or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread - Page 40

post #586 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Putting RT up as a counterweight to Western media is buying into Russia's game. Equating "free press with a Western bias" and "state run Russian media" really gives the Russia propaganda outlets far more credibility than they deserve.


What is unfortunate is that the Russian perspective does contain some very legitimate points about the recklessness of the USG.

post #587 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

these are not mutually exclusive you know, no need to get caught up in semantics over this

While there is a spectrum of state interference (and basically lots of private sector interference anyway) RT is, at its core, an organ of the Russian state to disseminate propaganda in the West.

Of course NYT writes shit like this (I won't comment on the details but I know people heavily involved with the issues discussed and the WTF! were numerous):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/europe/russia-orthodox-church.html?_r=0
post #588 of 724
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/glenn-beck-hillary-clinton-moral-ethical-choice/index.html

Glenn Beck says that refusing to vote for Trump, which could result in Hillary's election, is a moral and ethical choice. CNN translation - "Glenn Beck: Hillary Clinton is a 'moral, ethical choice' for Republicans." Most of the major networks might as well come out as bona fide extensions of the Democratic party. It's not like they're going to lose any viewers.
post #589 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post


What is unfortunate is that the Russian perspective does contain some very legitimate points about the recklessness of the USG.

I'd love to get some news from outside the West, get some insight on the prevailing attitudes and implicit biases that are baked into the Western perspective.

But you really can't. Anything from Russia and China is so heavily biased, if not explicitly government propaganda, that it's useless. I'm sure there's scholarly work out there, but it's not exactly accessible.
post #590 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

RT isn't just biased, it's state run. To say RT is biased is an obfuscation of the truth. 

Putting RT up as a counterweight to Western media is buying into Russia's game. Equating "free press with a Western bias" and "state run Russian media" really gives the Russia propaganda outlets far more credibility than they deserve.

not putting any counterweight to Western media is buying into West's game

just pointing out it's useful to know Russian perspective that is without equating free press with government controlled media

and would totally disagree with you about RT being completely devoid of value because it's state controlled, there are occasional interesting panel talks and interviews, sometimes they have very good quests and reporters like Larry King. With all that in mind yes you can't put them on equal footing with free western media but they offer perspective that is case of some events valuable to have.

Calling media free is also a bit misleading, I would call them privately owned. Many of them are just as biased as gov. controlled media, there is clear bias towards certain attitudes/polices/ideas. It was very clear for example with coverage of refugee crisis.
Edited by wojt - 10/11/16 at 8:25am
post #591 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 


W's approval ratings are going up too. 

 

I don't know what an SES is, but I can point to about a dozen articles of various people from officers and enlisted personnel in various branches of the military to civilians getting discharged/fired/prosecuted for mishandling classified information.

 

 

Comparing enlisted personneland even junior officers to a Cabinet member is akin to comparing apples and watermelons...hell acorns and watermellons.  With rank comes power.  SES (Senior Executive Service) are government employees, the civilian equivalent of admirals/generals.  They are for the most part untouchable

post #592 of 724
How's wojt going to be feeling when russia invades his country?
post #593 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

How's wojt going to be feeling when russia invades his country?

I'm tbh concerned we might pull a maneuver like Georgia and have idiots in my country believe you totally have our back

One of the reasons i'm not a fan of cold war 2.0

Also it annoys me that they don't realize(lots of my countrymen) that we are pieces on that USA-RUS chessboard, fortunately Russian language is not that hard to learn..
post #594 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

not putting any counterweight to Western media is buying into West's game

just pointing out it's useful to know Russian perspective that is without equating free press with government controlled media

and would totally disagree with you about RT being completely devoid of value because it's state controlled, there are occasional interesting panel talks and interviews, sometimes they have very good quests and reporters like Larry King. With all that in mind yes you can't put them on equal footing with free western media but they offer perspective that is case of some events valuable to have.

I think you'd have to have a very high level of sophistication to separate the propaganda from whatever's meaningful with RT. The influence of the government is sunk so deep in that it's impossible to reconcile. How do you weight how much to trust propaganda?

Quote:
Calling media free is also a bit misleading, I would call them privately owned. Many of them are just as biased as gov. controlled media, there is clear bias towards certain attitudes/polices/ideas. It was very clear for example with coverage of refugee crisis.

The fundamental bias is a Western perspective. That's quite a distinct thing from media that's explicitly run by the government.

As far as distinct coverage biases, you can just go find one of the other million sources available in the West if you want a different perspective. That's not so much an option for Russian or Chinese media.
post #595 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


As far as distinct coverage biases, you can just go find one of the other million sources available in the West if you want a different perspective.
He's already done that; he has 4chan.
post #596 of 724
One example Gib is that I did not see in our media(perhaps in US there was more information at that time) was lack of the complete outline of Russian perspective on proposed Missile Defense placement in Eastern Europe. It was not covered from all angles that is for sure. Knowing their perspective, had me weigh information I got from both sides and frankly it turned out they have very legitimate case to be worried.
post #597 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post
 

 

 

Comparing enlisted personneland even junior officers to a Cabinet member is akin to comparing apples and watermelons...hell acorns and watermellons.  With rank comes power.  SES (Senior Executive Service) are government employees, the civilian equivalent of admirals/generals.  They are for the most part untouchable

 

You're talking in complete tangent to my point.  My point is that there are rules for the elite and rules for the rest of us.  I just want the rules to be clear and consistent for everyone.

High ranking (though not general level) officers have been forced to separate from the military for similar things.  Major Brezler sent one classified email and had about 100 classified documents on an unsecured thumb drive.  The one classified email that started the whole thing was, allegedly, to help save lives of his fellow soldiers and marines.

 

Maybe he'll go on to be a Senator or something, but I really just want everyone to be held to the same standard.  I know it is idealistic, but there you have it.

post #598 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

, but I really just want everyone to be held to the same standard. 
Then go back to Russia, you communist.
post #599 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/glenn-beck-hillary-clinton-moral-ethical-choice/index.html

Glenn Beck says that refusing to vote for Trump, which could result in Hillary's election, is a moral and ethical choice. CNN translation - "Glenn Beck: Hillary Clinton is a 'moral, ethical choice' for Republicans." Most of the major networks might as well come out as bona fide extensions of the Democratic party. It's not like they're going to lose any viewers.

I think this is more "clickbait bullshit" than liberal media bias. I mean, Breitbart has that same headline.
post #600 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I think this is more "suited butthurt about following Hannity into Laughingstockland" "clickbait bullshit" than liberal media bias. I mean, Breitbart has that same headline.
FTFY
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread