Personally, I find the regular, intense defense on DU of third-rate pundits,

[MineralMan]

who are really only known to the online community, to be rather odd. Beginning with Twitter stars like Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor and extending to people like Thom Hartmann, who was formerly a DUer, any questioning of these minor players brings a wave of negativism against those questioning them immediately.

I find that odd, really. None of those erstwhile pundits or, as some call them, "citizen journalists," really have any credibility beyond the Internet. They operate from free accounts online, and their names never appear in any other sort of media. They may tweet, or operate a random blog that they hope will generate revenue from advertising or outright donations. They have "sources," but never name them or even supply any legitimate corroboration, nor do they follow up when they get things wrong.

And yet, their musings, predictions and "breaking news" are posted on DU the moment they appear, whether anything such sources have said has been confirmed or not. Then, when someone on DU posts skeptically about the veracity of what has been reported by these unknown "heroes," attacks rain down on the skeptic as if from a supercell thunderstorm.

The illogic of instant belief in such unknown and unschooled reporters is astounding. If they say something that some hope is true, nothing else matters. If critical thinking should ever be applied, it should be applied to the utterings of these would-be political geniuses. It is folly to accept what they say simply because we wish what they say to be true.

We can do better. We should do better.

[murielm99]

1. K&R

I am going to log off DU now, and get some important chores done around my house.

You are right. Life is too short to argue about these insignificant people.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. There are things that need to be done around here, too.

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

[HopeAgain]

3. Thank you

I get accused of being a Republican Bot or Russian troll and innuendos of having even worse motives just because I don't care for speculation being posted as truth.

For the record, I have been a Democrat for all my life (56 years), never voted Republican and only donated and worked in Democratic campaigns. But question Claude Taylor and his unending list of "sources" in every Agency and every branch of Government, and I am a Bot?

[MineralMan]

4. Well, you know yourself, just as I know myself.

Such accusations are ridiculous. That they would be made shows the accuser to be simply attacking with no justification. Thank you for your hard work in the past and for the work you will do in the future.

If everyone who claimed to be a progressive actually got out there and worked to get people to the polling place, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

[billh58]

60. And to prove your point

they begin to appear in defense of their insignificant idols...

[MineralMan]

64. Well, that's to be expected.

I knew that would come, going in.

[marylandblue]

5. It's just the nature of the internet

Anybody with a twitter account gets a megaphone to the world. Trump used it to his great advantage, so wht wouldn't other people, both the worthy and the unworthy?

[MineralMan]

6. Before the Internet, people used to take a soapbox and

stand in the park and say what they had to say. The same people now can simply sign up on Twitter or blogger.com and shout at the world, whether they have anything worthwhile to say or not.

Anyone can post whatever they think freely now. That's a good thing, but increases the need for critical thinking on the part of the rest of us. I used to enjoy going to places like MacArthur Park in Los Angeles to listen to the folks on their soapboxes. It was an amusing way to spend a couple of hours.

These days, there is an overload of such "free" speech. That's fine, but we needn't assume that everyone with a mic has something to offer that is worth listening to. In fact, few do. I think we need to be more selective about listening to random people.

And I'll put myself in that class, as well. I'm just a random poster here on DU. Anything I say should be fact-checked before acceptance, too.

[marylandblue]

25. Yes, I agree, but people like Mensch take advantage of people

They are looking for people who respond to a certain type of message and are not going to use critical thinking because of their unconscious biases. Schools now are srarting to teach how to recognize BS o the Internet. For some of us, it's too late.

[whathehell]

7. Lol.."Third rate pundits"?

"Only known to the online community"?....Uh, how 'bout the radio broadcast community and the readers of his sixteen books?

Sorry, Mineral, but apart from the RT hysteria crowd who know zilch about him aside from "He's on RT"!! most here would very much disagree with you...
The fact is, he is, and HAS been an extremely popular radio host for over a decade, who's been named Progressive Talker of the Year in Talker's mag for virtually every year he's competed.... Try again.

[MineralMan]

9. How about that?

Thom Hartmann each day continues to not be heard. Thom's daily radio show at the best of times might reach 3 million listeners a week. There are 350 million sets of American ears, Thom's only reaching 3 million .

https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/zapdam/blog/2017/02/how-bad-does-it-have-get

Sorry, but if you asked 100 people if they had ever heard of Thom Hartmann, one might have. One. Actually, less than one, but 1 is the smallest integer available.

That is not "extremely popular."

[whathehell]

12. Sorry, but if you asked 100 people if they listen to Progressive Talk Radio

you'd get the same response...We're talking a specific market, bro, not The Dancing With the Stars crowd.

[MineralMan]

17. I am not your "bro."

I don't listen to Progressive Talk Radio, either. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of it. It's just that it's not really "popular." It's a fringe thing, in that fewer than 1% of people listen to it or are aware of it. The fringe is not all that important politically, really. I tend to ignore it entirely when it comes to actual, real-life politics.

[whathehell]

26. Lol...Is that the best you got?

If you "don't listen to Progressive Talk Radio" I'd submit you are NOT in the position to be evaluating him as "third" or any "rate".

How about you come back when you actually KNOW what you're talking about?

[MineralMan]

31. Sorry. Not playing.

See ya around.

[whathehell]

51. Lol

One generally does stop "playing" after one has lost the game,.

[emulatorloo]

77. You got your ass handed to you.

Smart move to declare victory and walk away though. Congrats on that.

[whathehell]

91. Lol..In your DREAMS!...Please tell us all HOW

I "got my "ass handed". to me", since it was the other poster, not me, who was the first to back off and call it "quits"

Sorry, dear, that's NOT what "ass-handers do, so please do explain!

[emulatorloo]

102. Because your little dipshit dishonest attempt to pretend Putin Today is a "progressive" outlet

is full of fail.

It's state media whose sole purpose is to prop up a thug who murders reporters and imprisons gay people. And that's just a couple things of the nicer things on his resume..

There is not one damn thing 'Progressive' about that murdeous asshole or his fucking TV network.

And yet you pretend people at DU are stupid and reactionary simply because they have the good sense not to fall for that garbage.

By the way, don't know if you've heard but Thom's left RT. Very good career move I think.

Plus now you can stop twisting yourself into a pretzel defending Putin TV and smearing DU'ers who are aren't gullible fools.

[whathehell]

108. Lol! Please show me where I said ANYTHING about RT!

Hint: Try actually READING a post before you respond to it.

[emulatorloo]

110. LOL no. You're as transparent as hell and I'm not going down some 'gotcha' rabbit hole with you.

Have a nice day.

[whathehell]

118. Lol..'Transparent" my ass...You falsely accused me of defending RT

and then, to use your phrase, got your 'ass handed to you' when you realized you were wrong and couldn't back up your own allegation.

You have a nice day too.

[George Eliot]

174. Isnt it smarter to watch people instead of networks?

Last edited Sat Aug 12, 2017, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

If one is loyal to a network, one is in an echo chamber. Granted, most people tend to group think which is why echo chambers work. Is that really smart?

[emulatorloo]

176. Hmm. It is odd that you interpret my distrust of Russia Today to mean I'm in an echo chamber.

I read things critically and see a wide range of media and read newspapers etc.

However giving that I read critically I tend to find rightwing media (which can never pass a fact check) and state propaganda outfits (that are there to lie about and spin the crimes of malignant leaders like Putin) not that interesting.

I am a fan of Thom's so I am personally very glad to hear he's left RT. From simply a marketing perspective, that association was harmful to his rep and rep for credibility. Maybe not so much in the beginning, but certainly after election 2016.

The folks in echo chambers are those attempting to tell us Putin Today is a thriving resource for U.S progressives.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

[George Eliot]

179. Watched him tonight on RT. I don't think it was a repeat.

Why can't you watch RT critically. Wouldn't that be more productive than assuming that all progressives watch it so are in an echo chamber? Can you speak for all progressives? If you don't watch it- how can you critically judge it?

[diva77]

89. I wouldn't frame progressive talk radio as a "fringe thing." When the fairness doctrine expired

under Reagan, wingnuts had a strategy in place that led to the extinction of local radio hosts, wiping out a broad spectrum of perspectives...


Limbaugh’s Dirty Little Secret of Radio “Success”
By Bill Mann


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/limbaughs-dirty-little-se_b_185965.html

SNIP...Ever wonder why Rush “Boss” Limbaugh’s syndicated radio show is all over the place like the proverbial cheap suit?

If you do much driving in rural areas — e.g. between cities — “Boss” Limbaugh’s bloviations are often the only thing you can pick up on a car radio. Hey, that’s what CD players are for.

Did Rush accrue hundreds of local radio affiliates across the country because his political views are mainstream? That’s obviously not it. OK, so why IS his show so “popular?” Why do hundreds of stations around the country carry his show, the most widely syndicated talkfest in the country?

Glad you asked.

The real story is not generally well-known. The only reason I know is through my covering the business of radio for years for several major daily newspapers and also, for industry trade magazines like Radio World.

It’s because — ready for this? — Rush’s show was, and presumably still is, given away for free to many local radio stations.

This shocker is because of a little-known practice in broadcast syndication called a “barter deal.” (Barter deals were briefly mentioned in Michael Wolff’s first-rate recent piece on Rush in Vanity Fair).

Here’s how a barter deal works: To launch the show, Limbaugh’s syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks — the same folks who syndicate wingnut du jour Glen Beck — gave Limbaugh’s three hours away — that’s right, no cash — to local radio stations, mostly in medium and smaller markets, back in the early 1990’s.

So, a local talk station got Rush’s show for zilch. In exchange, Premiere took for itself much of the local station’s available advertising time (roughly 15 minutes an hour) and packed the show with national ads it had already pre-sold.

Think Gold Bond Medicated Powder.

It’s a very sweet deal for local radio station owners, explained Bill Exline a respected radio broker (he helped people buy and sell local stations). “Not only does the local station get three hours of free programming,” Exline explained, “but that’s one less local talk-show host on staff they need. It makes small- and medium-market radio properties more profitable and attractive by cutting down staff expenses.”

Shocking, isn’t it, that Limbaugh would allow jobs to be cut to advance his dubious career? Not to mention helping to make small radio stations far less local?

Major-market right-wing talk stations, like San Francisco’s KSFO-AM (“Reichstag Radio”) have to pay actual money, of course, to carry Boss Limbaugh’s daily proclamation-a-thon. (Note: KSFO, which I referred to as “Sieg Heil on Your Dial” in my column when it first switched to righty talk, is the same station that gave hatemonger Michael Savage his first radio megaphone).

Radio sources say that small- and medium-market stations still get Limbaugh’s show for free, or pay only a token amount of cash for it. I asked Michael Harrison, editor of radio-syndicator-friendly Talkers magazine about this, and he claimed he didn’t know how many Limbaugh affiliates still barter...SNIP

[MineralMan]

93. Well, like most people, I have never listened to Limbaugh,

and consider him to be a "fringe" pundit, as well. He's on lots of stations, of course, which shows a good understanding of talk radio and what drives it, but he says nothing of any value, so...

Progressive radio has not done well, really. That's probably because the target audience for it doesn't really exist. There are many progressives, but not so many radio listener among them, I think. The genre simply never generated enough listeners to get advertisers to buy time, so there was no economic basis for progressive radio, really.

Radio talk no longer seems to me to be a very viable means of selling ideas. I don't know, but it sure hasn't worked for the progressive movement nor even the liberal movement. I don't see any path toward making it viable, either.

[diva77]

113. wingnut hate talk radio has an unfair advantage the same way Walmart and Amazon do -

as was explained in the article I posted above. Had progressive talk radio had the same advantage, our media landscape would look very different.

Do you have statistics on the number of people who listen to talk radio to back up your assumptions? do you have statistics on the impact of what has been broadcast by the hate-mongering talk show hosts?

To ignore and diminish the importance of what is being broadcast is a slippery slope IMHO. That's why the repugs keep rigging the FCC to favor more consolidation of media.

[MineralMan]

121. Follow the money. That's the whole thing, really.

The right wing has subsidized right wing talk. There is no equivalent money on the left. Radio runs on money. There are stations for sale all the time. They're expensive to buy and expensive to operate. So, advertising is sold to cover all of those costs. Ad rates are based on how many people are hearing the station.

So, if you want to get into the radio business, there are stations for sale. Then, you have to sell ads to keep your station on the air. Most station owners don't really care what their programming is, as long as it brings in enough ears to sell ads into. Progressive radio, as a format, has not been able to attract enough ears to compete. That goes along with right wing interests buying up stations, since the right wing listener audience is there. And then, there's the fundie Christian radio market, which doesn't rely so much on advertising to pay the bills.

The bottom line is that progressive radio doesn't pay, so it doesn't succeed in most markets. There just aren't enough ears to sell ads to. Why that is a good question. Probably it's because potential progressive listeners are getting their information and stuff at other venues than radio. I do. I sometimes have a local CBS news station on in the background, but it's not a right wing talk station. I only hear the hour and half-hour news breaks, really. The rest I just tune out automatically. I'm online all day, so I get information that way.

If enough people wanted to listen to progressive talk radio, it would succeed and you'd find it in most markets. Bottom line is that it has been tried and has failed to generate enough revenue to pay the bills. So, station after station has dropped that format and moved on to something that is profitable for them.

It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with making money. Very few radio stations operate as charities, aside from public radio and Christian stations. The rest are scrambling for a piece of the dwindling radio advertising pie. It's a tough business to be in.

[diva77]

128. It's not really just the money though - it's deregulation and undercutting and not pure market

forces that got us into this mess...

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[MineralMan]

130. Here's a link:

http://www.radiotvdeals.com/Home

[diva77]

135. not sure what you want me to see at that link

if it's to show that stations are expensive to own, it won't sway my opinion...but thanks for the effort...

...still agreeing to disagree...

[whathehell]

122. You never listened to Hartman either, but presumed to "rate" him

negatively.

[MineralMan]

125. I did listen to him a little, quite a while back,

but stopped doing so soon afterward. My "rating" is my opinion, only. Yours apparently is different. Thanks for sharing it.

[whathehell]

132. No, I have no trouble believing your opinion is based on a "little" listening

that was "quite awhile back".

Mine is based on listening for more than 12 years

[MineralMan]

133. OK.

Whatever you say.

[whathehell]

134. Lol

Sure.

[Lamonte]

103. Hate media

I think that Murdoch correctly saw an audience for tabloid media in TV and radio. Many people seem to enjoy negative generalizations about people, cultures and science. I wish our well meaning billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would buy the parent company and return it to regular reporting with more facts and fewer inflammatory opinions.

[diva77]

114. Yes -- we need billionaires with consciences (if that's not an oxymoron) to step up and help

stop the wingnut media juggernaut

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Thom needs to up his online cred and post 60,000 posts on freerepublic.

He can post there about how he believes gay men are pedophiles and female African American Obama voters are "stereotypical black women"

Then he can finger wag.

[whathehell]

32. Uuuuhhh..right

Whatever.

[SixString]

34. Nailed It.

[MineralMan]

35. LOL!

OK, then...

[KG]

52. word.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

58. .

.

[QC]

152. Thank you. n/t

[hjh3rd]

109. I used to take Hartmann at his word that

RT exercises no editorial control over his programming, but I am not so sure about that anymore. I understand that many people believe the Russian investigation is being overblown but at the same time it is a major news story. Hartmann basically refuses to cover it at all on his radio show except to say it didn't influence the election and pooh pooh it. His main solution for the woes of the Democratic party is to appeal to the Trump voters. I never used to think much about it, but the more time goes on, the more odd his pushing of this argument gets. It seems to me if he is not actively pushing a pro-Russian agenda, he is at least giving it credence by helping fuel divisions in the party. I have stopped listening to his show recently since I felt what he was promoting was not at all helpful to the Democratic party and creating unity.

[whathehell]

111. I never watched him on RT and the point is,

That poster, had never even LISTENED to him on his radio show, and then called him a "third rate pundit". I just don't have time for that nonsense.

[Foamfollower]

150. You left out 911 Truther, pseudoscientist, JFK conspiracy theorist, all around crackpot and...

gold salesman.

[whathehell]

151. You're talking to someone who's not even mildly impressed

with your allegations..

In addition, you should know that most alive at the time of JFK's murder reject the Warren Commission's "theory" completely.

[Foamfollower]

153. Not one of those is an allegation. They are all facts.

BTW, the theory that "the mob" is responsible for the assassination of JFK is one of the most ludicrous out there.

Enjoy your crackpot Radio. He's a lot like Alex Jones.

And make sure you buy your monthly allotment of gold, too.

[Foamfollower]

161. Can't tke the truth about Thom Hartmann?

So be it.

[spooky3]

8. I believe I saw a post from thomhartmann this week.

If this is the same person, he's not a "former DUer."

[MineralMan]

10. Well, if that's him, then I stand corrected.

I have no way of knowing, though.

[OregonBlue]

29. I have to say there are plenty of "good Democrats" who turns out not to be. Joe Lieberman

and Richard Shelby come to mind. Those who cross the aisle are always the most rabid and self righteous. It's like they have a "come to Jesus" moment around politics and it is really sad".

[mopinko]

42. you can search this site for any user.

[MineralMan]

45. Yes, I realize that, and did so.

However, names on DU are not always actually the name of the poster, I've found.

[mopinko]

50. no space in the name.

thomhartmann. lots of op's, but no replies. more a spammer than a member, imho.

[Hekate]

71. Your little imho statement: whoopsie

[emulatorloo]

86. Yup, never engages w DU'ers just posts links. My assumption that it is an intern posting.

[emulatorloo]

83. Thom doesn't post here AFAIK. I believe That's his intern, and his intern never engages with DU'ers

Just Posts links, does not reply to DU'ers question or comments that I've ever seen

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. I'm a bit puzzled by it all.

If people want to follow Taylor and Mensch, that's their choice. If they want to post their tweets and blogs on DU, that's fine, too. But anyone who relies on their hot scoops obtained from unnamed sources - actually, not even sources, but unnamed people "close to" a source - as gospel truth, should be prepared for some eye-rolling and snark. They've regularly produced stories that include not only mangled legal terminology but things that simply could not be true. So-called citizen journalism is fine, but it should be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as any commercial news outlet.

Hartmann is a bit different; he's not a blogger like Mensch and Taylor, but a more-or-less legitimate on-air commentator who's had a radio show for awhile and more recently a TV show on RT. He's been criticized, fairly, I think, for his relationship with RT (which has just terminated). Since RT is Russia's state media outlet it's reasonable to question why he ran his show on that network, and whether that relationship influenced his commentary. I've never watched his RT show but I have heard some of his radio broadcasts, and he seemed like a solid progressive. But the sun certainly doesn't shine out his butt as some might have us believe.

There's a thing called confirmation bias, and everyone is susceptible to it. We want to believe things we already agree with. We want to believe that Trump and all of his cronies have already been indicted and will be dragged out of the WH in handcuffs tomorrow. But ask yourself - if you had some inside dope to that effect and wanted the world to know about and believe it, would you take this super-hot info to the Washington Post or Claude Taylor?

[MineralMan]

14. Well, my hope is just to make people think twice before accepting

stuff they read here or anywhere else without some corroboration and examination. That's all I ask, really.

[Cary]

74. You made points well

That's the best you can do. People who don't want to understand will find ways to succeed.

I think we have all levels of treachery here. The history of war is a dialectic. It is a never ending story of fortification and breach. Our fortification here seems to have been breached. Keep in mind that Bob Mercer built his fortune on software that found seemingly inconsequential variables to indicate trades. The alt right applied this concept against us.

This is a subtle point but knowledge is power. And we need to understand this and respond.

[mountain grammy]

67. Well said.

[disillusioned73]

13. Traitor..

is a strong allegation - and shouldn't be taken lightly by anyone.. especially when there are no facts to substantiate that claim.

"We can do better. We should do better." - Agreed

[MineralMan]

15. Who used the word "traitor?"

Certainly not I. Treason has a very, very narrow definition, so it's not a word I use very often.

[disillusioned73]

20. I never claimed it was you good sir..

check out the recent splurge onf TH threads (which I also found odd).. they are easy to find and quite emphatic about their allegations..

[MineralMan]

23. Ah, I see. OK, then.

People misuse words all the time, it seems. I wish that weren't the case.

[emulatorloo]

88. Strawman

[cwydro]

16. Somehow I've missed all these pundits and their fame.

So I really don't have a dog in the fight, but all these battles on DU about them really get old.

I mean, if you like someone, then watch/listen to them. If you don't, then don't.

Who cares what others think?

[MineralMan]

18. Yes. Well, it's hard to miss them if you read DU regularly.

That's what's odd, I think.

[get the red out]

57. That's what I find strange

Why do people suddenly seem to care whether people on DU listen/follow particular pundits or not? I agree on taking the twitter "breaking news" people with a grain of salt, that's common sense, but why all these threads with people angry because someone else here doesn't like Thom Hartman?

[cwydro]

97. I guess I wasn't clear.

I have ONLY heard about them here. Never have followed or listened to them.

Never would have heard of them except for DU.

Like I said, no dog in this fight.

[MineralMan]

99. No, I understood you just fine.

I was making a more general comment in my reply to you.

[cwydro]

101. Gotcha.

I'm just tired today.

[JI7]

156. the Battles started when a poster started trying to defend RT and Putin

and using Thom Hartmann to do it.

[Blue_Adept]

19. I miss the days when DU wasn't loaded with bots and disruptors.

[MineralMan]

22. I'm not sure there ever were such days, really.

I think that it's generally better now than it has been. However, there's still an issue with disruptors and trolls, and probably always will be. It's the nature of the medium, I think.

[Blue_Adept]

27. Back in 2001-2003, it was a whole other world

Very different from now in terms of who actually used theses kinds of sites and how little manipulation there was overall since it was so new.

[MineralMan]

33. That's probably true.

[BumRushDaShow]

65. You forgot this guy

[Hassin Bin Sober]

104. I miss the days it wasn't loaded with Reagan Democrats.

[NRaleighLiberal]

107. + a zillion.

[emulatorloo]

112. It never was and it isn't now. You're surrounded by left-liberals and progressives.

There is not one damn person here who believes in privatization of social services, trickle down economics, union busting, destroying the safety net, an unfair tax system that favors the rich, racking up huge deficits and destroying the working class and middle class.

[VermontKevin]

144. You mean there were people who admitted to voting for Reagan here? Who?

[mcar]

146. Who? Where?

[betsuni]

162. Oh, like Manny Goldstein, he was a Reagan voter.

[MineralMan]

166. Zing! He was, indeed.

[emulatorloo]

177. Yes. Even admitted he wanted Obama's election overturned

Posted nothing but pot-stirring divisive flame-bait.

Dishonestly claimed Democrats were secretly wanting to implement the "Paul Ryan Budget", yet never had a bad word to say about Paul Ryan or the Republicans who voted with him.

Oh yeah his yearly thing: Obama-Will-Cut-Social-Security-In-Tonight's-State-of-the-Union (tm)

Poor little thing thought he was a Too Big To Fail Troll. Aww.

Good times, huh?

[unc70]

24. A correction

While your description is mostly reasonable, I believe you are off in a major way with Thom Hartmann. I do not want to restir the RT pot. The problem is with the belittling description of "citizen journalist" as applied to him. TH has a far wider platform than the internet or even RT; he has a long running radio program syndicated around the country. And his show is not dependent on unnamed sources. Rather, he has a variety of guests and cites his sources in great detail on air, on the web, and through emails.

While your description might hold for some of the other pundits, it seems to really miss the point with Thom Hartmann. Whether you agree with Hartmann or not, he has more substance than you describe. The local progressive talk radio station has been sold and changed to a music format, so we no longer have Thom, Stephanie, et al on the air. I still hear him some when traveling. I have to wonder if you have listened to him lately.

[MineralMan]

28. I tend not to listen to fringe talk radio from either side.

As for Hartmann in particular, I've never been a fan, really. When he associated himself with RT, that was the final straw for me, as it has been with others who climbed on that bandwagon to shout their news.

I'm afraid that the label, "progressive," has been so overused and misused that it no longer really has much meaning. That's my opinion, of course, as is everything I write here on DU. Yours might differ.

[unc70]

37. Maybe you should reconsider what is "fringe" or "progressive"

You just lost your convoluted arguments when you state that progressive "no longer really has much meaning".

[emulatorloo]

94. Here's "progressive" commentator Jimmy Dore of TYT.

"progressive" really doesn't have much meaning in this context as actual progressives don't promote alt-right conspiracy theories AFAIK


"Is Media Failing To Report Hillary's Parkinson's?"

Link to tweet

/photo/1




Dude never met an alt-right CT he didn't fall in love with. Is also really big on that Fox News manufactured Seth Rich conspiracy.

Not a fucking thing "progressive" about him.



----------------

[whathehell]

157. Thank you..

Calling Thom Hartmann "fringe" is a joke.

[SixString]

36. .

[trc]

39. Mic drop NT

[stevenleser]

139. Nope, logical fallacies will never be mic drop worthy. nt

[druidity33]

142. Which logical fallacy are you referring to?

Or is that just a fun phrase you're taken with lately? It sounds to me like the poster you were responding to was in essence saying "I'm looking at two people... One whom i've been listening to regularly for 12 years on a nationally syndicated show (and i've read couple of his books) and have a degree of respect for his opinions, and the other is an anonymous person who was formerly a posting member of a web forum that i abhor. I know whose opinion i'm more likely to listen to!"

I'm not really seeing the flaw in that logic...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

149. Everything is whataboutism. Haven't you heard?

[stevenleser]

167. No, just some people keep using them so they keep hearing about it. nt

[stevenleser]

168. Whataboutism and ad hominem. Notice that the OPs points were never addressed

By the comment being celebrated. That is a dead giveaway that a logical fallacy was employed.

[disillusioned73]

41. ...

[stevenleser]

141. Nope. Not an "Oh Snap". The argument was never addressed. Logical fallacies were applied. nt

[stevenleser]

138. As long as your not using the whataboutism and adhominem logical fallacies...

... oh wait, you are.

[Rob H.]

147. An ad hominem is calling Hartmann a traitor because his show appears on RT

Pointing out that the OP is a former member in good standing of a right-wing message board and the author of tens of thousands of posts there isn't an ad hominem, it's a verifiable fact. Ask him yourself if you don't believe me—he's admitted more than once that's true.

[stevenleser]

171. The tactic you describe is whataboutism and yes also an ad hominem

You don't address his points at all, you address him and a past action that you think is hypocritical.

If you cannot address his points on their merits, then acknowledge he is right and move on. Anything else is dishonest.

[dembotoz]

38. third rate pundits....in my state in local politics we always moan about how the gop has a stronger

bench than we do.....

local pols eager to step up to the next higher office...the farm team if you will

perhaps the same applies to pundits....from fox on down to local hate radio...the right has a full bench....
and we seem intent on killing ours off....

[MineralMan]

40. I suggest that we not strive to emulate Fox News.

Really.

As for the political farm team, we have a long line of young, forward-looking Democrats in Minnesota who are moving up the chain. We actively cultivate them here. We understand the steps that must be taken.

[dembotoz]

53. not emulate fox but perhaps shoot our own less often

we are very good at that

[MineralMan]

56. It can be difficult, at times, to know who is "our own"

and who is not. More's the pity.

[dembotoz]

62. an idea...lets spend more ridicule on those who are obviously not our own

quite the target rich environment

[longship]

43. I find the regular malignment of political allies here disgusting.

How many belong under the bus? And who in the fuck is next?

We'll eat our own.

[MineralMan]

44. Some "allies" are not.

It's important to figure out who is and who is not, I think.

[longship]

84. I think it is important to not throw allies under the bus!

We need a Democratic majority, which means that throwing some of them under the bus is not going to help us.

Party purity is what the GOP does.

I've learned by my mistakes and I can repeat them exactly.
Peter Cook (1937-1995)

[Kentonio]

158. Ok, I think Hartman clearly is an ally

I also think trying to compare him to Taylor and Mensch is deeply insulting to progressives, not to mention nonsensical.

Who wants to go next?

[longship]

172. I rest my case, MM. nt

[LeftishBrit]

170. Louise Mensch is not a 'political ally' or one of 'our own'

Take it from one with far too much past experience of her.

[ismnotwasm]

46. I like a variety of sources

Then I like to chase down details. If I pay attention only to certain personalities, or even pay most of my attention to them, I am missing on information. I know people get passionate in their defenses about their favorites, and that's mostly ok, but personally my number one criteria is, if not accuracy, then something as close as possible.

[leftofcool]

47. Agreed

[Goonch]

48. A pundit is merely a pundit but...

a good cigar is a smoke

[MineralMan]

49. Hair on fire!

That's a funny clip.

[shanny]

54. Personally, I find the labeling of who is and by extension who is not

a third-rate pundit, rather amusing. So thanks for that.

[Scruffy1]

55. Thanks

This is just another sign of the obsession on the media. All of it is simply a way to make money or feed ones ego. I take them all with a grain of salt. I always laugh when I'm told I have to watch something or listen to something. I've worked in radio and journalism so maybe I'm a little more skeptical than most. The ones on the crazy right who listen to this shit were uninformed, bigoted cranks before they listened to it. I don't think it changes minds on the right or left. It's only use on the right is to make BS acceptable. We will never win the media war so why bother with it.

[MineralMan]

63. I admire regular old news reporting that simply tells

me what is happening or has happened. That's what I use the media for.

Opinion about what is happening or has happened is less useful, I think, in general. While it can be useful, depending on who is stating an opinion. we all have opinions about the news.

There are a few opinion writers I appreciate and follow, but only a few. None are in the so-called "new media," though. I am regularly disappointed with most of those who have opinions, but who can't really tell me why they have those opinions. That's especially true of those who use other people's opinions as the basis for their opinions, as so often happens on the Internet.

I'm seeing more and more of those second-hand opinions these days, but they don't seem to improve over time really.

[Warpy]

154. Unfortunately, the only people to try that recently were Al Jazeera

in their too brief foray into cable news. Their in depth stories were wonderful and their newscasters read the news without happy talk or loaded language. People were put off by the name, of course, so it didn't last long. They're still on You Tube if someone wants to hear what newscasters used to sound like.

Just don't expect any favorable stories about Israel or heavy criticism of Islam. You won't get it there, it's their editorial bias.

Most of the talking head videos here irritate me. I want to poke them in the ribs and tell them to stop trying to charm me and get on with it. I usually just navigate past them.

[Cosmocat]

59. Wait - you are lumping Hartmann in with Mensch and Taylor?

Look, I get the concerns with Hartmann relative to this positions with Russia.

But, he isn't some new age twitter phenom.

Guy is a legit progressive journalist.

Published books going back into the 90s, most rock solid progressive fair.

Was one of the flagships for Air America ...

Again, I totally get the criticism of his positions on Russia.

[MineralMan]

66. Here's the thing:

If you switch horses along the way, I have to wonder. I've never found Hartmann to be particularly insightful, so when he went to RT, I simply switched him off. There are literally thousands of opinions out there. I can't read them all, so I try to be selective.

So, am I lumping Hartmann in with Mensch and Taylor? No, not really, but he has become one of the opinion people whose opinions I no longer trust. There are plenty of others I trust more, but I rarely repost people's opinions on DU. I have my own that are based on my own thinking about news events, etc. I post those, instead, as indicated in my signature line.

[Cosmocat]

78. OK

I get what you posted here.

I haven't followed him in a while, I liked him a lot and actually bought Screwed. But, he did bore me and bit after a while and I moved on.

I think he still is pretty solid in most areas, but particularly in light of how rabidly Russia has compromised so many people here, I get get being shaky on him with his views on Russia.

But, Mensch is super questionable and Taylor and her have no background at all.

[riderinthestorm]

68. Yes well nuance is dead here nt

[Duppers]

85. I know, right!

With you there.

[GusBob]

69. Begs the question: whom do you consider first or even second rate pundits? eom

[MineralMan]

76. Hmm. Watch MSNBC or even the three major broadcast networks.

Look at who they call when they need someone to help analyze news. Listen to those people. They have actual experience. A former head of the CIA, for example, probably has some real insights into things related to the intelligence community.

First and second-rate pundits can most often be found opinionating on major media outlets. Even then, of course, you have to look at their background and political leanings before deciding what you think of their opinions. But, they have those professional backgrounds, which can be verified with a simple Google search.

Others have been in the news business for decades and are now offering their opinions, based on that long experience. They are called upon because they have demonstrated their competence at providing opinions. Again, you can check their backgrounds easily on Google if you don't already recognize them as experts.

You can also find opinions in other media, including our major newspapers, news magazines and other publications. As with the previous examples, it's simple to check to see who those people are, what their backgrounds are, and why they might have expertise in a particular area.

That's how I decide who I will listen to. You might have other methods. I don't know.

[GusBob]

119. I don't watch TV , sorry

I haven't since March of 2003. I find it interesting that in that word salad above which I think was exceedingly patronizing, like I am some sort of idiot, you were unable to answer my simple question by naming one name. Your criteria is of no interest to me, sorry, you lost me at "watch a major network" to be honest. The fact that you are quick to criticize by name but not even remotely capable of proclaiming one name speaks volumes to me. Are you even paying attention to the shows you watch?

Lemme try this: if one of the networks had say, Medea Benjimen, author and co-founder of Code Pink, on their show, and she just got back from South Korea like just this week, and had all sorts of insights and observations about the current standoff, front row, boots on the ground information, would you consider that 3rd rate punditry?

[MiddleClass]

136. Exactly, I have the benefit of having MSNBC CNN in the background all day

And always on the laptop researching everybody, I look up to find the name when I don't recognize the voice and research, understand where they're coming from, and what they're trying to do, when I know that, I assign what level of appropriateness to the info.

But 2 things, being a quadriplegic I have the luxury of having the time to do that.

Especially when I agree and make sure it's in the wish list pile and not the factual file.

I must admit though I was born skeptical, my mother tells me she loves me, I think, what's her angle.

Talk radio, twitter, publicity hounds, I disregard or just entertainment.

[stonecutter357]

70. K&R

[Stargazer99]

72. Re: Tom Hartman as former DUer

The sentence almost makes one think Tom Hartman has left the ideals of liberals. this thread makes me think maybe the poster is not really of liberal/Democratic leanings.

[bucolic_frolic]

73. Skepticism is certainly warranted

When this whole thing plays out, however it does, whatever the outcomes, whatever the removals,
I think we're likely to be disappointed a bit. The FBI will not turn it into a political rout. That is not
their principle role. This is about legality. I'm not hearing it, and so don't expect much either, in the
way of leveling the table from a stolen, fraudulent election and the resulting radical public policies.

But we can hope.

[Cosmocat]

79. Yeah

The pangs of disappointment from "Fitzmas" still burn - I don't need to learn political lessons more than once.

I do think this will be a lot more significant than a token VP henchman getting rung up.

BUT, I still view November 2018 as the breaking point. Either this country WTFU in a REALLY, R E A L L Y big way and brutally punishes team R in the ballot box or its officially over.

[LisaM]

75. And sources like Common Dreams that used to be more reliable....

I hardly ever open things from them now.

Thom Hartmann is just a disappointment. I liked his show back when they were trying to launch liberal radio, but actually went back and deconstructed it after the fact. I recall that he had Bernie Sanders on every week, and replaying it all in my head, I realize that Bernie gave the same answer to every single question for years. "That's a good point, caller! It's outrageous what has happened in this country! We have to fix this!"

[OutaHere]

80. Whatever

[MineralMan]

81. What you said...

[Old Vet]

105. Actually Mineralman, This has been one of the better threads Ive SLOWLY read through...

A lot of what I come to DU for, Thought provoking and insightful and some good smart responses....I tend to be on your corner on this conversation.

[MineralMan]

106. Thanks. My comment was sarcastically aimed

at the poster I replied to, whose only comment was: "Whatever."

I appreciate your taking the time to read the thread very much!

[George II]

87. BLASPHEMY! BTW, why did he leave DU?

[MineralMan]

90. I'm not sure he did leave.

There's still someone posting Hartmann videos over in V&M: thomhartmann

Whether that's him or someone just posting, I do not know.

[Qutzupalotl]

92. It's naive to expect them to reveal their sources.

You wouldn't expect that from an MSM journalist, although it happens from time to time when under pressure.

The whole reason these people are getting these leaks is that when talking with old friends there is a greater level of trust that their cover will not be blown than when talking to an upstart young reporter they haven't even met.

They may be getting the same info as MSM but are not beholden to the double- or triple-sourcing rule, and so report what they have heard from one source. The reliability of single-source reporting is lower, but they are upfront about that. When several of them using different sources report the same thing, that lends more weight to their reporting. And they have a good track record: they had the grand juries and districts weeks before MSM. Mensch had the whole Cambridge Analytica story in great detail six weeks before Time's "exclusive." And so on.

I take everything they say with a big grain of salt; I just find the insider background fascinating. But no one is forcing you to read them or their defenders here.

[MineralMan]

96. I don't actually think they have any sources, really.

At least not Mensch and Taylor. I think they're just making those sources up, really.

Taylor, for example, was recently trolled by a "source," who fed him some nonsense. He immediately posted the troll's nonsense, only to have to retract it. That did not particularly give me additional confidence in Taylor's sources. Just the opposite, really.

I really pay no attention to those Twitter blowhards.

[Qutzupalotl]

100. Mensch must be an impressive psychic, then,

to have dreamed up the whole Cambridge Analytica scenario that appeared in Time over a month later.

[G_j]

95. as usual, DU saves it's most passionate vitriol

for the Republicans? no wait...

[MineralMan]

98. Oh, I'm always happy to direct some vitriol at Republicans.

I have a couple of such OPs in the current topic stream.

[G_j]

116. generally

you are pretty even tempered in your posts, while being critical. There are others whose apparent hatred for certain individuals on the left seems to consume them.
Just my observation.

[Gothmog]

115. I agree with your analysis and concerns

I do not follow Taylor or Mensch at all. Hartman is weak and I really dislike Cenk/TYT. For some reasons, certain posters want to demand that we accept their favorite third or fourth tier pundits. I actively dislike Cent/TYT and I do not have time for the other citizen journalists

[bathroommonkey76]

117. I don't find it odd whenever people think for themselves.

Do I think Mensch and Taylor are always right? Nope. But I read their tweets with an open mind. I do the same thing when I watch the corporate news and read newspaper sites. Not everything that is printed on those sites are correct. Dubya's illegal war talking points were spoon-fed to us by those corporate hacks and anyone who disagreed with them were fired on the spot for not walking lock-step with their orders from Bush. For me it's kind of refreshing to see these "citizen journalists" on Twitter giving us a behind the scenes of the rumors and chatter coming from the Russia investigation. In the end it won't matter to me until the indictments are handed down by the FBI.

P.S.

Most major news sites don't name their sources. Are you upset with them for not going that route? How many years did it take for us to find the identity of "Deep Throat"?

[Mountain Mule]

120. I never even heard of either of these characters before I read this thread

It's the Internet, folks. I take everything I read with more than one grain of salt. Some of the stuff posted on DU just flabbergasts me. I try to refrain from feeding the trolls and just click my mouse on a discussion more worthy of my time.

[Ilsa]

123. I'm going to watch and listen to whomever is available

to me whose perspective and way of life I respect. They may not cover every subject you think they should, but I've listened to some busy informative programming on Sirius and Free Speech TV.

If that's not good enough, then too bad. That's what is available to me.

[MineralMan]

126. I don't believe I suggested that you do otherwise.

This thread is not about that. You should listen to whatever it pleases you to hear.

[OxQQme]

124. Brunch with Bernie

Third rate pundits?
Sheesh mineralman, your biases are showing.
I usually enjoy your posts as they bring out the various sides of DU,
but I 'think' Thom may be much more liberal than you give him credit for here.

Results from a quick google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=brunch+with+bernie&oq=brunch+with+bernie&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.15287j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

TH introduced Bernie in 2004: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4547641/brunch-bernie-10292004

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network)
"For example, in 2008, The Thom Hartmann Program had 1.5–2 million unique listeners a week"

[MineralMan]

127. OK. Thanks.

[flibbitygiblets]

129. I skipped past most of the pissing contest because ego doesn't belong here IMO.

To the OP's point, I insist on getting my news from accredited, proven sources with a reputation for integrity. I have no idea who these "third rate pundits" are, nor do I care to. And I appreciate that DU generally consolidates news from well-known sources such as WaPo, NYT, etc. so I don't have to go to all those places individually. (Although I do financially support those organizations because they are crucial to an informed electorate).

So just know that if a story is sourced from some person/site I don't know and trust, I'm ignoring it. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.

[elehhhhna]

131. Certain of those you name up follow a bit

They frontrun the msn consistently.

But they're just people.

Call me paranoid but I suspect we have lots of bots on DU

[raven mad]

137. Another reason I'm glad Snopes got bailed out.

I try to triple-check stories on here, on FB, Alternet, Daily Kos, etc., because of unconfirmed sources in certain stories. You put it much better than I ever could, thank you. It's not that I don't trust my fellow DU'ers - I do, very much so. It's just that any of us, as angry as we are with the current political climate, can jump in when the story/article makes sense in light of that anger.

[SalviaBlue]

140. Your opinion of Thom Hartmann is certainly evolving.

Keep trying. You can do better. You should do better.

[colsohlibgal]

143. Hartmann Is Smart And Legit

Listen to his radio show and hear for yourself. If Russia was trying to influence him they failed.

He is seriously progressive like many of us, far, far from third rate, first rate as a matter of fact.

[mcar]

145. And some of these same people who say these media figures

should not be criticized, have no qualms about bashing real Democratic leaders.

[PufPuf23]

148. Best and most insightful post.

Thank you for the light.

Bad as the nation under Trump and the GOP I have lost faith in DU as well.

You are correct in that we can and should do better.

We are our own worse impediment.

[George Eliot]

159. A bit over-blown don't you think?

Last edited Sat Aug 12, 2017, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

When you have written gobs of books on history and politics, unearthed documents proving the error and distortion of the Court's decision regarding corporations and personhood, chatted with Richard Wolff, Jimmy Carter, and appeared on Lawrence O'donnell, and have the distinction of being the most known and most popular liberal in media, that's when I'll take your criticisms seriously.

I find it odd and somewhat disheartening that anybody finds reason to denigrate good liberals at a time we need unity.

Added: I'm watching Diane Ravitch currently being interviewed by Chris Hedges on RT. If you don't know who she is, you might google her. If you don't know who Hedges is, you might google him as well.

[Shrek]

160. Some were banned for doubting Fitzmas

Or questioning the credibility of Jason Leopold.

What a fiasco.

[Sunlei]

164. no resume, no history in reality- except words on the internet. As if they're a gaming toon.

To me the test is, "if they disappear today, has anything irreplaceable been lost?"

[Amsterdammer]

165. Necessary Action

I could give a rat's ass about talk radio, pundits, tweeters...from EITHER side of the isle. After a while, they all just come across as angry and inciteful. Our left-leaning peeps are viewed by our opposition like we view the Alex Jones's of the world--like you've just placed an order for the seasonal fruitcake.

Do we need this? Do we benefit from this? Do we unite with this, or merely divide us (our nation) further. Oh sure, we unite those already leaning progressively, but the rest becomes "us" vs. "them". What a giant fucking waste of time, unless you love living your lives pissed off and requiring a higher dose of high blood pressure meds.

How about ensuring Democratic candidates in EVERY POSITION...local, state, and national election. Christ, my wife and I were shocked, dismayed, disappointed how many positions had NOT ONE DEM on the ticket the last go 'round. How about ensuring we all TURN UP TO VOTE, instead of complaining about voter suppression, we help poor and elderly get id's or set up a fund to pay a wage to those who are financially unable to take time off to vote? Or or or...We have bright minds amongst us, come on!

[LeftishBrit]

169. I agree when it comes to Louise Mensch; I don't really know about the others

Mensch was a British Tory MP (having previously been a writer of rather bad fiction), and was particularly silly and flaky, as well as right-wing. It doesn't mean that she couldn't be right about Trump on some issues - as the saying goes, sometimes it takes one to know one - but she is not a brilliant citizen-journalist.

[SkyDaddy7]

173. I agree! This is why I love DU...

And what I think makes us on the Left much better than our fellow Americans on the Right...Far more of us on the Left are willing to look in a mirror from time to time & take an assessment of ourselves & our community as a whole, notice our faults & try to correct them. Of course, not all of us do that & we have our share of people who believe what they want evidence be damned but for the most part, the majority of us on the Left are willing to change our minds depending on the facts/evidence...Or in this case the track record of certain sources or "pundits" even if they're saying things we like to hear.

...I know I would rather hear the truth & be upset by it than know that I'm seeking out sources that are just feeding me what I want to hear.

[George Eliot]

175. So, what/who do you listen/read outside the echo chamber besides DU you say?

Seems to me DU is an establishment echo chamber with progressives regularly bashed just as this OP had done by denigrating part of the democratic community who represents a more progressive stance for no purpose other than put downs of a segment of DU posters. His OP reeks of superiority. Again, what is the point of this OP and how are you different?

[emulatorloo]

178. You are surrounded at DU by left-liberals and progressives

Everyone here (with the exception of maybe a handful of "attack from the left" GOP trolls) shares the same policy goals.

- economic equality
- universal healthcare
- equitable tax system where rich pay their fair share
- Unions
- no more wars of choice
- reproductive rights for women
- full civil rights protection for minorities
- fully funded k-12 education
- free or highly subsidized higher education
- 15 dollar minimum wage or better
- heavy regulation of the financial industry
- no "tax breaks" for outsourcers

And the list goes on and on. I see minor differences between people on strategy and how to get there. That's why we discuss stuff.

Really don't know why you think all DU'ers must abandon critical thinking and embrace RussiaToday or else they live in an echo chamber.

That argument doesn't make sense.

But carry on.

[George Eliot]

180. Where did I suggest abandoning critical thinking?

Where did I suggest embracing RT? RT is a label - a network. I select programs and people from whom I learn. Don't you? Since you are a critical thinker, I'm sure you listen to many points of view from many divergent sources. So do I.

[emulatorloo]

181. When you keep telling folks they live in a bubble because they've seen RT and don't find it

particularly trustworthy.

[George Eliot]

182. Never said "bubble" and you said you don't watch RT

I think we are going in circles here. To think critically, one must have knowledge of that which is being critiqued. As I said, I watch people. Not networks or channels. I select from a broad array of knowledgable people on both the left and the right. Have a nice day.

[emulatorloo]

183. I've seen RT. Again you make assumptions that we can't "think critically". That's Bullshit.

Yes we're going in circles because you keep telling folks how ignorant and stupid they are for rejecting RT.

Pretty much everyone here selects from a broad array of knowledgeable people. Stop dishonestly insulting people by falsely claiming they're in an echo chamber or lack critical thinking. And stop trying to shame people because they aren't fans of Putin Today

[George Eliot]

184. Lol I think you might re-read your early posts

Thanks for discussion.