Time for progressives to stop appearing and hosting shows on RT.

[DanTex]

I don't think people like Thom Hartmann are intentionally serving as Putin tools, but in effect, that's what they are. I'm pretty sure he has some reservations about being on RT, but justifies it somehow. But now that it's confirmed that Putin's propaganda network put Trump in the White House, and also that RT is part of that propaganda network, there's no justification left.

It doesn't even matter whether people like Hartmann aren't using RT to broadcast directly anti-Democratic and pro-Republican/pro-Russian points of view, their appearance on RT gives the network legitimacy. Hartmann wouldn't be on RT unless the Kremlin thought that his being there would aid their propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy.

[bravenak]

1. Plus, Ed Shultz sold out quickly once he started working at the propaganda network

[nycbos]

4. Yup. Hardly a shock.

[uponit7771]

2. yes. anyone bashing dnc on rt sgould get the side eye

[ebbie15644]

3. Never did listen to RT. Smelled from the start

[MineralMan]

5. The actual reality is that there are NO progressives doing that.

Never have been. Just pretenders, frankly.

The Russia-backed campaign against Hillary Clinton was partly enabled by those people. All you have to do is go back and read what was written, much of it repeated here.

Calling oneself a progressive does not make it so. Actions tell the real story. If someone pays your bills, you sing the songs they want to hear. Even if you sing quietly and the songs aren't known by everyone.

[brush]

6. It was shocking how quickly Schultz switched his tune. But maybe not. Wasn't he a righty before?

Hartman and Papantonio are still a puzzle to me.

[MineralMan]

8. Many of the self-styled progressives aren't

really that. Many of them are more akin to libertarians, really. In many cases, they have only a few positions on a few issues. The problem is that some of those positions are attractive to progressive people on the surface. The real thing they have in common with many progressive is an anti-establishment attitude that is appealing to some.

The problem is that a society as large as the United States must deal with a full range of issues, not just some issues. For people with a very limited range of political or other interests, that presents a real problem, and often leads them to form alliances with unlikely folks who share goals on a narrow set of issues.

When your positions are mainly anti-something, you can find all sorts of allies who share that particular thing. There's a great danger in that. It's all too easy to get caught up in single issues and ignore all the rest, but national politics doesn't work that way. Glenn Greenwald is sort of the litmus paper I use as an example. Very narrow in his interests, he often is in agreement with some progressives on a very limited set of issues. But, that's deceptive. He's really a libertarian, not a progressive, and make his living being opposed to things rather than by advocating things.

[LaydeeBug]

7. amen! Fuck these motherfuckers.

[LisaM]

9. They certainly should leave NOW, after what happened.

Pretty shocking.

[Talk Is Cheap]

10. Thom Hartmann is not serving as 'Putin tools'...

Hartmann is an unbelievable asset for the Progressive/Real Democratic causes. He is on Free Speech TV and promotes it every single day.

As for RT - if Democrats, wealthy Democrats would help with funding FSTV and other Progressive/Dem media, I am sure he would leave RT. But that is just it - where are the rich and middleclass Democrats pouring money into these types of media? That's right - there aren't any and that needs to change.

[Progressive dog]

11. A real American progressive would

not continue to have a show on the Putin propaganda network.

[mazzarro]

12. Bear in mind that that the progressives on RT have reasons to be there

Much as I don't quite like the idea of them being on RT, but the fact is that RT may have been the only media outlet in the US that accommodate true and unhindered viewpoints of these progressive talking-heads, for its own nefarious reasons - probably. Most, if not all, of the MSM barely will allow them, for as short a period as they can tolerate, to be on their media unencumbered by restrictions.

[Smickey]

13. Been watching/listening to TH

for years and he is a good (if pragmatic at times) progressive IMO. Lately he has had a very, lets wait and see kind of attitude about the recent DNC and other hacks by the Russians. It will be interesting to see (on Mon.) what his take on all this is now that the report has been released. My serious hope is that he at least starts to distance himself from RT. He says that he has complete editorial control of his show on RT and has never been asked to portray any story other than as it is. Maybe, just maybe I'm a little naive on this but I take him at his word on this. That said, the optics on this are not good and he may pay a price in viewership to stay.

But hell who knows we are living in Bizzaro world now and it would not be much of a surprise if he picked up viewership.

[DanTex]

14. I also take him at his word that he has complete editorial control.

But still, there must at least be some self-censorship going on. I think if he started doing a bunch of stories about what a dictatorial thug Putin is, he wouldn't have a show on RT for much longer. Who knows.