I will consider a journalist well and truly smeared as a propagandist if you have either of two things for me, at an acceptable level of credibility: (1) they took money to propagate source's story, or (2) they knowingly offered up provable lies as truths, not disclosing the proof of lie.

Anything less than that - anything like merely being "sympathetic" to one side, getting their story out in full, respectful of what the journalist *suspects* are lies, but not provable ones - is just mainstream media, when it comes to being "America-sympathetic".

What was the NYT in 2002, but Cheney-sympathetic? That was one scurrilous pack of lies, but the journalists who'd covered "Saddam is in his box" a year earlier, all ate it up and gave it very, umm, sympathetic treatment.

Pugliese is ONLY a controversy because of the side he's perceived as helping; an American document noting that early scoops about funding for Israel should be given to Postmedia, because they will "give Israel sympathetic coverage", would generate no comment at all, except maybe, "duh".

I only learned of Pugliese's career when he appeared on Canadaland the other day, debunking the "2% of GDP" mantra with knowledge and common sense. I might stop reading a piece of his if he got deep into the evil-Ukraine news...but otherwise, he's far from the most-suspect material, out of what I read every day.

Speaking of that Canadaland appearance, I think it was Pugliese, of the two guests, that called out TV panel shows with a couple of "military analysts", who do not disclose their relationship with "think tanks" that promote more military spending, work with military-contractor lobbyists, or membership on boards of military contractors.

A larger problem than David Pugliese, I suspect.