donegal__road wrote: » not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words, 'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT' here is Hillary Clinton addressing congress on the issue of American TV trailing behind non-Western media. Faux News, ABC, CNN, NBC are a monolithic media.
bumper234 wrote: » So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?
Jonny7 wrote: » Won't find any of these theories in mainstream anything, because they are just theories. When they strike a certain narrative they are seized upon by the relevant blog/editorial sites that do their best to pose as news articles.. and of course our favorite foreign propaganda sites if they are in any way anti-Western or take a nice juicy shot at Israel.
...the fact that Iraq had switched to paying for oil in euros—rather than US dollars—the Bush administration’s unreported aim was to prevent further OPEC momentum in favor of the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency standard.
donegal__road wrote: » not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words, 'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT'
realweirdo wrote: » Convienently ignore the fact that America confronted and helped defeat three of the great evils of the 20th century Nazi Germany, Emperial Japan and the USSR. (Ireland stayed neutral). Ignore the fact that but for the US, South Korea would be a communist run sh*thole like North Korea. Ignore the fact that America is the biggest provider of humanitarian assistance in the world by far. Ignore the fact that America is about the only nation confronting Islamic terrorism, yes in a war where there is collatoral damage, but the alternative is to allow the spread of Islamofascism unchecked. It really is a case of either or in this situation. Ignore the fact that America sent the Taliban packing from large parts of Afghanistan. And basically ignore every good deed America has ever done in its history. You don't do balance do you?
Jonny7 wrote: » She is saying that they are winning the information war (propaganda). There's a large market in the Russia (and elsewhere) for media that portrays the US in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.
donegal__road wrote: » there is a large market in the US (and elsewhere) for media that portrays non western countries in a bad light, regardless of whether it's true or not.
Jonny7 wrote: » True, and when you can see through both, you're probably on the right track.
donegal__road wrote: » ok, I'll put it to you like this... I grew up listening to bbc reportage on events during the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. I happen to live in very close proximity to Northern Ireland, and heard eye witness accounts of what actually happened on the ground from locals... I soon realised that what was being reported in the news, was manipulated to support the British agenda. My awareness of propaganda and the public mind began around that time.
Jonny7 wrote: » Yah, I watched both, Irish and English and sometimes I'd notice a different slant on the same incident. However there's a fairly large gap between that and the outright propaganda and conspiracy mongering attitudes of state-run stations like RT. Different kettle of fish altogether.
Eggy Baby! wrote: » Bold:The USSR fell by itself. And the US didn't help (notice "help") defeat Nazism or Japanese fascist imperialism out of the good of it's heart. There was an obvious strategic interest. You'd have to be blind not to see that. For every good deed there is an appalling atrocity. I'm not going to give you a history lesson because these things are so well known by this stage even by people who have little to no grasp of history. I suggest you go to Eason's and buy a history book (not a school textbook) and broaden your knowledge with regard to these things. I could give you a list if you really desired, or some material in a PM. Yours exasperatedly, Eggy.
bumper234 wrote: » Are you honestly saying that American news channels are better than Russian because American news channels are not full of propaganda? :eek:
realweirdo wrote: » Look at how Russian media treat the political opposition and how American TV treat the political opposition - its a good start.
realweirdo wrote: » To say the US had no role in the fall of the USSR is frankly the most bizarre thing I've read on here. The USSR ran out of money. Much of it had to do with keeping up an arms race with the USA. Another major part was fighting a costly war in Afghanistan which the US fought as a proxy conflict. Defeat in Afghanistan was the beginning of the end. That's my last comment on the USSR as like you said I will try to keep it relevant to Syria from now on. You can reply to this post if you want but that's it.
Jonny7 wrote: » I was referring to Irish/British media compared to Russian outlets like RT. Reporters without borders ranks Russia pretty far down the list in terms of press freedom.
donegal__road wrote: » Reporters Without Borders are funded primarily by the US state budget through USAID.. other funders include National Endowment for Democracy, who are sponsored by Bush neo-cons such as Otto Reich. You could hardly call RWB un-biased now, could you?financial ties between French-based NGO Reporters Without Borders and US Government/CIA front organizations
Jonny7 wrote: » Deeper down the rabbit hole we go. Voltairenet are basically a group of activists (douchebags) who went to Libya to report the "real truth" - the reality is a lot of them spent most of the time holed up in the Rixos hotel pretending the CIA was out to kill them. Thierry Meyssens is a loon of the highest order. As for their opinion on "reporters without borders", it'll be conspiracy theory type stuff. It's an NGO which focuses as much on the US as it does anywhere else. Like another poster said, spread your news sources across reputable outlets.
bmaxi wrote: » But what are reputable sources? Before the advent of FTA satellite TV we were dependent on Western media, now we have RT, Al Jazeera, Press Tv etc. To say that these are not reputable sources is to form a biased opinion, I certainly wouldn't say all western media is a reputable source.
Sometimes media is just impartial to suffering. For example, there is a massive civil war in the Congo that has been going on for ages and left millions dead, millions maimed and lots more impoverished and starving. It continues to rage every day, yet there is no media coverage. The last media I saw on it was Ross Kemp's hour-long documentary there and that was a year ago. Whereas crap like Clint Eastwood's speech to the chair is analysed, spoofed and reported on incessantly for days. Car bombings in Iraq that kill dozens get tiny bite-sized stories. These things were reported on all the time during the Iraq War, as the insurgents were the "enemy" and it was chic to report on their atrocities. Now there is very little reporting on it, presumably because there is little appetite for stories on Iraq any more after the withdrawal. A more recent example is the Pussy Riot case. Over here they became the poster girls of the Russian opposition movement, whereas in Russia you couldn't locate their actual fan-base with an electron microscope. Same with "opposition figures" like Gorbachev, Kasparov and Nemtsov. The Guardian in particular was being spammed with stories and editorials about them, because there is an anti-Putin appetite over here these days since the protests began. So usually there is an agenda here, maybe not a political one but certainly papers are trying to sell copies, or their websites are trying to get hits, and that's why they reports on some stuff but ignore other things. Whereas RT caters to a different consumer base, and this is reflected accordingly in its stories.
Jonny7 wrote: » Disclaimer - this is just my opinion over the past 10 odd years Avoid any English speaking Russian or Iranian sources. Middle Eastern is a mixed bag. I used to follow Al Jazeera a lot - they were quite anti-US/Israel, their offices were targeted twice, they've lost reporters and cameramen in some very dicey incidents. Since the Arab spring they seem to have matured and can out good solid content. Al Arabiya is decent. European media is grand when you stick to the main outlets - Der Spiegl, El Pais, Le Monde, etc. Euronews is fine. Scandinavian media pretty much tops the charts in any press freedom index. Irish and British media is generally alright for international stories if you avoid the tabloids (and Sky News) UK has left and right broadsheets- I try to read both. US media - CNN is awful, FOX is awful, I don't watch MSNBC. Washington Post is decent, Huffington post is also decent. Lastly internet news. Website authors often give themselves "newsy" sounding names, blast out huge volumes of blogs/stories/articles - little or no regard for their authenticity, typically for hits (businessinsider.com, examiner.com) or to represent more extreme political views. A lot of it is self styled "alternative" news but there's no rules, so they go with whatever their audience wants, again with an unhealthy dose of sensationalist blogs and editorials.
Avoid any English speaking Russian or Iranian sources.
clairefontaine wrote: » To know what's really going on in the US you watch cspan. Atlantic Monthly is good too.
