Fran: "Amy Goodman, bought Russia-gate, hook line and sinker, as they say, and now she has lost a significant part of her journalistic credentials and no doubt her base" Perhaps for you but not for me and any independent no-partisan consumer of news. Could you please reply telling me one date or a particular report where democracynow.org…
Fran: "Amy Goodman, bought Russia-gate, hook line and sinker, as they say, and now she has lost a significant part of her journalistic credentials and no doubt her base" Perhaps for you but not for me and any independent no-partisan consumer of news. Could you please reply telling me one date or a particular report where democracynow.org bought the Russia-gate so that I can search their archives, and I promise in turn, to reply with the results of that search? Perhaps everything depends on your particular definition of Buying.
Mate worked there and notes the pull of Russiagate even at DM. Nor were they alone. The Intercept was similarly enchanted with the russiagate story. In fact, except for Mate, Greenwald and Taibbi (and a few of their friends like Halper) everyone bought into the BS.
Thank you for the link, Norbert. What I see there is that Amy is reporting the facts, like any good journalist should do, informing us of what the congress had concluded about Russia-gate but in no place she is affirming that Russia-gate was true. And this is what I consider professional journalism.
What DN did was fail to put any Russiagate skeptics on her show, but had many enthusiasts as guests. The people that failed to appear had been long standing fixtures of the show. Now gone. Including people like Stephen Cohen. Mate himself, a critic of Russiagate and former staffer of DN was also not interviewed. There are others as well. So what DN did was advertise one perspective on the affair and avoided another more skeptical view. Is this misreporting? I believe it is, but you may not. What ended up being sympathetically reported was one side of a story, and, imo, the wrong side as we discovered. No mention of the Steele dossier being funded by Hilary, no mention that most of the Putin scares proved false, etc. So was DN pro Russiagate? Dunno. But it certainly did little to question the narrative despite considerable grounds for skepticism.
Norbert, we all have our own ways to evaluate the news. I didn't see one-sided the report on the Russian gate by Masha Gessen broadcasted at democracynow.org on 02/23/18 nor on DN interview with Katrina Vanden Heuvel when on 12/08/21 Katrina said "...that we need to sort out a relationship with Russia, that China is the great challenge in the next century, if not beyond. And those demand a full, robust debate, which you do have on Democracy Now! But the one-sided coverage — and it’s not even commentary — in the U.S. media about U.S.-Russia is, I think, debilitating and dangerous for our security and thinking."
The reason why I respect and believe Amy is that there are very few reporters that can speak truth to the powerful like in the occasion that president Bill Clinton called her on election day 2000 in an attempt to get out the vote for Hillary for senator and what he got from Amy was a barrage of the necessary questions a good journalist has to ask. I'm transcribing the dialog that you can check on DN broadcast of 12/25/21 when they were celebrating their 25th. anniversary:
AMY GOODMAN: Can I say what some people —
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me just finish.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just say —
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me — now, wait a minute. You started this, and every question you’ve asked has been hostile and combative. So you listen to my answer, will you do that?
AMY GOODMAN: They’ve been critical questions.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Now, you just listen to me. You ask the questions, and I’m going to answer. You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone, but I — and you have never been able to combat the facts I have given you. Now, you listen to this.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Clinton in a surprise call to WBAI on Election Day 2000. The White House would later call me and say they were thinking of banning me from the White House. I said, “But he called me. I didn’t call him.”
She turned me off too, and I know others who were turned off as well. Aaron Mate, and Blumenthal have called her out on this issue. Look it up. Many on the left lost their journalistic perspective, and integrity. Greenwald had to leave the group he started, The Intercept, a left wing site because they wouldn't permit him to publish an article on Hunter's laptop less it lowered Biden's chances of a win in 2020. Why do you think Substack has become such a hit?
OK, but my question was directed to you and not to Mate or Blumenthal. Have you ever watched Ami's program, and therefore, have an authentic reason to libel her? I'm still waiting for your answer.
Watch your tone, and how dare you call my opinion libelous. I am not libeling her, and as far as I know I can express my opinion on substack. I was once a big fan of hers, loved her, listened to Democracy Now all the time, and saw her a few times in person. Then she turned, and I turned away. The reason was already provided by myself and confirmed by someone else.
Fran: "Amy Goodman, bought Russia-gate, hook line and sinker, as they say, and now she has lost a significant part of her journalistic credentials and no doubt her base" Perhaps for you but not for me and any independent no-partisan consumer of news. Could you please reply telling me one date or a particular report where democracynow.org bought the Russia-gate so that I can search their archives, and I promise in turn, to reply with the results of that search? Perhaps everything depends on your particular definition of Buying.
See here: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1154791948764504065?lang=en and here: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1486088112778268675?lang=en.
Mate worked there and notes the pull of Russiagate even at DM. Nor were they alone. The Intercept was similarly enchanted with the russiagate story. In fact, except for Mate, Greenwald and Taibbi (and a few of their friends like Halper) everyone bought into the BS.
Thank you for the link, Norbert. What I see there is that Amy is reporting the facts, like any good journalist should do, informing us of what the congress had concluded about Russia-gate but in no place she is affirming that Russia-gate was true. And this is what I consider professional journalism.
What DN did was fail to put any Russiagate skeptics on her show, but had many enthusiasts as guests. The people that failed to appear had been long standing fixtures of the show. Now gone. Including people like Stephen Cohen. Mate himself, a critic of Russiagate and former staffer of DN was also not interviewed. There are others as well. So what DN did was advertise one perspective on the affair and avoided another more skeptical view. Is this misreporting? I believe it is, but you may not. What ended up being sympathetically reported was one side of a story, and, imo, the wrong side as we discovered. No mention of the Steele dossier being funded by Hilary, no mention that most of the Putin scares proved false, etc. So was DN pro Russiagate? Dunno. But it certainly did little to question the narrative despite considerable grounds for skepticism.
Norbert, we all have our own ways to evaluate the news. I didn't see one-sided the report on the Russian gate by Masha Gessen broadcasted at democracynow.org on 02/23/18 nor on DN interview with Katrina Vanden Heuvel when on 12/08/21 Katrina said "...that we need to sort out a relationship with Russia, that China is the great challenge in the next century, if not beyond. And those demand a full, robust debate, which you do have on Democracy Now! But the one-sided coverage — and it’s not even commentary — in the U.S. media about U.S.-Russia is, I think, debilitating and dangerous for our security and thinking."
The reason why I respect and believe Amy is that there are very few reporters that can speak truth to the powerful like in the occasion that president Bill Clinton called her on election day 2000 in an attempt to get out the vote for Hillary for senator and what he got from Amy was a barrage of the necessary questions a good journalist has to ask. I'm transcribing the dialog that you can check on DN broadcast of 12/25/21 when they were celebrating their 25th. anniversary:
AMY GOODMAN: Can I say what some people —
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me just finish.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just say —
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me — now, wait a minute. You started this, and every question you’ve asked has been hostile and combative. So you listen to my answer, will you do that?
AMY GOODMAN: They’ve been critical questions.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Now, you just listen to me. You ask the questions, and I’m going to answer. You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone, but I — and you have never been able to combat the facts I have given you. Now, you listen to this.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Clinton in a surprise call to WBAI on Election Day 2000. The White House would later call me and say they were thinking of banning me from the White House. I said, “But he called me. I didn’t call him.”
I'm not on Twitter, so thanks for links.
She turned me off too, and I know others who were turned off as well. Aaron Mate, and Blumenthal have called her out on this issue. Look it up. Many on the left lost their journalistic perspective, and integrity. Greenwald had to leave the group he started, The Intercept, a left wing site because they wouldn't permit him to publish an article on Hunter's laptop less it lowered Biden's chances of a win in 2020. Why do you think Substack has become such a hit?
OK, but my question was directed to you and not to Mate or Blumenthal. Have you ever watched Ami's program, and therefore, have an authentic reason to libel her? I'm still waiting for your answer.
Watch your tone, and how dare you call my opinion libelous. I am not libeling her, and as far as I know I can express my opinion on substack. I was once a big fan of hers, loved her, listened to Democracy Now all the time, and saw her a few times in person. Then she turned, and I turned away. The reason was already provided by myself and confirmed by someone else.
Disregard my tone, it is insignificant. But don't elude my question. Still waiting.