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.
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 тАФ and itтАЩs not even commentary тАФ 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 тАФ
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me just finish.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just say тАФ
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me тАФ now, wait a minute. You started this, and every question youтАЩve asked has been hostile and combative. So you listen to my answer, will you do that?
AMY GOODMAN: TheyтАЩve been critical questions.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Now, you just listen to me. You ask the questions, and IтАЩm going to answer. You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone, but I тАФ 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, тАЬBut he called me. I didnтАЩt call him.тАЭ
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 тАФ and itтАЩs not even commentary тАФ 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 тАФ
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me just finish.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just say тАФ
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me тАФ now, wait a minute. You started this, and every question youтАЩve asked has been hostile and combative. So you listen to my answer, will you do that?
AMY GOODMAN: TheyтАЩve been critical questions.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Now, you just listen to me. You ask the questions, and IтАЩm going to answer. You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone, but I тАФ 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, тАЬBut he called me. I didnтАЩt call him.тАЭ