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.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm very skeptical that he is actually uninvolved.

I'm not.

He's a former KGB spook and managed to claw his way to the top in RU... we ought to assume that he'd know how to hide is wealth.

Totally agree, but your country and my country are up to their necks in this as well. Hell, most of these tax havens are British overseas territories.

We're in no position to take the moral high ground on this.

I don't know about that...

It's one thing to see private wealth, aka Walmart/Exxon/Bill Gates taking advantage of tax havens like this.

It's totally another thing when you see your elected officials amassing personal wealth during their "Head of the State" tenure.

Why though? Is the Western model of corporations "legally" siphoning vast sums of money off into tax havens and then using those huge sums to fund campaigns & lobby & run media-manipulating "PR campaigns"(or just outright buying media outlets) that lets them effectively(and in some cases literally) write the legislation that's supposed to govern and limit them, and all the politicians involved completely coincidentally ending up with well-paid but no-work Directorships for the same companies they championed while in office really that different in outcome than corporations and plutocrats just outright saying "here is a wad of money, do what we want"?

I mean sure, it's more convoluted and we accept it because we're told it's OK(by the media owned by the corporations doing it and the politicians paid by the people doing it...), but it's still corrupt and the result is still the erosion of democracy by money, for people with money.

 ulgurstasta wrote:


Okay fine, you have yet to convince me of that

What's there to convince? The western world is not neoliberal (assuming your using the modern conception of the term). If it were the Libertarian party would have won an election by now, and Western countries wouldn't be running deficits. You can throw around words and phrases all you want, but if they don't mean what you think they mean there's really nothing to do but point out they don't mean what you think they mean.

The focus purely on world leaders is weird. David Cameron's dad being involved is news, but stories about multi-nationals using this to avoid billions is a much more substantial thing.

Supposedly, a full list of all companies in the papers will be released in May.

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm not surprised there's a defeatist vibe and a shrug of the shoulders. In the Western World, confidence in our leaders is at a record low, so when revelations break about our leaders filling their pockets with loot, must people expect it.

The focus purely on world leaders is weird. David Cameron's dad being involved is news, but stories about multi-nationals using this to avoid billions is a much more substantial thing.

It's also weird you'd say that confidence in Western leaders is low. Have you noticed the world leaders who've actually been caught money laundering? Ukraine, Argentina, Georgia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan... if anything we should be realising that our world leaders, for all their faults, aren't out and out crooks like you get elsewhere

Hell, I suspect that's why people get into politics - because they want a share of that cash.

That's some really lazy, really cheap cynicism. Here's a basic rule for you - in any first world country the private sector pays way better than the public sector. People who really want money don't pick public service.



Anyhow, my point was that the defeatist attitude was really strange because this issue is mostly about tax avoidance, and the world has taken massive strides in the last ten years. This comes out and it's a major win in moving even further to reducing tax avoidance, and people just act like everything is all terrible and well, read my sig I guess.

You're forgetting one VERY important point: private companies don't make laws, politicians do.

Here's an example: in Britain, our MPs were caught up in an expenses scandal. They were using taxpayers money to pay for things they weren't entitled too. So we had the crazy situation of millionaire MPs using taxpayers money to pay for toothbrushes, toilet cleaner, etc etc

This bill cost taxpayers millions and went on for years.

What happened when the lid was blown? A few wrists were slapped, and then the MPs awarded themselves a pay rise and destroyed records of all these misdemeaners.

Effectively, they got off scot-free and you wonder why people are cynical!

 LordofHats wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:


Okay fine, you have yet to convince me of that

What's there to convince? The western world is not neoliberal (assuming your using the modern conception of the term). If it were the Libertarian party would have won an election by now, and Western countries wouldn't be running deficits. You can throw around words and phrases all you want, but if they don't mean what you think they mean there's really nothing to do but point out they don't mean what you think they mean.

We might use different definitions, but I think the waves of privatizations, austerity measures and free-trade agreements being forced on the third world are very neo-liberal policies. I dont see how having deficits somehow a counter against neo-liberalism

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What happened when the lid was blown? A few wrists were slapped, and then the MPs awarded themselves a pay rise and destroyed records of all these misdemeaners.

I thought I read that MP expenses are now higher than they were pre-scandal too.

 LordofHats wrote:
Supposedly, a full list of all companies in the papers will be released in May.

Thanks. That's gonna be fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's an example: in Britain, our MPs were caught up in an expenses scandal.

I know about the expenses scandal. We've had our own too, mostly related to travel. They look bad, but you have to have some context to this. The worst instance was for about what, £100,000? Putin's work here has been uncovered at around $2 billion, and there's talk his total laundering could be in excess of $40 billion.

What happened when the lid was blown? A few wrists were slapped, and then the MPs awarded themselves a pay rise and destroyed records of all these misdemeaners.

Close to thirty people lost their jobs, many were ordered to repay. It's not nothing, but it's probably as much as you'd expect when the old system was such a shambles - self-policing is a nonsense. Anyhow, the most important thing to come out of the scandal was the establishment of clear rules and a formal watchdog to monitor future payments and claims.

But then that kind of thing just gets ignored, because practical institutions that can curb future bad behaviour aren't sexy or exciting. It's way more fun to think everyone is corrupt, everyone will always be corrupt and nothing ever gets done and no-one ever gets punished.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
We might use different definitions,

Yeah. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

but I think the waves of privatizations, austerity measures and free-trade agreements being forced on the third world are very neo-liberal policies.

No. First off, they're not being forced on anyone. One, who is forcing anyone? Free trade agreements are generally net gains economically, they just happen to feth lots of people over on the way there which is why they tend to struggle to get popular support and that's as true of western countries as it is of third world countries.This trend would be part of what is called Neocolonialism. That is the continuing economic and cultural hegemony of the Western world in its former colonies. Of course, some countries like India and China have been rising up the past few decades to join the club, so it's not really just a Western thing anymore.

I dont see how having deficits somehow a counter against neo-liberalism

Because as an economic outlook, Neoliberalism (Americans call it Libertarianism*) advocates that government not run deficits. Which of course a vast many countries do including many western ones.. Neoliberalism was and is a powerful political force in many western countries since the 1980s and neoliberal policies adopted in that time contributed to the 2008 recession, but it's not something so encompassing you can slap the term on the entire western world which still tends to lean heavily towards social liberalism. Even in the US where we hate that word (we just call it "Liberal", or more specifically, "Progressive"*).

*Because America says feth you to dictionaries when it comes to political terminology.

Cameron has said he personally doesn't have shares in the offshore fund, but doesn't make statements beyond that. So his wife or other family may still do so, it seems like a dodge.

 sebster wrote:
The worst instance was for about what, £100,000? Putin's work here has been uncovered at around $2 billion, and there's talk his total laundering could be in excess of $40 billion.

So not only are they untrustworthy they also lack ambition.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Cameron has said he personally doesn't have shares in the offshore fund, but doesn't make statements beyond that. So his wife or other family may still do so, it seems like a dodge.

Morally wrong for Jimmy Carr to make use of a legal tax loophole but apparently not for the Camerons

Rich people hiding money that would make them richer? SHOCKER

Excuse me for thinking that this scandal will amount to less than nothing...especially if there are any US tycoons/ families/people involved.

I mean...look at who the US people are supporting in the elections:
1) the corporate friendly, rich from "speaking" , Clinton leads the economic equality espousing Sanders.

2) the cult of personality Trump, who made his name and claim to dame using his $$ and position to expose himself to the people through The Apprentice leads the...whatever you want to qualify crazy Cruz as.

The voters seem to be willing to keep their blinders on given who these front runners are!

 Baragash wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What happened when the lid was blown? A few wrists were slapped, and then the MPs awarded themselves a pay rise and destroyed records of all these misdemeaners.

I thought I read that MP expenses are now higher than they were pre-scandal too.

They are!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Close to thirty people lost their jobs, many were ordered to repay. It's not nothing, but it's probably as much as you'd expect when the old system was such a shambles - self-policing is a nonsense. Anyhow, the most important thing to come out of the scandal was the establishment of clear rules and a formal watchdog to monitor future payments and claims.

But then that kind of thing just gets ignored, because practical institutions that can curb future bad behaviour aren't sexy or exciting. It's way more fun to think everyone is corrupt, everyone will always be corrupt and nothing ever gets done and no-one ever gets punished.

Most of these watchdogs end up being de-fanged. In the UK, the serious fraud office was told to stop its investigation into criminality in one case, as it interfered with an arms sale by a British company to Saudi Arabia.

The arms company in question had very strong links to members of the government...

You can see where this is going

I'm not naïve enough to think the world is squeaky clean, nor am I stupid enough to think that everybody is corrupt, but track records speak for themselves and all I see is corruption and scandal swept under the carpet!

I complain about the focus on Putin, not because I'm pro-Putin ( I'm the very opposite) because we know Putin is bad.

We in the West on the other hand, are supposed to be the 'good' guys.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Rich people hiding money that would make them richer? SHOCKER

Excuse me for thinking that this scandal will amount to less than nothing...especially if there are any US tycoons/ families/people involved.

I mean...look at who the US people are supporting in the elections:
1) the corporate friendly, rich from "speaking" , Clinton leads the economic equality espousing Sanders.

2) the cult of personality Trump, who made his name and claim to dame using his $$ and position to expose himself to the people through The Apprentice leads the...whatever you want to qualify crazy Cruz as.

The voters seem to be willing to keep their blinders on given who these front runners are!

Totally agree.

Here's what I predict will happen: A fuss will be made for a few months. Politicians will promise to take action. Lessons will be learned blah blah blah. A few minor people in the food chain will be sacrificed to appease the people, and everything will go back to normal.

A few years down the line, we'll be right back here talking about it again

On the one eyed-ness of the UK media, at least one Gruaniad commentator has something to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-britain-house-order-cameron

Ketara: I don't want to drag this OT, but I strongly disagree that Corbyn is morally on the same level as "the rest of them." Very strongly.

She's got a point but at the same time, what are British grass roots people suppsoed to do? We threw out a Conservative government for being corrupt, and got a Labour government that turned out just about as corrupt. We threw them out and were so disgusted with politics that we got a coalition government, then the Liberal element got busted and the Conservatives swept back into full power on 36% of the vote (only 24% of eligible electorate!) having achieved none of their stated aims in their first term. A government that witters on about tax avoidance while doing deals that allow Vodaphone, Google and Amazone to make billions of profits in the UK and pay almost no corporation tax.

British voters have got used to being unable to find a competent government, but the system continues to elect incompetent ones, because if even only one single person voted, his party would get elected. Because that is how the system is set up.

Are we supposed to riot and overthrow the government by force majeure? Would this actually do any good?

 Da Boss wrote:
On the one eyed-ness of the UK media, at least one Gruaniad commentator has something to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-britain-house-order-cameron

Have you seen the Daily Express front page today....



Even The Sun devoted about 5% of it's front page to the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
British voters have got used to being unable to find a competent government, but the system continues to elect incompetent ones, because if even only one single person voted, his party would get elected. Because that is how the system is set up.

I'm not sure it's that simple. "Half" the problem is they get what they deserve for their own stupidity in voting like political parties are football teams. The other "half" is amount of media coverage for the different candidates/parties vs being too lazy to research candidates themselves. Feels much more like self-harm than being ambivalent about same old, same old.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She's got a point but at the same time, what are British grass roots people suppsoed to do? We threw out a Conservative government for being corrupt, and got a Labour government that turned out just about as corrupt. We threw them out and were so disgusted with politics that we got a coalition government, then the Liberal element got busted and the Conservatives swept back into full power on 36% of the vote (only 24% of eligible electorate!) having achieved none of their stated aims in their first term. A government that witters on about tax avoidance while doing deals that allow Vodaphone, Google and Amazone to make billions of profits in the UK and pay almost no corporation tax.

British voters have got used to being unable to find a competent government, but the system continues to elect incompetent ones, because if even only one single person voted, his party would get elected. Because that is how the system is set up.

Are we supposed to riot and overthrow the government by force majeure? Would this actually do any good?

This is why I believe in, and campaign for, Scottish independence.

LordofHats wrote:
If people want to complain that Putin is getting unfairly bushwhacked, they can do that. It's a legitimate opinion even if I think it's wrong. I just listed three high profile American politicians who have been treated in exactly the same way, and this thread is full of people not named Putin or Assad, who have been named and shamed in this leak. It has nothing to do with Putin being Putin, or Russian. It's that he's a politician, and this is what happens to politicians in a lot of western news outlets, because there will always be ratings in saying "oh look what X did now." So unless we're going to take "points to politicians when their names come up in shady things" as a bias (which honesty, wtf?), this is a whole lot of words being spent pointing out a really vapid argument is vapid.

The point you don't seem to be getting is that Putin's name did not come up at all in this shady thing. Putin is completely unrelated and irrelevant to this Panama Papers scandal, yet somehow every single Western news source managed to get Putin on the front page, in many cases even mentioning it before people who are actually involved in this scandal. If you can't see how that is pure biased propaganda, you must be blind.

LordofHats wrote:

western media has a big bias that can be hard to spot for us who are born and raised in it.

You're throwing that phrase around, but you're using it in a way that is complete hogwash

Saying that something is hogwash without any arguments whatsoever is complete hogwash.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Süddeutsche Zeitung is centre-left social-liberal, while Fox News is... whatever Fox News is, conservative I suppose. You're not making the case that Western media is inherently flawed just because it is Western any favours by claiming that the two are the same.

I don't anyone is claiming that Süddeutsche Zeitung and Fox News are the same. Merely that they are pretty similar when compared to a lot of media from the non-Western world.
Here, just a little example:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/panama-papers-was-die-panama-papers-in-russland-ausloesen-1.2934240
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/04/leaked-trove-offshore-financial-data-kicks-off-global-investigation.html
Compare the first part of the Fox article with the German article. Excepting differences in style of writing and minor details, what is the difference between them? And you can find an article like the above on most Western newssites. Now take a look at similar articles on Russian, Iranian or even Indian newssites (hint: there aren't any similar articles).

LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, but are those different things different enough to not make them homogeneous?

That's an oxymoron. If they are different they are not homogeneous.

Only if you define homogeneous to mean "exactly the same without any differences"
Depending on what dictionary you go by, the definition of homogeneous varies from "the same" to "similar" or "alike".

LordofHats wrote:

If you compare news sources from Western countries with those from non-Western countries, then you have to conclude that even if Western media are not homogeneous, they are at the least very similar to one another.

Depending on subject sure, you can totally see a lot of things that are shared by western news sources. Unfortunately, people who throw "western media" out as a slur tend to almost always be wrong about what they've chosen to criticize.

Maybe. But when I say "Western media" I am not using it as a slur, not any more than when I say "Russian media" or "Dutch media" or whatever. All I do when I say that is referring to a large group of different medias with broadly similar characteristics. They are grouped together because it would be way too much of a hassle to list each one seperately.

Looks like the Icelandic PM has quit over this...
http://news.sky.com/story/1673226/iceland-pm-resigns-over-panama-papers-scandal

Iceland's Prime Minister has stepped down after the Panama Papers reportedly linked him to an offshore company.

The papers are said to show Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and his wife owned a firm in the British Virgin Islands which held £2.8m of investments in the country's collapsed banks.

Thousands of demonstrators protested outside parliament in Reykjavik on Monday, throwing eggs, bananas and yoghurt and calling for him to stand down.

Mr Gunnlaugsson earlier requested the President dissolve Parliament and call new elections after the left-wing opposition called a vote of no confidence in the government.

But the President refused, saying he wanted to consult the main parties before making his decision.
Mr Gunnlaugsson is the first casualty of the papers, leaked to various media organisations from Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The point you don't seem to be getting is that Putin's name did not come up at all in this shady thing.

Putin has "friends" on the list. Yes, his name did come up. If I have a friend who gets arrested for murder, you really think no one I know is going to say something like "Oh you mean Hats' friend?" His name doesn't have to be literally in the papers to come up. The moment people saw names close to his in the paper they were thinking "lots of Putin's friends on here." That's not irrelevant or unrelated, especially not when we're talking about a guy whose been dogged by accusations of cronyism for as long as he's been a political figure.

There's really nothing more to be said about it. This victim complex that's been built up around Putin isn't real. People have been shamed in the press for way less than being friends with other people. David Cameron's name isn't in the papers either and he still gets brought up because his dad's is. There's a whole host of people who don't have to be literally named in the papers for their names to come up. That's just going to happen on its own as reporters dig through them. Everyone here takes this as a given, except a very specific clique.

Saying that something is hogwash without any arguments whatsoever is complete hogwash.

The argument was given in the post you just quoted. And honestly, why do I even bother? There's a nice little cadre of posters in OT now who seem to live for no reason other than to defend Putin whenever his name comes up ranting and raving about "bias" via a wall of false equivalencies and semantic nonsense. Arguing against it is like arguing with a brick wall. It's pointless and gets more pointless as time goes on. I might as well just respond to all of them as "hogwash" and save my own time.

I don't anyone is claiming that Süddeutsche Zeitung and Fox News are the same. Merely that they are pretty similar when compared to a lot of media from the non-Western world.

I´m no expert on Süddeutsche Zeitung but I would hazard to guess they both are neo-liberal and both work within the same paradigm.

It helps to read the the thread.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Only if you define homogeneous to mean "exactly the same without any differences"

That's precisely what the word means and how the poster quoted was using it.

They are grouped together because it would be way too much of a hassle to list each one seperately.

Agreed. It is much easier to dismiss people who disagree with you when you lump them all together and ignore that they're not a swarm of drones.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Süddeutsche Zeitung is centre-left social-liberal, while Fox News is... whatever Fox News is, conservative I suppose. You're not making the case that Western media is inherently flawed just because it is Western any favours by claiming that the two are the same.

I don't anyone is claiming that Süddeutsche Zeitung and Fox News are the same. Merely that they are pretty similar when compared to a lot of media from the non-Western world.
Here, just a little example:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/panama-papers-was-die-panama-papers-in-russland-ausloesen-1.2934240
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/04/leaked-trove-offshore-financial-data-kicks-off-global-investigation.html
Compare the first part of the Fox article with the German article. Excepting differences in style of writing and minor details, what is the difference between them? And you can find an article like the above on most Western newssites. Now take a look at similar articles on Russian, Iranian or even Indian newssites (hint: there aren't any similar articles).

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/all-the-presidents-men-vladimir-putins-secret-money-network/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/panama-papers-leak-data-shows-offshore-accounts-of-rich-and-famous/article8432340.ece

Those articles are surprisingly real for something that does not exist. I'm sure there'd be more if I could be bothered to look.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35966433?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

Another name who turns out to be not as clean as everyone thought.

Skullhammer wrote:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35966433?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

About the only things I know about international Soccer is that people LOVE it, and that it's apparently dirty as feth. So I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that yet another FIFA president has been implicated in unsavory business


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/all-the-presidents-men-vladimir-putins-secret-money-network/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/panama-papers-leak-data-shows-offshore-accounts-of-rich-and-famous/article8432340.ece

Those articles are surprisingly real for something that does not exist. I'm sure there'd be more if I could be bothered to look.

And you won't be finding much from China.. Can't find any from Iran either, but none of the Iranian sites in my news feed have anything about the Panama Papers yet (I've noticed the English pages for Iranian news can have a bit of a delay though on when stories finally appear).

And because I feel like adding to the fun; Thailand, Colombia (en Esponol), Cyprus, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Nigeria.

The guy is President of Russia. There's no way in hell his name wasn't going to be mentioned when his friends started showing up. That's just not how this works in places with free press (and even unfree press often). Really the only difference I'm noticing is that many non-Western sites only have one, maybe two articles discussing the papers at all on their English sites*, which probably owes more to their English readership being very limited than anything.

*Holy crap India has a lot of news websites that I've never noticed before @_@

 Baragash wrote:

Have you seen the Daily Express front page today....

Well the Express does occupy a different reality to the rest of us, quite possibly some kind of extra dimensional old folks home.

http://grapevine.is/news/2016/04/05/prime-minister-resigns/

Prime Minister of Iceland has resigned now.

Looks like the US list is out too. Not really very long though and cuts off after 2010, when Panama ceased to be a viable tax haven for Americans.

Biggest names thus far:

Robert Miracle: $65m ponzi scheme

Benjamin Wey: president of New York Global Group, securities fraud. His accomplice in Switzerland, Seref Dogan Erbek, is also named

Igor Olenicoff: Florida real estate mogul, sentenced to 2 years probation and fined $50m dollars for tax evasion

John Michael “Red” Crim: author. Convicted of tax fraud

Jonathan Kaplan: bribery , may face additional charges thanks to this leak, as prosecutors were unaware of his overseas holdings.

617 US Firms are named in the documents according to ICIJ, but I suspect we won't be seeing any American politicians or big names come out. If Americans want to hide money, they don't generally go a firm that hides money in America (Wyoming* and New Jersey were both used as tax shelters according to the documents). Honestly it never occurred to me that non-Americans would use America to hide their money, but I guess it makes sense.

*Seriously though, who hides their money in Wyoming?

 LordofHats wrote:
617 US Firms are named in the documents according to ICIJ, but I suspect we won't be seeing any American politicians or big names come out. If Americans want to hide money, they don't generally go a firm that hides money in America (Wyoming* and New Jersey were both used as tax shelters according to the documents). Honestly it never occurred to me that non-Americans would use America to hide their money, but I guess it makes sense.

*Seriously though, who hides their money in Wyoming?

Nevada is also popular I hear. No disclosure requirements.

By treaty, Panama is a bad choice for American tax evasion. You want something like the Dutch Antilles.

They're just not places I would expect to learn people were hiding money in. When I think of tax havens I think of islands in the Carribeann, and Switzerland. Not Wyoming XD

LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The point you don't seem to be getting is that Putin's name did not come up at all in this shady thing.

Putin has "friends" on the list. Yes, his name did come up. If I have a friend who gets arrested for murder, you really think no one I know is going to say something like "Oh you mean Hats' friend?" His name doesn't have to be literally in the papers to come up. The moment people saw names close to his in the paper they were thinking "lots of Putin's friends on here." That's not irrelevant or unrelated, especially not when we're talking about a guy whose been dogged by accusations of cronyism for as long as he's been a political figure.

Oh, I do not think it is strange Putin is mentioned or being brought up at all. What I do find strange however is the amount of attention given to Putin. He is being given way more attention than anyone else. You can't deny that is undue bias.
It is like if your friend was arrested for murder, but instead of your friend people would treat you as the murderer.

LordofHats wrote:There's really nothing more to be said about it. This victim complex that's been built up around Putin isn't real. People have been shamed in the press for way less than being friends with other people. David Cameron's name isn't in the papers either and he still gets brought up because his dad's is. There's a whole host of people who don't have to be literally named in the papers for their names to come up. That's just going to happen on its own as reporters dig through them. Everyone here takes this as a given, except a very specific clique.

And he doesn't get brought up to nearly the same extent as Putin. Even though your dad on the list is much more damning than just one of your friends on the list. Again, it is not strange that Putin is being brought up in this. However, it is the extent to which Putin is brought up in this that is evidence of undue bias in Western media.

LordofHats wrote:

Saying that something is hogwash without any arguments whatsoever is complete hogwash.

The argument was given in the post you just quoted. And honestly, why do I even bother? There's a nice little cadre of posters in OT now who seem to live for no reason other than to defend Putin whenever his name comes up ranting and raving about "bias" via a wall of false equivalencies and semantic nonsense. Arguing against it is like arguing with a brick wall. It's pointless and gets more pointless as time goes on. I might as well just respond to all of them as "hogwash" and save my own time.

Then I would suggest either to stop responding at all in that case if you feel like wasting your time, or to go back to school and learn how to make proper arguments instead. It is just not possible to have a productive discussion with people who appeal to the stone rather than actually adressing what other people say.

LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Only if you define homogeneous to mean "exactly the same without any differences"

That's precisely what the word means and how the poster quoted was using it.

Except that is only one of the possible meanings of the word. Every dictionary I have seen so far also gives definitions like "essentially similar", "similar", "so much alike they are essentially be the same" etc. Similar is not the same as the same.

LordofHats wrote:

They are grouped together because it would be way too much of a hassle to list each one seperately.

Agreed. It is much easier to dismiss people who disagree with you when you lump them all together and ignore that they're not a swarm of drones.

Yes, you are right. Generalisations can be misused so very easily in order to dismiss people:

LordofHats wrote:There's a nice little cadre of posters in OT now who seem to live for no reason other than to defend Putin whenever his name comes up ranting and raving about "bias" via a wall of false equivalencies and semantic nonsense.

Thanks for also immediately providing a great example.

But in this specific case, I wasn't dismissing Western media at all. Generalisations in cases like this are necessary as they are the basis of all valid deductive interferences (no, I did not make that up myself ).

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Süddeutsche Zeitung is centre-left social-liberal, while Fox News is... whatever Fox News is, conservative I suppose. You're not making the case that Western media is inherently flawed just because it is Western any favours by claiming that the two are the same.

I don't anyone is claiming that Süddeutsche Zeitung and Fox News are the same. Merely that they are pretty similar when compared to a lot of media from the non-Western world.
Here, just a little example:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/panama-papers-was-die-panama-papers-in-russland-ausloesen-1.2934240
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/04/leaked-trove-offshore-financial-data-kicks-off-global-investigation.html
Compare the first part of the Fox article with the German article. Excepting differences in style of writing and minor details, what is the difference between them? And you can find an article like the above on most Western newssites. Now take a look at similar articles on Russian, Iranian or even Indian newssites (hint: there aren't any similar articles).

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/all-the-presidents-men-vladimir-putins-secret-money-network/

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/panama-papers-leak-data-shows-offshore-accounts-of-rich-and-famous/article8432340.ece

Those articles are surprisingly real for something that does not exist. I'm sure there'd be more if I could be bothered to look.

The first one is written by Westerners, not by Indians, and the second article does not pay nearly as much attention to Putin as the others do. Nonetheless, you win this one. I did not check every news site from India
There are still plenty of other non-Western countries left though, India was just an example.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The point you don't seem to be getting is that Putin's name did not come up at all in this shady thing.

Putin has "friends" on the list. Yes, his name did come up. If I have a friend who gets arrested for murder, you really think no one I know is going to say something like "Oh you mean Hats' friend?" His name doesn't have to be literally in the papers to come up. The moment people saw names close to his in the paper they were thinking "lots of Putin's friends on here." That's not irrelevant or unrelated, especially not when we're talking about a guy whose been dogged by accusations of cronyism for as long as he's been a political figure.

Oh, I do not think it is strange Putin is mentioned or being brought up at all. What I do find strange however is the amount of attention given to Putin. He is being given way more attention than anyone else. You can't deny that is undue bias.
It is like if your friend was arrested for murder, but instead of your friend people would treat you as the murderer.

To be fair, as a cult-of-personality leader of a nuclear armed state recently involved in...unpleasant interactions with a neighboring nation, he's a fair high profile target, especially since most of the other people involved nobody has any clue about. That said, the PM of Iceland's been getting at least as much attention, at least on media I've seen, and he's been forced to step down.