The UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer; journalist Aaron Maté and former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Mike Gravel were among the guests for the premier edition of CN Live! Watch the replay at this updated and now permanent link.
On the premiere episode of CN Live!, Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, joined us from Geneva to discuss his work on the condition of imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. Journalist Aaron Maté spoke to us from New York about his latest article, “CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims“. Former U.S. Senator and Democratic primary contender Mike Gravel, and Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, joined the program from California to discuss the race to the White House.
Francis Boyle, international law professor at the University of Illinois, picked apart the intelligence and political machinations behind the arrest of financier Jeffery Epstein on sex trafficking charges; and author and scholar George Szamuely joined hosts Joe Lauria and Elizabeth Vos from Budapest to dissect the latest news on Assange and WikiLeaks.
Watch the replay of CN Live! on our Facebook page, on Periscope and right here on Consortium News at this permanent link:
Very interesting. The sense of dread is justified. Elizabeth seemed very uncomfortable. Nils Melzer is awesome. Lovely to see Aaron Mate again. I’ve wandered away from TRNN, but still support it. I really miss Robert Parry.
THE PODCAST OF EPISODE ONE IS NOW AVAILABLE HERE:
This video has been eliminated … can’t view … any suggestion on where else I can find it?
The link wouldn’t work at 2pm Friday. Got the replay Saturday evening. Very Good. CN just keeps getting better. Great guests. Agree with suggestions for podcast, transcript, audio.
Tnx Joe, Liz CN crew if so… Think Best of Best
Francis (if remember… paraphrase): “Why overcrowded Blu Field?” So no 1st ballot victor the right wingers can Henry Wallace the Superdel Process & make us vote4 Jill again! Fine if you’re like myself & Marjorie in Cal… Hold nose & justify x-pros vote cuz: “Waal… da girl’s From Our State…”
So that’s Some ‘Lectoral votes BUT… MS OBAMA? Pity da fools in SWING STATES!
I cannot spare hours for stories I already know, or time to search for sections of interest.
Separate interviews would avoid asking viewers to reserve all free time in a day for one story.
An index to hour:minute:second for interview starts would assist those who prefer visuals.
Interviews and transcripts are usually full of “um”s, subject changes, and sentences that wander off.
Text reports are usually far better phrased, shorter, and on point.
Any chance of the audio becoming a podcast?
THE PODCAST OF EPISODE ONE IS NOW AVAILABLE HERE:
Hello Skip – I am totally with you in respect to Cohn. Her site is slathered with her TDS. She seems completely antagonistic, and I have read enough of her writing to now just move past her portion of the program. One would hope her students take it all with a grain of salt and do their own thinking. Cheers.
In the interview, Marjorie Cohn gave credit to Trump for his diplomacy on Russia and North Korea.
Love the new show!! Keep up your great work!!
Great to see, but I agree with the comment above about a podcast – it would be great for people whose activities allow for listening but not for sitting watching.
The audio of the program will be available on podcast.
[Note to moderator – Please delete the two duplicate versions of my three comments below. I got two messages saying the post did not go through. Evidently the message was incorrect, so there may be a slighjt bug in the software around there.]
Thank you for this great set of discussions! Highly knowledgeable, sensible people willing to look at the facts, and not intimidated into abandoning their common sense. A great line-up, great moderating, informative and insightful all.
Much appreciated Boyle’s in-depth discussion of the Epstein case. Question: Would the Deep State really want to destroy one of it’s most valuable honeytrap operations to take down Trump? Especially since it implicates Israel (again) in some sort of assault on the U.S. (Epstein’s closest insider was the daughter of a Mossad agent versus a CIA agent.) I’m thinking here of the USS Liberty, and the stolen nuclear bomb secrets and materials. Also, this is a time when Israel is coming under greater scrutiny in the alternative press. Would Israel want this revealed?
(Apologies if this is a duplicate comment. Wrestling with system.)
Will there be a transcript of the program? That would be really helpful.
I enjoyed it very much, especially the interview with Aaron Mate, who has emerged as one of our brightest and most courageous young investigative journalists. It would be really nice if viewers could download the podcast, so that they could watch anytime and anywhere and also be able to skip over portions that they do not have the time or interest to watch.
Thank you so much, Joe Laurie, Elizabeth Vos, and all supporters.
After badly missing the weekly vigil on Julien Assange i am only too glad to see that you are now with CNN and can be seen weekly on youtube any time. Watching the live event might not be conveniant for some people in Europe. The time now is 11:50 a.m.
It is yet another opportunity to spread your good work around.
Could somebody please let me know where i can find The Revelations of Wikileaks No. 1 – 3 ?
Thank you, i found it all. Due to the perfect orga nisation of this site.
CN Live is Consortium News Live. No relation to CNN, that publish lies and Deep State Propaganda.
It is Saturday night and I just finally saw the tightened up replay here on CN. Thank you for your patience.
AWESOME! Sharing widely – you guys deserve a huge audience! Thanks for adding desperately needed REAL JOURNALISM to the ‘fake news’ mediascape.
Congratulations to Joe Lauria and Elizabeth Vos on an excellent new weekly news program.
Judging by the uniquely informative and insightful discussion, this has potential to become best in the business.
I had been disappointed that Unity4J had stopped broadcasting the weekly vigils for Julian A., but it’s great that there is now a worthy successor. The Unity4J commentators were a “who’s who” of the best in alternative media, and it’s good to see that they will be back on air.
One suggestion: would be great to have interviews with Max Blumenthal and Yasha Levine.
Recommendation for improvement (the only one): hire a video technician, so that the minor technical glitches are ironed out (such as different volumes for different speakers, missing link to video from website, etc.).
Keep up the good work!
Watch the replay of the premiere of CN Live! with @NilsMelzer , @aaronjmate and @MikeGravel at this updated and now permanent link:
The video was fully edited to remove the technical issues, it has a completely different look….
There was a broadcast, however there was also a glitch with Youtube. You have to watch any live updates and streams. There seemed to be two videos/channels, one with a test screen and one with the show.
Which is not a criticism of the show, because the show was great.
Consortiumnews.com Consortium News main site has been hit with malicious interference. Technicians working on restoring. We’ll be back in normal operations. Watch the Premiere, CN Live! on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88NqWUuWGc&feature=youtu.be
This is clearly a most nasty (and ongoing) attack.
My deep appreciation to all who are working to restore normal operation.
Thank you, Joe and Elizabeth. I suspected malevolence from bad actors when I kept getting 503 error messages and blank screens yesterday. To Consortium News and the memory of the beautiful man who began it all, Robert Parry! Your new endeavor is MUCH needed, so keep your weekly shows coming. I wonder why Ms. Cohn had so little knowledge of the superdelegate process with the DNC? She was schooled by the two of you, for certain. Bravo! And thanks to Mr. Melzer for an astoundingly good interview and to Aaron Mate’, one of the very best young journalists in the entire U.S.A. Cheers to all of you experts! Mil gracias!
Can Turkey menace America by Russian S-400 Missile System. America is afraid about Turkey to deal for buying Russian S-400 defence missile system. Because if Turkey admits the S-400 missile system into own air defence they will be more strong. So America faces difficulties to control the establishment of Turkey government. America is afraid of someone who grabbed power. That’s why the U.S put sanctions on those countries that they work hard to respond against America
Turkey receives one part of Russian S-400 air defence missile system in Ankara on July 12, 2019, Ankara is the capital of Turkey. Russian military defence decided to send further equipment in future after establishment properly of one S-400 part. America is not happy due to turkey step to buying Russian made air defence missile system. America pressurize the turkey to withdrawing the deals with Russia for buying S-400 Air defence missile system
Please also publish the CN Live videos outside of Facebook. A direct link to the video hosted at consortiumnews.com would be the best. Youtube would be acceptable.
There is a direct link on CN in the story now posted with this updated and now permanent link:
Congrats, and thanks, on the launch! Great guests and content. Kudos all ’round.
More real real meaning and import in your two-hour edition of news and analyses than one can find in any length of “legacy” media watching.
Tech hiccups you’ll get past. As long as you can maintain the standards of thoughtful and thought-provoking discourse you’ve set with your debut – this will prove invaluable for us all.
Thank you. Today, Consortium News’ main site has been hit with malicious interference. Technicians working on restoring. We’ll be back with normal operations. Tell all Watch the Premiere, CN Live! on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88NqWUuWGc&feature=youtu.be
Why can’t I see the video?
Watch the replay of the premiere of CN Live! with @NilsMelzer , @aaronjmate and @MikeGravel at this updated and now permanent link:
Senator Gravel has emailed that he has passed the signature limit and will be at the Dem debates! I will be glad to see him here at CN to get a better understanding. Those who wish to see real progressives at the debates should donate $1 to his campaign to ensure that he has enough signatures. Here is the link: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/gravel65000
The”denial” began after 9/11/2001. The horses left the barn way back then, kind of late to close the barn door now. “To know a terrible injustice is a tragedy, but to but to know of a tragedy and not speak of the horrific injustice, is in itself, a crime against humanity.” Judah Halevi
That was a very informative and most interesting couple of hours.
A fine premiere!
CN Live! will be on my must watch list.
Great appreciation to CN, to Joe Lauria to Elizabeth Vos, and to all the guests.
Considering all of the various interviews, I wonder if it might not be appropriate, and timely, to actually define what the term “progressive” actually means.
I do realize that an imprecise, even vague, and infinitely malleable term has great value, as it can mean either “anything”, or “nothing” at all.
I have asked, over a number of years, if anyone would dare a definition.
So far, there have been no takers, in fact there has been, curiously, no response at all.
I had some difficulty establishing initial connections to the broadcast, so I joined when Francis Boyle had already been talking and answering questions.
Seemingly, the Epstein case, according to what I heard, is about either impeaching Trump or forcing him to go to war with Iran, in which case Epstein, and Trump would be immediately forgotten as the people would be expected to rally ’round the flag and Trump.
There were reasonable questions about where Epstein got his billions, whether he was an intelligence asset, perhaps used to get the bare facts on powerful Guys Getting IT On, which might explain the light open-door prison sentence Epstein received in Florida.
Okay. So Russiagate failed to “get” Trump.
Therefore, Trump (along with Bill Clinton and other prominent Power Guys), yet Trump, specifically, can now be removed or made to go to war because that benefits certain of the political elite, the Deep State, and “National Security” interests.
Trump sucks, without a doubt.
Yet do not those who benefit, presumably, from the anticipated ouster or new war, suck equally badly, or even worse?
I found it interesting that Marjorie Cohn did not know about the DNC Super Delegate’s ability to intervene on the second ballot, and that she had no clue, at all, that the Duper Supes were even still around.
I really have to wonder who still imagines that candidates who are truly “progressive”, whatever that actually means, or does not mean, can be elected and, if elected can actually change the foreign policy of forever war?
This goes to my concern that voting is truly a sacred rite. Merely an empty ritual designed to confer legitimacy on either of the sacred duopoly political parties, which are simply the two right wings of the money, property, and war party, whilst convincing the many that by choosing a candidate selected for them by a private club, not a public entity, somehow proves that those many have exercised their franchise in “democracy” for the betterment and benifit of all.
That really is quite a stretch. It would even be funny were it not so patently destructive of actual democratic participation.
Just out of curiosity, would an aspect of actual “progressive-ness” entail a clearly stated opposition TO perpetual war, TO avoiding war, and TO reducing the military budget, closing the foreign military bases, removing U$ troops from, what is it 130, 170, other nations, many of those troops being in multiple places without the U$ public even realizing that they ARE there?
Of the gaggle of “progressives” honking their shallow, superficial wares, waddling noisily along intent upon gobbling up the presidential prize, how many even talk, even a little about the war machine?
I do not mean crowing that the machine can be made “green”, but that it be turned off, dismantled, and, or, put to other uses like, oh, dealing with environmental calamity BEFORE it reaches the calamitous state
Kamala Harris would be happy to prosecute the war(s), continuing her long “service” to injustice and criminal oligarchy. Yet, she would be a fine replacement for Obama, she is photogenic, glib, duplicitous, and smug, just the sort to put the liberal middle class back to comfortable complicit sleep.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren DO discombobulate the oligarchy, the media, and think-tank thugs, but pose little threat to the killing machine which neither acknowledge in terms of the opportunity costs its budget precludes.
How “progressive” is that, really?
A really decent, wise, and courageous human being.
His points about nuclear insanity are spot on.
His suggestion that a lottery, with a nationalized Fed, could turn 100 million folks into “millionaires”, does make me wonder about two things.
Would the others who were not lotterized to wealth not feel left out?
Would the “winners” suddenly become instantly oligarchical and assume that their “merit” had plucked them from obscurity and lifted them to the ranks of “job creators”?
Which leads to this question, would not a more humane, sustainable, and just society not be more likely if everyone were to benefit, even those who our empire has harmed, you know, beginning with the folks whose land we stole at the outset, those we enslaved, and those whose nations we invaded and took over?
Starting with Hawaii.
Which brings me to Tulsi Gabbard.
Whose words about war I much appreciate, yet whose allegiance to certain U$ mindsets, regarding Israel quite specifically, but other “friends and foes” as well, she has not mentioned, has not discussed, except in venues, and before certain audiences that cannot but recall, once again, just what being “progressive” actually means TO Tulsi Gabbard?
The other Dem contenders are essentially forgettable.
Nil seems, “pessimistic” about whether the people of the U$, and “the West, generally, “get it”.
I think his pessimism well-founded, especially as he admits to having been manipulated by the legacy media to “believe” absolute nonsense about Assange, until he began to do his own research,
Consider, the legacy media ??’s the legacy political parties, at least in the U$, and that the media might even be more prejudiced, in other lands, toward specific legacy parties and polices, just as they are here, and toward specific narratives, such as those promulgated around Assange and Russiagate.
What if “democracy” depends upon folks, living in “the West”, who have been intimidated by the media spouting official propaganda, by a intentionally deficient educational system, and a brutal economic embrace of neoliberal austerity, to the point that “learned helplessness” prevails?
You may recall that the psychologists, Mitchell and Jesson, called the torture program they deviously devised, “Learnef Helplessness”.
Mayhap the program has wider applications?
That is depressing to consider. Isn’t it? It might even cause one to become a wee bit pessimistic.
Arron Mate well lays out the Mueller farce, as have numerous articles and even more numerous commenters, here, at Consortium News.
A lot to think about.
A lot to talk about
There might even be a term, or two, that we really should consider could stand at least a general definition.
Again, a wonderful premier.
A fabulous site.
And the most erudite, well-informed, tolerant, and understanding group of commenters to be found anywhere on this much-abused and far too little appreciated planet, our only home in the immensity of universe.
So far, we have all been, relatively, lucky.
Were I to hazard a guess, I think we face some very hard times ahead, that require of us thought, empathy, compassion, and right action.
The definition of all those things I leave to you.
We are dealing with systemic corruption, orchestrated deceit, vile manipulation, and vicious depravity.
Again, define or deny these things as you will.
We really need to share our thoughts about whether we dare confront the realities of this time, different from any time, in the “nature” of those realities, than ever humanity has faced before.
We are at the existential crux point.
Is it time for meaningful change?
What do you think?
Please make your comments more compact: grandstanding with endless whitespace is inconvenient for others.
I am still getting through the video, but I too was astounded that Marjorie Cohn didn’t understand the role of the superdelegates on the 2nd ballot, and that the DNC purposely flooded to field to ensure that occurrence. Then she seems to fall into TDS by telling us how important it is for us to support corporate sponsored warmonger from column B (if that is the outcome) just to “get rid of Trump”. How many times do we have to get bamboozled before we say NO MORE! Cohn displays the mindset of your typical latte-sipper and is willing to sacrifice even more lives of those “others” that happen to be in the way of our deep state’s ambitions, as long as we get our non-gender specific restrooms here at home. I am disgusted, and I urge anyone with a conscience to vote 3rd party before settling for a “lesser evil”.
Skip, I am with you and second that!
Hello Skip – I am totally with you in regards to Cohn. Her site is slathered with her TDS. She seems completely antagonistic, and I have read enough of her writing to just move past her portion of the program. One would hope her students take it all with a grain of salt and do their own thinking. Cheers.
Hello Skip – I am totally with you in regards to Cohn. Her site is slathered with her TDS. She seems completely antagonistic, and I have read enough of her writing to now just move past her portion of the program. One would hope her students take it all with a grain of salt and do their own thinking. Cheers.
Frankly, Skip Scott, Cohn does not impress. She seems somewhat less than adequately informed and appears to have a somewhat shallow familiarity with a number of important, even critical, issues, and their underlying causes, as well as a far too ready willingness to embrace media perspectives which are totally devoid of factual underpinnings.
Disregard the abused term ”progressive.”
”of, by, and for the people” (all the people) = a humanitarian.
However, we are past the point of no return.
Now, the only strategy left is adaptation
to the coming collapse of the eco-system & civilization.
Aaron Maté has done an outstanding service standing up to Mueller
and the Russiagaters.
DW Bartoo, second time you have singled out Tulsi Gabbard for criticism. Why?
Herman, I am asking questions about Tulsi Gabbard simply because we really are permitted little substantive information about any candidate,
Gabbard has said things about ending perpetual war but has, as yet not made clear her attitude regarding Israel and U$ support of Israel.
I have pointed out that during a 2015 video of Gabbard, speaking to a Christian Zionist group she projects the standard, bipartisan, line about Israel and, as well the standard, bipartisan, line about Iran.
As I have said, it is possible that her perspectives have changed and evolved over the past four years.
However, recalling that Barack Obama said some things that encouraged many to paint a rather positive (even “progressive) picture of him in their own minds which, no doubt, was the intention behind those hopeful words of change, the reality of Obama’s actions turned out rather differently.
Another concern is that Gabbard frequently aludes to the historic promises and values of this nation’s founders and to a past when these ideals and values existed, suggesting that these things can be rekindled. A more honest reading of actual history suggests that there never was such a golden (or great) time. Now, were Tulsi Gabbard to say that we could, finally, make the effort to bring about actual change, describing what that change would look (and feel) like for the many now greviously harmed by the expense of the wars she experienced, by the neoliberal policies that have turned the many into the precariate, and by the creation of a two-tiered legal system where the rich and well-connected are, at worst, subject to tort law and fined, while the many are subject to criminal law and jailed, and by a healthcare system that covers all members of Congress, even to the extent of a clinic, fully staffed and always open to those members at NO charge just as other medical care is provided them free of charge, while the many find the cost of such care expensive, even prohibitively so, or even beyond attainment, at all, then I would consider that we had a far better sense of Tulsi Gabbard, especially were she to make clear what her actual policies about these and other things would be.
Lest you think I unfairly single out Gabbard, rest assured that I consider we ought demand the same of ALL candidates for the presidency (and all other elective offices as well). Considering the interminable length of the ejection season it is remarkable, if obviously by design, that we learn so very little about candidates, beyond the scripted puff-ball questions of a media which cannot imagine why there might be a crying need for more than “two” sides, two legacy parties, whose difference on overarching policy, foreign and domestic is so slight as to be nonexistent.
We are given pre-packaged, spin-driven cardboard cut-outs, little more than a high school level popularity/personality drama, devoid of substance, completely appearance driven, shallow and fluffy “debates” orchestrated for sound-bite mentalities capable of little more than cheering, very like spectators at second-rate sports events where the umpires are absent and all that matters is winning, when winning merely means controlling the spoils and dies not require any further responsibility to the crowd than exhorting them to return for the next spectacular “event”, which not only will be more costly, but more ludicrously ridiculous, guaranteeing a pyramid of elephants balancing on a single tea cup and donkeys doing high-wire acts, at least a half inch off the ground, while playing nose kazoos and waving patriotic flags from their up-raised tails.
I know, desiring substance and not mere empty posturing, is hardy in keeping with long tradition, but as Gabbard is the only Dem candidate to even address foreign policy, I do wish that she might speak to economic warfare as critically as she appears to view military warfare (maybe), explaining why she voted for increased sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, some eleven months ago.
She talks about being “ready” to be Commander in Chief”, which is far more than just playing military checkers, it is about the far larger and more complex set of interactions more akin to the Asian board game, Go.
What kind of moves, on many spaces, does she contemplate,
What about all the U$ military bases? The U$ military bootprint?
And so on.
ALL the candidates should, but will not, be asked the hard questions.
I await a candidate that takes it upon them self to actively address a multitude of sins, of crises, of dire concerns. Or, at least to acknowledge that many of all of those exist.
I have no specific issue with Gabbard, I merely expect far more substance from her than from any of the rest.
Do I expect her to win?
Do I think that she might dare raise the bar of competence and actively address a goodly number of serious things?
It would be a good thing.
It might lay the foundation for far better results next time.
That said, I do not imagine that we are going to vote our way out of our dangerous, if not deadly, time.
Neither will we simply talk or ignore our way out.
However, serious questions do matter and just might become part of possible, collective, action, of informed awareness and, thus, construct a sane and rational way toward human survival.
Tulsi Habbard is the only candidate (unless Mike Gravel is permitted in the dedate, as my youngest daughter tells me that he has received sufficient individual donations) thus far to even begin to address U$ imperialism which really is the driving force behind the two existential issues humanity now faces, however much many may wish to deny that reality.
Therefore, let Tulsi Gabbard make the most of this moment.
Sanders had a moment when he very well could have changed the whole of electoral dynamics, in 2016. I am NOT saying he could have won, had he walked away from the Dems, but he very well could have brought the Dems to the point of Whigging out, as well as making totally clear the need of more non-legacy political parties.
Gabbard may, possibly, be presented an equally charged opportunity.
She may well have the courage and presence of mind to, calmly and deftly, shift the course of events, to open new and necessary streams of possibility.
I see no other candidate who might do that.
Trump has made U$ imperialism not only clearly visible, he has ripped off the smiley face and revealed the perpetually grinning death skull in the tuxedo.
Gabbard could serve the beginnings of something far different, not for her own aggrandizement, but of dismantling the imperial killing machine.
Good comments DW. We can only hope that Tulsi is the “real deal”, but I have my questions about her as well. Once you begin to accept any of the propaganda narrative (as we have seen from Tulsi in the past) it is a slippery slope to becoming fully co-opted. I am hopeful that she is merely young, and still learning from her mistakes. That said, she and Mike Gravel are voices much needed, and we can only hope they have an opportunity during the debates to inject a bit of truth about the many evils of empire.
Apologies for having the live webcast only on YouTube and not here on the site. The YouTube link we had was changed before the webcast began and a new one was generated. Please watch the replay, which is working on the site above. It was our first webcast and we are working out the technical kinks. Thanks for your interest and please join us next Friday at 2 pm for the second episode of CN Live!
I’m sorry, there is no link or site where you mentioned; at the end of this piece is a white space. That is all.
Not meaning to keep harping on this: I just now tried Y.T. and it just has the still from earlier in the day that was on CN. I cannot seem to see this episode and I am not on Face…I guess I will check out Periscope.
Will that be Friday at 2 pm EST or PST??
I would like to suggest that you do a live stream with a Super Chat so people can send $$ to CN and ask questions of the guests etc.
Happy to see this new feature of CN! Excellent information and guests.
I would really like to know what George was saying about Jeremy Hunt blurting out something regarding Julian Assange please.
It makes one wonder when it’s advertised to start at 2:00pm and fifty minutes into it still no programming. Is everything okay?
What happened? No broadcast. I think it is a wonderful idea but I don’t have time for an extra broadcast lasting two hours each week. I had thought perhaps I could listen for one hour and come back later for another hour. However I hope you figure out what is wrong.
Has this event been cancelled?
What happened to the broadcast?
Working on YouTube if not here.
This page makes no mention of it on Y.T.
Just an FYI to CN–Not only did the links above NOT work, but we couldn’t never get it on You Tube either. We finally got in about 25 minutes late when we tried Facebook and succeeded there. Hopefully, some better technical coordination will come with future sessions. Content and guests were good–once we gave up on YouTube.
I will be glad to see Sen. Gravel here at CN. Those who wish to see real progressives at the debates should donate $1 to Sen. Mike Gravel to that he will have enough signatures to debate. Here is the link: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/gravel65000
This is a fantastic group of people! Thank you for bringing them together.
Would it ever be possible in the future to talk with non famous people? Their insight is seldom expressed in public forums. It would be a form of democratizing the media. And by talking with non famous people I don’t mean just people who agree with many of the ideas on CN..
For example, my hometown librarian immediately instituted Newsguard on our entire library system. She is an enthusiastic supporter of it and sees Newsguard as an important safeguard against patrons seeing “false” information. I would like to hear an interview with her and someone who is an expert on the actual mission and origin of newsguard.
It’s important to understand those with whom we disagree. It would be interesting to hear her response to accurate information presented by an expert on Newsguard. We need to talk with others. She may not be famous but she has an effect on over 300,000 people with that decision. It should be a non acrimonious, honest discussion on the part of the interviewer.
Further, it would be interesting to see how non-famous people understand what is happening in our nation. This voice is nearly completely silenced.
Another thing I hope can be done in the future is some really hard hitting interviews with famous people. Christine Amanpour made a video about the need for press freedom and protecting journalists. This was at the British Media conference which took place about 7 miles from Belmarsh prison. I found this conference surrealistic and I wrote her to say that’s how I felt about her video but could she help me understand her position on Assange. Maybe I was missing something? Of course, she will never reply to me, but she might be willing to do an interview w/CN. I would love to see a well informed interviewer talk with her and ask her about that video and that conference.
If we only keep hearing from well established people, we are going to get excellent information, but we are going to miss out on the thoughts of the great majority of our own nation. As a leftist, I value those voices and would like to have them receive national exposure.
Thanks again for the great panel on today’s program!
Personally, I’d like to hear her defend newsguard as something good instead of what it really is: a tool to keep the narrative of the West as unchallenged as possible. When you consider that the NYT gets great marks on newsguard even though they have lied and misled their readers consistently (see Judith Miller and their entire coverage of Russiagate as an example) and yet Wikileaks which has never published anything inaccurate but still get lousy marks on “newsguard”.
Jill and Jeff Harrison I agree with your comment about Christine Amanpour being more forthcoming regarding press freedom under our present circumstances.
Tell your friend she’s blithely being led down the garden path by those that own and operate Newsguard. Also ask her if she’s ever heard of a guy by the name of Orwell.
You have some amazing guests on tonight I will do my best to amplify as always thanks <3