What is his point? No, seriously, what is it, and how does it relate to that Yahoo article? The first article seems to claim that Russia Today is better than Western media sources, which is typical of you. But what does that have do with the second article, which states that 1. That same corrupt Western news media actually published the bad photos and 2. The Pentagon objected to it, but didn't well, actually do anything about it?
I think you may need to try reading that article again lol. The second article is intentionally framing a debate about whether or not the media should publish stories that shine a bad-light on american foreign policies, under the trite and fear-mongering guise of "national security". The issue is not the article directly, but the mere fact that the LA times publishing of those photos has caused the media itself to question whether or not it was appropriate. Which is in-line with Greenwald's point, although that might be hard for you to grasp given that you struggled so mightily to read anything more than "rhad thinks russian media is the bestest!" in the first article. Whatever.
Damn dude, it was even all bolded for you and everything. western journalism--->owned by weapons mfg and corps who profit from war western journalism asks---->should we publish photos of war efforts since people might get pissed and not support it? Basically western journalists are having difficulties doing their job because they could lose it by having integrity and reporting the truth. We're slipping into the police state and having endless wars against the boogey men because well, its big money to media parent companies and media won't report it. It's also the reason so many in the main stream media hate on your former boy Ron Paul. He directly opposes the wars and thus bears the brunt of the main stream media. Propaganda and 24/7 media coverage of racism, Michael Jackson, Lindsey Lohan and sports FTW.
The problem with this narrative is that: 1. The US media did publish these photos, as they did with Abu Gharib and other similar situations. 2. The complaint in article #1 stemmed, in part, from a mindless US media that repeated the US government line. Here, the US media is not only doing the opposite, but they are also openly discussing the merits and drawbacks - the opposite of mindlessness. 3. The issue isn't about the public getting pissed and not supporting it. It's about whether reporting it creates a danger to US troops. It's the same issue you have when reporting the names of minors involved in crimes and other such things - the media always weighs the benefits of reporting such information with the harm that could be caused by doing so. And I would think if you're opposed to a mindless media, that would be a good thing.
I'm circling back to the bigger issue that Greenwald is discussing. I'm glad the photos were published. That is a role of journalism: to report the truth. Taxpayers should be made aware and alert of the atrocities of war rather than blindly going along under the guise of patriotism or political rhetoric. Citing danger to US troops, well that appears a convenient cop out for the weapon mfg's through their crony consultants/retired generals at the pentagon to cite. But that's just my perspective. Regarding the bolded, I think that's a pretty dangerous statement but an interesting conversation of the media's duties. Will truth only appear if the collateral is minimal?
Thinking about the potential collateral that may result from reporting news, however, must always be something that must be thought about - newspaper have to be responsible, which means treating their newspaper like well, newspapers and not Bill Ingram or Peter Vecsey's Twitter accounts. I may be remembering it wrong, but wasn't Kobe's rape case completely derailed when the media reported the accuser's name and everything went to hell after that until the settlement? That doesn't mean censorship at all - the fact still remains that the American press is incredibly free compared to the Europeans or the Russians ( one may b**** about Fox News, but what rhad doesn't get in his article is that there's a huge difference between an individual owning a media corporation and the government controlling it - heck, Fox News is anything but pro-government propaganda these days), It does mean that one doesn't blindly believe that always reporting the truth always producess the best results, and the pros and cons of reporting things should be considered.
I never said anything of the sort, but I'm not surprised you'd extrapolate so stupidly, given that your reading of greenwald resulted in the conclusion that "rhad <3 russian media".
This statement is far from being a 'fact'. More correctly, it is a highly dubious opinion that regularly contradicts reports from organizations that assess freedom of the press throughout the world. Reporters without Borders ranks the US 47th in its press freedom index for 2011/2012.....
Do you & Greenwald honestly think there isn't a difference in kind between Putin's state controlled media outlets and MSNBC? I have no doubt and completely agree that the mainstream media in the US has largely failed its mission and completely misses the boat most of the time (confusing impartiality with an obligation to report utter crap and present it as equal in the interest of "fairness" being the primary culprit, along with general dumb-if-i-cation)...but there's a distinct difference between the media in the US failing to live up to past standards, and Putin's personalized version of Pravda.
Well, that just doesn't make any sense. It's like saying Sean Hannity (the archetypical pro-GOP talking head who literally never deviates from teh party line...ever) is not different from Howard Dean or Paul Begala. A very Nader-esque worldview.
If your implying RT never deviates from the party line, greenwald provides a counter example in the article quoted. More to the point, any argument of that type is anecdotal and/or subjective. Moot. I imagine your argument sounding as follows: "RT is state-driven propaganda 98% of the time. MSNBC is state-driven propaganda only 95% of the time." So much better.
It's probably more like 99 vs. 40-50. If that. Basically you are taking the same tactic as the "liberal media' argument that Republicans used to make, and trying to compare things that really aren't comparable. Sure, some "liberal" media bias might have crept into NYT stories when written by a largely liberal, urban media apparatus during the 80's or 90's, thoguh they were consciously trying to be objective. But that's a wholly different animal than something like Fox News which was created with the directive to unabashedly and openly cheerlead from the right in the guise of "news".
In my own reading of the article, I dont think Greenwald was ever trying to make such an equivalency. I believe his points were primarily that criticisms posited against Assange and RT are largely unsubstantive, particularly when compared against their body of work and reporting. More importantly, despite living in country that has an ostensibly free press, there exists a protocol within the US media establishment that routinely suppresses information for political purposes, a culture that rarely takes political actors to task in meaningful ways, and a practice of extreme deference to the corporatism that controls said media orgs. Conversely, RT has already demonstrated a willingness and ability to challenge political actors in meaningful ways as well as take positions that conflict with its government, despite being funded by the government and despite being tied to a country that has a history of media repression.
It's certainly possible (maybe the right word is "expected") that RT is heavily biased. Maybe more so than US Media outlets. But I don't think it's remotely that large a delta. US Media is just atrociously bad at reporting anything that defies the government's perspective. Heck, we have emails from media executives that indicate a concerted effort to paint the Iraq war in a "good light". We have the NYT cheerleading so badly they had to issue a grandiose "we ****ed up" editorial. If you honestly think the US media is a mere 40-50% pro-state bias, I suggest you read a bit more on the topic. Anyhow, it's arguable that the bias (whatever the percentage) from RT balances things out a bit, as Mark Adomanis writes:
Good point. Honestly, until Kojirou got his panties in a wad, I thought the RT aspect of the story was ancillary.
