I feel we are moving very far away from the point I want to make so excuse me if I don't go point by point. If there anything that you feel I still need to adress please let me know.
To put simply the difference between RT and CNN that I try to make clear for you is that RT is entirely agenda driven and CNN is not. What I mean by that is that I can give specific points of agenda for RT and make accurate predictions based on them and with CNN this is simply not possible. I am not an avid watcher of RT and I have not spend too much time on this but let me try so you have an example. Some main agenda points by RT: 1. Show western states (in particular the US) as oppressors of their own citizens. 2. Show western states (in particular the US) as aggressors internationally. 3. Show Russia(ns) as victim(s). There are some other points I considered (for example "Western European values failing (the Muslim hordes invade!!!!)") but for simplicity let's stay with these. From a propaganda point it is clear what the objective of the points is, I hope I don't have to explain. This does not mean that there aren't tons of stories on RT which are not related to this agenda but it means there will not be stories seriously challenging these points on RT (and no one announcer giving a scripted speech in the closing segment of her show is not the same as an article nor was that particular speech seriously challenging anything). This is a propaganda model for RT. Look how simple it is! But although I just needed a paragraph to write it, I can already make specific, accurate predictions based on my model, even though I don't even watch RT (that's how blatant state propaganda is). For example: I predict that the repeated violation of Swedish airspace by Russian fighter planes will not be reported on RT because that would go against 3 (what I mean is the fact that these happen, there might be a report where airspace violations are denied by Russian officials). Much less commented on as aggression.*
Now compare this to CNN. Even with all the words you wrote, you couldn't even define a clear agenda. The reason for this is because there is no clear agenda CNN is pushing in the same way. You could come up with very abstract things like a. Protect the ruling class. b. Support US foreign policy. But the predictions possible with such a model are much weaker: As you admitted yourself, I can easily find articles that directly go against a. or b. on CNN. Your argument becomes then that these articles are not prominently enough displayed. Which is a far cry from not displayed at all. What also becomes more difficult is to explain why the stories are not displayed more prominently. In RTs case it is easy: The organization was consciously structured in such a way as to serve the agenda (whatever the mechanisms of compliance are in detail). With CNN it is a lot more diluted. Maybe some editor has strong political leanings. Maybe a higher-up exerts pressure on behalf of an ad company. Maybe CNNs strategy is to keep access to government sources by being soft (that does not seem to be the case company wide though). Maybe quoting government officials verbatim (which is also not done company wide) is just cheaper than doing actual reporting. Maybe there are systemic problems like: News are getting more and more compartmentalized (I would assume because of economic pressure). That means an arms deal is first of all business news. Things unrelated to business will be cut out of business news. Reporting something in context is much more complicated to write and to read. Such an article will take longer and has no frontpage appeal at all.
If you want to convince me that CNN and RT are from a propaganda point of view equivalent, you have to show me either that RT does not follow an agenda like the one I posted above, or show me a specific agenda that CNN follows in the same way. The reason it has to be specific is because otherwise it wouldn't be equivalent.
*If you can show me such an article I will be genuinely surprised. It will not quite convince me that CNN and RT are equivalent but it would make me actually research RT in earnest.
I enjoyed The Intercept a lot, especially on issues of surveillance and cyber security. I actually had a lot of respect Jeremy until he decided he wouldn't attend Real Time because Milo was on it. Seriously...
I unsubscribed the moment they hired Mehdi Hassan. As much as I loved their dismantling of Trump policies and character, I just can't take seriously anyone who, on the record, stated he literally believes that Mohammed flew to the moon on a winged horse.
How dare they call Trump a moron / baffoon after that?
On August 06 2017 07:25 Six.Strings wrote: I enjoyed The Intercept a lot, especially on issues of surveillance and cyber security. I actually had a lot of respect Jeremy until he decided he wouldn't attend Real Time because Milo was on it. Seriously...
I unsubscribed the moment they hired Mehdi Hassan. As much as I loved their dismantling of Trump policies and character, I just can't take seriously anyone who, on the record, stated he literally believes that Mohammed flew to the moon on a winged horse.
How dare they call Trump a moron / baffoon after that?
In his defense, you can get a lot of incredibly intelligent people to admit that they believe that a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a piece of fruit that was just asking to be eaten. I personally dislike Mehdi Hassan a lot, but people should not discredit him because of a 5 second clip that is more comical than anything.
On April 11 2017 07:47 a_flayer wrote: I'd seen this before, but I came across it again, and I think this is a good indication of this thing called "bias". It was one of the things that triggered me to investigate news from, shall we say, non-traditional sources.
America reports on "NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough and two Russians"
Russia reports on "cosmonauts Sergei Ryzhikov, Andrei Borisenko and NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough"
The discrepancy is of course easily 'justified' by citing the American publics lack of interest in foreigners. However, I believe that this sort of bias is incredibly widespread all across American media, and consequently leads towards something much more toxic. Especially when it comes to more important matters than just astronauts/cosmonauts launching into space.
I was paging through the Syria & Iraq thread a few days ago, when I saw someone post this NPR article. I followed it up with a Guardian article for comparison:
NPR article At a U.N. Security Council meeting Tuesday, Russia has vetoed a resolution on Syria drafted by the United States on the latest apparent chemical weapons attack, at a time when President Trump is considering launching new military action.
As NPR's Michele Kelemen reports, the U.S.-drafted resolution would have demanded access to the scene of the reported attack in Douma, a rebel-held area in the Damascus suburbs, and "would also create a new investigative mechanism to look into chemical weapons attacks in Syria and determine who is responsible."
The Guardian article An attempt to stave off a military confrontation in Syria failed in the UN security council on Tuesday evening, with Russia and western allies unable to compromise on a concerted international response to the use of chemical weapons.
Each side voted against the other’s proposals for setting up a body dedicated to investigating repeated poison gas use in Syria. The US delegation said it had done “everything possible” to accommodate Russian views and that the abortive council session marked a “decisive moment”. Russia said the issue was being used by the US and its allies as a “pretext” to attack Syria.
These are about the same UN meeting, but the reports are worlds apart. Over at the NPR, Russia simply vetoed the US resolution and that was it. There was no mention of any Russian proposals at all as far as I could tell. At the Guardian, Russia and the US vetoed each other's attempts at a resolution. You could make arguments about how the Russian proposal wasn't good enough, but is that reason to be so selective in reporting about the actual events that took place?
On April 11 2017 07:47 a_flayer wrote: I'd seen this before, but I came across it again, and I think this is a good indication of this thing called "bias". It was one of the things that triggered me to investigate news from, shall we say, non-traditional sources.
America reports on "NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough and two Russians"
Russia reports on "cosmonauts Sergei Ryzhikov, Andrei Borisenko and NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough"
The discrepancy is of course easily 'justified' by citing the American publics lack of interest in foreigners. However, I believe that this sort of bias is incredibly widespread all across American media, and consequently leads towards something much more toxic. Especially when it comes to more important matters than just astronauts/cosmonauts launching into space.
I was paging through the Syria & Iraq thread a few days ago, when I saw someone post this NPR article. I followed it up with a Guardian article for comparison:
NPR article At a U.N. Security Council meeting Tuesday, Russia has vetoed a resolution on Syria drafted by the United States on the latest apparent chemical weapons attack, at a time when President Trump is considering launching new military action.
As NPR's Michele Kelemen reports, the U.S.-drafted resolution would have demanded access to the scene of the reported attack in Douma, a rebel-held area in the Damascus suburbs, and "would also create a new investigative mechanism to look into chemical weapons attacks in Syria and determine who is responsible."
The Guardian article An attempt to stave off a military confrontation in Syria failed in the UN security council on Tuesday evening, with Russia and western allies unable to compromise on a concerted international response to the use of chemical weapons.
Each side voted against the other’s proposals for setting up a body dedicated to investigating repeated poison gas use in Syria. The US delegation said it had done “everything possible” to accommodate Russian views and that the abortive council session marked a “decisive moment”. Russia said the issue was being used by the US and its allies as a “pretext” to attack Syria.
These are about the same UN meeting, but the reports are worlds apart. Over at the NPR, Russia simply vetoed the US resolution and that was it. There was no mention of any Russian proposals at all as far as I could tell. At the Guardian, Russia and the US vetoed each other's attempts at a resolution. You could make arguments about how the Russian proposal wasn't good enough, but is that reason to be so selective in reporting about the actual events that took place?
There is a difference though. The US proposal got the votes to pass (12 for, 2 against, 1 abstention), but was vetod by Russia. The Russian proposal didn't even get the votes (5 for, 4 against and 6 abstentions).
The US-sponsored resolution has received 12 votes in favor, two against and one abstention. As Russia used its veto right, the resolution was not adopted. The first Russian-sponsored resolution did not get the minimum nine votes needed to pass, with six votes for, seven against and two abstentions.
Russia then proposed another resolution, based on an earlier draft by Sweden, which voices support for the new OPCW probe into the Douma incident. The UNSC meeting was suspended for consultations on Sweden's request, before putting the resolution to vote. The subsequent vote garnered five votes in support of the resolution (Russia, China, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan and Bolivia), four votes against (the US, the UK, France and Poland) and six abstentions. A resolution requires at least nine votes, with no vetoes from Russia, China, the UK, France or the US, to pass.
I feel the NPR might put too much emphasis on Russia's use of the veto, but while RT mentions it, it is de-emphasized in the middle of a paragraph on all the many proposals that didn't pass. The guardian is, surprisingly, probably the worst of the lot, by not even mentioning the qualitative difference between failing a vote and passing the vote but getting vetod, but we should probably not consider any of these 3 as good examples of propaganda: they are news reports intended to emphasize the growing conflict between Russia and the US over what to do with Syria, and while the journalists all have their own style, I don't really see any of them twisting the facts in order to fit a narrative. Different people emphasize different aspects of the same event. Also, grass is green
Seems like an opinion piece. Maybe someone reporting very selectively on the opinions of local people. Perhaps emphasizing a certain opinionated view of a certain event, yes?
Also, I never claimed the NPR article was "a good example of propaganda". The point is that it shows a bias. The thread is called "discerning bias, propaganda and lies" after all. People keep dismissing this kind of bias in the way that you do as if it does not matter (grass is green! nothing to see here let me put some more smilies to emphasize how non-serious this is ). But if this shit is consistent (and it is) then people will - over time and collectively - get very skewed views of certain matters.
Seems like an opinion piece. Maybe someone reporting very selectively on the opinions of local people. Perhaps emphasizing a certain opinionated view of a certain event, yes?
It's not an op ed. It's reported as news. It's not, it's quite literally, fake news. A false narrative pushed by a combination of selectively reporting on only some evidence, and outright lying about other things (e.g. there are no eyewitnesses of the chemical attack)
While I would indeed classify that as propaganda, it is quite obviously different: this is simply an interview with a 7-yo girl who is giving her (probably canned) responses to the questions CNN is asking. At worst, you could say that the girl is being manipulated to represent CNN's narrative rather than her own opinion, but that probably isn't true: she probably agrees with what she says, insofar as the opinion of a 7-yo matters at all. In either case, it is quite obviously "opinion": it isn't somebody claiming to report on what happened, but rather an interview asking for an opinion about what happened. It's still emotional manipulation, and I will quite happily agree with you that CNN is generally pretty shit.
Also, I never claimed the NPR article was "a good example of propaganda". The point is that it shows a bias. The thread is called "discerning bias, propaganda and lies" after all. People keep dismissing this kind of bias in the way that you do as if it does not matter (grass is green! nothing to see here let me put some more smilies to emphasize how non-serious this is ). But if this shit is consistent (and it is) then people will - over time and collectively - get very skewed views of certain matters.
I don't disagree with you that the NPR report shows a bias. I just disagree with you that it is in some way insidious. Everybody *is* biased. It's just a fact of life that if 3 people view the same event, you will get 3 different accounts of the event, probably even mutually conflicting. But there's a difference between reporting the news to the best of your abilities (including bias), and reporting lies as if it were actually news.
How do you mean "it is not insidious". I'm not suggesting that NPR is collectively sitting around a table going "how can we screw the Russians" I am suggesting that is dangerous to - for years - feed entire nations incredibly biased views like this. Kind of like how feeding Russians homophobic stories about Europe and how the US is full of corruption is unnecessarily skewing them against 'the West' (even tho we are super friendly towards the gays and the US is in fact full of corruption).
I don't see a lot of lies in that RT report. Can you tell me the lies, specifically? I see a lot of opinions by people who genuinely seem to hold those opinions. I might disagree with those opinions, but that doesn't make it so they don't exist. Lets pull the "article" apart in an attempt to find all the lies:
RT’s Murad Gazdiev highlights a number of eyewitness accounts from Douma
So, he's saying he's going to highlight a number of eyewitness accounts, effectively admitting his report might be biased? Is that a lie?
Amid growing suspicions that the “chemical attack” in Douma was actually staged,
Not necessarily a lie, maybe just some empty suggestion that suspicions were growing (I don't know how to measure that).
Gazdiev looked into some of the remarkable statements made by local residents and Western journalists who travelled to the war-ravaged area.
I'd definitely say some of the statements made by citizens and western journalists were remarkable.
People directly involved in the notorious “chemical attack” video actually had no idea about the alleged use of chemicals there.
Are those people lying about being involved in the events but not knowing about a chemical attack? It's possible, but I don't know how you could possibly discern that.
The claims range from the whole thing being set up by Islamic State to it being completely staged.
This is not what those people were claiming?
“It’s remarkable how these scenes convinced three countries to launch cruise missiles at Syria,” Gazdiev said, referring to footage of the alleged attack, as doubts linger.
The western response was remarkable, and that is not a lie.
It is clear from the start of the article that these are the views of a select number of locals. Hence, none of this is a lie, even if the opinions those people give are trash. Nowhere in that article are the reporters spouting lies. They are even being fairly upfront about their selective approach, which is obviously used to further an agenda, just like that Syrian girl on CNN. By calling it lies you are utterly misrepresenting the way that RT propagandizes for Russia.
Also, can I cry whataboutism about your linking to RT? Your comments about RT are very different from the problem that I highlighted in my original post. Why are you making me defend a horrendous "article" with holocaust denying comments at the bottom?
Also, Acrofales, if you look at a_flayer's account, you'll notice he doesn't care about Starcraft at all. He's probably the poor sod who gets paid to post about politics on TL.
On the topic of bias in the news media, there definitely seems to be more overtly religious biases in the media in this day & age. I guess in some way what is going on in the media is a reflection of what is going on in the national psyche. I think it's somewhat general knowledge that WSJ leans Republican and the New York Times leans liberal to some degree. That being said, they do make at least a token effort to seem like they are neutral parties that are just reporting what is going on in the world at large that exists around them.
This article seems exceptionally focused on promoting "public displays of religion" in general, and I guess I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Technically, in the United States, the majority of the people who live there describe themselves as believing in God, so, maybe that is to be expected. In Europe that is not the case these days and there are a great number of atheists who say that they do not believe in any organized religion of any kind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/philadelphia-eagles-win-god-loves-them-us-all/
On April 26 2018 10:23 Ghanburighan wrote: He's probably the poor sod who gets paid to post about politics on TL.
Since you're not banned yet despite your blatant personal attack: I wish. Steady job, half-decent pay AND working for the good wholesome goal of bringing down the American Empire? I'd take that job. But, alas, no, I am not paid to post here. I came here in about 2008 just after Jaedong-Fantasy.
Quite frankly, after being proud of being accused of a Russian troll once or twice, I've become a bit annoyed by that the CIA/FBI line that they keep selling to the media "Russian collusion, Russian trolls!". It is making it so hard to argue against the American Empire online. People keep calling me out as a Russian troll. I've literally had to adjust my strategies to get exposure on imgur and reddit. I see that I must do so here as well. Sigh.
On April 26 2018 10:23 Ghanburighan wrote: A necro, really?
Also, Acrofales, if you look at a_flayer's account, you'll notice he doesn't care about Starcraft at all. He's probably the poor sod who gets paid to post about politics on TL.
Lol. Sounds just like the sad cunts who yell "shill" on Reddit in literally every. Single. Thread.
If someone disagrees, they must be paid by George Soros or Vladimir Putin!
I was watching this show by John Oliver and noticed something peculiar:
At about five minutes into the clip, they show a video of the the Iranian leader saying the following:
"By God's favor and grace, nothing called the Zionist regime will exist in the region by 25 years from now".
A statement I can agree with at face value, considering how the Zionist regime in Israel treats half of its inhabitants and the way that it has occupied part of Syria and bombs other parts. It's not a nice nation, and for the sake of reducing human suffering, I would dearly like to see comprehensive political change in Israel as much as I would like to see it in Russia, US or Iran.
But what does Oliver say?
"It's not the most important part here, but the country's name is Israel, not the Zionist regime."
Now, is it just me or is Oliver effectively saying here that all Israelis must be Zionists? The Iranian leader is basically being more diligent about his chosen words than I typically am, but Oliver just blatantly ignores that and lobs everything together as if it is nothing. But I think there's quite a few Israelis who aren't Zionists. I also don't think that Iran would oppose Israel quite as much if those non-Zionist people were in charge of the country.
That's the subtle part that bothered me slightly, which seems very similar to how American media covers North Korea and Russia. There's always these subtle ways of phrasing things and little bits left out or tacked on for some reason.
But what's absolutely sickening to see is the overt kind of anti-Iran propaganda as what he highlights on his show about 9 minutes into the video by showing an American commercial. That's basically terrorism, scaremongering people into certain political positions -- no different than those horribly offensive NRA commercials.
And, I mean, for fucks sake, your news networks are literally being paid to air anti-Iran commercials. You can't trust them on anything they say about Iran.
I can't watch the video, probably due to my locked down browser, but in the article they highlight a lot of this subtle manipulation of the facts that I'm talking about. And, also, assuming Ben Norton is right, how the fuck does Vox make a video about "the Middle East Cold War" and fails to even mention Israel. I don't even know what to say this point. I mean, come on, you're kidding me, right?
Watch the last 2-3 minutes of this video and excuse me while I take a wide step around American mainstream corporate media concerning issues surrounding US foreign relations. And I do love how the session ends without answering that last question.
On May 27 2018 19:45 a_flayer wrote: Watch the last 2-3 minutes of this video and excuse me while I take a wide step around American mainstream corporate media concerning issues surrounding US foreign relations. And I do love how the session ends without answering that last question.
If taken charitably, I don't think his statement about "creating a narrative" is all so bad. Even the most objective historians have to choose what information to emphasize and what to omit, because you can't possibly include it all. So if you want something that is readable, you are crafting a narrative by necessity, and objectivity is achieved in varying degrees but never completely.
About propaganda, of course anyone who watches mainstream corporate media critically can see them engaging heavily in it. And like you say, it is particularly bad in the area of foreign relations. I get upset in particular by their silence on important events that are happening internationally. Usually the news is all USA and includes so much stupid and trivial things even when very important stuff is happening worldwide.
EPT
