Mike_L wrote:FFS, flush more often!

Mike_L wrote:

newolder wrote:Right, so your updated opinion is that RT - "funded in whole or in part by the Russian Government" - is equivalent to "just about any" independent Western media outlet that could be charged as being beholden to (unspecified) government.

What do you think "independent" means here?

You truncated my statement and left out a key word...

Mike_L wrote:..."the charge of being beholden to government could be leveled at just about any one of the supposedly independent major Western media outlets".

"Nominally independent" also works.

By tradition (in the West, at least), the Fourth Estate is supposed to help the populace hold government accountable.
It scarcely does that anymore. For instance, the major news outlets of the USA will incessantly bash the bogeyman-cum-distraction that is Trump (gets them ratings and advertising), then turn around and praise him when he bombs a country on a false pretext.
That sort of thing is apparently not what most Americans want...

A New Poll Shows the Public Is Overwhelmingly Opposed to Endless US Military Interventions

But watching a major news outlet like MSNBC, one would swear that Americans are united in a clamor for more war.
If the Fourth Estate were performing its 'watchdog' role properly, it would've been asking whether or not there was actual justification for Trump's launching of missiles in violation of international law. Tucker Carlson of Fox News was one of the few to do so. And above, I cited an Intercept article by Glenn Greenwald. Both Carlson and Greenwald have been maligned by one of Ratskep's most beloved. That's the Ratskep vanguard of liberalism these days... denouncing anti-war voices as a "red-brown alliance" because of supposed racism or defense of racists... or whatever... the reliability of a journalist or television host judged by how closely he hews to the prevailing PC narrative of the left.

In post #192 (on this page) I provided other examples of supposedly independent Western media outlets that happily serve as mouthpiece and/or cheerleader of their countries' respective governments. They're no more "independent" than RT is.

Mike_L wrote:Both Carlson and Greenwald have been maligned by one of Ratskep's most beloved. That's the Ratskep vanguard of liberalism these days... denouncing anti-war voices as a "red-brown alliance" because of supposed racism or defense of racists... or whatever... the reliability of a journalist or television host judged by how closely he hews to the prevailing PC narrative of the left.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:FFS, flush more often!

That's exactly what I am doing.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The Koch Brothers and the Waltons have more power than the president. America is run by the 1%.

Rumraket wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:The Koch Brothers and the Waltons have more power than the president. America is run by the 1%.

:This:

It has become absolutely clear by now that american foreign policy is decided by wall street and weapons manufacturers.

newolder wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

newolder wrote:Right, so your updated opinion is that RT - "funded in whole or in part by the Russian Government" - is equivalent to "just about any" independent Western media outlet that could be charged as being beholden to (unspecified) government.

What do you think "independent" means here?

You truncated my statement and left out a key word...

Mike_L wrote:..."the charge of being beholden to government could be leveled at just about any one of the supposedly independent major Western media outlets".

"Nominally independent" also works.

The evidence that supports the addition of "supposedly", "nominally" or anything else to independent is what? Where are the figures that show government funding of independent, major Western media outlets?

By tradition (in the West, at least), the Fourth Estate is supposed to help the populace hold government accountable.
It scarcely does that anymore. For instance, the major news outlets of the USA will incessantly bash the bogeyman-cum-distraction that is Trump (gets them ratings and advertising), then turn around and praise him when he bombs a country on a false pretext.
That sort of thing is apparently not what most Americans want...

A New Poll Shows the Public Is Overwhelmingly Opposed to Endless US Military Interventions

But watching a major news outlet like MSNBC, one would swear that Americans are united in a clamor for more war.
If the Fourth Estate were performing its 'watchdog' role properly, it would've been asking whether or not there was actual justification for Trump's launching of missiles in violation of international law. Tucker Carlson of Fox News was one of the few to do so. And above, I cited an Intercept article by Glenn Greenwald. Both Carlson and Greenwald have been maligned by one of Ratskep's most beloved. That's the Ratskep vanguard of liberalism these days... denouncing anti-war voices as a "red-brown alliance" because of supposed racism or defense of racists... or whatever... the reliability of a journalist or television host judged by how closely he hews to the prevailing PC narrative of the left.

In post #192 (on this page) I provided other examples of supposedly independent Western media outlets that happily serve as mouthpiece and/or cheerleader of their countries' respective governments. They're no more "independent" than RT is.

There is no evidence here that any major Western news outlet funded independently of government is funded by a government.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:FFS, flush more often!

That's exactly what I am doing.

Good for you!

flush.jpg

Mike_L wrote:
Isn't the BBC publicly funded... i.e. funded by the UK government?

And even if the assorted US media outlets don't receive government funding, it makes them no less willing to serve the government interest. As MSNBC's Phil Griffin would say, "We're the establishment".

Mike_L wrote:Paris is still too willing to bend the knee to Washington.

Mike_L wrote:
Looks like Ofcom is as much an establishment brown-noser as the OPCW is.

Morton's demon is a concept that derives from Maxwell's demon and was created by ex-creationist Glenn Morton. It is a reference to the biases present when people consider evidence.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Isn't the BBC publicly funded... i.e. funded by the UK government?

And even if the assorted US media outlets don't receive government funding, it makes them no less willing to serve the government interest. As MSNBC's Phil Griffin would say, "We're the establishment".

More equivocating.

This is becoming more and more like talking to Creationists.

Mike_L wrote:...
Isn't the BBC publicly funded... i.e. funded by the UK government?

The BBC is neither state-owned or state-controlled in that sense that the government doesn't pay for it and it doesn't have editorial control over content. The BBC is subject to a Royal Charter which is the constitutional basis for the BBC.15 Jun 2019

And even if the assorted US media outlets don't receive government funding, it makes them no less willing to serve the government interest. As MSNBC's Phil Griffin would say, "We're the establishment".

newolder wrote:

The BBC is neither state-owned or state-controlled in that sense that the government doesn't pay for it and it doesn't have editorial control over content. The BBC is subject to a Royal Charter which is the constitutional basis for the BBC.15 Jun 2019

The BBC is established under a Royal Charter and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts and iPlayer catch-up. The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament, and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK.

The licence fee is classified as a tax, and its evasion is a criminal offence. Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee has been the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority. Thus, the BBC is a major prosecuting authority in England and Wales and an investigating authority in the UK as a whole. The BBC carries out surveillance (mostly using subcontractors) on properties (under the auspices of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and may conduct searches of a property using a search warrant.

newolder wrote:

The BBC is neither state-owned or state-controlled in that sense that the government doesn't pay for it and it doesn't have editorial control over content.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Mike_L wrote:Both Carlson and Greenwald have been maligned by one of Ratskep's most beloved. That's the Ratskep vanguard of liberalism these days... denouncing anti-war voices as a "red-brown alliance" because of supposed racism or defense of racists... or whatever... the reliability of a journalist or television host judged by how closely he hews to the prevailing PC narrative of the left.

I also maligned Caitlin Johnstone, Max Blumenthal, Michael Tracey, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Maté. I'll get to others like Ben Norton, Abby Martin and Rania Khalek eventually. Just give me time.

Mike_L wrote:...

newolder wrote:

The BBC is neither state-owned or state-controlled in that sense that the government doesn't pay for it and it doesn't have editorial control over content.

...and yet, as we've seen, the BBC is willing to flight the sort of propaganda that justifies the UK govt's military adventurism.
And when the Foreign Office tells the BBC to shut up, the BBC dutifully shuts up.

So, from now on... no criticisms of RRT (Royal Russia Today) for its Kremlin links!

Petrovka, one of Moscow’s most upscale streets has been blocked now with protesters chanting “Putin is a thief”

^Of vital interest to all Russians, no doubt.

Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
·
28m
Replying to
@Kasparov63
These brave protesters in Russia are sending a message in blood not just to Putin, but to the European leaders who welcome Putin's brutal regime with open arms and open pockets.