5 ms·

Which of those people are investigative journalists? The names I know from the list are just writers of opinion pieces, even if they used to actually do their o

by smt88 4y ago

Which of those people are investigative journalists? The names I know from the list are just writers of opinion pieces, even if they used to actually do their own investigative work. They wouldn't be a source on, for example, what is happening in Ukraine at the moment (which is the kind of thing I consider "news" rather than commentary).

keewee7 4y ago
>They wouldn't be a source on, for example, what is happening in Ukraine at the moment Unfortunately they pretend they are. Half of them make a living being contrarians so for the past few months they have been spewing pro-Russian lies and propaganda.
drewcoo 4y ago
I'm not going to read these for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges You can look up the others if you like. People like Jimmy Dore don't claim to be investigative journalists, fwiw. Then again, most "news" is fed to us by pretty actors, talking heads, and not active investigative journalists (who should not be judged on prime-time attractiveness). "What's happening in Ukraine" that most people are worried about is actually the geopolitical machinations that might lead to WWIII. The situation is so messed up that Chomsky and Kissinger are both publicly advising everyone to seek peace! When did you ever think you'd see those two on the same side of anything?
- keewee7 4y ago
  >The situation is so messed up that Chomsky and Kissinger are both publicly advising everyone to seek peace! When did you ever think you'd see those two on the same side of anything? Kissinger was a hawkish warmonger in the 60s and 70s. But since 1982 he has been a lobbyist and his lobbying firm, Kissinger Associates, is currently owned by the U.S.-Russia Business Council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates As for Chomsky, he will compulsively oppose whatever the West does. Is he still opposed to the Western interventions against genocidal Serbian forces in the 90s?
- robonerd 4y ago
  When America accuses some nominally left-wing tyrant of crimes against humanity, Chomsky sees fit to proclaim their innocence for no better reason than because it's the opposite of what America is saying. He's even gone as far as proclaiming Pol Pot a victim of American propaganda. Chomsky and Kissinger are both relics of the 20th century and I hope to soon drink to their demise (assuming they even can die, did these guys make pacts with devils or something?)
user3939382 4y ago
> They wouldn't be a source on, for example, what is happening in Ukraine at the moment Alexander Mercouris has posted blow-by-blow updates on every battle and political move of the war once or twice a day for months. He called, for example, the Russian capture of Mariupol a month before it happened, while the entire time corporate media was running non-stop propaganda about how well the war was going for Ukraine.
- smt88 4y ago
  "Corporate media" never said Ukraine was winning in Mariupol. It was always given as a counterpoint. Sometimes I think people understand the mainstream narrative only through the lens of the contrarians, which is sometimes accurate and sometimes not.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > He called, for example, the Russian capture of Mariupol a month before it happened, while the entire time corporate media was running non-stop propaganda about how well the war was going for Ukraine. This claim conflates the overall war with Mariupol. I didn't see any serious media that claimed that Mariupol would end other than it did. Everyone called it the same way, that I saw (though I don't read opinion pieces). Many opinion writers create strawpersons; they say 'the corporate media did X' and then contrast themselves with it. When that happens look at some mainstream media (which is not one thing, but many, many independent publications) yourself and corroborate it. It's almost always false, IME.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  If the war was going poorly for Ukraine, then it would be over and Russia would have won. If the war was going so-so for Ukraine, half the country would be under Russian control. IMO as long as Ukraine doesn't lost any substantive amount of territory over the summer and stalemates the Donbas/etc, they are winning the war and Russia will falter in the winter. IMO strategically Ukraine is winning the war, they are getting better weapons, gaining experience, getting supplies, Putin is weakening, the World will adapt to the economic disruption, and Russian troop morale will continue to falter. The West obviously loves Ukraine draining Putin of all his might. The risk of nuclear war is still ominous.

by smt88 4y ago

keewee7 4y ago

>They wouldn't be a source on, for example, what is happening in Ukraine at the moment Unfortunately they pretend they are. Half of them make a living being contrarians so for the past few months they have been spewing pro-Russian lies and propaganda.

drewcoo 4y ago

I'm not going to read these for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges You can look up the others if you like. People like Jimmy Dore don't claim to be investigative journalists, fwiw. Then again, most "news" is fed to us by pretty actors, talking heads, and not active investigative journalists (who should not be judged on prime-time attractiveness). "What's happening in Ukraine" that most people are worried about is actually the geopolitical machinations that might lead to WWIII. The situation is so messed up that Chomsky and Kissinger are both publicly advising everyone to seek peace! When did you ever think you'd see those two on the same side of anything?

keewee7 4y ago
>The situation is so messed up that Chomsky and Kissinger are both publicly advising everyone to seek peace! When did you ever think you'd see those two on the same side of anything? Kissinger was a hawkish warmonger in the 60s and 70s. But since 1982 he has been a lobbyist and his lobbying firm, Kissinger Associates, is currently owned by the U.S.-Russia Business Council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_Associates As for Chomsky, he will compulsively oppose whatever the West does. Is he still opposed to the Western interventions against genocidal Serbian forces in the 90s?
robonerd 4y ago
When America accuses some nominally left-wing tyrant of crimes against humanity, Chomsky sees fit to proclaim their innocence for no better reason than because it's the opposite of what America is saying. He's even gone as far as proclaiming Pol Pot a victim of American propaganda. Chomsky and Kissinger are both relics of the 20th century and I hope to soon drink to their demise (assuming they even can die, did these guys make pacts with devils or something?)

user3939382 4y ago

> They wouldn't be a source on, for example, what is happening in Ukraine at the moment Alexander Mercouris has posted blow-by-blow updates on every battle and political move of the war once or twice a day for months. He called, for example, the Russian capture of Mariupol a month before it happened, while the entire time corporate media was running non-stop propaganda about how well the war was going for Ukraine.

smt88 4y ago
"Corporate media" never said Ukraine was winning in Mariupol. It was always given as a counterpoint. Sometimes I think people understand the mainstream narrative only through the lens of the contrarians, which is sometimes accurate and sometimes not.
wolverine876 4y ago
> He called, for example, the Russian capture of Mariupol a month before it happened, while the entire time corporate media was running non-stop propaganda about how well the war was going for Ukraine. This claim conflates the overall war with Mariupol. I didn't see any serious media that claimed that Mariupol would end other than it did. Everyone called it the same way, that I saw (though I don't read opinion pieces). Many opinion writers create strawpersons; they say 'the corporate media did X' and then contrast themselves with it. When that happens look at some mainstream media (which is not one thing, but many, many independent publications) yourself and corroborate it. It's almost always false, IME.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
If the war was going poorly for Ukraine, then it would be over and Russia would have won. If the war was going so-so for Ukraine, half the country would be under Russian control. IMO as long as Ukraine doesn't lost any substantive amount of territory over the summer and stalemates the Donbas/etc, they are winning the war and Russia will falter in the winter. IMO strategically Ukraine is winning the war, they are getting better weapons, gaining experience, getting supplies, Putin is weakening, the World will adapt to the economic disruption, and Russian troop morale will continue to falter. The West obviously loves Ukraine draining Putin of all his might. The risk of nuclear war is still ominous.