Russia declares war on memes

[Valsuelm]

General,

 

RT is not near as bad as you think. Many if not most of it's guests are American, and it hardly is just a 'constant negative view of the west'. It does however fairly constantly report stories that fly in the face of many myths you hold dear.

 

Russia is hardly alone in owning media outlets directed at nations other than itself. Many nations dabble in such matters, including the U.S., which has many media outlets for overseas propaganda purposes, and of course the U.K., that nation who supposedly no longer runs the world's largest empire but just so happens to own the world's largest propaganda.... oh sorry, I'll use the PC term you'll be more comfortable with:  largest international news network. It's a coincidence I'm sure.

 

The sad truth is that RT, PressTV, and Al Jazeera whom all you have railed against, generally are far more objective in the stories they do cover than any major western mainstream 'news' outlet.

 

Your list of journalists killed doesn't really amount to much. The wiki is as ever incomplete, and many of the deaths listed are the result of war. That said, of course the occasional journalist is snuffed out in Russia because of what they said or what they were investigating, but this also happens in the 'west' as well. You would dismiss such claims as 'conspiracy theory' though.

 

As for how much influence the governments of the 'west' have on media? Well, that varies quite a bit. In the U.S. for example no major network is outright owned by the government, though PBS and NPR get quite a decent chunk of government funding, and government agencies do exert some degree of influence over the mainstream media. In the U.K. there's the BBC, which is owned by the government. Australia also has a 'news' station owned by it's government.

 

In the 'west' however, it often is not so much how much influence the government has on the media but how much influence the puppeteers of the government have on the media, and the answer to that is one helluva lot.
 

So good General, I'm sorry to disappoint but you shot yourself in the foot, confusing it with a Russian foot. It's somewhat understandable, as they do look very much the same these days.

 

I have recommended you watch these before, and it's clear to me you haven't yet, but here again are some of my recommendations:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOygpfEl7nE

Edited April 16, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

And two more for you good General,

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ou9rOssPg

Edited April 16, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

General,

 

RT is not near as bad as you think. Many if not most of it's guests are American, and it hardly is just a 'constant negative view of the west'. It does however fairly constantly report stories that fly in the face of many myths you hold dear.

 

Russia is hardly alone in owning media outlets directed at nations other than itself. Many nations dabble in such matters, including the U.S., which has many media outlets for overseas propaganda purposes, and of course the U.K., that nation who supposedly no longer runs the world's largest empire but just so happens to own the world's largest propaganda.... oh sorry, I'll use the PC term you'll be more comfortable with:  largest international news network. It's a coincidence I'm sure.

 

The sad truth is that RT, PressTV, and Al Jazeera whom all you have railed against, generally are far more objective in the stories they do cover than any major western mainstream 'news' outlet.

 

Your list of journalists killed doesn't really amount to much. The wiki is as ever incomplete, and many of the deaths listed are the result of war. That said, of course the occasional journalist is snuffed out in Russia because of what they said or what they were investigating, but this also happens in the 'west' as well. You would dismiss such claims as 'conspiracy theory' though.

 

As for how much influence the governments of the 'west' have on media? Well, that varies quite a bit. In the U.S. for example no major network is outright owned by the government, though PBS and NPR get quite a decent chunk of government funding, and government agencies do exert some degree of influence over the mainstream media. In the U.K. there's the BBC, which is owned by the government. Australia also has a 'news' station owned by it's government.

 

In the 'west' however, it often is not so much how much influence the government has on the media but how much influence the puppeteers of the government have on the media, and the answer to that is one helluva lot.

 

So good General, I'm sorry to disappoint but you shot yourself in the foot, confusing it with a Russian foot. It's somewhat understandable, as they do look very much the same these days.

 

I have recommended you watch these before, and it's clear to me you haven't yet, but here again are some of my recommendations:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOygpfEl7nE

 

I have never rallied against Al-Jazeera, I consider them an objective source of news on most levels. They also have access to interviews that most Western media houses don't  have so they are offer an very relevant perspective that doesn't generally differ from the likes of CNN or BBC.

 

I have disdain for RT because they are funded and controlled by the Russian state yet claim to be objective, its not hard to understand the difference between RT and other international news channels that bring us global news 

[BruceVC]

General,

 

RT is not near as bad as you think. Many if not most of it's guests are American, and it hardly is just a 'constant negative view of the west'. It does however fairly constantly report stories that fly in the face of many myths you hold dear.

 

Russia is hardly alone in owning media outlets directed at nations other than itself. Many nations dabble in such matters, including the U.S., which has many media outlets for overseas propaganda purposes, and of course the U.K., that nation who supposedly no longer runs the world's largest empire but just so happens to own the world's largest propaganda.... oh sorry, I'll use the PC term you'll be more comfortable with:  largest international news network. It's a coincidence I'm sure.

 

The sad truth is that RT, PressTV, and Al Jazeera whom all you have railed against, generally are far more objective in the stories they do cover than any major western mainstream 'news' outlet.

 

Your list of journalists killed doesn't really amount to much. The wiki is as ever incomplete, and many of the deaths listed are the result of war. That said, of course the occasional journalist is snuffed out in Russia because of what they said or what they were investigating, but this also happens in the 'west' as well. You would dismiss such claims as 'conspiracy theory' though.

 

As for how much influence the governments of the 'west' have on media? Well, that varies quite a bit. In the U.S. for example no major network is outright owned by the government, though PBS and NPR get quite a decent chunk of government funding, and government agencies do exert some degree of influence over the mainstream media. In the U.K. there's the BBC, which is owned by the government. Australia also has a 'news' station owned by it's government.

 

In the 'west' however, it often is not so much how much influence the government has on the media but how much influence the puppeteers of the government have on the media, and the answer to that is one helluva lot.

 

So good General, I'm sorry to disappoint but you shot yourself in the foot, confusing it with a Russian foot. It's somewhat understandable, as they do look very much the same these days.

 

I have recommended you watch these before, and it's clear to me you haven't yet, but here again are some of my recommendations:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOygpfEl7nE

 

I have never rallied against Al-Jazeera, I consider them an objective source of news on most levels. They also have access to interviews that most Western media houses don't  have so they are offer an very relevant perspective that doesn't generally differ from the likes of CNN or BBC.

 

I have disdain for RT because they are funded and controlled by the Russian state yet claim to be objective, its not hard to understand the difference between RT and other international news channels that bring us global news 

[Zoraptor]

General,

 

It's a Trap!

[Tort]

 

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries?

 

In case it's completely missed you, which it seems to have done, the issue is not merely about 'freedom of expression'. There are other issues at play. Libel and fraud being two of them, both of which are recognized in western law (to varying degrees depending on where you live).

 

As I said before, I can't read Russian so can't get at the finer points of the law, but as it's been represented, there actually may be little wrong with it, and very well might even stand up as a law in the U.S..

 

Concerning that later, in Russia there many laws that might be constitutional on paper, but not in their actual application.

 

For example, recently Russia passed a law nominally strives to reduce internet child pornography, but in practice its vague language was used to silence opposition sites. Similarly while internet users rights (as they are) are presumably guarantied, the providers have to give all info without seeing any warrants. Add to that all the blunderbuss over opposition leaders etc.

 

That and the systematically trample of Russian freedom of expression, that we have seen over the last decade and IMO it is silly to assume that this law will be used against silly internet memes, which no can stop spreading, more likely it will be used against Russian opposition "press" to stifle criticism using caricatures and the like.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Tort

[Tort]

Russia is hardly alone in owning media outlets directed at nations other than itself. Many nations dabble in such matters, including the U.S., [...]

Please stop with BS! This has been done to death:

 

Step one: Some disenfranchised kid claims the "west" just as bad as X in Y

Step two: Making a generic statement that is true for both

Step three: Appealing to ignorance, spamming their original research (usually with googled popular cases related just to the USA )

Step four: Repeat last Ad nauseam.

Alternatively: If all fails they cry "bias" against all the scientific data against you...

 

 

If you guys want to argue that there are issues with world media, western media or USA in particular please go ahead, but the constant deflection from Russia MAJOR issues pointing to anything related to the USA that you can find feels pathetic.

 

 

RT is not near as bad as you think. Many if not most of it's guests are American, and it hardly is just a 'constant negative view of the west'. It does however fairly constantly report stories that fly in the face of many myths you hold dear.

The only myth here is that "west" or its media are some sort of singular entity, like most of Russia's media. And Self criticism is a common place here, even in the USA there are many outlets that doing your so called myth busting. Which is in contrast to Russia, where RT (which can be compare to FOX news on steroids ) represent its full reportage, and the constantly report against western "Myth" mostly works as confirmation bias to the populace who is stuck behind. Edited April 16, 2015 by Tort

[BruceVC]

 

 

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries?

 

In case it's completely missed you, which it seems to have done, the issue is not merely about 'freedom of expression'. There are other issues at play. Libel and fraud being two of them, both of which are recognized in western law (to varying degrees depending on where you live).

 

As I said before, I can't read Russian so can't get at the finer points of the law, but as it's been represented, there actually may be little wrong with it, and very well might even stand up as a law in the U.S..

 

Concerning that later, in Russia there many laws that might be constitutional on paper, but not in their actual application.

 

For example, recently Russia passed a law nominally strives to reduce internet child pornography, but in practice its vague language was used to silence opposition sites. Similarly while internet users rights (as they are) are presumably guarantied, the providers have to give all info without seeing any warrants. Add to that all the blunderbuss over opposition leaders etc.

 

That and the systematically trample of Russian freedom of expression, that we have seen over the last decade and IMO it is silly to assume that this law will be used against silly internet memes, which no can stop spreading, more likely it will be used against Russian opposition "press" to stifle criticism using caricatures and the like.

 

 

Well said, QFT 

[Monte Carlo]

Noam Chomsky epic fail.

[Valsuelm]

 

General,

 

It's a Trap!

 

 

There is no trap laid for the General. I wouldn't mislead him so.

 

The only traps appearing in this thread so far are the one's folks lay for themselves.

[Valsuelm]

I have never rallied against Al-Jazeera, I consider them an objective source of news on most levels. They also have access to interviews that most Western media houses don't  have so they are offer an very relevant perspective that doesn't generally differ from the likes of CNN or BBC.

 

I have disdain for RT because they are funded and controlled by the Russian state yet claim to be objective, its not hard to understand the difference between RT and other international news channels that bring us global news 

 

 

I seem to recall otherwise in regards to your opinion on Al-Jazeera. Finding that thread though won't be easy, as it's quite some time back. If I'm mistaken, my apologies. If you like Al-Jazeera that's good. It's a step in the right direction.

 

Here's an example of hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, or something of the like:

 

'I have disdain for the BBC because they are funded and controlled by the government of the United Kingdom yet claim to be objective, its not hard to understand the difference between the BBC and other international news channels that bring us global news.'

 

Obviously your disdain is your disdain. You hold the BBC in high regard, and RT in low regard. Some of the criticism you lay on RT however, is also applicable to your cherished BBC.

 

If one is to be capable of recognizing objectivity,  one must be objective themselves.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

General,

 

It's a Trap!

 

 

There is no trap laid for the General. I wouldn't mislead him so.

 

No, not from the general.

 

You appear to be taking seriously someone who writes that state sponsored channels are biased then immediately cites the BBC as an independent counterexample. He does that sort of thing all the time, it's a baited hook to get a a response- or alternatively, he's so incredibly un self aware that why bother anyway.

 

That's why I didn't use a gif for "It's a trap!", Ackbar would probably sue me in Russia for using him against such a weak effort.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

General,

 

 

It's a Trap!

That's transphobic.

[Amentep]

Is there a meme for Russia shutting down memes yet?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

General,

 

It's a Trap!

 

 

There is no trap laid for the General. I wouldn't mislead him so.

 

No, not from the general.

 

You appear to be taking seriously someone who writes that state sponsored channels are biased then immediately cites the BBC as an independent counterexample. He does that sort of thing all the time, it's a baited hook to get a a response- or alternatively, he's so incredibly un self aware that why bother anyway.

 

That's why I didn't use a gif for "It's a trap!", Ackbar would probably sue me in Russia for using him against such a weak effort.

 

You so  insightful Zora....but not really

 

I normally just ignore your attempts when you accuse me of being a troll but I can see the possible confusion so this explanation is more for others

 

There is always the risk of state interference in a state owned media house like BBC, but this discussion is not just about RT or BBC. Its about the broader issue of freedom of speech and the Putin regimes influence in the media narrative within Russia . The BBC has many interviews and guests who criticize the British government and considering how seriously British journalists and broadcasters take there independence the suggestion that the BBC is just a mouth peace for the British government is  just scurrilous and absurd. If you disagree produce links that show how BBC journalists have resigned because they  got tired of  discussing a subjective view of the news when it was anti-Britain. Oh thats right, you can't because the don't really exist because the BBC is allowed to produce the news based on the actual news and not what the government tells them. And that is not the same thing as misinformation that everyone believed at the time and later was proven false like the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. And I can produce links  around RT and people  resigning due to interference in there job

 

 

Once again this is not the case with RT, so yes the two are different despite being state owned. This should be obvious to anyone who claims to have knowledge in global affairs and events. But no as usual you focus on one point, that I mentioned BBC, and everything else is forgotten and you say I not having this debate in good faith and I want to " trap people " 

 

You anti-Western bias actually blinds you to certain realities and perspectives, you really should work on this because its not a good way to view the world 

Edited April 17, 2015 by BruceVC

[vdrandom]

Basically, laws in Russia are made to be abused. This is no exception.

[Walsingham]

Of all the 'world leaders' out there, Putin is one of the most down to earth.

 

[Malcador]

Laws everywhere are meant to be abused. We have an anti terror one that one can use to move on groups the government deems a threat. Like environmentalists, etc.

 

Oh well, usual narrative

[Tort]

You appear to be taking seriously someone who writes that state sponsored channels are biased then immediately cites the BBC as an independent counterexample.

There is a difference between "state sponsored channels" (i.e. through the usual television\radio fees) and state owned\run channels. In particularly where state run channels dominate the media sector, and the government sets editorial policy for them, while stifling the independent broadcasters.

 

That why the comparison between BBC in UK and RT In Russia is foolhardy strawmen in the first place.

 

 

Laws everywhere are meant to be abused. We have an anti terror one that one can use to move on groups the government deems a threat. Like environmentalists, etc.

Yet another generic statement, that while true adds nothing of substance about the abuse of laws in Russia (e.g. their authoritarian\political application and corruption)

 

It is like saying 'yeah, but all government types has problems', in a response to a discussion listing the major issues with Theocracy.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Tort

[Tort]

 

Of all the 'world leaders' out there, Putin is one of the most down to earth.

 

 

This reminds me a similar assertion:

 

Globally, you're probably the most popular man in modern history... you are looked on as a savior of sorts.

—RT's Peter Lavelle to Putin

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT

[Malcador]

Yet another generic statement, that while true adds nothing of substance about the abuse of laws in Russia (e.g. their authoritarian\political application and corruption)

 

It is like saying 'yeah, but all government types has problems', in a response to a discussion listing the major issues with Theocracy.

Oh great, another wannabe forum mod, policing discussion on a thread. Not really sure what you want of posts here, though, not really much more to add that you'd deem acceptable - I guess posts on why Russia is evil, or something ?

[Hurlshort]

So whenever someone criticizes what you say, they are a wannabe forum mod who is trying to police discussion?  

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, can't see any back seat moderating there.

 

OTOH, apparently serious linkage to rationalwiki? Ooooookeydokey.

[Malcador]

So whenever someone criticizes what you say, they are a wannabe forum mod who is trying to police discussion?

What's he criticizing other than it not meshing with what he determines the thread's purpose to be. But another blue oby, oh well.

[Tort]

OTOH, apparently serious linkage to rationalwiki? Ooooookeydokey.

I found rationalwiki to be extremely useful in cases where the hacks crawl out of the woodwork, and apparently seriously speaking of myth and untold truth that you will only going to hear at.. RT ! sure it lacks fineness but its straight, to the point, and saves time.. For example:

 

Russia Today is the only international news organisation that promotes conspiracy theories on an industrial scale. For example there is a compilation of, originally no less than 56 Russia Today YouTube videos on 9/11 (7 now deleted).[16] The majority publicise, and clearly support, conspiracy theories. The remainder involve other criticisms of the United States.

 

It also comes handy when people seriously compare publicly controlled organizations with government controlled media organizations, whose funding is separate and on top of the usual local tv\radio tax, which where created with purpose of projecting Russian POV to other countries. Which is highly politicized and has a bone to pick with the west.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Tort