has one author that is using a pen name of Andrew Abbot. Pen name means the author is not using his real name. Authors of articles are not sources for the information in an article unless the piece is an opinion piece and then they are only the source for their opinion. It does not link to evidence. It links to NY Post articles, Brietbart and Fox stories.

The NYTimes story I referenced reports how even the reporters at the NY Post were so skeptical of the facts in the story about Hunter Biden that they refused to put their name on it and the Post editors had to find a low level recent hire to use as the byline.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

For starters, do you have any evidence that Andrew Abbott is not the real name of the journalist who wrote the AMAC article? I do note that he is not listed amoung that list of columnists, but perhaps he just writes for AMAC occassionally. Secondly, Andrew Abbott links to sources to back up his claims.

Clearly you haven't read the entire article and you didn't follow any of the links.

This is part of the web page that you linked to:

Andrew Abbott is the pen name of a writer and public affairs consultant with over a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture. 

The links do not lead to evidence. They lead to news stories that make unsupported claims. A link to Breitbart is not a link to evidence. A link to NYPost is not a link to evidence. It is a link to a news story. The news stories are often suspect.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

According to who, you? I'm hardly alone in my distrust of the mainstream media:

Fewer Americans Than Ever Before Trust The Mainstream Media | Forbes

Plenty who disagree with that assertion:
The overwhelming bias of the mainstream media | Julian Almanza

Argumentum ad populum

Former CBS Head Admits: Yes, Mainstream Media Is Biased | thenewamerican.com

Using ad hominem attacks does nothing for your credibility.

Telling you to use your brain is an ad hominem?

Linking to original sources means little if those sources are known to be corrupt and lie all the time.

This is your defense for relying on RT instead of mainstream media?

The New York Times frequently relies on the Ukrainian government as to what's going on in the Ukraine war. Problem being, the Ukrainian government are serial liars and immensely corrupt. Patrick Lawrence, who has written for the New York Times amoung other publications, wrote a good article on just how bad the mainstream media has become. I'll quote a notable part of it:

**
The New York Times published a piece on Oct. 20 under the headline, “How Disinformation Splintered and Became More Intractable.” In it, Steven Lee Myers, formerly of the Times’s Moscow bureau, and Sheera Frenkel, a technology reporter in the San Francisco bureau, made the point very plain, although hardly did they intend to do so: Those flinging around all these charges of disinformation with notable vigor and conviction are crusaders in the cause of a dangerous form of liberal absolutism.

Much has been written about disinformation these past few years, of course. I have read nothing to date that so exposes the malign design that is implicit in the war against it. This war rests squarely on the cynical use of disinformation in the service of power as it intrudes ever more stealthily into our lives and rights.

We have heard talk of “liberal authoritarianism” and even “liberal totalitarianism,” which I consider excessive for its extreme connotations, over the past half-dozen years. My own coinage since 2016, when Russiagate was all the rage and we still had Hillary Clinton to kick around, is “apple-pie authoritarianism.” To one or another extent, these terms seem in line with de Tocqueville’s “soft despotism” as he explained the phenomenon 190 years ago in the second volume of Democracy in America.
**

It's funny that you would post this when you constantly throw out the argument that the media is filled with disinformation. What dangerous form does your cause take?

Quote me where you think I got it wrong if you wish.

I looked at the financials for 2020 and 2021 for NPR. You quote wiki from 2009 and 2010. Which is more relevant to today? Which is a better source?

Quote me doing this then.

Post 95.

No, nor would i expect it to have such information. The western media more than makes up for any biases it has towards Russia.

I think we can start to see the cause of a dangerous form taking shape.

I imagine it does once in a while. But it seems to be fundamentally against any criticism of the U.S.'s role in the Ukraine war. This is why it's good to read alternative media sources, as well as Russian sources, to balance this clear imbalance in the New York Times and other western mainstream media outlets in regards to said war.

ROFLMAO.. That is some funny shit. So you read RT to balance with something you claim you don't read and don't believe.

Skepticism is good. Credulity is bad. I have skepticism of the things I read in the NYTimes. I don't discount it outright just because it is the NY Times. You on the other hand believe things you read in RT with credulity and think anything the NY Times writes is wrong.

As to the war, most of what is being written in every publication is speculation. Take it all with a grain of salt. We don't really know what is actually going on on the ground. It is a war and the fog of war is very real and very hard to see through. The one thing we do know for sure is Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine has managed to defend itself for several months.

 

[Scott]

Up until now, I had assumed you were referring to the Association of Mature American Citizens article which I'd quoted back in post #215 and which I quote again at the start of the nested links above. That article certainly has a named source, Andrew Abbott. Turns out, you were apparently referring to some New York Post article. I doubt it's the one linked to above, as that article has 2 authors, not one. Would you mind linking to the New York Post article you're referring to?

It is this article from the AMAC. https://amac.us/new-york-post-deserves-an-apology-and-a-pulitzer-for-hunter-biden-coverage/

Alright, so my original assumption was actually correct, good to know.

It has one author that is using a pen name of Andrew Abbot. Pen name means the author is not using his real name.

Alright, but mainstream media use anonymous sources all the time. The important thing in this case is that Abbot links to other articles that do have named sources.

Authors of articles are not sources for the information in an article unless the piece is an opinion piece and then they are only the source for their opinion. It does not link to evidence. It links to NY Post articles, Brietbart and Fox stories.

Just because you don't like the sources for his evidence doesn't change the fact that it's evidence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not always a fan of Breitbart and Fox myself, and I wouldn't be surprised if I strongly disagreed with some NY Post article. But I have definitely found some good evidence in both the New York Post and Fox News.

The NYTimes story I referenced reports how even the reporters at the NY Post were so skeptical of the facts in the story about Hunter Biden that they refused to put their name on it and the Post editors had to find a low level recent hire to use as the byline.

Well, at this point, I imagine you agree that the Hunter Biden laptop story was quite real.

 

[Scott]

For starters, do you have any evidence that Andrew Abbott is not the real name of the journalist who wrote the AMAC article? I do note that he is not listed amoung that list of columnists, but perhaps he just writes for AMAC occassionally. Secondly, Andrew Abbott links to sources to back up his claims.

Clearly you haven't read the entire article and you didn't follow any of the links.

You're half right. You're right that I didn't read the entire article, but I certainly did follow at least one link, the first one, which links to an article from the New York Post.

This is part of the web page that you linked to:
Andrew Abbott is the pen name of a writer and public affairs consultant with over a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture. 

Thanks for pointing that out. If AMAC's claim is true, however, then it suggests that he's quite a good source, even if anonymous.

The links do not lead to evidence. They lead to news stories that make unsupported claims. A link to Breitbart is not a link to evidence. A link to NYPost is not a link to evidence. It is a link to a news story. The news stories are often suspect.

Alright, so you're contesting the articles he linked to. I can deal with that. Let's take a look at the introduction to the first one from the New York Post:

**
Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.
**

Source:
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad | New York Post

Do you disagree with any of the claims made here?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It seems clear you didn't read the linked article. Quoting from it:

**
No TV? Not watching TV live on any channel or service, or BBC iPlayer*? Empty property? You can let us know here by completing a No Licence Needed declaration.

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:

watch or record TV on any channel - via any TV service (e.g. Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview, Freesat)
watch TV live on any streaming service (e.g. ITVX, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go)
watch BBC iPlayer*.

**

You notice the bit about watching -any- TV, or even any streaming service?

TV live in England is the BBC. Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview, Freesat carry BBC programs that you need a license to watch. If you don't watch any of those programs you can opt out of a license.
You don't have to have a license if you stream Amazon Prime and don't watch live TV on it.
Once again. This proves that if you do not watch any BBC TV live or recorded, you don't have to have a license. It is you that is not understanding the simple words in the description.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

I think we all know who the "Ministry of lies" are- and who leads them!

NEXT!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Alright, so my original assumption was actually correct, good to know.



Alright, but mainstream media use anonymous sources all the time. The important thing in this case is that Abbot links to other articles that do have named sources.

Really? Care to name those sources that are suddenly third or fourth hand by the time they get to the AMAC opinion piece? (My guess is you haven't followed the links.) The standard I use is to be skeptical of anonymous sources. Mainstream media tends to be skeptical of those sources as well and require corroboration before trusting only one anonymous source.

Just because you don't like the sources for his evidence doesn't change the fact that it's evidence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not always a fan of Breitbart and Fox myself, and I wouldn't be surprised if I strongly disagreed with some NY Post article. But I have definitely found some good evidence in both the New York Post and Fox News.

Tell us about this "evidence." An email stating someone was happy to meet someone else is not evidence that they talked about business when they met. No reasonable person would accept that as evidence of talking about business without something more concrete. Did you talk about business with everyone you met at that Christmas party? Does that picture of you with Putin prove you talked business with him?

Well, at this point, I imagine you agree that the Hunter Biden laptop story was quite real.

Hunter Biden had a laptop. Hunter Biden's laptop had pictures and emails on it.

The pictures and emails don't prove that Joe Biden was corrupt. There is no evidence there that would convince any jury let alone a prosecutor that Joe is corrupt. Many of the claims being made are laughable since they defy logic. Tell us how Biden could be selling access to the Vice President's office in 2017. I can't wait to see your reasonable explanation for that one.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'd go a lot further than that. I'd say that the good science shows that vaccines don't prevent anything and are generally quite harmful.

What good science is that? We have a long history proving that vaccines do prevent things like Polio, chickenpox, flu, rubella, whooping cough etc. Arguing otherwise is to completely ignore actual history.

I don't even believe the Covid virus exists. From what I've read, the Covid tests are testing for nothing more than bits of biological debris. I think a good article that delves into the lack of evidence that a Covid virus exists is this one:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

Now you are getting into conspiracy neverland. How were these "bits of biological debris" created? There were millions more deaths worldwide in 2020 and 2021 than would be normal compared to the years prior. Did those people die because of some mass hysteria as opposed to being actually sick because of a virus? I am curious what you think the reason for so many people ending up in hospitals and dying was if not a virus.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You're half right. You're right that I didn't read the entire article, but I certainly did follow at least one link, the first one, which links to an article from the New York Post.

ROFLMAO. You didn't read the entire article.
I'm guessing you don't read any entire articles but only enough to confirm your bias and then think it is true because it agrees with your bias. Clearly you are not well informed. Clearly you are not a critical thinker. You just like to pretend to be one.

Thanks for pointing that out. If AMAC's claim is true, however, then it suggests that he's quite a good source, even if anonymous.

The author of an opinion piece is NOT a source. How can you even suggest they are a good source let alone a source of anything.

Alright, so you're contesting the articles he linked to. I can deal with that. Let's take a look at the introduction to the first one from the New York Post:

**
Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.
**

Source:
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad | New York Post

Do you disagree with any of the claims made here?

The first sentence contains a claim that has been debunked. The prosecutor that was fired was not fired for investigating Burisma. The given reason for the US and Europe wanting him fired was his failure to investigate corruption.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris-idUSKBN1WC1LV

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

This is a good timeline with links to the reasons for Shokin being fired. Shokin was fired not for investigating corruption but for not investigating corruption.
https://myopictimes.com/2022/03/20/the-biden-burisma-scandal-a-complete-timeline/

Global and Bipartisan Support Against Shokin Builds

Aside from what Trump and his camp would have you believe, firing Shokin wasn’t just unilaterally supported by Joe Biden. This was the official directive of the Obama administration. It was the bipartisan conclusion of a senate commission on Ukrainian corruption. It was a stated desire by representatives of the EU. There were demands to curtail corruption by the IMF and it was the explicit desire of anti-corruption groups in Ukraine itself.

Going to myopictimes will give links to many sources.
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ambassador-upbraids-ukraine-over-corruption-efforts/27271294.html

 

[Scott]

I've found that most mainstream news outlets generally aren't even worth the time to read that much.

Then you will always be ill informed.

According to who, you? I'm hardly alone in my distrust of the mainstream media:

Fewer Americans Than Ever Before Trust The Mainstream Media | Forbes

Argumentum ad populum

True, but that's not the only argument I've used. I've also included articles that appeal to logic:

The overwhelming bias of the mainstream media | Julian Almanza

Former CBS Head Admits: Yes, Mainstream Media Is Biased | thenewamerican.com

I haven't seen you use any arguments to justify your own belief that one would be "ill informed" if one didn't pay close attention to mainstream media.

I didn't ask you to trust me as to whether it is an opinion piece. I asked you to use your brain that you seem determined to not use under any circumstances. There are criteria for objectively deciding for yourself whether something is an opinion piece. That you refuse to even consider any of that criteria speaks volumes about your ability to conduct critical thinking.

Using ad hominem attacks does nothing for your credibility.

Telling you to use your brain is an ad hominem?

I suppose not, but it's certainly insulting to tell someone this. Instead of spending your time insulting me, you might consider actually providing evidence for your assertion, in this case that the article in question was an "opinion piece" and that this by definition means that the arguments used in the article thus can't be logical.

Linking to original sources means little if those sources are known to be corrupt and lie all the time.

This is your defense for relying on RT instead of mainstream media?

I rely on RT to -not- be biased against Russia. The sources I was referring to above were Ukrainian government sources, which the mainstream media relies on a lot of the time in regards to the war in Ukraine.

The New York Times frequently relies on the Ukrainian government as to what's going on in the Ukraine war. Problem being, the Ukrainian government are serial liars and immensely corrupt. Patrick Lawrence, who has written for the New York Times amoung other publications, wrote a good article on just how bad the mainstream media has become. I'll quote a notable part of it:

**
The New York Times published a piece on Oct. 20 under the headline, “How Disinformation Splintered and Became More Intractable.” In it, Steven Lee Myers, formerly of the Times’s Moscow bureau, and Sheera Frenkel, a technology reporter in the San Francisco bureau, made the point very plain, although hardly did they intend to do so: Those flinging around all these charges of disinformation with notable vigor and conviction are crusaders in the cause of a dangerous form of liberal absolutism.

Much has been written about disinformation these past few years, of course. I have read nothing to date that so exposes the malign design that is implicit in the war against it. This war rests squarely on the cynical use of disinformation in the service of power as it intrudes ever more stealthily into our lives and rights.

We have heard talk of “liberal authoritarianism” and even “liberal totalitarianism,” which I consider excessive for its extreme connotations, over the past half-dozen years. My own coinage since 2016, when Russiagate was all the rage and we still had Hillary Clinton to kick around, is “apple-pie authoritarianism.” To one or another extent, these terms seem in line with de Tocqueville’s “soft despotism” as he explained the phenomenon 190 years ago in the second volume of Democracy in America.
**

Full article:
Patrick Lawrence: Disinformation, Absolutely | Scheerpost

It's funny that you would post this when you constantly throw out the argument that the media is filled with disinformation. What dangerous form does your cause take?

Unlike the powers that be in the mainstream media, I have no power to censor anything. The same can't be said for the publishers of mainstream media, or the owners of social media.

Quote me where you think I got it wrong if you wish.

I looked at the financials for 2020 and 2021 for NPR. You quote wiki from 2009 and 2010. Which is more relevant to today? Which is a better source?

Is there a significant difference between how they were financed in 2009-2012 and 2020-2021?

Actually, you agreed with the majority of the points I made about why it is propaganda. You then were willing to say that in spite of all the things I said being true and all the parts of the article that were incomplete or false, you still believed the article.

Quote me doing this then.

Post 95.

Referring to a post I wrote is not the same thing as quoting me to back up your claim. As I've said in the past, I'm generally not interested in doing your homework for you. But in this particular case, I decided to give it a go. I didn't find evidence to back up your claim in that post.

Your credulity is pretty obvious. Let me give you an example. You claim RT at least gives you pro-Russian information. Have you ever seen an anti-Russian story in RT?

No, nor would i expect it to have such information. The western media more than makes up for any biases it has towards Russia.

I think we can start to see the cause of a dangerous form taking shape.

Do you have any evidence for your claim?

I imagine it does once in a while. But it seems to be fundamentally against any criticism of the U.S.'s role in the Ukraine war. This is why it's good to read alternative media sources, as well as Russian sources, to balance this clear imbalance in the New York Times and other western mainstream media outlets in regards to said war.

ROFLMAO.. That is some funny shit. So you read RT to balance with something you claim you don't read and don't believe.

I never said I didn't read the mainstream media. I said I read it sparingly, and frequently by those who critique it. Furthermore, I get large helpings of their beliefs from people like you. Unlike the mainstream media, you actually respond to criticisms I level at it, which is definitely a vast improvement over the mainstream media itself.

Skepticism is good. Credulity is bad.

Here we can agree. In other forums, my signature is a line from Andre Gide: "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it."

I have skepticism of the things I read in the NYTimes. I don't discount it outright just because it is the NY Times.

I do the same with NY Times articles, although a lot of their content is clearly biased in my view.

You on the other hand believe things you read in RT with credulity and think anything the NY Times writes is wrong.

Wrong on both counts. As a matter of fact, I actually pointed out an innacuracy in a recent RT article that I referenced in an opening post to a thread I made recently.

As to the war, most of what is being written in every publication is speculation. Take it all with a grain of salt. We don't really know what is actually going on on the ground. It is a war and the fog of war is very real and very hard to see through. The one thing we do know for sure is Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine has managed to defend itself for several months.

When it comes to the mainstream media, it's far worse than simply being speculation. They generally take whatever the Ukrainian government says and run with it. It amounts to abysmal reporting.

 

[Scott]

It seems clear you didn't read the linked article. Quoting from it:

**
No TV? Not watching TV live on any channel or service, or BBC iPlayer*? Empty property? You can let us know here by completing a No Licence Needed declaration.

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:

watch or record TV on any channel - via any TV service (e.g. Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview, Freesat)
watch TV live on any streaming service (e.g. ITVX, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go)
watch BBC iPlayer*.

**

You notice the bit about watching -any- TV, or even any streaming service?

TV live in England is the BBC. Sky, Virgin, BT, Freeview, Freesat carry BBC programs that you need a license to watch. If you don't watch any of those programs you can opt out of a license.
You don't have to have a license if you stream Amazon Prime and don't watch live TV on it.
Once again. This proves that if you do not watch any BBC TV live or recorded, you don't have to have a license. It is you that is not understanding the simple words in the description.

That does sound better than anyone using a streaming service having to pay the BBC fee, but it seems that anyone watching live TV would automatically have to pay for it because of the BBC being incorporated in live TV broadcaster's lineup. In any case, my main issue with the BBC is not that it's inescapable to pay for it if one wants to legally watch live TV, but of the evidence that it's deeply involved in government propaganda.

 

[Hawkeye10]

That does sound better than anyone using a streaming service having to pay the BBC fee, but it seems that anyone watching live TV would automatically have to pay for it because of the BBC being incorporated in live TV broadcaster's lineup. In any case, my main issue with the BBC is not that it's inescapable to pay for it if one wants to legally watch live TV, but of the evidence that it's deeply involved in government propaganda.

"Completely not interested in doing their job, or being honest" is what I hear is the problem with the BBC. I hear exactly the same thing about CBC.