Who are we to believe?

Homepage Forums Politics Who are we to believe?

This topic contains 25 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 1 month, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44796

    Unseen
    Participant

    Who are our “reliable sources” for news. The New York Times or The Washington Post? CNN, MSNBC, or Fox?

    Where do they get their intel in these times when most major newspapers as well as broadcast and Internet news operations no longer have bureaus in even the major news generating cities of the world?

    Well, when something newsworthy breaks out in Amsterdam, say, or London, or Cairo (you name the city), and they don’t have time to plop a reporter or two onto a plane, they resort to using “stringers” (freelance journalists) or else they borrow a reporter from the local media. (They even do this in the United States, actually.)

    But there’s another source: They will pick up and use stories appearing in other sources. A newspaper in Tanzania or a TV story from a Brazilian TV station. Of course, there are other more “trustworthy” sources like The Guardian in the UK, Die Zeit in Germany, Le Monde in France, for example.

    But where do they get their stories?

    In an interview recorded sometime probably in the early 70’s, ex-CIA station chief John Stockwell describes how the agency gets Federal Government lies into the mainstream media through a process reminding one of money laundering.

    When they talk about “The Deep State,” this is the sort of thing they mean.
    The CIA, NSA, and the rest haven’t had a lot of whistleblowers like Stockwell. They drove him to bankruptcy with legal harassment and another one, Jeffrey Sterling, was sentenced to three and a half years in Federal Prison for revealing a bungled spy operation. Chelsea Manning has been in prison twice and Edward Snowden has so resigned himself to never returning to the country that he has accepted Russian citizenship. (No word yet on whether he will be sent to the Ukrainian front, though.)

    Has it gotten any better over the years, considering the advances in technology over the intervening years?

    You tell me: Exposed: Covert Pro-Western Info Op

    #44973

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    IMO this is a severely underappreciated topic. I made a public recommendation of your topic here, a couple of weeks ago, but got no bites.

    I was just going to “bump” this topic, but I might as well plug my own takes on it at the same time, by also pointing readers/contributors to a group I started long ago, short name “news about the news“. More specifically, two topics pinned to the top of the list of topics, suggesting a my list of worthy new sources. (I only say “my list”, because no one else has yet contributed there, either.)

    Also, off the top of my head, I avoid MSNBC and Fox, unless I’m actually looking for examples of strongly biased news.

    #44974

    _Robert_
    Participant

    The years have led me to believe AP/Reuters/npr/BBC news provide the most originally researched, fact based and politically unbiased content. NPR opinion is usually left biased, but they will differentiate opinion from reporting. WSJ/Bloomberg are fair for financial news; but use with caution as strong opinion is often mixed in with facts.

    The mostly regurgitated and/or opinionated “information” from Fox/MSNBC/CNN/FB/YT/twitter/tiktok/reddit/my dear friends and family and everything from Russia, China, MAGA, Q, Religious, etc. are all primarily for entertainment.

    Wiki, with its emphasis on references and evolving corrections eventually provides the “median belief” on past events. In many cases it will probably serve as the official record.

     

     

    #44976

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    I pretty much agree with all of that, although BBC seems left leaning at times, but I feel mostly aware of the lean and appreciate their sincere attempts. Reddit is one where I might expect a range of leans or non-leans I could pick from, but I haven’t dug far enough into it yet.

    #44981

    Davis
    Moderator

    Ehhh…the BBC may only seem left leaning by American standards. It is famously “neutral” and in fact, whenever there is a conservative government they tend to be tepid about criticism of that government, and often do “both sides-sim” where they seem to cover both sides as though they are equally valid even when the conservative policy is supported by few economists/analysts/experts. Right wing governments often criticise the national broadcasters for being left-leaning because they cannot stand having a neutral media that doesn’t parrot their narrative. Note that in countries where they can get away with it, they have taken over them, ended neutrality and turned them into party controlled Media such as in Poland and Hungary. The conservative parties in the UK, Canada and Australia are constantly attacking the BBC, CBC and ABC and threatening to defund them for being too left-oriented when in reality they are genuinely neutral simply dare to critique their policies. This narrative is so constant it seeps into the conscious of conservative voters where even citizens believe this nonsense and call for the end of their nations only guaranteed neutral and as objective as possible media. While objective news is impossible, it is hard to imagine what more objective source you can find than most Western European national channels are.

    #44983

    I agree with Davis about the neutrality of the BBC.  Many politicians are too busy in their social media bubbles on FB and Twitter and seems to be ‘groomed’ by their advisors and PR consultants. It is all about image and sound bites and very little about content or action on policy. They are surrounded by yes-men and only see their special media ‘Likes’ from followers. This gives them a warped opinion of how they are perceived by the general public. Many are not as honorable as they think. While the BBC does not come to bury Caesar it certainly has no need to praise him. It just reports the facts and often this is in contrast to the reality of the impacts of the self-servicing nature of politicians. Then they whinge about not being treated fairly or of media bias towards them. Social Media is an oxymoron..

    #44984

    Ian Hislop, Private Eye editor, on satire and censorship speaking at Impact 2018

    #44992

    Unseen
    Participant

    I think Reuters, AP News, the NY Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast TV networks largely parrot the government line often word-for-word. Or in the case of the Ukraine conflict, the Zelenskyyyyy line.

    Haven’t you noticed the lack of actual war correspondents from those sources in this war? The reason is that Ukraine restrains war correspondents from going out into the field and reporting while bullets are flying, so what you get is correspondents wearing helmets and bulletproof vests “reporting” from relatively safe places like Kiev, regurgitating what the Ukraine PR machine has told them and using phrases like “we can’t confirm” or “unconfirmed reports” most of the time? That makes me suspicious.

    So, I go to sources whose reporters are more aggressively reporting what’s going on: DW News, France 24, Al Jazeera, as well as several respected Indian sources. Of course, they suffer from being forbidden to report from the battlefield as well. However, with a form of crowd sourcing, I feel the truth is more likely to reveal itself.

    #44996

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I think Reuters, AP News, the NY Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and the broadcast TV networks largely parrot the government line often word-for-word. Or in the case of the Ukraine conflict, the Zelenskyyyyy line. Haven’t you noticed the lack of actual war correspondents from those sources in this war? The reason is that Ukraine restrains war correspondents from going out into the field and reporting while bullets are flying, so what you get is correspondents wearing helmets and bulletproof vests “reporting” from relatively safe places like Kiev, regurgitating what the Ukraine PR machine has told them and using phrases like “we can’t confirm” or “unconfirmed reports” most of the time? That makes me suspicious. So, I go to sources whose reporters are more aggressively reporting what’s going on: DW News, France 24, Al Jazeera, as well as several respected Indian sources. Of course, they suffer from being forbidden to report from the battlefield as well. However, with a form of crowd sourcing, I feel the truth is more likely to reveal itself.

    I go to the news organisation funded in part by the Qatari government, Aljazeera and their headline is:

    Moscow’s defence ministry says it repelled a major attack by Kyiv’s troops in the south and inflicted ‘significant losses on the enemy’.

    and then..

    In Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, Russia said it destroyed three US-manufactured howitzers and a crossing point on the Oskil River set up by Ukrainian forces to move reserves and ammunition. The river flows south into the Siversky Donets, which snakes through eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.

    The spokeswoman for Ukraine’s Southern Military Command said Russian forces were suffering severe shortages of equipment, including ammunition, because of the damage inflicted last weekend in by an explosion on a bridge linking the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula with Russia.

    Even when a news agency plops a reporter on the ground a mile away from the front to independently sample 0.00001% of what is going on, it is only worth doing if they are consistently there in real numbers.

    NATO intelligence probably knows exactly what is going on.

    It really is simple. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has murdered her civilians and committed war crimes. Russia had proven it is the second-best army the world in Ukraine and is on the defense. Calling Ukraine’s Jewish President, a fascist and holding a sham election at gunpoint just isn’t enough. It is embarrassing for Russia and Putler with all their goose-stepping miliary parades to find out the oligarchs have been robbing them blind and their army is so 1962. Now buying shit from Iran and N. Korea, LOL. Maybe India needs to reevaluate their big arms supplier and China is probably thinking…WTF, what loser allies we have.

    Nobody knows how this ends yet. We do know Putin is a “mile long table” germaphobe who wants to live forever and insiders say he cares about his legacy. My money is that this will guide his attempts to get out of this. If he uses tactical nukes NATO will pull all the stops and the Russian military will completely annihilated. If he lets the big nukes go, the planet gets a reset. The evolution of big brains was a failure. No big deal

     

    #44997

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Maybe Russian tank drivers should switch to their dim lights? Russian tanks store their ammo right below the turret. You can hear the rounds exploding.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWkEQwyV6I

    #44998

    Unseen
    Participant

    @robert

    Probably some of the best and most accurate news nowadays comes from private Ukrainian citizens via social media. So, maybe it’s just as well that traditional journalism is being quashed and/or disinformed by the governments involved. It’s becoming the day of the eyewitness “journalist.”

    Russian tanks suffer from more than one design flaw, another one being poor armor to defend against attacks from above. We are living in the age of the drone, and one popular way of knocking out Russian tanks is to drop a bomb or grenade on them from a drone hovering above them.

    #44999

    Unseen
    Participant

    Maybe Russian tank drivers should switch to their dim lights? Russian tanks store their ammo right below the turret. You can hear the rounds exploding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWkEQwyV6I <iframe title=”Ukraine is hunting Russian tanks with American FGM – 148 Javelin missiles.” src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/_aWkEQwyV6I?feature=oembed” width=”670″ height=”377″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

    You gotta wonder what’s going through the minds of the crews of the remaining tanks every time another tank gets KO’ed. Seems like the best thing to do is stop the tank and hope to exit and get some distance on before it’s blown up.

    #45000

    Unseen
    Participant

    One problem Russia has is that’s a far more diverse country than the U.S., incorporating ethnic and religious groups with a long history of being at each other’s throats. The result can be a cohesion problem among the troops.

    #45001

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Robert,

    The way those missiles curved, precisely honed in on their targets, and left no possibility of escape was just beautiful!

    #45002

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    I don’t see how Russia’s Commonwealth of Independent States could be more diverse than the U.S., since the U.S. has Citizens and both legal and illegal aliens from most every nation in the world, including Russia and the C.I.S.

    All of these nationalities in the U.S. came with the same conflicts as in “The Old Country.” And yet while the U.S. is not perfect on human relations by any means, you certainly don’t see the same level of strife in the U.S. Military that this video showed in Russia’s Military.

    And of all the horrible ways U.S. personnel have died in war, starvation was never one in any war since the Twentieth Century.

    It’s the level of Equal Rights Before The Law and political and economic freedom in a society that makes all the difference in human relations and material wealth, and Russia under Putin and the Putineers clearly lacks all of these.

    Free, prosperous people don’t need press gangs to get them to serve their country’s legitimate defense, but oppressed, poor people sent abroad for no just and clear reason always get dragooned into the task.

    Putin’s basal ganglia lizard brain is writing checks that his body politic cannot cash. His account is about to be overdrawn very soon. Just waiting to see. 😎

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.