Is it still moving the goal posts if he went from
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
One who is not beholden to corporate of government interests.
[/quote]
and
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but are not controlled by or owned major corporations. [/quote]
to
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you really believe that the donations are from advertising or government sources where is the proof?
[/quote]
The evolution of evasion right there…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html
Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…
Anywho
Here is the 990 for them
https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf
Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)
Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?[/quote]
And you assume that mysterious $4 million came from individuals. Which is more likely, given the previous breakdown of donations?
LMAO - you have spent 5 years whining and crying against the evils of corporate media control, and the one news source you have quoted ad nauseum is…wait for it…a CORPORATION!!!
There is fail. There is epic fail. Then there is your boot-licking, blind-faith, “nyah-nyah-nyah I can’t hear you” fail.
And your completely oblivious to it all.
[/quote]
You do not understand the fundamentals of corporate control over the media. The Real News takes no corporate funding or government funding. If you really believe that the donations are from advertising or government sources where is the proof?
[/quote]
Like Mr. CountingBeans - the letters after my name must mean I am a complete and utter dumbass talking over my head about things I obviously know nothing about.
Real News admits to taking corporate money. They would not have been set up otherwise. Real News is a corporation itself. So whether or not they take money from corps does not change the fact that they are themselves owned and operated by the exact same organizational structure as Fox, MSNBC, the NYT, etc., etc., etc.
Are you so ignorantly blind that you can’t see your hypocrisy? “I hate corporations, except when they only except money from the ignorant, the ultra wealthy, progressive think-tanks, oh - and other corporations that we won’t count as donations”.
But keep up with the “nyah, nyah, nyah I can’t hear you” defense. I love a good chortle.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]
No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:
Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?
[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.
And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia
[/quote]
Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?
The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.
Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?[/quote]
Like 98% of the references are, “The Real New.” Their wiki page isn’t even bias free.[/quote]
Where is the sources of corporate advertising or government funding? Everyone has some level of bias. I have a bias towards the people. What benefits the whole. You can have a bias towards the truth. So are biases inherently bad?[/quote]
Again:
In his threat and rant-filled e-mail Mr. Jay did not go as far as denying his mega-dollars funds coming from mega corporate foundations and mega corporate families and individuals. In fact, he openly admitted to a few (only a few; we are yet to be provided with others-the complete list)-[All Emphasis Mine]:
“we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation…The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteâ?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.”
I think your assumption that they are not or have not received corperate funds has been effectively blown out of the water. This is a heaping helping of fail.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Is it still moving the goal posts if he went from
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
One who is not beholden to corporate of government interests.
[/quote]
and
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but are not controlled by or owned major corporations. [/quote]
to
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you really believe that the donations are from advertising or government sources where is the proof?
[/quote]
The evolution of evasion right there…
[/quote]
How is asking YOU to prove what you believe an evasion?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]
No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:
Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?
[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.
And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia
[/quote]
Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?
The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.
Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?[/quote]
Like 98% of the references are, “The Real New.” Their wiki page isn’t even bias free.[/quote]
Where is the sources of corporate advertising or government funding? Everyone has some level of bias. I have a bias towards the people. What benefits the whole. You can have a bias towards the truth. So are biases inherently bad?[/quote]
This is what you and Beans were talking about.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]
No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:
Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?
[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.
And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia
[/quote]
You referenced Wikipedia as verification that, “The Real News,” isn’t funded by corporations. The Wikipedia article reference (got it’s information) from, “The Real News.”
You don’t see the conflict there?
[/quote]
So find out all the advertising and government sponsorship and post it. Change Wikipedia as The Real News is obviously trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by referencing their own information.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html
Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…
Anywho
Here is the 990 for them
https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf
Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)
Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?[/quote]
And you assume that mysterious $4 million came from individuals. Which is more likely, given the previous breakdown of donations?
LMAO - you have spent 5 years whining and crying against the evils of corporate media control, and the one news source you have quoted ad nauseum is…wait for it…a CORPORATION!!!
There is fail. There is epic fail. Then there is your boot-licking, blind-faith, “nyah-nyah-nyah I can’t hear you” fail.
And your completely oblivious to it all.
[/quote]
You do not understand the fundamentals of corporate control over the media. The Real News takes no corporate funding or government funding. If you really believe that the donations are from advertising or government sources where is the proof?
[/quote]
Like Mr. CountingBeans - the letters after my name must mean I am a complete and utter dumbass talking over my head about things I obviously know nothing about.
Real News admits to taking corporate money. They would not have been set up otherwise. Real News is a corporation itself. So whether or not they take money from corps does not change the fact that they are themselves owned and operated by the exact same organizational structure as Fox, MSNBC, the NYT, etc., etc., etc.
Are you so ignorantly blind that you can’t see your hypocrisy? “I hate corporations, except when they only except money from the ignorant, the ultra wealthy, progressive think-tanks, oh - and other corporations that we won’t count as donations”.
But keep up with the “nyah, nyah, nyah I can’t hear you” defense. I love a good chortle.
[/quote]
They have taken donations mostly from viewers and some from Foundations. There is no advertising or government sponsorship. Can any of the major news outlets claim this?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You referenced Wikipedia as verification that, “The Real News,” isn’t funded by corporations. The Wikipedia article reference (got it’s information) from, “The Real News.”
You don’t see the conflict there?
[/quote]
So find out all the advertising and government sponsorship and post it. Change Wikipedia as The Real News is obviously trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by referencing their own information.
[/quote]
So can I safely assume you see how your support did in fact not support your point?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
They have taken donations mostly from viewers and some from Foundations. There is no advertising or government sponsorship. Can any of the major news outlets claim this?[/quote]
They can claim anything they want to - Just like TRNN’s founder can claim anything he wants to. But, I guess it’s just proof that the regular media has a little more honesty going for it than TRNN.
Hell, you can claim butter is low fat if you want.
Your boy is scamming you and all the other little lemmings in the progtard movement.
Keep the faith, kiddo. I am sure there is a nirvana out there for you.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]
No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:
Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?
[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.
And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia
[/quote]
Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?
The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.
Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?[/quote]
Like 98% of the references are, “The Real New.” Their wiki page isn’t even bias free.[/quote]
Where is the sources of corporate advertising or government funding? Everyone has some level of bias. I have a bias towards the people. What benefits the whole. You can have a bias towards the truth. So are biases inherently bad?[/quote]
Again:
In his threat and rant-filled e-mail Mr. Jay did not go as far as denying his mega-dollars funds coming from mega corporate foundations and mega corporate families and individuals. In fact, he openly admitted to a few (only a few; we are yet to be provided with others-the complete list)-[All Emphasis Mine]:
“we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation…The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteâ?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.”
I think your assumption that they are not or have not received corperate funds has been effectively blown out of the water. This is a heaping helping of fail.[/quote]
CEO of The rEal News network responds to Ms. Edmonds attack. In addition a comment from Ray McGovern.
The Management Says:
As per his request, here is a response from Paul Jay:
What sparked a hate filled rant by Ms. Edmonds against my work and character is beyond me; Iâ??ve met her once and had no contact with her for years. But as such fabrications tend to go viral, and as Ms. Edmonds has some credibility in certain circles, I will respond to her various accusations:
As you will see below, the main contention of Ms. Edmonds is that I challenged David Swanson in such a manner because TRNN is funded by corporate foundations that are pro-Obama. In fact, I conducted several interviews with people that agreed with David, including Chris Hedges and Glen Ford. If TRNN has such a pro-Obama agenda (which is ridiculous on the face of it for anyone that actually watches our work), why give this amount of airtime to people who were opposed to voting for Obama? She also fails to point out that I conducted interviews with people who supported voting for Obama in swing states, and challenged them as well.
Thatâ??s my job as an interviewer, to challenge guests to make their arguments. As you will see below, the funding accusation is completely spurious.
Not a big point, but not true. When I first met Ms. Edmonds, I already knew Ray McGovern who was a fan of The Real News. Ray suggested I meet Ms. Edmonds because she was having trouble getting her story out in mainstream media and asked if I could help. It was not a small dinner gathering, but a lunch where the only people gathering were Ray, Ms. Edmonds and myself. I do believe the meeting was in the fall of 2007, but I could be wrong about the date.
At no time after that did Edmonds or anyone on her behalf request that we interview her. After having been rebuffed in our first attempts, we didnâ??t pursue her further. The idea that we censored her is bizarre.
If she would now like to be interviewed, we would still be happy to oblige. But the first interview must be where she either defends these defaming accusations or apologies on air.
Ray McGovern has appeared on TRNN dozens of times and writes regularly on our site. He did a series of interviews in our DVD that also featured Gore Vidal titled â??History of the National Security Stateâ??. He has many times publicly praised and supported our network and called on people to contribute financially. David Swanson also regularly appears on TRNN and calls on people to support the network and he distributes our videos far and wide.
Edmonds writes: â??Unfortunately, even Rayâ??s great company was not enough to take away from an ego-centric and opportunist host, and the very disturbing birth of his new opportunist product, geared strategically to spit partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates and their foundations in Washington DC.â??
Ignoring the first of several ad hominem attacks, quite slanderous on a personal level (in another place she writes â??Paul Jay, a very deceptive and ugly (inside & out)â??, her substantive charge is TRNN was â??geared strategically to spit partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates and their foundations in Washington DC.â?? Iâ??m not entirely sure what â??partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporatesâ?? means, but she offers not a shred of evidence to back up her claim. Anyone that has viewed TRNN knows we have been far from partisan of any political party or anything else for that matter.
If she is implying partisan support for President Obama, Ray McGovern can attest to the fact we were highly critical of Obama during the primary campaign (see our stories on Rev. Wright and my support for his â??chicken comes home to roostâ?? speech). We have published hundreds, perhaps thousands of stories and interviews containing savage criticism of Obamaâ??s last four years. You can also find our story denouncing Hillary Clintonâ??s attempt to have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard put on the terrorist list, a move she made in tandem with various neo-cons.
I was not in DC to raise money from corporate foundations. I donâ??t know of any corporate foundations that are based in Washington (perhaps there are, but we have never approached them). I was in DC to cover news stories and prepare for our move to establish a bureau there. Ms. Edmonds should furnish the name of a single corporate foundation I approached or received funds from in Washington.
Edmonds writes â??Mr. Jay was in DC to meet with all the known corporate-foundations to raise money for his â??The Real Newsâ?? TV project, which was being marketed as â??alternative news to be ready by 2008 in order to counter another party during the elections.â?? That was the main gist of this project.â?? This is a complete fabrication. I have never pitched our project as being for or against any party, and frankly because we refuse to play this role, we in fact have received very little â??corporate foundation fundingâ?? or partisan donor funding.
Please review our coverage of the 2008 elections, where we probably spent more time being critical of Obama and the Democrats than we did focusing on the Republicans. I pointed out many times that the election was a choice between two sections of the American elite, and the idea that â??we are all in the same boatâ?? and such was meant to cover up the reality that we live in a class society dominated by a financial and military-industrial complex that controlls both parties. That Edmonds puts this charge in quotes, as if she is quoting me or one of our documents, is deliberately deceiving.
No news outlet in North America has been more critical of Israel, the occupation, the pro-Israel lobby in the US, Israeli plans to urge sanctions and an attack on Iran, and so on, than TRNN. We had a full time journalist based in Israel that reported on the racist character of Israeli society and itâ??s brutal practices in Gaza and the West Bank. This is not the strategy of an organization trying to raise funds from US corporate foundations.
Edmonds writes â??It was not going to be about giving voice to censored voices. It was not about countering wars outside approved and measured borders. It was not about civil liberties. And it was certainly not going to be about â??the real news.â??â??
Ms. Edmonds apparently has not watched TRNN, or if she has, she is deliberately ignoring our actual record. We have featured interviews with hundreds of â??censored voicesâ??. We have interviewed several recipients of the Sam Adams awards (given to whistle-blowers by, amongst others, Ray McGovern). We have carried regular interviews with Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights who has been uncompromising in his critique of Obamaâ??s record on human rights. Mr. Ratner is on our board. We carried dozens of stories and interviews attacking the NDAA provision that allows the military to hold people indefinitely without trial. We have carried hundreds, perhaps thousands, of stories and interviews attacking US interventions and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the drone strikes in Pakistan, violation of international law in Libya, threatening war against Iran. From Larry Wilkerson to Chalmers Johnson, and many others we have featured voices that denounced the Project for a New American Century and the fundamental empire assumptions of US foreign policy. On many occasions our interview subjects have called Bush, Cheney and Obama war criminals. These interviews include David Swanson who has appeared on TRNN dozens of times.
Another complete lie, even a laughable one. All our documents and everyone I ever talked to about TRNN was told our plan was to seek some seed funding from liberal foundations and then get off that source of funding and replace it with mass small donor funding as soon as possible. We have never threatened any â??liberal foundationâ?? with going to the â??other sideâ??, nor have we ever attempted to source such money. Ms. Edmonds should show some evidence to the contrary, other than her fantasy quote. It would be a completely idiotic strategy any way, even if we use Edmonds logic. How could we sell our project as meant to â??counter another partyâ?? and then suggest foundations from â??the other sideâ?? could buy us. Itâ??s completely ridiculous.
Yes, letâ??s be your guest. Please enlighten me and your readers on the names of the alphabet of corporate foundations who dished out the dough. The checks must have been lost in the mail, because we never received them.
In the more than ten years since we started working on The Real News, we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. Once we started producing our news in the fall of 2007, we never received another penny from either foundation. The problem was, we did what we said we were going to do, uncompromising journalism. We were directly told by one of the foundations that our news was too challenging for their board. The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our website. It had no editorial purpose at all. Thatâ??s it, in ten years. All this is a matter of the public record and can be searched by looking up our tax returns.
In the comments section of her blog, Edmonds writes â??And when they give the dough, they asl for control/100% influence. Nothing is free.â?? Of course, she has no evidence of this. And everybody knows, thatâ??s not the way corporate foundations work. In our experience they asked for no control at all. What they have is the implied threat you will not get future funding if you donâ??t stay within certain boundaries. We didnâ??t, and received no further funding.
TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals. None of the money comes with any strings attached and none of it promotes a partisan approach towards politics.
Ms. Edmonds has completely missed the fact that TRNN started in Canada and the majority of our seed funding came from small Canadian foundations and individual donors.
She also seems not to know I produced the television show counterSpin on CBC in Canada for ten years before starting TRNN. On that show we were the only mainstream program in the English speaking world that immediately countered the post 9/11 narrative that lead to the Afghan and Iraq wars. Three days after 9/11 we did a debate on whether or not Canada should join the â??war on terrorâ?? and several of our guests said no, and connected US foreign policy with the attacks. We did daily shows for years where guests attacked the invasion of both countries. Some people have suggested we played a role in keeping Canada out of the Iraq war.
Please, Ms. Edmonds . . . show us the list. You are supposed to be an expert about certain documents, and Iâ??m sure you would never state there was such and such a document without having it in your possession. So, produce it. Produce any evidence such a list ever existed.
Of course this is sheer nonsense. There was never any such list. Anyone who examines our guests will see we have never shied away from interviewing truth tellers and whistle blowers of all kinds.
Iâ??m not aware of ever being at a dinner with Ms. Edmonds, but if she is referring to a dinner I attended after we filmed the Sam Adams awards, itâ??s rather ironic because thatâ??s exactly what we did. Shoot the speeches of whistle blowers who received that award and ran those interviews on TRNN. People who gave some of those speeches published on TRNN were at that dinner. Another complete fairy tale by Ms. Edmonds.
Paul Jay
CEO and Senior Editor
The Real News Network
Dear Sibel,
Iâ??ve just read your extraordinary attack on The Real News Network and Paul Jay. My initial reaction? â?? Either Karl Rove hacked into Boiling Frogs, or you wrote that piece from Colorado or Washington State, after having taken advantage of now-legal recreational marijuana. If itâ??s the latter, you need to come to and come clean.
I have not known you before to be one who makes stuff up. But, since you mention me in connection with some of the imaginary events you adduce, I need to tell you (and your readers, if you choose to let them read this) that it didnâ??t happen â?? none of it!
Iâ??m old enough to realize that there are some things one simply cannot understand, no matter how much one tries. I joke, of course, about the Rove-hacking and about the marijuana; but sometimes one has to joke rather than get really angry, as we Irishmen tend to do. For your hatchet job on Paul Jay truly is one worthy of Karl Rove.
I cannot see how you could of thought I would not become aware of it, or that our friendship might prompt me to remain silent. Thatâ??s not what I do.
You need to confess you made it all up. If you do not, than it seems to me it is incumbent on you to make public whatever proof you think you have for your allegations â?? and, toot sweet, as we say in the Bronx. As for the allegations about things you claim I was a part, let me just say they must have come from a bad dream. They are as imaginary as the â??evidenceâ?? of weapons of mass destructionâ?? in Iraq.
For the record, in my view â?? and in the view of serious people like Larry Wilkerson â?? The Real News Network and Paul Jay are the real deal. I have been interviewed a good many times by a good many people; Paul Jay is at the top of my list in terms of integrity, experience, and in willingness and ability to confront those he interviews.
I am all too aware of the highly emotional fracas over recent months over lesser-evil-ism. None of the â??solutionsâ?? offered caught my fancy, so I held my nose, dreading the possibility that I would wake up Wednesday morning and learn that Romney took Virginia by one vote â?? and, thus, the election.
As for Dan Ellsberg, I never thought I could admire him still more, but I had before. He cares passionately about this country. And precisely that was why he felt a responsibility to stick his neck out and share widely his own thinking and suggestions. He knew what reaction he would get; he didnâ??t have to say anything; he did because he is a patriotâ?¦an unalloyed patriot.
While, amidst all this, friends like David Swanson, strongly as he felt about all this, never impugned my integrity for making that reluctant decision on voting, others â?? including other close friends â?? didâ?¦…a sad sign of how incredibly emotional the fracas/argument had become.
For me, it was mostly a matter of arithmetic, not emotion. And I see a lot of that residual emotion slopping over into your right-out-of-the-Rove-toolbox attack on Paul Jay.
Letâ??s get on with it. We need to move TOGETHER to confront Obama now, not one another, and make him do the things that have to be done if our democracy is to survive.
Best regards,
Ray McGovern
See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com
See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html
Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…
Anywho
Here is the 990 for them
https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf
Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)
Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?[/quote]
And you assume that mysterious $4 million came from individuals. Which is more likely, given the previous breakdown of donations?
LMAO - you have spent 5 years whining and crying against the evils of corporate media control, and the one news source you have quoted ad nauseum is…wait for it…a CORPORATION!!!
There is fail. There is epic fail. Then there is your boot-licking, blind-faith, “nyah-nyah-nyah I can’t hear you” fail.
And your completely oblivious to it all.
[/quote]
You do not understand the fundamentals of corporate control over the media. The Real News takes no corporate funding or government funding. If you really believe that the donations are from advertising or government sources where is the proof?
[/quote]
Like Mr. CountingBeans - the letters after my name must mean I am a complete and utter dumbass talking over my head about things I obviously know nothing about.
Real News admits to taking corporate money. They would not have been set up otherwise. Real News is a corporation itself. So whether or not they take money from corps does not change the fact that they are themselves owned and operated by the exact same organizational structure as Fox, MSNBC, the NYT, etc., etc., etc.
Are you so ignorantly blind that you can’t see your hypocrisy? “I hate corporations, except when they only except money from the ignorant, the ultra wealthy, progressive think-tanks, oh - and other corporations that we won’t count as donations”.
But keep up with the “nyah, nyah, nyah I can’t hear you” defense. I love a good chortle.
[/quote]
They have taken donations mostly from viewers and some from Foundations. There is no advertising or government sponsorship. Can any of the major news outlets claim this?[/quote]
Foundations of corporations.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]
No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:
Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?
[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]
You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.
And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia
[/quote]
Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?
The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.
Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?[/quote]
Like 98% of the references are, “The Real New.” Their wiki page isn’t even bias free.[/quote]
Where is the sources of corporate advertising or government funding? Everyone has some level of bias. I have a bias towards the people. What benefits the whole. You can have a bias towards the truth. So are biases inherently bad?[/quote]
Again:
In his threat and rant-filled e-mail Mr. Jay did not go as far as denying his mega-dollars funds coming from mega corporate foundations and mega corporate families and individuals. In fact, he openly admitted to a few (only a few; we are yet to be provided with others-the complete list)-[All Emphasis Mine]:
“we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation…The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteÃ?¢?Ã?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.”
I think your assumption that they are not or have not received corperate funds has been effectively blown out of the water. This is a heaping helping of fail.[/quote]
CEO of The rEal News network responds to Ms. Edmonds attack. In addition a comment from Ray McGovern.
The Management Says:
As per his request, here is a response from Paul Jay:
What sparked a hate filled rant by Ms. Edmonds against my work and character is beyond me; Iâ??ve met her once and had no contact with her for years. But as such fabrications tend to go viral, and as Ms. Edmonds has some credibility in certain circles, I will respond to her various accusations:
As you will see below, the main contention of Ms. Edmonds is that I challenged David Swanson in such a manner because TRNN is funded by corporate foundations that are pro-Obama. In fact, I conducted several interviews with people that agreed with David, including Chris Hedges and Glen Ford. If TRNN has such a pro-Obama agenda (which is ridiculous on the face of it for anyone that actually watches our work), why give this amount of airtime to people who were opposed to voting for Obama? She also fails to point out that I conducted interviews with people who supported voting for Obama in swing states, and challenged them as well.
Thatâ??s my job as an interviewer, to challenge guests to make their arguments. As you will see below, the funding accusation is completely spurious.
Not a big point, but not true. When I first met Ms. Edmonds, I already knew Ray McGovern who was a fan of The Real News. Ray suggested I meet Ms. Edmonds because she was having trouble getting her story out in mainstream media and asked if I could help. It was not a small dinner gathering, but a lunch where the only people gathering were Ray, Ms. Edmonds and myself. I do believe the meeting was in the fall of 2007, but I could be wrong about the date.
At no time after that did Edmonds or anyone on her behalf request that we interview her. After having been rebuffed in our first attempts, we didnâ??t pursue her further. The idea that we censored her is bizarre.
If she would now like to be interviewed, we would still be happy to oblige. But the first interview must be where she either defends these defaming accusations or apologies on air.
Ray McGovern has appeared on TRNN dozens of times and writes regularly on our site. He did a series of interviews in our DVD that also featured Gore Vidal titled â??History of the National Security Stateâ??. He has many times publicly praised and supported our network and called on people to contribute financially. David Swanson also regularly appears on TRNN and calls on people to support the network and he distributes our videos far and wide.
Edmonds writes: â??Unfortunately, even Rayâ??s great company was not enough to take away from an ego-centric and opportunist host, and the very disturbing birth of his new opportunist product, geared strategically to spit partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates and their foundations in Washington DC.â??
Ignoring the first of several ad hominem attacks, quite slanderous on a personal level (in another place she writes â??Paul Jay, a very deceptive and ugly (inside & out)â??, her substantive charge is TRNN was â??geared strategically to spit partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporates and their foundations in Washington DC.â?? Iâ??m not entirely sure what â??partisan propaganda benefitting partisan corporatesâ?? means, but she offers not a shred of evidence to back up her claim. Anyone that has viewed TRNN knows we have been far from partisan of any political party or anything else for that matter.
If she is implying partisan support for President Obama, Ray McGovern can attest to the fact we were highly critical of Obama during the primary campaign (see our stories on Rev. Wright and my support for his â??chicken comes home to roostâ?? speech). We have published hundreds, perhaps thousands of stories and interviews containing savage criticism of Obamaâ??s last four years. You can also find our story denouncing Hillary Clintonâ??s attempt to have the Iranian Revolutionary Guard put on the terrorist list, a move she made in tandem with various neo-cons.
I was not in DC to raise money from corporate foundations. I donâ??t know of any corporate foundations that are based in Washington (perhaps there are, but we have never approached them). I was in DC to cover news stories and prepare for our move to establish a bureau there. Ms. Edmonds should furnish the name of a single corporate foundation I approached or received funds from in Washington.
Edmonds writes â??Mr. Jay was in DC to meet with all the known corporate-foundations to raise money for his â??The Real Newsâ?? TV project, which was being marketed as â??alternative news to be ready by 2008 in order to counter another party during the elections.â?? That was the main gist of this project.â?? This is a complete fabrication. I have never pitched our project as being for or against any party, and frankly because we refuse to play this role, we in fact have received very little â??corporate foundation fundingâ?? or partisan donor funding.
Please review our coverage of the 2008 elections, where we probably spent more time being critical of Obama and the Democrats than we did focusing on the Republicans. I pointed out many times that the election was a choice between two sections of the American elite, and the idea that â??we are all in the same boatâ?? and such was meant to cover up the reality that we live in a class society dominated by a financial and military-industrial complex that controlls both parties. That Edmonds puts this charge in quotes, as if she is quoting me or one of our documents, is deliberately deceiving.
No news outlet in North America has been more critical of Israel, the occupation, the pro-Israel lobby in the US, Israeli plans to urge sanctions and an attack on Iran, and so on, than TRNN. We had a full time journalist based in Israel that reported on the racist character of Israeli society and itâ??s brutal practices in Gaza and the West Bank. This is not the strategy of an organization trying to raise funds from US corporate foundations.
Edmonds writes â??It was not going to be about giving voice to censored voices. It was not about countering wars outside approved and measured borders. It was not about civil liberties. And it was certainly not going to be about â??the real news.â??â??
Ms. Edmonds apparently has not watched TRNN, or if she has, she is deliberately ignoring our actual record. We have featured interviews with hundreds of â??censored voicesâ??. We have interviewed several recipients of the Sam Adams awards (given to whistle-blowers by, amongst others, Ray McGovern). We have carried regular interviews with Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights who has been uncompromising in his critique of Obamaâ??s record on human rights. Mr. Ratner is on our board. We carried dozens of stories and interviews attacking the NDAA provision that allows the military to hold people indefinitely without trial. We have carried hundreds, perhaps thousands, of stories and interviews attacking US interventions and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the drone strikes in Pakistan, violation of international law in Libya, threatening war against Iran. From Larry Wilkerson to Chalmers Johnson, and many others we have featured voices that denounced the Project for a New American Century and the fundamental empire assumptions of US foreign policy. On many occasions our interview subjects have called Bush, Cheney and Obama war criminals. These interviews include David Swanson who has appeared on TRNN dozens of times.
Another complete lie, even a laughable one. All our documents and everyone I ever talked to about TRNN was told our plan was to seek some seed funding from liberal foundations and then get off that source of funding and replace it with mass small donor funding as soon as possible. We have never threatened any â??liberal foundationâ?? with going to the â??other sideâ??, nor have we ever attempted to source such money. Ms. Edmonds should show some evidence to the contrary, other than her fantasy quote. It would be a completely idiotic strategy any way, even if we use Edmonds logic. How could we sell our project as meant to â??counter another partyâ?? and then suggest foundations from â??the other sideâ?? could buy us. Itâ??s completely ridiculous.
Yes, letâ??s be your guest. Please enlighten me and your readers on the names of the alphabet of corporate foundations who dished out the dough. The checks must have been lost in the mail, because we never received them.
In the more than ten years since we started working on The Real News, we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. Once we started producing our news in the fall of 2007, we never received another penny from either foundation. The problem was, we did what we said we were going to do, uncompromising journalism. We were directly told by one of the foundations that our news was too challenging for their board. The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our website. It had no editorial purpose at all. Thatâ??s it, in ten years. All this is a matter of the public record and can be searched by looking up our tax returns.
In the comments section of her blog, Edmonds writes â??And when they give the dough, they asl for control/100% influence. Nothing is free.â?? Of course, she has no evidence of this. And everybody knows, thatâ??s not the way corporate foundations work. In our experience they asked for no control at all. What they have is the implied threat you will not get future funding if you donâ??t stay within certain boundaries. We didnâ??t, and received no further funding.
TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals. None of the money comes with any strings attached and none of it promotes a partisan approach towards politics.
Ms. Edmonds has completely missed the fact that TRNN started in Canada and the majority of our seed funding came from small Canadian foundations and individual donors.
She also seems not to know I produced the television show counterSpin on CBC in Canada for ten years before starting TRNN. On that show we were the only mainstream program in the English speaking world that immediately countered the post 9/11 narrative that lead to the Afghan and Iraq wars. Three days after 9/11 we did a debate on whether or not Canada should join the â??war on terrorâ?? and several of our guests said no, and connected US foreign policy with the attacks. We did daily shows for years where guests attacked the invasion of both countries. Some people have suggested we played a role in keeping Canada out of the Iraq war.
Please, Ms. Edmonds . . . show us the list. You are supposed to be an expert about certain documents, and Iâ??m sure you would never state there was such and such a document without having it in your possession. So, produce it. Produce any evidence such a list ever existed.
Of course this is sheer nonsense. There was never any such list. Anyone who examines our guests will see we have never shied away from interviewing truth tellers and whistle blowers of all kinds.
Iâ??m not aware of ever being at a dinner with Ms. Edmonds, but if she is referring to a dinner I attended after we filmed the Sam Adams awards, itâ??s rather ironic because thatâ??s exactly what we did. Shoot the speeches of whistle blowers who received that award and ran those interviews on TRNN. People who gave some of those speeches published on TRNN were at that dinner. Another complete fairy tale by Ms. Edmonds.
Paul Jay
CEO and Senior Editor
The Real News Network
Dear Sibel,
Iâ??ve just read your extraordinary attack on The Real News Network and Paul Jay. My initial reaction? â?? Either Karl Rove hacked into Boiling Frogs, or you wrote that piece from Colorado or Washington State, after having taken advantage of now-legal recreational marijuana. If itâ??s the latter, you need to come to and come clean.
I have not known you before to be one who makes stuff up. But, since you mention me in connection with some of the imaginary events you adduce, I need to tell you (and your readers, if you choose to let them read this) that it didnâ??t happen â?? none of it!
Iâ??m old enough to realize that there are some things one simply cannot understand, no matter how much one tries. I joke, of course, about the Rove-hacking and about the marijuana; but sometimes one has to joke rather than get really angry, as we Irishmen tend to do. For your hatchet job on Paul Jay truly is one worthy of Karl Rove.
I cannot see how you could of thought I would not become aware of it, or that our friendship might prompt me to remain silent. Thatâ??s not what I do.
You need to confess you made it all up. If you do not, than it seems to me it is incumbent on you to make public whatever proof you think you have for your allegations â?? and, toot sweet, as we say in the Bronx. As for the allegations about things you claim I was a part, let me just say they must have come from a bad dream. They are as imaginary as the â??evidenceâ?? of weapons of mass destructionâ?? in Iraq.
For the record, in my view â?? and in the view of serious people like Larry Wilkerson â?? The Real News Network and Paul Jay are the real deal. I have been interviewed a good many times by a good many people; Paul Jay is at the top of my list in terms of integrity, experience, and in willingness and ability to confront those he interviews.
I am all too aware of the highly emotional fracas over recent months over lesser-evil-ism. None of the â??solutionsâ?? offered caught my fancy, so I held my nose, dreading the possibility that I would wake up Wednesday morning and learn that Romney took Virginia by one vote â?? and, thus, the election.
As for Dan Ellsberg, I never thought I could admire him still more, but I had before. He cares passionately about this country. And precisely that was why he felt a responsibility to stick his neck out and share widely his own thinking and suggestions. He knew what reaction he would get; he didnâ??t have to say anything; he did because he is a patriotâ?¦an unalloyed patriot.
While, amidst all this, friends like David Swanson, strongly as he felt about all this, never impugned my integrity for making that reluctant decision on voting, others â?? including other close friends â?? didâ?¦…a sad sign of how incredibly emotional the fracas/argument had become.
For me, it was mostly a matter of arithmetic, not emotion. And I see a lot of that residual emotion slopping over into your right-out-of-the-Rove-toolbox attack on Paul Jay.
Letâ??s get on with it. We need to move TOGETHER to confront Obama now, not one another, and make him do the things that have to be done if our democracy is to survive.
Best regards,
Ray McGovern
See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com
See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com
[/quote]
Sounds like he needs a little cheese to go with that whine.
Well, I think the bottom line here is that you failed to prove that Fox News deliberately withholds, alters or flat out lies in it’s news stories, nor that such a thing is done in the interest to appease corporate sponsorship. Further you failed to prove you claim that your sources for news are unbiased and not sponsored by corporate interests.
I glad you brought it up so we can put this nonsense to bed. Not only are your sources biased, but they are very heavily biased toward the left and function more as special interest rather than actual news. It’s fine to get that perspective, but it’s not resonable to treat it as a soly factual source for actual news.
The actual fact of the matter is that there is no unbiased news, there is more or less biased, but not unbiased. The best methodology is to get your news from multiple sources assuming bias from both sides of the political spectrum. You can then derive unbiased facts of news by searching the points that multiple sources agree on.
I think you ran on some asshat assumption that you could somehow discredit a popular news source while pedaling your own special interest news source perhaps in hopes that it may convince somebody that these biases are fact and somehow then you will convert people to your belief system. After all, if people could just see the truth, then they would all agree right?
Well, your premise was faulty to begin with. The problem is not only did you fail to discredit Fox News, but you exposed the heavy biases of your own claimed reliable sources. Oooops.
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, I think the bottom line here is that you failed to prove that Fox News deliberately withholds, alters or flat out lies in it’s news stories, nor that such a thing is done in the interest to appease corporate sponsorship. Further you failed to prove you claim that your sources for news are unbiased and not sponsored by corporate interests.
I glad you brought it up so we can put this nonsense to bed. Not only are your sources biased, but they are very heavily biased toward the left and function more as special interest rather than actual news. It’s fine to get that perspective, but it’s not resonable to treat it as a soly factual source for actual news.
The actual fact of the matter is that there is no unbiased news, there is more or less biased, but not unbiased. The best methodology is to get your news from multiple sources assuming bias from both sides of the political spectrum. You can then derive unbiased facts of news by searching the points that multiple sources agree on.
I think you ran on some asshat assumption that you could somehow discredit a popular news source while pedaling your own special interest news source perhaps in hopes that it may convince somebody that these biases are fact and somehow then you will convert people to your belief system. After all, if people could just see the truth, then they would all agree right?
Well, your premise was faulty to begin with. The problem is not only did you fail to discredit Fox News, but you exposed the heavy biases of your own claimed reliable sources. Oooops.[/quote]
First off the post was about the smug Faux douchebag Greg Gutfield. Secondly I never named Faux explicitly I only said corporately owned news sources-of which Faux is one- in their bias towards those who own them and their practice of shaping the news to their benefit
In a sperate post I showed a paired example of 2 genocides happening in the same timeframe. One was covered quite a bit the other was not. How come?
Bias is not inherently a bad thing. Is bias towards the facts and the truth bad?
I have not found any corporate funding of the Real News except small family foundations and viewer donations. If you can find one please let me know.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, I think the bottom line here is that you failed to prove that Fox News deliberately withholds, alters or flat out lies in it’s news stories, nor that such a thing is done in the interest to appease corporate sponsorship. Further you failed to prove you claim that your sources for news are unbiased and not sponsored by corporate interests.
I glad you brought it up so we can put this nonsense to bed. Not only are your sources biased, but they are very heavily biased toward the left and function more as special interest rather than actual news. It’s fine to get that perspective, but it’s not resonable to treat it as a soly factual source for actual news.
The actual fact of the matter is that there is no unbiased news, there is more or less biased, but not unbiased. The best methodology is to get your news from multiple sources assuming bias from both sides of the political spectrum. You can then derive unbiased facts of news by searching the points that multiple sources agree on.
I think you ran on some asshat assumption that you could somehow discredit a popular news source while pedaling your own special interest news source perhaps in hopes that it may convince somebody that these biases are fact and somehow then you will convert people to your belief system. After all, if people could just see the truth, then they would all agree right?
Well, your premise was faulty to begin with. The problem is not only did you fail to discredit Fox News, but you exposed the heavy biases of your own claimed reliable sources. Oooops.[/quote]
First off the post was about the smug Faux douchebag Greg Gutfield. Secondly I never named Faux explicitly I only said corporately owned news sources-of which Faux is one- in their bias towards those who own them and their practice of shaping the news to their benefit
In a sperate post I showed a paired example of 2 genocides happening in the same timeframe. One was covered quite a bit the other was not. How come?
Bias is not inherently a bad thing. Is bias towards the facts and the truth bad?
I have not found any corporate funding of the Real News except small family foundations and viewer donations. If you can find one please let me know.
[/quote]
The Ford Foundation of Ford Motor Company is small??? lol
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, I think the bottom line here is that you failed to prove that Fox News deliberately withholds, alters or flat out lies in it’s news stories, nor that such a thing is done in the interest to appease corporate sponsorship. Further you failed to prove you claim that your sources for news are unbiased and not sponsored by corporate interests.
I glad you brought it up so we can put this nonsense to bed. Not only are your sources biased, but they are very heavily biased toward the left and function more as special interest rather than actual news. It’s fine to get that perspective, but it’s not resonable to treat it as a soly factual source for actual news.
The actual fact of the matter is that there is no unbiased news, there is more or less biased, but not unbiased. The best methodology is to get your news from multiple sources assuming bias from both sides of the political spectrum. You can then derive unbiased facts of news by searching the points that multiple sources agree on.
I think you ran on some asshat assumption that you could somehow discredit a popular news source while pedaling your own special interest news source perhaps in hopes that it may convince somebody that these biases are fact and somehow then you will convert people to your belief system. After all, if people could just see the truth, then they would all agree right?
Well, your premise was faulty to begin with. The problem is not only did you fail to discredit Fox News, but you exposed the heavy biases of your own claimed reliable sources. Oooops.[/quote]
First off the post was about the smug Faux douchebag Greg Gutfield. Secondly I never named Faux explicitly I only said corporately owned news sources-of which Faux is one- in their bias towards those who own them and their practice of shaping the news to their benefit
In a sperate post I showed a paired example of 2 genocides happening in the same timeframe. One was covered quite a bit the other was not. How come?
Bias is not inherently a bad thing. Is bias towards the facts and the truth bad?
I have not found any corporate funding of the Real News except small family foundations and viewer donations. If you can find one please let me know.
[/quote]
The Ford Foundation of Ford Motor Company is small??? lol[/quote]
Are they still contributing?
This is one of the funniest threads I have ever seen. This ranks up there with Eliteballa3.
Zep you have to learn to think on your own. Quit copying and pasting from darealnewz.omg.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Zep you have to learn to think on your own. [/quote]
I’m gonna go ahead and guess…no on that one.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Zep you have to learn to think on your own. [/quote]
I’m gonna go ahead and guess…no on that one.[/quote]
lol
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is one of the funniest threads I have ever seen. This ranks up there with Eliteballa3.
Zep you have to learn to think on your own. Quit copying and pasting from darealnewz.omg.[/quote]
And where do you get your news from?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is one of the funniest threads I have ever seen. This ranks up there with Eliteballa3.
Zep you have to learn to think on your own. Quit copying and pasting from darealnewz.omg.[/quote]
And where do you get your news from?[/quote]
He never said news, Zep. It’s common knowledge now that TRNN is not a news source.
I would ask you, given the facts about TRNN, where do you get YOUR news?