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.
Do you understand that the AVERAGE person has to make up his/her mind on the ground of the objective information, that the journalists in mainstream media suppose to supply them?
It's THEIR JOB, and that's how public opinion is formed.
Who, me?
But it's not about ME, it's about public opinion.
And the way it's formed is when public receives the most objective information, not some government-concocted propaganda, as it used to be back in Soviet times.
The JOURNALISTS are not suppose to "try to tell something opposite," they suppose to deliver the OBJECTIVE INFORMATION as much as possible.
"To tell something opposite" - that's what the "Opinion" sections are for.
Musiqum... you don't understand how the media in the free society operates ( or rather used to,) do you?
Wow, erasure! Your comment is a bright example of mental speculation and substitution of concepts. Looks like you are commenting just for one reason: start an argument out of thin air, where you are trying to confuse the interlocutor, and then, with a smart look, show how wrong they are.
I said - "In my opinion, he was the most truthful British reporter".
You started to argue - he didn't make reports from Ukrainian side. And added in a mentor tone: "That's what "the most truthful reporting" IS musiqum", that's "not the one-sided "truths".
This was a response from a person that don't understand what their interlocutor talked about, but no matter what feels obliged to respond with a set of demagogic conclusions.
Ok. Next.
Then I explained - this journalist couldn't make a report from the other side of the fence, because he was banned from entering that side for reporting things that contradict the narrative of the Kiev junta narrative. HE COUILDN"T MAKE A TRUTHFUL REPORT BECAUSE OF IT!
You: "The JOURNALISTS are not suppose to "try to tell something opposite,"
"you don't understand how the media in the free society operates".
I feel like I am talking to a robot that has some kind of malfunction in its circuit.
P.S. By the way. Since the 'Joint Statement' topic was deleted and I had no time to answer to your last comment, I will do it here.
To be sure that Putin allegedly killed Nemtsov, since he was a hindrance to Putin's good image, looks so silly. Just the opposite is true - the murder of such an insignificant political figure (especially near the Kremlin) would create a huge obstacle to Putin's image. And that's exactly what happened. Putin is not such a fool as you think to do such a thing.
Wow, erasure! Your comment is a bright example of mental speculation and substitution of concepts. Looks like you are commenting just for one reason: start an argument out of thin air, where you are trying to confuse the interlocutor, and then, with a smart look, show how wrong they are.
I said - "In my opinion, he was the most truthful British reporter".
You started to argue - he didn't make reports from Ukrainian side. And added in a mentor tone: "That's what "the most truthful reporting" IS musiqum", that's "not the one-sided "truths".
This was a response from a person that don't understand what their interlocutor talked about, but no matter what feels obliged to respond with a set of demagogic conclusions.
Ok. Next.
Then I explained - this journalist couldn't make a report from the other side of the fence, because he was banned from entering that side for reporting things that contradict the narrative of the Kiev junta narrative. HE COUILDN"T MAKE A TRUTHFUL REPORT BECAUSE OF IT!
You: "The JOURNALISTS are not suppose to "try to tell something opposite,"
"you don't understand how the media in the free society operates".
I feel like I am talking to a robot that has some kind of malfunction in its circuit.
I only explained why Graham's reports wouldn't fly for the major media outlets, even for something like "Vice."
Quote:
P.S. By the way. Since the 'Joint Statement' topic was deleted and I had no time to answer to your last comment, I will do it here. To be sure that Putin allegedly killed Nemtsov, since he was a hindrance to Putin's good image, looks so silly. Just the opposite is true - the murder of such an insignificant political figure (especially near the Kremlin) would create a huge obstacle to Putin's image. And that's exactly what happened. Putin is not such a fool as you think to do such a thing.
I was talking about Navalny.
And what "good image?"
On a second thought - never mind.
The OP's post is pure Russian propaganda. I can't believe I see this on C-D.
And nobody said that the Ukraine is a democracy: It's called a FLEDGLING democracy. There is a reason the Russians want to snuff it out -- there is more democracy in the Ukraine than in Russia.
Oh, wow! Really? Didn't know that. You are the only person in the world who guessed it!
I only explained why Graham's reports wouldn't fly for the major media outlets, even for something like "Vice."
I was talking about Navalny.
And what "good image?"
On a second thought - never mind.
The same situation is with Navalny. Moreover, Putin himself agreed to transfer Navalny to Germany for treatment.
Putin does not benefit from Navalny's death at all. Poisoned in Russia Navalny was needed only for the West.
The OP's post is pure Russian propaganda. I can't believe I see this on C-D.
There is a reason the Russians want to snuff it out -- there is more democracy in the Ukraine than in Russia.
^^^ 100% correct ^^^
Foreign Policy magazine: "Why Ukraine’s Fight Against Corruption Scares Russia -- The country’s democratization and ongoing efforts to fight entrenched graft and cronyism are a threat to Putin’s model of governance."
That and if Ukraine becomes entrenched as a western european-style democracy they will want to join NATO.
Khay zhyve vilʹna Ukrayina ("Long Live Free Ukraine")
Foreign Policy magazine: "Why Ukraine’s Fight Against Corruption Scares Russia -- The country’s democratization and ongoing efforts to fight entrenched graft and cronyism are a threat to Putin’s model of governance."
That and if Ukraine becomes entrenched as a western european-style democracy they will want to join NATO.
Khay zhyve vilʹna Ukrayina ("Long Live Free Ukraine")
"The Pandora Papers do not bode well for Ukraine, and is a bad look for Zelensky. As one Washington-based analyst who requested anonymity told me, “Ukraine is the Saudi Arabia of corruption.”
I still caught up with their two good dispatches on Iran though, which was an eye opener for me.
But I'll leave it for another thread.
For some reason a lot of western liberal media news outlets do go hard on the Iranian regime as much.
No clue why that is. Maybe because of the Iran-Deal and how that relates to Obama's legacy, but compared to Russia they are dealt with Children's glove.
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.
