How The Truth Is Made At Russia Today

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 04:21
VIEWED: 7994
PAGE 2 of 7

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KPO

Monday, March 17, 2014 5:06 AM

It's a real question.

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Monday, March 17, 2014 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And you only have to watch American television for five minutes (ten, if you're slow) to know that IT'S propaganda.

The trick is to sift truth from spin.

Anyone who has an ounce of sense knows every media outlet spins somewhat. What's almost funny about RT is that it doesn't even try to disguise its pro-Russia, anti-West position.

Yet you cite RT as though it were gospel.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

1KIKI

Monday, March 17, 2014 8:27 AM

Nope. I think Signy has caveated it enough so that ANYONE WHO CAN READ would understand that.

So, do you have anything to say about the videos of the paramilitary snipers? How about videos of injured citizens? Or are you going to continue your strawman argument ad nauseam?

ETA: I forgot. You don't know what that is.

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster

I feel so vindicated.

"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".

OONJERAH
We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 17, 2014 8:31 AM

Show me where I cite RT as "gospel".

As far as I'm concerned it's like zerohedge or testosteronepit or counterparties or npr or cnn or xinhua or cctv ... another source of information and a different perspective. But yanno, there are on-the-ground videos that are hard to deny, not commentary or interviews but recordings of actual events that you will NEVER see on western media. And that's a shame because I think people deserve to know all of the truth, not just the sliver that our government wants us to know. If we knew more of the truth, we'd make better decisions.

I don't think that you really believe that I treat RT as gospel. There are all kinds of programs and links that I don't bother bringing here because they add nothing to the discussion. What I think you're really objecting to the fact that I bring it here at all, because it offends your tender sensibilities or something.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 17, 2014 10:08 AM

Quote:
Why would Western press fail to report on anti-Yanukovic snipers killing police? Why would all Western countries' press sing from the same hymn sheet?-KPO

Is this a real question, or are you being ironic?-signy

It's a real question. -KPO

Oh, OK.

Governments... and I don't care WHOSE government... want to do certain things that aren't necessarily to the benefit of the average citizen. So they create a narrative, an explanation for their actions which sounds caring, responsible, NECESSARY. If they repeat the narrative often enough, people eventually believe it. But allowing conflicting information brings the narrative into question.

I can point to a lot of actions that were justified by strange narratives. For example, the invasion of Iraq was justified by (the non-connection to) 9-11 and (non-existant) WMD.

As another example, we invaded Panama because Noriega was a hated dictator (he wasn't) and because Panama was a major drug route (it wasn't).

The Ukrainian narrative was that the nation consisted of a population of hostages... Ukrainians yearning to breathe the free market air, longing to join the west, held in place by a corrupt dictator and Russian puppet, Yanukovich. Those poor protesters tried to peacefully express their views in the central square of Maidan, and were brutally put down by that horrible tyrant Yanukovich.

So, in the overall narrative, it wouldn't do to have those "peaceful protesters" as snipers, shooting policemen and "their side" alike in an effort ramp up the violence. Therefore, those images never appeared in western press. It's that simple.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, March 17, 2014 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Anyone who has an ounce of sense knows every media outlet spins somewhat. What's almost funny about RT is that it doesn't even try to disguise its pro-Russia, anti-West position.

Just as Fox doesn't disguise its political agenda.

Whoever controls the news, holds the power. If you have a variety of sources, you are more likely to be able to sift through the propaganda and find out something akin to truth, if an objective truth is ever possible anyway.

The problem with western news is that its increasingly coming from the same one or two sources, and then the media outlets spin the facts to fit their agenda.

KPO

Monday, March 17, 2014 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Why would Western press fail to report on anti-Yanukovic snipers killing police? Why would all Western countries' press sing from the same hymn sheet?-KPO

Is this a real question, or are you being ironic?-signy

It's a real question. -KPO

Oh, OK.

Governments... and I don't care WHOSE government... want to do certain things that aren't necessarily to the benefit of the average citizen. So they create a narrative, an explanation for their actions which sounds caring, responsible, NECESSARY. If they repeat the narrative often enough, people eventually believe it. But allowing conflicting information brings the narrative into question.

I can point to a lot of actions that were justified by strange narratives. For example, the invasion of Iraq was justified by (the non-connection to) 9-11 and (non-existant) WMD.

As another example, we invaded Panama because Noriega was a hated dictator (he wasn't) and because Panama was a major drug route (it wasn't).

The Ukrainian narrative was that the nation consisted of a population of hostages... Ukrainians yearning to breathe the free market air, longing to join the west, held in place by a corrupt dictator and Russian puppet, Yanukovich. Those poor protesters tried to peacefully express their views in the central square of Maidan, and were brutally put down by that horrible tyrant Yanukovich.

So, in the overall narrative, it wouldn't do to have those "peaceful protesters" as snipers, shooting policemen and "their side" alike in an effort ramp up the violence. Therefore, those images never appeared in western press. It's that simple.

I asked about Western media, you answered about Western governments. So apparently you have the view that the media is tightly state-controlled in all Western countries, like it is in Russia. This is news to me. We're coming at this from radically different worldviews.

Also no answer yet on why other news media from around the world report on the situation differently to Russian media. I've just spent the last 15 minutes looking at random 'neutral' countries' media (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, Nigeria) reporting on the situation in Ukraine. They look very similar to Western media's reporting. So Russian media seems to be the exception.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 17, 2014 9:38 PM

Quote:
I asked about Western media, you answered about Western governments. So apparently you have the view that the media is tightly state-controlled in all Western countries, like it is in Russia. This is news to me. We're coming at this from radically different worldviews.

Western (ie USA and European) news is fairly monolithic, and there are several reasons how this occurs. Before I get to that, though, I want to stress how unrealistic and contorted the reporting is. I don't know how old you are, or how far I can refer back to events that you're familiar with, but the major news media has gotten every major international/ political story wrong, starting at least as far back as Vietnam. EVERY USA invasion/ "intervention" has been preceded by a propaganda campaign that significantly misrepresented the facts on the ground. As a result, many of our invasions/ interventions ended in fiasco. That includes the latest USA interference in Ukraine.

Now, HOW CAN THE PRESS BE SO VERY WRONG, SO VERY CONSISTENTLY? You need to get your head out of the mentality that if "everyone" is saying it, it must be true. Because there was a time when everyone said the world was flat too.

The first is that there is very little investigative reporting. "The news" consists almost entirely of news releases by government functionaries at various levels of authority, and repeats from various other media. Want to know about the latest fire? You'll hear about it from the fire chief. The latest crime? That would be your local police department. The White House response to the latest war? The reasons for invading a particular country? You'll get the WH Press Secretary, or the WH advisor to the UN, or some other White House flunky. It works the same in Britain, France, or elsewhere.

I challenge you... go to wherever you get your news from- website, or paper, and take a look at HOW MANY articles are actually NOT sourced from or vetted by a government official? All you have to do is look at the various press conferences that are broadcast, you see reporters who have gravitated (they think) to the center of power, begging for a chance to sit in the front row like school children. OR, better yet- they get "the leak", which is, more often than not, just a more finely calibrated release of disinformation.

The second reason is that governments are assiduous in classifying embarrassing/ important information, and prosecuting anyone with insider knowledge who dares bring it to the media. Look at how Snowden, Assange, Manning, and Greenwald have been treated.

The third is that- yes, there is editorial control of the news. The USA government snoops on reporters including those at Fox. Editors ARE told what stories to cover and which to spike, and how to cover them. Corporations and banks will tend to spike anything that is globally critical of "the system".

I found this online

Quote:
Hello, I’m Byron Christopher, a Canadian reporter with more than three decades’ experience in the mainstream [commercial] media, unfortunately also known as the “lame-stream” media. I’ve worked for independent media as well... Journalism plays an important role in a democracy. I realize that’s stating the obvious, but if people are to make informed choices — the hallmark of a true democracy — they need balanced, verifiable information. Some say that free, uncensored journalism is the very heart of democracy.

What it boils down to, is that reporters should try and make some sense of what is happening in the world. However, that’s easier said than done.

When we read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the radio, it’s impossible for us to know how much is actual news, how much is opinion … and if we’re getting propaganda or corporate public relations. Or, if management has ordered reporters to do stories for political reasons. Thousands of “ifs” could be at play here.

Most grocery products have labels indicating what consumers are getting. But with news content, we will ne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Monday, March 17, 2014 9:50 PM

Just grabbing the top hits from my search engine

FROM PAKISTAN

Quote:
The current crisis in Ukraine should be viewed in the context of Iraq and Afghan wars as well as centuries old European rivalries. The two contemporary wars produced an economically, diplomatically and militarily weaker USA. This means that America that is a leading power in NATO can no longer afford to engage in another prolonged military struggle with a major power in the world. It is even more difficult because European partners are struggling with economic recession; are exhausted from long wars in Middle East; and are too concerned with maintaining their own alliance in Eurozone as well as need time to convert it into a political entity. ...

....President Putin has a unique profile among the current cadre of world leaders. He has been a soldier, an intelligence officer, a chief of staff and a top politician. No other leader can match this profile in terms of depth of understanding of various dynamics involved in solving a crisis including political, military and diplomatic.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/03/03/comment/ukraine-and-first-w
orld-war/

FROM INDIA

Quote:
Russian interests in Ukraine's Crimea ‘legitimate’, India says
NEW DELHI: India believes Russia has "legitimate interests" in Ukraine — a position that is opposed to the stand of the west on the latest crisis. Interestingly, China has opposed Russia's intervention in Crimea, deviating from a long-standing support to Moscow in the UN Security Council.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Russian-interests-in-Ukraines
-Crimea-legitimate-India-says/articleshow/31638375.cms

FROM CHINA

Quote:
Crimean parliament declares independence from Ukraine 03-17 18:12
The Crimean parliament Monday declared independence from Ukraine, after latest official results show 96.77 percent of Crimean voters chose to join Russia in Sunday's referendum.

http://www.chinaview.cn/

FROM THAILAND

Quote:
Russian economy braces for punishment after Crimea seizure
Zero growth or even recession in 2014, asset freezes in the West and tens of billions of dollars in capital flight -- Russia must brace for the consequences of putting political ambition above economic sense in seizing control of Crimea, analysts say.

Pro-Russian Crimeans gather to celebrate in Lenin Square in Crimea's capital Simferopol on March 16, 2014 after exit polls showed about 93 percent of voters in Ukraine's Crimea region supported union with Russia

The huge 'yes' vote in the disputed referendum in the Ukrainian region of Crimea to become part of Russia means Moscow has claimed an addition to its territory for the first time since the end of World War II. But President Vladimir Putin's swoop has given the Kremlin's economic policy makers an unenviable task of limiting the inevitable damage to the economy which was already showing troubling signs of weakness.

"There are many signs the economy is now being hit by an uncertainty shock," said analysts at VTB Capital, slashing their forecast for growth in Russia in 2014 to zero. "We see downside risks if uncertainty remains elevated for a protracted period or if severe sanctions are imposed," VTB added.

It remains to be seen how far the European Union and the United States dare to go in sanctions -- they could choose more superficial measures like visa bans or tough measures freezing state assets and hitting the wider economy. Analysts call the second option the "Iranian scenario" as it recalls the measures slapped against Tehran over its nuclear programme that eventually brought the Iranian economy to its knees.
...

There are already signs that Russia has been battening down the hatches in anticipation of serious trouble. A record drop of over $100 billion in US treasury securities held by foreign banks in the week ending to March 12 was attributed by analysts to Russia taking its money elsewhere in anticip

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Monday, March 17, 2014 10:28 PM

I asked about Western media, you answered about Western governments. So apparently you have the view that the media is tightly state-controlled in all Western countries, like it is in Russia. This is news to me. We're coming at this from radically different worldviews.

Obviously I'm not Signy but I have some history and data that might help.

Way back when was a journalist called I.F. Stone. Back then, he was very skeptical of official sources, and how they might manipulate the media by allowing, or withholding, 'access'. So he never fell in with the White House press corps, or official sources. And in fact, if you look at the 'news' today, it consists of government press releases, official sources, unnamed sources, and media press releases from other organizations like universities, police departments, agencies, etc. You'd have to translate the titles to your country, but how many 'news' items begin --- The White house released information today ..., the US jobs report came out today ..., economic indicators were released today ..., the police have apprehended ..., a major study in the journal ...? Even war correspondents are highly contained - embedded, and foreign correspondents are 'allowed' access only by the grace of the powers that be. How much real reporting - investigative reporting - is there? How much local, knowledgeable reporting do we get about foreign events? What you see are 'reporters' helicoptered in using the locale as a backdrop, reading a pre-packaged script before they get helicoptered off to the next location.

All this goes hand in hand with the rise of media as a profit-driven business. The more reputable, established major commercial stations USED to think of news as a loss-center that was, nevertheless, a public duty. After all, it's expensive to do investigative reporting, to have independent correspondents all around the globe - including and especially in war zones, and to maintain foreign sources.
But that hasn't been true starting during the 70's. At that time there was a major drive to cut costs and improve revenue in the news department. To turn it from a loss-center to profit-center. So several things happened concurrently.
One was a move to make the news cheaper to get. To that end war correspondents and local sources were eliminated, and replaced by official pronouncements, press-releases, newswires, and more recently OTHER NEWS BROADCASTS. The last especially leads to a peculiar 'echo chamber' where you will hear newscasts about OTHER NEWSCASTS. As reported by FOX News today ...
Then there's the drive toward sensationalism. It's I think easily understandable so i won't go into it.
Another effort went in to making the news palatable, to keep people watching, in order to improve the sale price of ad time. There's been a lot of market research about what makes people change the channel or keep watching. Newscasts today are highly scripted, from the lead-in to the sign-off, a carefully balanced experience of gravity, levity, reassurance, and heartwarming anecdote. Plus novelty. Can't forget the novelty. Old news, like Fukushima, isn't 'interesting' even though it's still happening and more consequential every day.
And you have to not create cognitive dissonance in your audience. It makes people very uncomfortable to have their world-views challenged. And so, what you see in the news is often simply ... yourself.

Anyway, I have to go for now. I understand other countries have their public news agencies, unlike the US. But even there is a strong drive to cut costs. Am I right? And a strong dependence on official sources. And growing competition from commercial journalism. And many of the same cultural constraints.

If I have time to go into more detail, I'll get back to this later. But I think you can see that there's a strong confluence of government and monetary/budgetary interests that go in to determining what news story you will see today.

[

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE