Hahahahaha!
"In August of 2017, it was announced that The Young Turks have raised $20 million in venture-capital from WndrCo (owned by Jeffrey Katzenberg, prominent financial contrbutor to DNC as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton presidential campaigns), Greycroft, 3L and other corporations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Turks
No, I already knew about that...Total destruction.
The point stands. If RT isn't reliable, because of Russia funding, than neither are the American "news: outlets.
RT is very reliable.npr is very reliable.
RT is very reliable.
I can make baseless assertions too!
I've been listening to NPR for about 6 years now, and throughout that time I've found it less appealing. My general thought was that the audience tends to skew older (I'm 30 and the average listener is 49), but the frequency of content to fall into the older category seems higher than it used to. It may not, but that was my general sense.
But nothing was more telling than this past year with the presidential campaigns. Coverage of Bernie Sanders was very much in line with how all of the mainstream media was reporting his candidacy. At first he was a longshot candidate, he was a fringe candidate, he was a self avowed socialist that could never amount a viable campaign. But when Bernie was giving speeches to massive crowds, NPR was virtually silent, just like the rest of the mainstream media was. In retrospect, they really fucking missed the growth of his base, his ability to outraise Clinton in donations, and his current competitive campaign with Clinton.
My initial thought was that maybe they're right and I'm wrong, I like NPR because they tend to tell more of the story than what the MSM reports. I'm a bit of a news junkie and read the same stories from several sources I out of habit. So when information is omitted or misreported, it stands out. I ignored it for a while, but nevertheless, I took note.
The trend continued, and I've seen many more comments on reddit that indicated others felt the same way. Well, this morning, NPR was reporting on the comment Bernie Sanders said at the debate regarding white voters not knowing what it's like to be poor. Okay, it was a dumb comment, but clearly it was more a poor choice of words than a statement that should be taken at face value.
At the town hall last night on FOX news, Sanders was confronted on those comments and he clarified what he meant by acknowledging poor white voters and that the context of his comment was about how blacks are treated. Still, a reporter that knows anything about Bernie Sanders knows that his economic policies help the poor, not the black poor or white poor, but I digress.
Back to NPR, they report Bernie's comments from the debate on Sunday and then a political commentator responds to the quote without the context of Sanders' clarification. The piece inspired a general sense that Sanders was pandering to working class black voters at the expense of working class whites. It's irresponsible to publish this. The information for the story is almost two days old and has developed further 18 hours ago as I write this. The story I heard this morning occurred 14 hours after Sanders clarified his comments.
This is the level of reporting I'd expect from, say, TMZ, or any number of gossip websites that routinely take a person's comments out of context. But this is also routine if the mainstream media. I never got that impression from NPR. I'd hate to paint the entire organization with the same brush, but it further exemplifies the Clinton bias of NPR. I'm not a reporter, nor do I claim to be an expert, but I am disappointed when I easily find information that contradicts a news report that's being put out to millions of listeners.
I encourage anyone who has an impression either way on this point to respond. I know it's reddit and there is a Bernie bias here, but facts are facts.
Supposedly, you voted for Stein. Don't Russians learn to keep notes on their previous statements?I don't like so called news outlet that was asininely biased against Bernie.
I think we all knew you were a crazy conspiracy theorist, you didn't have to tell us.I voted for Stein.
Stein bought into a few conspiracy theories. I'm sure they looked like solid theories with unassailable evidence to you though.Everyone that votes for Stein is now a conspiracy theorists!? How so!?
Well, except for those pesky indictments.Russiagate is by definition a conspiracy theory!
If you voted for Stein you are a conspiracy theorist. Because you simply can't ignore her embracing of so many. Much like if you voted for Trump you're a fucking racist because he dogwhistled to racism so much.Everyone that votes for Stein is now a conspiracy theorists!? How so!?
Russiagate is by definition a conspiracy theory!
What's that, the debunked vaxxer stuff?Stein bought into a few conspiracy theories. I'm sure they looked like solid theories with unassailable evidence to you though.
Well, except for those pesky indictments.
If you voted for Stein you are a conspiracy theorist. Because you simply can't ignore her embracing of so many. Much like if you voted for Trump you're a fucking racist because he dogwhistled to racism so much.
The Russian collusion of the Trump campaign is actually by no means a conspiracy theory because there's actually quite a bit of evidence linking them. And that's why there's an investigation, several indictments, a guilty plea.
I read enough of this thread to be able to tell you're not the brightest, but it seems like I was being generous even then.
No, I already knew about that...
The point stands. If RT isn't reliable, because of Russia funding, than neither are the American "news" outlets due to funding from the US govt.
The public shake-up and skewed coverage of Ukraine has pulled aside RT's curtain, exposing the network's propaganda apparatus, which relies on a number of Western reporters and producers. Former and current RT employees from both the Moscow headquarters and its D.C. bureau, which heads a channel called RT America, described to BuzzFeed an atmosphere of censorship and pressure, in which young journalists on their first or second job are lured by the promise of a relatively well-paying position covering news for an international network. Except for Bevins and Wahl, all spoke on the condition of anonymity — some because they didn't want their name associated with the network or were afraid they would face repercussions in their current jobs.
Soon after joining the network, the current and former employees said, they realized they were not covering news, but producing Russian propaganda. Some employees go in clear-eyed, looking for the experience above all else. Others don't realize what RT really wants until they're already there. Still others are chosen for already having displayed views amenable to the Kremlin. Anti-American language is injected into TV scripts by editors, and stories that don't toe the editorial line regularly get killed.
Ok, now I get what your problem is.I don't like so called news outlet that were asininely biased against Bernie.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NPR/comments/49jinf/npr_target_demographicantibernie_bias/
I admit defeat. It took agent00f months of jack-assery to make my ignore list (he's the only one who has ever been on it) but in just a few days unseenmorbidity has earned a place. The states rights nonsense showed that Russian troll is not a very good Russian troll. I'm sure i'll read your posts under another sock puppet account but until then, good bye.
I argued earlier in the thread that he was more likely a useful idiot than an actual Russian troll. Now, after reading his arguments in favor of civil war revisionism in the other thread, I'm forced to conclude I was wrong. No actual leftist would ever argue in favor of civil war revisionism.
The only way to properly deal with a troll is through the ignore function.
Have you went to reddit lately!? It's all Russiagate conspiracy bullshit. They're pushing the exact same narratives as you are all pushing here.Ok, now I get what your problem is.
I argued earlier in the thread that he was more likely a useful idiot than an actual Russian troll. Now, after reading his arguments in favor of civil war revisionism in the other thread, I'm forced to conclude I was wrong. No actual leftist would ever argue in favor of civil war revisionism.
The only way to properly deal with a troll is through the ignore function.
it's like underoos stopped posting youtube vids as his answers, and tried to verbalize his ideologies.
Damn reality and facts. Must point to shiny objects.Have you went to reddit lately!? It's all Russiagate conspiracy bullshit. They're pushing the exact same narratives as you are all pushing here.
You are the one trying to revise History. The civil war was fought over state's rights, slavery was but one of many that falls into that category.
You can read the wiki on it, and you will see that I am right.
Are you attracted to shiny objects? That would explain a lot.Damn reality and facts. Must point to shiny objects.
Have you went to reddit lately!? It's all Russiagate conspiracy bullshit. They're pushing the exact same narratives as you are all pushing here.