RT very rarely if ever criticises the kremlin.

NPR criticises administrations past and present freely.

They're different beasts.

From the same mother?

I believe that both new networks are controlled by the central bankers. Russia's central bank, and the United States' central bank, the Fed, are under the umbrella of the Bank of London, which is controlled by the House of Rothschild.

Npr and PBS get a majority of their funding from donation drives. Close to 90% for npr so I just don't see how they would be beholden to government spin when serving the public is in their best interest financially. Nothing is perfect but this is the wrong tree to shake when there are much much worse outlets.

http://www.npr.org/about/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf

NPR only gets about 20% of their funding from private individuals. Most of their money comes from exactly what u/outtanutmeds said. Big banks, auto manufacturers, visa, MasterCard. And one of the biggest is the corporation for public broadcasting which was created by congress and is funded by the the fed.

I pulled a statistic that listed government spending was around 11% of their budge. Technically most of their funding is private. Even still they are far from being on the government payroll. I've been listening since bush and they give equal coverage to both sides of the isle. Only issue I had was they clearly did not think Sanders was worth covering until it was too late.

Technically most of their funding is private.

Technically yeah. In reality its a bunch of faceless corporations with agendas, Jews and ideologically driven causes.

Giving equal sides to "both sides" of the isle is perfectly expected in a country where both sides of the isle work together to keep the population in line.

I do not agree with your accessment of how NPR works so we'll have to agree to disagree.

NPR was on the Clinton dick, don't be stupid.

That's not true, don't be stupid.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/12/505286051/is-hillary-clinton-trying-to-question-the-legitimacy-of-donald-trump-winning

One article after the campaign that doesn't even actually criticize hillary or her political stances.

Wow. You really hit the nail on the head

Well if their choices were Hillary and Trump, then wanting Hillary aligns them with the majority of US voters and US News Organizations

I feel like if you're that critical of NPR, you probably only listened to the parts that were pro Hillary to confirm your own narrative.

All I know is that most of the morning talk during the primaries was slanted towards hillary and the "bernie never had a chance" was the story from the beginnibg

All I know is that most of the morning talk during the primaries was slanted towards hillary and the "bernie never had a chance" was the story from the beginnibg

Dude, that's not propaganda. That's people who study politics and elections giving thier opinion. Of course their all gonna hop on Hillary's dick, she has a long track record and looked like the likely candidate. Berine did surprisingly well, and got lots of attention but much like the Election, Hillary proved more likeable in the end, because (in case you didnt notice cause you were too busy eating pizza or something with the rest of this sub) she had been for months. People weren't brainwashed into it, they agreeded willing.

Propaganda would be if NPR had only members of Hiliary's campaign team come on and tell you that Berine was going to eat your babies, all the time with no desenting opinion ever.

Just becauase someone doesnt think Hiliary is the literall anti christ doesn't mean thier in on some conspiracy. Opinion=Progaganda

it is propaganda because they were priming the listeners for the narrative for when they rigged the primaries that "bernie never had a chance"

The fact that he never had a chance was a perfectly valid opinion. What, is there supposed to be zero speculation at all? They said he never had a chance, and they also rooted for him regardless.

One article is not a good indicator of how NPR behaved over the election. It was extremely one sided, NPR was not impartial at all.

NPR was completely on the Clinton train, 24/7 before the election. It was blatant and obvious. If you can't recognize that, then you weren't listening.

FYI more Americans were too.

I don't recall them criticizing obama or bush at the level they do trump. Even the "liberal" outlet NPR did not criticize Bush personally very much, the most I could remember is them reporting on American action overseas and how we could be doing more nation building and less killing (more $$ and prolong the war).

That's a really low energy conspiracy considering NPR has a longstanding tradition of being critical of the government and RT doesn't..

That's a really low energy conspiracy considering NPR has a longstanding tradition of being critical of select elements in the government and RT doesn't..

FTFY

Basically..

"NPR has been critical of things I support, but not as much for things I dislike, therefore the're propaganda?"

Basically

"RT has been critical of things I support, but not as much for things I dislike (like the russian government), therefore they're propaganda"...?

RT is propaganda because they produce lies and use misinformation to shift peoples views based on the current agenda of Russia Oligarchs.

NPR is just a bunch of liberal and moderate journalists..

To compare the two is to simply admit you know nothing about journalism or propaganda.

Ahh, well the way I see ALL of the MSM is similar to how you view RT.

To rephrase using your own wording, I think, MSM is propaganda because they produce lies and use misinformation to shift peoples views based on the current agenda of the CIA.

This is why I don't think they are any worse. The are selling you ideas to further the agendas of those whom they serve. It is always going to be the job of the viewer to separate spin from objective reporting.

I'm not disagreeing that the US government uses MSM to help push certain narratives or change views in times or war and such.. every country does that.

But how can you even claim all MSM is like RT if you've fact checked.. you can objectionably compare outlets like the WaPo or NYT to RT and the differences are clear as day.

You're not making an argument based in facts, your argument is based in feelings and ideologies..

or absent of ideologies and the zealotry in the partisanship in the media has alone given me reason to doubt their accuracy.

Contrast that to their failures to hold the CIA accountable in spite of overwhelming evidence they are working to subvert the people of this country; while simultaneously attempting to defend and filter anything negative about the CIA makes it seem almost identical.

Well i've been following MSM most of my life and long with plenty of other more moderate and less influential outlets and I've never trusted or liked the CIA..

So I'm not sure where that narrative comes from.

Anyone who takes MSM at face value is an idiot, just the same as RT or online news.

Well, I can't disagree with anything you just said there.

To me it looks like they work to minimize negative stuff that is revealed about CIA, either through omission or by downplaying the importance of what is learned.

The recent Wikileak about CIA hacking for instance was mostly ignored by claiming it was all known. A week before if you made that claim, you would be called a conspiracy theorist, but upon being presented with actual proof, the narrative shifted to "we all know that!" Nevermind there was next to zero focus on the fact that the real concern should be all these techniques are out in the wild for anyone to use BECAUSE the CIA was compromised. Instead all of this is buried in favor of the Trump outrage of the day.

Also, I wouldn't use RT to get honest news, the same way I don't trust MSM to report on a majority of things. You might think I am trying to raise RT up to how you view MSM, but I am really saying MSM and RT are similar and neither is deserving of trust.

The recent Wikileak about CIA hacking for instance was mostly ignored by claiming it was all known. A week before if you made that claim, you would be called a conspiracy theorist, but upon being presented with actual proof, the narrative shifted to "we all know that!"

Anyone with an iota of computer security experience knew about every single vector published.

Anyone with an iota of computer security experience

Ironic you should say that! I work for a major corporation in a department closely related to security. When the news came out, it was a massive shit show around here, and they have since changed a large number of procedures as a result. The top post on the technology sub was on the topic and the comment section was filled with hysteria.

Nice try, buy what you are saying isn't really true.

Bullshit. What procedures have they changed? There isn't one vector that wasn't already known about in there that I could find. Even the stuff about being able to remote-control cars has been proven by third parties years ago.

Can you shed some light on what exploits were so scary in the eyes of your employer?

Didn't New York Times or WaPo get busted buying Chinese traffic?

"and from my point of view the jedi are evil!"

LOL. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Jedi aren't real, much like the majority of content pushed by MSM.

NDAA = Washington Post, BuzzFeed, New York Times, CNN's new narrative.

It might help your argument if you studied propaganda a bit more instead of belittling others who refute you.

Please could you link to any lie or misinformation published by RT.

could you show me where NPR is ever truly critical of foreign policy?

(you can't, since at least since 2008)

(What about the last 4 years in which it has been legal for our government to use propaganda on its citizens?)[ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Npr+criticism+of+Obama ]

http://12bytes.org/articles/exposed/npr-national-public-radio-or-national-propaganda-radio

If you think the government has only been using propaganda for the last 4 years because it's suddenly "legal" you're hysterical.

Is this /r/conspiracy ? Are you saying our government has never used misinformation until 2013?

God I need to get some better weed.

forget it man, it's trumptown

Honestly it's pretty fun watching the narrative break down..

But yeah.. I don't really expect it go anywhere lol.

I'm not willing to accept RT or NPR as propaganda, and if anything, NPR is closer. Both are funded by their respective governments, and both claim to be independent from government. RT is a reputable news sight pretty much everywhere but the US. But when they started to have anti-Obama stories, it became Russia propaganda. Ben Swann used to be an anchor for RT, and I respect his journalistic integrity over most in MSM today. Their stories seem to be journalism, and I find it harder to notice a slant in their stories than say Fox News or CNN.

i mean, this paragraph is frightening in so many ways. the OP thinks that RT has a broad reputation better than NPR? the OP thinks that RT was only bad when it became anti-obama? the OP thinks that RT is critical of putin? these sound awfully a lot like wikileaks talking points too .. oh, we didn't leak on russia because they have a vibrant press! yeah, right . this is either someone delivering disinformation or just a brainwashed rube.

Honestly.. they bought into ANYTHING that supported "Obama and the left is bad".. RT never shied away at being critical even when there was no reason to. ..

To them, RT is actually more credible because they've kept up the crusade against the establishment or whatever the fuck they think they're fighting for.

I see conservatives on FB share RT all the time and act like this bombshell news.. It's frightening.

oh, we didn't leak on russia because they have a vibrant press

Why aren't you leaking "on" Russia? I assume because no one from Russia has leaked anything to you to publish, right?

If Russian leakers prefer to go to Russian publishers, either because they don't trust a western publisher or prefer someone who speaks their language or whatever it is, what could Wikileaks realistically and ethically do to change that?

those are valid but slightly flimsy reasons when assange himself said in 2010 that they had lots of russian documents to publish.

They had lots of documents ABOUT Russia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy

Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state", according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of its erstwhile rival superpower.

since then. what changed in 2010?

Don't change the subject. You said this:

those are valid but slightly flimsy reasons when assange himself said in 2010 that they had lots of russian documents to publish.

So instead of moving on to another matter, support your claim.

when you post in ETS, every place that isn't anti-Trump is going to seem like trumptown

trust me, my posting on ETS is because of my opinions, it does not inform them.

Trump is against mainstream media. Anyone with a brain can see why this sub is the way it is.

Trump is against mainstream media

This makes it sound as though he is against it for larger reasons other than the 'mainstream media' calls him out on the utter bullshit he spews. If these same sources suddenly started publishing positive stories about him he would no longer be against them.

I agree

Trump is against any media that criticizes him. That's been made abundantly clear.

Except that the largest and most influential network endorsed him...

No all I'm saying is that the last 4 years it has actually been legal for them to lie to the public. They are allowed and encouraged to lie to us.

And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

Lmao, that's amazing and so fucking untrue I can't even understand how you'd come to that conclusion.

Do you know anything about US history at all?

Like basics?

Oh man I'm being gaslighted.

No, you're being called out on your bullshit..

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-government-has-long-used-propaganda-against-the-american-people/5502255

2013

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.

These laws made propaganda used to influence foreigners and US citizens illegal. Without these laws, disinformation could run rampant throughout our information junkets.

This amendment added to the NDAA has passed into implementation as of this month.

SMA defines the prohibition of domestic access to influence information through a variety of means, from broadcast to publishing of books, media, and online sources by restricting the State Department.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors was created from SMA. This agency claims to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy”. They omit that their specialty is making sure propaganda is added to the informational flow we all depend on.

The amendment sanctions the US government, without restriction, the use of any mode of message to control how we perceive our world.

As of now, the level of propaganda in the mainstream media (MSM) is quite high, with all of our television, printed media and internet sites associated with MSM owned by only 5 corporations.

Without these laws, the lies purveyed as truth to foreigners would find their way to our doorsteps as a purposeful operation enacted by our government. And in the name of national security, the US government could, and probably would, disseminate misinformation to gain public support for otherwise decidedly deplorable actions.

Amendment 114 of the NDAA was approved by the House in May of 2012.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (2012) reads:

Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may, upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad.

Dayuuuuum that's how you fuck a shill in the ass

You gonna reply to chill confirmed? Or are you just going to pretend you weren't just being an asshole and gaslighting the guy?

For starters its been 30 minutes and I have other things to do with my Wed morning my apologies.

And second, no I'm not.. Once someone proves they'll simply discredit history, I have no reason to continue on.

I love the "oh know I'm being gaslighted" excuse though, it's a really inventive way to play the victim and discredit the facts at hand.. all at once.

Wow, man you've got a huge ego. Consider doing a reality check on yourself before you go off "calling out people's bullshit"

I'd disagree and say my Ego is perfectly in check..

But at the same time it's like arguing with fucking Middle Schoolers in here so I'd understand why the words I choose come off as demeaning.

I don't think you understand what the ego is because you contradicted yourself pretty quickly there. Stop thinking of people with differing opinions as "middle schoolers" and if you really want to change some minds, it would probably be better if you didn't choose to come off as demeaning. Instead, consider others opinions as equally stupid as yours, and just look at the facts.

You chose to ignore the facts when they were presented to you rather than acknowledge them. Instead, you consider your word to be almighty and infallible. That's egotistical as fuck man.

We all understand that the CIA has been using the media to influence for decades. But now, alternative media gave Obama a reason to get a tighter grip on the media they currently control.

Just stop being a dick and listen to others and you might not like what you hear, but that doesn't make it incorrect.

Stop being logical and listen to a bunch of crazy people who ignore facts and following their feelings?

Nah, thanks though!

If that's what you got from my reply, and you really can't recognize how idiotic you sound when you stay in your delusional bubble, I'm afraid I can't help you.

That's exactly what I got out of it.

Might want to take a look in the mirror before you start accusing others of being delusional.. but I'll forgive you since this is /r/conspiracy and I'd expect nothing less.

Look man, I've been rational and I've considered your opinion. You have your defense mechanism of constantly accusing others instead of looking at yourself objectively. If you don't like the sub, no one asked you to come here, go back to your safe space.

High five. I like you.

Lol back at you man, I read through your interaction and I was so happy to see you on top and I felt inclined to call him back and tell him to take a look at himself. It's really amazing to think that there are people out there who really are that closed minded and their thoughts are that restricted.

Check out the astroturfer vote buying going on haha. Two users stick out very obviously when you look at comment karma and you can drill down into the comment and see who I expect are part of the gang helping out. Oh well. It's both entertaining and annoying kind of like when you have a cat and there is a fly in the house.

It's just annoying when it hits r/all and they buy all the votes. It's funny when it's that recognizable lol but it's just a shame that it works a lot of the time.

Yeah at least it didn't work well enough prior to Nov 8. It was close.

Yeah it was more serious back then, now it's more amusing lol

Ugh stop, you've got me so hard, I don't know if my dick can take anymore.

I'm beyond flattered at your accusations.. When the opposition resorts to "everyone I disagree with is paid and illegitimate" you know you're on the right path.

I'm proud of myself, just gave myself a little pat on the back at your expense.

Cheers mate!

That sounds like it could be your soliloquy. Lmao.

I get a soliloquy!?!?

Woo!

.

Get proven wrong and suddenly you have other things to do, funny how that works.

5,834 post karma 68,606 comment karma

Redditor for 1 month

It's obvious looking at this person's post history that Reddit is their job. I wonder who pays them?

I mean, he could just be a spammer, but the difference is small. At the end of the day, people who spam content harm reddit and open discussion, whether they are paid or not.

Check out my history if you think I'm spamming.

YES!!! My favorite part of the day is when I get accused of shilling!

Honestly though, do you know anyone who pays? My day job is kind of boring at the moment.

The man literally typed out the NDAA in front of you supporting his argument.

Did he discredit history by quoting it?

Everyone is wrong every now and then man, it's cool.

Go getter better weed.

actually been legal for them to lie to the public

It was never illegal to lie to the public.

So why did the government pass the bill if there was no point to it? I would agree that the government has been using propaganda on its citizens before that NDAA provision, but the provision likely expanded the governments capacity to propagandize its citizens. You should realize the problem in that, especially if you don't like the current admin.

NPR was so far up Obama's and hillary's ass. Do you even listen to npr?

They shit all over bernie and trump and anything that wasn't a part of the democratic party

This. They went full retard over the election and it was blatant.

Curious -- was there a more centrist news source throughout the election? The Hill maybe, but they veered left after.

I'd be willing to bet that youtube was a more centrist source, but youtube distribution was not. That is, if you could get all independent analysis uniformly from youtube it'd probably paint a pretty fair picture. But internally youtube was probably doing quite a bit to bias the videos people got to watch.

More like they didn't go full retard over the elections.

While NPR's coverage of Sanders was bad, I think a better comparison to RT would be Voice of America .

I used to listen to NPR for an hour in the morning, and an hour in the evening, nearly every day.

When the election started to rev up, I noticed a few things.

1. 99% of all pieces about Hillary were positive.

2. If Sanders was mentioned at all, it was always mentioned that he was the underdog or that he was running against "Frontrunner Hillary". There was literally not one piece I heard in which it was not mentioned.

3. The same hyper-negativity as NYT, WaPo, etc. regarding Trump.

It's been completely unbearable since last August. Everything is an anti trump hit piece. It's basically the radio version of /politics.

NPR has never been anything less than lib propaganda for people who fancy themselves educated.

I forget what it was, but NPR was literally printing lies and that's when I lost all faith. I fucking can't fucking remember and it's pissing me off, probably something about the NV caucus or something, but it was just blatantly false Hillprop.

I agree with you. I also want to state that all the liberal satire was rim-jobbing Hillary and Obama during this election cycle.

Bernie announced his presidency on NPR. And Krasny nearly pushed him into it. I listened to it live. What are you talking about?

Oh please, most of NPR's programs that focus on policy end up pushing the neoliberal agenda in some form. Sure it's not RT, but the US isn't Russia either. It's a shit false equivalency and instead of pointing out OP's mistake you try to try to pretend NPR is something its not. Dream on.

I think you don't understand what Neoliberalism is if you think that's what NPR has been pushing.

Can you spell out the difference for the ignorant among us?

The NPR Politics Podcast is actually not that bad at all. The team that works on that is pretty great.

That and only 5% of it's budget comes from the government. Of all the dumb, alt-right, pro Trump conspiracy shit that has flooded this sub in the last year, this has got to be one of the most retarded.

NPR does not have the reputation of being critical of the government now. It used to, when the administration was Republican. Do you see a pattern? BTW I'm an Independent, but NPR is clearly a Dem agent.

When?

"Anything I disagree with must be fake"

You know how I know you aren't a NPR listener?

I am a very regular NPR listener and the post above is accurate.

Which programs you listen to?

All day erry day. But the best stuff comes from WNYC - Invisibilia, Freaknomics Radio, Radio Lab. WBEZ is pretty good - This American Life frequently has very interesting stories, and though not an NPR program, Sarah Koenig's "Serial" is fantastic, she used to work with TAL. I'm not as into the NPR News stuff - thats where a lot of Propaganda By Omission seems to be - Morning Edition, All Things Considered. I dont want to say more because you could probably dox someone based on listening habits. I entirely recommend the WNYC stuff, apart from On The Media which is almost a literal "how-to" guide for spreading propaganda directed at podcasters and bloggers. In fact that may be a terrific place to start listening if you doubt my assertion about propaganda in NPR - its also an infuriating show to listen to at times because it can be awfully blatant. Anyway - Im a democrat that listens to NPR all the time because it has thought provoking material, and I kind of tune out what they say regarding news, when Diane Rehm reported that Sanders had a rally of >23k people and tripped over herself to say Clinton held a rally of similar size as if she had to say something to that effect or be shot, I gave up entirely on NPR "News".

Honest question because I am foreignor and I find US government and society fascinating from overseas.

Why is it Americans on reddit get angry Sec Clinton wins democratic primary with more votes, but are okay with President Trump winning with less votes.

This is confusing to me.

Saying that Clinton got more votes, while technically accurate, is kinda shitty when considering the tens of thousands (very conservative estimate) of people that were unable to vote in the primary. Having those votes not count not only inflates the difference, it certainly altered the subsequent voters attitude about Sanders' legitimacy as a candidate. A tie in Iowa (first caucus) and a Sanders landslide in New Hampshire meant Nevada had real repercussions. Lots and lots of shady stuff happened in Nevada and ended up going Clinton. But had Nevada gone to Sanders the race would have proceeded differently - not to say it would have a different end result, but it would definitely have been different as both campaigns adjusted strategies. So many are upset about the claim regarding the popular vote in the primary.

Conversely, the general election uses the Electoral College which can allow for some pants-on-head madness but they are the agreed upon rules. Whereas the DNC primary violated several of the agreed upon rules.

You must be registered democrat to vote in democrat election yes? Or if the location is open primary or something I think.

What agreed upon rules did the DNC violate?

Yeah, you got it right. The real indisputable one is that the DNC is to remain neutral and not favor a candidate but they did.

Where specifically does it say that the DNC must be neutral.

I have a hard time believing this is first time a political party prevented a candidate from succeeding against their will.

Is this not reason President Rossevelt ran as Bull Moose Party? The Republican party did not support him running again.

I have a hard time believing this is first time a political party prevented a candidate from succeeding against their will.

And it was fucked up then too. Look at how Truman ended up as FDR's VP.

Is this not reason President Rossevelt ran as Bull Moose Party? The Republican party did not support him running again.

Sorta.

Where specifically does it say that the DNC must be neutral.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4u68w0/article_5_section_4_of_the_dnc_charter_requires/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Why is it Americans on reddit get angry Sec Clinton wins democratic primary with more votes,

Americans don't, but some factions in the Democratic party weren't too keen on the primary structure of the Democratic National Committee's way of selecting their candidate (which mostly stems from their use of unbound or Superdelegates who help decide the nomination regardless of who voted in the State primaries (there are 50 of them). The DNC has no actual connection to the US Government (besides their members working in it, if you will).

but are okay with President Trump winning with less votes.

DJT won the electoral college vote with a total of 303 votes IIRC. According to the US Constitution, a majority of EC votes is required to achieve a victory for the Presidency. It has absolutely nothing to do with the total amount of votes each candidate receives and entirely on how each State voted. These are apples and oranges, and many on the 'losing side' are upset because this election was likely the first for an entire generation who are now 'political aware' (and relevant).

The main issue arises (IMHO) due to a lack of education on proper US Civics (and the less-than-democratic way the Democratic National Committee chooses their candidate for President each year).

This is confusing to me.

I hope that helped!

Well you don't, because I have been a fan for 12 years. But I followed a few major news stories and saw how they handled them. I bailed.

They made complete fools of themselves this election with their blatant hill shilling. Why the fuck did they have Clinton representatives as guest coanchors?

Yeah, they are all in on global warming and 9/11 was not an inside job and the spying isn't really a big deal, and Obama was pretty awesome. They're lefty sycophants.

Fuck_Steve_Bannon Recent Comment Count

@politics: 60

@conspiracy: 30

@news: 3

@TheFacebookDelusion: 2

@Watches: 1

@TrueReddit: 1

@pics: 1

@gaming: 1

@worldnews: 1

Fuck_Steve_Bannon Top Links

[' politics ', ' California ', ' politics ', ' politics ', ' politics ', ' TheFacebookDelusion ', ' TrueReddit ']

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks for pointing that out, is there a specific reason for this?

not really, have a nice day.

He is trying to say he is a shill without breaking the rules.

He was actually just working on a bot and got shadowbanned for it.

Though it's convenient it only seemed to target users who aren't currently choking on Trump's cock. (It's not.)

If he was shadowbanned, we wouldn't be able to view his user profile.

we still could

Considering that's me.. I'd LOVE to get paid, could you forward literally anyone who will pay me to post my political opinions online?

I get called a shrill like 3 times a day and I'm starting to feel guilty for not taking any money for going about my daily life.

I'll pay you $50 if you tattoo my name on your forehead.

@politics: 60

Reddit investigator shows 235 comments made in /r/politics .

Looks like today was his first ever comment posts to /r/conspiracy .

You obviously haven't been listening to NPR

Fuck_Steve_Bannon

1 month and 68k karma. Something is up with this account. Tell Mr. Brock hi for me, and insist that he change his shitty haircut please.

Do you know how many accounts on r/the_donald are the same fucking way?

Maybe 10-20 years ago you could say that. They behaved in the same manner as the rest of MSM during this election cycle. They had a bias.

Yeah no. They have a bias like all outlets. They all have their masters. They are just more eloquent with their words.

Don't confuse charisma with truth.

This is absolutely correct. NPR is very difficult for me to listen to because it is so obvious to me that it is merely a slick propaganda tool.

Big Bird is a shill.

The R in NPR stands for Radio. I guess you and a few others missed this.

Since USA media is divided, clearly its propaganda is not only spread across these corporate interests, but they dont even agree....2 party system at work?

I like RT news. I found them because they were the only major news source that was covering the content of Podesta email leaks (I read the emails myself I just wanted to see who was actually covering it). I've also seen articles from both sides of the political spectrum. As long as you can verify the facts, does it matter if it's Russian propaganda or not?

RT serves a purpose that you acknowledge in your post, but you might not be completely aware of exactly how they are trying to manipulate you. Search for the term 'soft power'. RT is propaganda, all of it.

I believe RT does a much better job discussing US news and global news than the MSM (which does a horrific one sided job).

They have hired respectable Americans aND have on better guests and discuss issues from multiple viewpoints from voices the MSM will never have on.

I wouldn't ever trust them to report news on Russia or Russian related topics, but I am satisfied with their coverage on a lot of other issues. They cover topics MSM literally will never discuss and that is valuable.

OP, no, NPR since the reduction in their funding are nothing but the now tax supported voice of the conservatives.

I have heard more shit about Democratic and liberals on NPR since 2001 than I have seen from Fox News. Really nasty attacks that are worded so that conservatives used to Infowars and Fox and the radio folks and others, think they are liberal.

NPR, where all their so called "liberal," experts are from libertarian and conservative think tanks like AEI, CATO, and Heritage foundation.

Less than 25% of their funding is from tax money so NPR now must rely on the wealthy conservative organizations for funding. It is tax supported propaganda, but it is conservative propaganda, not liberal.

This is a good point. Although they think of themselves as liberal they are actually conservatives, their lives are built around classism (<--reddit flags this word as misspelled).

Do you write for conservative thinks? I ask because every point you make originated in a conservative think tank somewhere. You use the conservative version and definition of a liberal.
I am a liberal, born to two liberal parents. What you typed does not reflect anything I think nor what they thought but it is what I read on conservative sites.

I do wonder why you oppose LGBT equality, and how you define technocracy as a form of government?

Nearly all MSM news is propaganda. That's what happens when 5 corporations control all news outlets. You get news that suits the narrative of whoever owns those corporations.

You are broadly right. But NPR is not controlled by any of those 5... which is why so many smart people like it. Not people on this sub, but people on this sub aren't often...

people in this sub like user fuck steve bannon?

Silly Reddit, we don't call it propaganda, we call it public relations.

(But seriously in the 20s there was a guy named Edward Bernays who was a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Freud sent Bernays his texts on the ego, superego and id, which essentially concluded that man was not a rational creature, as was the popular belief at the time, but an irrational animal ruled by primal desires. Bernays was the first person to apply this sort of thought to groups of people, and he became the king of marketing for his pioneering techniques of crowd control. Similarly, he admired Nazi propaganda, having seen Germany's astonishing recovery of national prosperity and pride after WWI, and he wondered if Nazi propaganda techniques could be used in peacetime. It turns out they could! But he couldn't call it propaganda.... He would have to come up with a new name. So he coined the term "public relations," and now every corporation and government in the world has a public relations department. Just let that sink in for a second. Anyone who's interested in this line of thought and has a few hours should watch the excellent documentary called " Century of the Self ," produced by the BBC's Adam Curtis. You will never look at the world the same way. It's utterly eye-opening.)

Good post! The century of the self is one of my favorites.

Upvote.

Completely unrelated: Deerhoof is amazing!

Yes, trust YouTube over NPR my friends. YouTube has da integrity. I like it when bespectacled young men monologue over finely curated plots. It's like the guy on my subway line that starts shouting about Jesus, but with better production quality. STAY WOKE.

NPR is even worse with their blatant ASMR voices.

Is RT russian? Yes.

Is every RT story russian propaganda? No.

Examples of news outlets willingly putting foreign government propaganda in their papers:

Wall Street Journal and China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDy0CTdtLL8

Link to the propaganda they have up right now: http://www.wsj.com/ad/chinawatch

CNN and Bahrain: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-state-sponsored-news

China, Russia Pay Washington Post To Publish Their Propaganda: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/china-russia-pay-washington-post-to-publish-their-propaganda/

Example of news outlets willingly spreading US government propaganda:

Pentagon Military Analyst Program: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html (Bush Administration)

Is that the best defense of RT you have? Not "every" story is propaganda?

Is NPR biased and consensus building? Absolutely. But it is an abuse of language and logic to equate that to propaganda. By that definition what media outlet would not be? Fox does the same thing for the right. Is Fox propaganda?

It's not even a defense. It's a statement of fact.

By all means, show some examples of RT not simply reporting the news. Lord forbid some third party candidates get airtime on RT, or they cover fracking.

So much this.

I speak to many people who give me shit for listening to RT. But won't admit American media has just as much propaganda.

I don't take any media source at face value. That's sorta the point.

Related to this, I am sick of hearing of the BBC's so-called independence due to its 'unique' funding.

It is funded by a compulsory tax on the people who own TVs, so effectively funded by the state. The BBC Trust, the independent board who oversees it, is appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the BBC Executive Board, who run it day-to-day, are appointed by... the BBC Trust!

It is no more independent than Russia Today!

And BBC is British Propaganda

Just listened to an NPR story this morning about a black man who raped his 4 year old daughter, but the story is about how this rights were violated because he had the "right to remain silent".

Not to be obtuse about a vague story you're obviously paraphrasing for your narrative, but you know where Miranda Rights came from right?

I think you missed the point.

Not really, because their point was probably that rights are rights. If his rights were violated then he will walk. Miranda won his case on this matter which landed us Miranda Rights, despite his fucked up crimes.

In New Jersey you don't have to specifically say "I reserve my right to remain silent".

Yes.

You didn't get the trick state uses on NPR. NPR is pretty independent by itself, but outsourced the news to BBW World. And this is the propaganda mouth of state. With bigger influence than NPR alone, as it also serves the UK and lot of overseas nations.

I don't what programs your station has licensed, but there are definitely more news programs on my NPR station than BBC World Service.

Yes, there are more. That's why the BBC propaganda fluffs stand out so much. RT and Lavrov's propaganda pieces are mostly amusing and highly intellectual, whilst the US state propaganda is mostly very primitive takedowns or twists.

NPR programming is far more intellectual than Fox or CNN.

US state propaganda is mostly very primitive takedowns or twists.

I admittedly don't know what you mean by this.

Here is Alex Jones on Russian media just a few years ago: https://youtu.be/9laOjPe30J0?t=112

Here is Jones on Putin back in the day:

Vladimir Putin, who is known as Vladimir the Ruthless, using all his profanity on national TV, you name it. We won’t read the profanity here but we’ve got it — this person is on an unbelievable power trip and resembles a demon. He is a creature of the IMF and the World Bank and International Communism. He is a former KGB head and this information is vital ladies and gentleman. We’re seeing the New World Order really come out in full force.

Now Alex Jones brags about Russian government officials being a fan of his show and Aleksander Drugin lauding him as a hero.

The Russian propaganda is real. People buy into it just because it isn't American.

Yes, Putin is a simpleton, he doesn't need to be intellectual or persuade someone. He is in charge already. Lavrov is in charge of Russian state propaganda for Europe. He is pretty good.

I went to school for journalism. I've been calling NPR: National Propaganda Radio for years. Honestly I really like RT and they have a lot of journalistic integrity while covering other countries especially the US. When I first started reading them, I stayed away from the Russia-related content expecting it to be biased but after hearing peoples accounts of what Russia is really like, it's so much better for the average person. Putin also doesn't hate gays or want to expand the boarders.

lolz

Really agree. Have been impressed with the variety of views from all over the political spectrum RT has on and lets speak their mind. It's much better quality than MSM which would cut to commercial after 30 seconds of meaningful debate because the viewpoints are threatening to the status quo and political class. The MSM does enormous damage to this country. They are gatekeepers of vital points of view and important information and they manufacture consent for our own enslavement while the majority of people have no idea it's even happening. I think people underestimate the enormous effect propaganda and msm has on the nation. They control the debate.

I wouldn't trust RT to report on Russian issues though but that's me. I think overall they do a good job of having contrasting viewpoints on and letting them speak their mind.

Holy hell you Russian shills are becoming more and more obvious

Propaganda is really one of my favorite topics guuuuuys! May I humbly recommend a very long book written in 1919 by Edward Bernays so we know what we are talking about? Propaganda by Edward Bernays

ShareBlue and others are here in mass. Check out the WikiLeaks quoting RT thread. It's all people diverting away from the subject to Trump.

Oh yes check out the vote totals of the comments here. There are two that stick out like Hillary's ankles.

NPR has really changed over the years. It's coverage before the election was sickening.

There are way too many stories about musicians or other artists, and almost no real reporting that matters to people.

Or perhaps their target audience is mostly liberal-types who are interested in the arts moreso than they're interested in non-stop political talk? Most of the people I know who listen to NPR aren't really that interested in politics...they prefer the artist interviews and random little stories and other features of NPR because that's what makes it different than just listening to some left/right-wing talking head all the time.

They were key in blocking Sanders in the media. They had Clinton proxies on the air almost 24/7.

The establishment left in general was key in blocking Sanders in the media, and that goes for CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and many others as well. The establishment left is a very powerful and well-connected organization that has its tentacles spread throughout all facets of media, aside from perhaps more independent media sources. It's a combination of corruption and manipulation....actually convincing people that Clinton is the better/more-qualified candidate for the Democrat party. So you have some people who blocked Sanders perhaps because they have a vested financial interest in Clinton becoming president, and there are others who are simply drinking the kool-aid being served to them by those with a vested interest.

We saw the same exact shit happen with Ron Paul on the Republican side just a few years ago...they'd do anything to stop him from rising to the top of the field. I saw that shit first-hand since I was a volunteer for Paul's campaign...the establishment Republicans HATED Paul and his supporters.

Do you think these Paul supporters and Bernie supporters could merge and take on the establishment? There is a whole lot of overlap that both groups are passionate about.

Paul is the one who first got me interested in politics back during the 2008 presidential elections. Like Sanders, I could just tell that Paul was an intelligent, well-read person who was genuinely interested in helping people...he wasn't in it for himself at all. He was principled and wasn't bought off by lobbyists like nearly every other politician these days. He spoke out against our overly-militant foreign policy and "nation-building", and wasn't afraid to say things that might've been unpopular within his Republican base.

I definitely think there's a lot of overlap between Paul and Sanders supporters, and unfortunately I think Trump preyed on those same "anti-establishment" voices from our voting public. But Trump, imo, was never actually genuine about wanting to help people...he's just too obsessed with benefiting himself. He knows how to market himself, and when up against someone like Clinton he saw the perfect opportunity to try and snatch up some of those Sanders/Paul supporters by appearing as the "populist" candidate. But he's FAR from a populist.

Ideally, I'd love to see the Sanders/Paul supporters break away from the two-party system altogether and form a new party that focuses on getting the influence of money out of our political system. That's the only way anything will ever get accomplished these days that's actually in the best interest of the general public rather than just the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, the establishment left/right has such a strong grip on the media and political discourse in this country...which makes it VERY hard for a third party to rise up. But we need a third party now more than ever before in this nation's history.

Exactly what I would like to see happen as well. Neither R's nor D's are interested in disrupting the status quo. With money in politics our whole system becomes corrupt to its core. Eventually millennials will take the stage on being the major voting class, and a populist will emerge. Unfortunately, I think it will be some time before we can lessen the grip TPTB have. Hopefully it's not too late.

Sorry but I disagree. I don't care about some zither player from Patagonia.

The fact is, NPR used to have some measure of investigative journalism, and they don't any longer. It is far from a liberal stronghold, it just maintains that illusion. What they do now is simply pretend to cover issues that matter to people, but really they cover what the billionaire class wants them to. NPR is propaganda now, and it's obvious to people who listen on a regular basis.

You're entitled to your opinion...I'm just saying that obviously there ARE a lot of people who enjoy NPR's programming choices even if you personally do not. Some people enjoy listening to talk radio but don't enjoy being barraged constantly by political talk. So those people appreciate more diversity in NPR's programming...whether it's random non-political stories about people no one's ever heard about or interviews with artists/musicians. I'm the type of person who listens to a lot of different shit when I'm in my car. I even used to listen to people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity daily even though I disagreed with them about almost everything. I also disagree with a lot of NPR's politics (I can't stand the Clintons, for example), but I sometimes enjoy their random little stories about people and artist interviews. It's fine if you don't enjoy that stuff since you don't have to listen to it.

Somewhere in the middle of our two opinions is the truth, I feel. That truth is that NPR avoids important topics now, unless it has one political bent. They use their airwaves for fluff now. Everything in life is political in some sense, and I feel they've lost what should be their reason for existing.

What pissed me off, was how they refused to mention or talk about Bernie. Like they got the same orders as the rest of MSM. I couldn't tell the difference.

Yep, it's like he didn't exist. They really showed what they've become with this last election.

There are way too many stories about musicians or other artists,

You realize that there are a shit ton of programs broadcasted? Some of them deal specifically with music. I think you're confusing programs like All Songs Considered with All Things Considered or other programs that deal with news.

Beyond that, I find that a lot of people mistake programs that are produced locally and broadcast on their local station with NPR programs.

Nope, I'm talking about NPR. In fact, NPR still broadcasts "Car Talk", even though one of them has been DEAD for about 3 years. They just re-run that shit over and over, but still ask old people to put them in their will. NPR makes me want to puke, they've changed that much over the years.

lol... Why am I not surprised to find one of Putin's favorite talking points on the front page of /r/conspiracy ?

Let's see here:

• My local NPR affiliated station has a few pledge drives a year. A lot of that money goes directly to pay licensing fees to NPR. NPR only get's something like 10% of its funding directly from the federal government.

  Tell me, OP, how much money does RT get from its federal government and how much does it get from locally funded pledge drives?

• NPR journalists mostly work in a country (the US) where journalists don't get killed on a regular basis:

  • Journalists killed in Russia since 1992 (motive confirmed/unconfirmed): 56/24 (80 total)
  • Journalists killed in USA since 1992 (motive confirmed/unconfirmed): 7/2 (9 total)

  Source: https://cpj.org/killed/

  Now, please tell me OP, how much press freedom do US journalists enjoy compared to Russia? Do you really think that your local NPR affiliate is afraid of getting murdered for what he reporst?

We know that Russia's strength isn't in there military defense. Trump's increase in military spending alone is almost enough to eclipse Russia's entire defense spending (which Putin has actually cut).

Russia's strengths are in "cyber-" related warfare (espionage, disiniformation, trolling, state-sponsored blogs, etc). USA's strengths are in raw military strength (weapons, drones, soldiers, ships, etc).

When I see posts like this dominate the front page of /r/conspiracy , its clear to me that Russia's cyber-warfare game is strong. One of Trump's former campaign managers gets accused by his own daughter of killing people in the Ukraine, and this shitpost reaches the front page in an effort to slide the conversation with whataboutism and deflection.

When I see posts like this dominate the front page of /r/conspiracy , its clear to me that Russia's cyber-warfare game is strong.

It's pretty comical to be honest..

I'm not hardcore patriot, and I'm not history buff, but spending an hour in this place.. holy shit I feel like a fucking expert. I'm willing to entertain conspiracies because I do believe they exist within all governments and societies.. but jesus christ this sub has shifted away from conspiracies and moved into full blown paranoia.

The misinformation and the attempts to ignore and discredit very obvious facts.. documents, and events that clearly happened isn't really normal.. and it's a huge vocal majority here these days.

Agreed. I've posited before that Trump's (read: Bannon's) presidency has marked the beginning of a "conspiracy industrial complex". They've taken cues from Putin/Russia on how to disrupt social adhesion for personal gain. Classic divide and conquer, just with different "weapons".

Classic divide and conquer, just with different "weapons".

Spot on. It's pretty clear in the anti-immigrant stuff going around lately. I'm not a big fan of Islam, but the picture the right is painting is of savages who all wake up and dream of destroying America. If you're uneducated and do no research.. I can understand why that's motivation to search out more divisive information to validate the views.

Control the flow of information, discourage research and discredit large media.. and you're left with a bunch of angry emotional people who'll believe whatever they're fed.

I can see from your post the CIA cyber-warfare game is strong. Why should I give a fuck about Russia and getting the US involved in a new Cold War? Both RT and NPR are propaganda, who are unable to criticize those who rule over them.

I can see from your post the CIA cyber-warfare game is strong.

Huh? It's strong because I made a post?

Why should I give a fuck about Russia and getting the US involved in a new Cold War?

The only people talking cold war are people like you trying to muddy up the water. I have nothing against Russia. I assume most/all countries are involved in some kind of espionage, defense building, secret experiments, etc.

Why is it that whenever Russia is brought up, suddenly everyone loses their shit? Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the USA does it doesn't mean we can't ALSO discuss what other countries do. Regardless of how much people like you push back against it.

Both RT and NPR are propaganda, unable to criticize those who rule over them.

Just keep repeating the talking point. I'm sure it'll become true if you keep saying it over and over again. /s

Now, let me tune over to NPR and listen to them slob on Trump's knob, since they obviously will be unable to criticize him.

RT is one of the few big news networks to accurately portray the conflict in Syria. American and British MSM has constantly lied about it and stuck to the line of 'moderate rebels'.

Excuse me if I believe RT more than the rest, they haven't willingly misled the public about a 6 year long war.

Both are funded by their respective governments

NPR itself doesn't receive any funding directly from the government. Public radio stations do get some money from the government, either directly or via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but it's less than a fifth of their funding.

http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances

"All things considered" makes me want to destroy my radio sometimes. It didn't used to be that way...the narrative changes in the last year because of the election I believe. NPR is also heavily funded by the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, ect....

NPR is also heavily funded by the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs, ect

Yep. George Soros too. http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Open_Society_gives_18_million_to_NPR.html

Those mother fuckers!

I think RT is a great news source, just don't expect anti-russia reports from them. But there is plenty of that from basically everywhere else.

And so is ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NBC, etc., etc. And never mind "Radio Free Europe", "Voice of America", the CIA/State Department incubator known as the "Peace Corps", all those Mormons going on missionary trips & gathering valuable local intelligence, etc.

The USA is very good at what it does. Very good.

CBC is Canadian Liberal party ( Canadian arm of the Democratic party) trash forcefully funded by the taxpayer. One sided agenda pushing is clear as day from analyzing their content.

Neither RT nor NPR are propaganda. RT is leaps and bounds beyond ANY american or british news outfit as far as accuracy and honesty are concerned. Voice of america and bbc, on the other hand, are in fact propaganda agencies. Fuck the bbc and voa.

RT is Russian government propaganda just like NBC News and CNN cater to CIA propaganda.

"Mainstream" Media really should be called CIAstream media, because it's thoroughly infiltrated by the CIA. Famed reporter Carl Bernstein (of "Woodward and Bernstein" fame) wrote a famous piece in Rolling Stone Magazine in 1977 about the CIA's million tendrels into "mainstream" media. Here's a link to Bernstein's classic article: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

For example, The Washington Post is nothing more than a CIA rag, just like Pravda was the KGB's rag.

I read in Deborah Davis' truly excellent book called "Katharine Graham and the Washington Post Empire" (get the second edition with lots more info) how even long-time Washington Post Executive Editor Benjamin Bradlee worked for the C.I.A. in Europe in the 1950's.

I think Putin and the Russian government act like criminals just like I think Bush and our government act like criminals. So regarding RT America, I think of myself as a cop. If a criminal tells a cop what another criminal is doing, the cop is going to listen. Lol. The cop is going to listen to both criminals to get the dirt on each :-)

There's a lot of propaganda and lies on RT America, just like there's also a lot of propaganda and lies on our own U.S. news programs, which didn't challenge the Bush administration's allegations of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in the lead-up to that unnecessary, financially costly to the U.S. taxpayer, and destructive war -- but a war that was very lucrative to the "Defense" contractors/weapons manufacturers and oil companies when oil prices skyrocketed.

RT America is infiltrated by the KGB (now called the FSB), and U.S. news programs are infiltrated by the C.I.A (what many people call the Central Lying Agency or the Central Propaganda Agency - Lol). Don't forget the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" lie, the "Missile Gap" lie in the 1960s, and lots and lots of other lies I won't go into here.

The CIA's Missile Gap lie in the 1960s (claiming the U.S. was behind the Soviets in the number of nuclear missiles) must have cost U.S. tax payers TRILLIONS of dollars. The CIA's lie led to massive nuclear missile production to the point in the 1980s we had 25,000 to 30,000 nuclear warheads. Thankfully, today, we're down to 6,000 or so. Can anybody say they want their tax money back from the "Defense" Industry?

The vast majority of our 20 Trillion dollar national debt is due to the CIA's / Military Industy's lies and their outright theft/stealing. President Eisenhower's warning about the power of the Military Industrial Complex was so right. The Military Industry steals 1 of every 2 dollars we give them through "cost overruns" and other shenanigans like $500 dollar hammers, etc.

Have a look.

http://12bytes.org/articles/exposed/npr-national-public-radio-or-national-propaganda-radio

I get more accurate reports from RT on the war in Syria. us media doesn't really cover it, and if they do, it's clearly bullshit. I've never used npr, didn't know they have a show.

There's nothing wrong with saying you're country is great.

There's everything wrong with saying other countries are terrible, especially if it's counterfactual

There's everything wrong with lying to the public, even if by omission or 'in the name of national security'. We pay them to keep us informed, and we pay them to keep us safe. What atrocities we've seen happen 'in the name of national security' have kept us both less informed (or wholly ignorant) and have made us 4500% less safe. That's a real figure of how much we've increased terrorism in the world by, since 911 and all the measures we've taken to stop it.

Now imagine if you or I did our job 4500% badly

We'd be fired 45x

I'm not willing to accept

Incredulity : there is no conversation to be had when starting from it .

Its information warfare. A battle for your mind!

I have been saying this to a lot of people. People accuse me of getting all my news from Fox because I don't buy the mainstream narrative on about anything (I don't even have cable or watch Fox). I say, "I don't trust any outlet completely. I refer to lots of sources before I come to any 'conclusion.'" They reply "This is why we need government run media like the BBC, to which I reply, wouldn't that be just like RT then?

I personally don't want the government to do shit.

Correction: Jewish Propaganda

It's funny that people say this now, but forget several years ago everybody was saying that NPR hated Israel because of the O'Keefe bullshit.

"Operate seemingly without purpose. That’s far more compelling." - Joseph Goebbels

That's all you need to know about NPR.

You're thinking of Voice of America, idiot.

The messaging of Russia Today is controlled by the Russian government from the top. NPR has editorial independence.

Don't be willfully misleading--unless, of course, you are a Russian shill.

NPR is the media arm of The Podesta Group and its corporate and foundation clients. Only about 3-4% of it's income is, or was, from the federal gov't.

I remember Obama going on about RT being a "state broadcaster" so you couldn't put much stock into what they said....the BBC is a state broadcaster too...

The "Watching the Hawks" show is pretty good. So is their comedy news show called "Redacted Tonight." Also enjoy the "Keiser Report."

ITT, people who never listen to NPR regularly.

Do your self a favor and listen to the NPR politics episode for a few episodes, and THEN come to your conclusion.

Not NPR (which is like the BBC) RT is more like VoA (which is official American propaganda) but more of American advertisement than nefarious

No, NPR only gets a small amount of government funding. Now if you actually care about the real US propaganda outlet it is voice of America.

I suspect you are American yes?

Russia Today is not respected as media source in many countries besides US. It is joke in other European countries. The English version of RT tones down retoric for American audience. Its Russian broadcast is very much more heavy propaganda for Russian government.

I cannot find link to video, (I do honestly try) where short, very flashy 15 minute style story is about US/UN food aid program being tool of American aggression against Russia.

There are arguments to be make against US and UN policy but to complain that food aid to places like Africa and Haiti is done to attack Russia directly is very funny.

I was working in Saudi Arabia when I see this so I think this story is done in 2014 or 2015. I apologize for not finding direct link.

If? Lol. They are both

Do you actually listen to NPR?

I agree but just throwing a general question, when did the word "suspect" replace the word "suspicious"? I've been seeing and hearing about this lately.

OP, NPR only receives about 25% of their funding from tax money.

If they are propaganda it is created by the conservative corporations and foundations that support and sponsor them.

In other words, not government controlled, but is conservative propaganda subsidized by tax money.

It's all propaganda. I find it hard to believe anything anymore.

And BBC is British propaganda, and so on, and so on

I think it depends on the culture and business environment of Russia. How ingrained are businesses there with the State? If it's a reasonable number, I think it's reasonable to theorize that they kinda act as an arm of the Russian government . Are there some media outlets banned in Russia, and why? Is there POLITICAL Internet censorship there, and why?

As for NPR, does anyone have information that suggests that they directly support the U.S. government's agenda and even receive marching orders from the U.S. government?

I thought voice of America was the foreign propaganda outlet...

Try mentioning the fact that NPR gets yuge funding from the government to any of their listeners. They don't want to hear it.

I'd disagree and say my Ego is perfectly in check..

But at the same time it's like arguing with fucking Middle Schoolers in here so I'd understand why the words I choose come off as demeaning.

Bullshit. What procedures have they changed? There isn't one vector that wasn't already known about in there that I could find. Even the stuff about being able to remote-control cars has been proven by third parties years ago.

Can you shed some light on what exploits were so scary in the eyes of your employer?

Trump is against mainstream media

This makes it sound as though he is against it for larger reasons other than the 'mainstream media' calls him out on the utter bullshit he spews. If these same sources suddenly started publishing positive stories about him he would no longer be against them.

Trump is against any media that criticizes him. That's been made abundantly clear.

Except that the largest and most influential network endorsed him...

Curious -- was there a more centrist news source throughout the election? The Hill maybe, but they veered left after.

More like they didn't go full retard over the elections.

Yes, Putin is a simpleton, he doesn't need to be intellectual or persuade someone. He is in charge already. Lavrov is in charge of Russian state propaganda for Europe. He is pretty good.