Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Anyone willing to post a cite from "Russia Today" should read this... [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)72. Ridicule is for being on Fox, regularly, and not just as the subject of an interview.
Either way, ridiculous. The question is, which is more ridiculous? How would you answer that, BtA?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
185 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
$300 mil. doesn't cover the budget of a single U.S. State Dept "public diplomacy" program
leveymg
Dec 2015
#40
No, just pointing out that the USG is also in the business of spreading lies. Our lies cost more
leveymg
Dec 2015
#120
Well, I'm assuming the NYTimes has similarly high "standards" for their content...
MattSh
Dec 2015
#180
And there is the several RT hosts who quit in disgust at the lies they were asked to peddle
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#51
A. you are my hero today. B. can you BELIEVE you have to have this conversation
randys1
Dec 2015
#103
It is ridiculous that I have to have this conversation, but Orwell summed it up nicely in his notes
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#117
See #44 above and again, without breaking a sweat, there are hundreds more. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#45
I have a friend who is a journalist who would join you in this thread and DEMOLISH these
randys1
Dec 2015
#104
Where did you get those statistics, Steve? FoxNews? 97-99% of MSM reporting "Completely accurate"?
leveymg
Dec 2015
#43
Since you support Bernie and Bernie appears on Fox, I guess you will be endorsing Hillary.
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#46
But, he isn't paid by Fox, is he? You would know the answer to that, wouldn't you, Steven.
leveymg
Dec 2015
#52
Neither am I, Bernie and I are both guests when we appear. So again, anything you say against me
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#54
You appear on Fox for free! Just for the sake of "fair and balanced", I suppose?
leveymg
Dec 2015
#57
That was an interesting "damned if you, damned if you don't" exchange.
Behind the Aegis
Dec 2015
#68
Ridicule is for being on Fox, regularly, and not just as the subject of an interview.
leveymg
Dec 2015
#72
What don't you believe, that he's on the NewsCorp Masthead as a "Fox News Insider"?
leveymg
Dec 2015
#75
You get put on "Fox News insider" if a segment is considered a good one. The "Insider"
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#76
Yep. And he supports someone who goes on Fox for President. As I said in my last comment below
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#91
The folks who criticize me for appearing on Fox always have this kind of pretzel logic in their
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#83
Fox is blocked by me on my TV so I have never seen you. The first thing that came up when
randys1
Dec 2015
#106
Of course, I forgot. Bernie Sanders is on the masthead of Fox News as a Contributor. Just like you.
leveymg
Dec 2015
#71
Except I'm not a contributor.Contributor is a specific term in television that means a paid employee
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#77
You should be ashamed. DU has always been about logic, knowledge and sources. You are on the wrong
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#85
You support someone who goes on there for President. You have nothing to say to me. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#90
Bernie is a politician who speaks to all. What is your purpose that you think you are so important?
ViseGrip
Dec 2015
#105
Surely you must have watched him when he is on Fox? To make that kind of statement?
randys1
Dec 2015
#108
A guy has to make a living. If they paid me to talk to them, I would, I wouldnt watch it
randys1
Dec 2015
#116
You should have been here when Hannah Bell and her various incarnations were
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#156
See my #23 above. Care to take me up on that 100 articles at random test? nt
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#24
You've probably got one of the folks upthread on ignore. Here is the upshot...
stevenleser
Dec 2015
#88
NO, dont say thank you, please, seriously. It makes me mad as hell Thom is on there
randys1
Dec 2015
#111
Not true at all. If it is then I'm sure you can provide examples of how he "sold out" and
cui bono
Dec 2015
#168
That's the equivilant of saying anyone citing CBC or BBC should question everything from the source
tech3149
Dec 2015
#9
I avoid RT like the plague. But U.S. news sources are no better. Tell me...
ChisolmTrailDem
Dec 2015
#11
Please explain what you see as 'shady' about Russia's, RT's and RT's readers' 'agenda(s)'?
Ghost Dog
Dec 2015
#26
Agreed. It is like reading our State Department news releases or White House releases.
pampango
Dec 2015
#47
So RT, which "is watched now by over 50 million US households" is now propaganda?
zappaman
Dec 2015
#38
'Freeview' is a digital terrestial broadcast system, free to everyone
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2015
#98
You would not pay any attention to Putin's annual parliamentary address & Q&A?
Ghost Dog
Dec 2015
#66
I quite trusting RT when they posted all those lies about WMDs in Iraq
TheSarcastinator
Dec 2015
#79
It is really simple, even though it might not win any friends...RT is owned by a dictator
Rex
Dec 2015
#114
I guess that means that the quake in South America was a lie then. Happy to find that out.
LiberalArkie
Dec 2015
#127