Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is excessive reinforcement of themes at the current time. People have grown wary of the saturation of repetitive messages the US media and notice that information is being tailored to support one side of a war. I've heard people say that the current environment reminds them of the communist propaganda so much so that people in the US have parodied things like ISIS, and lately, the Russian hack.
The British press used to feature some diversity of views for the coverage of wars, surveillance, terrorism, etc. Some papers like the Guaridian were considered to be liberal on foreign affairs. After the Snowden disclosure of GCHG surveillance, David Cameron cracked down on the press and ran off most of the good writers on the Guaridan.
Anything on the television media is not worth watching. The coverage is so brief that you can't pick apart inconsistencies and mitigating facts like you can with detailed newspaper articles. To do that, you also have to read multiple articles on the same event and compare the facts. A lot of the propaganda is committed by shielding information from the reader.
^
I honestly don't care any more who is "liberal on foreign affairs" and who is not.
But I am concerned that the infestation of radical Islam is growing and multiplying all over the place like a virus. And removing Assad is not going to solve the problem, but it's going to worsen it.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.â€"
(set 16 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,162 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
The British press used to feature some diversity of views for the coverage of wars, surveillance, terrorism, etc. Some papers like the Guaridian were considered to be liberal on foreign affairs. After the Snowden disclosure of GCHG surveillance, David Cameron cracked down on the press and ran off most of the good writers on the Guaridan.
The NSA were furious with the Guardians disclosure of very secretive Snowden allergations, and the US put pressure on Cameron to take action.
The Government only have linited powers in terns of the press and Cameron had no say as to who writes for The Guardian.
What the British Government normally do in relation to National Security Breaches is issue what is known as a Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice (DSMA), which is more commonly known as a 'D' Notice, meaning the issue is of critical national security importance and the information should not be published.
In terms of the Courts, I don't think the Government would really want to go down that route, as firstly it makes the Government look like it is denying the freedom of the press, secondly it makes the Government look like it's trying to cover something up and thirdly the Courts may decide in certain circumstances that the story is in the public interest.
The Leveson inquiry is a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson was far more damaging for the British Press and led to sweeping reforms including new regulators and press regulations.
^
I honestly don't care any more who is "liberal on foreign affairs" and who is not.
But I am concerned that the infestation of radical Islam is growing and multiplying all over the place like a virus. And removing Assad is not going to solve the problem, but it's going to worsen it.
It takes a lot of work to find something on BBC, Independent, Telegraph, or other papers to find real information on foreign affairs. It was much easier to find something in real time in the Guardian and other foreign newspapers to find out what's really happening in the wars. I don't want to wait till after the war is over or an invasion has occurred to find out they lied about WMDs. Information is useless if it doesn't affect opinions at the time the decisions are made.
I don't see the proliferation of radical islam. The use of insurgencies as proxies by governments was a common strategy during the Cold War. The difference now is that most are now jihadists instead of Marxists.
I also see the boomerang effect to "liberal democratic" countries having to take in a large criminal element in the refugee population as a result of the policy by their governments and their allies in the Middle East to send criminals to fight in these wars.
Russian media is owned by the state. It's never impartial. The state controls the narrative.
So to answer the OP's question, NO.
That said, I try to read multiple sources, and I emphasize SOURCES, to get the best picture of an issue. It's important to look for different sources, because many sites regurgitate information from another site, rather than independently verify the information. So if Breitbart is reporting something that the Daily Caller reported, then the Daily Caller is the source, not Breitbart. If the New York Times is reporting something that the AP reported, AP is the source, not the New York Times. In either case, I want a second, independent source to provide context and verity.
Nope. Most Russian media is State-controlled propaganda. I really don't understand how people can view RT positively especially as that's well-known to be the Russian State propaganda news.
Yeah... this is like asking if we trust the Chinese media more than US media.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
