General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

113. Yes, they do give voice to all sides, wacko CT even, then they are refuted. They allow Right Wingers

Sat Feb 14, 2015, 02:36 PM

Feb 2015

to give their views, then they too have to answer to others, unlike the Corporate media which refuses to allow any opinions other than those that are 'safe'.

Thanks for those links, I remember those discussions.

I also remember the great Environmentalists who are far more frequent contributors to RT.

The Corporate Media silences all voices other than those who are 'approved'.

This is a democracy where ALL voices should be heard. We are not children.

Seeing people like Alex Jones isn't going to change MY views on Climate Change.

Are you afraid he might change YOURS? If not, then why object to an airing of his wrong views.

Are you FOR censorship? Jones has a very large following in this country mainly due to the fact that OUR media censors him, so no one is refuting his views, are they?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

273 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Poll: Should videos from Russia Today be allowed on DU? [View all] MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 OP

"Russia Today" is Putin's pet propaganda outlet. Archae Feb 2015 #1

No more than CNN or BBC America is... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #63

I'm saying no, because RT controls the editing in such a case. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #2

And ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, PBS, and BBC America aren't? MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #68

I don't think anything of them because I don't watch them. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #82

I'll say! That was simple alright� and REVEALING... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #94

+100% - sad to profess an opinion based only on hearsay and innuendos -- n/t mazzarro Feb 2015 #116

Abby Martin and Cross Talk are also excellent, from the Left Pov of course. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #129

I don't watch ABC, CBS, etc. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #174

You sure don't... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #177

Well la di friggin' da Bluzmann57 Feb 2015 #201

so you watch FOX. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #207

I'd measure the truths from Thom Hartmann over any other "mainstream" news programs... cascadiance Feb 2015 #203

Very well said. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #237

LOL ...got nothing ...attack the messenger is soooo old. Purists will stay with all the others... L0oniX Feb 2015 #184

RT isn't the 'messenger' when playing videos of other people. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #191

rt doesn't edit hartmann, or most of the other independents on its air space. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #211

Thanks for that clarification. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #258

I don't bother clicking on HappyMe Feb 2015 #3

Of course. polly7 Feb 2015 #4

^^^ +1000 nt magical thyme Feb 2015 #51

thank you for a common sense answer. guillaumeb Feb 2015 #141

Thank you, Polly. onyourleft Feb 2015 #172

Putin is an autocrat and that's being generous. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #5

RT.com is not sunlight attempting to illuminate the truth. randome Feb 2015 #7

That's why I referred to the slickly produced Russian cable television station... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #10

RT is not the same as Russian television. It is produced here in the US with mostly sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #45

I didn't pay attention to where it was produced. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #48

What the hell does this mean? MattSh Feb 2015 #97

Because it lacked all nuance, the announcers spoke in stilted English, and was boringly predictable. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #102

What did you expect? Enthusiast Feb 2015 #238

This message was self-deleted by its author 2banon Feb 2015 #222

What part of "That being said I oppose censorship and I would allow the videos" don't you understand DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #224

Didn't read your posts through to the end, My Bad. 2banon Feb 2015 #226

No problem DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #227

How the fuck is this even a question? sibelian Feb 2015 #6

+1000 nt Logical Feb 2015 #13

Fox News should be reported on an equal basis with everything else? randome Feb 2015 #26

+ another Scuba Feb 2015 #27

^ What sibelian said ^ MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #69

People who are willing and capable of thinking critically Maedhros Feb 2015 #175

During the Scottish referendum campaign it was RT and ONLY RT that accurately reported the violence sibelian Feb 2015 #8

RT was the only network that covered the anti-Putin demonstrations in Russia also. It always sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #16

Abso-fricken. sibelian Feb 2015 #20

lutely! MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #73

sigh... SidDithers Feb 2015 #104

The BBC is part of the US Corporate Media?? Since when? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #106

Your claim was "RT was the only network that covered the anti-Putin demonstrations in Russia"... SidDithers Feb 2015 #107

I filled in what you tried to leave out. I can understand your attempt to change the meaning of sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #118

I left nothing out, sabrina... SidDithers Feb 2015 #140

And?? You choose to misinterpret that post. The BBC is not a US media outlet, I will make sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #150

Keep spinning, sabrina... SidDithers Feb 2015 #154

there are two here spinning Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #157

Who are the 'Putiin Boot Lickers' on DU? Seriously, people want to know. I want to sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #158

People already have figured that out Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #162

IF there are trolls on DU, which is what sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #168

If there are trolls here and there have been Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #170

Sid says there are trolls here. You are getting things a bit mixed up. IF he sees sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #188

I have no idea Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #190

I know what he posted also, and have said repeatedly and will do it once again, sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #264

and you would be wrong again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #266

I'm sure a list will be produced soon. polly7 Feb 2015 #242

I see you are still fine Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #244

I see you are still fine with someone/anyone/everyone (as no one was excluded) polly7 Feb 2015 #245

He never said "all" once again, I will type slower Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #246

My, my ......... you do go on and on and on. polly7 Feb 2015 #247

and, once again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #248

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #249

once again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #250

Getting to work on that shrine, time is money! polly7 Feb 2015 #251

here is the difference Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #252

Hey, at least I was brave enough to specify. polly7 Feb 2015 #253

so you like to insult a DU member by name and take credit for it Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #254

I give what I get. polly7 Feb 2015 #255

"I give what I get." Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #256

Let me try it another way: Who is NOT a 'Putin Boot Licker' on this site? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #265

I would think about 99% Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #267

Surprised, you did not answer any of my questions. all I hear is "crickets" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #272

There are actual fucking sockpuppets. In great numbers. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #239

Skinner has spoken about obsessive troll hunting. Apparently the message is not getting through. L0oniX Feb 2015 #186

I luv Putin. There ...happy now? L0oniX Feb 2015 #185

They can afford to be objective about another country that has nothing to do with them at the moment treestar Feb 2015 #78

And everything they report is done with the spin that the West is bad... SidDithers Feb 2015 #88

You make your posts and takes your chances on any topic. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #9

Yes, they should be allowed... SidDithers Feb 2015 #11

If the hate site, Little Green Footballs is allowed here ANY source is better than that piece of sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #18

LOL... SidDithers Feb 2015 #21

I know a great deal about LGF. They were part of the Right Wing Noise Machine that went after sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #36

Sure you do, sabrina... SidDithers Feb 2015 #39

LGF's proprietor, Johnson, contributed to the extreme hatred, in fact inspired it, and had sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #56

The Breivik thing is actually a lie. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #187

No, it is not a lie. He followed Little Green Footballs at the time they were feeding the hatred sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #189

Yes it is. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #195

aka "Little Green Goofballs" nt bananas Feb 2015 #57

Yes, they did a great deal of harm during the Bush era. They spread vile bigotry sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #103

Sid doesn't do names. polly7 Feb 2015 #22

Don't need to... SidDithers Feb 2015 #24

Who are they, Sid? polly7 Feb 2015 #25

that would be a callout and you know it Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #30

I'm not trying for anything. polly7 Feb 2015 #31

Make the post and chance the jury Fumesucker Feb 2015 #40

What he just did IS a callout. He has called out all DUers as 'Putin boot lickers'. If that is not sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #62

Not all Duers treestar Feb 2015 #65

I believe Sid can speak for himself. He has called DUers 'Putin Bootlickers'. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #70

As I said, do you have the same rule for people who call other DUers treestar Feb 2015 #74

Post a link to where I have ever called ANYONE here ANY NAMES? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #77

OK, I'll look out for that treestar Feb 2015 #79

That's a fair question. Personally I don't think name calling, especially if it's a collective smear sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #111

... NuclearDem Feb 2015 #85

Thanks for posting that. As I said, I don't call people names, I prefer to be direct giving them sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #117

Your "comment" was nothing more than a baseless, inflammatory smear. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #142

No, that is how I read your comment, and was honest enough to give you a chance to correct sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #160

How the blue hell did you extract THAT from my post? NuclearDem Feb 2015 #166

so now you remove "ALL" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #83

"He has called out all DUers as 'Putin boot lickers'" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #66

Everyone does NOT know. Is he, or you, eg, calling ME a Putin bootlicker?? You can sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #75

do you take back the "all" comment or not? Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #86

Sid calle Duers 'Putin boot lickers'. Supposedly we all know who they are. If YOU know, because I sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #100

you are the one that added "all" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #105

I agree with her ...... if you're not specifying certain individuals, polly7 Feb 2015 #110

you do not add things to a quote Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #119

I added NOTHING. polly7 Feb 2015 #123

sabrina 1 did, not you Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #126

No, I explained why being too * to specify who you're talking about polly7 Feb 2015 #127

Sids own words Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #133

So WHAT is your point? polly7 Feb 2015 #135

she did in this case Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #146

No, she did NOT. polly7 Feb 2015 #148

One more time Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #151

How could everyone possibly know who the 'Putin boot-lickers are' polly7 Feb 2015 #155

Once again Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #156

Baloney treestar Feb 2015 #145

Backatcha. polly7 Feb 2015 #149

Yes, that is what I said and I will repeat it. If someone launches a collective smear sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #159

He is refusing to do that because of DU rules Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #161

I changed NOTHING. I offered my own interpretation of the collective smear sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #164

you said "He has called out all DUers as 'Putin boot lickers'." Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #169

I thought I repeated that twice already. By refusing to name the 'trolls' he is sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #173

"Do you speak for him btw?" Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #176

Hey ........ I was told I was humping Putin's leg just yesterday, lol. polly7 Feb 2015 #89

You just can't hide anything around here, polly. Caught in the act were you? sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #200

Yeah, I wasn't so thrilled with being accused of being a leg humper. polly7 Feb 2015 #240

LOL! 2banon Feb 2015 #225

I just post what Sid said Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #182

Oh my. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #193

Some people seem to think that they can twist what someone wrote two inches away from where it's Number23 Feb 2015 #180

Yes, it's clear as day-- just read the string. Desert805 Feb 2015 #192

This thread is all kinds of awesome... SidDithers Feb 2015 #263

RT is watched now by over 50 million US households, Sid. zappaman Feb 2015 #269

That number is way off Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #270

Nice to see you Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #271

I don't know who they are. You just called DUers 'Putin boot lickers' so unless you are either sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #41

but, lots of these guys�. MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #80

An update on Little Green Footballs War Horse Feb 2015 #38

Don't confuse 'em with facts... SidDithers Feb 2015 #42

They were cited for their hate filled attacks on Muslims and then hid them. And you are correct, the sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #44

Yes, while they were criticizing others for doing the same thing, polly7 Feb 2015 #47

Don't confuse anyone with what actually happened... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #81

I'm not expecting to change any minds War Horse Feb 2015 #64

I know they had their internal rift and followed it with some sense of schadenfreude at the time. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #137

"The fact is that the Norwegian mass killer was inspired by Charles Johnson." OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #196

I believe the mass murderer's own assessment of who he was influenced by. Johnson was one of the sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #205

As I said, despicable. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #210

And you leave out WHY the mass killer said he was angry at Johnson. And that is despicable. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #216

And nothing about Schaeffer or Brock. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #217

Did Brock spew hateful bigoted rhetoric for YEARS against Muslims? I do not recall that. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #219

Bravo. OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #228

Exuse me, wait a minute. Warren was a bigoted hater?? Wow, you really are getting desperate sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #229

I didn't accuse Warren of being "a bigoted hater". OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #233

I'm not aware that they aren't. Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2015 #12

"lacking in objectivity" - yeah that;s bullshit sibelian Feb 2015 #23

Most of what Parry writes these days, concerning Russia and Ukraine, is conspiracy garbage... SidDithers Feb 2015 #99

'You' posted that. polly7 Feb 2015 #108

We're all (or mostly) adults here. elias49 Feb 2015 #14

People should post whatever they want, but posting crap from known bigoted organizations comes with Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #15

Does Noam Chomsky qualify as "crap"? nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #95

Did I say he is crap? No, you are attempting to exploit Chomsky as a wrapper for the actual issue Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #167

RT is an effective propganda too for Putin etherealtruth Feb 2015 #17

Could you provide some examples of the programming on RT that are 'propaganda for Putin' sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #35

It is well known that it is Russian state media Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #19

Noam Chomsky? left-of-center2012 Feb 2015 #28

Should videos from Fox News be allowed on DU? Iggo Feb 2015 #29

Fox News isn't goverment controlled so it's objective Fumesucker Feb 2015 #43

no but it is allowed to criticize the government treestar Feb 2015 #67

LOL. Iggo Feb 2015 #112

Yes. Of course they should. Again... sibelian Feb 2015 #132

Word order and that squiggly line over the dot at the end. Iggo Feb 2015 #134

Oh, poot. Now you've got me all confused. sibelian Feb 2015 #138

RT is trash. Censorship is trashier. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2015 #32

That's this whole debate in a nutshell. Panich52 Feb 2015 #260

We need a two-prong test for locking threads: 1) unacceptable media; AND 2) unacceptable message. leveymg Feb 2015 #33

I find the RT propaganda kind of amusing. Nye Bevan Feb 2015 #34

Sure, people can post them all they like. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #37

Compare RT to corporate media Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #46

"Non-corporate information sources" NuclearDem Feb 2015 #49

....... polly7 Feb 2015 #54

And if you can find where I've said I trust corporate media in the West NuclearDem Feb 2015 #55

It's utterly ridiculous to call ALL of those mouthpieces for the world's bankers and 1% polly7 Feb 2015 #59

Hell, I'm convinced! HappyMe Feb 2015 #58

RT would be more like whitehouse.gov treestar Feb 2015 #76

Why would you compare RT to corporate media? randome Feb 2015 #121

Why not edhopper Feb 2015 #50

Yes (nt) bigwillq Feb 2015 #52

RT, Fox, and all rightwing sites are nonexistent to me, never click on them randys1 Feb 2015 #53

RT is a Left Wing site, the antithesis of Fox. Amazing how people will offer opinions of sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #60

RT is a propaganda site controlled by Putin...period, that is ALL I need to know randys1 Feb 2015 #61

Sooooo left wing they believe climate change is a hoax! NuclearDem Feb 2015 #71

RT is a jingoistic Tiger Beat for the Pooter. Very little "Left Wing" about it. Throd Feb 2015 #84

No, it isn't. It's extremely left wing which is why the Right hates it so much. The only sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #98

"Alex Jones on Climategate: Hoax of all time a global Ponzi scheme" NuclearDem Feb 2015 #109

Yes, they do give voice to all sides, wacko CT even, then they are refuted. They allow Right Wingers sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #113

There is no "other side" to climate change. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #139

The BBC has also had Alex Jones the air. Good for them. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #144

There is no "other side" to climate change, and the media has no business NuclearDem Feb 2015 #147

So censorship works, is that what you are stating? If books are banned, or confined to a small sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #152

We've already been down that road. No more. NuclearDem Feb 2015 #165

So censorship works, is that what you are stating? If books are banned, or confined to a small sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #152

Fox News, Alex Jones Join Forces to Race Bait polly7 Feb 2015 #115

RT = Vlad Sez Bobbie Jo Feb 2015 #72

DU has always been a heavily censored site due to trolls Chuuku Davis Feb 2015 #87

Yeah, but it used to be right wing voices that were not welcome Fumesucker Feb 2015 #91

If you don't want to see Left voices on the air, you won't like RT. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #171

These are last century Straight White Men you list. They, like you, seem to think that a person or Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #273

I think the gatekeepers of GD should be left alone to do their self-appointed job. Rex Feb 2015 #90

Yes! Snarkoleptic Feb 2015 #92

Where else are you going to see William K. Black on tee vee? Octafish Feb 2015 #93

And you know the "statute of limitations" (whether "real" or not) has run, or is running out.. 2banon Feb 2015 #114

FBI knew, yet DoJ said, ''Fuggedaboudid.'' Octafish Feb 2015 #163

I wonder if that Swiss Bank Lansky bought is UBS? 2banon Feb 2015 #213

Where else are you going to see Max Keiser discuss the HSCB law breaking and benefit from QE? MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #96

Love Max and Stacey Oilwellian Feb 2015 #197

Many can't view RT objectively because... MattSh Feb 2015 #101

Yes! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2015 #120

I love these polls LittleBlue Feb 2015 #122

Of course they should...and then they should be given the response they deserve brooklynite Feb 2015 #124

But that also could mean an "Alert" with Jury Post Lock..... KoKo Feb 2015 #136

Absolutely. It streamlines the process of determining who ... 11 Bravo Feb 2015 #125

And a post alert and lock? KoKo Feb 2015 #143

The difference betwen RT and FOX news is the source of the propaganda. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2015 #128

Spoken from experience of watching? Seriously doubt it... MrMickeysMom Feb 2015 #130

No, the difference between Fox and RT is that RT has actual, professional reporters sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #131

RT is not independent news. They are Russian national propoganda. Putin's private network. kwassa Feb 2015 #198

I asked some specific questions of another poster I believe, because I am seeing comments, such as sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #199

Here is an expose of the RT propaganda apparatus. kwassa Feb 2015 #202

Here is another look at the RT propaganda machine kwassa Feb 2015 #204

Something from RT itself, not the corporate media's 'opinion' of RT. Again, it appears you are not sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #206

Oh bullshit. Read the very long Buzzfeed expose, full of specifics. You are disingenuous. kwassa Feb 2015 #208

Bullshit yourself. I reject liars who led this country to war, and now set themselves up as sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #209

You shoot the messenger rather than debate the specifics in the Buzzfeed expose. kwassa Feb 2015 #212

The WSJ is OWNED by Right Wing Global Propagandist, Rupert Murdoch. The trick is to allow a few sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #215

Your avoidance technique is fascinating. False, but fascinating. kwassa Feb 2015 #218

Omg, Liz Wahl!! Do you know anything about her?? Clearly not. sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #220

"I do not comment on anything I am not educated about." OilemFirchen Feb 2015 #230

???? What is your point? Or are you trying to make MY point? That the US media is being sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #231

you are arguing with someone who wont face the truth Ramses Feb 2015 #232

Yes, I know. Our propaganda media appears to have had the desired effect sabrina 1 Feb 2015 #261

True Renew Deal Feb 2015 #223

troublemaker reddread Feb 2015 #178

sure. we allow NYT & broadcast ABC, NBC, CBS, and they lied us into war. NuttyFluffers Feb 2015 #179

Exactly! polly7 Feb 2015 #243

Well done, Manny. zappaman Feb 2015 #181

Enjoyed the show, did you? Number23 Feb 2015 #214

See this: Lithos Feb 2015 #183

Yes they should be, I'm not in favor of censorship. People don't want to watch it no one Autumn Feb 2015 #194

Yes, but only in these two groups Renew Deal Feb 2015 #221

#JeSuisRT Violet_Crumble Feb 2015 #234

Why I didn't like either option Jim Lane Feb 2015 #235

Oh, dear, we might be influenced! Enthusiast Feb 2015 #236

Should DU stop beating its wife? Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2015 #241

No vote from me. MineralMan Feb 2015 #257

Very good post Duckhunter935 Feb 2015 #259

Yes, but with caveats... Blue_Tires Feb 2015 #262

'Allowed' is the wrong word LeftishBrit Feb 2015 #268