Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Grayzone" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9.  @HeyHEY-fg9rp  Access journalism is not correct, Democracy Now does a lot of interviews, but people want to sell their books and the (often very interesting and relevant) underdogs and outcasts are always glad to come on. They have no problem getting on GOOD and interesting guests, that are ignored by MSM. The likes of Noam Chomsky, Edward Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg will appear, and I am sure if they want to have Lawrence Wilkerson, John Pilger, or again Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Ben Norton, Max Blumenthal, ..... they can have them too. Or any unorthodox economist. Or activists that have an important cause, but no exposure in media. I also think that the members of the Squad might give them interviews (well maybe not if they slam them for being spineless, but they can do w/o them and only report ABOUT them). The have access to interesting guests / information (needed for a good program !) just fine. Access to the curated leaks and scoops is not necessary to make a program that attracts viewers (and paying supporters). They do not get the secret info from the insiders (and haven't gotten it in the past). But there are so many whistleblowers that are ignored, so much material in the public domain that is interesting that they have plenty to work with. If the government stenographers get a scoop - DN can report after the fact and provide the context that is left out. They usually do not have the typical beltway insider crowd on *, and they cover publicly available info, they do not get curated leaks from their buddies (like the NYT or CNN). * Grayzone in this video mentions one Republican that lauded Bush as compassionate Conservative and the GOP going off the deep end was all because of Trump. I saw that interview - no pushback at all rubbed me the wrong way, but it did not matter much in the large scheme of things. DN has reported on Bush, and they will not be shy to mention what he and Cheney stood for when it happens to be a good fit for context. Maybe it was a decision of time (and a snap decision of not being "impolite" and to concentrate on the main issue of the interview), the interview was not about Bush and they have to stay within a time frame. As an R operative that had just written a book, he would of course paint the party in a rosy picture. Also: it is not bad to have to other side on (if they would have something truthful to say, or a genuine opinion), it also might draw in right leaning audiences that would profit form hearing from the other side. Rising / The Hill did that very successfully. To be fair they had the left very well represented with Kristal Ball and the right wing / "conservative" host was also better than the usual lot. Still, they had a lot of shills and members of the consultant class on (Andrew Feldman comes to mind !), and right wingers spouting nonsense. Also the campaign manager of the Trump campaign in early 2020, that was a good interview. He obviously has his bias, but it was informative, relevant and truthful - as per the facts covered.. The right wing host Saagar Enjeti has a good chemistry with Krystall, he too spouted plenty of nonsense, but it was bearable (and the got partial pushback form her). He is an inconsistent right / conservative, anti-identity politics, economic populist, with fits of posing as libertarian. Except when it comes to marijuana ;) He is all over the place, but better than most of the lot. And there are folks that like him (and endure the left wing host). Never mind they hear about economic populism (also like by the conservative voters !) and M4A. Kristall pushed back - kind of. Not as hard as one would wish, or always - but they really attracted MIXED audiences. Both have left the Hill just recently (summer 2021) and now have their own channel. The Rising is not doing well, Ryan Grim can hold down the fort for the left side, but the right hosts (they try out several people) are pathetic.
    1