hippiechick wrote: 
So, can I assume you are not suffering under Obama? If so, good for you...but not so good for many, including many of his supporters.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Oh. Another intellectual squishy. Good luck with that.

Pilger: Welcome to the Shammies, the media awards that recognise truly unsung talent

The PSY scandal: singing about killing people v. constantly doing it

Americans would benefit from less outrage at anti-US sentiment and more energy toward understanding why it's so widespread

 kurtster wrote: 
It's so nice to see the Republicans knowing the suffering that we Dems have had through the last 2  (3?) Republican administrations.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Oh, so what you're saying (by proxy, as always) is that not only will the Media ask Obama what his favorite color is but they will now try and pin him down on his favorite Disney character as well ?

Shocked, I am simply shocked.  There is hope for the Fourth Ethically Bankrupt Estate after all.

Greenwald: Progressive media claims they'll be 'tougher' on Obama now
Given the rationale they have embraced, is there any reason to believe this will happen, or that it will matter if it does?

 kurtster wrote: 
It still is about Media Bias, not my bias. Your perceptions of me or my motives, or the labels you choose to wear, aren't all that relevant. Everyone has different and similar perceptions. Perhaps you should create a topic called Personal Perceptions/Bias and hold forth there...

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Only because you are one of the most active participants in the poly threads and many others for that matter do I wish to know what your political orientation is.  I wear the pejoritive collar of conservative here.  I am not afraid of it.  Is what it is.

And I will admit that you almost never make mistakes or errors, because you mostly copy and paste other people's words and avoid using your own as much as possible.

You insist on being an enigmatic character, free of labels and connotations.  If you are to participate honestly in the poly threads, especially the American subjects, you should make your reference point as clear as possible.  You're correct, I do not make the rules here, but that doesn't mean I can't ask questions.  You clearly are not coming from a pure unbiased and aplolitical point of view.

Until I hear otherwise, I have made my assumption and will respond accordingly, but politely, at least as politely as someone with half a brain as you suggest can.

 kurtster wrote:
 
Not so conspicuous as you might think. I've pointed it out to you before, but I will admit to being amused by your dogged determination to get me to wear a label that is rather nebulous, context dependent, simplistic or over-generalized, abused, dismissive (thought-terminating cliché), and last but not least, often a pejorative.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

I freely admit my mistakes, without grudge or snark.  I make them and take correction rather well.

I admitted your correction on RT and Pravda.  Not moving the goal posts.  It was my inference, although originally mistated.

Am I wrong about your anti American stance ?  You conspicuously left that unanswered.

kurtster wrote:

(...) Pravda was state run / funded as is Russia Today.  That is enough of a commonality for my statement to be true.

For some reason, I remember most of the video clips you post as being from RT on matters political and social.

You said Russia Today is the TV arm of Pravda (the official newspaper of the Communist Party, which neither rules Russia, nor the now defunct USSR). You didn't say both were state run / funded. So you were and remain factually wrong/inaccurate. You've now simply shifted the goal posts to redefine it as state run / funded broadcasters, which is factually true. However, it should be obvious from the earlier quote that the US employs similar propaganda tools (and has recently added a few in Africa). In both cases they are obviously biased. As such I never claimed RT wasn't biased, merely that they provide alternate viewpoints. An outlet might be very biased, like some people, but that doesn't mean they never say/report things that aren't true.

I am familiar with how your memory (not) works. It's rather selective and prone to holes, like saying the next day you never mentioned something the day before, while the forum clearly shows this not to be true. Excuse me if don't rely on it too much for determining what's true or not. RT clips are but a very small portion of what I've posted and they don't exclusively deal with the US either. Feel free to check my posting history.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
1 and 2 ... wrong.  You continually focus on the worst of America, with a strange passion.  Is there something wrong with being anti American in your mind / world ?  Most of the world is when one gets down to the facts.  I just don't get why you can't admit it.  You're entitled to your views.

3, more denial.

4, Pravda was state run / funded as is Russia Today.  That is enough of a commonality for my statement to be true.  For some reason, I remember most of the video clips you post as being from RT on matters political and social.  I get and do watch CCTV on ocassion as well as RT on our satellite provider, watch BBC on ocassion as well.

More on your admitted propoganda machine RT ... which infers bias naturally ...

A representative of Reporters Without Borders called the newly announced network “another step of the state to control information.”^<102> In 2009 Luke Harding in The Guardian described Russia Today's advertising campaign in the United Kingdom as an "ambitious attempt to create a new post-Soviet global propaganda empire."^<33>

In 2010 The Independent reported that RT journalists had revealed that coverage of sensitive issues in Russia was allowed but direct criticism of Vladimir Putin or then President Dmitry Medvedev is not.^<23> Masha Karp wrote in Standpoint magazine that contemporary Russian issues "such as the suppression of free speech and peaceful demonstrations, or the economic inefficiency and corrupt judiciary, are either ignored or their significance played down".^<103> In 2008 Stephen Heyman wrote in the New York Times that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy.”^<21>

Russians also have been critical of RT. Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky criticized RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation".^<104> Andrey Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin, has labeled the channel as “the best Russian propaganda machine targeted at the outside world.”^<66>

James Kirchick in The New Republic accused the network of "often virulent anti-Americanism, worshipful portrayal of Russian leaders."^<105> Ed Lucas wrote in Al Jazeera that the core of RT was "anti-Westernism."^<106> Shaun Walker wrote in The Independent that RT "has made a name for itself as a strident critic of US policy."^<107> Allesandra Stanley in The New York Times wrote that RT is "like the Voice of America, only with more money and a zesty anti-American slant."^<46> David Weigel writes that RT goes further than merely creating distrust of the United States government, to saying, in effect: "You can trust the Russians more than you can trust those bastards."^<29>

 kurtster wrote: 
1. Obvious denial.
2. Confirmation of denial and yet more ad hom/red herring.
3. As pointed out a few times now I can see plenty of it through publically available segments. Again, I value other people thoughts on matters. Different opinions can help you be a better judge of things. It doesn't mean I can't decide for myself, no matter how many times you're going to repeat it. As you might know, both networks under discussion also publish articles (and videos) on-line as well.
4. Not really my favourite (you keep making shit up), but it is just one more source. They are not related to Pravda (wrong again). They are however the counter-propaganda to your own (official and non-official) propaganda.

Russia Today is one of several international channels which have challenged the United States media which previously dominated global news coverage.^<36> In 2010 Walter Isaacson, Chairman of the U.S. Government's Broadcasting Board of Governors (which runs Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia), called for more money for the programs because "We can't allow ourselves to be out-communicated by our enemies," mentioning specifically Russia Today, Iran's Press TV and China's China Central Television (“CCTV”) in the next sentence. He later explained he actually was referring to “enemies” in Afghanistan, not the nations he mentioned.^<37> In 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States was “losing the information war” abroad to foreign channels like Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China Central Television^<38> and that they are supplanting the Voice of America.^<39><40>

You should watch some of those some time. There's a whole world out there with quite different opinions. Though you might risk suffering more painful cognitive dissonance.

 oldviolin wrote: 
Did I miss a vote?  I'm pretty sure resolution 2187 awards permanent BATWEK to servo and that the supporting language meant we didn't need to care about anything not illuminated by no less than 4 precisely aligned, dot registered light sources.  Without a calibration report, I'm not going to be humbled by anything.

 Servo wrote: 

Servo previously scolded:


Cura te ipsum.

 RichardPrins wrote:
No problemo with foreigners or discussing alternate points of views whatsoever. 

All's I'm saying is that if you have an anti American point of view, at least be honest about it.  The world is full of anti Americanism.  Just look at the UN. 

And as far as my criticizing your criticism of our media which you glean your insight from hearsay only, then get used to it.  Print media is another thing, but since you are unable to view our TV media directly, your criticism is lacking any authority on the subject.  You're just rehashing other people's thoughts on the matter not your own.

And on the subject of telejournalism, your favorite source is Russia Today.  The TV arm of Pravda.  Please tell me how neutral RT is towards the US that it covers so much and you cite so frequently.  This is the media bias thread after all. 

I see dead people herrings...

 oldviolin wrote: 
My feelings are just fine.  I'm not the disgruntled one of the two of us.

I'm playing straight with you.  I told you what you can do if you're truly interested in harmony here.  Take it or leave it.

 Servo wrote: 
 Sorry for hurting your little feelings. Upon further review, the clique is humbled by your fine example . Shall I sing your praises further or tend to more important things, like, well, everything else.