Here's how you can show Hartman is not influenced by RT

[BainsBane]

I've been struck by the urge to convince members that Hartman's association with RT has no influence.

Since I don't listen to the show, I can't speak to it directly myself, but those of you are fans should be able to provide some links proving Hartman's critics wrong. Give us links to shows where he was critical of Putin and the Kremlin's intervention in the US election. Show us some of his coverage on the financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump associates. Given the importance of Russia in US politics since the fall election, surely Hartman has covered the topic extensively.

While treatises claiming money has absolutely no influence on the media are touching, they don't really get to the heart of the matter. Show us the coverage. It's that simple.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. When the truth comes out about who is who, it will be shocking, but too late.

That is if dumbshit doesnt get us all killed first.

[Bladewire]

2. Ditto

All you have to do is follow the RT trail, it's been 7 years in the making.

Regular American contributers to RT: Infowars/Alex jones, Rand Paul, Michael Flynn, Jill Stein the list goes on. A on Russia's payroll, and all RT content they are a part of is anti American.

Don't take my word for it, search YouTube by their name followed by RT

[pnwmom]

3. That's not the only issue. The other is that his presence there legitimates the propaganda station,

and draws viewers in. After they watch him, what do they watch next?

[BainsBane]

4. True

I hadn't thought of that. One person who issisted that Hartman couldn't possibly be influenced by money from RT also insists there is " no evidence" of Russian intervention in the election. So it seems to me that for some there is an agenda at work apart from fan clubbing.

[brush]

57. Hartman being on RT makes one question his judgment

I've heard the argument that he had complete editorial control but just him being on Putin's network gives it credibility, insinuates that maybe Putin and Russia aren't so bad (even though Putin has had how many people killed in the last year, how many anti-Hillary bots did he pay on social media to help trump, how much info did the Russians steal from the DNC and funnel to Wikileaks to further damage Hillary, and on and on to help trump steal the presidency?).

Do progressive media people really need to help this guy by lending their name to his network?

It's subtle infiltration of our airwaves, no Russia talking points need be spoken by the show hosts, just the fact that a certain show is on the network works for Putin (if Hartman is on RT, it and the Russians can't be that bad, right?).

BS, they've been our adversary/enemy since cold war days, and still are. Just because trump won't utter a single word of criticism of them doesn't mean we all fall for the Russian entrenchment that's getting it's tentacles into our media space. They just acquired a station in DC. They've got trump eating out of their hand, even giving them intel in the oval office. They want those sanctions lifted for access to the trillions that will bring and since trump can't lift the sanctions they deploy plan B — the Russians are out friends, they're on our airwaves, they have well known progressive hosts on their networks. Our president loves them. What's the problem?

Just disregard the ever increasing body count of Russians connected to campaign shenanigans who apparently had info that Putin didn't want available to Mueller.

[burrowowl]

5. I listen to his show

and as always it is educational, his guests like Bernie, Representative Pocan, etc. prove that he has not changed from since before RT.
I wonder about the attacks on Sen. Sanders and Thom on DU?

[Gabi Hayes]

6. Cmon

Bernie s a commie!

So's Michael Moore

So's Hillary and her husband

They've all been accused by the pubs

That makes it true, right?

Love it or leave it

[BainsBane]

11. The love it or leave it is exactly what we are seeing

If one points about factual errors in something attributed to Hartman you are un-progressive, even harbor latent disloyalties to Bernie. It's all about power and political tribalism. The sole purpose of citizens is to promote men of wealth and power. Dare to criticize or fact check our rich guy, and you're the enemy.


We sure to see a lot of efforts to distract from a very simple request. Surely it can't be so difficult to point to an example of Hartman covering the central news development since the election? And if he really hasn't covered that story at all, be sure to avoid thinking about that. Instead attack as disloyal those who dare to ask questions.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. "Live it, or live WITH it!"

http://firesigntheatre.com/media/media.php?item=wc-rv

[BainsBane]

15. Okay, I take that as acknowledgement

that you have no intention of contributing anything of substance.

[emulatorloo]

29. Keep your day job. No offense but your comedy act is lame as hell

Really did not care for your "joke" that implied Bernie was the same as Putin. That goes against everything Bernie stands for.

[BainsBane]

8. The news has changed though

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2017, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Why shouldn't Hartman's content reflect that?

Perhaps I misread your wondering as about me, and if it doesn't pertain to you please disregard. I'll direct the comments toward anyone who believes members should display loyalty to Hartman, Bernie, or any other media figure or politician.

I don't share the priority on men of wealth and power. So mark me down as a heretic. Wonder away. Frankly, I find the entire ethos deeply deeply disturbing, far too authoritarian for my liking.

And of course another effort at distraction. From your response it looks like Hartman has not covered THE central news story since the election. Since you can't show that he has, you resort to innuendo of disloyalty. So, let me dispel all doubt. I am disloyal. I will never put the wealth and power of politicians and wealthy infotainers above anything, including democracy and the citizenry. In fact, I see the entire world view that elevates them above the many as the antithesis of equality. I don't buy for a second that there is anything progressive or leftist about such a posture. I am more than happy to be "wondered about" or declared the enemy by those committed to enforcing hierarchy and reverence toward a few.

[JCinNYC]

24. amen!

When did demands for absolute reverance become a litmus test on the left
Especially for the likes of the two figurheads referenced

But but but.....we must hold our own reps feet to the fire and be allowed to criticise at will even its about hearsay or inaccurate information. Never mind outright speculation

But those two can never have anything less than saintly gospel spoken about them
Less their sycophants start "wonderin' about you"
F that

[emulatorloo]

31. Hartmann's apparently left RT. Good for him. Being associated w Putin Today was bad for

his credibility. He's a good egg, but RT's a pretty damaged brand. He's too good to be associated w that channel.

Bernie's a strong tough guy, he's able to handle a little criticism now and again. He's got a good heart but sometimes he says some dumb stuff. Similar to Biden he makes gaffes.

[phylny]

59. As do I. n/t

[JI7]

7. even worse is putting out misinformation

those other threads defending Putin/Russia claim things that didn't happen. like reagan promised something about nato when reagan wasn't even president during the year being discussed.

here is the thing, Russians who have left the country don't like putin.the people in the country itself are being oppressed. you aren't defending the larger russian population by defending putin's government. look at what is happening to gays in the Putin backed govt in chechnya .

look at what people like garry kasparov and pussy riot have to say.

with Trump and all the shit he is doing i would think people would get it. i love it when foreigners go after Trump. i tell them if they love the US they would NOT support trump. he does not represent most of us.

so we should see this with Putin.

[BainsBane]

9. Oh yeah

The whole you're not a loyal progressive thing began the cover up for blatant untruths.

[RDANGELO]

10. I still watch Tom.

He is the same Tom Hartman I have always watched, If anything he is even more harsh on the Republicans for having policies that favor the wealthy and the corporations.

The Russians have always been known for having a paranoid disposition about buffers on the eastern borders. It's believable that the current situation would be very disturbing to them.,That does not excuse the invasion of Crimea or interventions into our democracy.

[BainsBane]

12. While I am not familiar with the content of Hartman's shows

I agree with your second paragraph.

Has Hartman really not covered Russian interference in the election or their ongoing cyber Operation?

[RDANGELO]

14. I haven't watched him a lot lately.

I understand the criticism of legitimizing rt.

[PSPS]

17. Hartmann avoids discussing those subjects

And, when forced to say something in response to someone who brings it up, he blathers his usual whataboutisms and then changes the subject. He's a fraud and a charlatan.

The sudden plethora of posts on DU by Russian trolls and bots is weird. It's been obvious for a long time that there were many such DU accounts. Some of them have a remarkably high post count.

[JI7]

18. it's really frustrating. i thought the admin said they would not allow it again

but instead they block those who defend democrats. but allow this shit to continue .

[BainsBane]

19. Indeed

I wouldn't have agreed with that a while ago, but I am seriously starting to think it's possible now.

[BainsBane]

20. Surely it can't be so difficult

To come up with a few links?

[OnDoutside]

21. Just as Admin remove RW links, shouldnt they also remove all RT stuff ?

[stonecutter357]

27. +1000.

[mopinko]

42. admin doesnt remove anything, juries do.

back when there were mods, rt was removed. but it is now up to members to police themselves.

[OnDoutside]

44. My point still stands, if it is unacceptable to post RW stuff, then

It should also be unacceptable to post anything from RT.

[burrowowl]

74. Yes!

I am tired of it, it is a waste of breath!

[JI7]

23. consume whatever you want. but when people promote it they will be called out

for what they are.

[dembotoz]

25. Yes in my car I have many lefty options

We recently got 1 lefty station
1
Not 2
1
Right wing all over
Left?
1
And now I hear one of the shows does not meet du purity standards
Purity matters when u have a choice

[BainsBane]

33. Point to where I said not to watch Hartman.

That will be no more forthcoming that links to any programming in which Hartman covered the single biggest story since the election. The response is to deflect and attack. Anything to avoid confronting the truth.

This has been a learning experience.

[eShirl]

26. I think it's just a pushback to the near-spamming by his fans lately.

[emulatorloo]

30. Dunno, maybe find a station where the boss hasn't murdered journalists, imprisoned LGTB, invaded

the Ukraine?

Seriously you should listen to what you want.

But don't smear your fellow DU'ers for being "purity police" who object to RT because of Putin's thuggery.

[dalton99a]

37. +1

[BainsBane]

32. I take that to mean

He has not covered the single biggest story since the election.
People could say that, but instead they get angry that I even ask the question.

[Adrahil]

34. You can watch what you want...

But if you choose to support Putin's propaganda network, except some criticism.

I dont understand why Thom and his supporters think legitimizing Russian propaganda is at all good for them, or this country.

[BainsBane]

50. Someone went so far as to say there was "no proof" of Russian

intervention in the election. Even the GOP doesn't go that far. Even most of Trump's cabinet doesn't go that far. What do they think they have to benefit from validating Trump's election and ongoing Russian propaganda campaigns? Do they think the Kremlin is going to suddenly turn on a dime and dispatch their bots for Bernie? I wouldn't bet on that one.

[stonecutter357]

28. K&R

[NurseJackie]

35. Great post!

[MineralMan]

36. Interestingly enough, nobody has provided you with any such links.

You've gotten arguments, blowback and other rhetoric, but no links that show anything critical of Putin or the Russians from Mr. Hartmann.

All points awarded go to your house.

[dalton99a]

38. +1

[BainsBane]

39. And attacks for asking the question

Insisting daring to do so is a "purity test."
Until this I had not appreciated the degree of intellectual dishonesty.

[MineralMan]

40. Yup. Deflection.

Yours was a simple request, which should have brought multiple links to the thread...assuming Hartmann had ever done such a thing. But, no such links were offered. Only deflection.

And there it is. Thom Hartmann is a third-rate pundit, as pundits go, and is fairly transparent. He did not condemn Russia for interfering with the election, because, well, just because, you know.

[The Polack MSgt]

41. Can I kick it? Yes I can

[Arazi]

43. You're asking folks to literally go through hundreds of hours of his show

That's crazy. Who has time to do that? He's on the air 15 hours+/ week!

You won't believe anyone anyway when they tell you Thom has criticized the Russian interference and that he believes it could be the thing that helps bring down Trump (altho like me, he thinks the money laundering is a far stronger case).

Why don't you listen to several hundred hours and see for yourself?

[BainsBane]

45. It's the number one news story since the election

You could go to any other news or infotainment outlet and immediately find links to stories. I could find that for PBS, any of the cable news outlets, the major press, local newspapers, even on alt-right websites.
Why should it be so difficult for Hartman's show?

The fact you suggest it would take coming through hundreds of hours of programming to find any coverage of the Russian interference itself makes the case that he has not covered the story much, if at all.

[Arazi]

49. It's a talk show radio program, not a news site lol

You're expecting a call-in show to act like NPR?!



Listen yourself. He brings it up a lot plus Trump's money laundering, and that they're an organized crime family etc etc...

Plus NK, the State Dept deconstruction, local and state elections, legal cases, SCOTUS, Don Seigelman, interviews with members of Congress etc etc etc.

That its not #1 discussed every day doesn't mean it never is - it simply means it's a part of his show and to expect it to consume every other topic is crazy.

Norman Goldman, Stephanie Miller, and every other liberal talk radio show operates the exact same way but isn't held to the same standard.

"I demand you provide proof that Bill Press is pounding the airwaves about #TrumpRussia to my satisfaction to prove to me that he isn't a Russian stooge " is ridiculous.

And I don't think it's the #1 story . NK, the Iran deal, Trump's dementia etc etc get far far more coverage than Robert Muellers or AG Schneiderman's investigations fwiw from my experience on Twitter and Reddit. Since those investigations are so secret, there's little more than speculation right now anyway

[NastyRiffraff]

46. It should be simple to provide links, shouldn't it?

Maybe there are no links to provide. With all the Hartman defenders here, all we get is he's a great guy and shame on you for even suggesting that they can easily show that his critics are wrong. Again, possibly there is no such proof.

[Trial_By_Fire]

47. Better yet, show links where Hartmann promotes Russia...

We know Hartmann is true blue - only some here think otherwise.

The burden of proof in on YOU!

On edit: fix title

[BainsBane]

48. Wow. The biggest story since the election

and you can't provide a link to one story of his covering it. Very revealing.

[Trial_By_Fire]

52. I am not the one accusing Hartmann of this.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

[BainsBane]

55. I didn't accuse Hartman of anything

I'm responding to claims that he couldn't possibly be influenced by RT that began in response to posters' fact checking blatantly untruths attributed to Hartman in this thread. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

In my OP I make clear that I do not listen to Hartman and therefore can't speak directly to any editorial bias. I did, however, read that thread, and I have seen the subsequent efforts to deflect from the blatantly false claims about promises from Reagan. We then were told that daring to fact check was "unprogrsssive" (reminiscent of unAmerican) and signs of disloyalty.

Then we saw contorted arguments that enormous sums from the Kremlin's propaganda arm couldn't possibly influence his editorial comment. So in response to those arguments, it seemed to me it should be very easy to point to some coverage of the NUMBER ONE NEWS STORY in the country since the election.

Your responses acknowledge there is no such coverage, and you again turn to deflection. It's not convincing.

The intellectual dishonesty in all of this has been truly impressive, as is the undying devotion to the wealthy and powerful. Of course we've seen it in other instances, but now we see it extends far more broadly. I'm trying to imagine what Karl Marx would think if he knew, 175 years after he wrote his seminal works, that the term socialism would be invoked to prop up the rich and powerful.

[Trial_By_Fire]

56. No, it's all about hate because Hartmann had 'Brunch with Bernie'...

Right?

[BainsBane]

58. LOL

Not familiar with it. But yeah, I get that's the tactic to avoid dealing with the substance of his false claims about Reagan and NATO.


But I get it. Thinking is hard work. Better to just attach oneself to a couple of men with power and let them do the thinking. I've never been good at conformity. I question everything. I always have.

[Arazi]

51. Yup. Good point. Show us links where Thom promotes Russia

Or in anyway supports the election meddling by Russia.

Or she could just listen to the damn show even once

[BainsBane]

53. This all began

With this thread in which the poster said Hartman was urging understanding toward Russia. To do so he promoted an explanation that Henry Kissinger has been talking about for decades, with one major difference. He made claims, proven false in responses to the thread, that Reagan promised not the expand Nato. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9428778

Rather than dealing with those factual errors, we saw a barge of threads insisting anyone who questioned or fact checked Hartman was unprogressive, disloyal.

So really, that's quite a weak argument given the impetus for the weekly theme.

[George II]

66. He's enabling Russia's state owned media outlet. That's "promoting".

[Trial_By_Fire]

71. ...

[George II]

72. That's all?

[riderinthestorm]

54. I listen to Thom but don't subscribe to his podcasts so I can't post anything

You have to actually be a paying client to access his past stuff.

Unless there are DUers who pay for his podcasts you're going to be waiting a long time. Or you could buy a subscription and discover it yourself.

Or just listen to the show? He mentions the Russian stuff and their hold over Trump almost daily.

[BainsBane]

61. You don't have to pay to link, or watch

https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/

The show titles and themes are all listed. In fact, you can listen to them without paying as well. I just clicked on one.

I don't see a single thing about Russia there. Funny that, the number one news story in all of the country.

That's a particularly weak attempt to distract, since your claims are so easily proven false. F for effort.

But thanks for the suggestion. I was able to go and see dozens of recent titles, showing not a single one on the number one news story since the general election.

[phylny]

63. See my response below :) nt

[riderinthestorm]

67. Ah ok, I simply went to his website not RT

Furthermore every radio show has themes.

Norman Goldman's show last night spotlighted the Taylor Swift trial, not Trump's comments thanking Putin for expelling US diplomats.

Such a Putin puppet eh?

Here's a link to his show's putative content for last night

https://www.normangoldman.com/

But guess what? Goldman DID bring it up. You wouldn't know it from the show description but you would if you'd listened last night.

So F for effort for you for not even listening even as we both now know Thom's shows are free. Get cracking lol...

[TooStrong]

73. "I don't see a single thing about Russia there."

It's a radio show/podcast. You actually have to listen to get the content. A title and description ain't going to tell you anything.

[phylny]

60. I did a simple search:

https://democraticunderground.com/1017450399

His mention of whether the Russian government is involved comes at the end.

Here's one:

https://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/leaked-nsa-report-shows-russian-involvement-election-tampering

And one on Russia and Calexit:

https://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/calexit-movement-part-russian-psyops

[BainsBane]

65. Can I have the crib note version?

"Whether the Russian government was involved"? Does that mean he suggests there is some doubt in regard to that?

Can you tell me whether the shows on his site and those listed on RT are the same? Did the Calexit program appear on RT?

I looked at the RT list of podcasts, dozens of them listed. I don't see Calexit mentioned or Russia at all.
https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/

I'm listening to the postcast on Calexit and he seems very supportive of it. This isn't looking good for your case, at all. He gives a whole slew of stats and arguments of why it would either be good or not a problem, and then says, "I'd prefer they wouldn't." Then he compares it to decisions by individuals to live abroad.

The callers seem to know he's supportive of the plan.

[phylny]

68. LOL, no you can't. I'm not doing all the work for you.

You seem to have a lot at stake in this, so I suggest researching for yourself

[BainsBane]

69. I listened to the Calexit show

and he is clearly slanting his presentation of info and editorials to favor it. He then says "I prefer they not," only to compare it to choices by individuals to leave the country.

Then a caller points out Russian involvement in the scheme, and he argues against it.

He also says "IF the Russians intervened" in the election. There is no IF. Every intelligence official in the US and foreign intelligence agencies KNOW they did.
I'll listen to the end of your first link, but it's looking to me like you have provided evidence that he is promoting the Russian view.

[LexVegas]

62. Thom is a Putin sycophant. nt

[Weekend Warrior]

64. How you can tell if he is just there to give them legitimacy.

Are there any other Russian state run media personalities that are swooned over by the "left" like Hartmann is?

[Orsino]

70. Better yet, someone who *is* a listener, or knows the least bit about Hartmann's RT work...

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2017, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

...please show evidence of Hartmann doing journalism unfavorable to Putin.

Simpler, right? If there needs to be a smearing, prove it so we can all join in.