|
Re: War Nerd http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-called-it-indians-and-pakis-too-faggy-for-war/all/1/
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Probably worth discussing Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal's Moderate Rebels podcast, and I'm sure they'll provoke all kinds of interesting takes. I think the big questions like whether or not first responders in Syria are terrorists who hate us for our freedom are probably best left for the brain trust in CSPAM to tackle.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You also can't assume that everyone in this thread is leftist when SickZip just came in with anti-Semitic dogwhistling and that dogwhistle has to be addressed. Lmao. As if leftism and anti-semitism are incompatible. There's a big trend among the right, particularly among those who support Likud and the other conservative Israeli political parties, to conflate their political views with the Jewish religious identity, to legitimize those views. To undermine support, or even sympathy for the Palestinian cause, by labeling it as anti-semitism. So we get this political environment where Amnesty International can write a report that is rooted entirely in the on the ground situation in Palestine, and objectively call for the human rights and dignity of Palestinian people to be respected, just as they would if the tables were turned and it were Jewish people being repressed by a Muslim superpower, and get called anti-semites for it. So the meaning of the term anti-semitism has become quite blurry in recent decades, which is sad considering that that cloudiness has helped provide cover for no poo poo anti-semites like the recent synagogue shooter. But that being said, there's absolutely anti-semitism on the left. Re: the threads topic, there's definitely been room for criticism of the ~mainstream media~ these days. Yellow journalism, punditry, and buzzfeed-esque non reports are something every major network and paper have gotten deeply wrapped up in at this point. You hear about this type of thing every day, but what nobody ever talks about is Marie Colvin, who worked in mainstream media all her life, getting killed in Syria by the government trying to report the story of people who were suffering there. You don't hear about Clarissa Ward of CNN, who has visited Syria repeatedly during a time period when jihadists were running rampant, to try and give people the story of what was going on there at risk of being kidnapped or worse. Shah Marai of AFP, who was killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan while reporting on what daily life was like for people there. There's tons people out there doing good work who tend to get wrapped up in this culture of anger towards what people perceive as mainstream journalism these days. Hell, even Buzzfeed has Mike Giglio and Borzou Daragahi breaking huge stories and writing excellent long form reports. So in comes this new legion of self-appointed experts and pundits, who have two major differences from ~mainstream media~. For one, they have 0 obligation to get anything factually right, as they are generally pedaling ideology rather than news, and two, they don't need to have an education, or much of any idea what they are talking about at all. They have a vested interest in discrediting journalism from traditional sources, as the anger towards traditional sources is the only thing giving them any legitimacy. As bad as the current state of American journalism is right now, it's the wild west when it comes to alternative sources, both on the left and the right. It's why people are becoming dumber and less informed, often intentionally. I do think there needs to be a radical shift in how news is presented by corporate media, and there's major fundamental flaws in how they operate that should be pointed out and fixed. But this current level of hostility and anger towards the mainstream media I see going nowhere good, because it's simply feeding into conspiratorial thinking. No matter who you are, there's now some outlet somewhere who will try to make their money by telling you you are right about everything. And people find comfort and safety in that, so they buy into it. The results have been not good, as you see lefties and fascists finding a lot of common ground as they both have an interest in discrediting the establishment, and as a result, leftist discourse in tatters. The center and the right wing are also falling apart as this nationwide hatred for CNN and journalists has given everyone the justification they need to believe in Facebook pages reporting on fake nonsense that confirms their prejudices. And in the process, they are given more reason to hate the mainstream media because those reporters and pages have an interest in fostering that hate by discrediting traditional sources, ironically enough, often through shoddy reporting and fake stories. It's a dangerous little cycle we've entered and I'm not sure at this point there's much anyone can do about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:When, where, and how is this happening? I couldn't tell you where it started, but when I first noticed it was during the course of the uprising in Syria, and I do tend to think it rose to a pretty high level throughout it. There's been a number of pieces out since then that outline what has since been dubbed red-brown convergence, but I'll illustrate it this way. If I speak to someone who tells me that Bashar al-Assad is fighting terrorism, and that we need to support him and Russia because the alternate is people like Hillary Clinton and the American center/liberals who would risk or want to start world war 3 regime changing him. That the only Syrians worth mentioning are terrorists, and that ISIS is backed by US democrats who are in the pockets of the 9/11 committing Saudi royal jihadists. That reports of Assad's human rights abuses are overblown or flat out lies perpetrated by the mainstream media and the American establishment that has lied to us before, and by Syrian jihadist networks that fabricate evidence and stories to try to get support for an American invasion. I would have no loving clue what ideology that person subscribed to, I would just know that it starts with "far." People curious about why this is have done the dirty work finding some of the common sources that central players in each ideologies pundits rely on. SPLC had a really good piece on it that was taken down after Max Blumenthal threatened legal action. I think it still gets passed around via web archive but I don't have time to find it. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I don't even know where to begin with this. You think there's a high level of support for Assad among leftists? "Assad is bae" tankies are a social media laughingstock. My definition of "finding common ground" includes more than having some similar criticisms of the establishment that get voiced in social media. Are leftists and fascists having meaningful dialogue? Are they cooperating and organizing together? Assad is bae tankies like Rania Khalek, who took a reporting trip to Syria supported by the Syrian regime, and has written countless pieces attempting to absolve the regime of responsibility for its war crimes? Who's work was recommended in the OP of this thread? Where was the mocking, I must have missed it. Khalek's work slandering first responders in Syria to make them unsympathetic to western audiences so closely resembles actual fascist Vanessa Beeley's work, that Vanessa claimed it was coordinated, and gently caress if anyone could tell the difference either way.  We're not talking about "similar criticisms of the establishment" here. We are talking about two groups of people that both have a clear interest in promoting authoritarian populism abroad. Fascists because they're fascists, and the left because these authoritarian populists tend to be anti-American, and thus, are preferable to  liberals in the US. Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald have both appeared multiple times on Tucker Carlson's show to express their hatred for liberals with each other. Of course, there's no need to address Tucker's "views" in such segments, because there's bigger fish to fry than Tuckers brand of right wing populism surging into popularity worldwide. Helsing posted:Can you define what you mean by "mainstream" and "alternative" in this context and maybe clarify how your statement that: "[alternative media pundit] have 0 obligation to get anything factually right, as they are generally pedaling ideology rather than news". Because first of all that statement is obviously factually inaccurate in many specific cases where experts have blogs or do interviews in the alternative press, and because two you seem to be suggesting that none of the things you described are problems for mainstream punditry. Experts tend to be anyone who can provide a veneer of legitimacy to whatever point is trying to be made. The saga over Ted Postol and Seymour Hersh's reports, Assad propagandist turned chemistry whiz Partisan Girl, and their pathetic attempts to absolve the Syrian regime of guilt for its chemical weapons attacks are a testament to that. Or the UN (see: Eva Bartlett) addressing crisis actors in Syria, and Eva the impartial expert who totally isn't wearing a loving I <3 Bashar bracelet in her Facebook pic, speaking the truth. The people they are selling this poo poo to want to believe it, so it doesn't need to be bulletproof at all. It's similar to FOX's relationship with its audience. CNN for example, gets held to a far different standard, albeit a deserved standard, and one they fail to meet time and time again. But at least Amanpour and CNNI still have a solid reputation. Alternative media on the other hand gets a pass on egregious gently caress ups that border on despicable simply because their audience thinks their heart is in the right place, so they don't get caught up in the little details. quote:I honestly find it fascinating that your entire post is written as though the only things that matter are changes in the media structure. This is all written as though hatred for CNN spontaneously bubbled up out of the ether and irrationally turned everyone against CNN and other major news sources for no particular reason. There are reasons, but most of them are simply weaponized by people on the fringes who have gone on to do the exact same poo poo. The definitions for making a source not credible are selectively applied. For instance, the Iraq War is one of the most common critiques. "These people promoted the Iraq War, how can we trust them now?" Of course, such logic has been applied to Glenn Greenwald, who supported the Iraq War, all of about 0 times by these same people. He says what lefties want to hear, so he's exempted. And as to the root issues in the reporting of the Iraq War, what are the key ones? Promoted false information about WMD's as truth? Didn't question the official narrative from state sources that had skin in the game? Didn't dig deeply enough into war crimes committed by an imperialist force? Attempted to slander victims as terrorists who hate us for our freedom to legitimize imperialist violence against them? Every one of these loving crimes has been done on behalf of Russia and Assad in a war they are conducting that has very nearly, or already, surpassed the death toll in Iraq, by a handful of supposed experts, and then cited all across the landscape of alternative media. Sometimes even months after chemical weapons attacks on civilians, crossing over into outright war crimes denial. But we're supposed to laud their journalistic integrity simply because they have the courage to criticize the Iraq War in the year of our lord 2018? Please. It's easy to see what's going on with the right and their attacks on journalism since we see it from the outside looking it. But that same level of dishonesty is present all over the place, and has been growing for the last several years. There's nothing more mainstream than the idea that you can't trust the mainstream media these days, regardless of your political background. I get just as pissed as anybody when I see Friedman getting yet another loving column to spread dangerous nonsense, or some other shill for Likud reciting their platform and ranting about the self-hating Jews. But what's going on here goes far beyond that into a sort of blind hatred, and that is pretty dangerous when it's directed at journalism. And it's so prevalent now that it's being weaponized to criticize outlets on topics where they actually did journalism, or to hold up the rare good piece from a mainstream source that contained a bunch of nonsense and never should've made it to print, but supported the cause. Ultimately, corporate media's responsibility is to make money for itself. It's hosed up and wrong, but I don't think any of us disagree that it's the truth. And they make money by getting people engaged and paying attention to them. The success of the FOX model and the rise of alternative sources with similar tactics is defining how you make that money in a really negative way, and I don't think this story ends with "and then the mainstream media became good." Quite the opposite. quote:This really just sounds like your bad faith conflation of 'the left' with a handful of people you argue with on these forums and twitter. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the American left exists solely on these forums and twitter, OP. And with such unimpeachable values, it's no wonder why. quote:You mean the report that they full out retracted because it was so indefensible? Not even a correction like "oops we went overboard in a few places" but a full on "this was such a bad hit piece we're completely pulling it from our site and posting an apology". Reading it again, it's hilarious how Blumenthal and his lawyers portrayed it, and that SPLC caved to them. He's only mentioned in the article when they are posting his direct quotes, where they were said, and who else was saying the same things. Where he was, when, and with who. All sourced. His own words tell a story he wasn't trying to have heard. https://web.archive.org/web/2018030...wing-resentment Volkerball fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Dec 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I dunno if I'd go as far as to say "incredibly talented." It's more that, in the context of US media, he isn't a particularly offensive figure and the ire aimed at him is obviously deranged and unreasonable. I can't help but doubt the judgement of someone who feels the need to express their strong distaste towards a person like Greenwald but has almost nothing negative to say about more mainstream non-Republican media figures. That's an interesting argument to make in defense of a guy who goes on white nationalists shows to bitch about the dems.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The point is that the "fundamental difference" between these outlets that you perceive doesn't actually exist. US media also participates in propaganda (to the same - or realistically significantly greater - harmful results) and ignores or downplays inconvenient things, which is something an organization like, say, RT also does. Some of those things it downplays are given a platform by RT, even if the motives are cynical. Russia has elections too, just like the US. Makes ya think. Lets be honest, this has nothing to do with journalistic quality and integrity. Russian press releases are just a key purveyor of anti-American thought and you don't want to lose the ally. There are actually two key differences you're doing a lot of work ignoring. The first is that when it comes to an instance like the Kunduz bombing, even FOX didn't try to absolve the US of blame, and they quoted MSF, the UN, and doctors at the scene, giving a full picture of what had happened. Contrast that with Sputnik and RT when it came to the assault of a UN convoy in Syria. Sputnik implied the attack was committed by a US predator drone, and RT cited anyone who had something to say that seeded doubt or absolved the Russian and Syrian government of any responsibility. In the end, the UN determined that the convoy had been deliberately targeted by the Syrian Air Force. Russian media given its ties to the Russian state, would have been fully aware of that fact, but it flat out lied instead of acknowledging that. But this isn't the only, or even the most egregious example. That would have to go to the coverage of MH17, where a loving mack truck full of evidence, including a social media post from the head of the Russian backed militias in Ukraine taking responsibility for shooting down a Ukrainian military transport that was swiftly deleted, and video evidence of the first rebels on the scene excitedly rushing to the crash site to see the wreckage of said Ukrainian military transport, only to realize what they had done. Despite this, RT even now, all these years later, refuses to acknowledge Russian culpability. That's a pretty big loving difference. The second is that the media environments in the two countries are completely different. Whether it be Grayzone or any number of ~alternative media~ sources that make their living pandering to an audience desperate for any source of anti-American sentiment, many of them are based in the US. You can find American media that will give you what you want. That's allowed. In Russia however, what happens to journalists who challenge the Russian narrative with facts and objective realities? Why don't you try asking Anna Politkovskaya? This environment completely devoid of any journalistic freedom results in Russian journalism almost entirely being little more than outlets for state press releases. It's like comparing Trump tweets to NBC when it comes to their journalistic use. I would also point out that when it comes to these instances like the ones I mentioned before, like MH17, the UN convoy bombing, the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and on and on, most lefties who espouse viewpoints similar to yours erred on the side of the Russian press releases, despite the clear conflicts of interests in Russian reporting on those subjects, so the idea that you are all so smart that you can sort through Russian lies and pick out the truth, is as stupid as it is arrogant. The fact is that you just want to be able to look into a bucket of lies and pick out the ones that support your ideological position, and reserve the right to hold those ones up as truth. I'm sorry, but there's no defending that on its face, especially given how blatantly hypocritical it is, because I've never seen any of you arguing that it's a good idea to go sorting through articles in the Jerusalem Post for little nuggets of truth about the Palestinians, or through al-Arabiya for what the Saudi's have uncovered about the Khashoggi murder or its political prisoners, because those don't benefit your cause, and it's transparently stupid to do so when it comes to those situations. You argue that believing state press releases about Syria from one of the primary aggressors in Syria, over a war in which more people will be killed, or already have been killed, than in Iraq, and that has been at the center of creating the worst refugee crisis in the world since WW2, is a victimless crime. Fair enough. But I will say it's sad that the vanguard of the ideals of free healthcare, free college education, and equality irrespective of race or ethnicity, feel an obligation to prove themselves as such mouthbreathing loving idiots on a daily basis, reducing themselves to political children on the fringe. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:i'm not going to make a huge post about all of the details, but western sources make up things wholesale just like russian media does. Your link posted:A top general in North Korea was executed this month on corruption charges, around the time the nation’s leader, Kim Jong-un, warned the party and military elites against abuse of power and other misdeeds, a South Korean official said Wednesday. Also from the New York Times a couple of months later, North Korean General, Thought to Be Executed, Resurfaces. quote:there was another even more widely circulated story about another general who was reportedly executed by an anti-aircraft gun. he may still be alive (but demoted) Your link posted:Public execution by anti-aircraft gun was the price of perceived disloyalty for North Korea's defense chief—or was it? The report of Hyon Yong Chol's alleged April 30 execution in front of hundreds came from the mouth of South Korea's National Intelligence Service. Today, the New York Times and Yonhap highlight two things giving some pause about that report. the gently caress Volkerball fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 5, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:if they truly had a devious method to destroy the meaning of facts with contradictory information, wouldn't they use this across europe as well? the complete disorganization of so much of the us content suggests to me that they aren't generating enough content to fill their airtime, and are just throwing random poo poo in to pad out time. They do use it across Europe, to include inside Russia itself, and this isn't something we need to speculate and theorize about. Vladislav Surkov was the architect of the current breed of Russian propaganda, and there's a bunch of detailed profiles on him explaining where his head was at as he was building it. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/hidden-author-putinism-russia-vladislav-surkov/382489/ https://medium.com/@wmilam/the-theater-director-who-is-vladislav-surkov-9dd8a15e0efb Volkerball fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jan 5, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:44 |
|
|
Squalid posted:You seem to be arguing that because this is not the result of a centralized process with a definite single end goal, it is not a problem. I would disagree. The result is a consistent bias in coverage, information, and narratives that is the result of explicit and frequently willfully dishonest efforts. It results in disproportionate coverage of certain issues that are important to the wealthiest Americans, and systematic neglect of problems for ordinary people. While its true of course that there are think tanks on both sides of the American two party system, and therefore the bias cancels out. However I can think of no explicitly pro socialist think tanks, and I have to believe this is because there are few billionaires interested in promoting socialism. The Economic Policy Institute has done a bunch of stuff on income inequality. Unions are also big funders for certain think tanks, not just private billionaires. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2019 19:26
|
|