On the illogic of linking media figures with their sponsoring networks.

[guillaumeb]

A number of posts, and posters, are focusing on certain liberal media personalities and attempting to make suggestions that the very fact that any particular personality appears on any particular outlet somehow represents a validation of the network and a validation the networks presumed message and/or bias.

For example, if Thomm Hartmann appears on RT, that is seen or suggested as evidence of a bias toward whatever the network might represent. The “birds of a feather” argument in effect.

By this “birds of a feather” logic of inferring influence or philosophical agreement by proximity, any media figure who works for a large organization must also be influenced by that corporation, no?

Is Rachel Maddow then influenced by the corporate owners of MSNBC, in this case Comcast, Microsoft and General Electric? And by the same type of logic, General Electric is a war industry contractor. Does this lead us to infer, or suggest, that Maddow is influenced in her reporting by these connections? Is Maddow, under this logic, an apologist for the war industry?

And if any liberal writer also has a story picked up by FOX, is that too evidence or suggestion of a weakness on the part of the writer? If a liberal commentator or pundit appears on a conservative network, and all of the major networks are owned by conservatives, is that liberal commenter also somehow tainted by association?

My view, and I suspect the view of most here, is that these media personalities appear wherever there is an opportunity. And given that 6 large corporations control approximately 90% of the media outlets, unless or until a liberal media outlet is created, it is better to have some few people representing, reporting on, and advocating for a liberal viewpoint in contrast to the tidal wave of far right reporting that washes over the country.

Liberals often complain that the liberal message is given very little air time. Why would we wish to attack the few outlets and the few personalities that do present another viewpoint?

[Squinch]

1. Do you see no difference between RT and MSNBC?

In my recollection, MSNBC has never been complicit in an attempt to destroy the American republic.

So there's that...

[guillaumeb]

8. What Russia is alleged to have done, electoral interference, is little different

from what the US has done. Think Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, Greece, and many other countries where the US has interfered in the interest of dominance.

[Squinch]

20. Again, do you see no difference between RT and MSNBC?

[guillaumeb]

25. One is directly state run, the other is not.

Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky and his theory of what is allowable to say in US politics?

[bettyellen]

22. "Alleged to" okaaaaay then.

[Squinch]

24. Maybe the result of watching too much RT?

[bettyellen]

52. Looks like it.

[LostinRed]

27. That's the same argument Trump made

Remember when bill Reilly asked him about Putin being a killer? He responded the US is bad too.

[guillaumeb]

32. And that does nothing to refute what I said.

I am not excusing electoral interference, but it is a bad thing no matter who does it.

Agreed?

[MrsCoffee]

43. It's called whataboutism.

Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. No American Patriot would be caught dead working for an organization linked to Putin.

[guillaumeb]

9. GE is a co-owner of MSNBC. As I pointed out in the post.

Explain the Maddow MIC relationship based on the same relationship.

[TheBlackAdder]

14. That extrapolation is such a reach. All to do what? Validate Thom Hartmann or Ed Schultz?

[guillaumeb]

15. No, it employs the same logic that is used to call Hartmann a tool of Putin.

Faulty logic.

[TheBlackAdder]

28. It's not the same logic and saying otherwise is being disingenuous at best.

[guillaumeb]

33. We disagree. eom

[Trust Buster]

3. So you welcome all the fleeing FOX personalities showing up at NBC/MSNBC ?

[guillaumeb]

10. And you read that where?

On rereading, I still cannot find such a statement.

[Trust Buster]

37. In the very first paragraph. You claim that the personality does not validate the network.

I refuse to watch former FOX personalities because I believe they do validate FOX. It's not such a stretch.

[guillaumeb]

46. And what if those personalities disavow FOX?

Is rehabilitation possible?

[FSogol]

4. Fail. You are missing the difference between journalism and state-sponsored propaganda.

PressTV, RT, Sputnik News, and SurTV are propaganda outlets. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to compare them to news outlets.

[bettyellen]

5. Totally dishonest to compare the two. Boycotting RT is an ethical stance.

Equating RT with MSNBC is literally parroting RW bullshit.

[FSogol]

6. Totally agree. n/t

[guillaumeb]

13. No, it is seeing the essential connections between a corporate owned media

and the state of endless war that benefits many of those corporations. FOX touts itself as fair and balanced and many low information voters accept that unquestioningly.

[bettyellen]

21. That's as accurate as saying Hillary would be as bad as Trump, which is to say- not at all.

It's like saying any government has a right to control what's going on in America because we're not perfect either. Sorry, I could never agree with any of that.


Anyone who compares MSNBC or WaPo to Fox and RT is a big part of the problem. Russia equates NATO's containment with violence, and invades countries using all sorts of excuses. No one buys that shit either.

[guillaumeb]

11. Every news outlet is complicit when it presents things without context.

Leslie Monves stated that Trump might be terrible for America, but he is great for CBS. Speak to me of journalistic honesty.

[bettyellen]

23. Worst broadbrush nonsense ever- nothing is perfect so they're all equally evil. NOPE

[guillaumeb]

26. Simply a recognition that there are no perfect media outlets, no perfect candidates,

no perfect media figures, no perfect DU posters.

[bettyellen]

48. That's got nothing to do with RT being a literal propaganda outlet. It is what it is.

[guillaumeb]

51. It is a state sponsored outlet.

Of course it broadcasts propaganda. So does FOX.

But to jump from

"RT is a Russian outlet to"

"every media figure who appears on it is a Russian tool"

lacks credibility, in my view.

[NightWatcher]

7. General Electric is not the same as Putin. If you think so you are severely mistaken

[guillaumeb]

12. GE benefits from war. GE makes money from war.

All of the US networks in effect normalized Trump by failing to report on the actual issues and focusing on the celebrity news. The difference between GE and Putin is that Putin openly sets the agenda while GE hides the agenda in a torrent of infotainment.

[PSPS]

16. Aw, geez

Maybe we should start a new group on DU for Hartmann fans/apologists. Maybe "Putinistas" would be appropriate.

[guillaumeb]

17. How enlightening. eom

[TheBlackAdder]

31. Yes, apparently is it this shit again. Why is there skin in the game for defending Hartmann?

[WinkyDink]

18. What is this vested interest in Thom Hartmann? WTH really GADamn?

[guillaumeb]

19. I have none.

He was featured prominently and I feel that this is illogical for the reasons that I laid out.

One might ask why the obsession with Hartmann?

[OilemFirchen]

39. The "obsession" with Hartmann,

is the result of a daily barrage of celebrity-worship OPs by an embarrassingly doting poster.

Were it not for that, DU as a whole would not give a single shit.



On edit: Per this OP, make that two doting posters.

[guillaumeb]

47. I find him to be interesting, and obviously intelligent,

but his habit of aggressively talking over his callers is irritating. I understand that he is the host, and a celebrity of sorts, but a good host allows the guests to feel welcome.

[AngryAmish]

29. Yes, Maddow is Comcast. So? I am supposed to believe lies?

[guillaumeb]

34. Using the logic that proximity to the sponsor taints the media personality,

what do we conclude?

[AngryAmish]

36. We conclude one should not be a mark.

However marks insist on being such.

[Coventina]

30. Yeah, because we don't have ANY problems with the folks at Fox News.

I mean, you can have a show on Fox and be a progressive, right?

[guillaumeb]

35. In theory FOX is fair and balanced.

Or is it "fairly unbalanced"? I can never remember.


Most of the US media is corporate owned. Can we assume, as Noam Chomsky makes the case, that there is some self-censorship that goes on at the network?

[BainsBane]

42. Yet somehow RT is immune from it?

Your ever shifting justifications are revealing.

[guillaumeb]

50. I cannot deny saying what I did not in fact say.

It would be a better dialogue if we concentrated on what each of us actually says.

[Binkie The Clown]

38. I swear. 25% of DU sounds like Trump and the other 25% sounds like Kim.

"No, YOU'RE the poopy head."
"Am not! You are."
"Shut up or I'll kick sand in your face."
"My uncle is a cop. He'll beat the shit out of you and throw you in jail."
"Oh yeah! Well fire and fury!"

Grow the fuck up, people! Seriously.

[BainsBane]

40. Then you might as well say there is no corporate influence

over government or the media. Apparently those arguments that Clinton was beholden to wealthy donors were never genuine. Being paid millions of dollars by a propaganda arm of the Kremlin has no influence on a media personality, but taking $2700 from someone who works at a bank makes Clinton a woman a "corporate whore." The claim is ludicrous, particularly when the content of the program demonstrates otherwise.


Of course Maddow is restrained by working for MSNBC. When have you seen her do a story critical of its parent company? If Hartman weren't allowed influenced by RT, why don't we see stories from him critical of Putin? Why isn't he covering their intervention in the election or the billions they funneled to Trump associates and Trump himself? Why do we see his urging understanding of poor oppressed Russia and its White Nationalist putsch? And why do we see demonstrably false statements used to promote it?

The criticisms you take such objection to weren't about dueling celebrity cults of personality; they were about truth vs. misinformation and the responsibility of citizens to see through it.


What you call logic is the absence of all semblance of it. And really, after your claims there is "no evidence" of Russian interference in the election, I don't think you're in a position to make pronouncements on logic.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029435569#post30

I see nothing progressive, logical, or morally just in worship of rich men accompanied by efforts to undermine women's rights.

[George II]

45. Excellent point. Would love to see those who say that RT doesn't affect Hartmann....

....admit that "corporations" and "wall street" don't affect politicians.

Sadly, I don't have time to wait.

[guillaumeb]

49. I made no claims about Clinton and corporate influence.

And you admit that Maddow is restrained, if not contractually, at least from a sense of what the corporations will find allowable. The self-censorship that causes people to restrict what they say and what they investigate. Misinformation can be more than deliberate lies, it can work by omission of relevant information.

As to Russia, it is a sovereign nation with its own interests. It is also basically surrounded by NATO bases. The US has far greater ability to project military power than does Russia. We can argue over which empire is more aggressive, or which empire bears the greater responsibility for affairs as they stand, but any country that interferes with electoral processes in many other countries, as both empires have, has little standing to cry foul over such tactics.

And I stated that there was no proof of Russian interference. There is much evidence, and inference that Russia was responsible, but it has not been legally proven.

[BainsBane]

41. Proving your theory is very easy

Simple provide examples from Hartman's show, as I requested here.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029442858

Yet oddly no one has yet done so. I'm sure some of Thom's fans can correct the record. I welcome being proved wrong.

[dalton99a]

44. +1