Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Our Media v. Reality


THE ABSURD TIMES


 


Illustration: An illustrated comment on US versions of the crash in Ukraine.  Colin Powell claimed to have been lied to or coerced into testifying at the UN that Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  He didn't, and everyone knew he didn't.  George Jr. wanted to purge his Oedipal conflicts by killing Saddam, and nothing else mattered.  This is so true that, if the 9/11 attacks did not happen through Osama, they would have been manufactured anyway by the administration.  This is what makes conspiracy theories about the attacks so plausible. 


This is our time to discuss the media coverage of both the Gaza conflict and Ukraine.  Having said that, the urge simply Is not that strong anymore.  Surely, anyone who visits the site regularly knows how it operates.  No corporate entity is going to support honest coverage of all issues, and there is not much money to be made in telling the truth about Israel or Russia.  Ukraine has been taken over by a right wing phalanx of ideologues who tell their people that they will henceforth be free.  Its government attacks and bombards town in the East regularly.  No matter what numbers you see about people wanting to keep Ukraine united, even in the East, you can note hundreds of thousands crossing the border to the safety of Russia. 

Russia has a long history of being surrounded by enemies and we are doing our best, breaking our word on solemn promises and assurances, to recreate that state of affairs today.  The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO, for which there is no excuse, is expanding to surround Russia again.  Ukraine was the point where Putin called a halt to the expansion.   The only surprise today is that he did not invade and annex the territory east of Kiev and make it part of the Russian Federation.   He saved Obama from making the mistake of invading Syria and there will be absolutely no substantial support against Russia from Europe, no matter who our President was. 

He was, however, unable to save us from other mistakes such as Libya.  If certain implausible members of congress really want to investigate Benghazi, the focus should be on why we invaded in the first place.  If you look at Libya today, you will notice that we shut down our embassy in Tripoli -- the country is in chaos since Gaddafi is no longer there to run it.   Obama did manage to assassinate Bin Laden and we can see what a better world we live in now as a result. 

 
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014

Katrina vanden Heuvel: With 100,000+ Displaced, Why Is U.S. Ignoring Ukraine’s Civil War?

A high-level rebel commander has confirmed for the first time that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the kind the United States says was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing all 298 on board. He blamed Ukrainian authorities for provoking the strike, saying they deliberately launched airstrikes in the area, even though they knew the missile system was in place and rebels would fight back. Meanwhile, the area near the Russian border continues to see heavy fighting between government forces and Russian-backed separatists. On Wednesday, two Ukrainian fighter jets were shot down not far from where the Malaysian airliner was hit. "The tragedy of the downing of the plane occurred in the context of this virtually unreported civil war," says Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation, who has reported on Russia for decades. "Americans have been done a disservice by one-sided media coverage [of the conflict]." Vanden Heuvel notes more than 110,000 refugees from eastern Ukraine have fled to Russia, and 56,000 are internally displaced in Ukraine.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to Ukraine, where on Wednesday a rebel leader confirmed for the first time pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the kind the United States [says] was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The high-level commander blamed Ukrainian authorities for provoking the strike that killed all 298 on board. He said Kiev had deliberately launched airstrikes in the area even though it knew the BUK missile system was in place and rebels would fight back.
ALEXANDER KHODAKOVSKY: [translated] They provoked the usage of the BUK missile system, for example, by starting to attack the object that they don’t need at all, Saur Mogila, that hadn’t been attacked by planes for a week before that. And on that day, they pushed so hard. And at the moment of attack, at the moment of the civilian plane flying, they were attacking Saur Mogila. So even if there was aBUK missile system, and even if it has been used, Ukraine did everything for the civilian plane to be shot down.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as two Ukrainian fighter jets were shot down in eastern Ukraine Wednesday, not far from where the Malaysian airliner was hit. The area near the Russian border continues to see heavy fighting between government forces and Russian-backed separatists. Also on Wednesday, lawmakers in Ukraine’s Parliament broke into a fistfight after a decree passed that would enlist male citizens under 50 to combat Russian forces on the border.
And coffins carrying 40 of the 193 Dutch victims on the downed flight arrived in the Netherlands, as the government declared a day of national mourning. Crowds gathered on bridges along the 65-mile route to throw flowers onto the convoy of hearses.
For more, we’re joined by Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation. She has reported on Russia for decades and blogs at TheNation.com, is also a columnist for the WashingtonPost.com. Her latest column is headlined "Downing of Flight 17 Should Trigger Talks, Not More Violence."
Talk about the latest, what people understand about Ukraine, what you feel is being missed.
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think the big story that has gone unreported in the kind of one-sided media narrative that Americans have been given in these last months is the unreported war in the southeast of Ukraine. The Nation published astory a few weeks ago called "The Silence of [American] Hawks [About] Kiev’s Atrocities," and we’re seeing in the downing of the plane—the tragedy of the downing of the plane occurred in the context of this virtually unreported civil war. Today, there are stories that Kiev has used four Grad rockets—these are missile launcher rockets—in Luhansk. The OSCE, the Organization [for] Security and Co-operation in Europe, is alleging civilian deaths in these parts. So I think, Amy, it’s the context that is needed. My column—
AMY GOODMAN: How many people have died in this war?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, they’re reporting—I have figures here. They’re reporting 250 people have been killed in Luhansk, one of the major cities in the eastern part of Ukraine, 800 injured since the war began; 432, including 36 women, six children, died in Donetsk since April; 110,000 refugees from southeastern Ukraine have fled to Russia. There are 56,000 displaced people in Ukraine.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you call this a civil war?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I would call this a civil war. And the tragedy, Amy, is that Ukraine has been a deeply divided country through time—language, religion, part of the country pro-Russian, ethnically Russian. This did not need to become a military civil war. There was the possibility—and this is what I tried to address in the column—in the wake of this tragedy of the downing of the plane. There should be a renewed effort, not to trigger more violence, but to trigger ceasefire, to trigger talks that could end the humanitarian catastrophe I’m describing in the southeast of Ukraine.
And another unreported story, Amy, is that there were ceasefire talks in June with Russia, France, Germany, Ukraine, the United States and Kiev. Poroshenko, the president, pulled out after two days. The United States acceded, if not supported or egged on, that decision, and the military offensive began anew. There must be an end to the violence.
And think just commonsense common sense. Ukraine, if it is to recover, if it is to emerge as a financially stable country with some elements of democracy, needs to be a bridge between East and West, between Russia and the West. The IMF, just months after agreeing to a $17 billion loan program, just yesterday acknowledged what is known, which is that there is a terribly sharp economic downturn in Ukraine. The costs of rebuilding this country are going to be enormous. And the oligarchs, Amy, the oligarchical control of this country, I think remains unreported, as well. You know, the protesters, the good protesters in Maidan, in the square, in last year, so much of their protest was about oligarchical kleptocracy. And that grip on the country remains.
So I think it’s a very—I think Americans have been done a disservice by the one-sided media coverage. I will say, and I hope in this case that The Nation's coverage, others' coverage—Robert Parry has been doing interesting coverage—has pushed The New York Times and The Washington Post, for example, in these last days to cover the civilian casualties and the assaults on cities like Donetsk, which has become a virtual ghost town.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the U.S. role?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: The U.S. role—I don’t understand the U.S. role, to be honest. I mean, it is not in the national security interest of the United States to make Ukraine a Cold War proxy, but it is becoming that. This is a regional civil war that has been internationalized. John Kerry often sounds like he’s the secretary of war, not the secretary of state. We have allied ourselves, tethered ourselves to the Kiev government in a way that may make it very difficult to find a way beyond a new Cold War, if not a hot war. And, Amy, a Cold War will warp both countries’ politics and international relations. I’m thinking of Russia and the United States. And think of what this has done in terms of diverting our attention and resources from the real security, the real threats, the real possibilities of providing and building a new world.
So I think America—it’s also unreported, underreported, you know, America sent advisers to Ukraine to embed with its military. America has put forward a package of night goggles and other military equipment. John Brennan, the head of the CIA—finally reported—headed off to Kiev. So, but I don’t—it is not in the U.S.'s interest. It is not in the world's interest. It is not in Ukraine’s interest. Yet, there is not a peep out of Congress. There is not a peep. And the media is so one-sided that we are not having a debate that is also deserving of America’s people. The wisdom, though, of America’s people, the disconnect we see between the Beltway establishment, the elite and the media elite, is very telling. America’s people are not interested in sending weapons. They weren’t interested in sending weapons to Syria. They’re not interested in sending weapons to Ukraine. They’re not interested in a war.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] We are being called on to use our influence with the separatists in southeastern Ukraine. Of course we will do everything in our power, but that is not nearly enough. Ultimately, there is a need to call on the authorities in Kiev to respect basic norms of decency and, at least for a short time, implement a ceasefire for the investigation.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Vladimir Putin. Can you talk about Putin’s role and then how the U.S. actions compare to Europe—I mean, and the Dutch, in particular?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: That’s, I think, very important. I think the Dutch—and I have family in Holland. And I think the Dutch, in the way they have grieved in this tragic moment, are a model of dignity and a model of saying, "We’re not going to rush to judgment or use this as a political game, that is a disservice that did not honor those we have lost," as opposed to the United States, I have to say, where John Kerry, Secretary of State Kerry, rushed quickly, as did Samantha Power, someone whose work I admire but who’s supremely unsuited to be our ambassador to the United Nations at this moment. They rushed to judgment and said Russia played a role. And now the intelligence community is saying, "We don’t know. This was a mistake. We don’t know who actually played a role."
On sanctions, the United States, again, has led the way. The European Community, much of it, the key member being Germany here and France, have resisted. There is a tendency in this country to say it’s because of their trading ties. I think that’s true, but I think it underestimates the fact that they have in their DNA a history that understands that to have a sullen, angry Russia on their border is not in anyone’s interest.
On Putin, where do I begin? Putin is an authoritarian leader. On the other hand—he has done repressive things in his country, things I abhor, in terms of gay rights, in terms of women’s rights. It will become more repressive if this goes on in the way it is. The hawks of both sides always become more powerful when this happens. But Putin has a politics in his country, just as we have in ours. He has a right wing, a nationalist right wing, which has been pushing him to be far more assertive. I have friends, journalists who report on the right in Russia, and the right has been in a fury in these last weeks. "Our people," and again, that’s very complicated because Russia should not say "our people," but pro-Russian, ethnic Russians in Ukraine being bombarded and pounded, and where is Putin?
I do think Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov—again, not reported—have been calling for a ceasefire since April. The other day, Tuesday, in his speech, Putin said that he would do what he could to restrain the rebels. I think there are no question there are ties, but there is no question that what we’ve seen emerge in southeastern Ukraine, whenever you have a war like this, a civil war, the good guys don’t often emerge. I’m not talking, obviously, about the civilians who have been under assault, but you have the Rambos of Russia, those who fought in Chechnya or in Afghanistan. But Putin cannot do everything, but he can restrain these forces, some of them, but in the context of a real ceasefire, real negotiations, and in the context of the United States not playing games, as it has since the end of the first Cold War in expanding its economic, political and other influence to the doors of Russia, and the whole NATOquestion, Amy, again unreported.
Last November, when this whole EU offer triggered, in many ways, this conflict, what was unreported was there was a clause in that which was a kind of secret entry door for Ukraine to enter NATO. This is a Russian red line. There’s no reason, first of all, that we should have NATO in these times. It’s a military alliance. It’s not a tea party—that used to have more, different resonance. But anyway, so I think Putin is as—listen, the media in this country has so demonized Putin. As I said, he is an authoritarian. But I hate to quote—I will quote someone I know we have very mixed feelings about: Henry Kissinger. Putin—he has said, "Demonizing Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for not having a policy." And I think we need a policy, America needs a policy, not an attitude, as it engages Russia.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Katrina vanden Heuvel, I want to thank you for being with us, editor and publisher of The Nation. We will link to her column, "Downing of Flight 17 Should Trigger Talks, Not More Violence."


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 2014

Stephen Cohen: Downed Malaysian Plane Raises Risk of War Between Russia and the West

A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 298 people has exploded and crashed in eastern Ukraine, killing everyone on board. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile, but it is unclear who fired the missile. The plane was traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with passengers from at least 10 countries on board, including 173 Dutch nationals, 44 Malaysians and 27 Australians. As many as 100 of the world’s leading AIDSresearchers and advocates were reportedly on the plane en route to a conference in Australia, including the pioneering researcher and former president of the International AIDS Society, Joep Lange. Both sides in Ukraine’s conflict are blaming each other for downing the plane. We speak with Professor Stephen Cohen on what this incident could mean for the region. His most article for The Nation magazine is "The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 298 people has exploded and crashed in eastern Ukraine, killing everyone on board. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile, but it’s unclear who fired the missile. The plane was traveling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with passengers from at least 10 countries on board, including 173 Dutch nationals, 44 Malaysians and 27 Australians. As many as 100 of the world’s leading AIDS researchers and advocates were reportedly on the plane en route to a conference in Australia, including the pioneering researcher and former president of the International AIDS Society, Joep Lange. Both sides in Ukraine’s conflict are blaming each other for downing the plane. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak vowed to launch a full investigation into what happened.
PRIME MINISTER NAJIB RAZAK: We must, and we will, find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone will be left unturned. If it transpires that the plane was indeed shot down, we insist that the perpetrators must swiftly be brought to justice.
AMY GOODMAN: After the plane crashed, Russian media quoted witnesses saying they saw the plane being hit by what looked like a rocket. There have been several other recent disputes over planes being attacked over eastern Ukraine. On Thursday, Ukrainian officials blamed the Russian air force for shooting down one of its ground attack jets and a transport plane earlier in the week.
Over the past few days, Western governments have expressed growing concern that Russia is amping up its military support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. The United States strengthened its economic sanctions against Russia this week, but the European Union has so far declined to follow suit.
For more, we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent piece forThe Nation is headlined, "The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities." His book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, is out in paperback.
Professor Cohen, welcome to Democracy Now! What do you think we should understand about what has taken place?
STEPHEN COHEN: The horror of it all, to quote Conrad, watching your reports on Gaza, knowing what I know but what’s not being reported in the mainstream media about what’s been going on in eastern Ukraine cities—these cities have been pounded by Kiev—and now this. "Emeritus," as you call me, means old. I’ve seen this before. One function of cold war is innocent victims. The people who died, nearly 300, from many countries, are the first victims, nonresidential victims, of the new Cold War. This crash, this shootdown, will make everything worse, no matter who did it.
There are several theoretical possibilities. I am not a conspiracy buff, but we know in the history of the Cold War, there are provocations, people who want to make things worse. So, in Moscow, and not only in Moscow, there are theories that somebody wanted this to happen. I just can’t believe anybody would do it, but you can’t rule anything out.
The other possibility is, because the Ukrainian government itself has a capability to shoot down planes. By the way, the Ukrainian government shot down a Russian passenger jet, I think in 2001. It was flying from Tel Aviv to Siberia. It was an accident. Competence is always a factor when you have these weapons.
Another possibility is that the rebels—we call them separatists, but they weren’t separatists in the beginning, they just wanted home rule in Ukraine—that they had the capability. But there’s a debate, because this plane was flying at commercial levels, normally beyond the reach of what they can carry on their shoulders.
There’s the possibility that the Russians aided and abetted them, possibly from Russian territory, but I rule that out because, in the end, when you don’t know who has committed a crime, the first question a professional investigator asks is, "Did anybody have a motive?" and the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.
That’s what we know so far. Maybe we’ll know more. We may never know who did this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the Obama administration has expanded U.S. sanctions on Russia in the latest round of a standoff over Ukraine. Speaking at the White House, President Obama said Russia has failed to drop military support for pro-Russian separatists.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Given its continued provocations in Ukraine, today I have approved a new set of sanctions on some of Russia’s largest companies and financial institutions. Along with our allies, with whom I have been coordinating closely the last several days and weeks, I have repeatedly made it clear that Russia must halt the flow of weapons and fighters across the border into Ukraine, that Russia must urge separatists to release their hostages and support a ceasefire, that Russia needs to pursue internationally mediated talks and agree to meaningful monitors on the border.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Your response?
STEPHEN COHEN: Sanctions are beside the point. Obviously they’ll cause economic pain, possibly equally to Europe, which doesn’t want them, didn’t want them. Major American corporations took out ads in major American newspapers before Obama did this, asking Obama not to do it. When you resort to sanctions, it means you have no policy. You have an attitude. And the anti-Putin attitude in Washington is driving American policy.
Let me mention, because I think it’s relevant to what you’re covering here, your very, very powerful segments before I came on today about what’s going on in Gaza, the pounding of these cities, the defenselessness of ordinary people. The same thing has been happening in East Ukrainian cities—bombing, shelling, mortaring by the Kiev government—whatever we think of that government. But that government is backed 150 percent by the White House. Every day, the White House and the State Department approve of what Kiev’s been doing. We don’t know how many innocent civilians, women and children, have died. We know there’s probably several hundred thousand refugees that have run from these cities. The cities are Donetsk, Luhansk, Kramatorsk, Slovyansk—a whole series of cities whose names are not familiar to Americans. The fact is, Americans know nothing about this. We know something about what’s happening in Gaza, and there’s a division of opinion in the United States: The Israelis should do this, the Israelis should not do this. But we know there are victims: We see them. Sometimes the mainstream media yanks a reporter, as you just showed, who shows it too vividly, because it offends the perception of what’s right or wrong. But we are not shown anything about what’s happened in these Ukrainian cities, these eastern Ukrainian cities.
Why is that important? Because this airliner, this shootdown, took place in that context. The American media says it must have been the bad guys—that is, the rebels—because they’ve shot down other airplanes. This is true, but the airplanes they’ve been shooting down are Ukraine’s military warplanes that have come to bomb the women and children of these cities. We don’t know that.
AMY GOODMAN: There have been several discussions—in the corporate media, it was said that this plane might have had a sort of unusual path, had gone further south, and that they thought it was a Ukrainian military plane.
STEPHEN COHEN: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Also, in terms of the black boxes, that Ukrainian officials andNTSB cannot get there because it’s rebel-held territory, and that the rebels might have taken the black boxes.
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, the rebels have said they’re going to turn them over to Moscow, and Moscow will not conceal them. I mean, Moscow is going to play openness, so far as we know. But what’s preposterous, of course, is the prime minister of Malaysia coming out and telling us that Malaysia will uncover this mystery, when it still can’t find its missing airliner. This is just absolutely preposterous. But you’re right, the investigation is going to be politicized. Will we ever know?
Let me make the point again, though, because you hearkened back to it: This is a war zone. It’s a war zone. It’s been a war zone, an air war zone, for at least a month. Americans don’t know that. I hear you’ve shown it. But that’s—
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, that’s one of the reasons that—well, what I wanted to ask you is, because of what’s been going on in Syria, in Iraq, and now with the Israeli attacks on Gaza, it’s almost as if what’s going on in Ukraine has receded in the consciousness of the media here in this country, even though it’s conceivably much more dangerous and has more long-term impact on the United States.
STEPHEN COHEN: I don’t want to prioritize death—I mean, whose death is worse or not so worse. But the reality is, if you’re going to ask an historian, that the conflict in the Middle East, including Iraq, is going to affect regional politics, but the conflict in Ukraine is going to affect global politics, because we are now in a new Cold War with Russia. We have been for several months. One aspect of cold war is civilian deaths. We’ve had these shootdowns. We had them in the old Cold War. This is going to get worse. It also brings us closer to war between Russia and the West, NATO and the United States. So, if you’re going to ask which is more important—Russians have a saying that, which is worse? And the answer is, both are worse. They’re all worse. But if you’re going to ask which is going to have impact for our grandchildren, it’s what’s going on in Ukraine now.
AMY GOODMAN: We only have 30 seconds, but Obama announcing stricter sanctions against Russia, how significant is this? It was a day before the downing of the plane.
STEPHEN COHEN: I’ll repeat what I said before: By resorting to sanctions, Obama reminds us he has no policy toward Ukraine or Russia other than to blame Putin. That’s not a policy; that’s an attitude.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics, New York University and Princeton University. We’ll link to his piece in The Nation. His latest book, just out in paperback, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War.
That does it for our show. I’ll be speaking at the Mark Twain House & Museum inHartford, Connecticut, Monday, July 21st, at 7:00, and then on July 26th on Martha’s Vineyard. That’s Saturday, 7:00 p.m., Katharine Cornell Auditorium in Vineyard Haven. Check our website at democracynow.org.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


-->

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Russia Today’s Beast Of Burden


THE ABSURD TIMES




Illustration courtesy of Latuff the Great or neo-fascists morons in Ukraine at work.



          I had thought that the nonsense over Russia Today TV had dissipated, but even I had underestimated the ferocity of U.S. Corporate media in protecting their own turf and serving as the official "Voice of Truth" available to the American Public.  Unfortunately, the teeny bopper news anchor mentioned below is now making the rounds of the corporate news outlets, first on Fox, of course,  and soon to follow on others.  Lip service is given to "all sides of the issue," here, but our news is very careful to adhere only to issues that assure a large audience of room temperature I.Q. idiots and ignorant dolts in the 18 to 35 year old range, or is it 35 to 55?  Also, care is taken not to violate the brainwashing that has taken place in our school systems.  (I know I am sticking my head out here, but I just thought I'd point out that the Universe is almost 14 million years old, much more that 6,000, and to hell with the consequences.)

          Here is a column published by Mr.  Schecter over two weeks ago on the subject:

Russia Today’s Beast Of Burden

March 9, 2014
Change text size: [ A+ ] / [ A- ]
Email this page

James Kirchick is just the neutral reporter the Daily Beast would assign to report on the ideological controversy surrounding the Russian backed RT-TV Channel’s coverage of the crisis in the Ukraine.
The Beast lives up to its name by sending a hardcore polemical ideologue to uncover what he predictably labels as ideological media bias.
Kirchick is a veteran of the anti-communist wars, now revived as the anti Putin wars, not some neutral journo crusading for democracy.
According to Wikipedia, he is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, prior to this he was writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He is a graduate of the New Republic, Murdoch’s Weekly Standard and writes for Azure, a magazine that described itself as pro-Zionist and free market.
Ok, just so we know who are dealing with here.
And now, to bolster his “credibility” he presents himself as a victim in his latest article that exposes himself, far more than his target, asserting that his rights as a journalist were somehow compromised because of a gutsy quest for truth.
Here’s his exhibit:
The Headline: “Watch RT, Putin’s TV Network, Call the Cops on Me”
The Lead: “That’s what happens, it seems, when you ask some simple questions outside RT’s Washington headquarters.”
The Polemic: “What would possess an American to work for a Russian propaganda outlet, especially now that the world is on the brink of a potential war in Eastern Europe? 
I asked that question of about two dozen people coming in and out of the Washington headquarters of RT, the Kremlin-funded television network that has become infamous in recent days for whitewashing Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. No one would answer me directly. Instead, RT called the local cops on me. …”
Kirchik’s first story in his jihad against RT was to interview Anchor Liz Wahl who resigned flamboyantly on the air denouncing the channel she worked and making her an instant shero among Russia-bashers the world over.
Wahl offered up sweet innocence laced with the veneer of red white and blue (drop the red) patriotism, declaring, “I’m very lucky to have grown up here in the United States,” she said. “I’m the daughter of a veteran. My partner is a physician at a military base where he sees every day the first-hand accounts of the ultimate prices that people pay for this country. And that is why personally I cannot be part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin. I am proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth and that is why after this newscast I’m resigning.”
Cue the National Anthem!
Funny, after her declaration of independence, and stagy pledge to quit was broadcast on a network that could have cut her off, none other than former Congressman Ron Paul who was interviewed by Wahl weighed in after she claimed RT censored her interview with him.
He denied it, saying, “I don’t think it was slanted in any way.”
Earlier, another RT on-air personality, Abby Martin, also denounced Putin’s Ukraine policy on the air but was not fired and did not quit.
Later, she turned up on CNN debating Piers Morgan, he of the show about to be cancelled, about how fair and objective most American TV is. She was far better informed on that subject than this departing British host in assessing the US press, and on a network considered by some critics as an “American propaganda outlet.”
In an article about Martin in National Journal, Lucia Graves wrote, “While it’s clear the network maintains a strong pro-Russian bias, Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday defended RT’s coverage, saying it isn’t so different from what we saw on American media outlets in the lead up to the Iraq War. “For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: Was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” he wrote.
On Google, a story from CNN on Wahl’s hyped farewell to RT carried Martin’s picture, not hers.

Oh well, details, details!
Back to Mr. Kirchick’s heroism in defense of democracy!
What you see is a wise-guy provocateur harassing people entering the building with hostile, if not nasty and self-righteous questions, in an argumentative and aggressively hostile manner.
RT later challenged this image-building exercise of the “man who is not afraid of Putin” with a denial that they called the cops, an “update” that the Daily Beast tacked on to their story.
“RT America did not contact the DC police at any point,” Anna Belkina said in a statement. “The building’s security personnel called in the police after an intruder has been reported inside the building. The police questioned Mr. Kirchick as part of the investigation of that incident.”
Kirchick’s shouted out questions were there to call attention to himself, and score political points, and not to challenge the network that actually offers programs with views that are more diverse than on any US TV news channel. It features programs with Tom Hartmann and even Larry King, both of whom deny they have been censored.
As an occasional commentator on RT News myself, I can and have said the same. I am not surprised that the networks I once worked for, ABC, CNN and CNBC never have me on, while BBC, RT, Press TV and Saudi TV, among others, feature my commentaries without telling me what to say.
Kirchick is less bothered by what gets on RT than that it exists at all, and especially because the network has built an audience among Americans disgusted by how controlled and manipulated most US media outlets are.
His real target are RT’s viewers who he bitterly denounces as a “species,” perhaps because they are looking for information you never find on the Daily Beast or many of the outlets he whores for as a self-styled “objective newsman.”
Listen to this: “RT has become the go-to network for a particular species of disillusioned American, fed-up with what the “corporate media” is telling them about the world.”
He doesn’t waste any putdowns either from an arsenal of vituperative broadsides and even—get this— denounces RT employees as “slovenly.”
He then rants on to share what may have been his Yale-bred elitism about his perception of the people the network interviews that includes politicians and commentators of all stripes.
“RT, both in its employment and viewership,” he writes,” seems to attract a particular type of person. You know the man who writes political chain emails IN ALL CAPS or the bag lady shouting on the street corner about the metal device the government has implanted in her head? Under normal circumstances, no one would give them a television show. But these are the people who appear on, and watch, RT.”
Oh, really– another round of clichés to keep the truth from getting in the way of his preconceived perceptions.
Now, now, feel better Mr. Kirchick, time to take your medication, before you melt down, or stir up more hatred and animosity for people who lack your years of slimy experience as a media warrior in the service of a neocon empire.
MR KIRCHICK?
Oh, you have more to say?
“For the past 9 years, RT has provided steady paychecks and frequent media appearances to a veritable insane asylum of the great unwashed and unemployable dredges of the American fringe.”
Whew, I am glad he got that out of his system, until tomorrow, of course, when he will find another way of cursing without cursing, while showcasing superiority to those of us in that other sub- human “species.”
Now, let me get back to my Rolling Stones record:
I‘ll never be your beast of burden
I’ll never be your beast of burden
Never, never, never, never, never, never, never be
Also, by the way, do I need to say that I am not a Putin booster, my father was a veteran, I have pledged allegiance to the flag many times, and wrote two books and made a film about media miscoverage of the Iraq War. My critique was based, in part, in my own experience in network TV.

News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org and blogs at NewsDissector.net. His latest book is Madiba A to Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela. Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org.