EPTNews media: discerning bias, propaganda, and lies - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Then, because you linked that video which couldn't be less proof of your argument even if you tried, google Abby Martin. Then ask yourself why a 9/11 truther, Occupist, anti-establishment dreamer has a show on RT in the first place. And then, most important of them all, ask yourself why she needs an auto-cue/teleprompter for that "spontaneous" outburst and wonder why the cameras are still rolling at that point. Lastly, you do know that RT released a statement a day later, including the announcement that she'll go to crimea to "educate herself on the subject", which she then denied. I mean.. It's funny that you quote RT UK in your last post, because the Ofcom (UK media watchdog) already sanctioned them. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/21/rt-sanctioned-over-series-of-misleading-articles-by-media-watchdog It's sad to see this thread that 100% has merit devolve into an argument as to why RT is generally better a news source than western media. In fact it's not sad, it's retarded. So when the whole of RT is dismissed as utter trash and propaganda, that doesn't sit well with me, especially if some of the people who appear on there are people who align with my views on some subject matters. That by itself should give you a queue, if people who are in line with your views tell you that it's trash. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On July 31 2017 01:43 Leporello wrote: You'd be much better off looking at BBC or Al-Jazeera, to get outside news. There are a lot of media-outlets that Americans can access to get outside news. For obscure, internal news on subjects like GMOs, again, there are a lot of media outlets around the world that actually have credibility/ But, yeah, watch RT and Sputnik instead! ::rolls my eyes so hard they hurt:: edit: You posted Abby Martin as an example of someone on RT speaking out against Russia -- Dude, she left RT almost immediately after that happened. Great example. :rolls eyes even harder:: Oh, I didn't know you spend some time inside her brain and found out why she left? Tell us more. How did you learn to read brains, I didn't know you could do that? Anyway, I believe there was almost a year between her on-air statement and her leaving RT, but I'm sure the two events were related. That can be the only reason, right? On July 31 2017 01:45 m4ini wrote: Then, because you linked that video which couldn't be less proof of your argument even if you tried, google Abby Martin. Then ask yourself why a 9/11 truther, Occupist, anti-establishment dreamer has a show on RT in the first place. And then, most important of them all, ask yourself why she needs an auto-cue/teleprompter for that "spontaneous" outburst and wonder why the cameras are still rolling at that point. Lastly, you do know that RT released a statement a day later, including the announcement that she'll go to crimea to "educate herself on the subject", which she then denied. Yes, and I've repeatedly stated that those are the kind of people they hire because it suits their agenda. Also, I believe she was offered to do that, but declined because she had other plans and started working on The Empire Files. On July 31 2017 01:45 m4ini wrote: It's sad to see this thread that 100% has merit devolve into an argument as to why RT is generally better a news source than western media. In fact it's not sad, it's retarded. I have never once said that, overall, RT is a better news source than western media. Stop putting fucking words in my goddamn mouth. It is incredibly frustrating. The only people who have ever made statements like that are the people who are strawmanning that I am saying that. On July 31 2017 01:45 m4ini wrote: That by itself should give you a queue, if people who are in line with your views tell you that it's trash. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying with that sentence. What I mean to say is that some of the Americans who appear on RT and profess their views are the ones that I agree with. If everyone else (like here) are dismissing those people because they appeared on RT, then that goes against my goals. Also, you mean clue, not queue. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
I have never once said that, overall, RT is a better news source than western media. Stop putting fucking words in my goddamn mouth. It is incredibly frustrating. So what are we arguing then? "Equally shit, but different"? "Suits my personal agenda better than other news networks"? Both of which are arguments that have zero merit if we want to have an argument about lies, bias and fake in news networks. edit: Also, I believe she was offered to do that, but declined because she had other plans and started working on The Empire Files Wrong. The Empire Files started when she left RT roughly a year after. The "she goes to crimea" statement was made the day after that stunt. Yes, and I've repeatedly stated that those are the kind of people they hire because it suits their agenda. You didn't address the point that she's reading off a teleprompter, making this (and more importantly, RTs reaction to it the day after) a staged event. Also, you mean clue, not queue. Actually i meant cue. A word that is phonetically the same. But thanks. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/giving a cue edit: gonna answer next post, you're as dumb as me in regards to edits, it's kinda hard to edit a post to respond to edits  | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
And maybe, just maybe, it takes a while to set up and record shows before they are sold to TeleSUR where they are broadcasted and that's why there was a gap between her statement (March 2014), the end of Breaking the Set (Feb 2015) and the start of the Empire Files (August 2015). The fact that she didn't go to Crimea after RT published their statement the day after the show just means they probably hadn't talked to her about it before that statement, and she just declined the offer to go to Crimea when she was offered as such shortly after the statement was made. Finally, this is ALL about bias, propaganda and lies. I don't know why it devolved into some discussion about RT when I pointed out the fact that Washington Post journalists are gagged from talking in a negative manner about their corporate sponsors. I don't want that discussion either, but people keep making the most extreme statements about it. I just want people to recognize that corporate media is in the service of the American oligarchy. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
The only thing the teleprompter use proves is that her statement wasn't disapproved by RT editors or whoever is in charge of what appears on the teleprompter. It's still entirely possible it's her own views she is professing, and I'd say very likely. It's a propaganda statement handed on a plate. Look at it this way. Multiple times she made clear that she knows she doesn't know much. RT went ahead and said "see, she's entirely wrong, Russia not bad, we send her to crimea to see what it's actually like" implying that her whole rant is actually just bullshit. But, and here's the important part, while saying that the entire statement doesn't mean dogshit, she was still allowed to say it, so RT = good guys. I mean. Come on. edit: to be clear It's still entirely possible it's her own views she is professing, and I'd say very likely. That wouldn't change anything either way. It might very well be her view, i don't know her personally. But the reason it was aired wasn't to give her a platform to criticise russia, but the opposite. To make clear that everything she said, she's allowed to say, even though it's all bullshit (and that's pretty much a paraphrase of the RT statement). Meaning, no negative publicity for russia because statement was crap, but positive light on RT because they didn't prevent this from being aired. I don't see that as complicated or even "outlandish", RT is not alone in that procedure. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany438 Posts
On July 31 2017 00:07 a_flayer wrote: I don't see how you can say CNN has an "organic" bias, when they most likely use the same techniques as RT when it comes to their operational processes. CNN wants reporters who feed into their bottom line and are obedient to their corporate sponsors. They get people who worked in Washington to share their "opinions" which just happen to support the US government (you know, the Corporate States of America) on international matters or even simply repeat government statements on air. Similarly, RT does this from the opposite position. There's nothing organic about it in either of these cases. It's all very deliberately manufactured. And yeah, they're both awful for different reasons as well (on top of all this underlying operational stuff) which makes comparisons more difficult in those areas. Ok so from what you wrote here and the article from fair.org you posted I inferred that you think CNN wouldn't report on this specific context of the Saudi arms deal. I will apologize for being snide but I will ask very specifically: Who are the corporate sponsors of CNN and what do they not want CNN to report? What does the government not want to be reported by CNN? Be specific. If I can find examples of whatever you will reply, will that change your opinion? And lastly, does the fact that CNN did report on the situation in Yemen in context of the deal change your view at all? Similar questions are easily answerable for RT by the way. More generally I strongly disagree that the way CNN works and editorializes is comparable to RT. From your word choice I guess you are aluding to Chomskys Manufactoring Consent? It has been a while but I have read it as well and remember being generally in agreement. However, the reason Chomsky had to write a whole book on the subject is, because the way consent is manufactured in America is much more complicated than state propaganda. Different from RT there is not a specific company wide agenda. I guess you believe there is, right? What is it? Be specific. And no "making money" does not count as an agenda here because it does not to the same degree shape which information cannot be displayed. Secondly, a media company not being critical of a handful of sponsoring companies is something very different from not being critical of a very aggressive state. The amount of criticism should be to some extent proportional to the amount of actual power. Btw is that video the strongest criticism of Russia you could find? Because it's laughably timid . "I admittedly don't know as much as I should about the Ukrainian history,...", "the media coverage from all sides is full of misinformation", basically every other sentence is relativizing or pushing the broader RT narrative of man-who-can-even-know-what's-true. Will it change your opinion on anything if I find more and much stronger criticism of American foreign policy on CNN? Also as a final word because I can somewhat understand where you are coming from. I suppose you are fairly left, right? You won't believe it but I am as well. It is your duty to choose your associations carefully if you want to be part of a succsessful movement. It is unfair but the right does tolerate association with the worst human beings as long as it is their side and the left doesn't. If you choose your allies unwise you weaken the whole movement (a classic example would be Venezuela, where surprise, surprise, Abby Martin is right now taking the side of the authoritaritan governmen). | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
RT is kind of a pretty mediocre news source. I don't use it regularly but I do scan it from time to time. It's something of a foreign-funded tabloid than a special source of propaganda, in that it doesn't really take itself fully seriously all the time. It broadcasts in Russian as well and it's considered to be fairly propagandist there as well. I think some of their articles are good but for the lack of credibility it is fair not to trust them. They, along with Sputnik, do have pretty good production values though, so occasionally you will find widespread uses for the videos they publish. The pickings of Russia news in the West are kind of slim. I'd recommend looking at RBTH if you want some form of Russian-derived discussion about Russian political matters. It's kind of boring for non-Russians but it is decent. The most level-headed Western sources would be Bloomberg, WSJ, The Diplomat, and NYT. They each have their own biases but they are less likely than someone like CNN or Fox to release horrible pointless crap just because they have zero journalistic integrity. I would say that part of what explains RT's relative prominence is not so much that it's pro-Russia as it is that it does a good job of weaving a fairly accurate anti-American narrative. That kind of hostile reporting does sell well. Russian media is fairly government controlled by most standards, but I don't see that as a problem. They have a tendency to push a government friendly narrative but are also fairly capable of criticizing policy they don't like. You do have to search a fair bit of independent journalism for a more critical and complete perspective, but that's honestly just the lay of the land. I think it a more workable system than one where the priority is to make money off of news. I prefer subtle government propaganda to CNN bashing its guts out criticizing Trump fairly and unfairly while still pushing an agenda of their own despite not being directly government owned. BBC is government owned and very good for example. Most of the Russian sources promoted by outsiders tend to be trash. Novaya Gazeta is an "intriguing" news source but also fairly trashy. Navalny tends to go full blown conspiratard once in a while. They are their own worst enemies, but the West supports them uncritically in the few cases where they even care about Russian news. I have plenty of qualms with Russian news and propaganda but most criticisms are kind of misguided and borne of an ignorance of the state of affairs there that comes from not actually reading news in Russian. Regarding NASA vs Roscosmos reporting, that's a cultural difference. Russians tend to report on other countries and their individuals much more freely than the US. Same goes for Russian vs American Olympic coverage. Roscosmos also has far better production values than NASA, which is easily seen by comparing their YouTube channels. I don't think it's a matter of propaganda as much as it is just a difference in how the audiences are expected to perceive certain events. Though it is clear that Russians are far happier with their space and Olympic coverage; I remember quite clearly how much flak NBC got last time for being garbage at covering the Olympics whereas no such widespread disapproval could be seen in Russia. I see a lot of Occam's Razor here. Less conspiracy than just for-profit news catering to the lowest common denominator of a country in which there is widespread apathy with regards to learning about other countries and cultures. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On July 31 2017 02:32 silynxer wrote: Ok so from what you wrote here and the article from fair.org you posted I inferred that you think CNN wouldn't report on this specific context of the Saudi arms deal. I will apologize for being snide but I will ask very specifically: Who are the corporate sponsors of CNN and what do they not want CNN to report? What does the government not want to be reported by CNN? Be specific. If I can find examples of whatever you will reply, will that change your opinion? And lastly, does the fact that CNN did report on the situation in Yemen in context of the deal change your view at all? Similar questions are easily answerable for RT by the way. More generally I strongly disagree that the way CNN works and editorializes is comparable to RT. From your word choice I guess you are aluding to Chomskys Manufactoring Consent? It has been a while but I have read it as well and remember being generally in agreement. However, the reason Chomsky had to write a whole book on the subject is, because the way consent is manufactured in America is much more complicated than state propaganda. Different from RT there is not a specific company wide agenda. I guess you believe there is, right? What is it? Be specific. And no "making money" does not count as an agenda here because it does not to the same degree shape which information cannot be displayed. Secondly, a media company not being critical of a handful of sponsoring companies is something very different from not being critical of a very aggressive state. The amount of criticism should be to some extent proportional to the amount of actual power. Btw is that video the strongest criticism of Russia you could find? Because it's laughably timid . "I admittedly don't know as much as I should about the Ukrainian history,...", "the media coverage from all sides is full of misinformation", basically every other sentence is relativizing or pushing the broader RT narrative of man-who-can-even-know-what's-true. Will it change your opinion on anything if I find more and much stronger criticism of American foreign policy on CNN? Also as a final word because I can somewhat understand where you are coming from. I suppose you are fairly left, right? You won't believe it but I am as well. It is your duty to choose your associations carefully if you want to be part of a succsessful movement. It is unfair but the right does tolerate association with the worst human beings as long as it is their side and the left doesn't. If you choose your allies unwise you weaken the whole movement (a classic example would be Venezuela, where surprise, surprise, Abby Martin is right now taking the side of the authoritaritan governmen). It's not as clear cut as you are making it seem with your questions, silynx. I am indeed a Chomsky fan and that's is certainly part of how I look at the problem. I can't put it to words as neatly as Chomsky could, and you could indeed write books about it, but here's my primitive high-school drop-out take on it: It's not that CNN and others wouldn't report on it. They would, and they have. It is a matter of the exposure they give such news, the distribution of it, and the associations they make within specific articles. Within the articles that were written about the arms deal (as listed on Fair.org), many sources did not even mention the fact these weapons would be used to murder and brutalize Yemeni civilians. Instead, they reported on how this would be beneficial to the market and they gave the lines of the American government as to why the Saudis needed these weapons ("they have to fight terrorism!"). This, to me, is blatantly propagating US government propaganda and serving corporate interests. However, I certainly recognize that that is not all they do. In other cases, they also genuinely report on news in a fair manner. And it's not the one report about an Islamic terrorist that made half the population of the US Islamophobic to the point where they'd vote for Trump. It's the constant screaming about it in the news, constantly referring back to one event or another. Why not scream in that same way about the violence perpetrated by the Saudis or the Americans who are literally dying as a result of the extended consequences of the American oligarchy? Why not link that in with every article where it's possible? Obviously a large part of that is due to the notion of sensationalism and a desire to catch eyeballs (eg more war == more money!!!), but I also think there's more to it than JUST that. I think there is, just like what we saw revealed in the leaked DNC e-mails, an internal top-down organization with regards to this type of messaging. The people at the top are the rich bastards who have the stocks in Wallstreet and links with corporations that sponsor their organization through ads who prefer to see reporting that isn't detrimental to their own personal bottom line. It's not that they are willing or capable to prevent ANY reporting on it, but you do get to a situation where CNN anchors spend their time mocking Occupy Wallstreet protesters, rather than taking it seriously. The people at the top give some instructions to the managers they employ, who dutifully draft some guidelines that are used by the people who write the news. The bit about the Washington Post that I posted which sparked off this whole discussion is a very clear example of this type of top-down organization in action. I hope you can see that? Maybe you can look at it this way: there was plenty of support in the liberal media for Women's march against Trump (they showed the scale of it, act all serious about it). At the same time, there was plenty of mocking those same protesters against Trump in conservative media (picking out the kookiest ones to mock, obviously, saying "look at them, they're all confused about what they're protesting!"). But where was this balance when it came to Occupy Wallstreet protests? It wasn't there because those people were protesting the bottom-line of the very corporations that sponsor the media. Some of the media that did take it seriously were a certain other group that have another agenda which is largely free of corporate interests because it is sponsored by another nation that wants to sow dissent and the view on it that THEY highlighted was summarily labeled as propaganda by that ODNI report despite being (in my opinion) an accurate depiction. The links between the corporate media and their sponsors aren't open for me to see as far as I know, so its very difficult to be specific, but I suspect it looks a lot like what you can see on OpenSecrets.org where those same corporations It's not limited to the people who write the reports, of course, it's also about what is aired, how it is published on the website (front page or some back story), it's about how the headline is written, it's about what you see in the "related: " box. There dozens of points where these little tweaks can be done, and each of those tweaks having at least a hint of modifying the way a story is presented, how far of an audience it reaches, etc. And at all of these points the guidelines as provided by the upper class within the company work towards those same goals (sensationalism & protecting the corporations in order to maximize profits). It's not JUST a top-down problem either. Many reporters and people who write for or are involved large organizations like that or appear on TV as anchors or analysts are relatively rich white-collar snobs who haven't seen the inside of a factory in their lives aside from on TV or from pictures. Some of them are playing their role knowingly voluntarily, just as many RT reporters voluntarily have their critical attitude of the US. Others don't think about it much, just follow the guidelines they are given, etc, or aren't even part of the process in such a way that it would be obvious that see what they are doing. It's part of the hiring process, where guidelines are set in similar way as that example of the Washington Post (the bosses go "hire people with X, Y and Z qualities, but not A, B and C"). All of what I've listed above fosters a culture (and not just at CNN, this kind of culture-building happens in all major corporations) where (in the case of media corporations) criticism towards the oligarchy is downplayed to such an extent that people are willing to vote for the likes of Trump (who, I hope you'll agree) represent the clearest example of the American oligarchy as it has exists in Washington. It's funny that you said "the amount of criticism should be to some extent proportional to the amount of actual power." How much criticism does RT get, exactly, and how many people do they reach? How much power do they hold, really? I'd say their level of influence is very insignificant compared to CNN and the rest of the western corporate media, and yet people bash it into the ground as "Russian propaganda" from all sides. Constantly. Regardless of who is talking or what is said by people on the channel. Like, when people say Assange was working for the Russians when he produced that 10 episode TV show, which was made independently and then sold for syndication on RT. Or Chris Hedges who has a show that's broadcast on RT. His fifteen years of working at the New York Times are worth nothing, and now he's just a Russian propagandist? I think not, mate. And your criticism of Martin's statement has some value, but how would you have worded it if you were in her position? Would you have been fine making absolutist statements about something that you don't know everything about? I'm sure it was editorialized to some extent, but to claim that it's so much worse than the way that CNN editorializes their news seems absurd to me if its even true that it wasn't her own words. What should she have done to convince you it was her speaking and not the FSB? Should she have echoed the American governments position, which was unlikely going to be her view and thus would have been a lie anyway? Where would the line have been between "Russian propaganda" and "not Russian propaganda" in your view? Those articles where RT facilitates a denial of Russia's involvement in certain events by highlighting some kooky theory are clearly agenda driven (and could be called propaganda). But that's a very small part of what RT does. The much bigger part that they play in "propaganda" is that same fostering of a culture that CNN does - except they have a much different agenda than CNN in that case. Before I'd be willing to cast the whole media outlet as "Russian propaganda" I'd like to see some statistics on how many articles and reports actually do that kind of thing, versus their normal kind of reporting. How would you characterize the use of that little Syrian girl's twitter account that CNN repeatedly highlighted in their news about the Syrian civil war? I'd say that's an appeal to emotion that essentially attempts to get the viewer to support the US agenda which included giving weapons that would often end up in the hands of fundamental islamists or even straight-up suicide-bombing terrorists and were in some cases actually used to fight soldiers in the American-led coalition that was fighting ISIS. I'd say that can also be very easily be characterized as propaganda. But, like with RT and their nonsense to avoid placing an appropriate amount of blame on Russia for certain events, it is only a small part of what CNN does. Based on that, would it be appropriate to call CNN US government propaganda considering the amount of power they hold in the news business? That particular propaganda effort (and it was not just them, Fox and MSNBC also did this) probably reached a lot further than anything RT has ever done. Or do you genuinely think that the use of that little girl can't be called propaganda? Also, I don't remember who linked that Sputnik article about Macron, but what I see there is a French guy from an opposition party talking about Macron, and some commentary from a reporter around it with - as far as I can tell - facts. Sure, the phrasing of the commentary has been colored to suit Sputniks agenda, but there's nothing particularly fake about it. There's dumbass allegations made by the French dude based on practically nothing, and that's pretty clear from the article itself. This is, once again, the same kind of stuff that I'd complain about on CNN, where they give equal credence to climate change deniers and such (which suits their agenda of having empathic discussions about nothing). It's the same level of nonsense and fake news, just about a different subject. I don't see what the point of linking that was. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 31 2017 02:40 LegalLord wrote: My thoughts on this all, perhaps helpful for those who want one of those real Russians to weigh in. RT is kind of a pretty mediocre news source. I don't use it regularly but I do scan it from time to time. It's something of a foreign-funded tabloid than a special source of propaganda, in that it doesn't really take itself fully seriously all the time. It broadcasts in Russian as well and it's considered to be fairly propagandist there as well. I think some of their articles are good but for the lack of credibility it is fair not to trust them. They, along with Sputnik, do have pretty good production values though, so occasionally you will find widespread uses for the videos they publish. The pickings of Russia news in the West are kind of slim. I'd recommend looking at RBTH if you want some form of Russian-derived discussion about Russian political matters. It's kind of boring for non-Russians but it is decent. The most level-headed Western sources would be Bloomberg, WSJ, The Diplomat, and NYT. They each have their own biases but they are less likely than someone like CNN or Fox to release horrible pointless crap just because they have zero journalistic integrity. I would say that part of what explains RT's relative prominence is not so much that it's pro-Russia as it is that it does a good job of weaving a fairly accurate anti-American narrative. That kind of hostile reporting does sell well. Russian media is fairly government controlled by most standards, but I don't see that as a problem. They have a tendency to push a government friendly narrative but are also fairly capable of criticizing policy they don't like. You do have to search a fair bit of independent journalism for a more critical and complete perspective, but that's honestly just the lay of the land. I think it a more workable system than one where the priority is to make money off of news. I prefer subtle government propaganda to CNN bashing its guts out criticizing Trump fairly and unfairly while still pushing an agenda of their own despite not being directly government owned. BBC is government owned and very good for example. Most of the Russian sources promoted by outsiders tend to be trash. Novaya Gazeta is an "intriguing" news source but also fairly trashy. Navalny tends to go full blown conspiratard once in a while. They are their own worst enemies, but the West supports them uncritically in the few cases where they even care about Russian news. I have plenty of qualms with Russian news and propaganda but most criticisms are kind of misguided and borne of an ignorance of the state of affairs there that comes from not actually reading news in Russian. Regarding NASA vs Roscosmos reporting, that's a cultural difference. Russians tend to report on other countries and their individuals much more freely than the US. Same goes for Russian vs American Olympic coverage. Roscosmos also has far better production values than NASA, which is easily seen by comparing their YouTube channels. I don't think it's a matter of propaganda as much as it is just a difference in how the audiences are expected to perceive certain events. Though it is clear that Russians are far happier with their space and Olympic coverage; I remember quite clearly how much flak NBC got last time for being garbage at covering the Olympics whereas no such widespread disapproval could be seen in Russia. I see a lot of Occam's Razor here. Less conspiracy than just for-profit news catering to the lowest common denominator of a country in which there is widespread apathy with regards to learning about other countries and cultures. This is worth a read. I might not agree with everything, but it is generally correct. Constructive stuff: I'd add a few sources to the list of respected news sources: Financial Times in the UK (See the interesting graph below), FAZ in Germany, Helsingin Sanomat in Finland, to name a few. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/p9h8nTK.png) My long-standing debate with Legallord rears its ugly head when he says he is OK with government controlled media. While the BBC might be funded from the UK's budget, it's independent. Something you cannot say about the discussed parts of the Russian media that has well-documented but covert oversight. There are now a large number of people who have resigned over this oversight and their accounts are public (see example 1) It boils down to this, why would one read something that has a reputation for being a mouthpiece, unless you wanted to know what the mouth was saying? P.S. I'm pretty certain that Novaya Gazeta switched to a more Kremliny line a year or two back. Can't remember the details though. In my mind, it hasn't been relevant since 2015. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17181 Posts
| ||
|
khouji
United States10 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 31 2017 15:25 khouji wrote: If you do not want to hear some biased news, you should watch Al Jazeera. If you don't mind Qatari bias, that is. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
They should put "Thank you for your service, you died for nothing!" on every soldier's tombstone, because that's the ugly truth... edit: ...and just a heads up: don't gimme that "revolutionary war freedom" nonsense, what freedom do we really have? Buying stuff and voting for some jackass to cash in on that big lobbyist money on capitol hill?...yeah, that's really worth dying for... Don't get me wrong I respect every soldier for their service it just makes me sad, they have to put themselves in danger for oil and other nonsense...ugh I'm rambling and it's not even past my bedtime.. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HQk0b4p.png) For someone born in the cruel and miserable Soviet Union, this always sounds funny and sad at the same time. Ignorance has taken over in just two decades. Despite the fact that you could look at more than half the countries of the world to see why democratic liberties are important. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
58,220 US soldiers lost their lifes in Vietnam for another war in the so called "name of freedom". Soldiers die for the agenda of the ruling class! Imagine a world, where not a single soldier shows up for war and those in power had to actually fight for themselves! Let them put their lives on the line, not some 20 year old kids, who know little to nothing about the real reasons why these wars are fought! So yes, I stand by my first statement, I've had family members who actually died for nothing overseas! I love my country but I'll callout bullshit when I see it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 31 2017 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote: Constructive stuff: I'd add a few sources to the list of respected news sources: Financial Times in the UK (See the interesting graph below), FAZ in Germany, Helsingin Sanomat in Finland, to name a few. I don't speak German or Finnish so I don't think I'm in any position to comment on the latter two. FTimes though, I will say this: my experience with "business news" is that they are generally good on reporting on issues of economics, unreliable on issues of politics. I only very occasionally read FTimes because paywalls are annoying, but they do have some stuff that is very good. My general criticism applies to them as well though. On July 31 2017 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote: I'm not sure that "being at the center" is any particularly good indicator of the goodness or lack thereof of a news source. I think it's not indicative of anything but political leanings. On July 31 2017 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote: My long-standing debate with Legallord rears its ugly head when he says he is OK with government controlled media. While the BBC might be funded from the UK's budget, it's independent. Something you cannot say about the discussed parts of the Russian media that has well-documented but covert oversight. Major news sources having ties to the government is nothing special. It happens in every country ever. And they're usually "covert but well-documented" as well. Like most countries, Russia has a situation in which the news is influenced such that it's not that they don't criticize the government at all or extremely lightly, but that it tends to be targeted towards issues that said government is much more willing to be flexible about. Few countries have a flexible foreign policy for example - and the news reflects a far more sympathetic outlook towards the overall FP strategy. The BBC and every other major news organization I've ever seen tends to be notably short on scathing criticism thereof. It's not that you can't find good, pointed criticism, it's just that you have to be actively interested in finding it in order to get anything good because it tends to be sidelined. But on the other hand, what government-funded/controlled media does well is to make the focus of reporting less on the matter of making money, which is done best by catering to the lowest common denominator with yellow press journalism and entertainment masquerading as news, and more on reporting the kinds of stories that you would expect in the news. Government operated media tends to be factual - and though they tend to spin the events in such a way to put the government in a positive light, that's hardly unique to explicitly government news sources. The for-profiteers tend to be just as much of shills for the government for those core topics. While being overall worse for news where propaganda isn't even a relevant question. On July 31 2017 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote: There are now a large number of people who have resigned over this oversight and their accounts are public (see example 1) It boils down to this, why would one read something that has a reputation for being a mouthpiece, unless you wanted to know what the mouth was saying? I'm sure plenty of people who worked at RT weren't happy with it. If you take a quick look at, for example, their Glassdoor review page, you might get something of an idea why. Seems to be managed in a manner that you might expect for a company in the US: get eager younguns and reel 'em in with a decent starting salary, ignore the depth of cronyism in upper management, and make a fairly sloppy product that still has some value. That's basically the Silicon Valley model, only with funding from a foreign government. But making a fuss of the company as you leave? That's generally more of a "someone paid me to do this" or a "I'm a millennial who doesn't get business professionalism" issue, and frankly neither of those are particularly meaningful. An old 90's adage from Russia goes like this: "everything they told us about communism was a lie - but unfortunately everything they told us about capitalism was the truth." RT almost lives by this adage, in that it's not really about Russia at all; it's primarily an anti-US (and to a lesser extent anti-UK) news source. It very often serves as a very convenient and useful mouthpiece to those who may not be all that sympathetic to Russia, but who don't like the US very much. Far too many people are not all that predisposed to like or even care about Russia itself, but in the context of US bashing, Russia starts to be painted in something of a more positive light. Yes, RT does fudge details on Russia stories, but that's not even the main purpose of its existence. And the anti-US stuff tends to be pointed in a way that is both true and insightful. It certainly is unfortunate that the most prominent Russian-owned sources that broadcast in the West are so cynical in their coverage, that much is fair to note. But that is not without reason. Probably not the right thread to get into the politics of that but that's the entire purpose of what RT is about. And it doesn't hurt that deep animosity towards the US by others is well-founded and long-standing. In any case, it's not as much a mouthpiece as it is agenda-driven reporting that leans fairly heavily on its staff of younguns. The agenda is to shit on the US as thoroughly as possible. I've seen plenty of the reverse (news existing almost exclusively to shit on Russia) so there's no point in talking about fairness or lack thereof. P6 is kind of right that this is about being as uncharitable as one possibly could be to the other nation - but where his point proves insufficient is that this works in the context of a much larger and deeper web of interests and hatreds. RT is ultimately one of the many manifestations of an aggressively cynical, though not particularly misguided, campaign to cause people to look at US-centric alliances with a greater degree of skepticism. All that said, it's perfectly understandable if you don't like RT all that much. I don't either; its news coverage is definitely not what I am looking for. It's kind of Russian propaganda but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some pointed and interesting coverage. It absolutely has a credibility issue though. You might find interesting things in the mix, but you should double-check your facts if you look at it. For lack of good sources of Russian-derived news that is in not-Russian, RT may have something to share. But it definitely isn't what one might call credible. On July 31 2017 03:58 Ghanburighan wrote: P.S. I'm pretty certain that Novaya Gazeta switched to a more Kremliny line a year or two back. Can't remember the details though. In my mind, it hasn't been relevant since 2015. They accepted government money at some point in the recent past because they were going broke; that might be why. But their coverage was crap and still is crap, the only real arguments I ever heard for watching them is "they're edgy" and "they're anti-Putin," neither of which is a particularly meaningful selling point for news. It's pretty much a tabloid that said mean things about Putin. Better anti-government arguments come mostly from the blogging community. There's a fair number of independent reporters with some meaningful input in that regard. That tends to be more genuine and less influenced by foreigners, so it has a habit of being better news. | ||
| ||
