Lesser of two evils? Yeah, sure. How can they say this with a straight face. Having to choose between two evils is tantamount to saying that this country and this system cannot produce any good and therefore we should all lower our standards and settle for evil. Ok folks take your pick Hitler or Stalin, AIDS or the flesh eating disease, McDonalds or Burger King? Sheesh! And then they pretend they are not being completely cynical.
ok why I thought danny glover would just be another actor acting like what they say is relevant or interesting but I have to say interesting perspective
No one should vote for evil. No one has the right to vote for evil and impose evil on others.
If people vote for evil, doesn't that make them evil? Are the evil voters as responsible for the evil acts as the evil politician? After all, if they hadn't voted, maybe the evil politician would have less legitimacy?
Isn't it disturbing that "good" people would make a secret vote for an evil person to inflict evil on good people?
If you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, Bush types win. Got to vote Democrat until a real republican comes along that is not full of shit. Im holding my breath
ah danny glover, a breath of fresh air. SOLIDARITY from Ireland. The amount of coverage we're gettin over hear about Obamha is annoyin. Ya swear we lived in america and the sun shone out of his arse. We'll wait and see anyway.
you wont have to wait my friend, as he's already been crowned the king and shining son of the new world order. The media covers this asshole like they are his person publicist, its sickening that its so blatantly biased. Wether you hate or love America, Obama is going to destroy the freedoms and liberties of our people as a staging point for the rest of the free world. Watch and see Obama pull the same socialist shit that Bush already started and all while syaing "change, hope". brace yourself
At least the person in the interview was respectful towards Nader & McKinney as being assets to democracy in giving people a voice and choice that aren't being represented by the 2 parties.
I'm particularly glad they mentioned Nader contriuting to conversation in being against the $700 billion bailout at taxpayers expense which Obama & McCain voted for which has also just added to the deficit.
Nader's showed his leadership and activist skilla by the protest he led on Wall Street.
@Webins: "Interesting" to compare the German media with the Russian one. I'd guess you don't know anything about German press structure. Regarding the criminalization of "Holocaust denial": That is a very special issue due to our history, and I think it would make people around the world wonder if Germans all of the sudden praised Hitler and did not face consequences. Aside this issue, the German media is very critical and balanced.
response to webins: "The fact is that Amercians have probably the freest access to information of anyone else in the world and history." censorship in american mainstream media of today is only equalled by the former USSR, the difference? the soviets knew their news was censored and knew how to read between the lines. and yes the russians did have access to underground media, just like present day americans do.
but that is true of most other places in the world too. it does not make you superior, only, to the extent that access to those facilities is available, equal.(and actually, india produces most books!...internet, libraries and alternative publications are everywhere). peace
A few months ago, I thought the Obama ticket was the lesser evil. Now I'm not sure. It's a close call. No matter. I am not about to vote for either of them! A vote for the lesser evil is a vote for evil. I opt out of the uni-party system.
So Danny. Now U love Chavez who loves Che the child killer Guevara. So I guess U don't like the hundreds of thousands of Venuzuelan students & many, many others who protested against Chavez & were shot, beaten & arrested. Bad students? "Yes of course cos I ah, have a Basketball Marxist Che Jones. That's where U love a ideology soooo much, U can't sleepat night. Of course, I sleep in Bel Air, not fucked up Stalinist Cuba. Nup, ah only go there for my absurd star rebel cred badge & free whores".
So Danny. Now U love Chavez who loves Che the child killer Guevara. So I guess U don't like the hundreds of thousands of Venuzuelan students & many, many others who protested against Chavez & were shot, beaten & arrested. Bad students? "Yes of course cos I ah, have a Basketball Marxist Che Jones. That's where U love a ideology soooo much, U can't sleepat night. Of course, I sleep in Bel Air, not fucked up Stalinist Cuba. Nup, ah only go there for my absurd star rebel cred badge & free whores".
nader has as much charisma as a scarecrow, and even tho ron paul is not the most charismatic, he is definitely the wise choice of someone in the process for years and not buying into being part of the CFR and the war imperialism and speaking truth in dollars and sense........but they wont allow such choices so why bother, its between the lesser of two evils, so you might as well vote for the so called brother in sheeps clothing...maccain is as stale as nader, who is also disguised!
Paul Jay has to be one of the best journalists out there. His recent series of interviews with high profile figures such an Zinn, Chomsky and Glover are really good and the fact that he has the courage to challenge their support for Obama and ask their opinion about alternative candidates like Ralph Nader is very important.
May the Real News Network continue to keep it real.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That Nader refuses to see any difference between Obama and McCain is insane.
Why it is true that they agree on many important issues, and the two parties are lobby-run, their similarities are nowhere near as pronounced as with Kerry-Bush in 2004.
McCain is batshit crazy, and next to him Obama IS preferable.
Nader needs to spend his energies developing a movement from the bottom up and getting people into local and state office, instead of just running for Pres. election after election.
Well, first of all, thanls to all those who gave me thumbs down. Real mature. I consider a badge of honor not to be part of the Nader sheeple.
Now, are you really going to tell met hat there's no difference between them at all? Are you really going to tell me that McCain and Obama are about the same (or different) from each as Kerry was from Bush?
And what about Nader? HOw come he's so different now? Ask a Libertarian and chances are he'll tell you Nader isn't much different than Obama.
No answer. Is Obama as similar to McCain as Kerry was to Bush?
Further, the point of libertarians is that too many Naderites portray him as some great alternative to Obama/McCain who, can save this nation. I point out that to many, such as some libertarians, he would be seen as a "statist" like Obama as well.
Look, if it makes you feel smart and special to support Nader and repeat his talking points, fine by me. I just don't see how you're any less a sheep than Obama or McCain supporters.
Nader may be a socialist, but at least he's honest. I voted for Ron Paul in primary, and I'm voting for Ralph Nader on November 4th. I don't trust Barr or Baldwin.
That's cool, but from what I've observed and from what I've gathered from various libertarians I talked to, they will not vote for Nader. In fact, I don't believe most libertarians put much stock in our general elections. I know many won't even vote this year.
2-I disagree. Bush never sand "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and promised "more wars". Obama didn't support the Iraq invasion.
3-All have corporate backing (regardless of how bad this is or isn't). That Obama has gotten more is simply a consequence of the times. Kerry got more corporate money than Nixon or Reragan, does that make him right of them?
2. Bush actually INVADED Iraq. McCain merely joked about bombing Iran. If you take the Iraqi war as the only issue, then yes Obama is different from all three since even Kerry supported the war. However, a president is NOT just about wars. McCain's record of working with the left to come up with legislations speaks for itself.
3. Did I compare Obama to Bush? NO, I DID NOT! I am comparing Obama to McCain. Did McCain raise 2000 money?
1-You wrote a stupid post, and I was responding, If you won't want a response, then don't post.
2-War is always the primary issue, uless you're a super-selfish, isolated, prick.
3-Money comparisons are meaningless. The amount of money candidates raise is growing with each passing election. Besides, how that measures who is closer to whome, I don't know.
if obama or mccain it just doesnt matter. it is the CFR who rules!!! the bilderberg group!!! the trilateral commission!!! rothschild!!!rokeffeler!!! the rest is just an illusion!!! this is no democracy and never was since the FED was established!!! WAKE UP!!!
When it comes to viewers the Real News is compromising QUALITY for QUANTITY by inviting people who go for the "lesser of two evils", liberals and old farts.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils rather vote for the best candidate because the lesser of two evils has a better chance of winning, isn't that selling out?
The lesser of two evils is still evil. The Left/Right, Democrat/Republican dialectic is a trap which most of us have fallen for. They are both owned and controlled by the financial elites and are not looking out for the average person. Vote for someone you believe in, not the one you think can/will win. When you vote for someone because you think they are less evil (and might win), you are giving your consent for them to screw you!
Who is that person, and has he been desected and look at under the microscope the same way as McCain and Obama. If not, do you really know everthing this person stands for?
Do you need to, when it is clear that the alternatives, having been dissected and looked at under the microscope, are totally against what you stand for?
Voting will always be a leap of faith, probably even if you're voting for yourself.
I see that you're 21. What you stand for today will most likely not be the same when you're older. To me voting is about electing the best candidate/party for the country as whole.
I certainly don't disagree! :) But I think to have an opinion about what is best for the country, you have to be coming from a particular world view, whether or not it is temporary.
Either way, I hope that whoever ends up being elected fulfills the hopes that the country and the world has for a good President.
There never was, nor will there ever be a Politician one agrees with a 100%. To me Society is like a garden, and as garden lovers knows, it needs our constant attention. Small plants need time to grow before we can enjoy its beauty, but to make that happen weve to plant it first place. Therere many critics, who do nothing but criticize, and therere those who are trying to make a beautiful garden for all to enjoy by planting small trees of hope. Let us all be constant gardeners.
2 candidates and 2 parties are always shoved down the throats of americans like it is the only choice you have or it is not legitimate, regardless of what anyone says, that is the viewpoint that is in your face. RP knows what is going on, at least with FP and economics, these clowns probably need 'advisers' that are bought and sold by corps anyway. What a sad state when a socialist asshole, and the other asshole, are the only choices. OB = large gov and more control as people will see.
hmmmm...not even chomsky convinces me of this one let alone my boy danny. lesser of two evils??? why do americans in particualr and the world in general have to choose and/or put up with evil. Even i was excited with the possibility of a black president but now i see things 100% differently. Ralph Nader is one of the best candidates and so is Ron Paul for this representative democracy system.
But i live in a "democracy" where the people has no power whatsoever. Correction, the people do have power, the system is built to make us think we don't have it.
dang man I hate it when I see people say the Bible was written 2000 years ago. The Bible is a book made of 66 different books that were written much more than 2000 years ago as well as books that were writen less than 2000 years ago. And as for us not seeing Good conquer evil.....oh yes we will, either in this life or the life after death.
We're not that far in government from parliamentary models. You are however right that America is more of a classic republic then the modern democratic models of Proportional Representation. Our system is about even with other plurality based parliamentary systems in democratic representation in comparison to other classic republics.
People use the term "Democracy" to denoate the over-all freedom and participatory nature of they political scene, and not in the narrow "government-type" sense.
What alot of Alex Jones Independents don't realize is that Obama is crafted along the lines of JFK... I voted for JFK in 1960 and I voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964... JFK had to pander to the Military Industrial Complex and even go to the right of Nixon on Communism than he actually was, once he got elected. Obama has gone to the right of McCain on Pakistan than he actually is. I know history. I was there. And in 2008, I'm voting for Obama.
Thats what a moron or a 10 year old kid would say. IM BIG BOY, if i dont like somthing I fix it, I dont run away.... Its called fixing the system from within.... Novel concept eh?
Go out there and draft a new electoral college, and then come back and talk to us. Until then, the American left and the American people need you to accept the disparity for what it is and vote your conscious. Obama, Nader, McKinney, they are not evil people and they all represent a great divergence from the last 8 years. Even Obama represents tremendous positive change however wrong you perceive something wrong with that.
obama is a product of this system(machine). products dont fix systems(machine). the whole machine is broken. that why consistently broken products are produced. need a new machine(system)
I don't think I've ever seen such overtly, systematically one-sided and biased coverage from an apparently 'independent' news organisation. Exactly whom are they trying to convince at this point?
I find it ironic that the intro clip talks about 'the free flow of information', which is certainly not what I have seen from them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
independent doesn't mean it doesn't take sides. everybody (even you!) has a bias. the claim of being independent is about independent ownership, which is directly related to what topics are covered. the coverage of topics that are usually buried in corporate news is the "free flow of info" part.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Question: Which owner of a liberal media outlet spent millions of dollars over 2 years in the Florida court system trying to get a judge to rule that the first amendment gave him the right to force his employees to distort and falsify news? Hint: Fox vs Akre.
It was a joke. The only owner of a major news outlet to spend about 13 million dollars over 2+ years trying to get a judge to rule that the first amendment gave him the right to force his employees to falsify and distort news was the owner of Fox. Not exactly what you would expect from someone dedicated to bringing you fair and balanced news.
I'll clarify: the progressive bias is certain, and that's why I watch TRNN at all. The specific bias I take issue against is in regards to the election--the continual acknowledgement of 'strategic voting' as optimal.
The interviews with Zinn, Chomsky, Nader, and now this one show a clear bias. Look at the title of the Chomsky video. Look at the coverage of the Canadian election where they did the same thing with the Liberals vis-à-vis the NDP. Over and over again without exception.
The coverage of the issues is generally fine. But I don't see how this constant hammering of the 'lesser of two evils' thing is anything 'buried in corporate news' or that it even makes sense.
TRNN gives a certain progressive focus on the issues, and then repeatedly shows arguments for strategic voting, as if that's what progressives should do.
I guess I am wondering about the relevance of an independent news agency that does little more than tow party line when it comes to partisan/electoral politics.
I would appreciate them a lot more without this sort of interview, or even if they were just to make titles and descriptions more relevant to the bulk of the content.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You make it seem as if they just gush over the Democrats and have never said anything critical of them.
In fact, the very fact that they would use the phrase "lesser of two evils", and have the guest explain their choices for doing so, is itself indicative of how non-partisan they are.
I am specifically talking about their discussion of the election and their normative solutions for progressive voter behaviour.
They don't have to be "gushing over the Democrats" to be partisan, and mentioning "lesser of two evils" doesn't indicate neutrality, because it inherently frames the decision as being between the Reps/Dems.
They limit the possibilities without real reason, assume our choice is limited to 'two evils', then say that therefore, we have to choose the lesser.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, because third options are clearly mentioned, and the guests themselves address why they are voting for Obama.
Further, and IO'll try to kep this simple, but the fact of the matter is that most people don't want Nader or the others. You can whine and complain abotu media bias etc..., but whatever the reason most voters support either of the two parties, in which case one should think in that terms.
So because there is a dominant way of thinking (two parties), "one should think in those terms" too?
Third parties have value at least in contributing to the 'free flow of information' the TRNN apparently wants to protect and create. Yet their discussions of third parties are limited to why Not to vote for them.
I'm not saying they should advocate 3rd parties, but can they really find nothing substantial enough in them to talk about, beyond the usual strategic voting thing?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, it seems that they address alot of such issues without reference to third parties anyway, such as the issue of the large military budget, war, empire, debt, etc....
They certainly do address some of them, which to me, is even stranger, since they use such issues to criticise the Dems, and then say 'but despite this plethora of issues they are wrong about, we have to vote for them since they are better than the Republicans.' Meanwhile, there are parties advocating the same perspective as TRNN.
This was even worse in their coverage of the Canadian elections, where they kept giving reasons to vote for the sinking-ship Liberal party...
Anyway, we're clearly coming from different perspectives and that's okay. :) This just isn't really what I would have envisioned from TRNN, given its coverage of various issues over the last year or so.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You put to much emphasis on third parties, as if they have some hidden magic so solve everything.
You admitted that they do address atleast some of the issues from a stance similar to that o third parties. So why not suport them?
I have proposed that the public has already made it clear it doesn't want 3rd parties. Nader et al. have to accept this. The whole "media bias/corporate elite/etc..." can only go so far.
Given this , it makes sense to talk of voting for Obama.
Clearly, it's more than 'talk of voting for Obama'. And um, 'hidden magic'? They are in the political system.
1992: Perot got 19%. Recent history. Is it clear that the public doesn't want third parties? Even if it were, would that mean they shouldn't be talked about?
But by all means, tell me what the public wants, and that the media should reflect only that. Apparently the public is a bit more complex if it must be argued that progressives should compromise their beliefs to vote for Obama.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"compromise their beliefs"?
And if they vote fo Nader, won't they be doing so as well? How many people, including Nader supporters, agree with him on 100% of the issues, anyhow?
I have bo idea what you want. You admited they addressed some te of the issues. What else? Have a guest who says vote for Nader? Would such a person's message have much meaning now? Probably not much more than a guest saying vote for McCain.
And Perot's not a valid example. He was a wealthy self-financied man.
Of course Perot is a valid example, he was a third party candidate, which you said people don't care about.
The existence of third parties is an issue. It should be dicussed by any news organisation that attempts to give a picture of what's going on in the election.
Of course people will compromise their beliefs--that's electoral politics. But why in favour of one particular person?
And you're the one bringing up Nader. You seem to want to characterise me in a way that's just not working.
10 million poeople cared for a 3rd party and voted for Perot. This election is a vote for the lesser of 2 evils. We may have another 3rd party candidate that will do well by 2012, if things continue going the way they have been.
Listen, from what I gather, your point is that 3rd parties are irrelevant, and TRNN gives non-partisan coverage.
Reasons? Some of their policies are discussed anyway, and they don't play any substantial role.
You say 'you can only use the corporate media elite excuse so much' (I never did), yet say Perot doesn't count as a valid 3rd party candidate because he had money, bought media time, and therefore his success is not indicative of feelings towards third parties......
Yet it is clear, that when a third party message is spread around, by whatever means, as it was with Perot, it at least has potential.
You've helped demonstrate my point--that third parties can reflect something worthwhile in the political arena. I'm not arguing to vote for them, I'm saying specifically that TRNN would be well-advised to do Some sort of discussion about them, because they serve a political function. By glossing over them with 'strategic voting', they are biased.
After all, Perot started off like Nader in the polls that included him, around 3-5%, then rose to a point where he could have won (if he didn't sabotage his campaign by pulling out for several weeks) by being IN the debates. Sure, it's because he was loaded, but doesn't that serve my point that there is a correlation between non negative media exposure and favorable perception?
Yeah, media exposure does address the causes of political popularity, which third parties and alternative candidates within the mainstream do not get an equal shake in, do you not read what I write?
You can't keep blaming media exposure for today's situation, as, as I've written, Nader, ROn Paul, and Kucinich aren't complete unknowns.
Most people know enough about them and their general outlooks that if they were the least inetersted, they could support them/find out more about them.
I don't understand why you and youngfreshnnew1 and many others seem to reluctant to accept that the majority of people might be content with the two main parties, rightly or wrongly.
Btw from what it seems to me, you are trying to establish that Americans just don't care about 3rd parties. Intrinsically. You somewhat acknowledge past candidates and media influence as evidence that contributes against your claim.
So if all media gave all candidates equal coverage, the 2-party system as we know it would be weakened, no?
I can't pin down your argument, because you are attacking statement-by-statement. Also, again, we are coming from different perspectives, and that's okay...
As I've written to TiradeFaction, this election could've been 3rd parties' biggest one, but it hasn't. Proof that they have little public support.
KLook at RO Paul, he got plenty of attention vis-a-vis the other GOP men, yet no big support. Doesn't that show you that maybe most people don't suport such different thinking and are content with the two perties and their general outlook?
Politics is about perceptions. The media (including polls) is about interpreting (naturally bias) current events in a way that is consumable for the public.
There is clearly strong interaction here. (and I suspect politics itself is increasingly being thought of as a mere 'TV show' by many...)
I don't think we can make any conclusions about people's opinions about 3rd parties til we look at how they form those opinions, so I try not to. Saying people are content required too many assumptions.
Oh, and organised media would have a more organised bias. The internet is biased too, as a whole, but things are certainly more neutralised.
TRNN is progressively-oriented and biased. Their coverage of the election does criticise Obama and McCain, but when they talk to pundits about making a decision to cast a vote, the solution is always for Obama. They did the same with Canadian elections. And they title their videos to emphasise this, despite it often being one of many issues discussed...
Take into account also how Nader and other individuals like Kuinich are also portrayed in the media? Can anyone honestly tell me along with not getting fair time in the debates they are portrayed in a positive light? Just look at Nader and the spoiler accusation...
So the public is stupid? Fine, I agree with that. Then why not "vote for the lesser evil" then? If we all know that most people are morons who will vote for Obama or McCain, then does it make sense to talk about voting 3rd party?
Voting for 3rd parties is a waste, not for moral/ethical reasons, but because the majority make it a waste.
Your roblem isn't with TRNN or the media, but with the public's stupidity.
You really need to stop putting words in people's mouths... Nevertheless, you do bring up an interesting point, and I agree that the public is probably stupid/disinterested/naive. But you can't totally separate this from the media which provides faulty and biased information on which they form such opinions! I can understand why people would get turned off politics--and the media plays a Huge role in that. They also still fail to provide balanced coverage.
Fine, but let me tell you why I resent this excessive blame on the media. The fact is that Amercians have probably the freest access to information of anyone else in the world and history. They also have maybe the most political power in the world.
Yet, most still prefer to blame anyone else, corporations/politicans/media/etc... for their problems and why they do what they do.
Imagine how soemone from a truly unfree country like Nigeria or China must fee see all this sickening whining.
You're mostly right about that, but Americans (yet) don't use those abilities much, they let the mainstream media feed them all the bullshit they can eat. When the Internet permeates our culture, that situation may change.
I think the whining is only sickening when it comes from someone who criticises the system and then mindlessly supports the 2 party status quo, when a 3rd party/blank vote would protest it.
People are allowing themselves to be manipulated, which is stupid and probably immoral. They should criticise corrupt institutions and stand up for their principles to whatever extent they can.
The bias of TRNN is what I am attacking, so I am doing as I should, no?
Well, if people are allowing themselves to be manipulated, then that supports my views that your criticism be directed at the such people, not TRNN, whose job it ISN'T to single-handedle educate everyone on all issues and all candidates of all parties.
As for Glover, he is admirable, because he atleast is aware of all this, and knows that the majority are morons, and thus he must vote for the the candidate who'll do less damage.
You are right, to a point. We are free to seek out information wherever we can find it and we have few limits on what we can seek out. But the vast majority are apathetic and content with whatever is sprayed on them from the networks and cable shows. And what gets sprayed is overwhelmingly government-approved, and in some cases, government-generated propaganda. Operation Mockingbird anyone? The print media is no better. It needs to change, and soon, or we are done as a democracy.
If the majority are apathetic, and are content with the two parties, then why should anyone blame people like Glover here who, ackowledging this reality, decide that it is better to vote for the less-damagin Obama? I don't blame him or othes like him.
Maybe the imperfect information of the game makes them morons along with the rest of them.
That may not be TRNN's job, but their bias is a function of the extent to which they ignore the rich political diversity of the system
I'm not blaming TRNN for the state of politics, but I am certainly saying they show partisan tendencies. And as a media organisation, that is inexcusable.
spoken like a true american with no experience of what its like to live anywhere else in the world. any and every european nation provides better access to information and education in how to use our reasoning faculties: and it starts in our schools! furthermore the media in all south american countries, india, pakistan(the dawn of karachi=worlds best newspaper)and iran (countries I have travelled in) impressed me with the very high standards -thoughtful and independent-of their press.
"any and every european nation provides better access to information..."?
Like Germany where you're thrown in prison for denying the Holocaust? Or maybe Russia where journalists are killed?
Sorry. but however uch it is abused, America's freedom of speech laws and access to information, especially government information, is greater than any typical European nation.
Further, the average American has access to most media around the world, the same cannot be said vice-versa.
you need to go travelling man. what you say about access to info in the usa being superior is totally unfounded superstition and you know what? in eurpoean nations freedom of speech laws are upheld, not abused. national budgets are not kept secret (as are pentagon and secret service in the usa) and apart from the uk, most of europe knows better than to flirt with fascist legislation like "the patriot act". where do those beliefs you have come from? who's propaganda did you buy?
Well, until America begins to throw people in jail for wearing swastikas, then you have nothing to stand on.
And does that "most of Europe" include Russia? Does that include those mysterious eastern European nations that host secret U.S. prisons (prisons not on U.S. soil precisely because the prisoners would have more legal freedoms then).
Also, doesn't the U.K. have an Official Secrets Act, which the U.S. doesn't have?
And I don't think America needs Europe to lecture it on "Fascism".
woah.all this aggression.today the usa has done a great thing to elect obama for president.this is exactly what he speaks of: the need to be able to listen,to seek understanding and conciliation,not to get entrenched in angry and futile battle positions.some of your assertions are right others not,but this belief that abuse of power in usa is permissible because power sometimes gets abused elsewhere therefore usa is better is just lame.the world is far more complex and sophisticated than that.
I've already showed you the correlation, and showed you how none of how they do not get a fair shake in the debates or the media, so quit trying to bring that up, you're becoming a broken record at this point. If you think people naturally look at information that isn't given to them by the news media, then you seriously don't know American psychology.
You keep bitching about media this and media that. If the public at large is so stupid that they need the medai to keep spoon-feeding them information about everythig and everyone uynder the sun, then they don't deserve to vote in the first place.
This isn't the 19th century, anyone can find out anything they want about anybody, via internet or libraries. The public doesn't want to do that, so be it. That's not the media fault.
Are you honestly surprised that Americans are stupid? You're just one faulty assertion after another.
I never blamed the media on people's stupidity (though, it sure plays an important role in continuing that). Fuck off already, you're beginning to embarrass yourself.
The majority seems content, fine. I won't argue with that now. Corporate media agree with majority, and/or promotes the Rep/Dem dichotomy. Fine.
TRNN's goal is to provide a 'free flow of information'. Obstructing conversation of 3rd parties, which you now say are relevant to some degree, is Not a 'free flow of information' because they are specifically glossing over a worthwhile political institution.
My point: TRNN is biased. Your reaction: they are non-partisan (an ambiguous term).
As for the level of support of 3rd parties and their inability to draw donations and support in this election, I am not an expert and cannot answer that, which is beside the point of your initial objection, anyway.
But I'd say to start with TRNN, which as I've said, I think is biased. If even they are willing to dismiss 3rd parties with the pathetic 'lesser of two evils' criterion, then maybe that's where at least part of the answer lies.
But why do you insist that such free-flowing information be tied with 3rd parties?
Isn't it truly "non-biased" to discuss an issue by itself, rather than discuss it from the perspective of 3rd parties. For example saying that "all troops should be pulled from Iraq", rather than saying "Bob Barr says all troops should be pulled from Iraq".
Why all the emphasis on 3rd parties, when techincally they are as flawed intelectually as the two main ones (their ideas aren't perfect either).
Well, putting aside the fact that they did give coverage to Nader and especially Paul in the past, the fact remains that 90% of voters are picking Oabam or McCain, who else is the emphasis be on if not them?
My point is rather simple, most people are content with the two main parties, regardless of how this came about (corporare conspiracy, media bias, etc...), and so it makes sense for Glover and others to decide to choose the less atrocious of the two, and for TRNN to cover it so.
Emphasis can be shared though, and I don't see why it shouldn't be. Coverage of Paul was grossly inflated by the internet. What tended to happen, too, was that on TV he would be interviewed, rather than talked about--as if he's a pundit, rather than a topic of discussion.
TRNN has unfairly titled videos, and repeated the same argument in several videos with no counterpoint (I don't think the issue-based videos provide this--the pundit-style guests have been unanimously for one candidate).
Why does he keep bringing up Ron Paul, he isn't even running anymore. If he ran I'd bet good money he would have run around 6-7% of the vote, and even more if he was given fair time in the national debates.
TRNN has given coverage of Ron Paul AFTER his primary run, or at least after his campaign was really active. Nader has I believe only two videos from TRNN about him.
And the coverage of Nader was entirely framed in the DNC 2008 context. What was that about, anyway?
The people interviewed are clearly partisan, and easy to dismiss for that reason.
The people interviewed in support of Obama were painted as progressives with much more neutral, objective analysis, and three of them were intellectuals. Furthermore, these videos have come out long after the Nader ones, so there is no 'discussion' here.
***note that their 'neutral, objective analysis' is just part of the illustration. I don't think it was either of those things, since I think you essentially have to affirm the conclusion ('vote for Obama if you're progressive') before you can reasonably come up with an argument to 'prove' why.
As for polls, if they can't be trusted on opinion of candidates, then they shiould be trustsed on political dieas either, in which case how do we know most of the public isn't truly happy with the two main parties?
Besides, don't many polls show distrust./anger with the two main parties/anti-war sentiments/opposition to bail-outs/etc..., yet the same polls show support to the Obama/McCain. Doesn't that prove most people don't care for 3rd parties even when they believe in their dieas?
You say many polls show 'anger with the two main parties' and then ask 'how do we know most of the public isn't truly happy with the two main parties?'
I think that speaks for itself... and I've talked about my views on the rest of your questions there already. Let me just ask this:
Let's assume that you are 100% right when you say most people don't care about 3rd parties.
After those 8 years one would expect big gains by 3rd parties and/or by Paul/Gravel/Kucinich whose viewes, while not identical to Nader's/Greens'/Libertarians', as still closer.
But that didn't happen, and neither 3rd parties nor these three candidates win any significant support.
Noone can't keep arguing that had Nader been in the debate he'd gain support, when neither Kucinich nor Gravel (both close to Nader) did.
And I use Nader because he's the most prominant 3rd party candidate.
The problem is Kucinich and Gravel did not get anywhere close to equal time in the debates, and were eventually barred from them anyway.
watch?v=nK7DRPyNAHA
While the candidate it endorses is obviously not relevant anymore, it does illustrate how they indeed, do not get fair coverage. It's not as simple as you are making it out to be.
Everyone has to compromise a little, it's only a problem when you compromise too much. Many Obama fans don't even agree with half of his platform, yet they're voting for him regardless. That's a problem if we are to live in a truly "representative" democracy.
I disagree the public doesn't want third parties, I have talked to many Obama fans that would love to vote for someone like Nader, but don't want to risk getting the republicans in office. Hell, I see this among even among youtubers voting for Obama (RabidApe is one example). Also, the populace at large also seems to be for letting third parties in the debate, when it happened with Perot, his support rose greatly.
This election could have been a boost to 3rd parties, but it hasn't, proving that people (most anyway) are content with the GOP and Democrats.
It may be due to decades ot propoganda, but whatever the reason neither 3rd parties nor Democrats and Republicans who advocate major changes (like Paul, Kucinich and Gravel) seem to get much support.
Lesser of two evils? Yeah, sure. How can they say this with a straight face. Having to choose between two evils is tantamount to saying that this country and this system cannot produce any good and therefore we should all lower our standards and settle for evil. Ok folks take your pick Hitler or Stalin, AIDS or the flesh eating disease, McDonalds or Burger King? Sheesh! And then they pretend they are not being completely cynical.
simplenametag 6 months ago
ok why I thought danny glover would just be another actor acting like what they say is relevant or interesting but I have to say interesting perspective
Ventorez 1 year ago
Can't say I'm a fan of the films he's been in, but man, my respect for this guy just went up tenfold!
CopingMethods 1 year ago
Thanks for joining us, Danny!
Good, good, good...
Shahn718 1 year ago
No one should vote for evil. No one has the right to vote for evil and impose evil on others.
If people vote for evil, doesn't that make them evil? Are the evil voters as responsible for the evil acts as the evil politician? After all, if they hadn't voted, maybe the evil politician would have less legitimacy?
Isn't it disturbing that "good" people would make a secret vote for an evil person to inflict evil on good people?
How about rejecting evil? That's an idea.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago 5
If you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, Bush types win. Got to vote Democrat until a real republican comes along that is not full of shit. Im holding my breath
heelswon 2 years ago
i will never emkpty the fact of dealin with the less of 2 evils. what a cop out! with that type of thinkin thats why with got 8 years of bush
mysticman07 2 years ago
Viva la Anarchy
rolpho 2 years ago 2
ah danny glover, a breath of fresh air. SOLIDARITY from Ireland. The amount of coverage we're gettin over hear about Obamha is annoyin. Ya swear we lived in america and the sun shone out of his arse. We'll wait and see anyway.
larrycake1981 3 years ago
you wont have to wait my friend, as he's already been crowned the king and shining son of the new world order. The media covers this asshole like they are his person publicist, its sickening that its so blatantly biased. Wether you hate or love America, Obama is going to destroy the freedoms and liberties of our people as a staging point for the rest of the free world. Watch and see Obama pull the same socialist shit that Bush already started and all while syaing "change, hope". brace yourself
symmetricalseraphim 3 years ago
At least the person in the interview was respectful towards Nader & McKinney as being assets to democracy in giving people a voice and choice that aren't being represented by the 2 parties.
I'm particularly glad they mentioned Nader contriuting to conversation in being against the $700 billion bailout at taxpayers expense which Obama & McCain voted for which has also just added to the deficit.
Nader's showed his leadership and activist skilla by the protest he led on Wall Street.
0613162k 3 years ago
¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨ „ø¤º°¨
¨°º¤ø„ Vote „ø¤º°¨
¸„ø¤º°¨Nader ``°º¤ø„¸
ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø
0613162k 3 years ago
@Webins: "Interesting" to compare the German media with the Russian one. I'd guess you don't know anything about German press structure. Regarding the criminalization of "Holocaust denial": That is a very special issue due to our history, and I think it would make people around the world wonder if Germans all of the sudden praised Hitler and did not face consequences. Aside this issue, the German media is very critical and balanced.
suneku78 3 years ago 2
response to webins: "The fact is that Amercians have probably the freest access to information of anyone else in the world and history." censorship in american mainstream media of today is only equalled by the former USSR, the difference? the soviets knew their news was censored and knew how to read between the lines. and yes the russians did have access to underground media, just like present day americans do.
letherden 3 years ago
No, not a calid comparison.
We have the internet, libraries, most books than anyone else, alternative publications, etc....
No one need depend on NYTimes, CNN, etc....
Webins 3 years ago
but that is true of most other places in the world too. it does not make you superior, only, to the extent that access to those facilities is available, equal.(and actually, india produces most books!...internet, libraries and alternative publications are everywhere). peace
letherden 3 years ago
lets not forget the color purple
dddiane07 3 years ago
Its only Danny Fucking Glover!
Star of such films as,
Predator 2
Lethal Weapon,
Lethal Weapon 2,
Lethal Weapon 3 and
lets not forget Lethal Weapon 4.
itierney 3 years ago
A few months ago, I thought the Obama ticket was the lesser evil. Now I'm not sure. It's a close call. No matter. I am not about to vote for either of them! A vote for the lesser evil is a vote for evil. I opt out of the uni-party system.
JiveDadson 3 years ago 2
So Danny. Now U love Chavez who loves Che the child killer Guevara. So I guess U don't like the hundreds of thousands of Venuzuelan students & many, many others who protested against Chavez & were shot, beaten & arrested. Bad students? "Yes of course cos I ah, have a Basketball Marxist Che Jones. That's where U love a ideology soooo much, U can't sleepat night. Of course, I sleep in Bel Air, not fucked up Stalinist Cuba. Nup, ah only go there for my absurd star rebel cred badge & free whores".
gmakepiece 3 years ago
So Danny. Now U love Chavez who loves Che the child killer Guevara. So I guess U don't like the hundreds of thousands of Venuzuelan students & many, many others who protested against Chavez & were shot, beaten & arrested. Bad students? "Yes of course cos I ah, have a Basketball Marxist Che Jones. That's where U love a ideology soooo much, U can't sleepat night. Of course, I sleep in Bel Air, not fucked up Stalinist Cuba. Nup, ah only go there for my absurd star rebel cred badge & free whores".
gmakepiece 3 years ago
Danny Glover is a Hugo Chavez ass kissing socialist jackass.
reno93535 3 years ago
nader has as much charisma as a scarecrow, and even tho ron paul is not the most charismatic, he is definitely the wise choice of someone in the process for years and not buying into being part of the CFR and the war imperialism and speaking truth in dollars and sense........but they wont allow such choices so why bother, its between the lesser of two evils, so you might as well vote for the so called brother in sheeps clothing...maccain is as stale as nader, who is also disguised!
flyinghotwing 3 years ago
Its nice to hear US Communist on west news program.
TrueCommunist 3 years ago
A close election again??? Find out what this means at Musicians4Obama! Pass it on!
Musicians4Obama 3 years ago
"Damn it Riggs! I retire in two weeks and I'll vote for who ever I want to."
Mikey34549 3 years ago
Paul Jay has to be one of the best journalists out there. His recent series of interviews with high profile figures such an Zinn, Chomsky and Glover are really good and the fact that he has the courage to challenge their support for Obama and ask their opinion about alternative candidates like Ralph Nader is very important.
May the Real News Network continue to keep it real.
ArcticSlicer 3 years ago
Preview of part 2 of the interview:
Interviewer: "Why do you do it?"
Glover: "Because I'm getting too old for this shit."
ProudAnselmo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That Nader refuses to see any difference between Obama and McCain is insane.
Why it is true that they agree on many important issues, and the two parties are lobby-run, their similarities are nowhere near as pronounced as with Kerry-Bush in 2004.
McCain is batshit crazy, and next to him Obama IS preferable.
Nader needs to spend his energies developing a movement from the bottom up and getting people into local and state office, instead of just running for Pres. election after election.
Webins 3 years ago
Batshit crazy lol
BrianGO12345 3 years ago
"That Nader refuses to see any difference between Obama and McCain is insane."
Obama and McCain's foreign and monetary policy are the same.
What is the difference?? why is Obama preferable?? He won't change shit!
jmotz3 3 years ago
Well, first of all, thanls to all those who gave me thumbs down. Real mature. I consider a badge of honor not to be part of the Nader sheeple.
Now, are you really going to tell met hat there's no difference between them at all? Are you really going to tell me that McCain and Obama are about the same (or different) from each as Kerry was from Bush?
And what about Nader? HOw come he's so different now? Ask a Libertarian and chances are he'll tell you Nader isn't much different than Obama.
Webins 3 years ago
So will you call all Libertarians insane for not seeing the difference between Nader and Obama?
Sometimes a thumb down is just that, someone thinks your comment was bullshit.
mengwise36 3 years ago
No answer. Is Obama as similar to McCain as Kerry was to Bush?
Further, the point of libertarians is that too many Naderites portray him as some great alternative to Obama/McCain who, can save this nation. I point out that to many, such as some libertarians, he would be seen as a "statist" like Obama as well.
Look, if it makes you feel smart and special to support Nader and repeat his talking points, fine by me. I just don't see how you're any less a sheep than Obama or McCain supporters.
Webins 3 years ago
Most libertarians I've talked to don't like Nader much. They call him a crazy "socialist". Most of them seem to either be voting Barr or Baldwin.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Nader may be a socialist, but at least he's honest. I voted for Ron Paul in primary, and I'm voting for Ralph Nader on November 4th. I don't trust Barr or Baldwin.
kevlarthehorribleone 3 years ago
That's cool, but from what I've observed and from what I've gathered from various libertarians I talked to, they will not vote for Nader. In fact, I don't believe most libertarians put much stock in our general elections. I know many won't even vote this year.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Obama is MORE similar to McCain than Kerry was to Bush. And here is why:
1. Background: Obama, Kerry and McCain are all Senators. Bush, good or bad, was a Governor. Don't tell me you don't know the difference.
2. Position: Kerry was far left and Bush far right. McCain is far to the middle than Bush and Obama is not as far left as Kerry.
3. Corporation Backing: Kerry had far less big money than Bush did. Obama has far MORE big money than McCain.
Need I continue?
mengwise36 3 years ago
1-Irrelevant.
2-I disagree. Bush never sand "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and promised "more wars". Obama didn't support the Iraq invasion.
3-All have corporate backing (regardless of how bad this is or isn't). That Obama has gotten more is simply a consequence of the times. Kerry got more corporate money than Nixon or Reragan, does that make him right of them?
Webins 3 years ago
1. Excuse me? Did I ask you if it is relevant?
2. Bush actually INVADED Iraq. McCain merely joked about bombing Iran. If you take the Iraqi war as the only issue, then yes Obama is different from all three since even Kerry supported the war. However, a president is NOT just about wars. McCain's record of working with the left to come up with legislations speaks for itself.
3. Did I compare Obama to Bush? NO, I DID NOT! I am comparing Obama to McCain. Did McCain raise 2000 money?
mengwise36 3 years ago
1-You wrote a stupid post, and I was responding, If you won't want a response, then don't post.
2-War is always the primary issue, uless you're a super-selfish, isolated, prick.
3-Money comparisons are meaningless. The amount of money candidates raise is growing with each passing election. Besides, how that measures who is closer to whome, I don't know.
Webins 3 years ago
if obama or mccain it just doesnt matter. it is the CFR who rules!!! the bilderberg group!!! the trilateral commission!!! rothschild!!!rokeffeler!!! the rest is just an illusion!!! this is no democracy and never was since the FED was established!!! WAKE UP!!!
wdcsucks1 3 years ago 5
Did he just call Obama the lesser of two evils?
xesiria 3 years ago
yup
and yep
and yes
borishorowitz 3 years ago
OH... but,that is not an endorsement!That is more like an endorsement for the green party?
xesiria 3 years ago
TRUTH!! SHARE!! EXPOSE!!
danoking69 3 years ago 4
good interview, but i don't get how people are going to get better wages/healthcare now that the North American Union is progressing from all gov'ts.
Collapsing and then lending the money back to the gov'ts is just recycling at double the rate.
lighthammar 3 years ago
You'll always get less, and always get evil...
Vote Nader
He's not Corporate OWNED
impalapez 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm cancelling my subscription to this channel. I'm really disappointed by how LEFT it is, and I'm a little left of center.
Anyone who doesn't like Barack Obama needs to have their ass removed.
toribaltimore 3 years ago
I'm confused. Your comment is a bit more than "a little left of center"
michael2649 3 years ago
Is it? Well let me make it a little more center for you. GO BACK TO PLAYING HIDE-AND-GO-FUCK-YOURSELF!!!
Better?
toribaltimore 3 years ago
Not better but it gives me a better idea of your personality and the amount of time I am willing to put towards talking to you in the future.
michael2649 3 years ago
When it comes to viewers the Real News is compromising QUALITY for QUANTITY by inviting people who go for the "lesser of two evils", liberals and old farts.
Not very progressive.
asperin 3 years ago 5
sorry Danny Glover, you need to go back to acting school because you were totally unconvincing in selling Obama.
we need real change and not just another round of the elite switching faces on us.
VOTE for anyone other than 3rd McBama
greenback001 3 years ago 5
Are they not citizens?
originaldna 3 years ago
If you vote for the lesser of two evils rather vote for the best candidate because the lesser of two evils has a better chance of winning, isn't that selling out?
bryandenehy76 3 years ago
he can't be objective, good bye motherfucker!
NoRoPaul 3 years ago
Our political system is way out of kilter. There are several changes I would like to see:
* Get rid of the Electoral College. If you live in a deeply red or blue state, your vote is meaningless
* Go to an instant run off system. You can vote for who you think is the absolute best candidate(s) in the race without throwing your vote away.
* Get rid of voting machines that do not provide a paper trail
* Make the networks provide free and equal time to all candidates.
bushputz 3 years ago 3
The lesser of two evils is still evil. The Left/Right, Democrat/Republican dialectic is a trap which most of us have fallen for. They are both owned and controlled by the financial elites and are not looking out for the average person. Vote for someone you believe in, not the one you think can/will win. When you vote for someone because you think they are less evil (and might win), you are giving your consent for them to screw you!
GordonWalton 3 years ago
Who is that person, and has he been desected and look at under the microscope the same way as McCain and Obama. If not, do you really know everthing this person stands for?
cleo1994 3 years ago
Do you need to, when it is clear that the alternatives, having been dissected and looked at under the microscope, are totally against what you stand for?
Voting will always be a leap of faith, probably even if you're voting for yourself.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
I see that you're 21. What you stand for today will most likely not be the same when you're older. To me voting is about electing the best candidate/party for the country as whole.
cleo1994 3 years ago
I certainly don't disagree! :) But I think to have an opinion about what is best for the country, you have to be coming from a particular world view, whether or not it is temporary.
Either way, I hope that whoever ends up being elected fulfills the hopes that the country and the world has for a good President.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
no third party candidate is viable until
there is preferential/instant run off voting
Please America choose Obama
federali84 3 years ago 3
There never was, nor will there ever be a Politician one agrees with a 100%. To me Society is like a garden, and as garden lovers knows, it needs our constant attention. Small plants need time to grow before we can enjoy its beauty, but to make that happen weve to plant it first place. Therere many critics, who do nothing but criticize, and therere those who are trying to make a beautiful garden for all to enjoy by planting small trees of hope. Let us all be constant gardeners.
cleo1994 3 years ago
2 candidates and 2 parties are always shoved down the throats of americans like it is the only choice you have or it is not legitimate, regardless of what anyone says, that is the viewpoint that is in your face. RP knows what is going on, at least with FP and economics, these clowns probably need 'advisers' that are bought and sold by corps anyway. What a sad state when a socialist asshole, and the other asshole, are the only choices. OB = large gov and more control as people will see.
klonedklein 3 years ago 2
hmmmm...not even chomsky convinces me of this one let alone my boy danny. lesser of two evils??? why do americans in particualr and the world in general have to choose and/or put up with evil. Even i was excited with the possibility of a black president but now i see things 100% differently. Ralph Nader is one of the best candidates and so is Ron Paul for this representative democracy system.
mcgrawHNIC 3 years ago 4
mcgrawHNIC:
I'm no historian but history should tell it all.
The wealthy created Fear and Hate then made the rules to stay in power.
No such King, Tribal Leader or Emperor was ever elected, their reign was a result of bloodshed.
Good will never conquer evil, the Naders, Pauls like the Perots will shall remain a novelty act.
gwbushthePoS 3 years ago
gwbushthePoS:
*laughing* That's why i'm an anarchist in heart.
But i live in a "democracy" where the people has no power whatsoever. Correction, the people do have power, the system is built to make us think we don't have it.
mcgrawHNIC 3 years ago
mcgrawHNIC:
Thanks for sharing these videos with me.
I have a video that states "The Golden Rule", unfortunately I cannot recall the title but the saying goes;
The one with the Gold makes the rules.
gwbushthePoS 3 years ago
I agree with your comment mostly but not about Good never conquering evil.
One day. ultimatley Good will CRUSH evil.
josiahdallas 3 years ago
josiahdallas:
I read that somewhere too, I think it was written 2000 years ago.
You and I will never see good conquer evil.
gwbushthePoS 3 years ago
dang man I hate it when I see people say the Bible was written 2000 years ago. The Bible is a book made of 66 different books that were written much more than 2000 years ago as well as books that were writen less than 2000 years ago. And as for us not seeing Good conquer evil.....oh yes we will, either in this life or the life after death.
josiahdallas 3 years ago
"oh yes we will, either in this life or the life after death. "
.
.
.
.
.
That's some good comedy right there!
turkeyjurker 3 years ago
more comedy!
turkeyjurker 3 years ago
For the love of G_d we are a Republic!
We are NOT a Democracy. People like Danny Glover don't get it.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago 6
We're not that far in government from parliamentary models. You are however right that America is more of a classic republic then the modern democratic models of Proportional Representation. Our system is about even with other plurality based parliamentary systems in democratic representation in comparison to other classic republics.
saft911 3 years ago
That is an old and meaningless complaint.
People use the term "Democracy" to denoate the over-all freedom and participatory nature of they political scene, and not in the narrow "government-type" sense.
Webins 3 years ago
What alot of Alex Jones Independents don't realize is that Obama is crafted along the lines of JFK... I voted for JFK in 1960 and I voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964... JFK had to pander to the Military Industrial Complex and even go to the right of Nixon on Communism than he actually was, once he got elected. Obama has gone to the right of McCain on Pakistan than he actually is. I know history. I was there. And in 2008, I'm voting for Obama.
billionaireby16 3 years ago
only in America would choosing evil as a Conscious option be acceptable and aplauded. ppl are the most hypocritical demons on the planet.
twinfam 3 years ago 8
I refuse to vote for an "evil" its just we need to break free of this obiously flawed system.
vancerz 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if you find America's system so corrupt and flawed, leave-- it's that simple.
RandomVlogging 3 years ago
Thats what a moron or a 10 year old kid would say. IM BIG BOY, if i dont like somthing I fix it, I dont run away.... Its called fixing the system from within.... Novel concept eh?
vancerz 3 years ago 5
yeah its that simple......idiot. why open your mouth when only vomit is gonna come out.
twinfam 3 years ago
Go out there and draft a new electoral college, and then come back and talk to us. Until then, the American left and the American people need you to accept the disparity for what it is and vote your conscious. Obama, Nader, McKinney, they are not evil people and they all represent a great divergence from the last 8 years. Even Obama represents tremendous positive change however wrong you perceive something wrong with that.
saft911 3 years ago
obama is a product of this system(machine). products dont fix systems(machine). the whole machine is broken. that why consistently broken products are produced. need a new machine(system)
twinfam 3 years ago
I don't think I've ever seen such overtly, systematically one-sided and biased coverage from an apparently 'independent' news organisation. Exactly whom are they trying to convince at this point?
I find it ironic that the intro clip talks about 'the free flow of information', which is certainly not what I have seen from them.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You can allways go to faux new, I hear they are fair and balanced. They might even cover the issues in the light you want them painted.
vancerz 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
independent doesn't mean it doesn't take sides. everybody (even you!) has a bias. the claim of being independent is about independent ownership, which is directly related to what topics are covered. the coverage of topics that are usually buried in corporate news is the "free flow of info" part.
poop121 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they dont tell you how to think. Instead they give different perspectives on what different people think about a certain subject.
bias consists of either a) ignoring a certain issue and not informing ppl about it for some reason.
or
b) overtly coming out in support of or against on faction or another.
None of which I have seen from the Real News.
If you have some other criteria for bias lets hear it.
RationalLiberty 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Question: Which owner of a liberal media outlet spent millions of dollars over 2 years in the Florida court system trying to get a judge to rule that the first amendment gave him the right to force his employees to distort and falsify news? Hint: Fox vs Akre.
Warnomore50 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
warnomore50,
what are you getting at?
I never assumed that fox was "liberal".
RationalLiberty 3 years ago
It was a joke. The only owner of a major news outlet to spend about 13 million dollars over 2+ years trying to get a judge to rule that the first amendment gave him the right to force his employees to falsify and distort news was the owner of Fox. Not exactly what you would expect from someone dedicated to bringing you fair and balanced news.
Warnomore50 3 years ago
k. didnt get the joke...
RationalLiberty 3 years ago
I'll clarify: the progressive bias is certain, and that's why I watch TRNN at all. The specific bias I take issue against is in regards to the election--the continual acknowledgement of 'strategic voting' as optimal.
The interviews with Zinn, Chomsky, Nader, and now this one show a clear bias. Look at the title of the Chomsky video. Look at the coverage of the Canadian election where they did the same thing with the Liberals vis-à-vis the NDP. Over and over again without exception.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 7
The coverage of the issues is generally fine. But I don't see how this constant hammering of the 'lesser of two evils' thing is anything 'buried in corporate news' or that it even makes sense.
TRNN gives a certain progressive focus on the issues, and then repeatedly shows arguments for strategic voting, as if that's what progressives should do.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 11
I guess I am wondering about the relevance of an independent news agency that does little more than tow party line when it comes to partisan/electoral politics.
I would appreciate them a lot more without this sort of interview, or even if they were just to make titles and descriptions more relevant to the bulk of the content.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You make it seem as if they just gush over the Democrats and have never said anything critical of them.
In fact, the very fact that they would use the phrase "lesser of two evils", and have the guest explain their choices for doing so, is itself indicative of how non-partisan they are.
Webins 3 years ago
I am specifically talking about their discussion of the election and their normative solutions for progressive voter behaviour.
They don't have to be "gushing over the Democrats" to be partisan, and mentioning "lesser of two evils" doesn't indicate neutrality, because it inherently frames the decision as being between the Reps/Dems.
They limit the possibilities without real reason, assume our choice is limited to 'two evils', then say that therefore, we have to choose the lesser.
???
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, because third options are clearly mentioned, and the guests themselves address why they are voting for Obama.
Further, and IO'll try to kep this simple, but the fact of the matter is that most people don't want Nader or the others. You can whine and complain abotu media bias etc..., but whatever the reason most voters support either of the two parties, in which case one should think in that terms.
Webins 3 years ago
So because there is a dominant way of thinking (two parties), "one should think in those terms" too?
Third parties have value at least in contributing to the 'free flow of information' the TRNN apparently wants to protect and create. Yet their discussions of third parties are limited to why Not to vote for them.
I'm not saying they should advocate 3rd parties, but can they really find nothing substantial enough in them to talk about, beyond the usual strategic voting thing?
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, it seems that they address alot of such issues without reference to third parties anyway, such as the issue of the large military budget, war, empire, debt, etc....
Webins 3 years ago
They certainly do address some of them, which to me, is even stranger, since they use such issues to criticise the Dems, and then say 'but despite this plethora of issues they are wrong about, we have to vote for them since they are better than the Republicans.' Meanwhile, there are parties advocating the same perspective as TRNN.
This was even worse in their coverage of the Canadian elections, where they kept giving reasons to vote for the sinking-ship Liberal party...
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 4
Anyway, we're clearly coming from different perspectives and that's okay. :) This just isn't really what I would have envisioned from TRNN, given its coverage of various issues over the last year or so.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You put to much emphasis on third parties, as if they have some hidden magic so solve everything.
You admitted that they do address atleast some of the issues from a stance similar to that o third parties. So why not suport them?
I have proposed that the public has already made it clear it doesn't want 3rd parties. Nader et al. have to accept this. The whole "media bias/corporate elite/etc..." can only go so far.
Given this , it makes sense to talk of voting for Obama.
Webins 3 years ago
Clearly, it's more than 'talk of voting for Obama'. And um, 'hidden magic'? They are in the political system.
1992: Perot got 19%. Recent history. Is it clear that the public doesn't want third parties? Even if it were, would that mean they shouldn't be talked about?
But by all means, tell me what the public wants, and that the media should reflect only that. Apparently the public is a bit more complex if it must be argued that progressives should compromise their beliefs to vote for Obama.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"compromise their beliefs"?
And if they vote fo Nader, won't they be doing so as well? How many people, including Nader supporters, agree with him on 100% of the issues, anyhow?
I have bo idea what you want. You admited they addressed some te of the issues. What else? Have a guest who says vote for Nader? Would such a person's message have much meaning now? Probably not much more than a guest saying vote for McCain.
And Perot's not a valid example. He was a wealthy self-financied man.
Webins 3 years ago
Of course Perot is a valid example, he was a third party candidate, which you said people don't care about.
The existence of third parties is an issue. It should be dicussed by any news organisation that attempts to give a picture of what's going on in the election.
Of course people will compromise their beliefs--that's electoral politics. But why in favour of one particular person?
And you're the one bringing up Nader. You seem to want to characterise me in a way that's just not working.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 5
No, Perot is not a valid example because he has money and can spread his message around.
This election more than any recent one proves people don't care for 3rd parties:
1-8 years of Bush and the GOP< with the Democrats either supporting what they did, or doing nothing like cowards.
2-Independent-minded Ron Paul on the GOP ticket and Kucinich and Gravel on the Democrats'. All in the debates.
(continued...)
Webins 3 years ago
10 million poeople cared for a 3rd party and voted for Perot. This election is a vote for the lesser of 2 evils. We may have another 3rd party candidate that will do well by 2012, if things continue going the way they have been.
reno93535 3 years ago 5
Listen, from what I gather, your point is that 3rd parties are irrelevant, and TRNN gives non-partisan coverage.
Reasons? Some of their policies are discussed anyway, and they don't play any substantial role.
You say 'you can only use the corporate media elite excuse so much' (I never did), yet say Perot doesn't count as a valid 3rd party candidate because he had money, bought media time, and therefore his success is not indicative of feelings towards third parties......
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 3
Yet it is clear, that when a third party message is spread around, by whatever means, as it was with Perot, it at least has potential.
You've helped demonstrate my point--that third parties can reflect something worthwhile in the political arena. I'm not arguing to vote for them, I'm saying specifically that TRNN would be well-advised to do Some sort of discussion about them, because they serve a political function. By glossing over them with 'strategic voting', they are biased.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 3
After all, Perot started off like Nader in the polls that included him, around 3-5%, then rose to a point where he could have won (if he didn't sabotage his campaign by pulling out for several weeks) by being IN the debates. Sure, it's because he was loaded, but doesn't that serve my point that there is a correlation between non negative media exposure and favorable perception?
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 3
YOu point about media exposure adresses the causes, but it still doesn't change the fact that most don't seem interested in 3rd parties.
Besides, You can't tell me that with two elections, liberals didn't know who Kucinich was, or that Paul didn't get enough exposure.
Paul goy much exposure, yet little support. And I'm sure most liberals knew qwho Kucinich was, but still didn't support him.
Dame with Nader. Most know him, but still no support.
These are not complete unknowns.
Webins 3 years ago
And yet, you disregard other things I have said that factor into their lack of "popular support". Oh well.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 2
Yeah, media exposure does address the causes of political popularity, which third parties and alternative candidates within the mainstream do not get an equal shake in, do you not read what I write?
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 3
You can't keep blaming media exposure for today's situation, as, as I've written, Nader, ROn Paul, and Kucinich aren't complete unknowns.
Most people know enough about them and their general outlooks that if they were the least inetersted, they could support them/find out more about them.
I don't understand why you and youngfreshnnew1 and many others seem to reluctant to accept that the majority of people might be content with the two main parties, rightly or wrongly.
Webins 3 years ago
Let's say I were actually reluctant to accept that, as you say. Would it affect any single part of any argument I have made at all to you ever?
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
Btw from what it seems to me, you are trying to establish that Americans just don't care about 3rd parties. Intrinsically. You somewhat acknowledge past candidates and media influence as evidence that contributes against your claim.
So if all media gave all candidates equal coverage, the 2-party system as we know it would be weakened, no?
I can't pin down your argument, because you are attacking statement-by-statement. Also, again, we are coming from different perspectives, and that's okay...
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
As I've written to TiradeFaction, this election could've been 3rd parties' biggest one, but it hasn't. Proof that they have little public support.
KLook at RO Paul, he got plenty of attention vis-a-vis the other GOP men, yet no big support. Doesn't that show you that maybe most people don't suport such different thinking and are content with the two perties and their general outlook?
Webins 3 years ago
Politics is about perceptions. The media (including polls) is about interpreting (naturally bias) current events in a way that is consumable for the public.
There is clearly strong interaction here. (and I suspect politics itself is increasingly being thought of as a mere 'TV show' by many...)
I don't think we can make any conclusions about people's opinions about 3rd parties til we look at how they form those opinions, so I try not to. Saying people are content required too many assumptions.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
Oh, and organised media would have a more organised bias. The internet is biased too, as a whole, but things are certainly more neutralised.
TRNN is progressively-oriented and biased. Their coverage of the election does criticise Obama and McCain, but when they talk to pundits about making a decision to cast a vote, the solution is always for Obama. They did the same with Canadian elections. And they title their videos to emphasise this, despite it often being one of many issues discussed...
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
Take into account also how Nader and other individuals like Kuinich are also portrayed in the media? Can anyone honestly tell me along with not getting fair time in the debates they are portrayed in a positive light? Just look at Nader and the spoiler accusation...
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 2
"Politics is about perceptions....
So the public is stupid? Fine, I agree with that. Then why not "vote for the lesser evil" then? If we all know that most people are morons who will vote for Obama or McCain, then does it make sense to talk about voting 3rd party?
Voting for 3rd parties is a waste, not for moral/ethical reasons, but because the majority make it a waste.
Your roblem isn't with TRNN or the media, but with the public's stupidity.
Webins 3 years ago
You really need to stop putting words in people's mouths... Nevertheless, you do bring up an interesting point, and I agree that the public is probably stupid/disinterested/naive. But you can't totally separate this from the media which provides faulty and biased information on which they form such opinions! I can understand why people would get turned off politics--and the media plays a Huge role in that. They also still fail to provide balanced coverage.
So I have a problem with all three.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
Fine, but let me tell you why I resent this excessive blame on the media. The fact is that Amercians have probably the freest access to information of anyone else in the world and history. They also have maybe the most political power in the world.
Yet, most still prefer to blame anyone else, corporations/politicans/media/etc... for their problems and why they do what they do.
Imagine how soemone from a truly unfree country like Nigeria or China must fee see all this sickening whining.
Webins 3 years ago
You're mostly right about that, but Americans (yet) don't use those abilities much, they let the mainstream media feed them all the bullshit they can eat. When the Internet permeates our culture, that situation may change.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
I think the whining is only sickening when it comes from someone who criticises the system and then mindlessly supports the 2 party status quo, when a 3rd party/blank vote would protest it.
People are allowing themselves to be manipulated, which is stupid and probably immoral. They should criticise corrupt institutions and stand up for their principles to whatever extent they can.
The bias of TRNN is what I am attacking, so I am doing as I should, no?
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
Well, if people are allowing themselves to be manipulated, then that supports my views that your criticism be directed at the such people, not TRNN, whose job it ISN'T to single-handedle educate everyone on all issues and all candidates of all parties.
As for Glover, he is admirable, because he atleast is aware of all this, and knows that the majority are morons, and thus he must vote for the the candidate who'll do less damage.
Webins 3 years ago
You are right, to a point. We are free to seek out information wherever we can find it and we have few limits on what we can seek out. But the vast majority are apathetic and content with whatever is sprayed on them from the networks and cable shows. And what gets sprayed is overwhelmingly government-approved, and in some cases, government-generated propaganda. Operation Mockingbird anyone? The print media is no better. It needs to change, and soon, or we are done as a democracy.
maturin42 3 years ago
If the majority are apathetic, and are content with the two parties, then why should anyone blame people like Glover here who, ackowledging this reality, decide that it is better to vote for the less-damagin Obama? I don't blame him or othes like him.
Webins 3 years ago
Maybe the imperfect information of the game makes them morons along with the rest of them.
That may not be TRNN's job, but their bias is a function of the extent to which they ignore the rich political diversity of the system
I'm not blaming TRNN for the state of politics, but I am certainly saying they show partisan tendencies. And as a media organisation, that is inexcusable.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
spoken like a true american with no experience of what its like to live anywhere else in the world. any and every european nation provides better access to information and education in how to use our reasoning faculties: and it starts in our schools! furthermore the media in all south american countries, india, pakistan(the dawn of karachi=worlds best newspaper)and iran (countries I have travelled in) impressed me with the very high standards -thoughtful and independent-of their press.
letherden 3 years ago
"any and every european nation provides better access to information..."?
Like Germany where you're thrown in prison for denying the Holocaust? Or maybe Russia where journalists are killed?
Sorry. but however uch it is abused, America's freedom of speech laws and access to information, especially government information, is greater than any typical European nation.
Further, the average American has access to most media around the world, the same cannot be said vice-versa.
Webins 3 years ago
you need to go travelling man. what you say about access to info in the usa being superior is totally unfounded superstition and you know what? in eurpoean nations freedom of speech laws are upheld, not abused. national budgets are not kept secret (as are pentagon and secret service in the usa) and apart from the uk, most of europe knows better than to flirt with fascist legislation like "the patriot act". where do those beliefs you have come from? who's propaganda did you buy?
letherden 3 years ago
Well, until America begins to throw people in jail for wearing swastikas, then you have nothing to stand on.
And does that "most of Europe" include Russia? Does that include those mysterious eastern European nations that host secret U.S. prisons (prisons not on U.S. soil precisely because the prisoners would have more legal freedoms then).
Also, doesn't the U.K. have an Official Secrets Act, which the U.S. doesn't have?
And I don't think America needs Europe to lecture it on "Fascism".
Webins 3 years ago
woah.all this aggression.today the usa has done a great thing to elect obama for president.this is exactly what he speaks of: the need to be able to listen,to seek understanding and conciliation,not to get entrenched in angry and futile battle positions.some of your assertions are right others not,but this belief that abuse of power in usa is permissible because power sometimes gets abused elsewhere therefore usa is better is just lame.the world is far more complex and sophisticated than that.
letherden 3 years ago
I never intended to justify or minimise US abuses by compairson to others.
Quite thte opposite, it was to show that Americans cannot have the same excuse to ignorance and inactivity that others around the world may have.
And as for Obama's victory, I wouldn't read too much into it. Just think of this, if there was no economic collapse, Obama may not have won.
Webins 3 years ago
peace...
letherden 3 years ago
you were merely saying Europeans cant tell America sucks?
Enjoy My Profile
EnjoyMyProfile 3 years ago
project paperclip
Enjoy
EnjoyMyProfile 3 years ago
Also, ask most people about Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, and they'll go "Who the fuck are they?"
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 2
I've already showed you the correlation, and showed you how none of how they do not get a fair shake in the debates or the media, so quit trying to bring that up, you're becoming a broken record at this point. If you think people naturally look at information that isn't given to them by the news media, then you seriously don't know American psychology.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
You keep bitching about media this and media that. If the public at large is so stupid that they need the medai to keep spoon-feeding them information about everythig and everyone uynder the sun, then they don't deserve to vote in the first place.
This isn't the 19th century, anyone can find out anything they want about anybody, via internet or libraries. The public doesn't want to do that, so be it. That's not the media fault.
Webins 3 years ago
Are you honestly surprised that Americans are stupid? You're just one faulty assertion after another.
I never blamed the media on people's stupidity (though, it sure plays an important role in continuing that). Fuck off already, you're beginning to embarrass yourself.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 4
And if I've become a broken record, then why do you respond?
What a dick!
Webins 3 years ago
Good point, why do I respond to you....
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 2
No, I don't believe that they are irrelevant.
HOwever, the majority of the public seems content with the two parties. Whatever the reasons, this is the case. And this election proved it.
Perot had money. No one needed to give him any.
The standard way is that someone launches his candidacy, and begins getting donations and support. Perot was unique in that he reveresed that.
I don't see how this can explain why 3rd parties have little support? Why aren't they getting donations?
Webins 3 years ago
The majority seems content, fine. I won't argue with that now. Corporate media agree with majority, and/or promotes the Rep/Dem dichotomy. Fine.
TRNN's goal is to provide a 'free flow of information'. Obstructing conversation of 3rd parties, which you now say are relevant to some degree, is Not a 'free flow of information' because they are specifically glossing over a worthwhile political institution.
My point: TRNN is biased. Your reaction: they are non-partisan (an ambiguous term).
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
As for the level of support of 3rd parties and their inability to draw donations and support in this election, I am not an expert and cannot answer that, which is beside the point of your initial objection, anyway.
But I'd say to start with TRNN, which as I've said, I think is biased. If even they are willing to dismiss 3rd parties with the pathetic 'lesser of two evils' criterion, then maybe that's where at least part of the answer lies.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
But why do you insist that such free-flowing information be tied with 3rd parties?
Isn't it truly "non-biased" to discuss an issue by itself, rather than discuss it from the perspective of 3rd parties. For example saying that "all troops should be pulled from Iraq", rather than saying "Bob Barr says all troops should be pulled from Iraq".
Why all the emphasis on 3rd parties, when techincally they are as flawed intelectually as the two main ones (their ideas aren't perfect either).
Webins 3 years ago
What you don't get is that VOTING is an issue. If you care to challenge that, go ahead. TRNN certainly makes it an issue.
Biased coverage of the issue of VOTING is being heavily skewed in one direction by TRNN, and therein lies my problem.
It's not about 'all the emphasis' being on 3rd parties--but rather, that 'all the emphasis' NOT be on the 2 parties.
Focusing on MANY biased entities is far better than focusing on two similar biased entities in obtaining neutral coverage.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
Well, putting aside the fact that they did give coverage to Nader and especially Paul in the past, the fact remains that 90% of voters are picking Oabam or McCain, who else is the emphasis be on if not them?
My point is rather simple, most people are content with the two main parties, regardless of how this came about (corporare conspiracy, media bias, etc...), and so it makes sense for Glover and others to decide to choose the less atrocious of the two, and for TRNN to cover it so.
Webins 3 years ago
Emphasis can be shared though, and I don't see why it shouldn't be. Coverage of Paul was grossly inflated by the internet. What tended to happen, too, was that on TV he would be interviewed, rather than talked about--as if he's a pundit, rather than a topic of discussion.
TRNN has unfairly titled videos, and repeated the same argument in several videos with no counterpoint (I don't think the issue-based videos provide this--the pundit-style guests have been unanimously for one candidate).
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
Why does he keep bringing up Ron Paul, he isn't even running anymore. If he ran I'd bet good money he would have run around 6-7% of the vote, and even more if he was given fair time in the national debates.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 2
TRNN has given coverage of Ron Paul AFTER his primary run, or at least after his campaign was really active. Nader has I believe only two videos from TRNN about him.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 2
And the coverage of Nader was entirely framed in the DNC 2008 context. What was that about, anyway?
The people interviewed are clearly partisan, and easy to dismiss for that reason.
The people interviewed in support of Obama were painted as progressives with much more neutral, objective analysis, and three of them were intellectuals. Furthermore, these videos have come out long after the Nader ones, so there is no 'discussion' here.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
***note that their 'neutral, objective analysis' is just part of the illustration. I don't think it was either of those things, since I think you essentially have to affirm the conclusion ('vote for Obama if you're progressive') before you can reasonably come up with an argument to 'prove' why.
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago 2
And mjy point about polls is that I believe they are a valid and near-accurate indicator of how the public feels and can't be dismissed.
And that they prove that the public doesn't want 3rd parties, even when they might agree with them.
Webins 3 years ago
As for polls, if they can't be trusted on opinion of candidates, then they shiould be trustsed on political dieas either, in which case how do we know most of the public isn't truly happy with the two main parties?
Besides, don't many polls show distrust./anger with the two main parties/anti-war sentiments/opposition to bail-outs/etc..., yet the same polls show support to the Obama/McCain. Doesn't that prove most people don't care for 3rd parties even when they believe in their dieas?
Webins 3 years ago
You say many polls show 'anger with the two main parties' and then ask 'how do we know most of the public isn't truly happy with the two main parties?'
I think that speaks for itself... and I've talked about my views on the rest of your questions there already. Let me just ask this:
Let's assume that you are 100% right when you say most people don't care about 3rd parties.
My question is: What is your point?
youngfreshnnew1 3 years ago
After those 8 years one would expect big gains by 3rd parties and/or by Paul/Gravel/Kucinich whose viewes, while not identical to Nader's/Greens'/Libertarians', as still closer.
But that didn't happen, and neither 3rd parties nor these three candidates win any significant support.
Noone can't keep arguing that had Nader been in the debate he'd gain support, when neither Kucinich nor Gravel (both close to Nader) did.
And I use Nader because he's the most prominant 3rd party candidate.
Webins 3 years ago
The problem is Kucinich and Gravel did not get anywhere close to equal time in the debates, and were eventually barred from them anyway.
watch?v=nK7DRPyNAHA
While the candidate it endorses is obviously not relevant anymore, it does illustrate how they indeed, do not get fair coverage. It's not as simple as you are making it out to be.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 3
Everyone has to compromise a little, it's only a problem when you compromise too much. Many Obama fans don't even agree with half of his platform, yet they're voting for him regardless. That's a problem if we are to live in a truly "representative" democracy.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 3
I disagree the public doesn't want third parties, I have talked to many Obama fans that would love to vote for someone like Nader, but don't want to risk getting the republicans in office. Hell, I see this among even among youtubers voting for Obama (RabidApe is one example). Also, the populace at large also seems to be for letting third parties in the debate, when it happened with Perot, his support rose greatly.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago 3
Read my answer to youngfreshnnew1 above.
This election could have been a boost to 3rd parties, but it hasn't, proving that people (most anyway) are content with the GOP and Democrats.
It may be due to decades ot propoganda, but whatever the reason neither 3rd parties nor Democrats and Republicans who advocate major changes (like Paul, Kucinich and Gravel) seem to get much support.
Webins 3 years ago
Your answer would make sense if A.) Most people didn't refer to the Dems as the lesser of two evils, and the fact many would vote thir