‘The Real News’ vs. The Real Truth

From Omission to Non-Denial Denials

On November 5 I published a piece on David Swanson’s well-made case in an interview on voting independent, with a few deservedly strong words on ‘The Real News’ sharing common characteristics with way-too-many pseudo or semi-alternative news outlets backed by the same-alphabet-soup of foundation backers and tainted by the same-divisive & destructive-partisanship. You can watch the interview clip in question and read my commentary here.

This morning I received a rant-full and long-winded e-mail from Mr. Paul Jay- the founder and host of this not very real ‘Real News’ network- filled with lawsuit threats against me, poorly-argued points, omitted facts, non-denial denials, and a few plain old lies. Per his request and happily I just posted his e-mail response in the comment section of my commentary post here. Okay, now I want to further highlight and elaborate on my factual statements and assessment of Mr. Jay and his enterprise ironically (and uncreatively) called ‘The Real News.’ In order to do this I am going to take one point at a time, put each in context, provide real examples and parallels, and let you assess each one’s validity.

One of the major points I made in that commentary had to do with the classic case of so-called independent alternative news outlets being funded by the same small group of agenda-driven corporate foundations either to the Right or the Left of the illusionary political spectrum. This fact, call it a phenomena, I’d call it a disease, applies equally to many Non-Profits (sold and marketed as grassroots activism non-profit non-governmental organizations.).   Last year I wrote a comprehensive series on this topic: Corporate-Foundation Sugar Daddies & Their Lap Top NGOs. I know my pieces are long, but they are filled with facts, statistics and citations, and considering the applicability to this post I urge you to go and read them- at least glance over the facts and analyses: Click here.

In my criticism of the not-so-real ‘The Real News’ I emphasized the significance of the partisan corporate-foundation backing of news outlets- whether by those on the wrongly-named ‘Right’, or, completely-misguided ‘Left.’ I always ask my readers to ask and answer the following question: Why do corporate foundations such as Rockefeller-Ford-Soros-Carnegie-Packard … (you name it) dish out millions of dollars in funds to particular organizations (news or NGO)? How could there be no string(s) and expectations (and influence) attached? How could the recipients ever go against the hands that feed them? Well, all these points and questions apply to ‘The Real News’ and its founder Paul Jay. Here is how:

In his threat and rant-filled e-mail Mr. Jay did not go as far as denying his mega-dollars funds coming from mega corporate foundations and mega corporate families and individuals. In fact, he openly admitted to a few (only a few; we are yet to be provided with others-the complete list)-[All Emphasis Mine]:

“…we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. … The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our website… TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.

Interestingly, nearly one million dollars of Mr. Jay’s ‘Real News’ funding comes from some of the same foundations we covered and talked about in our series last year. Now, Mr. Jay is careful not to mention the names of his ‘small family foundations’ or ‘large donors.’ You see, when we covered DC lapdog NGOs funding sugar-daddies (and Mommies) we talked about several Rockefeller and Rockefeller-like owned and operated ‘small-er family foundations’. How many of such ‘small family’ foundations fund this ‘Real News’? … well, we don’t know. How many of these very wealthy individual donors are active mega-corporate heads and or in charge of Democratic Party HQ operations? … hmmmm, we don’t know that either. In fact, here is a glaring fact:

If you visit ‘The Real News’ website, click  their ‘About Us’ section, and then click the ‘Financial Information’ button, aha, then you see … NOTHING. Comb their entire sanitized website and you won’t find a single piece of information on corporate foundation backers such as Ford, MacArthur or Knight. You will find zilch on Mr. Jay’s tiny-meeny-miny-moe family foundations that may (highly possible) include Rockefeller, Carnegie, Soros or the like.

When you are clean, and when you are not hiding anything, you don’t ‘omit’ information like that. I am proud to say, and as clearly indicated on our website,  we have received ‘Zero’ dollars from any foundations whatsoever - whether mega-corporate foundations such as Ford or tiny-meeny-miny-moe family foundations such as Rockefellers. We have never accepted any donation above $500 by any individual ‘wealthy’ donor. As for Mr. Jay, if he sees nothing wrong in accepting mega bucks from mega foundations, as indicated in his e-mail, then why is he hiding these facts and donors and sanitizing his website from any of their traces? Contradiction, ey? Filled with omissions, and non-denial denials, ey?

Next, Mr. Jay says he’s been covering all sides, independently, and with no partisan flavor. I spent a couple of hours and checked his website. I don’t have lots of time to spend in such tainted sites, and I would like for our readers to double-check this:

I don’t see any libertarian-leaning guests or analysts in Mr. Jay’s so-called ‘Real’ news site. I don’t see any analysts or reporters or distinguished guests with conservative views either. News is supposed to be news. Paul Jay seems to be regularly wiping out over 60% of our nation’s view points, beliefs, stand, arguments … Hmmmm, what’s the difference between FOX & Paul Jay’s ‘Real News’? What’s the difference between Paul Jay or Daily Kos operators? I don’t see any. I don’t see the ‘real’ in ‘The Real News.’ There ain’t nothing real with highly-partisan, one-sided, and completely tainted sites like this.

Let me give you an example: This morning I posted a podcast episode by Eric Draitser on Sandy-Obama-National Healthcare. I may disagree with 50% of the viewpoints in this particular episode, but we present all sides at Boiling Frogs Post. That’s one key of the ingredients of a ‘real news’ site. We have libertarians, we have conservatives, we have ultra-liberals, and we have no-body-in-particular - like me.

Mr. Jay also engages in what I have to call plain lying. He claims his network had invited me for interviews several times but that I had always refused. This is completely, utterly, 100% false; this constitutes a major lie. Until 2011 I kept Mr. Jay’s e-mail and his website e-mail on my list for press-release/news/activism and whistleblower related developments. Every single attempt to get their coverage of very significant issues under the Obama administration has been rebuffed by the site. Let me give you a few examples:

Obama receives ‘Transparency Award’ given to him by a handful of partisan NGOs supported by the same foundations who support Mr. Jay’s ‘Real News,’ despite being the worst president in history when it comes to whistleblowers and secrecy. Please watch the following clips on our attempts to bring this to light:

Now, please go find ‘The Real News’ coverage of this significant news and the even more significant consequences and implications that come with it. Well, this was NOT due to Mr. Jay personally not knowing or not being asked to provide ‘real’ coverage. I guess it was due to having a ‘wrong party president’ to criticize. I am certain that if it was George Bush who received this award we’d have had a real ‘Real News.’

Other examples include the shunning of Bradley Manning by Corporate-Foundation Lapdog organizations such as POGO. Ooops, Ford, MacArthur, Knight, happen to sponsor and fund both ‘Real News’ and ‘Lapdog Organizations.’ Never mind. Let’s see, Obama’s Justice Department classifying my entire book manuscript. Oooops, this news would have contradicted Mr. Jay’s fund-ers’ award to that same president. Never mind. I could come up with several other significant examples, but rest-assured Mr. Jay’s Real News was not going to allow the airing of that kinda real news.

I say it again: No. despite many past attempts we received never an invitation from The Real News to help air the truth. Never.

Mr. Jay claims that he only plays the devil’s advocate with his guests such as David Swanson who advocate for real change. I want you to watch this clip from his interview and tell me how you view it? Let me give you one glaring example- This ugly disgrace to the news broadcasting profession reduces Obama’s wars to ‘Afghanistan’, and willfully omits his many other ongoing wars: Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Daily Droning of Pakistan, Syria, and his prelude to war on Iran (sanctions, false-flag setting, and more in place already): Watch here.

I hate to keep going on and on, making this post longer and longer, so I will combine a few other points in response to Mr. Jay’s e-mail attack:

I stand by my words: I consider The Real News utterly and willingly blind and partisan. They are one-sided. They are funded and supported by agenda-driven mega-corporate foundations, and un-named (secret) dynasty-wealthy partisan family foundations. Many ‘Real’ news and issues related to the Obama administration have been regularly censored by this website, including: Obama’s mock award, DOD burning of whistleblower books, DOJ censoring and blacking out whistleblower’s book, Obama’s not-so-secret perpetual and many-fronted wars (no Paul, it ain’t only Afghanistan) … 

And finally, I have my personal definition of ‘Ugliness.’ It’s quite unique-it is my personal view/outlook. It is neither all physical nor all spiritual. I never intend to insult but state my view- as I see it. With that said I truly consider you and your likes ‘Ugly People;’ utterly ugly-inside and out. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; may your beauty shine in the eyes of your masters-funders, Mr. Paul Jay.

# # # #

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVD .

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. Does Mr. Jay actually think he can intimidate Sibel Edmonds?

  2. arealjeffersonian says:

    I have never seen an episode of The Real News, other than the Swanson interview posted on BFP, so I can’t speak from direct knowledge of the site content. But, regardless of that, the issue that Sibel continues to press, that of corporate/foundation sponsorship, is what troubles me most. As she says, how is it possible for ANY news site/venue to accept large donor “contributions” and remain free to run an unbiased site? I don’t think it is possible, so whatever Mr. Jay may say to the contrary, I just can’t see it.

  3. Sibel – now you are really back! Always with facts, articulate, and sharp as a razor. You made my day.

  4. They must have a pretty nice/improved website, for $250k.

    I know Sibel’s stance might sound rigid to some, but it really is time that we stopped compromising our values and ethics. It’s a REAL problem that so many journalists and news and information outlets have their hands tied or stuck in someone else’s pockets.

  5. @ Dennis: Thank you; I’m almost back, and also very thankful for your kind e-mails and notes on our major move & more.

    @Xicha: Every time I think I’ve learned way too much from experiences to be utterly shocked, crushed and disappointed, I’m proven wrong. During this ‘election games,’ a few more shocks were added to my repertoire. i WAS EVEN Shunned by great whistleblowers and activists who decided to go with the ‘system’= pick one evil over another, actually join the ‘marketing & PR’ campaigns on Evil A vs. Evil B, and during that process royally bash me, our site, and the stand on ‘true change’ and independence. Live & learn: oh boy, I’m kinda living, but certainly learning.

    @ Hal: You know how to make me smile:-)Legal and jail threats a la AG Ashcroft, AG Holder, FBI’s Mueller, Marc Grossman …didn’t stop me-I’m certainly not going to quash the truth in face of some little parasitic phoney on the laps of mega corporate-foundations…

  6. I agree to 100% to what Sibel said.
    There is wayyyy too many ‘almost alternative’ media.
    In my mind came the No Agenda Show for example.
    70% of pseudo hard hitting truth, but not a word about issue like AIPAC, or the USS liberty attack. Not a word at all. IT’s always the bad evil socialist/commie US gov/church/catholic/left-wing/muslims. I really dislike this kind of ‘news’. Don’t act like you are kind of ‘alternative’ if you omit major events. Who never heard about the Nazi menace from Alex jones or the Muslim brotherhood taking over america ( an idea adam curry from NA show support with both hands).
    Sincerely, this is why I’m supporting BFP. It’s informed, non cooky, and there is a REAL effort to inform the people with all the facts available.

    I’m french and in my country there is too many ‘pseudo lefty-alternative media’, who absolutely do nothing but asking for intervention in Syria, to send to jail more ”’anti-semite”’ artist/thinkers/writer/historian(read anti israel)’ and of course to elect the ‘leftist of the day’ (Like if we had any true ‘socialist’ left here ).

    I’m really upset about this kind of show who format the message.
    Being ‘almost’ honest is a total treason.

  7. I think it’s unrealistic to expect that in the game these big think tanks are not going to throw their money around and make it speak for their directors… Isn’t that the game… Money is speech?

    Wearing a mask of liberalism is surely what they would do to blunt and undermine the left media outlets… They of course need funding to exist and so they either get in bed with the devils or bite the hand that feeds them.

    I’ve seen Amy Goodman accused of being a shill for the corporate agenda because of her funding… especially by the 9/11 truth movement. I’ve also read some say that they believe she is trapped and can’t do what needs to be done because of tangible threats. Hard to know. Lot’s of her work is nothing short of stellar. And despite what 9-11 truthers may believe… the lies of government re 9-11 may not be concealing the inside job they believe it was. This is not to diminish or excuse any of this. But taking the truther evidence and jumping on the inside job band wagon which is completely unproven speculation (despite what truthers think) is not a position that any careful journalist would take. I believe she would support a new investigation and does not accept the official story.

    The NYTimes is so transparent as to who the represent it’s a wonder that anyone bothers to read that rag. Ask Chris Hedges… He was, like Sibel, once inside the belly of the beast.

    Welcome back Sibel. You were missed!

  8. “I think it’s unrealistic to expect that in the game these big think tanks are not going to throw their money around and make it speak for their directors… Isn’t that the game… Money is speech?”

    Well-said. I the past 111 years I’ve seen way too many examples of this-way too many. Utterly disgusted.

  9. Hi Sibel,

    I’m assuming that one of the other whistleblowers that shunned you would be a certain Daniel E.? Maybe I shouldn’t be throwing names out there but I really am curious.

  10. I will have more to add later but briefly I’d like to say I find it ironic that Sibel posts a video of a story TRNN supposedly intentionally ignored featuring FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley.

    I challenge all of you who aren’t familiar with TRNN to check out this 3 part series: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=4363

    It’s called “9/11 Redux” – Paul sits down for over 35 minutes with…………… Coleen Rowley! Together they talk 9-11 and [pomt pit all the problems with the official narrative.

    Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Sibel’s word for it. Watch this three part piece featuring the very whistleblower Sibel has featured and ask yourselves if this is the work of an establishment toadie.

    After that, on the site search for “whistleblower”, “bradley manning”, “libya”, “syria” – TRNN has been ALL OVER all of these stories – Michael Ratner has been on like 50 times! Sibel says TRNN has ignored Obama’s “many other ongoing wars: Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Daily Droning of Pakistan, Syria, and his prelude to war on Iran” – she couldn’t be more wrong…… check the site, TRNN has been on top of EVERY ONE of those wars… and ones Sibel didn’t even mention – US interventions in Congo and Rwanda.

    Sibel says she only spent a couple of hours checking TRNN today for what I’m assuming is the first time. This makes sense – because there is no way she would reach her conclusions if she was familiar with TRNN. She says she doesn’t see any libertarian guests, how about Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch who has been on SEVENTEEN times?

    To say TRNN is pro-Obama is simply crazy… I can’t remember an Obama SUPPORTER coming on. From David Swanson, to Glen Ford, to Bill Black hammering him on the economy I don’t see a shred of difference with how Obama is portrayed on TRNN as he is here on BFP.

    I feel really bad about this dispute as I am a big fan of both BFP and TRNN. They are very similar. They both speak truth and challenge the establishment. They should be allies.

  11. Thank you very much for posting theisarticle. I have to confess that I used to be one of those small donors to TRNN, when they started, they had a more independent perspective to the news. They featured liberals, libertarians, independents and even some conservative. It was an ok site for a while up until they started relying too much on the Peri Institute guys.

    Anyway, I have since replaced TRNN with BFP. Btw, do you still post on DU? I say this because DU is how I discovered you but I no longer read it.

    Continue the good work

  12. I posted an email Ray McGovern wanted released on the other thread:

    As you can see, Ray also strongly disagrees with Sibel’s take on TRNN.

  13. @Jay: There was a chain of e-mail corresp. with Ray on this issue. I am waiting for Ray to post the rest;-) Also, I welcome disagreements, and have no problem with it. For example: In 2007-2008 Ray McGovern was Not happy when I exposed Rep. Waxman’s office on whistleblowers’ cases, including his majpr ‘compromise’ to save the ‘Democrats’ involved in some of these WB cases. He believed that the concentration of our rallies and focus should have been placed ‘solely’ on the ‘other’ side. We survived that disagreement. Same with my book: he obviously didn’t like the timing of my book release, thus withheld all support(s) until elections result. That was OK too. And finally, whether McGovern or Ellsberg, people have the right to choose the path they believe in, and if BFP’s stand on elections is contrary to their stand, then be it. I truly disagree with whistleblowers becoming pundits for establishment parties. But that’s me. Whether they like it or not: We will continue to voice that. Perioid.

    All above applies to this case. Mr. Jay (nor Ray) have been unable to produce the record on Obama’s transparency award, and how we were blocked from airing that via TRN. … and many other cases like that.

    As for Mr. Jay: He is still refusing to publish the list of his corporate-foundation and wealthy family foundation donors. So far we have: Ford, MacArthur, Knight, and ‘Un-Named’ very wealthy family foundations as 2/3 of his fund to operate his Not-So-Real Real News. Only 1/3 viewers’ support, 2/3 mega money corporate support, and that makes it who’s network? People/public? Or those very few who rules it?

    Again, I’ll let people decide the answer of that question.

  14. @Juleswin: First, thank you for all your support.

    See, I didn;t even know about Peri Institute. This is what happens when pseudo sites omitt their fund-ers:-)

    DU: I haven’t posted there since … I’d say 2009. I stopped reading their posts mainly due to shortage of time, and partly due to the change of tone post 2008 elections. I hope they still have solid activists-authors… to counter the blind partisans majority over there. We have way too many sites like that on both sides, and as a result we are where we are today: a very sorry state.

  15. I think demanding Paul release the names of all of his donors is asking too much. You don’t violate your supporters confidentiality by publicly releasing all of their names.

    You can judge TRNN by speculating on its donors… or you can judge it by the content it produces. I think if you spent more than a few hours on the site you would see that it produces great content in the very same vain as BFP.

  16. 2/3 of funding being anonymous for a news and info outlet does point to transparency problems. No law against it, but it raises a red flag for me.

    Jay and McGovern should buy a membership here. We could use the support and they would be able to add their own comments.

    Dnow had Sibel on multiple times, until the political timing/target was no longer suitable, according to their Funders. So, it’s not just who and what, but also when.

    This boils down to whether or not you think the funders are getting any return for their investments. They aren’t stupid or innocent. We should know this.

  17. I’m wrong. They should be able to send their comments through Sibel since they are mentioned in the article. But it is too bad they didn’t already have that ability.

  18. BTW, they don’t say sweet toot where I come from. It’s just not all that intimidating, Ray from the Bronx.

  19. People can have disagreements, that’s fine. I’m just a little disturbed at Ray’s accusation of Sibel “making things up”. I repect Ray and Sibel equally, but now, for me, somebody’s crediblity is at risk. I don’t like where this is headed. 🙁

  20. You know, I gave Mr. Don’t Make Me Angry I’m From The Bronx’s legal defense fund when he was arrested about a year ago. I should have saved my money to buy more copies of Classified Woman, which I wonder if he or Jay has even read. If Jay has read it, I wonder why no interview with Sibel on TRNN.

    As for credibility, I have absolutely no question about who is the wheat and who the chaff in this group. Which one has risked it all to name the REAL criminals for the REAL crimes, under oath? And which ones are keeping up appearances?

    This has me thinking; how many years did McGovern spend in the CIA, personally delivering intel to a POTUS? I have a feeling there’s a lot more whistle blowing that could be done on that front.

    No, I have no trouble having Sibel’s back, in her expression of uncompromising opinion about the non-transparent, controlled opposition called TRNN. I do have trouble with the tough I’m Irish guy sticking out his chest. Lay it out for us Ray. Give US some intel. But please don’t try to push around a lady just because has more balls and intelligence than you.

  21. Exactly why do funders need to hide behind anonymity? This is especially troubling when they essentially supply the majority of operating funds… one presumes that they are controlling message in some manner… for sure they would withdraw their support if they didn’t like the thrust of the content.

    We have a big problem here with free speech. You have none without money to mount a platform to launch it from. This is sadly what we now face.

    There are comments that many who are outside the mainstream are funded by deep pockets who have a political agenda, left, right or libertarian and their support will intimidate the reporters and trim the content to their liking. Does this mean the threat of withdrawing support, kicking the legs out from them… or are these more menacing threats such as what befell Karen Silkwood? There is constantly heard claims of termination with extreme prejudice. And if this is what these funders resort too it would have a chilling effect on free speech to say the least. Is this effectively gagging and preventing us from ever hearing the rest of the story?

    I don’t know the economics of having a basic web site and putting out the truth. On the other hand doing the boots on the ground reporting and getting the facts can be a costly endeavor… cut and paste is not. It appears to me that DemocracyNow! is an expensive operation and not a regurgitate and repeat organ. But it’s not clear how much it does cost and how who precisely is funding them and why this can’t be done without big fat donors who clearly dictate /control content.

    WBAI claims to support themselves with only small and non corporate donors. If this is true then it should be a model for non mainstream media.

    I am unfamiliar with TRNN and Mr. Jay, but I may not bother to familiarize myself with their work after this exposure. Talking heads do not impress me.

    Thank you again Sibel, for your integrity and ethics..

  22. Dear Ray McGovern:

    Since I haven’t been able to reach you, and by that I mean to really ‘reach you,’ I am writing to you here at Boiling Frogs Post-hoping to somehow ‘reach’ you ‘up there.’

    For the last 10 years (that makes it a decade, Ray), I have considered you a nice human being, almost a friend, and a sometimes a praise-worthy activist, which puts you above way too many who never even bother with being conscientious and ‘active.’

    For the last 10 years I have been consistent in supporting you, your efforts, and being there whenever you either asked or needed such support. I was there, furiously when you were brutalized by Mr. Obama’s Secretary of State. I am sure you remember that, Ray. I broke that news here at Boiling Frogs Post: Ray McGovern Brutalized & Left Bleeding by Hillary Clinton Police. I kept pounding when the majority in the mainstream and pseudo-alternatives kept silent: The Danger of Tranquilized Docile Youth.

    I gave you a platform here at Boiling Frogs Post whenever you asked me or you needed one-see examples here and here.

    For the last few years I have defended you when you were criticized for being partisan, when you were attacked on the personal front on your sanity due to the treatments you went through, and when you were marginalized by the press as a man with a ‘Messiah Complex.’ All that because I considered you a decent human being; someone with a good heart and well intentioned, and on top of that with intelligence and a great sense of humor.

    Now that I went on the record with that, and with all due respect, let me go on the record with other equally important facts of our decade-long relationship:

    I added you to my list of national security whistleblowers in 2004, after a lengthy hesitation and many internal debates-which I overrode due to my belief in you. Why the hesitation & all those internal debates? Here is why:

    Ray, you worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, for 30 years. Until the end. Until you ‘distinguishably’ retired. You never blew the whistle, Ray. in fact, you never dared raising public awareness of many criminal deeds and operations. And this, dear Ray, was not due to lack of a humongous list of criminal and immoral doings by the agency during this 30-years. You know the 30-years in question, don’t you, Ray? You know what you did, Ray? Here is what you did:

    You made a conscious decision, you made a conscious effort, to not raise any flags, to not make any waves, to not hurt your career, and to not offend and upset your bosses-the establishment.

    You could keep your high-moral values at bay not for one day, not for one year, but for 30 darn long years. That takes a strong will against moral values. That takes a strong stand against ‘right.’ You were very strong in that regard, Ray. A very strong ‘establishment man. ‘

    But hey, it is never too late to wake up, right? It is never too late to start on the right path and do the right thing. I am a strong-believer in that. I too have changed ways- in my belief from wrong to right.

    But, Ray, even after that 30 years of silence, complicity, you remained ‘approved.’ You kept drawing that nice CIA retirement salary every single month after the end of that 30-year ‘immoral’ period.

    Ray, that was the main reason for our hesitancy in including you in our NS whistleblower circle. I, the naïve me, considered that the ignorant past. Just like your president, I advocated for looking forward. I readily accepted you. Others went along. You were by that time a full-time activist. I, like many others, appreciated that. Past was just that: past.

    But then Ray, surprisingly, during this entire period of intense full-time activism, your former bosses never came after you. Your monthly salary from them continued- as if you were blessed and given an untouchable status.

    Then came some little bumps along the road in our friendship and activism: You clearly showed your displeasure and disapproval when we exposed Rep. Henry Waxman’s duplicity in whistleblower cases-in 2007. You believed that our focus should have been placed entirely on that ‘evil’ president Bush and his Republican entourage. You aligned yourself with a handful of mega foundation DC organizations and condemned our efforts. You ‘nicely’ asked me not to be so ‘hot-headed’ and maintain the focus on the evil Republicans-Bush.

    There were several other bumps. In each case: I happened to be on the side of ‘unreasonable hot-headed activists’ unwilling to compromise, and you were on the other side trying to ‘reform’ me-albeit in a fatherly way, and in an unsuccessful version of, a bad imitation of, Gandhi. Yet, I still stood by your side. I was there whenever you needed me.

    This last year, particularly, was a really bad one as far as the bumps go; wasn’t it, Ray? First, it was the timing of my book, which was not even timed, but driven by all my legal fights with Obama’s DOJ. You found the timing distasteful- why not after the elections?

    Then came my stand and our Boiling Frogs Post’s position on the elections which ticked you off royally. You stopped even acknowledging my e-mails. And finally, this latest case of confronting your dear friend Paul Jay and his not-so-real ‘Real News.’ Despite your intelligence, your full-knowledge of where we come from, you took that opportunity to bring a very ugly attack on and false accusations against me. You say I resemble Karl Rove?! You talk about smoking joints?! You lie about the dinner we had with Paul Jay, his assistant, and his girlfriend, at the Geranio restaurant, on King Street, in Alexandria? You don’t recall all the conversation regarding corporate foundations, and a handful of so-called whistleblower organizations in DC, and Paul Jay’s round of meetings with many of them that same day? You don’t remember his discussion of ‘coming presidential elections’ and his goal? Wow, Ray. I am going to dig up that e-mail invitation, and any other records I may have for that evening. After that, maybe you’ll confess to smoking ‘something’ or studying in the Karl Rove school of blatant lies. Deal?

    Ray, of the two of us, one has given up all for the truth, the other has been happy to be a CIA man committing evil for 30 years. Of the two of us, one has been 100% independent of any bribery or establishment influence, while the other has been happily getting paid every single month by the evil establishment. Of the two of us, one has been opposed-challenged-fought by the establishment, while the other has been untouched-protected and paid by the establishment.

    You know what, Ray: Let’s prove those who’ve been accusing you of old-age insanity wrong. I am going to let you tell me and the world which one of the above happens to be you-all his life.

  23. Sibel, in this incidence you have an issue with making attacks and not backing them up with evidence. If TRNN is a compromised outlet in the vain of MSNBC, then it should be obvious by the work they’ve produced. You should be able to point to hundreds of propaganda pieces like you can with MSNBC, but you don’t. You’ve already admitted you are not even familiar with the site’s work (you have no time for “tainted sites”) – yet you slam it regardless. The only you’ve pointed to is one story they DIDN’T cover (ironically featuring a whisteblower they had on for a 35 minute sit-down) – this is not evidence of a corrupted outlet.

    Now you say about Ray, “…the other has been happy to be a CIA man committing evil for 30 years.” – this is an awful, awful, charge, and deserves evidence. Ray has talked about how the CIA has different wings, (intelligence and operations) and for a time he was proud of the work he did in his – providing unvarnished and accurate intelligence to the President. The government has millions of workers, not every one of them is exposed to rampant criminality within the first few weeks like you were. What if you had been assigned to a different wing Sibel? What if you hadn’t seen anything for 4-5 years? Could it then be thrown back in your face that “you committed evil everyday for 5 years”? Without any evidence that you were complicit?

    Let’s not forget Sibel that in the days after 9-11, it was YOU who dutifully ran off to serve your government in the War on Terror despite the mountains of evidence that existed about the evils of US empire. But no one should hold that against you – we all take our unique paths before “seeing the light”, attacking people for the particular path they took, whether it was months translating (you), 24 years in the FBI (Coleen), 27 years in the CIA (Ray), or 30+ years in military/state (Wilkerson) only divides would-be allies and makes cooperation impossible.

    Charges without evidence is a dangerous thing. It’s the underpinning for every one of Obama’s civilians slaughtering drone strikes. I would think we would be united on that concept. Yet here we have Xicha – concluding TRNN is “controlled opposition” based on nothing but Sibel’s say so. Watch the network? Analyze the guests and coverage? No need, apparently. Xicha “trusts” Sibel so he/she doesn’t need any evidence, just like the tens of millions of Obama voters who “trust” him so they aren’t concerned with the details on drone strikes.

    Are you also just going to take Sibel’s word for it when she says Ray McGovern has been “untouched and protected” by the establishment? Or are you going to watch him get beat up by Hillary Clinton’s thugs on youtube? If that’s how the establishment treats their friends, I’d hate to see what they do to their enemies.

    I’d like to close by calling for cooler heads. Memories get foggy. Conflicting recollections over the exact details of a brief meeting years ago, whether it was lunch or dinner or to discuss fundraising or whatever, do not mean one person is a liar. I can’t count the number of times I could SWARE something happened a certain way, and then later evidence revealed I had remembered it wrong.

    Lets judge each other’s credibility on their work that is out there for all to see – Sibel’s amazing memoir speaking to rampant government criminality, Ray’s activism and courageous bouts with Rumsfeld, Hillary, and others, and Paul’s first rate news organization that truly lives up to the moniker “independent journalism” (watch his courageous reporter in Egypt dodging tear gas canisters in this piece* entitled “US Financed Military Crushes Sit-In” and tell me you are not inspired to donate a few bucks to TRNN)

    * http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8280

  24. TRNN is a place where intelligent folks, such as yourself, can go and feel like they have escaped the grasp of the establishment. You’ll hear and see much that the MSM doesn’t touch. But they still have you fenced in. No they don’t do it like the MSM, where it’s easy to pick out lies. They do it by omission. By timing.

    The one sure way to know about establishment influence of your news is funding. And if it weren’t for Sibel, you probably would never have known about establishment funding at TRNN. Because they hide it.

    Unlike you, I have seen the evidence that Sibel brought out.

    Vanity is a strange beast.

  25. If you’re going to criticize omissions, the least that is required is accuracy. Sibel accuses TRNN of “censoring Obama’s not-so-secret perpetual and many-fronted wars (no Paul, it ain’t only Afghanistan).”

    This is, quite frankly, a laughable statement that could only be made by someone with zero familiarity with the network. Xicha, that you are accepting such a patently wrong statement as ‘evidence’ – suggests you are not nearly the critical consumer of information you believe you are.

  26. Evidence of establishment funding, Jay22. It’s the funding that is important and that you keep sidestepping in your desperate attempts to save the image of TRNN. You are floundering.

    (BTW, The omission about Obama wars by Mr. Jay, to which Sibel was referring, was during the recent interview with Mr. Swanson about getting beyond the lesser evil voting mindset.)

    Also, Ray, what do they call it in Brooklyn, when you get whupped by a girl?

  27. Funding is definitely something one should be mindful of – but the evidence isn’t there to conclude the less than 10% total funding TRNN has gotten from major foundations since its inception has permanently and irrevocably compromised it. The fact MacCarthur and Ford haven’t given them a penny in nearly 8 years shouldn’t be considered? Sibel’s contention that money comes with strings/blacklists up front is simply wrong, the strings are only there if you want to stay on the dole.

    By your logic – we shouldn’t listen to a word Noam Chomsky has to say, since he spent a career cashing checks (and likely currently receives a pension) from the Pentagon funded Mass. Inst. of Technology. Should we not listen to Glenn Greenwald, because he gets a paycheck from The Guardian which has done endless amounts of war pimping?

    I challenge you Xicha – give TRNN a shot and report back your evidence of establishment/partisan/Obama agenda. I will be eager to hear your views. Lets hear about all the crucial omissions. Until you do, it is you who is floundering, because you are making your attacks from a position of ignorance.

  28. Of course, you fail to mention 2/3 of current funding. And it’s worse than others when they hide it and brag about transparency. I did see that much on TRNN.

  29. The challenge is open…. with such a corrupted organization, I am sure you will bring us back countless examples/omissions showing their establishment biases.

  30. I have searched and read through descriptions of many stories there, since I first asked you about his coverage of Syria. Just watched third full video in last 24 hours.

    Maybe you can help. I haven’t been able to find one instance where the US support of terrorists in Syria is mentioned. Absolutely none of what Sibel broke at BFP more than a year ago.

    He argues for US intervention – I suppose you can excuse that by saying he’s just playing “devil’s advocate”. Maybe you should take that more seriously.

    I find how Mr. Jay repeatedly mentions Syria being an organic, grass-roots uprising. That people have the right to revolt.

    He and his guests have mentioned that the US likes to affect the outcomes of Arab Spring revolutions. His criticism seems muted to me.

    There. Help me out or take my challenge to go jump in a lake, because I have already told you why I won’t trust TRNN. Because they have a majority of secret, establishment funding, and that they lie about it. It also appears that Mr. Jay is lying about interactions with Sibel. There is some “he said, she said” about their previous meetings and discussions. But if that is the case, Sibel has earned my trust and Mr. Jay has not. Sibel is not going to ruin her credibility by lying to attack Mr. Jay. Mr. Jay is already someone that brags about transparency, says, in effect “no establishment funding” by carefully choosing his words – then, when challenged by Sibel, admits to a majority of it. That’s enough for me. I don’t want to spend more time showing the effects of that. It might be tomorrow that he commits his worst omissions, you never know. I don’t trust him. Please accept my answer to your challenge or accept my challenge and come back and let me know if it was cold.

  31. I did find one video where he mentions outside militarization of the conflict, but he and the guest contextualize, and marginalize any reportage of this sort of activity. Basically calling it of unknown validity (a bunch of youtube clips from idealogues). He must not read BFP. Can you get where they are leading you in this interview? It is towards US intervention based on RTP and in no way conflicting with Obama policy. I do think their coverage would have been different if Bush or Romney were the president. You decide. I don’t trust it myself.


  32. Is this good enough? Here is the caption for the piece:

    “Sami Ramadani: The US and allied regional powers pushed early militarization of struggle as outside powers try to control outcome of Syrian revolution.”

    15 minutes of in depth discussion about outside militarization and the brutal regimes (like Saudi Arabia) doing it. If this coverage is trying to lead me towards supporting intervention it’s not doing a very good job.


    I really don’t see how ‘trust’ is relevant here – it’s good you don’t trust TRNN or any other media outlet – you should always be watching with a skeptical eye. But to dismiss it without watching is just foolish. You’re missing out.

  33. @ SanderO

    You said “But taking the truther evidence and jumping on the inside job band wagon which is completely unproven speculation (despite what truthers think) is not a position that any careful journalist would take.”

    Why is the burden of proof only applied to “truthers?” If truthers are engaging in “unproven speculation” what the hell are the rest of you doing? The US govt hasn’t proven their conspiracy theory. They told a story but haven’t provided credible evidence to validate it. They have jailed, villified, abused and probably killed people who have challenged their story. They confiscated and classified evidence that they refuse to let us see. They destroyed evidence on a massive scale. The leaders of their commission of inquiry have admitted it was a sham. We have incontrovertible evidence that WTC 1,2, and 7 were demolished by something other than a plane and fires. The Pentagon story is a farce. There are so many verifiable holes in their story that they will not allow it to be subject to trial and concomitant rules of discovery.

    Mark Lane and Jim Garrison were accused of unproven speculation in the 1960’s when they questioned the Warren Commission’s story on the JFK assassination. But we know now that they were right. We also know the govt lied on RFK, MLK, the USS Liberty, Oklahoma City, Waco and others. I assume you have read the Operation Northwoods document. There is a verifiable pattern of criminal behavior here. The US govt can no longer be trusted. It is irresponsible for so called journalists and news outlets to refuse to press the govt for answers on 9/11. That is cowardice, and it is why these crimes continue to happen.

  34. The one time the guest mentions US relation to all this, Jay jumps in to say “they seemed more ambivalent to all this”, like it was just the Turks, the Saudis, and Qatar who wanted to militarize the opposition. Then the guest explained more about possible US involvement and even arms smuggling – good – then Mr. Jay abruptly ends the program and says look out for the next part of the interview. I will look for it.

    Hey, it only took four videos about Syria to have a guest touch on it. I see Jay as playing dumb when he says there is no good info about Syria out there. He is omitting things that I have read here at BFP for the last year. He is leading you away from US involvement, when it is brought up. He’s good at what he does, no doubt. And I have no doubt, by now, that you trust him. I understand.

    You probably don’t watch FOX or CNN all day because you think it has nothing to do with trust. If you heard the story from Amber Lyon about Bahrain buying infomercials on CNN, you probably trusted them as a news source even less than before. Do you want to debate the meaning of the word “trust” when it pertains to where you choose to get your news and info?

    Do you not see even a possibility that there are pseudo-alternatives out there that purposefully let the intelligent public spin their wheels a little and feel like they aren’t being propagandized, all the while being led right along?

    Do you think the MSM is all the establishment invests in, when trying to control public opinion and support for wars?

    Is it that you think that’s possible, but just not TRNN?

    Are you related to the man? Are you he?

    Do you not see the need for truly transparent funding of news and info sources?

    Do you not see the need for news and info sources not funded by the establishment?

    Do you not see that BFP is a MAJOR step above the pseudo-alternatives?

    I think I have done enough to satisfy your curiosity. My answer is No, it is not good enough.

  35. This is the first time I’ve felt compelled to post a comment here, I am much more comfortable assisting Sibel quietly, but the level of accusatory comments has risen to such a level, and the importance of the issues at stake here are such that I feel I must enter the fray.

    First I will address the issue of the “meeting” that Sibel has described in some detail, but that Ray McGovern in the other thread says didn’t happen, that Sibel made it up, and that Paul Jay says only he, Ray & Sibel attended and that she made up what was said. As to the meeting itself, I dropped Sibel off at the Geranio restaurant in Alexandria, and of course Sibel had told me she was meeting with Ray and Paul Jay and perhaps others (she didn’t know in advance who else might be attending). So I can positively state that the meeting occurred, and if Ray says it didn’t, then he has either forgotten, in which case he should keep quiet, or he is lying, which would speak for itself. As to the content of the meeting, I wasn’t present so I can’t directly corroborate what was said, but after the meeting Sibel told me who was there and what was said, and it is basically what she has put in the posts and comments here. And I have to add that Sibel has a phenomenal memory for details – I stopped questioning her recall ability years ago.

    Next comes the real issue at stake here, what Sibel addressed in her first post, whether “The Real News” is what it says it is, or whether it is influenced by large donors – in fact the issue is broader, whether ANY news organization that is funded by large donors, whether corporate, foundation or “private”, can operate free of compromising influence. Jay22 says “I think asking Paul to release the names of all his donors is asking too much”. I would direct Jay22 to the requirement that Congress felt it necessary to impose on all federal elections – to identify all donors of $200 or more to candidates– so that we all know who may have influence over our elected officials, and how much influence – depending on the amount of their donation. Isn’t it equally or perhaps more important that we know who has influence, and how much influence, over those who provide us with critical information? This is what Sibel keeps trying to bring out, this is why the original post on “The Real News”, why her previous posts on corporate and foundation donors and recipients, and what drives her insistence that BFP be free of any of that influence.

    Then the issue of Ray McGovern’s and Daniel Ellsberg’s outspoken support of Obama’s reelection. I know both these gentlemen & have to say I was and am shocked. Dan was almost jailed by Nixon for the “Pentagon Papers” and became the father of all whistleblowers. Yet here he was, and Ray, right along with him – supporting the only president in history to actually prosecute & jail whistleblowers (Bradley Manning has now been imprisoned for over 2 years). Certainly everyone has the right to support whomever they wish, but legitimate civil liberties activists, whistleblowers, supporting Obama? –absurd. Support anyone else, or no one at all, but don’t legitimize Obama’s anti-civil liberties atrocities by supporting him.

    Matthew Edmonds

  36. Matt – I was also surprised at their Obama support. While I disagree strongly, I at least see their logic and think it’s something upon which good people can disagree.

    As for releasing the names of every donor over $200 – this too has its benefits, but would undoubtedly lead to fewer donations. I for one, would not want my name publicly attached to BFP or TRNN and other outlets that challenge/question power. Just look at how supporters of Wikileaks have been treated at the borders if you need reason to be paranoid. Again, this is something I think good people can disagree on.

    Xicha – no I am not related to the man, I am just a viewer. You raise very good issues and things to be mindful of, but none are a replacement for actually watching and analyzing with your own eyes. Apparently you have done so a little and reached a conclusion… that’s fine, we’ll just have to disagree. I think if you watched more, you’d see the idea of TRNN having a pro-Obama/pro-intervention bias is laughably wrong.

    CNN is a good example of my ‘trust is irrelevant’ concept – I don’t trust them at all, but it’s not the reason I don’t watch. I don’t watch because it’s jam packed with vapid/establishment reinforcing nonsense that I find a) uninformative, and b) completely uninteresting.

  37. I don’t mean to carry this discussion on forever, but I have to point to this new video on TRNN to further my argument that it’s a very valuable news outlet.

    It’s coverage of the trial in Turkey (in abstentia) of Israeli generals for the 2010 Gaza Flotilla Murders. The TRNN reporter doing the story was on the flotilla himself, dodging Israeli bullets. It’s giving voice to the families of the victims, and goes so far as liken trying Israeli generals in abstentia to trying Nazi officials in abstentia after WW2.

    I can’t imagine more anti-establishment coverage of this incident (which is generally ignored by most media outlets).


  38. I had been watching The Real News for the last year. I started to watch it to catch Chris Hedges episodes. I’ve noticed Paul Jaye has slowly eliminated him. With the so-called election happening I immediately noticed the complete lack of honesty. I looked everywhere for a list of the donors to The Real News and couldn’t find ANYTHING. ! I have since unsubscribed and found this article accurate. Today it is difficult at best to find a source for unbiased reporting. I am a complete supporter of NEWSBUD! Thank you to all who contribute to Boilingfrogspost and Corbett Report

    • assangel, welcome to BFP, and many thanks for sharing this update on RN. Their funding comes from all the well-known dirties we have named here; additionally, they are directly connected (take orders from) Democratic Party heads. As they did with Obama’s second term election, they will be ‘the party’ vehicle for this coming elections as well. Paul Jaye: I’d go as far as saying a savvy con artist.

Speak Your Mind