Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

You mean besides the fact that russian soldiers themselves had said they are/were in ukraine?

Yeah, because Western and Ukrainian media telling you Russian soldiers said that is so much more reliable than the head of the French intelligence service. Seriously, the way in which Westerners tend to believe in their media is really scary. They are media. Lies and propaganda is pretty much their job.

Russian media and Western media ultimately aren't the same thing though. Russian media has little to no reason to dig up stuff on their own government, as they're at the mercy of the Kremlin, whereas Western media stands to gain from exposing government missteps. Trying to draw a comparison between the two is dishonest.

That is not to say that Western media as a whole is some sort of spotless paragon of integrity, but it's a damn sight better than the likes of RT.

It depends what media station you look at. RT is funded for by the Russian state, but you seem to think this is the case for every media station in Russia. That is not true. Some Russian media stations controlled by the liberal opposition have plenty of reason to dig up stuff on the government, it is what they do all the time. In fact, spreading anti-government and pro-opposition messages is pretty much the very reason they exist.
In the West it is usually not all that different. The largest media stations are run by the state, and there are also private ones whose owners have their own interests. There exists no such thing as independent media, unlike what is often claimed by the West. Media needs huge lots of money to operate, and that leads to all media controlled by either states or oligarchs.

What we've got is a 30+ nations with democratically elected governments representing nearly a billion people, all saying what Russia is doing is wrong. We even have proof of Russia's involvement in Ukraine, we can list names and service numbers of soldiers in active service in Ukraine. There's photographic evidence that Russia fired shells into Ukraine from within Russia. There's even a video taken by a Guardian journalist driving behind Russian APCs driving across the boarder into Ukraine. There's also proof of a BUK was in rebel hands the day MH-17 was shot down.

Then there's Russia's government saying they're the ones telling the truth. A country being run by a man who's been in power for 15 years.

Over that time multiple assassinations of dissidents over the years including one very recently. People who have exposed corrupt government officials being arrested and killed in prison and Illegal seizure of oil companies by the government.

Putin tries to make out that Russia is this grand liberator and that everyone but them are fascists. Saying that they fought fascists in WW2 and ignoring that they allied with them to begin.

He's also an accused paedophile, the accuser was assassinated but it does make you wonder, especially after seeing the picture of him kissing a little boys tummy.

The plain facts are this. A Russian backed leader was ousted, then Russia invaded Crimea, a territory that belongs to Ukraine. Russia they said the local population voted for Russian membership on it so its fine.

At the same time Siberia tries to hold an independence march and it's banned, and they arrest the activists. Putin denied sending troops at the time into Crimea but then admits that he'd actually sent special forces there.

I think it's pretty clear who's more trust worthy than who.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

You mean besides the fact that russian soldiers themselves had said they are/were in ukraine?

Yeah, because Western and Ukrainian media telling you Russian soldiers said that is so much more reliable than the head of the French intelligence service. Seriously, the way in which Westerners tend to believe in their media is really scary. They are media. Lies and propaganda is pretty much their job.

Russian media and Western media ultimately aren't the same thing though. Russian media has little to no reason to dig up stuff on their own government, as they're at the mercy of the Kremlin, whereas Western media stands to gain from exposing government missteps. Trying to draw a comparison between the two is dishonest.

That is not to say that Western media as a whole is some sort of spotless paragon of integrity, but it's a damn sight better than the likes of RT.

It depends what media station you look at. RT is funded for by the Russian state, but you seem to think this is the case for every media station in Russia. That is not true. Some Russian media stations controlled by the liberal opposition have plenty of reason to dig up stuff on the government, it is what they do all the time.

The difference being that Western media isn't under the threat of having the opinion police shutting the place down.

You'll also note that Western nations aren't, as far as I am aware, blocking access to Russian media sources, whereas there's more and more legislation coming out of the Kremlin designed to clamp down on internet freedom.

Again; trying to equate Western media with Russian media is intellectually dishonest. They're two different beasts.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

You mean besides the fact that russian soldiers themselves had said they are/were in ukraine?

Yeah, because Western and Ukrainian media telling you Russian soldiers said that is so much more reliable than the head of the French intelligence service. Seriously, the way in which Westerners tend to believe in their media is really scary. They are media. Lies and propaganda is pretty much their job.

Russian media and Western media ultimately aren't the same thing though. Russian media has little to no reason to dig up stuff on their own government, as they're at the mercy of the Kremlin, whereas Western media stands to gain from exposing government missteps. Trying to draw a comparison between the two is dishonest.

That is not to say that Western media as a whole is some sort of spotless paragon of integrity, but it's a damn sight better than the likes of RT.

It depends what media station you look at. RT is funded for by the Russian state, but you seem to think this is the case for every media station in Russia. That is not true. Some Russian media stations controlled by the liberal opposition have plenty of reason to dig up stuff on the government, it is what they do all the time. In fact, spreading anti-government and pro-opposition messages is pretty much the very reason they exist.
In the West it is usually not all that different. The largest media stations are run by the state, and there are also private ones whose owners have their own interests. There exists no such thing as independent media, unlike what is often claimed by the West. Media needs huge lots of money to operate, and that leads to all media controlled by either states or oligarchs.

Russian government has control over what they put out and the infrastructure they use. They can and do pull the plug when they don't like what they see.

Western press isn't controlled by the government, its not allowed, There's plenty of independent press who would have no reason to lie about what's happening in situations like this. The BBC for example is one of the most independent news sources there us, and gets it money from the people not from the government. It's charter is setup to prevent state interference.

Comparing a free western press to what is allowed in Russia is stupid. Off message Russian Journalists have a worryingly high mortality rate.

The news websites that have been critical of Crimeas annexation are shut down. They're now only contactable from outside of Russia.

If independent Russian journalists are so free why are so many of them leaving the country?

 obsidianaura wrote:


Western press isn't controlled by the government, its not allowed, There's plenty of independent press who would have no reason to lie about what's happening in situations like this. The BBC for example is one of the most independent news sources there us, and gets it money from the people not from the government. It's charter is setup to prevent state interference.

Comparing a free western press to what is allowed in Russia is stupid. Off message Russian Journalists have a worryingly high mortality rate.
.....

Just want to address this fallacy.

Western media is completely controlled by the government/ruling class...

Western media cannot operate unless they have the proper governmental permits(In the US it is the FCC and Britain
rolls governmental bureaucracy and corporate corruption in to one package with the BBC.)

Also, the US is a corporate oligarchy, in essence the corporation that owns the media outlet is controlled by the same people that control our elections and our government. (Read about the debate corporation).

As to going off script. Western journalists are so tightly monitored/controlled that they are not allowed to go "off script". Between pre-recorded broadcasts and the mandatory censorship delay on live broadcasts(Janet Jackson nip slip) such doesn't happen unless the government wants us to see it for some reason.

The difference between western media and Russian(and China anyone) media is that while some Russian opposition reporters may die under mysterious causes, all western reporters who go off script just disappear. Not as in dead as in they go away, are replaced by another corporate mouthpiece and never work in the business again.

As someone else has said, there is no such thing as an independent "free" media these days....... unless one counts independent internet blogs.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:


Western press isn't controlled by the government, its not allowed, There's plenty of independent press who would have no reason to lie about what's happening in situations like this. The BBC for example is one of the most independent news sources there us, and gets it money from the people not from the government. It's charter is setup to prevent state interference.

Comparing a free western press to what is allowed in Russia is stupid. Off message Russian Journalists have a worryingly high mortality rate.
.....

Just want to address this fallacy.

Western media is completely controlled by the government/ruling class...

Western media cannot operate unless they have the proper governmental permits(In the US it is the FCC and Britain
rolls governmental bureaucracy and corporate corruption in to one package with the BBC.)

Also, the US is a corporate oligarchy, in essence the corporation that owns the media outlet is controlled by the same people that control our elections and our government. (Read about the debate corporation).

As to going off script. Western journalists are so tightly monitored/controlled that they are not allowed to go "off script". Between pre-recorded broadcasts and the mandatory censorship delay on live broadcasts(Janet Jackson nip slip) such doesn't happen unless the government wants us to see it for some reason.

The difference between western media and Russian(and China anyone) media is that while some Russian opposition reporters may die under mysterious causes, all western reporters who go off script just disappear. Not as in dead as in they go away, are replaced by another corporate mouthpiece and never work in the business again.

As someone else has said, there is no such thing as an independent "free" media these days....... unless one counts independent internet blogs.

Whataboutism accusation incoming!

 Captain Avatar wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:


Western press isn't controlled by the government, its not allowed, There's plenty of independent press who would have no reason to lie about what's happening in situations like this. The BBC for example is one of the most independent news sources there us, and gets it money from the people not from the government. It's charter is setup to prevent state interference.

Comparing a free western press to what is allowed in Russia is stupid. Off message Russian Journalists have a worryingly high mortality rate.
.....

Just want to address this fallacy.

Western media is completely controlled by the government/ruling class...

Western media cannot operate unless they have the proper governmental permits(In the US it is the FCC and Britain
rolls governmental bureaucracy and corporate corruption in to one package with the BBC.)

Also, the US is a corporate oligarchy, in essence the corporation that owns the media outlet is controlled by the same people that control our elections and our government. (Read about the debate corporation).

As to going off script. Western journalists are so tightly monitored/controlled that they are not allowed to go "off script". Between pre-recorded broadcasts and the mandatory censorship delay on live broadcasts(Janet Jackson nip slip) such doesn't happen unless the government wants us to see it for some reason.

The difference between western media and Russian(and China anyone) media is that while some Russian opposition reporters may die under mysterious causes, all western reporters who go off script just disappear. Not as in dead as in they go away, are replaced by another corporate mouthpiece and never work in the business again.

As someone else has said, there is no such thing as an independent "free" media these days....... unless one counts independent internet blogs.

I think you are getting a little tinfoily there, no offence meant. Western media is biased, but it's not that bad.

FCC does not grant permits. print media, or stuff on the internet. It does not really have anything to do with the content either, it's mostly there to make it so signals (be they radio, television, ect) don't get mixed up.

The US is not an oligarchy. It is still a democratic republic. That has not changed. It sometimes seem that way, but politicians are still elected by the people.

News organisations are coperations (it's how they make money), but it's not like they are not allowed to show stories some shadowy corpeation doesn't want them to. They simply print the stories that make them the most money. This sometimes means important, but boring, stories being pushed to page 14, but that's never going to change, ever, and has always been that way.

And what censorship we have is decency censorship, not story censorship. You can't show sex on daytime TV, but you can talk about any new story. And most broadcasts are live.

koooaei wrote:

Whataboutism accusation incoming!

You are probably right, but they would be wrong.

The reason why is because I don't favour either side in this. My comments are a sharp criticism of the media propaganda machines worldwide.

Since the first War of the Worlds broadcast governments and those who seek to control have had concrete proof of electronic media's ability to fool the masses.
Print medias propaganda abilities were proven in the American Revolutionary war.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

I think you are getting a little tinfoily there, no offence meant. Western media is biased, but it's not that bad.

FCC does not grant permits. print media, or stuff on the internet. It does not really have anything to do with the content either, it's mostly there to make it so signals (be they radio, television, ect) don't get mixed up.

The US is not an oligarchy. It is still a democratic republic. That has not changed. It sometimes seem that way, but politicians are still elected by the people.

News organisations are coperations (it's how they make money), but it's not like they are not allowed to show stories some shadowy corpeation doesn't want them to. They simply print the stories that make them the most money. This sometimes means important, but boring, stories being pushed to page 14, but that's never going to change, ever, and has always been that way.

And what censorship we have is decency censorship, not story censorship. You can't show sex on daytime TV, but you can talk about any new story. And most broadcasts are live.

Ah yes, the sideways conspiracy crackpot accusation followed by a lot misleading and inaccurate statements.

1)The FCC grants broadcast licences. In order to secure such a license a company has to apply for such and in that application the petitioners/applicants must promise and give evidence of how they will operate in the public's best interest.
This last line is important due to its vagueness and how it has been applied in recent times.

Once an applicant passes review and pays the fees they are given a license to broadcast in a specific bandwidth.

2)The US is "not" a democratic republic. It is an Oligarchy...and I am not alone in this opinion....some guys over at Princeton accumulated the raw data, crunched the numbers and came up with solid evidence that the US is now an oligarchy.

3)No, the 6 news outlets in the US do not just print/broadcast the stories. The massage, trim, fluff and edit to "create" the news. The kind of honest media ended with Kronkite....if not before.

News stories are selected by what is most profitable while disturbing the general public the least. Their job is to keep us scared and occasionally a little outraged about all the minutia tha doesn't really matter.

4) We have content censorship all of the time. We also have out right deception at times. It is frightening the number of times that important national level stories were confined to their local markets. (I was in Pittsburgh during the 2009 G20 IMF summit ..............self edited......... )
Saw where you believe that most broadcasts are live and realized that such information would be wasted.

5) The fact that you think that most media broadcasts (News coverage?) are live is very ..., shall we say innocent. Live weather alerts are real-time but very little else is.

The UK government has no control over the BBC, not since the second world war. It is completely seperate and fully independent.

There's even an independent watchdog separate to BBC and goverment to insure this.

People pay for their TV licence and that goes to the BBC they get no money from the state.

It is not state funded, it is publicly funded.

The only thing the goverment can do is trying to change the amount the BBC charge for the licence fee.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

I think you are getting a little tinfoily there, no offence meant. Western media is biased, but it's not that bad.

FCC does not grant permits. print media, or stuff on the internet. It does not really have anything to do with the content either, it's mostly there to make it so signals (be they radio, television, ect) don't get mixed up.

The US is not an oligarchy. It is still a democratic republic. That has not changed. It sometimes seem that way, but politicians are still elected by the people.

News organisations are coperations (it's how they make money), but it's not like they are not allowed to show stories some shadowy corpeation doesn't want them to. They simply print the stories that make them the most money. This sometimes means important, but boring, stories being pushed to page 14, but that's never going to change, ever, and has always been that way.

And what censorship we have is decency censorship, not story censorship. You can't show sex on daytime TV, but you can talk about any new story. And most broadcasts are live.

Ah yes, the sideways conspiracy crackpot accusation followed by a lot misleading and inaccurate statements.

1)The FCC grants broadcast licences. In order to secure such a license a company has to apply for such and in that application the petitioners/applicants must promise and give evidence of how they will operate in the public's best interest.
This last line is important due to its vagueness and how it has been applied in recent times.

Once an applicant passes review and pays the fees they are given a license to broadcast in a specific bandwidth.

2)The US is "not" a democratic republic. It is an Oligarchy...and I am not alone in this opinion....some guys over at Princeton accumulated the raw data, crunched the numbers and came up with solid evidence that the US is now an oligarchy.

3)No, the 6 news outlets in the US do not just print/broadcast the stories. The massage, trim, fluff and edit to "create" the news. The kind of honest media ended with Kronkite....if not before.

News stories are selected by what is most profitable while disturbing the general public the least. Their job is to keep us scared and occasionally a little outraged about all the minutia tha doesn't really matter.

4) We have content censorship all of the time. We also have out right deception at times. It is frightening the number of times that important national level stories were confined to their local markets. (I was in Pittsburgh during the 2009 G20 IMF summit ..............self edited......... )
Saw where you believe that most broadcasts are live and realized that such information would be wasted.

5) The fact that you think that most media broadcasts (News coverage?) are live is very ..., shall we say innocent. Live weather alerts are real-time but very little else is.

1) Still doesn't explain print and web based new then? And also doesn't explain why the FCC doesn't continually deny requests form groups the current governmetn would rather not make noise (here's a hint, it's because they aren't allowed).

2) And I've read articles about that stuff, and disagree. If we the people actually all want something, you know what we do? We elect people who also want those things and get them to get laws passed. Yes the wealthy and corporations have more political power than your average joe. I don't like that, but as long as our election laws remain so lax it's going to be that way, and half of the country's politicians seem to love it being that way, so it's going to take a big effort to change (especially as we would then need to either pass a new constitutional amendment, or a new supreme court). Still doesn't make us an oligarchy.

3) Yes, that's what I said in more words. They report what sells, so important, but boring, stories get put to the wayside, and they create hype to keep viewership up. They are buisnesses, and thus care about one thing, money.

4) Care for some examples and proof?
And I'm not sure what your doing with your little editing thing. I can edit my writings to say ***REDACTED BY THE CIA*** and it doesn't mean gak.

5) How do you then explain call-ins and live news coverage. Unless it's the media that stages every mass shooting, bombing attempt, and hostage situation?

obsidianaura wrote:The UK government has no control over the BBC, not since the second world war. It is completely seperate and fully independent.

There's even an independent watchdog separate to BBC and goverment to insure this.

People pay for their TV licence and that goes to the BBC they get no money from the state.

It is not state funded, it is publicly funded.

The only thing the goverment can do is trying to change the amount the BBC charge for the licence fee.

You are right in some areas and wrong in others....but I must first apologize for my inaccurate description of the British media system as it now stands.

You guys version of the FCC is Offcom. That wasn't around when I was over there. Still it does the same thing as the FCC in providing conditional licenses to broadcast and overseeing that certain conditions are met...including censoring.
Upon perusal of you guys current regulatory codes, it doesn't seem like much has changed apart from modernization and name changes(restructuring) of the regulatory offices.

I remember the censoring of the "Troubles in Ireland" and my hippie uncle used to tell me about the BBC's attempt to censor rock and roll music.

True, you guys have a guaranteed right to free expression....just so long as it doesn't conflict with anything in the long list for causd to censor.

Still, you guys are better than the US in that the every 20 some odd year regulatory office name change/shake up does help to curb institutionalized corruption.

Co'tor Shas wrote:
1) Still doesn't explain print and web based new then? And also doesn't explain why the FCC doesn't continually deny requests form groups the current governmetn would rather not make noise (here's a hint, it's because they aren't allowed).

2) And I've read articles about that stuff, and disagree. If we the people actually all want something, you know what we do? We elect people who also want those things and get them to get laws passed. Yes the wealthy and corporations have more political power than your average joe. I don't like that, but as long as our election laws remain so lax it's going to be that way, and half of the country's politicians seem to love it being that way, so it's going to take a big effort to change (especially as we would then need to either pass a new constitutional amendment, or a new supreme court). Still doesn't make us an oligarchy.

3) Yes, that's what I said in more words. They report what sells, so important, but boring, stories get put to the wayside, and they create hype to keep viewership up. They are buisnesses, and thus care about one thing, money.

4) Care for some examples and proof?
And I'm not sure what your doing with your little editing thing. I can edit my writings to say ***REDACTED BY THE CIA*** and it doesn't mean gak.

5) How do you then explain call-ins and live news coverage. Unless it's the media that stages every mass shooting, bombing attempt, and hostage situation?

1)Print media, for the most part, is owned by the broadcast media corporations and as such write in lockstep with the corporate broadcasts..
The web??? Considered as an unreliable news source unless you are citing the major media outlets online feeds.(Not saying that this is the way things should be, just that is how they currently are.)
You see, before the interwebs there were the AP and UPI. After the internet the AP got bigger and bigger and is part of the reason why every news outlet regurgitates the same story.

Yeah, the FCC doesn't deny requests from small independent opposition groups. Instead they assemble and offer up wavelength packages that are so huge only large corporations can afford to buy in.
They also sometimes sit on wavelengths by not accepting applications until there is enough spectrum available to create those large wavelength packages.


2) The Commission on Presidential Debates says otherwise. It is a tool of the Oligarchy to prevent third party and opposition candidates from getting national exposure.

The problem is that we have a two party system in which both party's are controlled by the elites. Both parties receive massive donations from the same elite few. This in effect makes the US a one party country.

I view our current political system as to being like the NFL. You have the NFC and the AFC, the little people will root and cheer for whatever they trot out as the home team but in the end the final scores mean nothing. The NFL has made its money and will continue to do what ever it wants to the game, the teams and the fans.

3) Read closer, We said similar things with differing perspectives and conclusions.

4)Ok, 2009 G20 summit in Pittsburgh. Massive riots covered pretty much by only local news outlets. Was traveling at the time and was astounded at the absolute dearth of national coverage. Called up a couple of the major news outlets to ask why. ...The answer, they were pulling a BBC "Troubles in Ireland" media blackout under the excuse that they were afraid of triggering sympathy riots.
Another disturbing thing was how little social media buzz there was compared to how many people were there and the amount of force that the police used. They acutual broke out an LLRAD and used it on the protesters.

5) Callins are a non-occurance in our local tv market and live news coverage is an exception to the normal coverage.

Again, much of the news is recorded earlier with things like weather and traffic being real-time. Some sections of the news are recorded a few minutes prior or on a timed delay..others are recorded hours before. And that is your local news. National news is pretty much all pre-recorded.
Yes, exceptions exist in breaking news emergencies. Even then, many of these type of broadcasts are on a timed delay.

Remember, you are the one that said most were live. I am arguing that most is prerecorded or time delayed with some exceptions.

Anythings not recorded is going to have a timed delay. Even things that aren't mandated (such a web-based) often do, to allow the creator to censor stuff like swearing or extreme violence.

Other than that, our differences seem to be opinion based.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

obsidianaura wrote:The UK government has no control over the BBC, not since the second world war. It is completely seperate and fully independent.

There's even an independent watchdog separate to BBC and goverment to insure this.

People pay for their TV licence and that goes to the BBC they get no money from the state.

It is not state funded, it is publicly funded.

The only thing the goverment can do is trying to change the amount the BBC charge for the licence fee.

You are right in some areas and wrong in others....but I must first apologize for my inaccurate description of the British media system as it now stands.

You guys version of the FCC is Offcom. That wasn't around when I was over there. Still it does the same thing as the FCC in providing conditional licenses to broadcast and overseeing that certain conditions are met...including censoring.
Upon perusal of you guys current regulatory codes, it doesn't seem like much has changed apart from modernization and name changes(restructuring) of the regulatory offices.

I remember the censoring of the "Troubles in Ireland" and my hippie uncle used to tell me about the BBC's attempt to censor rock and roll music.

True, you guys have a guaranteed right to free expression....just so long as it doesn't conflict with anything in the long list for causd to censor.

Still, you guys are better than the US in that the every 20 some odd year regulatory office name change/shake up does help to curb institutionalized corruption.

Ofcom is independent of the government, the government can close them down or restrict their powers but they cant tell Ofcom what to do in terms of censoring.

Ofcom does useful things like fine advertisers when they make false claims they also investigate complaints by the public, and not just of Britain but other countires too. They can't interfere with the news unless it is not reported with "due accuracy and presented with impartiality."

From what I've seen, the FCC is not the same as Ofcom, the government can and does influence the FCC and it is overseen by Congress. Not sure but didn't Obama appoint someone to the FCC who worked for Comcast to be in charge of regulating the internet network, then you had all the net neutrality issues?

I don't think this can happen with Ofcom

The FCC is weird. IIRC, it's leader is chosen by the president, but does not have to do what the president say? It's weird.

This is getting away from the point anyway I guess.

Suffice to say there may be things companies owners can do to push their agenda in the news and governments possibly too.

I think it's safe to say that the Western press is much, much more independent that that of Russia's, and cant be compared to each other.

I heard that Putin is now pushing for any news that is not controlled by the Kremlin will have to register as a "foreign agent".

Is that true?

Well, their already banning memes. Seems stupid enough.

 koooaei wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:


Western press isn't controlled by the government, its not allowed, There's plenty of independent press who would have no reason to lie about what's happening in situations like this. The BBC for example is one of the most independent news sources there us, and gets it money from the people not from the government. It's charter is setup to prevent state interference.

Comparing a free western press to what is allowed in Russia is stupid. Off message Russian Journalists have a worryingly high mortality rate.
.....

Just want to address this fallacy.

Western media is completely controlled by the government/ruling class...

Western media cannot operate unless they have the proper governmental permits(In the US it is the FCC and Britain
rolls governmental bureaucracy and corporate corruption in to one package with the BBC.)

Also, the US is a corporate oligarchy, in essence the corporation that owns the media outlet is controlled by the same people that control our elections and our government. (Read about the debate corporation).

As to going off script. Western journalists are so tightly monitored/controlled that they are not allowed to go "off script". Between pre-recorded broadcasts and the mandatory censorship delay on live broadcasts(Janet Jackson nip slip) such doesn't happen unless the government wants us to see it for some reason.

The difference between western media and Russian(and China anyone) media is that while some Russian opposition reporters may die under mysterious causes, all western reporters who go off script just disappear. Not as in dead as in they go away, are replaced by another corporate mouthpiece and never work in the business again.

As someone else has said, there is no such thing as an independent "free" media these days....... unless one counts independent internet blogs.

Whataboutism accusation incoming!

How would this be whataboutism? It's a comparison between Western and Russian media, which is what we're discussing.

I totally agree with captain avatar. on all points. Western media and Russian media all lie. America is no longer a democracy, and hasn.t been for some time.
How many western media sources, have commented on Ukrainian politicians dying????.

Ukrainian MP and active anti-Maidan activist, Oleg Kalashnikov, has been killed in his flat in Kiev. His killing is the latest in a series of odd deaths plaguing former government officials and ex-President Yanukovich’s party members.

The 52-year-old was found dead at his residence in Kiev on Wednesday evening. His death was “caused by a gunshot,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement announcing a police inquiry. Ukraine’s criminal investigation chief Vasily Paskal, took the investigation under personal control and promised to share motives and the preliminary results of the probe with reporters as soon as they become available.

On January 29, former chairman of Kharkov region government, Aleksey Kolesnik, was found hanged.

On February 24, former Party of Regions member Stanislav Melnik died of a gunshot with his death treated as suicide.

On February 25, several hours before his trial, the Mayor of Melitopol Sergey Valter was found hanged leaving no suicide note.

The next day, February 26, deputy chief of Melitopol police, Aleksandr Bordyuga, who reportedly acted as Valter’s lawyer, was found dead in his garage.

On February 26, a former MP and ex-chairman of Zaporozhye Regional State Administration was found dead with a gun wound to his neck. His death is being investigated as a suicide.

On February 28, former member of the Party of Regions, Mikhail Chechetov, jumped from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev, leaving a suicide note.

On March 14, a 32-year-old prosecutor Sergey Melnichuk fell from a window of a 9th floor apartment in Odessa.

 loki old fart wrote:
I totally agree with captain avatar. on all points. Western media and Russian media all lie. America is no longer a democracy, and hasn.t been for some time.
How many western media sources, have commented on Ukrainian politicians dying????.

Spoiler:

Ukrainian MP and active anti-Maidan activist, Oleg Kalashnikov, has been killed in his flat in Kiev. His killing is the latest in a series of odd deaths plaguing former government officials and ex-President Yanukovich’s party members.

The 52-year-old was found dead at his residence in Kiev on Wednesday evening. His death was “caused by a gunshot,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement announcing a police inquiry. Ukraine’s criminal investigation chief Vasily Paskal, took the investigation under personal control and promised to share motives and the preliminary results of the probe with reporters as soon as they become available.

On January 29, former chairman of Kharkov region government, Aleksey Kolesnik, was found hanged.

On February 24, former Party of Regions member Stanislav Melnik died of a gunshot with his death treated as suicide.

On February 25, several hours before his trial, the Mayor of Melitopol Sergey Valter was found hanged leaving no suicide note.

The next day, February 26, deputy chief of Melitopol police, Aleksandr Bordyuga, who reportedly acted as Valter’s lawyer, was found dead in his garage.

On February 26, a former MP and ex-chairman of Zaporozhye Regional State Administration was found dead with a gun wound to his neck. His death is being investigated as a suicide.

On February 28, former member of the Party of Regions, Mikhail Chechetov, jumped from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev, leaving a suicide note.

On March 14, a 32-year-old prosecutor Sergey Melnichuk fell from a window of a 9th floor apartment in Odessa.

Clearly someone reported it, unless you are the Man on Site and are breaking the news here on Dakka.

I know I've read about shaping operations in Odessa and other parts of the Ukraine.

One example:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/07/10/Plot-to-establish-Odessa-Peoples-Republic-foiled-by-Ukrainian-security-service/9881405013310/

 loki old fart wrote:
I totally agree with captain avatar. on all points. Western media and Russian media all lie. America is no longer a democracy, and hasn.t been for some time.
How many western media sources, have commented on Ukrainian politicians dying????.

Ukrainian MP and active anti-Maidan activist, Oleg Kalashnikov, has been killed in his flat in Kiev. His killing is the latest in a series of odd deaths plaguing former government officials and ex-President Yanukovich’s party members.

The 52-year-old was found dead at his residence in Kiev on Wednesday evening. His death was “caused by a gunshot,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement announcing a police inquiry. Ukraine’s criminal investigation chief Vasily Paskal, took the investigation under personal control and promised to share motives and the preliminary results of the probe with reporters as soon as they become available.

On January 29, former chairman of Kharkov region government, Aleksey Kolesnik, was found hanged.

On February 24, former Party of Regions member Stanislav Melnik died of a gunshot with his death treated as suicide.

On February 25, several hours before his trial, the Mayor of Melitopol Sergey Valter was found hanged leaving no suicide note.

The next day, February 26, deputy chief of Melitopol police, Aleksandr Bordyuga, who reportedly acted as Valter’s lawyer, was found dead in his garage.

On February 26, a former MP and ex-chairman of Zaporozhye Regional State Administration was found dead with a gun wound to his neck. His death is being investigated as a suicide.

On February 28, former member of the Party of Regions, Mikhail Chechetov, jumped from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev, leaving a suicide note.

On March 14, a 32-year-old prosecutor Sergey Melnichuk fell from a window of a 9th floor apartment in Odessa.

And do you have any actual proof of foul play in any of those deaths, or are you just spreading more misinformation as usual?

Its pretty funny that when you google those news, all you get is known puttinbot sites...

You really need to start trying harder than this.

PhantomViper wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
I totally agree with captain avatar. on all points. Western media and Russian media all lie. America is no longer a democracy, and hasn.t been for some time.
How many western media sources, have commented on Ukrainian politicians dying????.

Ukrainian MP and active anti-Maidan activist, Oleg Kalashnikov, has been killed in his flat in Kiev. His killing is the latest in a series of odd deaths plaguing former government officials and ex-President Yanukovich’s party members.

The 52-year-old was found dead at his residence in Kiev on Wednesday evening. His death was “caused by a gunshot,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement announcing a police inquiry. Ukraine’s criminal investigation chief Vasily Paskal, took the investigation under personal control and promised to share motives and the preliminary results of the probe with reporters as soon as they become available.

On January 29, former chairman of Kharkov region government, Aleksey Kolesnik, was found hanged.

On February 24, former Party of Regions member Stanislav Melnik died of a gunshot with his death treated as suicide.

On February 25, several hours before his trial, the Mayor of Melitopol Sergey Valter was found hanged leaving no suicide note.

The next day, February 26, deputy chief of Melitopol police, Aleksandr Bordyuga, who reportedly acted as Valter’s lawyer, was found dead in his garage.

On February 26, a former MP and ex-chairman of Zaporozhye Regional State Administration was found dead with a gun wound to his neck. His death is being investigated as a suicide.

On February 28, former member of the Party of Regions, Mikhail Chechetov, jumped from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev, leaving a suicide note.

On March 14, a 32-year-old prosecutor Sergey Melnichuk fell from a window of a 9th floor apartment in Odessa.

And do you have any actual proof of foul play in any of those deaths, or are you just spreading more misinformation as usual?

Its pretty funny that when you google those news, all you get is known puttinbot sites...

You really need to start trying harder than this.

Indeed.

Ukraine conflict: Pro-Russia journalist Oles Buzyna killed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32337621



A Ukrainian journalist known for his pro-Russian views has been shot dead in the capital Kiev.

Oles Buzyna, 45, was killed by shots fired from a car, Interior Ministry adviser Anton Herashchenko said.

Mr Buzyna is the latest in a series of allies of Ukraine's pro-Russian former President, Victor Yanukovych, to die in suspicious circumstances.

His killing comes a day after MP Oleg Kalashnikov, who was close to Mr Yanukovych, was shot dead in Kiev.

Mr Herashchenko said he believed both killings were related to the victims' involvement with Ukraine's "anti-Maidan" movement, which opposed the popular overthrow of Mr Yanukovych in 2014.

According to Mr Herashchenko, both men were key witnesses in a criminal case related to pro-Russian activists who attacked protesters in the Maidan Square uprising that deposed Mr Yanukovych.

Mr Buzyna, who was an active blogger and briefly editor of pro-Russian daily newspaper Segodnya, was killed outside his home.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has ordered an investigation into the murders, calling them "deliberate" acts that play "into the hands of our enemies".

At least eight other officials connected to Mr Yanukovych's government have died suddenly in the past three months.

Authorities initially labelled some of the deaths suicides, but later they said it was possible that some of the people were killed or forced to take their lives.

Asked on a call-in programme about the shooting of Mr Buzyna, Russian President Vladimir Putin said: "This is not the first assassination. There is a whole series of such killings in Ukraine."


@phantomViper BBC good enough for ya. And thanks for proving my point when you posted ", all you get is known puttinbot sites... "
All I found in western media was 1 small mention in a side story
Shoot yourself in the foot much, do you ?

So what you're saying is that the BBC did report something about pro-Russians dying? How is that helping your argument at all?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So what you're saying is that the BBC did report something about pro-Russians dying? How is that helping your argument at all?

He looked and only found Russian media covering it, although it's being going on for a while.

I found 1 mention as a side note, on a piece about a journalist been killed. And that only after RT made it public.
Point to me I think.

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So what you're saying is that the BBC did report something about pro-Russians dying? How is that helping your argument at all?

He looked and only found Russian media covering it, although it's being going on for a while.

I found 1 mention as a side note, on a piece about a journalist been killed. And that only after RT made it public.
Point to me I think.

Moving the goalposts a bit, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So what you're saying is that the BBC did report something about pro-Russians dying? How is that helping your argument at all?

He looked and only found Russian media covering it, although it's being going on for a while.

I found 1 mention as a side note, on a piece about a journalist been killed. And that only after RT made it public.
Point to me I think.

Moving the goalposts a bit, no?

Not really. He wasn't able to find a link on western media, which was my point.
The BBC only posted their link later. After I had already posted on here.

People will decide to kill politicians they don't particularly like in a Civil War.

At least he wasn't seized by an angry mob and lynched!

I read this yesterday, in the Guardian

A quick google shows these western sites reporting on it

BBC
Deutche Welle
IBT UK
Euronews
BreakingNews
Interfax
WallStreetJournal
The Independent
WashingtonPost
HoustonChronicle
MetroMontreal
DeMorgen
FocusOnline
DailySun

That seems plenty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32283456


note :

Mr Zotov's English is near perfect - polished at international conventions of the table top fantasy war game, War Hammer, through interaction with other fans.

So your parents were right : Nothing good will come of all this toy soldier nonsense !

 loki old fart wrote:


@phantomViper BBC good enough for ya. And thanks for proving my point when you posted ", all you get is known puttinbot sites... "
All I found in western media was 1 small mention in a side story
Shoot yourself in the foot much, do you ?

Goalpost moving much?

You have yet to provide any evidence to any of your claims of wrong doings in any of the other deaths, this one was obviously a murder so it was reported in the international media (and its missing from your original list), all of the others are just propagandist conjectures and as such are only reported in propagandist sites.

You really should change your MO, after reds8n article its become more than clear that you are just following a pre-set playbook.

PhantomViper wrote:


You have yet to provide any evidence to any of your claims of wrong doings in any of the other deaths, this one was obviously a murder so it was reported in the international media (and its missing from your original list), all of the others are just propagandist conjectures and as such are only reported in propagandist sites.

To quote from another poster in this thread, If it walls like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

PhantomViper wrote:

after reds8n article its become more than clear that you are just following a pre-set playbook.

What's so special about redskins link?.
A load of kids, joining the army cadets. Keeping them off the streets and out of trouble.
And old ladies collecting clothes and food for people in need. We have them over here.
Army and air force cadets. Less than a mile from me.
Navy and royal marine cadets, in the next town, I was a marine cadet there myself.
I'm sorry if any of that offends you. I'll tell the red cross and salvation army to stop collecting clothes ETC.
And I'll go to the TA center and stop them as well. Because they're upsetting you.
OH and we have biker gangs as well, as do the Americans. Sorry can't do much about that.