The US has to switch to paper voting.
Also, they should be allow to vote for their candidate, and for a 2nd and 3rd one too.
Is the only way to elect one of the candidates with 50% or more.
I agree with Cenk. Why would anyone back down on an issue that affected our elections. If there are no more legitimate elections, you lose your democracy. You lose your democracy, then you lose everything else. Nothing else matters.
Thanks to both Kyle and Cenk for sitting down and having this very interesting and important conversation. I hope there will be follow up discussions as events develop. We can disagree and debate on issues while still moving the progressive revolution forward. Our movement cannot be stopped.
Sorry, but Kyle Kulinski is morally bankrupt. Estonias Soldiers fought and died (!!!) for the USA after it the 9/11 attacks. And there is Kyle sitting, obviously knowing nothing about Estonias history, they decades and decades of occupation by Russia, the Secret Police death squads, the deportation of Estonians into Sibiran Deathcamps etc.
Well, just saying “fuck them” if Russia reaches for them is a good way to undermine all trust and credibility America has in the world, thats for sure. Obviously Kyle is dangerously naive about the world and its reality – and not even consistent in his logic.
Kyle: We didnt keep our promise to not expand NATO, that is wrong. So the solution is to not keep our promise to help our allies.
I think it goes beyond the ‘not helping out if Estonia is attacked’ statement. I could be wrong, but I think what Kyle was saying is NATO is something we should drop/why are we involved in it.
I am not sure if that is his position, so obviously just a thought; however, figured better to say this might be what he was aiming at instead of saying he was just saying forget helping out any conflict in Eastern Europe because I don’t care.
I know I have a problem with NATO overall, a good number of people do. Nothing to do with not caring about or wanting to just abandon people in conflict and issue, just an over reaching military issue.
i think kyles side of the russia duscussion should have equal weight on tyt. his arguments are absolutely sound an reasonable. this guy is great. i would vote for hiring him to be a regular contributer on the main show
So is the crux of the issue what media should cover? I agree with Cenk that Russia stories should be covered. I agree with Kyle that media (including TYT) covers it too much.
Overall, I gotta say, I loved this conversation. Especially since I was a little scared of those two digging their heels in, especially Cenk. When I heard that the two were going to talk about this, I admit I had momentary Sam Harris PTSD flashbacks. Totally not on the same scale of disagreement, I know, but nonetheless I’m glad that nobody boiled over on this one, with everyone eventually agreeing on a difference in emphasis.
Kyle: “I think he did money laundering, you think he’s a puppet to Vladimir Putin”
Cenk: “No, I think he did money laundering, and HENCE he’s a puppet to Vladimir Putin”
That excerpt was the check and mate of the whole discussion. Most people misunderstand what is meant by the term “Putin’s puppet”. If Trump has financial connections with the Russian mafia/oligarchs, and if those people are connected to Putin and the Kremlin, then it’s at least possible that there was collusion. Russia is essentially a kleptocracy, so having financial dealings with Russian mobsters or oligarchs…and being politically connected to the Russian government…are one and the same! That is why there must be an honest investigation that checks to see if there is any evidence of such dealings.
Apparently not. Otherwise we’d speak of Trump being the Saudi’s puppet, the Chinese puppet, Goldman Sachs puppet, and a lot of other countries/institution’s puppet. And that’s the story that the Cenk camp is missing.
Cenk always make it seem that the people in the Kyle camp are missing the story about Russia itself, because they talk about other issues like the establishment handling it badly or the Saudi’s also sing bad things. But it is the other way around, everyone agrees on the Russia stuff itself, but Cenk, John, Ana, Michael, Ben and Rachel Maddow are missing another, underlying story. They never address the issue of WHY is everyone focused on Russia and not treating all the other issues evenly? Why aren’t some commentators focusing on Russia and equal amount on Saudi-Arabia, others on Chinese golden visa etc.? Or one day they talk about Russia, the other day they spend an equal amount of time talking about Saudi-Arabia etc.? Because people are actively trying to use that situation, the truth that everyone agrees on, to fear monger and drive the American people into war, as they did with Vietnam, as they did before the Iraq war. We’ve seen it before, the threat to South-Vietnam, the invasion of Kuwait and how those were handled and to what purpose. It’s not like Kyle and Jimmy are talking about TYT when they say “Russia is over-hyped”, they don’t criticize Cenk for those tactics. But they are talking about that issue and they do criticize Cenk and others for not addressing it, for not covering THAT story. Yes, Cenk talks about all the other issues, but he doesn’t connect the dots, doesn’t address WHY the emphasis is on Russia, misses the story of the establishment trying to prepare for another war OR give an alternative explanation, explain why you are focusing on Russia, explain why Saudi-Arabia is less important etc. and why he thinks Russia is more important, chooses to talk about Russia like it is another story than Saudi-Arabia or China…
The question of whether we should come to a Baltic country’s aid if they get invaded by Russia is a difficult one, politically speaking, because Americans have no interest in getting into another war, whatever the country. On principle, the answer’s easy: an attack on one is an attack on all. Otherwise NATO means nothing, and going back on our word will do immense diplomatic damage. All of the former Communist countries that joined NATO did so in the interest of their own national security, so convincing them to leave NATO is not gonna happen. It’s easy for people in America to say that Estonia getting taken over by Russia means nothing, since they know nothing about those countries. It’s not so easy if you see Russia as your top national security concern, and have to rely on a much stronger ally to ensure your national independence.
Everyone in Eastern Europe remembers that after WWII, America and Britain let the Soviets take over Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, etc., all for pretty much the same reason that gets mentioned today: that it wasn’t in the British or American interest to protect those countries and they didn’t want to aggravate Russia. Let’s hope that history doesn’t have to repeat itself.
Such a great discussion. I agree with both. It doesn’t seem like you actually disagree on much. It seems more so about the emphasis of the story and the political impact.
Yeah, it’s too bad that Kyle was apparently unaware of that Dutch intelligence story and thus could not properly rebut Cenk on it. Here’s a proper rebuttal of the entire thing:
Otherwise Kyle was bringing the facts, as always, and Cenk did his best to avoid having to discuss those facts. Although Kyle also did not press him enough on them, either. At times it seemed like Kyle was rather trying to just voice all the information around Russia, the suppression of independent media and Yemen in this interview, instead of trying to win the debate by properly debating Cenk.
It went more or less like this every time:
Cenk: Trump dun did it!
Kyle: But you could prove X,Y,Z much easier!
Cenk: Trump super dun did it!
Kyle: But you could prove X,Y,Z much easier!
Cenk: Trump super duper dun did it!
Kyle: But you could prove X,Y,Z much easier!
So, in essence, Kyle debated the issues, not Cenk. Not the best way to do this debate, from both sides.
Kyle really needs to study the outcomes of the policies Trump emplemented. I love it that Cenk gets him on the bombing of Syria. Trump pretty much put pot holes in the landing strip and didn’t target the hangers. Plus the base was in working order the next day. It was clearly a propaganda move to save face and at the same time not to anger Assad and Putin.
Now I do agree with Kyle on the money laundering. One example I wish they brought up was how Trump was making deals with drug lords in Panama for a Trump hotel there.
” It was clearly a propaganda move to save face and at the same time not to anger Assad and Putin.”
How is that not a conspiracy theory, especially given the whole history of both Russian as well as US involvement in the Middle-East and the relationship between the two countries..? And that’s not the only bombing, what about using white phosphorus?
A sovereign nation can apply for membership to NATO.
When that application is accepted, you simply can not turn you back when they need you.
Furthermore is his lack of perception. Smaller nation, like my own country of The Netherlands, can be bullied by a big neighbor (WW II). Or my neighbor to the south, Belgium (WW I & WW II), so look at from our perspective.
After the breakup of the USSR, the region became very unstable and nobody knew at that time what would happen in Russia.
So the smaller nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania did not want to lose there just obtained freedom. So thas why they applied for membership to ensure their borders.
But how do you know a war would have be better or lead to better/more stable results. As someone living in NL are you not afraid that escalating could lead to a new Middle-East much closer to your border? I always think Americans are more nonchalant when it comes to war than Europeans due to the lack of proximity to the actual war zone. If Afghanistan or Iraq were in the middle of Mexico and had the military capacity of Russia, you’re sure as many Americans had been in favor of bombing them?
NATO was created to prevent a (hot) war in Europe and it basically did for all NATO members. After It’s creation, no major war happened on NATO soil. But I don’t know if you assess the Coldwar as a stable situation.
I think the Baltic countries had all the right to apply for membership to ensure their borders in the political chaotic time in the 90’s.
I just hope you’re right, I guess.
The prospect of a hot war between Russia and the USA is frightening to me –
I honestly believed the cold war was over, so I hate every escalation, whether it’s coming from Russia or the US.
I just want to take the time to thank both TYT and Secular Talk for doing this interview. Truth is, this interview makes an extraordinary case for why people should embrace multiple news sources and diverse ideas (so long as the reporting is actually factual of course).
I agree with both Cenk and Kyle whole heartedly on both their preferences for issue prioritization and preference on emphasis. That’s why I love both TYT and Secular Talk equally. What it comes down to is simply a difference in the direction each wants to utilize their platform. That makes for diverse media coverage and leads to an overall better informed audience.
I love these guys and I hope we as the audience can resist the urge to force Cenk or Kyle to conflict in a misguided attempt to manufacture homogenization over perceived dissonance in their messaging.
Completely agree with you! If we wanted to watch news that shut out dissenting voices, we’d go elsewhere. The fact that they are both open in that they disagree and can have an actual discussion is great and why I love TYT and those on the network. If we aren’t open minded, we aren’t learning. :)
Great conversation, thought it showed very different perspectives. All in all, there wasn’t that much disagreement.
It was more of viewers hyping it up, thinking that Kyle was like calling out Cenk for covering the Russia stories. But that’s not accurate, Kyle was calling out the media that’s obsessed with the Russia above all else, which doesn’t include Cenk. The viewers were all like “Look Kyle and Cenk are in complete disagreement!!!11!” but like they’re really not.
I also think that Cenk simply doesn’t watch a lot of cable news while Kyle and Jimmy do. They see a lot more of the fearmongering and drumbeating that the mainstream media is doing, and that’s where all their focus is. They’re terrified of that aspect. While Cenk sees it as a problem, it’s not what he’s focused on. I feel like that accounts for most of the difference in their perspectives.
Yeah, Cenk’s operation is a lot bigger with a ton more moving parts. I’d be surprised if he watches mainstream at all. It’s more likely that his staff track it for him. My guess is he leans on them to sift through the details, present him with the news they consider most pertinent, and then prioritizes the most urgent, important and relevant for broadcast. Daily.
Kyle and Jimmy have their show and a small staff. They each have other endeavors of course, but ultimately more individual time to keep their finger on the pulse of mainstream media personally.
Lots of good points on both sides. But I think that Cenk is much more correct here. Kyle’s argument is basically, if you can’t have 100% of what you want, go for 0%. Also, if blatantly criminal corruption leads to outcomes I like it isn’t a big deal.
I don’t think anyone is more aware of the insidious effect of the everyday “legal” and semi-legal bribery in the American system. But if we start allowing blatantly illegal influence pedaling it truly leads to a new phase of destruction of democratic institutions and the rule of law. The international billionaire oligarch class will only be constrained by the rule of law, and ignoring its enforcement will NOT help in the fight against them.
Any discussion of political tactics, other terrible problems, and emphasis are another matter (all very important in their own right). To say that it is just a “conspiracy”, or these other excuses for Russian behavior are red herrings.
OK. So what exactly is the qualitative difference between Russia and Saudi-Arabia then..?
Aren’t the dealings Trump has/Had with Saudi-Arabia not on the exact same level than those with Russia?
From the beginning I just didn’t understand why it gets so differently covered..?
Wait, let me understand this right… According to Kyle Kulinski, if Russia invades its neighbouring countries, and the allies of those countries come to their aid, it is the allies that are the aggressors?
So it’s like when the world powers of the time prevented World War II by letting Hitler take the Sudetenland? Yeah, we really dodged the bullet on that one. Whew!
to be fair, I think he was talking about the assurances given to Russia post Cold War that NATO would not expand, which was indeed a broken promise that has caused major grievance in Russia.
That said, I personally don’t think that such an assurance should ever have been given. If countries, which have constantly been invaded by Russia, want to join a defensive alliance against Russia I don’t see that as particularly unreasonable.
All he said is that the people fighting on the Ukranian side right now are fascists – that’s true, they even brag about it in their own videos. I had an ethnic Russian friend, Ukranian citizen, growing up in Ukraine. How she was treated half of her life there is … unreal, what they did to her grandma (#RussianWhore) is just awful and despicable.
No, vanBronco, that is not all he said. He said specifically that if Russia invades Estonia, the US should not get involved. That has nothing to do with fascists in the Ukraine. That is saying that if an authoritarian dictator with dreams of recreating the Soviet Union invades a democratic country for expansionist purposes, the US should turn their back on them and say “we don’t care.” This is perfectly in line with the isolationist views he has previously expressed. He seemed downright delighted when Angela Merkel said that Germany could no longer depend on the US, because he doesn’t seem capable of telling the difference between interventionist policies in the Middle East and the US standing with its allies when they come under attack.
I watched a lot of Secular Talk over the years. I don’t think Kyle puts it in the same category. He calls himself a strict non-interventionist. He thinks an intervention by the US alone makes things worse, but he is in favor of limited intervention in concert with other forces, meaning maybe a UN mandate etc. He’s in favor of a NATO intervention in case of a genocide. You don’t have to agree with him, but I don’t think it’s outrages, it’s a principled position.
As someone who grew up in Germany, a liberal, free, left-leaning Germany, I see it as a mixed bag. I can’t be against any and all interventions. The question is, just how unique WWII is? George RR Martin says f.e. he wouldn’t fight in a war ever, but he would’ve fought in WWII. You can categorize Saddam Hussein any way you want and have any position on Gulf War II and III, but he did attack Kuwait. Russia is close to EU borders now, so I can understand the fear of invasion by Russia, but there is also a lot of fear that the situation can escalate, that we can trigger a war and then Europeans have to pay the price for that. A lot of people made a lot of fun about Bush when he said the categorized the Oceans as border security, but I often think Americans don’t really understand just how much those Oceans are worth. 2 borders, that’s it. If you have 9 different borders surrounding you and between Russia and you is just one country that’s a quarter of the size of the Mexican border, you get a little more careful about provocations. And then there is always the possibility of the military industrial complex manipulating politicians and public and not being honest. Even in WWII some shady things happened, Eisenhower held his speech not at the end of the Vietnam or Iraq war. If it is so important for people to fight the Nazis for humanitarian reasons, so that other people can’t be oppressed, to help allies – how can you than treat soldiers that fought side by side of you like shit because of the color of their skin? War is complicated and it should always be the last option.
Growing up in Germany I learned from a small age “the smarter one backs down”, referring to the 2 gun man scenario. American pop culture in the past shared that sentiment (Voyager f.e.), but back then we also thought “even a golden cage is still a cage”, which is apparently also no longer prevalent. I just know that almost no other country in the world reacts to “bad guy doing bad deeds” with “let’s go bomb them”. War is dirty, always, it’s never fun and/or heroic or something to glorify. Losing a (world) war certainly has consequences, but sometimes I feel like, so does winning one…
Kyle is just more correct on this. I understand Cenk hates Trump but you have to understand that many of these other politicians are dirty and doing these things too. They should all be arrested and tried but they aren’t. It’s clear Trump is being targeted because he isn’t in their club and is an unknown quantity they are unsure of. When they is unequal justice there is no justice. Trump is most likely guilty of money laundering. Most politicians are at best guilty of corruption. None of them are held to account, but Trump is all while demonizing Russia as the cause of our problems? That messaging is the issue.
Cenk just needs to stop doing the everyday innuendo of Trump might have these connections with this person or he might be looking to oust this person. If someone is indicted or someone is ousted then you cover it, otherwise please let us know something else going on in the world. We’re all tired of this rumor mongering, we’re waiting to see what the results are and don’t care about the minutae and theories about what might happen in the meanwhile.
?Luuuuuuv? me some Kyle Kulinski. Upped my Patreon support for him.
I see what BOTH generations are saying up in here. And it’s my opinion that any and all disagreements will be as ended as they were when Nixon got taken down when A) Mueller announces a stunning indictment close enough to or including Bonespurs so impeachment starts OR B) Bonespurs stupidly fires Mueller and impeachment gets underway.
Like Cenk said, there are a good number of wildcards out there. ♠️♦️♣️♥️
Definitely am on Kyle’s side. If we could all chill the fuck down and let the investigation play out without ten zillion speculations, it would serve us all a lot better. Let the professionals do their jobs, don’t blast every Russia story regardless of if it’s factual.
The crux of it for me is that they are both right in their positions. I think Cenk is just a little narrow in his focus and that Kyle is a bit too broad. Cenk is right in his belief that it IS important if Russians are influencing the POTUS, but he needs to see beyond the Russian narrative. Likewise, Kyle is correct in his position that people are being distracted about Russia as a singular event, but he needs to concede that the issue of money laundering; something they both agree is obvious and a large issue; is the causality of collusion (especially if it is the Russian MOB as he stated).
NeoCons: Muslims are evil. (Nowadays that has expanded to pretty much all brown people)
NeoLiberals: RUSSIA!!!!! blah blah resist Trump.
These are the points that Jimmy Dore and Kyle continue to make. The only reason this narrative is being so heavily pushed on the public is because it is being used as a distraction and an “others” threat. The Neocons demagogue against Muslims, the neolibs are doing it with Russia. Neither side really gives a shit about collusion, they both do it all the time.
NeoCons: Muslims are evil. (Nowadays that has expanded to pretty much all brown people)
NeoLiberals: RUSSIA!!!!! blah blah resist Trump.
All in all, I agree more with Kyle (even though this wasn’t a debate ;) ) but he was a bit dismissive of some things that he could take more seriously and Cenk did his Cenk shtick, which is fine, but can be a bit repetitive at times and a bit of a crutch for him.
I agree with you on your main point – reading comments you could think Cenk and Kyle are on completely other ends of a spectrum, but they actually agree 95% on even the “Russia issue” itself. I think it’s important to repeat over and over again in debates or discussions or conversations what you’re actually talking about. It’s the broad “Russia thing”, “there is [no] evidence” etc. that drives me insane. Why not say what exactly you’re talking about instead of being vague or making implications? It drives me mad when Cenk and/or John are doing it, but the mainstream media and Democratic party officials do it on steroids… Why? Why? Why? Why?
Kyle came with much more substance and facts. Obviously there is cross-over where all can agree Trump is awful, corrupt, and more of the like; but Cenk takes such a stance with the hashtagResistance about all of the Russian stuff, in my opinion, even if he says he doesn’t.
I also noticed it wasn’t until recently that I noticed Cenk even really pushing the money laundering bit. For months it seemed like it was only about election meddling/Putin having him on some this or that and THAT was going to lead to an impeachment. For a while every show had him using the soundboard to say we almost have him, and Cenk predicting how many more weeks/months Trump had in office. These last few weeks, maybe a month, I’ve started hearing that all change to talk of money laundering- which I agree is much more likely obvious [and take much more agreement with Kyle on with how it will play out].
Anyway, just wanted to say I’m on Kyle’s side of this- before and after this talk/debate. If Cenk hoped to change any opinions, I’m not how well he actually did.
But he certainly didn’t make it the corner stone of his argument why Trump would be impeached until about a month ago… It’s not about what you cover, but the intensity and context is also important. When we criticize the mainstream news media f.e. for reporting on Muslim terrorism instead of white supremacist terrorism, “so where did you get your info from, apparently someone reported on it” would not be a good answer. Yes, some media outlets reported about the Lebanon attack, but to say it was equal coverage compared to Paris would be nonsense.
Same with Cenk. Yes, he talks about Saudi-Arabia, money laundering, Flynn/Turkey etc. But does he do it with the same intensity and passion than Russia or even Stormy Daniels? I don’t think so.
Same with the argument “Trump is president, we have to cover him” – Obama was president too, you know, I did watch TYT back then – not a single “Only Obama Stories Hour 1″…
The argument that the mainstream news are focusing more on Russia than (as an example) Syria, have to be taken with a grain of contextual salt. The focus on Russia, is about how Russia’s actions have affected AMERICA… the news isn’t ‘on russia’ it’s ‘on america being harmed (etc) by russia’. USA has always (always) been more focused on itself than the goings on in other countries. Like, aaaaaalways.
It’s part of the whole ‘american exceptionalism’ thing you guys have going on (and yes, i know not so much with TYT) but even TYT covers USA news mostly, because it’s a show made in the USA and doesn’t pretend to anyone that its NOT a show about USA. I know John and Ana try to bring in more stories from around the world every now and then and the friday post games do also, but it’s kinda just the way your media works.
And hey – probably goes the same for lots of other countries and their mainstream outlets – in Australia we have ABC news and SBS world news which don’t just focus on australia – but there are 3 other free to air networks which primarily do.
Just… think that we could be wary of that ‘talking point’ in the future. Appreciated the dialogue though; still with Cenk on this one, but also get the frustration Kyle is feeling.
This is a fantastic point. Interesting to see how/if this is being reported in other countries with their interests in it as well. Of course media made in a certain country will tend to focus on news affecting their country since that will often be their main/target audience.
Either way though, much of our media in the states has fallen in a trap where this is the majority of the news and it is not always being presented in any way beneficial towards the news consumer.
Yeah the US news corporate takeover has really fucked over the population. In Australia it’s pretty … eh, normal? I mean, when something actually happens in the Russia thing it will make it into a news segment as a general report/update thing but it’s of course, usually focused on our country and our regional affairs. The SBS world news (as the name suggests) is very much a global check in though.
We (leftwing) fight very hard to keep (at least 2) our news providers non biased, and fact based etc – ABC/SBS (publicly/govt funded) are not opinion outlets (even though the right wing cant stop whinging that they think they are); then we have the general news broadcasts on 3 or so other channels then we have the opinion shows which have become more prevalent in the last few years, following the US models (which freaks me out) but still with an aussie shine on it. We also have this hour long ‘infotainment’ style show that’s airs 6 nights, with a roundup from the day delivered by a news person or two with a bunch of comedians and ‘personalities’ makin’ da jokes – makes it more palatable for the people who ‘don’t watch the news’. They do a pretty good job with that specific mandate.
I agree with your point 100%, but how is that compatible with the apparent ignorance towards Saudi-Arabia and their actions? Their actions certainly affect America heavily now for decades, yet the only people caring about Saudi actions seem to be Republicans when they’re not in charge..?
Well then you get to the arguments of who benefits from NOT reporting on Saudi Arabia…. the reason we all love TYT is coz they’re independent and not beholden to corporate interest dictating what they can and can not report on, based on who they’re advertisers and special interest are. With you on that one – which is why I watch Australian media with such apprehension to see parts of it following this US model, in terms of the panel/talk back/cable ‘news’ opinion shows starting to pop up in the last few years. Thankfully we have an actual weekly hald hour tv show and sections of the media itself which is responsible for (at least for now) making sure this kind of corruption doesn’t get in the way of the news/shines a light on it when it attempts to.
The most awful thing to happen recently is now Australians are shying away from news outlets, citing ‘fake news’. DA FUCK? Also, our politicians are only now debating the reforming of campaign financing. It’s never been as bad as US, but it’s very secretive and we never know who donated to whom until months later, usually after the campaign ended (ie, current prime minister is verrry wealthy, donated 1.75m to his party before the last election, probably in an effort to secure his spot at the top since he’d taken over from the last one, mid-term).
But back to saudi arabia, I also think sometimes when the news seems far enough away and disconnected, and actually uncomfortable to deal with, a lot of people put it in the ‘too hard basket’. I agree that the more coverage all of the issues gets the better. Look, I love rachel maddow and even i’m fuckin sick of the russia talk. She’s so great at covering other things, let someone else babble about it for a while and get back to other stuff!!!!
You can agree or disagree with US stance on NATO troops along the Russian border, but when Rachel showed a list of Russian names joining the Davos forum (kind of implying that they secretly control the meeting), I was super disappointed. Come on, really? The most pro-western, laissez-faire capitalist elites are all of a sudden part of a Russian conspiracy?
I don’t agree with Jimmy and others that there is a new McCarthy level red scare, but old school animosities and a red scare definitely play “some” role in how people prioritize or the intensity with which they report on that issue as compared to others…
By the way to your original post. German news media is against new sanctions on Russia as is the German government. So economic interests definitely play a role, but I always find it kind of sad to see huge differences between the coverage of different outlets around the world. Especially when outlets kind of imply the position of another country, but if you’d actually live in that country, you’d fined out that things are not like you thought they would be. That happened to me when I came to the US and now it’s the other way around following American outlets. If all people could/would watch and read every single news story around the globe, I believe most of them would have totally different opinions than those they actually hold right now… That’s sad and scary in a way…
It is scary indeed. Pretty much every one who goes into space (and gets asked) says it changes how they view the interconnection between us all and our environments. It makes me think about how, if every politician currently in office could take a 2 day trip to the international space station, maybe then they’d think a little more globally about how important it is to protect the world and it’s people, not just the money coming in and out of their own country. I get a little pro russell brand here, thinking ‘what are countries anyway, but arbitrary borders set up a long long time ago that were agreed to at that time…. what is the benefit now?’ then i go in a brain scramble to google things…. very non productive with my time!
Back to Rachel Maddow though, I don’t read so much into the NATO border thing or the davos coverage, no one who is currently in office is going to listen to rachel maddow and make policy based on her opinions – i think Kyle sort of misrepresents the 50%ish number he cited – she isn’t fear mongering when she covers this stuff and I wonder how much he actually watches the show – like last night’s show, she did a segment that would have been put in that 50% number, but it was about this ongoing investigation their team is doing into who is funding the russia legal defense for white house employees which leads to the old ongoing question, what happened to the excess inauguration funds? are they being used for this legal defense or is trump contributing, or the rnc? that is a super relevant and important question to investigate! If trump were paying for the legal defense of his employees – there’s a conflict there. if it’s taken from the inaugural funds, is that a conflict also? She also gets to the nub of questions about the Russia thing in ways other shows don’t – where Last Word or CNN might have a panel to discuss ‘what they think’ will happen, she invites that weirdo lawyer guy who doesn’t understand humor (dude who used to work for mueller/comey/fbi), to answer very specific legal questions on the issues, not to just ‘give his opinion’.
Going back slightly to the original thing – I think Rupert Murdoch has a disproportionate amount of blame for the narrowing of news to suit particular interests. Think about the damage Fox ‘news’ has done to america – similarly in australia and UK – it’s stark to see how his newspapers effect vote outcomes. (one town with typical ‘leave demographics’ which had already banned murdoch papers, voted against leaving EU because they weren’t subjeced to the constant ‘leave’ messaging; similar amounts of propaganda usage in his australia papers, generally). All in all, thank goodness for companies like TYT!
Really good discussing. Love Secular Talk, by far the best TYT affiliated show.
I tend to agree that the Russia investigation matters but it is definitely way over covered. I also think Cenk could benefit from being a little less animated and a little more measured when talking about this topic but he is nowhere near as bad as those you will find on cable tv.
Really good interview guys. I appreciate TyT for giving a platform for differing opinions.
My own 2 cents:
The point that I always get hung up on when I discuss the Russia issue with people I know is, as Jimmy Dore has put it, I don’t view Donald Trump as a “uniquely” corrupt individual.
Because we effectively normalized and legalized bribery in this country people don’t even bat an eye that Trump policy may be influenced by payday lenders. Obviously, of course he is, but in my mind that is equally as problematic as Russia buying his influence.
I actually think that while you may be right, bringing down Trump will be a turning point in the same way bringing down Weinstein was for the Me Too movement. Because of the uber-partisan environment, you can bet your last dollar that if Trump is brought down for this, no future politician in high office will be safe when it comes to their transgressions of corruption, and the playing field will broaden over time to include calling out what is now considered business as usual. And that is a great thing.
Comments
The US has to switch to paper voting.
Also, they should be allow to vote for their candidate, and for a 2nd and 3rd one too.
Is the only way to elect one of the candidates with 50% or more.
I agree with Cenk. Why would anyone back down on an issue that affected our elections. If there are no more legitimate elections, you lose your democracy. You lose your democracy, then you lose everything else. Nothing else matters.
when well you learn,trump can do what ever he likes .his base well fight on the streets for him .with guns
know one cares what he did or didn’t to we do care a bout health care ,school wages.get him on policy
Thanks to both Kyle and Cenk for sitting down and having this very interesting and important conversation. I hope there will be follow up discussions as events develop. We can disagree and debate on issues while still moving the progressive revolution forward. Our movement cannot be stopped.
I am writing from Europe:
Sorry, but Kyle Kulinski is morally bankrupt. Estonias Soldiers fought and died (!!!) for the USA after it the 9/11 attacks. And there is Kyle sitting, obviously knowing nothing about Estonias history, they decades and decades of occupation by Russia, the Secret Police death squads, the deportation of Estonians into Sibiran Deathcamps etc.
Well, just saying “fuck them” if Russia reaches for them is a good way to undermine all trust and credibility America has in the world, thats for sure. Obviously Kyle is dangerously naive about the world and its reality – and not even consistent in his logic.
Kyle: We didnt keep our promise to not expand NATO, that is wrong. So the solution is to not keep our promise to help our allies.
WTF dude.
Eastern Europe? I don’t think that’s the majority position in Western Europe..?
Germany
I think it goes beyond the ‘not helping out if Estonia is attacked’ statement. I could be wrong, but I think what Kyle was saying is NATO is something we should drop/why are we involved in it.
I am not sure if that is his position, so obviously just a thought; however, figured better to say this might be what he was aiming at instead of saying he was just saying forget helping out any conflict in Eastern Europe because I don’t care.
I know I have a problem with NATO overall, a good number of people do. Nothing to do with not caring about or wanting to just abandon people in conflict and issue, just an over reaching military issue.
Yes, instead let’s start World War 3. What could go possibly wrong with that scenario?
I dont get your point. The whole idea of an alliance is protection in case of an invasion. Nobody is starting WW3.
exactly right !!!
i think kyles side of the russia duscussion should have equal weight on tyt. his arguments are absolutely sound an reasonable. this guy is great. i would vote for hiring him to be a regular contributer on the main show
So is the crux of the issue what media should cover? I agree with Cenk that Russia stories should be covered. I agree with Kyle that media (including TYT) covers it too much.
Overall, I gotta say, I loved this conversation. Especially since I was a little scared of those two digging their heels in, especially Cenk. When I heard that the two were going to talk about this, I admit I had momentary Sam Harris PTSD flashbacks. Totally not on the same scale of disagreement, I know, but nonetheless I’m glad that nobody boiled over on this one, with everyone eventually agreeing on a difference in emphasis.
Kyle: “I think he did money laundering, you think he’s a puppet to Vladimir Putin”
Cenk: “No, I think he did money laundering, and HENCE he’s a puppet to Vladimir Putin”
That excerpt was the check and mate of the whole discussion. Most people misunderstand what is meant by the term “Putin’s puppet”. If Trump has financial connections with the Russian mafia/oligarchs, and if those people are connected to Putin and the Kremlin, then it’s at least possible that there was collusion. Russia is essentially a kleptocracy, so having financial dealings with Russian mobsters or oligarchs…and being politically connected to the Russian government…are one and the same! That is why there must be an honest investigation that checks to see if there is any evidence of such dealings.
Apparently not. Otherwise we’d speak of Trump being the Saudi’s puppet, the Chinese puppet, Goldman Sachs puppet, and a lot of other countries/institution’s puppet. And that’s the story that the Cenk camp is missing.
Cenk always make it seem that the people in the Kyle camp are missing the story about Russia itself, because they talk about other issues like the establishment handling it badly or the Saudi’s also sing bad things. But it is the other way around, everyone agrees on the Russia stuff itself, but Cenk, John, Ana, Michael, Ben and Rachel Maddow are missing another, underlying story. They never address the issue of WHY is everyone focused on Russia and not treating all the other issues evenly? Why aren’t some commentators focusing on Russia and equal amount on Saudi-Arabia, others on Chinese golden visa etc.? Or one day they talk about Russia, the other day they spend an equal amount of time talking about Saudi-Arabia etc.? Because people are actively trying to use that situation, the truth that everyone agrees on, to fear monger and drive the American people into war, as they did with Vietnam, as they did before the Iraq war. We’ve seen it before, the threat to South-Vietnam, the invasion of Kuwait and how those were handled and to what purpose. It’s not like Kyle and Jimmy are talking about TYT when they say “Russia is over-hyped”, they don’t criticize Cenk for those tactics. But they are talking about that issue and they do criticize Cenk and others for not addressing it, for not covering THAT story. Yes, Cenk talks about all the other issues, but he doesn’t connect the dots, doesn’t address WHY the emphasis is on Russia, misses the story of the establishment trying to prepare for another war OR give an alternative explanation, explain why you are focusing on Russia, explain why Saudi-Arabia is less important etc. and why he thinks Russia is more important, chooses to talk about Russia like it is another story than Saudi-Arabia or China…
The question of whether we should come to a Baltic country’s aid if they get invaded by Russia is a difficult one, politically speaking, because Americans have no interest in getting into another war, whatever the country. On principle, the answer’s easy: an attack on one is an attack on all. Otherwise NATO means nothing, and going back on our word will do immense diplomatic damage. All of the former Communist countries that joined NATO did so in the interest of their own national security, so convincing them to leave NATO is not gonna happen. It’s easy for people in America to say that Estonia getting taken over by Russia means nothing, since they know nothing about those countries. It’s not so easy if you see Russia as your top national security concern, and have to rely on a much stronger ally to ensure your national independence.
Everyone in Eastern Europe remembers that after WWII, America and Britain let the Soviets take over Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, etc., all for pretty much the same reason that gets mentioned today: that it wasn’t in the British or American interest to protect those countries and they didn’t want to aggravate Russia. Let’s hope that history doesn’t have to repeat itself.
Such a great discussion. I agree with both. It doesn’t seem like you actually disagree on much. It seems more so about the emphasis of the story and the political impact.
Yeah, it’s too bad that Kyle was apparently unaware of that Dutch intelligence story and thus could not properly rebut Cenk on it. Here’s a proper rebuttal of the entire thing:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-russia-hacking-story-is-fake-news
Otherwise Kyle was bringing the facts, as always, and Cenk did his best to avoid having to discuss those facts. Although Kyle also did not press him enough on them, either. At times it seemed like Kyle was rather trying to just voice all the information around Russia, the suppression of independent media and Yemen in this interview, instead of trying to win the debate by properly debating Cenk.
It went more or less like this every time:
Cenk: Trump dun did it!
Kyle: But you could prove X,Y,Z much easier!
Cenk: Trump super dun did it!
Kyle: But you could prove X,Y,Z much easier!
Cenk: Trump super duper dun did it!
Kyle: But you could prove X,Y,Z much easier!
So, in essence, Kyle debated the issues, not Cenk. Not the best way to do this debate, from both sides.
Kyle really needs to study the outcomes of the policies Trump emplemented. I love it that Cenk gets him on the bombing of Syria. Trump pretty much put pot holes in the landing strip and didn’t target the hangers. Plus the base was in working order the next day. It was clearly a propaganda move to save face and at the same time not to anger Assad and Putin.
Now I do agree with Kyle on the money laundering. One example I wish they brought up was how Trump was making deals with drug lords in Panama for a Trump hotel there.
” It was clearly a propaganda move to save face and at the same time not to anger Assad and Putin.”
How is that not a conspiracy theory, especially given the whole history of both Russian as well as US involvement in the Middle-East and the relationship between the two countries..? And that’s not the only bombing, what about using white phosphorus?
I really disagree with Kyle Kulinski on NATO.
A sovereign nation can apply for membership to NATO.
When that application is accepted, you simply can not turn you back when they need you.
Furthermore is his lack of perception. Smaller nation, like my own country of The Netherlands, can be bullied by a big neighbor (WW II). Or my neighbor to the south, Belgium (WW I & WW II), so look at from our perspective.
After the breakup of the USSR, the region became very unstable and nobody knew at that time what would happen in Russia.
So the smaller nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania did not want to lose there just obtained freedom. So thas why they applied for membership to ensure their borders.
But how do you know a war would have be better or lead to better/more stable results. As someone living in NL are you not afraid that escalating could lead to a new Middle-East much closer to your border? I always think Americans are more nonchalant when it comes to war than Europeans due to the lack of proximity to the actual war zone. If Afghanistan or Iraq were in the middle of Mexico and had the military capacity of Russia, you’re sure as many Americans had been in favor of bombing them?
NATO was created to prevent a (hot) war in Europe and it basically did for all NATO members. After It’s creation, no major war happened on NATO soil. But I don’t know if you assess the Coldwar as a stable situation.
I think the Baltic countries had all the right to apply for membership to ensure their borders in the political chaotic time in the 90’s.
I just hope you’re right, I guess.
The prospect of a hot war between Russia and the USA is frightening to me –
I honestly believed the cold war was over, so I hate every escalation, whether it’s coming from Russia or the US.
Kyle Kulinski, we must start a club for guys in America that don’t care about Football. Sorry Cenk :)
Excellent discussion. Thank you both.
I just want to take the time to thank both TYT and Secular Talk for doing this interview. Truth is, this interview makes an extraordinary case for why people should embrace multiple news sources and diverse ideas (so long as the reporting is actually factual of course).
I agree with both Cenk and Kyle whole heartedly on both their preferences for issue prioritization and preference on emphasis. That’s why I love both TYT and Secular Talk equally. What it comes down to is simply a difference in the direction each wants to utilize their platform. That makes for diverse media coverage and leads to an overall better informed audience.
I love these guys and I hope we as the audience can resist the urge to force Cenk or Kyle to conflict in a misguided attempt to manufacture homogenization over perceived dissonance in their messaging.
Thank you, that’s exactly how I feel about it!
Completely agree with you! If we wanted to watch news that shut out dissenting voices, we’d go elsewhere. The fact that they are both open in that they disagree and can have an actual discussion is great and why I love TYT and those on the network. If we aren’t open minded, we aren’t learning. :)
Great conversation, thought it showed very different perspectives. All in all, there wasn’t that much disagreement.
It was more of viewers hyping it up, thinking that Kyle was like calling out Cenk for covering the Russia stories. But that’s not accurate, Kyle was calling out the media that’s obsessed with the Russia above all else, which doesn’t include Cenk. The viewers were all like “Look Kyle and Cenk are in complete disagreement!!!11!” but like they’re really not.
I also think that Cenk simply doesn’t watch a lot of cable news while Kyle and Jimmy do. They see a lot more of the fearmongering and drumbeating that the mainstream media is doing, and that’s where all their focus is. They’re terrified of that aspect. While Cenk sees it as a problem, it’s not what he’s focused on. I feel like that accounts for most of the difference in their perspectives.
Yeah, Cenk’s operation is a lot bigger with a ton more moving parts. I’d be surprised if he watches mainstream at all. It’s more likely that his staff track it for him. My guess is he leans on them to sift through the details, present him with the news they consider most pertinent, and then prioritizes the most urgent, important and relevant for broadcast. Daily.
Kyle and Jimmy have their show and a small staff. They each have other endeavors of course, but ultimately more individual time to keep their finger on the pulse of mainstream media personally.
couldn’t agree more!
Lots of good points on both sides. But I think that Cenk is much more correct here. Kyle’s argument is basically, if you can’t have 100% of what you want, go for 0%. Also, if blatantly criminal corruption leads to outcomes I like it isn’t a big deal.
I don’t think anyone is more aware of the insidious effect of the everyday “legal” and semi-legal bribery in the American system. But if we start allowing blatantly illegal influence pedaling it truly leads to a new phase of destruction of democratic institutions and the rule of law. The international billionaire oligarch class will only be constrained by the rule of law, and ignoring its enforcement will NOT help in the fight against them.
Any discussion of political tactics, other terrible problems, and emphasis are another matter (all very important in their own right). To say that it is just a “conspiracy”, or these other excuses for Russian behavior are red herrings.
OK. So what exactly is the qualitative difference between Russia and Saudi-Arabia then..?
Aren’t the dealings Trump has/Had with Saudi-Arabia not on the exact same level than those with Russia?
From the beginning I just didn’t understand why it gets so differently covered..?
Wait, let me understand this right… According to Kyle Kulinski, if Russia invades its neighbouring countries, and the allies of those countries come to their aid, it is the allies that are the aggressors?
So it’s like when the world powers of the time prevented World War II by letting Hitler take the Sudetenland? Yeah, we really dodged the bullet on that one. Whew!
to be fair, I think he was talking about the assurances given to Russia post Cold War that NATO would not expand, which was indeed a broken promise that has caused major grievance in Russia.
That said, I personally don’t think that such an assurance should ever have been given. If countries, which have constantly been invaded by Russia, want to join a defensive alliance against Russia I don’t see that as particularly unreasonable.
All he said is that the people fighting on the Ukranian side right now are fascists – that’s true, they even brag about it in their own videos. I had an ethnic Russian friend, Ukranian citizen, growing up in Ukraine. How she was treated half of her life there is … unreal, what they did to her grandma (#RussianWhore) is just awful and despicable.
The problem is always the stories we don’t hear…
No, vanBronco, that is not all he said. He said specifically that if Russia invades Estonia, the US should not get involved. That has nothing to do with fascists in the Ukraine. That is saying that if an authoritarian dictator with dreams of recreating the Soviet Union invades a democratic country for expansionist purposes, the US should turn their back on them and say “we don’t care.” This is perfectly in line with the isolationist views he has previously expressed. He seemed downright delighted when Angela Merkel said that Germany could no longer depend on the US, because he doesn’t seem capable of telling the difference between interventionist policies in the Middle East and the US standing with its allies when they come under attack.
You’re right, I didn’t connect the dots there.
I watched a lot of Secular Talk over the years. I don’t think Kyle puts it in the same category. He calls himself a strict non-interventionist. He thinks an intervention by the US alone makes things worse, but he is in favor of limited intervention in concert with other forces, meaning maybe a UN mandate etc. He’s in favor of a NATO intervention in case of a genocide. You don’t have to agree with him, but I don’t think it’s outrages, it’s a principled position.
As someone who grew up in Germany, a liberal, free, left-leaning Germany, I see it as a mixed bag. I can’t be against any and all interventions. The question is, just how unique WWII is? George RR Martin says f.e. he wouldn’t fight in a war ever, but he would’ve fought in WWII. You can categorize Saddam Hussein any way you want and have any position on Gulf War II and III, but he did attack Kuwait. Russia is close to EU borders now, so I can understand the fear of invasion by Russia, but there is also a lot of fear that the situation can escalate, that we can trigger a war and then Europeans have to pay the price for that. A lot of people made a lot of fun about Bush when he said the categorized the Oceans as border security, but I often think Americans don’t really understand just how much those Oceans are worth. 2 borders, that’s it. If you have 9 different borders surrounding you and between Russia and you is just one country that’s a quarter of the size of the Mexican border, you get a little more careful about provocations. And then there is always the possibility of the military industrial complex manipulating politicians and public and not being honest. Even in WWII some shady things happened, Eisenhower held his speech not at the end of the Vietnam or Iraq war. If it is so important for people to fight the Nazis for humanitarian reasons, so that other people can’t be oppressed, to help allies – how can you than treat soldiers that fought side by side of you like shit because of the color of their skin? War is complicated and it should always be the last option.
Growing up in Germany I learned from a small age “the smarter one backs down”, referring to the 2 gun man scenario. American pop culture in the past shared that sentiment (Voyager f.e.), but back then we also thought “even a golden cage is still a cage”, which is apparently also no longer prevalent. I just know that almost no other country in the world reacts to “bad guy doing bad deeds” with “let’s go bomb them”. War is dirty, always, it’s never fun and/or heroic or something to glorify. Losing a (world) war certainly has consequences, but sometimes I feel like, so does winning one…
Great discussion and one I’ve been hoping for more of. Thanks!
Kyle is just more correct on this. I understand Cenk hates Trump but you have to understand that many of these other politicians are dirty and doing these things too. They should all be arrested and tried but they aren’t. It’s clear Trump is being targeted because he isn’t in their club and is an unknown quantity they are unsure of. When they is unequal justice there is no justice. Trump is most likely guilty of money laundering. Most politicians are at best guilty of corruption. None of them are held to account, but Trump is all while demonizing Russia as the cause of our problems? That messaging is the issue.
Cenk just needs to stop doing the everyday innuendo of Trump might have these connections with this person or he might be looking to oust this person. If someone is indicted or someone is ousted then you cover it, otherwise please let us know something else going on in the world. We’re all tired of this rumor mongering, we’re waiting to see what the results are and don’t care about the minutae and theories about what might happen in the meanwhile.
#OffMySoapBox
?Luuuuuuv? me some Kyle Kulinski. Upped my Patreon support for him.
I see what BOTH generations are saying up in here. And it’s my opinion that any and all disagreements will be as ended as they were when Nixon got taken down when A) Mueller announces a stunning indictment close enough to or including Bonespurs so impeachment starts OR B) Bonespurs stupidly fires Mueller and impeachment gets underway.
Like Cenk said, there are a good number of wildcards out there. ♠️♦️♣️♥️
Definitely am on Kyle’s side. If we could all chill the fuck down and let the investigation play out without ten zillion speculations, it would serve us all a lot better. Let the professionals do their jobs, don’t blast every Russia story regardless of if it’s factual.
The crux of it for me is that they are both right in their positions. I think Cenk is just a little narrow in his focus and that Kyle is a bit too broad. Cenk is right in his belief that it IS important if Russians are influencing the POTUS, but he needs to see beyond the Russian narrative. Likewise, Kyle is correct in his position that people are being distracted about Russia as a singular event, but he needs to concede that the issue of money laundering; something they both agree is obvious and a large issue; is the causality of collusion (especially if it is the Russian MOB as he stated).
NeoCons: Muslims are evil. (Nowadays that has expanded to pretty much all brown people)
NeoLiberals: RUSSIA!!!!! blah blah resist Trump.
These are the points that Jimmy Dore and Kyle continue to make. The only reason this narrative is being so heavily pushed on the public is because it is being used as a distraction and an “others” threat. The Neocons demagogue against Muslims, the neolibs are doing it with Russia. Neither side really gives a shit about collusion, they both do it all the time.
NeoCons: Muslims are evil. (Nowadays that has expanded to pretty much all brown people)
NeoLiberals: RUSSIA!!!!! blah blah resist Trump.
All in all, I agree more with Kyle (even though this wasn’t a debate ;) ) but he was a bit dismissive of some things that he could take more seriously and Cenk did his Cenk shtick, which is fine, but can be a bit repetitive at times and a bit of a crutch for him.
I agree with you on your main point – reading comments you could think Cenk and Kyle are on completely other ends of a spectrum, but they actually agree 95% on even the “Russia issue” itself. I think it’s important to repeat over and over again in debates or discussions or conversations what you’re actually talking about. It’s the broad “Russia thing”, “there is [no] evidence” etc. that drives me insane. Why not say what exactly you’re talking about instead of being vague or making implications? It drives me mad when Cenk and/or John are doing it, but the mainstream media and Democratic party officials do it on steroids… Why? Why? Why? Why?
Anyone can speculate what Mueller knows. But, so far, whenever part of the investigation is revealed, it has come as a total surprise.
This was a really substantive and informative debate. Thank you for doing this. I see great points on both sides.
Also, Thom Hartman is no longer on RT… and I don’t get a “warning banner” or any such info graphic when I watch stuff on RT on YouTube.
Kyle owned Cenk. There’s so much over-reaching ‘evidence.’
What? What did Kulinski say that Uygur didn’t agree with? Nothing is ever going to come out of the collusion with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
“Nothing is ever going to come out of the collusion with Israel and Saudi Arabia.”
What exactly do you mean by that?
Kyle came with much more substance and facts. Obviously there is cross-over where all can agree Trump is awful, corrupt, and more of the like; but Cenk takes such a stance with the hashtagResistance about all of the Russian stuff, in my opinion, even if he says he doesn’t.
I also noticed it wasn’t until recently that I noticed Cenk even really pushing the money laundering bit. For months it seemed like it was only about election meddling/Putin having him on some this or that and THAT was going to lead to an impeachment. For a while every show had him using the soundboard to say we almost have him, and Cenk predicting how many more weeks/months Trump had in office. These last few weeks, maybe a month, I’ve started hearing that all change to talk of money laundering- which I agree is much more likely obvious [and take much more agreement with Kyle on with how it will play out].
Anyway, just wanted to say I’m on Kyle’s side of this- before and after this talk/debate. If Cenk hoped to change any opinions, I’m not how well he actually did.
Cenk has been pushing the money laundering thing from the beginning. He was the first that I have seen to bring it up ages ago.
But he certainly didn’t make it the corner stone of his argument why Trump would be impeached until about a month ago… It’s not about what you cover, but the intensity and context is also important. When we criticize the mainstream news media f.e. for reporting on Muslim terrorism instead of white supremacist terrorism, “so where did you get your info from, apparently someone reported on it” would not be a good answer. Yes, some media outlets reported about the Lebanon attack, but to say it was equal coverage compared to Paris would be nonsense.
Same with Cenk. Yes, he talks about Saudi-Arabia, money laundering, Flynn/Turkey etc. But does he do it with the same intensity and passion than Russia or even Stormy Daniels? I don’t think so.
Same with the argument “Trump is president, we have to cover him” – Obama was president too, you know, I did watch TYT back then – not a single “Only Obama Stories Hour 1″…
Fantastic response, thank you!
The argument that the mainstream news are focusing more on Russia than (as an example) Syria, have to be taken with a grain of contextual salt. The focus on Russia, is about how Russia’s actions have affected AMERICA… the news isn’t ‘on russia’ it’s ‘on america being harmed (etc) by russia’. USA has always (always) been more focused on itself than the goings on in other countries. Like, aaaaaalways.
It’s part of the whole ‘american exceptionalism’ thing you guys have going on (and yes, i know not so much with TYT) but even TYT covers USA news mostly, because it’s a show made in the USA and doesn’t pretend to anyone that its NOT a show about USA. I know John and Ana try to bring in more stories from around the world every now and then and the friday post games do also, but it’s kinda just the way your media works.
And hey – probably goes the same for lots of other countries and their mainstream outlets – in Australia we have ABC news and SBS world news which don’t just focus on australia – but there are 3 other free to air networks which primarily do.
Just… think that we could be wary of that ‘talking point’ in the future. Appreciated the dialogue though; still with Cenk on this one, but also get the frustration Kyle is feeling.
This is a fantastic point. Interesting to see how/if this is being reported in other countries with their interests in it as well. Of course media made in a certain country will tend to focus on news affecting their country since that will often be their main/target audience.
Either way though, much of our media in the states has fallen in a trap where this is the majority of the news and it is not always being presented in any way beneficial towards the news consumer.
Yeah the US news corporate takeover has really fucked over the population. In Australia it’s pretty … eh, normal? I mean, when something actually happens in the Russia thing it will make it into a news segment as a general report/update thing but it’s of course, usually focused on our country and our regional affairs. The SBS world news (as the name suggests) is very much a global check in though.
We (leftwing) fight very hard to keep (at least 2) our news providers non biased, and fact based etc – ABC/SBS (publicly/govt funded) are not opinion outlets (even though the right wing cant stop whinging that they think they are); then we have the general news broadcasts on 3 or so other channels then we have the opinion shows which have become more prevalent in the last few years, following the US models (which freaks me out) but still with an aussie shine on it. We also have this hour long ‘infotainment’ style show that’s airs 6 nights, with a roundup from the day delivered by a news person or two with a bunch of comedians and ‘personalities’ makin’ da jokes – makes it more palatable for the people who ‘don’t watch the news’. They do a pretty good job with that specific mandate.
I agree with your point 100%, but how is that compatible with the apparent ignorance towards Saudi-Arabia and their actions? Their actions certainly affect America heavily now for decades, yet the only people caring about Saudi actions seem to be Republicans when they’re not in charge..?
Well then you get to the arguments of who benefits from NOT reporting on Saudi Arabia…. the reason we all love TYT is coz they’re independent and not beholden to corporate interest dictating what they can and can not report on, based on who they’re advertisers and special interest are. With you on that one – which is why I watch Australian media with such apprehension to see parts of it following this US model, in terms of the panel/talk back/cable ‘news’ opinion shows starting to pop up in the last few years. Thankfully we have an actual weekly hald hour tv show and sections of the media itself which is responsible for (at least for now) making sure this kind of corruption doesn’t get in the way of the news/shines a light on it when it attempts to.
The most awful thing to happen recently is now Australians are shying away from news outlets, citing ‘fake news’. DA FUCK? Also, our politicians are only now debating the reforming of campaign financing. It’s never been as bad as US, but it’s very secretive and we never know who donated to whom until months later, usually after the campaign ended (ie, current prime minister is verrry wealthy, donated 1.75m to his party before the last election, probably in an effort to secure his spot at the top since he’d taken over from the last one, mid-term).
But back to saudi arabia, I also think sometimes when the news seems far enough away and disconnected, and actually uncomfortable to deal with, a lot of people put it in the ‘too hard basket’. I agree that the more coverage all of the issues gets the better. Look, I love rachel maddow and even i’m fuckin sick of the russia talk. She’s so great at covering other things, let someone else babble about it for a while and get back to other stuff!!!!
You can agree or disagree with US stance on NATO troops along the Russian border, but when Rachel showed a list of Russian names joining the Davos forum (kind of implying that they secretly control the meeting), I was super disappointed. Come on, really? The most pro-western, laissez-faire capitalist elites are all of a sudden part of a Russian conspiracy?
I don’t agree with Jimmy and others that there is a new McCarthy level red scare, but old school animosities and a red scare definitely play “some” role in how people prioritize or the intensity with which they report on that issue as compared to others…
By the way to your original post. German news media is against new sanctions on Russia as is the German government. So economic interests definitely play a role, but I always find it kind of sad to see huge differences between the coverage of different outlets around the world. Especially when outlets kind of imply the position of another country, but if you’d actually live in that country, you’d fined out that things are not like you thought they would be. That happened to me when I came to the US and now it’s the other way around following American outlets. If all people could/would watch and read every single news story around the globe, I believe most of them would have totally different opinions than those they actually hold right now… That’s sad and scary in a way…
It is scary indeed. Pretty much every one who goes into space (and gets asked) says it changes how they view the interconnection between us all and our environments. It makes me think about how, if every politician currently in office could take a 2 day trip to the international space station, maybe then they’d think a little more globally about how important it is to protect the world and it’s people, not just the money coming in and out of their own country. I get a little pro russell brand here, thinking ‘what are countries anyway, but arbitrary borders set up a long long time ago that were agreed to at that time…. what is the benefit now?’ then i go in a brain scramble to google things…. very non productive with my time!
Back to Rachel Maddow though, I don’t read so much into the NATO border thing or the davos coverage, no one who is currently in office is going to listen to rachel maddow and make policy based on her opinions – i think Kyle sort of misrepresents the 50%ish number he cited – she isn’t fear mongering when she covers this stuff and I wonder how much he actually watches the show – like last night’s show, she did a segment that would have been put in that 50% number, but it was about this ongoing investigation their team is doing into who is funding the russia legal defense for white house employees which leads to the old ongoing question, what happened to the excess inauguration funds? are they being used for this legal defense or is trump contributing, or the rnc? that is a super relevant and important question to investigate! If trump were paying for the legal defense of his employees – there’s a conflict there. if it’s taken from the inaugural funds, is that a conflict also? She also gets to the nub of questions about the Russia thing in ways other shows don’t – where Last Word or CNN might have a panel to discuss ‘what they think’ will happen, she invites that weirdo lawyer guy who doesn’t understand humor (dude who used to work for mueller/comey/fbi), to answer very specific legal questions on the issues, not to just ‘give his opinion’.
Going back slightly to the original thing – I think Rupert Murdoch has a disproportionate amount of blame for the narrowing of news to suit particular interests. Think about the damage Fox ‘news’ has done to america – similarly in australia and UK – it’s stark to see how his newspapers effect vote outcomes. (one town with typical ‘leave demographics’ which had already banned murdoch papers, voted against leaving EU because they weren’t subjeced to the constant ‘leave’ messaging; similar amounts of propaganda usage in his australia papers, generally). All in all, thank goodness for companies like TYT!
Really good discussing. Love Secular Talk, by far the best TYT affiliated show.
I tend to agree that the Russia investigation matters but it is definitely way over covered. I also think Cenk could benefit from being a little less animated and a little more measured when talking about this topic but he is nowhere near as bad as those you will find on cable tv.
Really good interview guys. I appreciate TyT for giving a platform for differing opinions.
My own 2 cents:
The point that I always get hung up on when I discuss the Russia issue with people I know is, as Jimmy Dore has put it, I don’t view Donald Trump as a “uniquely” corrupt individual.
Because we effectively normalized and legalized bribery in this country people don’t even bat an eye that Trump policy may be influenced by payday lenders. Obviously, of course he is, but in my mind that is equally as problematic as Russia buying his influence.
I actually think that while you may be right, bringing down Trump will be a turning point in the same way bringing down Weinstein was for the Me Too movement. Because of the uber-partisan environment, you can bet your last dollar that if Trump is brought down for this, no future politician in high office will be safe when it comes to their transgressions of corruption, and the playing field will broaden over time to include calling out what is now considered business as usual. And that is a great thing.
Promote this more!
Love it. Kyle won btw XD
What? It was a push at best.