from the the-
from the truth-tellers-have-a-hard-time-in-some-places dept.
Russia Today reports:
Progressive political journalist Ed Schultz is joining RT America, beginning January 25, 2016, to host his new primetime news program, "NEWS WITH ED SHULTZ" at 8pm EST weeknights. On his new show, Schultz will focus on exploring issues that most affect working Americans, particularly within the context of the upcoming US presidential election.
[...] Said Ed Schultz, "The network is firmly established outside of US corporate media and is not afraid to give a platform to diverse voices, stories and perspectives to its viewers, even if it ruffles some mainstream feathers. I can't think of a better fit than a news broadcaster that bullishly pursues issues that matter to hardworking Americans." Schultz's broadcasting career spans more than two decades. Until recently, he hosted "The Ed Show" on MSNBC; the program was consistently the second-highest rated show on the channel.
Schultz [...] will work out of the RT America studios in Washington, DC.
ABOUT RT — RT is a global TV news network that broadcasts 24/7 in English, Arabic, and Spanish from its studios in Moscow, Washington DC, and London. It is available to 700 million viewers worldwide. RT is the most-watched TV news network on YouTube with more than 3 billion views.
Previous: MSNBC Cans the Only Cable TV Host Who Extensively Covered TPP
Related Stories
AlterNet reports:
MSNBC announced on Thursday that "The Ed Schultz Show" would come to an end, to be replaced by a show hosted by political analyst Chuck Todd.
[...] The loss of Schultz is particularly troubling because he has managed a television program that has been more attentive to issues focused on economic inequality, labor unions, and the wider economy than perhaps any other cable television show.
In particular, he covered the Trans-Pacific Partnership more often than [all other cable programs combined], as Craig Harrington and Brian Powell, researchers with Media Matters documented:
[During an 18 month period] CNN and Fox News each mentioned the TPP during two broadcasts. MSNBC's The Ed Show discussed the trade agreement on 71 broadcasts, but the TPP was mentioned on the network's other evening programming only twice (once by host Ed Schultz during coverage of the president's State of the Union speech and a passing mention by All In host Chris Hayes).
On The Jimmy Dore Show (think: Mort Sahl or Jon Stewart) via my Pacifica Radio affiliate, Chuck Todd is mentioned often. My impression is more "political hack" than "political analyst".
Russia Today reports
The US public doesn't need a Digital Security Commission; they need the FBI to stop deceiving everyone and tell the truth that it wants to spy on Americans, John McAfee, developer of the first commercial anti-virus program told RT's Ed Schultz.
[...] "The FBI wants Apple to change their software so that it removes the check for security, so that we don't check for security anymore. Once it has that software, they can use that software on any phone. But they say they only need it for one phone."
[...] "You need a hardware engineer and a [software] engineer. The hardware engineer takes the phone apart and copies the instruction set, which are the iOS and applications, and your memory. And then you run a program called a disassembler, which takes all the ones and zeros and gives you readable instructions. Then the coder sits down and he reads through. What he is looking for is the first access to the keypad, because that is the first thing you do when you input your pad. It'll take half an hour. When you see that, then he reads the instructions for where in memory this secret code is stored. It is that trivial--a half an hour.
...The FBI knows this, Apple knows this."[...] "In either case, if they (the FBI) don't know, that is tragic; if they do know it, then they are deceiving the American public and Apple and everyone else by asking for a universal key."
Video
Do you see any flaws in McAffee's explanation?
Previous: Apple Wants Court To Rule If It Can Be Forced To Unlock iPhones
Seems Like Everyone has an Opinion About Apple vs. the FBI
Update: TPP-Exposing Journalist Ed Schultz Lands on His Feet at RT
John McAfee Announces He Will Run For President of the United States
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday January 19 2016, @12:20PM
even if it ruffles some mainstream feathers
As long as those feathers don't belong to the Russian government.
English, Arabic, and Spanish from its studios in Moscow, Washington DC, and London
I'm guessing not "...respectively." I'm also guessing they also broadcast in Russian.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Webweasel on Tuesday January 19 2016, @01:26PM
RT are so bias its laughable.
I would say "what serious journalist would work there", but journalism died long long ago.
Enjoy being the mouthpiece of the Russian government I guess.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday January 19 2016, @02:01PM
but if you know there is systemic bias, you can recover the data...
The problem comes when you cannot assess the bias...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Unixnut on Tuesday January 19 2016, @04:00PM
Everyone is biased, I remember back in 1999, the BBC being so biased that they were flat out fabricating stories.
It was a real shock to me. For the first time the BBC was reporting about something happening in my back yard, and I could confirm from primary sources that what the BBC reported happened, and what actually happened, where completely different (or didn't happen at all).
The Guardian was even worse, complete and utter nonsense from them, with a dose of complete hysteria and bullshit. So much so that I can't take the newspaper seriously (or anyone who swears by it) since then. Their stance on Snowden improved their image to me a bit, but it is still down in the gutter as far as truthfulness and reporting standards are concerned.
That made me think, if they showed such bias to a situation that I knew well, and had first hand information at hand, how can I trust that they are not just as biased when it comes to other events where I don't have good source of first-hand information?
My point is, it is foolish to think that what you hear on the news is in any way true. There may be a minor truth buried in there somewhere (but contorted so much to have little relation to reality), or it may be a bald faced lie (Which is covered with words such as "alleged", to allow them to weasel out, or they just say "our source was wrong, sorry" months or years later).
Since then, I try to get my news from as close to the source as possible. If I can't do that, I will watch RT, Al-Jazeera and the BBC. They will give 3 different reports about an event, but with the application of critical thinking, you might actually be able to work out what really happened.
The problem, to be honest, is most people don't care enough to waste the time/energy working out what actually happened. The above requires 3x more time (to follow 3 reports), plus time to sit, analyse, and come to a likely conclusion of what actually happened. That is more time devoted to the news than most people care to deploy.
For most people, especially in this world of short attention spans, a daily 10min bulletin from their "news of choice" is all they care for. Then they can have their 2 mins hate over whoever they have been told is the baddie of the month, and continue with their daily struggles.
Quite frankly I am glad we have RT and the others, biased they may be, but they give you an insight into how "the other side" sees the situation, which if nothing else, can help the two sides see the others point of view and perhaps clear up any miscommunication/misunderstandings. Especially for those who do not speak Russian/Arabic, and would otherwise have no alternative story/side to hear of.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:15PM
I agree with you about how to figure out a best guess as to what is true ... if it's worth your time. Most news stories aren't about anything you can affect, and don't give you any action to take. As a result I, who used to read the entire newspaper from cover to cover every day, have almost totally stopped paying attention. If a story is important enough, I'll hear about it anyway, and then I can try to triangulate on what the truth is.
If I've already decided that I'm not going to vote Republican, why should I listen to their rants? I have a question as to whether I'll vote Democrat, so I listen to them, even if I don't believe them, but the only reason to listen to the Republicans is if I were contemplating fleeing the country. If Hillary is selected, I'll probably vote Green, as she seems to be about as bad as Trump. (OK, I can't totally avoid the Republican rants.) Just sneakier. Sanders may actually be worth voting for. Perhaps. He makes lots of good promises, but it's not clear how many he could actually implement, or what devil might be hiding in the details.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday January 19 2016, @09:45PM
Don't count on it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday January 21 2016, @12:36AM
"Important enough" means "I can reasonably do something about it". But you've still occasionally got a point.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 20 2016, @03:41AM
Which is why I often trust some blogger more than mainstream news (depends on track record of course). Many of them may be biased but they are usually so simple it's easier to correct for than the more insidious stuff mainstream news does nowadays. Most of those bloggers/posters are saying it as they see it through their biased/ignorant eyes, rather than after being processed and excreted through some editor's agenda etc.
BBC is still biased today if not more so: https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/bbc-protects-uks-close-ally-saudi-arabia-with-incredibly-dishonest-and-biased-editing/ [theintercept.com]
BBC trying to influence news instead of report news:
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/bbc-producer-deletes-blog-where-he-admits-political-manipulation-before-pm-questions/ [wordpress.com]
When the programme editor phoned in we agreed that in addition to covering other major stories, including the junior doctors' strike, fallout from the reshuffle was likely to continue throughout the morning and this was a story where we could make an impact.
link to deleted blog post: https://archive.is/oTjoY [archive.is]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mendax on Tuesday January 19 2016, @04:21PM
Yes, it's biased, and only a fool will trust its reporting for anything dealing with Russia, but I've watched some RT documentaries via YouTube and they are on the whole not only really good but I think quite accurate. Keep in mind that during the time of the Soviet Union American history was a subject taught to school children. They knew American history better than our kids did in many ways because the Russians took care to teach some of the really ugly things that get conveniently skipped over in school.
A case in point: The Spanish-American War? It's case of American imperialism pure and simple attempting to take over the remnants of a once great empire in the backyard of the United States. And what about the war *AFTER* that war that no one was taught in school in the US? How an American army brutally put down an armed rebellion against the Filipinos, newly liberated from Spanish rule who were not crazy with the idea of one colonial power replacing another? I learned about it only through reading Mark Twain. It was during that "war after the war" that Mark Twain sharpened both his pen and his wit and started writing scathing pieces for the newspapers.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 20 2016, @01:33AM
I don't think most Americans would like to be reminded of the events of the Philippine–American War, when the US used concentration camps, torture, and extra-judicial killings to get their way
A particularly ugly episode that goes completely against the US' self image, so it's no wonder the Soviets' taught it in their schools.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday January 20 2016, @09:52AM
I actually do not know if the Soviets taught it in schools, but I know they taught American history. My point was that they didn't have to lie about American history to teach it with an anti-American bias. It's very easy. American history is full of ugliness.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @01:28PM
RT is a propaganda channel controlled by the Russian government.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @02:25PM
Fitting counterpoint to the bankster-run western corporate media, is it not?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday January 19 2016, @03:09PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by urza9814 on Tuesday January 19 2016, @11:37PM
But in the news business there is no such thing as correct. There is no news source that is 100% factual and unbiased in every single story. So if nobody is saying 2+2=4, do you listen only to the guy saying 2+2=5 and assume that's the truth, or do you see that some people are saying 2+2=5, some say 2+2=3, and therefore assume that neither is fully accurate? And if you watch them enough, you might start to discover that the guys saying 5 are usually high and the guys saying 3 are usually low and conclude that the truth is probably close to 4.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @01:56PM
I like what he says, so that means he is a truth teller. If you contradict his point of view, you are a liar.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 19 2016, @02:06PM
There are probably readers who don't know what the TPP [eff.org] is, nor why it's important to expose/oppose it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Webweasel on Tuesday January 19 2016, @03:47PM
This!
The TPP includes a bit to make companies sovereign and be able to sue gov's for lost profits.
Your MP and MEP (UK Here) will have NO IDEA what's going on.
Luckily I have relations in politics, I have passed articles on and the grass roots are shocked by what is being done by their leaders.
EVERYONE needs to know how we are being sold down the river ESPECIALLY your local government grass roots people, they are the ones in a position to influence change.
Do write and talk to your political leaders! They don't always listen but it can be effective.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @03:28PM
to host his new primetime news program, "NEWS WITH ED SHULTZ"
STOP YELLING!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @04:47PM
Maybe Ed Schultz yells a lot?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday January 20 2016, @12:21AM
No, not particularly, but CAPS LOCKS ALWAYS YELLS.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 5, Insightful) by richtopia on Tuesday January 19 2016, @04:20PM
The bias is relatively transparent: pro-Russia. So you can take many articles with a grain of salt, particularly domestic Russian issues.
However, they are removed from the American internal politics. So I trust them more on reporting for American domestic issues than Fox.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Tuesday January 19 2016, @05:17PM
The only country in the world capable of speaking informatively and negatively of the US. The home of Edward Snowden. Can’t even trust EU news. Remember when they grounded a presidential plane because they thought he was on it? Yeah, the EU policy is almost a direct mirror of US policy. I like them for middle eastern news as well for the same reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @06:40PM
Exactly! Because they speak negatively about the US, they are telling the truth. "I trust them because they tell me what I want to hear!"
You can believe their stories because they just "feel" right. Right? You can't trust anything they say about internal Russian politics, but everything else they say (I can just tell) is the truth!.
You know, YOU are pretty much the root of the problem with politics theses days.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday January 19 2016, @06:39PM
However, they are removed from the American internal politics. So I trust them more on reporting for American domestic issues than Fox.
I trust the homeless guy sparing change down the street more on reporting for American domestic issues than Fox.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr