Blue Nation Review is a propaganda site

[revbones]

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Please rather than just ignore any Blue Nation Review articles or links, be sure to call them out. This type of propaganda should have no place in our democracy.

Under Brock, the Democratic-leaning outlet will likely be a reliable defender of and advocate for Clinton

They even let go of any actual media in favor of propagandists like Peter Daou:

Dec. 1 — A source tells HuffPost that all of BNR’s remaining staff has been let go.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5

[Agschmid]

1. Yes.

But so are ALL the RW sources sighted every damn day on DU currently.

"Russia Insider" - Lol.

[mcar]

26. Sad to see that some DUers think they are OK

[Agschmid]

36. Yup.

[JaneyVee]

46. And USUncut is a Bernie propaganda site.

[PeaceNikki]

2. lol, yes a site which is "a reliable defender of and advocate for" one of our top Dems = propaganda.

[arcane1]

6. "Sale Of Blue Nation Review Gives Hillary Clinton Camp Its Very Own Media Outlet"

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is acquiring a media outlet, sources involved in the negotiation and sale of the site tell The Huffington Post.

True Blue Media, a newly formed company incorporated by Brock, has acquired progressive news website Blue Nation Review. BNR’s previous owner, MOKO Social Media Limited, will retain a 20 percent stake in the new entity while Brock will hold the remaining 80 percent equity balance. The sale was finalized Monday night.

Peter Daou, digital media strategist for Clinton’s 2008 campaign, will serve as the new CEO of True Blue Media.

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5

[riversedge]

88. Jealousy is not a good human trait.

[NWCorona]

8. Lol

[basselope]

13. Yes. It's actually the very definition of it.

[merrily]

20. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "propaganda."

It does not necessarily mean "false." BTW, neither does "meme."

However, it's good to know if a site is run by an employee of Hillary. We know we cannot expect objectivity or evenhandedness, only one side, much as we would expect on her actual campaign site.

[annavictorious]

178. You do realize that Sanders voted against DOMA based on a states' rights argument

and was in favor of the status quo (civil unions; no marriage rights) in his home state of Vermont until 2009.

http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage_us_569fcc4de4b0a7026bf9e06f
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/as-gay-rights-ally-bernie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html?_r=0

[revbones]

41. Ah, so for you propaganda is ok as long as its for your side.

I'll just assume that you have no problem with any propaganda outlets on the right, or with Trump or Cruz having their super-PAC purchase a few.

I'm guessing you'll loudly support their articles as just as valid and truthful as BNR right?

Didn't think so.

[revbones]

51. Explain the difference between what Peter Daou does and what Joseph Goebbels did.

I mean, aside from it being for your side.

[blm]

118. Fer chrissakes, that YOU demand to be told the difference makes your mission here pretty obvious.

Wow - you hate MM and Peter Daou as much as Bill O'Reilly does - maybe more, eh?

And I am glad more of my fellow Sanders supporters are catching on to who the REAL Goebbels are here at DU.

The act is blatant at this point, and wearing thin.

[gollygee]

3. It seems like some sites advocate for Clinton and some sites advocate for Sanders. N/t

[Agschmid]

5. Yup.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Either of which constitches ...

Being propaganda.

[arcane1]

4. Peter Daou is a Clinton employee whose words should be taken as such n/t

[blm]

120. Yes. But he is NOT Joseph Goebbels as this poster is trying to spread here at DU.

Come on, arcane….you used to smell this stuff out.

[arcane1]

122. I never said he was anything close to Joseph Goebbels n/t

[blm]

126. not you….the OP poster.

Seriously.

[merrily]

7. I honestly don't know many political sites that are not propaganda

sites, including DU and Kos, whether by design or not.

Let's face it: America has become more a nation of partisans than of patriots, all the jingoism notwithstanding. I think the distinction of this thread is not partisan v. non-partisan, but paid partisan, such as Brock v. volunteer partisan, like most message board posters.

[revbones]

9. True, but are they actually owned by campaigns or their counterparts? nt

[seaglass]

16. Don't forget about JPR. n/t

[merrily]

23. Didn't. But JPR is not run by anyone on the payroll of the DNC or Bernie of anyone else.

There is difference between a site run by someone on Hillary's payroll that sets out to be a partisan site and a site run by amateurs for the purpose of supporting a candidate.

Moreover, if I link to JPR, it's clear from a quick look that its purpose is to support Sanders. No one tries to pass it off as non-partisan or objective, nor could anyone.

[revbones]

57. A forum site of participating members?

Might as well slam DU then if that's your case.

[seaglass]

22. Lol. Convenient that you didn't name them. n/t

[merrily]

24. Is it, outside your own mind, I mean? I named the two largest, the ones most people here post on

and with which most here are most familiar. I've not exactly kept secret the fact that I am a Bernie supporter or that I post on JPR. I mention it often and use the same name there as I use here. However, there are clear differences between JPR and a site run by someone on the payroll of the DNC or Hillary or some establishment Democrat or Democratic organization. So, playing brand new false equivalency is a fail.

[seaglass]

44. Yes, one of the differences is on DU both Bernie and Hillary supporters can post and promote their

candidate. Unlike JPR. That would make JPR an even better fit for the definition of propaganda.

[merrily]

52. No, they're all propaganda. People risk a ban or hide here if they say they will not vote for

the Democratic nominee up and down the ticket. This is a site to promote establishment Dems, JPR is a site to support Bernie. They are both single purpose propaganda sites. One just has a narrower purpose than the other and a purpose you don't like to boot. So, you pretend its more propaganda than the establishment Dem sites, or you genuinely see it that way because of your bias. Either way...

[seaglass]

93. This is a site to promote Dems. Any Dem who can get enough votes to be the nominee of the party

would be promoted here, even if the nominee was not the owner's preference.

I have no problem with the existence of JPR, nor that it's a site to promote Bernie, why would I? I just objected to you trying to ding DU and DKos and excluding JPR.

[merrily]

97. As I said, this is a site to promote establishment Dems. And I already explained why I excluded JPR.

And again, I was not trying to ding any site, except in your own mind. We've gone full circle, back to your first claim and my first response. Do you want to circle around again, or does it make sense to stop now? I think it makes sense to stop. If you want the last word, you can attribute a bad motive to me for the third time and I won't reply.

[LiberalArkie]

55. Kind of like Bernie supporters can post all the time on hillaryclintonsupporters.com?

[seaglass]

94. Did I say that? The Hillary supporters site is similar to the Bernie supporters site, I don't

have an objection to either. Neither of them allow the breadth of conversation as DU.

[DCBob]

10. I see Bernie supporters posting crap from Fox News.. what is that called??

[merrily]

31. Depends. Is it a video? I once got called out from posting a video from MTP

from a rw site. I had watched the program, searched for the video, grabbed the first link that google gave me and didn't bother even to notice the source, let alone look up whether it was rw or not.

Is it a brief factual piece that Fox may have exclusively or that cannot be found on sites that promote Democrats, like MSNBC?

Did the OP call attention to the fact that it was a rw source?

I don't think there is a blanket, authoritarian rule. I think we can be adults and adapt to different circumstances.

Posting something from a site run by someone on Hillary's payroll without mentioning that is problematic.

[Purveyor]

154. As does some from camp weathervane:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1388748

[oasis]

11. Please choose an impeccable source on which we DUers can all rely.

Thanks in advance.

[FSogol]

12. Anything that agrees with ME is a good source.

[oasis]

21. Lol!

[Octafish]

101. oasis

You've been TOPS with me since whenever.

And I know you support Hillary in the primary.

[blm]

132. Yes - I will defend my fellow compatriots here to the hilt, even when they don't

agree with me on my primary vote. Even you, oasis.

Thank you, Octafish. Glad to hear a sane voice from my side pop into these threads. To paraphrase Twin Peaks, some of those presenting themselves as owls here are not what they seem.

seventhsonitis

[Octafish]

138. Hiya, blm!

I thought you were for Hillary and then thought you were for Bernie and I didn't care because you ALWAYS have been there for Democrats.

That seventhsonitis is something.

[blm]

142. HAH…after leading the charge against HRC here for over 10yrs, how could

anyone think she was getting my primary vote? Heh. I just won't go after her as aggressively as I used to because my focus now is on GOTV and here in NC, which is a very purple state, every vote matters. We are losing too much here via complete GOP control of this state.

I won't discourage ONE vote now if I can help it. We are THAT desperate here in NC.

I also have witnessed a number of trolls here consistently posting from the very sites we have been fighting since back in the MWO days. If us 'elder statesmen/women' don't use our experience to help instead of hurt, this board will lose its usefulness for the Democratic policies we protect and for the progressive cause, altogether.

[oasis]

148. Hi blm

I remember our unity during the Kerry vs. Dean months. Those days at DU seem like a picnic compared to what we have going on now.

We'll reunite our efforts against Trump this fall and thwart off the unrelenting Freeper propaganda thereafter. Meanwhile, keep your mind sharp as always.

[blm]

149. ((oasis/Octafish))

group hug for the old-timers. ; )

[oasis]

143. HI Octafish

You are one of the most respected members of our DU family and I will always appreciate your contribution in making this one of the better sites on the internet. I'm looking forward to uniting with you and many others in the fall to take on the GOP.

[amborin]

14. even the pro HRC DK admits BNR is a HRC progaganda machine:

Blue Nation Review's fake news blitz for Hillary - Daily Kos
www.dailykos.com/.../1/.../-Blue-Nation-Review-fake-news-blit...
Daily Kos
Jan 31, 2016 - It's disheartening that this diary's image, tagged “propaganda” to illustrate Republican 'truthiness', is applicable to the Democratic primary.

[hrmjustin]

15. When i see you and your friends call out your fellow Sanders supporters for using right wing

Propaganda site to attack Hillary I will then take you seriously on this issue.

[Gwhittey]

27. When I was 10 years old

I got caught taking money from my mother. I told her my brother also does it. I still got in trouble. I learned a good lesson then. I am sorry you never where ever given the same lesson, that doing shitty things is bad no matter if everyone else does it.

[revbones]

28. What is the difference between what Pravda and BNR

Or between what Goebbels did and Peter Daou does?

Or is it only okay when your side does it?

[hrmjustin]

54. My site? I don't have a site.

[revbones]

56. Fixed

So you'll pick on a spelling error instead of content. Says a lot.

[hrmjustin]

58. Are you ok with rw material being used here to attack a democratic party candidate?

[revbones]

59. Are you ok with a propaganda site posing as media?

BNR is nothing more than a Pravda style propaganda arm of the Hillary campaign.

It's funny how you try to point out propaganda from right-wing sources, but seem to be ok with it when it's from your side.

[hrmjustin]

61. Are you ok with Sanders sites stuff being posted hrre? I am.

Right wing stuff no.

Telling you are more concerned zbout BNR then rw sites. Really telling.

[revbones]

66. I'm concerned about propaganda. I'm also sad you are not

and are trying to deflect by using such poor tactics as "Whataboutism". But given that is a former Soviet Union tactic, and BNR is a Pravda style "media" outlet, and Peter Daou is a Joseph Goebbels style propagandist, it fits.


Whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[hrmjustin]

69. I take this as I don't care about rw WV sources being used to attack Hillary but how

dare you use a site to puff her up.

Telling.

[revbones]

73. Whataboutism at it's finest.

You have no legitimate argument or response, so you try to point out something unrelated that you think I'm at fault of...

I don't approve of right-wing propaganda and I don't approve of Hillary-propaganda, although the distinction between Hillary and right-wing is often muddled. So I don't feel hypocritical at all. Do you?

[hrmjustin]

75. I don't use BNR and never would so no hypocrisy on my part.

[revbones]

78. Not using it, and berating someone for pointing out that it's propaganda

are different.

If that's your out to justify your responses, and what you need to feel ok/superior or that you didn't lose, then so be it. Unfortunately, it's obvious to any reader...

[hrmjustin]

81. Bnr has been used on this site for a long time. It has been accepted for what it is.

Perfectly good site according to the rules of this site.

Right wing stuff is not allowed on this site.

Yet here you are berating Hillary supporters for using a site that has been used bdfore without issue and you are silent on the crap your side posts that is against the rules.

Scold your own house for the greater sin they commit and then i might take you seriously.

But do post more about whataboutisim if it makes you feel better.

This conversation is at an end.

[merrily]

37. I think I can survive your not taking me seriously, so please see Reply 31.

[hrmjustin]

50. I can live without seeing post 31.

Cheers.

[merrily]

53. Bet you looked it anyway, though. Live long and prosper, hrmjustin.nt

[revbones]

49. When you provide something substantial

that proves Peter Daou is doing something different from Joseph Goebbels or BNR is different from Pravda, then I will take you seriously on this issue.

[blm]

125. Don't include REAL Sanders supporters in that - we know the difference between

legitimate attacks on HRC's positions and the RW propaganda that most of us here at DU have been fighting and countering since this site began.

Not all these types of OP are generated by real Sanders supporters, so it would be nice if you can show some discernment.

[DanTex]

18. "Propaganda site" is the Bernie-or-Bust term for "anything not owned by Rupert Murdoch".

[revbones]

34. No, just those owned by her super-PAC. nt

[DanTex]

38. Well, no, it's actually not. But, hey, why let facts get in the way?

[revbones]

43. Um yes it is nt

[merrily]

40. Bull puckies, but you knew that before you hit "post."

[berni_mccoy]

19. Let's not forget David Brock is a Republican.

[BernieforPres2016]

25. Seriously?

I don't think so. He did some hit pieces on the Clintons and Anita Hill well over 20 years ago for the American Spectator, but by the end of the 1990's he had made up with the Clintons, denounced his former life and converted from a right wing smear merchant into a smear merchant for the Clintons, which he has remained ever since.

[DanTex]

30. Actually, he's a Democrat, not that facts matter much in Hillary-bashing circles.

[revbones]

33. Well, now he is. nt.

[DanTex]

35. Yes. Like Bernie.

[merrily]

45. Seems to be whatever he gets money to be. Used to hit the Clintons from the right, now he works

for the Clintons and hits Bernie from the right.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[DanTex]

48. You mean like Bernie "I joined the party for the cash" Sanders?

[merrily]

60. You made up a quote and falsely attributed it to Sanders to deflect from my post about Brock.

Nothing dishonest about that!

No can defense, Danielsan! You da man!



What Bernie has actually said, though? I don't want to be beholden to the Democrat Party's big donors.

[DanTex]

62. Paraphrased, but true to meaning. You know that as well as I do.

[merrily]

63. Um, no, I don't. That's merely something else you made up to deflect from Brock.

[DanTex]

64. He gave an interview where he said just that. And actually Brock didn't change for money,

he changed because he got disgusted with the right. Bernie, on the other hand, did it purely for convenience.

[merrily]

70. Then you should link to his actual words with context. Brock SAID what he changed for. Why should I

believe his ass? Did you believe him when he slammed the Clintons? The common denominator I see is money, not principle.

Telling me I "know" whatever bs du jour about Sanders you make up and put within quotation marks would insult anyone's intelligence.

[DanTex]

71. I have looked his words in context. He wanted the money.

"Why should I believe his ass" applies to Bernie also BTW...

[merrily]

72. Try for a more intelligible first sentence, please. And when was Bernie a Republican again?

"I have looked his words in context" is not comprehensible. Nor is it a link for that matter.

[DanTex]

74. "I have looked his words in context." Seems like a normal sentence to me.

[merrily]

77. Um, no, it isn't. And it's not a link, either.

[DanTex]

79. How would you fix it to make it more readable then? Is it a grammar thing?

[merrily]

80. If I knew what the hell it was supposed to mean, I could probably fix it. As it is, I don't, or

I would not have asked you to reword. You seem to have left out one or more words is about all I can say. Still not a link, either.

[DanTex]

82. It simply meant that, yes, I have seen the context of the remarks. It's clear what he meant.

He joined the Dems for the money. You know, the cheddar. The benjamins. The mean green.

[merrily]

86. Please stop telling me what I supposedly know and what is supposedly clear to me. Making that kind

of claim is the absolute height of arrogance. Trust me, I know what I know better than you do.

Speaking of arrogance, link or have the decency to slink.

You claim to have seen the context of something you made up, put in quotation marks and attributed to Bernie means less than nothing.

For what, the sixth time now? LINK.

[DanTex]

92. Moolah. Cabbage. High society.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747#ixzz43qTX6i5w

[merrily]

95. Media coverage of his run from shows like MTP. No wonder you didn't want to link.

Media coverage for his Presidential run that he himself had no money to buy is what he said and meant.

Nothing like Brock who sells out to the highest bidder and pockets the money himself.

Talk about distortion and false equivalency. Catapulting the bs.

[DanTex]

96. He had no money, and he had to find some people who did. Cha-ching!

Dude's been slamming the Dems for decades and then decides to run as one. He's a Democrat of convenience. Who knows what he really believes, he said some nutty stuff back in his Liberty Union days....

Brock, on the other hand, actually had a change of views, similar to Elizabeth Warren, another former Republican.

[merrily]

98. Absolutely false and not supported by the story you linked. Neither MTP nor DNC is funding him.

And the people who are funding him would probably have funded him no matter which banner he ran under.

Establishment Democrats fund Hillary.

The distortions are shameful and pointless because, as you know, I'm not buying this baloney and I get it out of my system fast, too, as everyone should. :barf:

[DanTex]

99. You think that the whole Democratic infrastructure costs nothing? LOL.

I guess that explains how you believe Bernie's economic projections.

[merrily]

100. Which whole Democratic infrastructure that the DNC pays for has been supporting Bernie again?

How about the state Democratic parties. WTF have they put at his disposal beside telling his caucusers to go home?


BTW, link to my comments about Bernie's projections please.

(If you stop making up crap, I'll stop asking you for links.)

[DanTex]

102. The one that is running the primaries, the convention, the debates, etc.

The one that, while Bernie was smearing it, was building up databases of voters and has been organizing on the ground for decades. Yeah, he figured out real quick the value of having an actual major political organization once it came to his own ambitions.

OK, so if you understand that Bernie's plans don't add up, why are you supporting him?

[merrily]

105. I've asked you several times to stop making up crap about me.

You can't link to my comments about his projections. So you pretend I said I understood his plans don't add up and don't link to that, either?

Who are you trying to convince or impress with this kind of thing? Me? Seriously, Dude, please tell me you know the Jedi mind trick works only in a film--and only if a Jedi attempts it, and you ain't no Jedi. Not even close.

So he ran as a Democrat because he is getting money by using a Democratic primary system he could have bypassed entirely by running as an Indie and not, as he claims for media coverage from shows like MTP? Boy, you really nailed him on that one!



#Danmakesomuchsense!

[DanTex]

107. The excluded middle. Either you believe his numbers or you don't.

[merrily]

109. Multiple posts that make up stuff, make no sense, only to end by changing the subject again!

Takes a lot of nerve.I'll give you that much. Lacks a sense of shame, but loads of nerve.

[DanTex]

111. Do you believe his economic projections or not?

[merrily]

113. The subject was money and Brock. See my prior post #109. Thanks ever so. nt

[DanTex]

114. LOL! Dodge. You know, if I supported Bernie, I would at least know how I felt about his economic

projections. Do you even care whether his healthcare numbers add up?

[merrily]

116. Not at all. See Reply 109 and the entire subthread, starting around Reply 45, especially 105

where the bs about Bernie running as a Dem for money from the DNC or state parties finally hit the fan--after your multiple dodges along the way--so you tried to change the subject and claim I was the one dodging.




And please do have every bit of the great day your role in this subthread earned you, or have a good day, which would be the opposite of what your role in this subthread earned you. Your choice.

[DanTex]

117. Do you or do you not believe his economic projections? Why so evasive?

[merrily]

127. See Reply 116 I can understand why someone who got owned as badly as you did wants to change the

subject. However, your tactics of fake quotes, refusal to provide links because they don't support your claim, deflecting, changing the subject, etc. smearing, etc. 100% antithetic to honest productive discourse. Obviously, you are not attempting to have honest productive discourse. And I don't have any interest in another round of bs. It's boring and pointless. In fact, I'm trying to think of an occasion when posting with you wasn't like that and I really can't.

/ignore.

[DanTex]

128. You could just say yes or no instead of pointing in circles. Or you could keep dodging...

[annavictorious]

179. Irony alert

that exactly describes Sanders m.o. whenever he needed funding for an election.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

[LanternWaste]

29. You will then provide us with an objective list of approved source materia

You will then provide us with an objective list of approved, non-propaganda source material, and allow us the precise measure from which that objectivity is inferred (as they too simply "have no place in our democracy&quot ?

Or (and I find this a wee bit more likely), someone posted an article from BNR that didn't validate your biases, and you feel compelled to advertise as much to all...?

[revbones]

32. If you feel a "media" site that was purchased by the super-PAC of a campaign

is legitimate, why would anyone even bother providing you information?

[LanternWaste]

84. Every answer is a response, yet not all responses are answers.

Every answer is a response, yet not all responses are answers. Yours was merely a response, and no more relevant to the question that responding with "cabbage."

If you are unable to answer the question posed, or are simply too lazy or mentally undisciplined to do so, simply say as much.

"If you feel a "media" site that was purchased by the super-PAC of a campaign is legitimate..."
What specific absurdity led you that inaccurate inference of my question?

[revbones]

85. Thank you for another "Whataboutism" example

And your comment was about as relevant to the OP as cabbage as well then.

[LanternWaste]

87. You are unable to directly answer the question?

You are then unable to directly answer the question, and believe that clarifying your definition of propaganda is irrelevant to a premise predicated on the definition of propagandize?

[revbones]

91. I don't see it as valid or deserving of anything more than I gave.

You obviously can't provide anything other than "Answer my false question and whataboutism so I can discredit some stuff"

[blm]

121. You GOT IT, LW. These attacks on Peter Daou are now at the level of despicable.

And someone has been charged with spreading these attacks against Pete here.

[artyteacher]

39. seems like DU is often ...

Anti Clinton propaganda.

[merrily]

47. Oh, please with the victim cards. Bernie got called a motherfucker and the jury voted to leave.

[artyteacher]

83. yeah, thats not right...

But it makes me sick to see right wing lies here.

[merrily]

89. And? What Hillary supporters post here about Bernie and his supporters W/O EVEN A RW SOURCE is sick.

I'm tired of all the one sided, self-righteous, holier than thou OPs. Condemn both sides equally or it's just more divisive background static.

[revbones]

151. The problem is that Hillary followers think anything negative is a right wing lie nt

[seabeyond]

65. Why? Because they are Democratic or because they support Clinton? This is a Democratic board.

You get that, right? We do not need to feel shame because we are Democrats here, supporting a Democratic candidate, running in the Democratic primary, to go to the GE to be elected as a Democratic President.

Bullshit....

[revbones]

67. Because they are owned by her super-PAC and pose as legitmate media

So you're ok with propaganda as long as it's your side doing it?

That's some real moral high-ground there...

[seabeyond]

68. I am good with Democratic agenda being discussed on a Democratic board, yes.

[revbones]

76. Unfortunately it's not the "Democratic agenda" as you put it.

It is the agenda of a single candidate, often misleading or blatantly lying about another Democratic candidate.

There's a big difference. If you don't see that, well then perhaps there are other issues at play.

[seabeyond]

110. Of course it is the Democratic perspective. You do not like it so define it as propaganda.

Tough. The are plenty of Democratic sources that position side or the other. Life. Deal.

[revbones]

112. That's a bit ridiculous

Hillary propaganda is not the "Democratic perspective". She's not the nominee and even if she wins it, she doesn't speak for all democrats viewpoints 100%.

No, I'll stick to the actual definitions of propaganda, and BNR is pretty much purely propaganda.

"Life. Deal."

[seabeyond]

115. No it is not a bit ridiculous. When Hayes talks about Sanders, we do not yell... Propaganda,

No one is allowed to listen.

[leftofcool]

90. Tough tooties!

[Tarc]

103. So is RT, but that doesn't stop the Sanders people from citing that

When they find their outrageous-news-of-the-day regarding Libya or Syria or related topics.

[revbones]

104. Whataboutism

Whataboutism was a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world.[1][2] It represents a case of tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[Tarc]

106. And as I said the first time, being a hypocrite is not an admirable trait

You don't get to point out alleged moral failings in others when you yourself are bankrupt in that area.

You will be called out on it and ridiculed, everytime.

[revbones]

108. And I am bankrupt in what area?

That I don't respond to your deflection?

By that definition are you morally bankrupt by avoiding the topic and trying to use "Whataboutism" to deflect?

No, I think the ridicule is both on you and self-created.

[MrWendel]

119. How is...

that any different from The Young Turks or Salon?

[revbones]

129. Oh, I guess I must've missed it when Cenk sold TYT to one of the campaign's super-PACs

When was Salon sold to a super-PAC?

[MrWendel]

133. Are they...

or are they not propaganda? I've noticed you have had a hard time answering what you consider a straight forward site.

[revbones]

152. No, I just see no need to answer irrelvant questions,

regardless of whatever you might think about a lack of an answer.

How do you answer the charges about Clinton being proven as corrupt due to the content of the emails about the timing of the arms deals and donations to the Clinton Foundation by several mid-east countries?

Do you just have a hard time responding to that question? What about her lying to unions about fighting the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, but secretly lobbying for it.

Here's another question: how about her flipping her stance on the bankruptcy bill she previously opposed, after she got donations from banks that would benefit?

No, I'm guessing you'd have a hard time answering those questions, even if you thought they were worthy of your time.

[Lucinda]

123. I have no problem with BNR. I like them poking Cruz and Trump with sharp sticks.

And I'm pretty sure I don't need your permission to post links to a Dem supporting website.
As long as they are posting opinion, or supporting news articles with sources, I'm fine with them.

[revbones]

130. No you don't need my permission

But people should recognize that you are posting from a propaganda site owned by Hillary's super-PAC.

I doubt you'll disclose that information in your posts.

[Lucinda]

134. Odd that someone on a Dem website would call another Dem website "propaganda"

It may not always post your guy in a favorable light, but if it is accurately portrayed, it's still accurate.
Your calling them propaganda, rather than Pro-Hillary, when the majority of their pieces are anti-GOP, says more about you, than you may realize.

[grossproffit]

124. Just like The Young Turks.

[revbones]

131. When did Cenk sell TYT to a super-PAC? nt

[MrWendel]

135. The fact ...

on whether or not they are sold to a super-pac does not make a qualification for shilling for Bernie. But hey pretend they don't.

[Jitter65]

139. That!! We need to keep calling out the hypocrisy but really is tiresome since there is so much. nt

[revbones]

153. There are plenty of sites shilling for Hillary that are not owned by her super-PAC

The Daily Beast is one - granted Chelsea's on the board so that's a mixed bag at best.

Or the Wash Post with the 16 negative Bernie ads in 16 hours. There are plenty of other sites.

Comparing them and BNR doesn't add legitimacy to BNR, it just takes even more away.

[MrWendel]

158. Can you ....

come up with any for Bernie? Or are you pretending they don't exist?

[revbones]

161. How about you refute the OP?

That seems to be your answer for pretty much everything - "What about this..." or "Hey, look over there!". It's a good way to dodge the question and try to put the poster in the position to have to defend something unrelated, but it gets old and tiresome pretty quick.

[MrWendel]

163. I think...

numerous people did, by pointing out that your op is rich with hypocrisy.

[revbones]

164. Can't be more

Than those who call everything negative about Hillary a right-wing smear, or every site linked to that has something negative about her a right-wing propaganda site, but then quote or link to Blue Nation Review as if it was actually anything but a propaganda site.

I'm glad you think numerous people did. I haven't really seen that yet, but you go with your gut.

[MrWendel]

165. If ...

they uses they smears from a right wing website to back up an argument what would you call it?

[revbones]

166. I haven't seen that

But I have seen a LOT of her supporters screaming "right wing smear" whenever anything negative comes up about her.

[MrWendel]

169. And that...

right there is why I point out the hypocrisy, or "WHATABOUTISM" that is your go to crutch on this subject. Your willfully pretending it doesn't exist or its not in front of you. Here I'll help you out...

This was linked to the Observer.com (Trumps son-in-law)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511573701

But let's pretend you don't see this link.

[revbones]

170. That's a bit weird to argue that

In a thread talking about one thing, and you deflect by pointing to something else. And now double down on it saying I pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm sure it does somewhere, but you guys scream "right wing smear" so much about anything and everything, that I have yet to really see a legit one. So if the one you provided is legit, is that like 1 in 549,234? Are you using that exception to prove the rule?

Again, you're pretty much still doing the definition of "Whataboutism" here as well though.

[MrWendel]

172. Then why are you practacing...

"Headupassism"? No need to answer, your responses have more than proven my point.

[revbones]

173. Very mature. That's definitely a post you should be proud of.

I almost posted the sarcasm gif, but given what you've been posting I think the title of my reply is more true than that might indicate.

[MrWendel]

174. Sooo....

I see your not denying it then? I do remember a post previously where your were making accusations of... deflection? Like when someone shows you an example to contradict your point that no Bernie shilling sites exist?

And I am very proud of all of my posts. Thank you.

[revbones]

175. Denying what? Your little dig using an 'ism? Wasn't worthy of one.

No, I'm not pointing over somewhere, I'm just saying I chose not to comment on your childish retort. If you think that's the same, then you've got bigger problems.

[MrWendel]

176. I've noticed...

that you like using "ISM" as a crutch which is a problem in itself. Let me define "Headupassism" or "Lifvinginbubbleitis" as seeing contradictory evidence to a view and pretending it doesn't exist because its damaging to one's world view. I'm sorry if I hurt your feeling but not really. You created a whole OP on a hypocritical premise when you refused to acknowledge the idea that a pro site is neither rare or one-sided.

Anyway. No point in arguing this anymore if you're going to lash out on a point that was destroyed by many people on here.

[revbones]

181. Lol.

Sure, if that's what you need to take from all this, that the point was refuted.




Good one.

[workinclasszero]

136. But H A Goodman is a truthful source huh?

[revbones]

137. Whataboutism at its finest (and intellectualism)

Typical Hillary follower response.

You have nothing to dispute the actual facts in the OP, so you point over at something else completely different.

[MrWendel]

141. Whataboutism...

or examples that prove hypocrisy? But hang on to that catchphrase like your life depends on it.

[revbones]

145. You guys seem to use it so much

I thought you'd like to know the name of that tactic...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[MrWendel]

159. No...

its a crutch/blunt instrument for you to use. You're in general saying that shills only are super PACs and since Bernie "supposedly" doesn't use super PACs there for its only one sided. It's cute but you're not fooling anyone.

[revbones]

160. No.

I even mentioned biased organizations. I think it's quite another thing to purchase your own "media" outlet and for her followers to quote propaganda from there like it had any value whatsoever.

The hypocrisy is astounding though. Hillary followers will say anything negative about her is either a right-wing smear or try to discredit the source as right-wing. Someone points out the fact that she has her own propaganda outlet and her followers lose their minds.

[workinclasszero]

144. The hypocrisy from some Bernie fans

on DU is really amazing.

[revbones]

146. Nice.

How do you think it's hypocritical to call out a propaganda site? Since Bernie doesn't have a super-PAC, there isn't even one to own a so-called "media" outlet like BNR.

[workinclasszero]

147. I've seen right wing hate sites used by bernie fans

for month's on DU.

And now some have the unmitigated gall to call out Hillary supporters?

This place is drowning in right wing filth and its not coming from the Hillary side!

[revbones]

150. That's laughable.

Allow me to paraphrase your comment:

"I've seen someone else do something I don't like and now some have the unmitigated gall to call out Hillary supporters"

I think that could be shortened to "It's ok when we do it." Does that about sum up your opinion there?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

140. In other news: The pope admits to being Catholic.

[Art_from_Ark]

167. ...and bears admit to spreading dung in the woods

[revbones]

171. Lol.

it is obvious to some, but others might actually fall prey to thinking something linked from Blue Nation Review or Peter Daou was legit.

[Bill USA]

155. "propaganda"? Can you back up that accusation. where has that site misrepresented any facts? Or

don't Bernie supporters regard facts as important?

Waiting for documentation of misrepresentation of fact/s by Blue Nation Review. YOu have an opinion about who you support, is it considered blasphemy to be in favor of someone other than Bernie for the Democratic nominee for President?

again, Bernie supporters indistinguishable from Rabid Right Disinformation artists...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511562196

[revbones]

156. Other than what I posted, I don't feel your question warrants further information.

Blanket statements about Bernie supporters can just as easily be applied to Hillary followers, although Hillary followers tend to live in a state of denial and believe everything is a right-wing smear of some sort...

[Bill USA]

157. in other words you can't back up your statement that BNR traffics in propaganda

So, how should we classify your remark.. as Bullshit?

[revbones]

162. Or, I just don't really feel you're worth it.

I put what I put out there. You can either refute it or make pointless comments but it doesn't change the OP, it doesn't change that she has a propaganda outlet, it doesn't change that it's owned by her super-PAC ran by admitted liar David Brock or anything else.

It's unfortunate that all you have in response is more "Well, answer me this about something else" rather than own up to the facts.

[Bill USA]

177. YOU have made an empty charge. It is up to you to prove it. To do this you have to show

instances where the site in question has slanted the truth or distorted the issue or incident being discussed by this site.


IT is up to you to prove your accusation. Otherwise, why would anyone be criticized for thinking you are bullshitting us.

Got anything to back up your charge??? Come-on, give it a try smart guy..



[font size="3"] YOu say "own up to the facts"[/font][font size="+1"] ... WHAT FACTS?? ENUMERATE THEM FOR US! ... LOL!

... pulleease show us you DO know what you are talking about.LOL


Come on, SURPRISE ME![/font]

[revbones]

180. I'm not sure why you're yelling so much.

I'm not in control of whether you thinking I'm "bullshitting" you or not. Enough people can easily see that Blue Nation Review is just a propaganda outlet now and has no other value. The fact that it's owned by her super-PAC should be shady enough without going further into details, but if you like your media 1984-style, feel free to keep using the site. Just know that when you quote the propaganda from there, that most people are going to see right through it.

It's obviously true enough to get you riled up and typing with your fists or something.

[Bill USA]

182. as I said. you made the charge. it's up to you to prove it. You cannot back up you charge so

nobody could be criticized for considering you a bullshitter.


IF you can prove your charge do so. IF not you have shown you are bullshitting us.

[revbones]

183. Believe what you want.

Your mistake is assuming that I somehow have to answer to you.

[revbones]

185. Sierra Blanca is an example where they helped peddle lies and half truths

All part and parcel of David Brock's tactics, now with henchman Peter Daou feverishly writing propaganda.

[revbones]

168. Anyone doubting the veracity of the claim can just look at the home page of BNR

and easily see it for what it truly is...

[revbones]

184. Some additional links about the propaganda and lies of Blue Nation Review

One example was the peddling of the 'Sierra Blanca Bill' myth which didn't actually exist. BNR pushed this myth and was quoted quite a lot. There was actually a 35 state low level radioactive disposal compact of which Vermont reserved 20%. Sierra Blanca was the 4th site surveyed, it was protested by anti-nuclear groups, and ultimately rejected.

Here are some relevant links with articles about the propaganda arm of the Hillary campaign, owned by one of her super-PACs ran by admitted liar David Brock, Blue Nation Review, and completely amateur looking propaganda site quoted by her followers regularly, generally spouting attack articles with half-truths written by Peter Daou.


Hillary Clinton’s Hit Men Target Bernie Sanders at Blue Nation Review http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/07/hillary-clinton-s-hit-men-target-bernie-sanders-at-blue-nation-review.html

Blue Nation Review's fake news blitz for Hillary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/31/1477890/-Blue-Nation-Review-fake-news-blitz

Hitler had a Propaganda Machine, and So Does Clinton : Blue Nation Review, The Onion, The Daily Beast https://pivotamerica.com/hillary-clintons-propaganda-machine-thedailybeast-bluenationrev-theonion/

[Exposed] Hillary caught in illegal media deal? https://thehornnews.com/10535-2/

What is a Blue Nation Review: https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/692248337588850690

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-best-things-are-most-difficult-to.html