i'm actually going to vote for both. i'd be surprised if anybody needed to actually explain to her what is actually happening; it would be a first in so long as i've been watching or listening to the program , which is, off and on, about twenty years or so. she's the host, so it's her job to be quiet and let others speak. but, she will correct you if she knows you're wrong, and i've never heard her say anything that isn't correct. it would be hard to believe that she's just misinformed, seven or eight years into this.
but, there's not actually a meaningful contradiction in taking what these spooks she brings on her shows say seriously and actually knowing what is actually happening. that contradiction only arises when you synthesize, and start generalizing; so long as you avoid that step, you can hold these contradictions separate and believe both of them. orwell described the phenomenon as doublethink. and, the context is devastating, because amy goodman has most certainly gone through standard pc brainwashing; all that the intelligence networks need to do is send her a brown person and tell her they're from syria, and she'll instantly drop any kind of critical analysis, because that person needs to be able to tell their story.
and, so she can believe a fact-based narrative on the one hand, which is that syria was never a civil war at all, but always a proxy conflict. there is no substantive movement against assad inside syria, but only a rat's nest of foreign fighters carrying out foreign interests, for money or religious orthodoxy (which are equally corrupting influences). and, she can allow these cia tools to pretend they're telling a syrian narrative, too. as long as they don't directly interweave, it doesn't matter.
so, is she misinformed, then? she is in the sense that she allows herself to be, through the mental trojan horses that the state has installed inside of her, which then let them in to feed on her mind. and, if she's not careful, she could lose her mind altogether, in which case she would quickly end up more classically uninformed, on top of being misinformed.
how is she complicit then? because she does know the truth of it, even as she upholds the doublethink. it would be bad enough if it was just silence. but, she of course runs an influential broadcast.
these questions are important, because i don't actually think she's been bought. i think she's actually struggling with this.
the propaganda is powerful. it's designed by professionals to hook people. and, in the end, nobody is invincible.
not even the ineffable amy goodman.
we'll be back in a few minutes....