Demanding uncritical fealty to a media personality

[BainsBane]

or any other person of wealth and power, even when that person has been revealed to make mistakes on key issues of fact or articulate arguments on behalf of the Kremlin, the GOP, or white nationalists, is not consistent with progressive or democratic values.

No one is infallible. We all make mistakes. That includes your favorite media personalities. That includes people who otherwise make accurate or thoughtful arguments.

It is unlikely that someone can work for a Kremlin propaganda outfit, depend on them for their livelihood, and not be influenced by the organization they work for. Hartman's statements justifying Russian interference in elections in the West demonstrate as much. Remember that Dennis Kucinch was once well regarded among reform-minded Democrats until he became inculcated by Fox News. We have seen great attention to how political representatives are influenced by money. Why should it be different for media personalities, whose careers and wealth depend on the organization that pays their salary?

No one who respects democracy, independent thought, or citizens seeks to cover for factual errors by insisting criticism of said personality is anti-progressive or a sign of disloyalty toward a politician. There is no democratic value that insists the public must relinquish critical thought to the media, any media. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, depends on acquiescence to power. Authoritarian interests entail ensuring the public doesn't think for itself and turns on those who do. Conformity of thought is essential to attacks on the sovereignty of the people.

It is not politicians who protect democracy but the electorate. The best intentioned people in power (whether political or media power) are only as democratic as the public they represent. When a public defers critical thought to media personalities or politicians, they forsake democracy. They abandon the Independence of thought and critical relationship to power that is all that stands between them and authoritarianism.

[emulatorloo]

1. I'm seeing weird stuff like "If you disagree w Mr X on statement Y, you clearly hate Unions!"

Very odd non-sequiturs.

That I have some tepid criticism of this or that infallible politician's statements or strategies or some talkshow host's opinions, brings ridiculous automatic ass-umptions about how I must not hold the core beliefs I actually do hold as a left-liberal Democrat.

[BainsBane]

4. It's that sort of thing exactly

If there is a case, make it on the merits. This reliance on demands of fealty to dispense with criticism is pernicious.

[R B Garr]

26. THANK you, Hartmann is the king of non-sequiturs and bizarre leaps

of logic. I can't stand it. Obviously anyone who questions how he comes to his conclusions is a corporatist establishment mumbo jumbo, yet Thom is on the TV channel directed by the true world oligarchs -- the Russian mafia. Anyone who thinks that he is on Russia TV and not beholden to Putin's goals is just naïve. There's a reason he's not on primetime channels.

[emulatorloo]

33. To clarify my comment wasn't about Thom so much

Just more about those who believe a little criticism of their infallible idol of the day is tantamount to Heresy! and must mean you hate all progressive policy.

[Alice11111]

51. I hate that kind of BS too.

[NurseJackie]

2. "Hartman's statements justifying Russian interference in elections in the West demonstrate as much."

Hartman's statements justifying Russian interference in elections in the West demonstrate as much.

Thank you. Well said.

When a public defers critical thought to media personalities or politicians, they forsake democracy. They abandon the Independence of thought and critical relationship to power that is all that stands between them and authoritarianism.

That gave me chills. You nailed it.

[Leith]

3. Outstanding!

The only time one should even quote a media personality is when the quote expresses one's own thoughts succinctly.

For example, many people quote George Takei NOT because we look to him to determine how we think about an issue or event, but because he has an excellent and interesting way of putting things. Reichwingers don't understand this so they accuse us of looking to Takei or Michael Moore as our gods and we don't know what to think or do until we hear from them. That is nothing but projection.

[Duppers]

10. A thread of great minds.

[sheshe2]

5. "demands of fealty"

Pretty terrifying thought.

Thank you, bains. Great post.

[wryter2000]

6. Thom Hartman

Lordy, has Hartman gone 'round the bend, too? I stopped listening to him because the only show I can tolerate is Stephanie Miller because the show is funny. That's the only way I can contemplate politics in the morning. (Other than DU.)

[Maven]

7. Thank you for posting this.

The sudden group worship of Hartmann (and the insistence that we all reaffirm our faith) is truly weird. He works for a Kremlin propaganda outlet FFS.

[world wide wally]

8. I have listened to Thom Hartman for about 10 years now and I always thought of him as being

impeccable in his observations. I don't know what he said defending Russia's interference with our democratic process but this is what I do know. We listened to him all summer on our cross country trip and because of his ties to RT, his show has become boring. He tip toes and dances around every topic relating to Russia. I have no doubts that this was because of his ties to them and my wife and I were both greatly disappointed in how "wishy washy" he had become on the topic of Russia.
I believe he is still and dyed in the wool progressive beyond that. I can only quote Trump on this one, "Sad"

[Akamai]

18. Answer is--he said nothing supporting Russia in the elections.

Answer is--he said nothing supporting Russia in the elections.

To The contrary, he has repeatedly criticize them for interfering in the elections, and attributes to them a fair amount of the responsibility for Hillary's not getting elected.

[BainsBane]

23. Your OP

If we are to take you representation of his argument as accurate (which I cannot attest to) relied on blantly false claims in an effort to illicit sympathy for the Kremlin. You responded, not by dealing with the substance if those errors but by posting an OP insisting that if anyone criticized anything Hartman said, the were in effect the enemy. You chose to make Hartman the issue by using him to generate sympathy for the Kremlin.

If Hartman said nothing supportive of the Kremlin, why did you post this?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

[Bradical79]

38. Here's the controversial Russian discussion

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

Though working for the Russian government owned RT is bad enough considering what they're doing.

[Duppers]

9. Excellent!!

[ProfessorPlum]

11. recognizing an ally is not the same as

uncritical fealty.

But you know that.

[Hekate]

12. Recognizing when an ally has become no longer an ally is tough

[ProfessorPlum]

14. apparently not too tough

It happens everyday here on DU. In droves!

[hrmjustin]

16. Yes it does!

But luckily they migrate to JPR!

[BainsBane]

24. Only to launch a "counteroffensive"

To retake control of DU.

[BainsBane]

19. As long as one does not assume

he is always right. Yesterday we saw an argument purporting to come from Hartman that contained serious factual errors. It relied on those errors to illicit sympathy for the Kremlin. Rather than responding to those errors, that same poster wrote another OP insisting any criticism of Hartman's points was due to opposition to Bernie. Rather than dealing with the substance of the issue, they insisted anyone who raised questions was somehow anti-progressive and disloyal to Bernie. I consider the ploy transparent and am disappointed that so many responded favorably to it.

Truthful arguments are easy to make. They rely on substance. Misinformation is furthered through distraction and obfuscation, demands for loyalty and attacks on anyone who points to factual errors.

You can like much of what Hartman says and still recognizes problems in some of his arguments. One can still appreciate his positions on some issues and recognize his working for RT influenced what he says about Russia.

Though truthfully, I have trouble understanding treating for-profit media personalities as allies. An ally in what? How does being a fan of a show make its star your ally? Because they tell you what you want to hear? An allying in affirming your views? Or in some goal?

You are wrong to say I know "that." I can't begin to understand what is an unprecedented, in the history if the republic, emphasis on a few, powerful men over the citizenry. The entire ethos is foreign to me. So you are wrong to imagine I understand your relationship to a star at a multi-billionaire dollar profit enterprise, even if it weren't a propaganda arm of the Kremlin. It's never occurred to me to look at the media that way.

Do you believe all stars of political shows you like are your allies? Or is Hartman unique? And why?

Do you think RT as a whole is your ally? Do you imagine you are benefited by the Kremlin's efforts to spread misinformation in order to keep Trump in power?

[Bradical79]

39. Well, he's not an ally

He works for a government that wants to ruin us, and tried to garner sympathy for that government with a deceptive piece. So no, he's not an ally.

[ProfessorPlum]

40. Your mileage may vary, of course

But I think your judgement is faulty in this case.

[Bradical79]

42. Fair enough -nt

[treestar]

13. True. I recall a few years ago

we were accused of blind faith to President Obama if we defended him from some media personality that the accuser followed with blind faith.

[SunSeeker]

15. K & R

[leftstreet]

17. I've only seen a few threads about Hartmann

I don't think the whole of DU is under a fealty attack

[BainsBane]

21. I didn't claim it was

But I was disappointed to see so much support for an argument I find transparent.

I do think the tendency of the public to abandon critical thinking and defer to a handful of public personalities or men in power is far too pervasive, extending far beyond DU. Trump's continued support is evidence of it.

[hunter]

20. Who are this people and why should I care?

[BainsBane]

22. Do you care that the Kremlin subverted democracy?

Do you care that they continue to do so? Do you care that so many Americans were taken in by their propaganda efforts? Do you care that they still are?

[hunter]

25. What democracy? Some T.V. democracy? It's not real.

Here in the U.S.A. we've got problems with people who believe what they see on the TV machine.

Every advertisement I've seen on television, and much of the so-called "news" is a subversion of democracy.

[BainsBane]

32. Are you saying Russian election interference isn't real?

[hunter]

41. No.

Just more shit, as if our home grown shit ain't bad enough.

Or worse, Public Displays of Affection between our own oily oligarchs and oily Russian oligarchs.

[BainsBane]

44. I don't appreciate the efforts to normalize it

As I said in my OP, if electoral democracy collapses in this country, it will be because of the electorate. The more I see, the less I believe Americans want self-government.

[pnwmom]

58. Our Constitutional democracy. With all its flaws, we've never had a Presidential election

with voter registration rolls broken into and altered by a foreign power.

And Thom Hartmann is working for that power.

http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/

The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported, including at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers, current and former officials tell TIME.

In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but the alterations were discovered and rectified, two sources familiar with the matter tell TIME. Investigators have not identified whether the hackers in that case were Russian agents.

The fact that private data was stolen from states is separately providing investigators a previously unreported line of inquiry in the probes into Russian attempts to influence the election. In Illinois, more than 90% of the nearly 90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers, and a quarter contained the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, according to Ken Menzel, the General Counsel of the State Board of Elections.

Congressional investigators are probing whether any of this stolen private information made its way to the Trump campaign, two sources familiar with the investigations tell TIME.

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. Oh come on

The idea that Hartmann is some kind of double agent propagandist for Putin is absurd.

He was a great voice for Democrats and liberals way before he accepted a spot on RT, and he also now has his own show that is removed from RT. Is he also continuing his undercover work on that show as well? So all of his other talk that is pro-Democratic, and anti-Trump/GOP is some kind of 3D chess moves to set up his real, and Putin paid for, treasonous propaganda? You really think Thom is that kind of duplicitous conniving sociopathic devil who has been pretending for years just to play this long game to help the enemy? Its so frustrating to watch us eat our own. We hardly have any voices or media outlets as it is.

The "uncritical fealty" accusation is wildly ironic in this context, where it is deemed verboten to whisper anything other than the official story line that it was soley the Ruskies fault. Or to suggest that they did not have as much of an impact as first believed. That perhaps gerrymandering, Crosscheck, RW hate radio, voter suppression tactics by the GOP, and the home-grown deplorable cyber FB army just may have been more of a factor. And gawd help you if you even whisper that it may have been, even partly, the fault of the Democrats not getting the right message out to the right people! These things must never be even contemplated.

I remember when DU used to be a fearless open minded place where all ideas were discussed. If only to exhaust any credibility in order to dismiss something.

Are we also guilty of "defer(ing) critical thought to media personalities" when we hang onto Amy Goodman's or Rachel Maddow's words? Surely we all should be given the respect to be seen to be able to discern for ourselves who is legitimately just opening up the conversation as a good journalist has wont to do, and who is really on the pay roll for Putin and the corrupted GOP leadership.

[Bradshaw3]

31. Excellent points

Especially regarding some of the pot calling the kettle black that goes on here by some.

[emulatorloo]

34. "The idea that Hartmann is some kind of double agent propagandist for Putin is absurd. "

Nobody said that so strawman.

"I remember when DU used to be a fearless open minded place where all ideas were discussed."

I remember when DU was a fearless open-minded place where there were no sacred cows.

OP is in response to a thread that attempted to assert that a talk show host is a "Democratic Leader" and was therefore not to be criticized because TOS.

I like Thom a lot but think he is making a bad career move. If I were him I wouldn't want to be associated with the RT brand any more given the Putin's interference. I would personally would self-distribute on YouTube like TYT does.

Of course it is not up to me what he does, but my opinion doesn't make me a heretic.

[mcar]

36. How, exactly, is a show on RT "removed" from RT?

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. He has his own daily YouTube show

[mcar]

47. Also on RT

How is it on there if he's not paid for it?

[LiberalLovinLug]

55. Ask him. Maybe you should check it out

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbjBOso0vpWgDht9dPIVwhQ

No RT logos. I don't even know if he has an RT show anymore.

[ucrdem]

69. "The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann is filmed live and broadcast from the RT America studios

in Washington DC":

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBigPictureRT/featured

It seems to be a going concern, with a 3-hour broadcast every day. The RT connection doesn't bother me as much the counterproductive electoral message which is all too loud and clear and that's all I'm going to say about it. He's not an ally though he might be well-intentioned. Dems need to win elections and that's simply not his métier, so to speak. He's part of a cadre of Clinton critics who appeared in the 90s and have never gone away, even though Bill has, and tearing down Dems is still their bread and butter.

[R B Garr]

28. K&R! Thank you!

Both Hartmann and Stein don't seem to mind the oligarchs after all. They obviously serve at their pleasure, because if they weren't aiding Putin, Hartmann wouldn't be there.

[Bradshaw3]

29. I have seen no evidence of this claim

nor evidence that Hartmann justified Russian interference in the election. By evidence I do not mean a poster's take on him or their take what another poster has written. I mean a link to a statement from Hartmann saying that and a post from a poster demanding uncritical fealty. In the thread linked to here the Hartmann defender doesn't do that. Perhaps I have missed the evidence of these claims and links can be provided to back them up.

[guillaumeb]

30. I have read similar things about The Nation, and similar suggestions of a fealty to Russia.

What I have not seen to date, about either The Nation or Thomm Hartmann, is actual proof of any such fealty.

To suggest that nothing has yet been proven about the stories of Russian interference in the 2016 election is not to deny the possibility, it merely states that absent actual evidence, this is all speculation.

And by the logic of inferring influence by proximity, as you did in your third paragraph, 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, in this case Comcast, Microsoft and General Electric? And by the same 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?

In that spirit, I agree with your contentions, but I am unsure of the connections that you attempt to make between any media personality and the network for which that personality works.

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. Thank you

Spot on!

[BainsBane]

71. You agree there is

"no evidence" of Russian interference in the election?

It isn't spot on. It doesn't even reveal an understanding of my argument.

[guillaumeb]

80. If this is indeed the crux of your argument,

or any other person of wealth and power, even when that person has been revealed to make mistakes on key issues of fact or articulate arguments on behalf of the Kremlin, the GOP, or white nationalists, is not consistent with progressive or democratic values.

I feel my response does indeed address the issue. Aside from the obvious issue of who exactly is demanding any "uncritical fealty", another prominent claim of the post, the fact that any media personality has a media platform does not generally prove that the media personality supports the positions of the owner of the platform.

FOX News is an obvious exception, with its system of "talking points of the day" coming from headquarters.

[BainsBane]

81. Transparent deflection

You make contorted and illogical general arguments, arguments that you use to carve out an exception for the media after having joined in assaults on Clinton and the Democratic Party for accepting far smaller, legal campaign donations. In such analysis, men who make millions from the Russian propaganda machine are entirely above any influence, but women who take $2700 from someone who works at a bank is a "corporate whore."

Fox is not an obvious exception. It's the only one you care to acknowledge. The reason the public funds outlets like NPR and PBS is to have news programming free from that influence.

You have every opportunity to provide links that he does not support the Kremlin view. Here are dozens of recent podcasts from his show. Not one on Russian interference. https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/
Not only do you not do so, you yourself repeat it by saying there is "no evidence" of their collusion in the investigation.

[guillaumeb]

82. First, if you insist on the allegation regarding Clinton, how can I take your

argument seriously?

Finally, I am not defending Hartmann's position on anything here. Nor am I refuting his position on anything here. I am taking issue with the idea that by broadcasting on a network one is transformed into an agent or fellow traveler of that network.

And I will point to your own acknowledgment that Rachel Maddow shows a curious blind spot when she choose her targets. Does this mean that Maddow is a secret militarist? GE, a war contractor, is one of the owners of MSNBC.

[BainsBane]

74. "proof of fealty to Russia"

There is a lot deeply disturbing about your post, and I wrote a long response yesterday but didn't post it.
I will try to edit it down to a couple of responses now.

I have read similar things about The Nation, and similar suggestions of a fealty to Russia.
View profile
What I have not seen to date, about either The Nation or Thomm Hartmann, is actual proof of any such fealty.

Where do I say Hartman is loyal to Russia?

The point of this post was to respond to effort to ensure that someone purporting to convey an argument by Hartman not be fact checked. No amount of posts about how Harman is a hero or how people who citicize anything he says are "unprogressive' or unAmerican", or whatever fucking ruse is drummed up, changes the fact that the post claiming to convey Hartman's message relied on factual errors.

Ronald Reagan did not promise Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand in 1990 because Reagan wasn't president in 1990. And Gorbachev himself has said no such promises were made to him in those negotiations.

Editorial bias is not something that is "proved" through receipts. It is something readers with critical thinking skills can discern from the content of the publication. The Russia coverage in the Nation is obviously influenced by vanden Heuvel's marraige to Steve Cohen, who is a Putin apologist. Now obviously that doesn't concern you since you've decided the important message to convey is that there is "no proof" of Russian interference in the election.

If Hartman is in now way influenced by the fact he appears on and is paid by the propaganda arm of the Kremlin, I'm sure you can point to stories he's done critical of Putin and Russian interference in our election. Or how about something on the billions of dollars the Kremlin has funneled to Trump and his associates?

[BainsBane]

78. Russian intervention is all "speculation," you insist.

To suggest that nothing has yet been proven about the stories of Russian interference in the 2016 election is not to deny the possibility, it merely states that absent actual evidence, this is all speculation.

To suggest that nothing has been proven is a lie, a blatant and malicious lie. There has been extensive testimony before congress by dozens of intelligence officials. Government reports have been issues. There has been extensive reporting about hacking into state elections rolls and deleting voter registrations. There have been grand juries impaneled, search warrants and subpoenas. You come to this site every day. Tell me how you managed to avoid hundreds if not thousands of articles on Russian intervention, detailing Trump administration officials’ involvement? Why do you think the GOP Senate has been holding hearings on the matter? Why are they and Robert Mueller investigating obstruction of Justice and collusion with Russia? If Russia did not intervene, how can there been investigations into collusion? Why does every single intelligence official in this country and intelligence agencies abroad all concur there is no doubt that Russia intervened?


I am appalled, absolutely appalled that you would make such a claim. The only people who deny Russian involvement in the election are Trump, Putin, the most stupid of the Trump supporters (not even all or most of them) and the fascist collaborators of JPR and their ilk. The commonality between all of them is a determination to prop up Trump and ensure the spread of White Nationalism through the West. It is a posture based on intense, all consuming hatred of immigrants, people of color, women, Democrats, and anyone who opposes authoritarianism. There is NO ONE with any integrity or honesty that adopts such a position. Trump and Putin know full well the Russians intervened. They were actively involved in it. The rest seek are engaged in a pernicious agenda to promote them.

Even Fox and the alt-right media no longer deny the Russian interference or the collusion. They have moved on to argue that collusion with Russia isn't so bad after all. Yet for some reason you think it acceptable to willfully ignore the last several months of Senate testimony and press exposes, even the emails released by Trump Jr himself documenting intervention and collusion, to pretend none of that exist.
No one does that out of concern for evidence. They do it out of contempt for evidence and truth.


So far you have gone around this site insisting women need to give up reproductive rights so that YOU and can "win' (not us, since women are to be excluded the body politic). Evidence for the claim that subjugating half the population to second-class citizenship is a "winning" strategy didn't concern you in the slightest, nor did all of the evidence showing the connection between denial of reproductive rights and increased poverty and high death rates. Evidence wasn't a concern for the fascist collaboration on JPR when it came to blaming Clinton for Seth Rich's death or running a pedophile ring out of pizza shop.

But when it comes to something that is the subject of dozens of investigations by the Senate, House, FBI, the Treasury Department, Counter Terrorism, etc..., that has produced documentation, hours and hours of testimony, all of which is evidence that you deny exists.

Clearly evidence isn't a concern in terms of undermining abortion rights because those advocating it want to see women reduced to second class citizenship. When it comes to Russian intervention in the elections, no evidence is sufficient and will ever be sufficient because those justifying it are more concerned with validating Trump's victory than their own intellectual honesty. There is no conceivable reason any Democrat, progressive, liberal, or even moderate would engage in such an agenda.

[mcar]

35. The worship of these figures by some is just bizarre

[LiberalLovinLug]

45. As is the belief by some that media commentators

Of any stripe, are "worshiped" on an educated liberal message board

[mcar]

48. Several OPs here in the last few days

Declaring a radio talk show host a Democratic leader and casting aspersions on any who don't avow him.

[BainsBane]

75. You are sure are dedicated to ensuring

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2017, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

He not be criticized or fact checked. The word worship isn't as important as the actions described. Of course there could be other explanations, but they aren't any more complementary.

[ProfessorPlum]

50. Yes. Worship.

That's definitely what this is.

[BainsBane]

70. There are other possible explanations

None of which are flattering. The bottom line is this all arose in order to shield a media personality from fact checking.

[SethH]

37. I agree strongly or disagree strongly!

depending on if you're talking about a media personality I like or one I don't like!!!

[Bradshaw3]

49. Still waiting

for links proving the claims made here about Hartmann and the DU poster who is supposed to be demanding fealty to him and for relinquishing critical thought.

[BainsBane]

54. Here

This thread
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

Read the comments for information by posters refuting claims that Reagan promised not to expand Nato.

Than this was the response. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9434126

Note that the response to pointing out factual errors--like the fact Reagan wasn't president during the 1990 negotiations--was to insist Hartman was being vilified, supposedly because of his support for Bernie nearly two years ago.

[Bradshaw3]

57. I had read both of those threads and they do not support your claims

I asked for evidence that the OP you were referring to demanded uncritical fealty to Hartmann as you posted and nothing like that is in those threads. Neither is your claim that Hartmann justified Russian interference in the U.S. election. Those were your words. I am simply reiterating what you wrote and asking you to back up those claims with evidence - meaning a quote from Akami or Hartmann to that effect. You can debate whether the defense of Hartmann is right or wrong (my short time on this forum has shown me that there is a lot of refighting the primary) but that does not justify your claim. But if you have a quote from the poster or Hartmann proving your claims I will admit I was wrong. If not, can you?

[rock]

52. Listen

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate of the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony! (holy grail)

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. They say that Hartmann doesn't post here anymore, but I wonder if that's true? Maybe he just.....

stopped using his own name?

[LiberalLovinLug]

56. Just because someone managed to get a show on RT does not mean they are Russian shills or pro-Trump

I presume The Nation is a reputable source on here. They do a good job explaining how and why many different liberal hosts had or have shows on there. Like Chris Hedges, Ed Schultz, and Lee Camp.

https://www.thenation.com/article/rt-america-was-not-pro-trump/

Putin gave them all free reign. (you cannot actually believe these well known liberal commentators would accept some talking points script from Putin do you?) And if you thought about it a bit you'd see why they are allowed airtime. Anything to discredit the government of the US, and help facilitate criticism from all spectrums. Now, most of us would agree with much of that criticism, especially now that its the GOP that is the government. It doesn't mean Putin doesn't also use criticism from the alt-right as well to help to de-stabalize.

There is such scant airtime for anyone to the left of MSM, that these commentators took what they could get. They say the same things on their own controlled youtube shows and radio shows. If you so detest the vessel their comments are delivered in, and can't get over that part, then don't listen or watch when they commandeer American RT for their own purposes.

[pnwmom]

59. It means they are lending their name, and helping to validate as a news source, RT.

That's bad enough.

[LiberalLovinLug]

60. Meh, I think the trade off is worth it

Everyone knows RT is ultimately under the thumb of Putin. I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking otherwise.

If that is the only way to get our message out there, maybe change a few minds, then who cares. Not me. I'm certainly not going to demonize any liberal host that takes advantage of the situation.

As another poster said, Maddow works for a company who is in large part owned by GE, one of the largest arms dealers in the world. I can separate her from that, and trust she is not a secret conspirator with GE to foment war talk. I can do the same with RT. Even though I rarely watch now.

[pnwmom]

61. "Everyone" does NOT know that. Till last year, people here frequently posted things by RT,

such as pieces promoting Snowden or Assange, without having any idea they were posting Russian propaganda.

[LiberalLovinLug]

63. Ok not 'everyone'. Everyone with half a brain

It says "RT" right at the bottom. Liberals are shown to be more educated, smarter than cons. I would hope that most on here are wise enough to either already know, or find out exactly what "RT" stands for.

Those who posted most likely shared my view that its the message that is important, not so much the messenger, and least of all the vehicle it is delivered in.

[pnwmom]

64. Unfortunately, people with less than half a brain still get a full vote,

and some posters here, influenced by propaganda at RT, voted for Stein or not at all.

They were not allowed to campaign for her here, but they did over at JPR.

[BainsBane]

62. You presume wrong

The Nation has lost its credibility due to vanden Huevel allowing her marriage to a Putin apologist to badly damage what was once the longest running leftist publication in America. It's a travesty. How you can point to that as though it were reputable analysis is astounding. Why not Briebart while you're at it?

The Russian government doesn't employ journalists or entertainers who are critical of Putin. They murder them.

What matters is what Hartman says regarding Russian intervention, as a poster proudly displayed yesterday. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778
Or perhaps more accurately what that poster claims Hartman said.

The argument relies on a fabricated claim that Reagan promised not to expand Nato, a claim clearly refuted by res-ponders to the OP, on a number of grounds, the most basic of which that Reagan wasn't president during the negotiations. So whether the poster is misrepresenting Hartman to advance false claims or whether Hartman actually made them, my concern is with how members have responded to efforts to distract from those errors. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9434126
Rather than dealing with the misrepresentations in the first OP, he posts a second insisting critics who pointed out the rather glaring falsehoods in his first OP are "vilifying Hartman." He avoids the substance of the criticism to insist they are not sufficient progressive or loyal to Bernie (all while displaying a Clinton avatar).

I don't see responses claiming the poster misrepresented Hartman, and since i don't listen to the show I can't speak to that myself. My concern is not him or any other media presenter. It is the eagerness of too many in the public to put personality before evidence and critical thought, to allow themselves to be played by appeals to political factionalism. The result of such tendencies in the general election was that false stories about the Democratic nominee dominated social media. And, as Clint Watts testified before the Senate, no discussion of Clinton could take place without Russian trolls and bots inserting negative propaganda.

The point is not Hartman per se. It is the deterioration of critical thought among the American public, the ease with which they pick up and repeat false stories. That is what put a fascist in the White House, and it is that which will give him a second term if the public cannot turn a critical eye, not just on stories they dislike but most importantly on stories that play to what they do like

Democracy will not be undone by Hartman, Fox, RT, or even the Kremlin. Only the electorate can do that to itself.

[LiberalLovinLug]

65. All I saw from your link is someone expousing a reason, not an excuse, why Russia has felt betrayed

And thus Putins desires to expand his own borders. It is something to discuss. Why not discuss it? Is even discussing this a thought crime on here?

I thought it was just on RW message boards where everyone had to be simple and one dimensional in their thinking. Surely we are big boys and girls and others that can handle discussing these tangent theories. Without being accused of being "with us or with the terrorists".

I thought liberals were smarter than that. That it was the brainwashed deplorables that never had any space in their brains for contemplating something outside their normal view. Some journalists are more open to discovering more of the picture, like Greenwald, another great journalist demonized to dare to question authority, and officially sanctioned 'truth' from both the right and the left.

Some are "vilifying Hartmann". So much so that they miss out on maybe finding out more information.

[BainsBane]

68. You missed the point completely

And it appears you did so deliberately. The information you claim we need to "find out" from Hartman is the most common of knowledge. Literally anyone who has read a foreign policy article or seen an episode of Charlie Rose on Russia knows that Russia is upset about Nato expansion. Henry Kissinger has talked about it for years. Any Russia expert or novice, neo-con or liberal globalist, has talked about it. The only shocking thing about the particular point is that anyone here doesn't already know it. While you might champion Hartman (if Hartman did in fact make the argument, because that OP provides no links to indicate he did) has adopted an argument long made by Henry Kissinger prompts you to exalt him, that's that's your business. My point, as I made very clear to you in my previous post, is something quite different.

The one thing that is new in that post is the claim--a mendacious claim--that Reagan promised not to expand Nato. Not only did Reagan not make such a promise, he was not even in office at the time. Then there is the fact Gorbachev himself denies he was ever promised such a thing. You know that, since I sad as much in my last post. You of course ignored it. You proclaim yourself smarter, yet you can't manage to follow an argument more complex than Thom, good., Thom bad. My point was neither.

Why, I wonder, does the OP post something so demonstrably untrue? Why does he then respond to posts pointing out that error with another OP seeking to distract from the issue by claiming Hartman is "vilified"? And, most disturbingly, why do so many fall for it?

As I made clear in my last post, Hartman is the least of my concerns. I care about democracy and the public's capacity for critical thought that is essential to maintaining representative government. You ignore those points to focus on Hartman, seemingly because your concerns begin and ends there.
I can't have a discussion of you about issues of substance when you don't care about them, so I won't bother further.

[diva77]

72. Yes! I saw Hartmann's show on YouTube - does that mean that YouTube is in bed with Russia now?

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2017, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)

The attacks on The Nation, Hartmann, etc seem to be part of a concerted effort similar to the tactics used to take down ACORN. Take a perfectly reputable and progressive established organization or person, find a weakness, then mix it with unsubstantiated rumors (aka lies) and by repeating the attacks, convince people to join in the dogpile against them, and pretty soon you destroy them.

[BainsBane]

73. Jesus

What bullshit. This whole thing began over fact checking and a determination that false claims about Reagan supposedly promising not to expand NATO not be challenged.

You demonstrate exactly what I was talking about in my OP. There is nothing there that demands taking down Hartman or the Nation.

But I find it interesting that you all have decided talking money has no influence. It wasn't too long ago we were told that Clinton's accepting legal campaign contributions limited to $2700 from people who worked in finance made her a "corporate whore." Yet now you all insist that millions of dollars from the Kremlin's propaganda arm couldn't possibly influence Hartman's content. If that's true, you should be able to point to programs where he was critical of Putin and Russian interference in the election. Feel free to do so at anytime.

[diva77]

76. I would appreciate a link to info. you are giving.

And I never mentioned anything about Hillary's campaign. I'm willing to hear facts if you have them.

I also feel that there are people such as Rush---right wing bully talk radio/tv hosts to whom all the sharp criticism should be directed --they are still out there doing unfathomable damage. Have you heard what they're saying about Russia, Trump, etc.? Where does their money come from?

Thom Hartmann continues to put out a progressive message. If he messed up some facts, I'm sure if you contacted him with credible sources to back up your information that he would make a correction.

[melman]

66. Who demanded that?

Nobody? That's what I thought.

[BainsBane]

67. You're as capable of reading the responses in this thread as anyone else

So don't advertise the fact you can't be bothered to do so.

[Warpy]

77. ....aint gonna happen for many of us

when they're correct, that's great. When they're not, what the hell were they thinking?

[pansypoo53219]

79. HE's TEEVEE star + he's rich. so he MUST be shmart! he sounds JUST LIKE RAYGUN!

and JUST as RACIST! & TAX CUTS! WEEEEEEE!