Ukraine

[Augy]

Got anything to back that up?

"Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media" did a good job showing the hypocrisy of the western media. But why choose and pick if they are all guilty of it?

[Duuring]

The point of 'free media' isn't that all media centers are unbiased. The point of free media is that nobody is restricting anyone from spreading or receiving news from a certain news outlet.

[MaxLam]

Western people often believe that there is no war propaganda on their side. But they are wrong.

Got anything to back that up?

The fact that they believe that? Or the fact that there is war propaganda?

The point of 'free media' isn't that all media centers are unbiased. The point of free media is that nobody is restricting anyone from spreading or receiving news from a certain news outlet.

Free media as I understand it also imply a certain amount of media independance and objectivity.

[Archduke Sven]

If you force people to be independent and objective then media isn't free, it's restricted. Free media means they can do/write whatever they they want, what people choose to listen to is their choice.

holy shit this is getting annoying, you cant just change definitions of a word to suit yourself...

[Turin Turambar]

Whatever you call it, it sucks nonetheless.

The point that really makes me angry about that isn't even the propaganda itself but that we have to pay our own stultification.

[Rejenorst]

The point of 'free media' isn't that all media centers are unbiased. The point of free media is that nobody is restricting anyone from spreading or receiving news from a certain news outlet.

Or for paying for it to have a particular spin. A bought and paid for media gets the job done just as readily though one could argue its the lesser evil in principle.
http://theagendadaily.com/gekaufte-journalisten-german-book-will-rock-world/

Western people often believe that there is no war propaganda on their side. But they are wrong.

Got anything to back that up?

I'll just quote some academic crap I posted in the previous Ukraine thread:

Spoiler

With a little research, they could have exposed them as falsehoods. Of course, war always produces propaganda, but in both these wars the lack of questioning of official pronouncements by the news media was astounding. There was little media dissent from the interpretive framework provided by the government (Entman and Page 1994). The presentation of sanitized images was prevalent, whilst reporters were fed a plethora of spin terms and techno-specific images. Weapons and technology became the heroes and their consequences forgotten. As reporters were not allowed anywhere near any fighting, the media concentrated on ‘sexy’ weapons. Despite around the clock media coverage, it still lacked substance and came entirely from the perspective of the military that controlled both the content and the context. The media corporations, mostly CNN in this case, seemed complicit in this management of public perception by the authorities. The BBC took on its government’s view entirely and even went to the ridiculous lengths of banning the playing of songs such as Killing Me Softly with your Song, Everyone Wants to Rule the World , and We Can Work It Out (Taylor 1992, p.24). Such actions do not indicate a free and fair press but one which was conscious of ensuring continued support for the war, or at least, not wanting to assist in producing antagonism to the official government line. Of course, in war the news media is partially a tool of government but it is problematic whether the media should be totally compliant and by doing so hide the implications of government policy.
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=isw

In regards to both Gulf Wars:
Perhaps the most fundamental danger to the ethical coverage of state violence is the progressive use by governments of influence campaigns prevalent in both these wars. The strategy of denial (the blocking of information to withhold the truth) and deception (an attempt to make someone believe something is not true) is becoming a favoured practice by governments (Godson and Wirtz 2002). These practices have developed in sophistication, and need equally clever journalists and media owners to counter them. In the two wars discussed, denial was almost complete in 1991 and so was deception in 2003 (with the complicity of media owners). The ethical responsibilities of the media were shunned and evaded in both wars.
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=isw

[close]

[Nipplestockings]

Then move to Russia and worship Putin in wondrous Khrushchev commieblocks created for the glory of the people.

Or just grow up and stop falling for propaganda which is created and aimed at people exactly like you. You're being bamboozled by Putin.

[Turin Turambar]

The point of 'free media' isn't that all media centers are unbiased. The point of free media is that nobody is restricting anyone from spreading or receiving news from a certain news outlet.

Or for paying for it to have a particular spin. A bought and paid for media gets the job done just as readily though one could argue its the lesser evil in principle.
http://theagendadaily.com/gekaufte-journalisten-german-book-will-rock-world/

I read it and I heavily recommend this book.

[MaxLam]

If you force people to be independent and objective then media isn't free, it's restricted. Free media means they can do/write whatever they they want, what people choose to listen to is their choice.

holy shit this is getting annoying, you cant just change definitions of a word to suit yourself...

I'm not changing the definition. It has been like that since a very long time. You don't need to "force" people, there is other ways to make sure that media remain independent and objective such as public funding, which is what we do in France for the press and doesn't mean state-controlled. If your media isn't independent, it can't be called a free media.

Also when we speak about free media, do we mean freedom to lie and falsify? I doubt it. Citizens have a right to information, and if a media manipulates the information, it ought to be punished. If there is no actual information, what's the point of having free media? I'm not talking about political opinions but about information. A fact is a fact.

[Frederik]

The Separatist had an T-34 --> Ukrainian troops  fought agains an T-34.
Red Army in WW2 had T-34 --> Wehrmacht & SS fought agains an T-34.
Wehrmacht & SS were Nazis --> Ukraine is Nazi.

[Duuring]

The Separatist had an T-34 --> Ukrainian troops  fought agains an T-34.
Red Army in WW2 had T-34 --> Wehrmacht & SS fought agains an T-34.
Wehrmacht & SS were Nazis --> Ukraine is Nazi.

[Riddlez]

Western people often believe that there is no war propaganda on their side. But they are wrong.

Got anything to back that up?

The fact that they believe that? Or the fact that there is war propaganda?

The fact that they believe that.

[Turin Turambar]

Spoiler

[close]

[Suede]

Ukrainian IFV avoids the crash with civil car

[Turin Turambar]