|
Typo posted:an interesting tidbit is that this is true even in state media when given some degree of independence The other attributed factor, which is a problem across all countries with internal media controls, is it only takes a few years for those involved in the propaganda apparatus, and those above them enforcing on the propaganda apparatus, to lose their own grip on reality outside of the propaganda apparatus. The incentives and motivating factors in such settings are such that everyone who doesn't believe sincerely is still going to worry about the reaction from above and from below.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I agree here, with the caveat that internal inconsistency is also believed to be a part of the Russian model not because it obscures their actual position, but because it a) expands their reach to a larger set of audiences, b) drives them to adopt a cynical and instrumental relationship with reality which itself benefits anchoring and, c) drives conflicting viewpoints that deteriorate civic participation. Notably this discusses both multichannel (e.g. multi-angle proxy social media entities) and within-channel (RT) source claim variation, as well as individual source (Putin statement) inconsistencies. The original Rand report that's the source of the firehose of falsehoods concept discusses this a bit. This is not unique to RT though, as this same level of "throwing poo poo against the wall" has been used several times by Israel in the current genocidal campaign to explain away their war crimes, with the United States general media organs (can't believe I have to be this specific, I'd rather we didn't just constantly resort to pedantry) picking through the lies to find which one they like. This became the narrative with both "sides' major American media, and this process, at least to someone relatively young like me, makes me wonder if a similar process of "editing lies" was used in the lead-up to the Gulf War with the lies about Iraqis unplugging Kuwaiti incubators and such. We do know a method like this was used by the Bush Jr. state department in drumming up reasons to go to war. One could say that the "cultural divide" between "liberal" and "conservative" media is just an expanded scope of this discombobulation process, that inundating the public with two narratives, both with internally inconsistent logic, leads to large-scale disconnection from civic participation. This is why I find it important not to keep focus exclusively on RT because that enables a blindness to similar processes in work in our own media. It's an exotification of media manipulation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:38
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:This is not unique to RT though, as this same level of "throwing poo poo against the wall" has been used several times by Israel in the current genocidal campaign to explain away their war crimes, I did not claim it was unique to RT. Russia is considered pioneering for the methodology and the extent to which this method is used. I'm perfectly willing to believe that several other countries are doing it. The US is not. Probably Magic posted:with the United States general media organs (can't believe I have to be this specific, I'd rather we didn't just constantly resort to pedantry) picking through the lies to find which one they like. This became the narrative with both "sides' major American media, and this process, at least to someone relatively young like me, makes me wonder if a similar process of "editing lies" was used in the lead-up to the Gulf War with the lies about Iraqis unplugging Kuwaiti incubators and such. We do know a method like this was used by the Bush Jr. state department in drumming up reasons to go to war. No. Cease to Hope has already described in some detail the qualitative and quantitative distinctions between the diversity and form of US media systems and the literal controlled foreign-facing propaganda apparatus of the Russian state. You have constructed an idea of "United States general media organs" which is specifically unspecific, which is so broad that it completely defies falsifiable claims because it widens to encompass whatever you want in order to substantiate your claim in a particular instance, and narrows to exclude whatever would disprove it. This makes it worthless. Conversely, no one has demanded to "keep focus exclusively on RT". You are the person framing the discussion in terms of this. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:This is not unique to RT though, as this same level of "throwing poo poo against the wall" has been used several times by Israel in the current genocidal campaign to explain away their war crimes, with the United States general media organs (can't believe I have to be this specific, I'd rather we didn't just constantly resort to pedantry) picking through the lies to find which one they like. This became the narrative with both "sides' major American media, and this process, at least to someone relatively young like me, makes me wonder if a similar process of "editing lies" was used in the lead-up to the Gulf War with the lies about Iraqis unplugging Kuwaiti incubators and such. We do know a method like this was used by the Bush Jr. state department in drumming up reasons to go to war. I do agree that Israel has basically adopted the same approach as Russia in terms of not really trying to be consistent in its messaging. At the same time, I think Israeli war crimes are quite apparent to someone getting their news from a typical US general media organ (though perhaps you’re not thinking of the same outlets I am).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This, however, this is xenophobic bullcrap. Even the most beholden state mouthpieces have a range of acceptable positions. It's not a plot to trick you. What is their purpose for repeating lies if not to trick you? The entire media apparatus in this model is to manufacture consent, which implies changing or directing a viewer's attention and thought patterns, which if done with false evidence is the exact definition of "trick." There might be a purpose to state media, but for some outlets it basically ceases to be about informing and more about just inciting fervor. If you consume such media, you're going to be duped. This is not isolated to RT, but there are other examples like OAN. If you watch for news about coverage for election fraud, it would take outside knowledge to know that the allegations are made up. Basically, even if you take it with a grain of salt, it's so far outside the truth that it's useless unless you want to know what bullshit OAN is spewing. It's like watching Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf about the Invasion of Iraq. The solution to excessively bad news outlets is to stop treating them as news, and I believe RT for example would qualify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I do agree that Israel has basically adopted the same approach as Russia in terms of not really trying to be consistent in its messaging. At the same time, I think Israeli war crimes are quite apparent to someone getting their news from a typical US general media organ (though perhaps you’re not thinking of the same outlets I am). One caveat to this: I do think some outlets (like the NYT, IIRC) do end up giving American metadiscourse surrounding the war (e.g., Claudine Gay) excessive focus, which I suppose does distract from Israeli war crimes to some degree even though they’re also covering the war crimes. It’s hard to say how much of this is a manifestation of a particular “centrist” ideology often seen in the US media vs. a particular kind of provincialism - or maybe those are just different ways of saying the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:What is their purpose for repeating lies if not to trick you? The entire media apparatus in this model is to manufacture consent, which implies changing or directing a viewer's attention and thought patterns, which if done with false evidence is the exact definition of "trick." The part of your claim that's incorrect, imo (can't speak for Cease to Hope ofc) is that the repetition of different lies is for the purpose of obscuring their actual position. Russia, in publicly acknowledged (mostly) directly controlled channels, is usually pretty direct with those beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
Generally do not think Russia is a pioneer of "lying their rear end off until something sticks," pretty sure that can be credited to every two-year-old ever. The exotification I was discussing. This is a common rhetorical tactic, though, in terms of hiding a clear bias, usually found in discussions of, for instance, North Korea. When North Korea is discussed in American media, ranging from major cable news television to newspapers with major reading bases to even late night shows that are generally doing softball interviews, then the immediate response to any advocacy for diplomacy is immediately met with prolonged questions about North Korea's civil rights record. Now, when military officials, even officials directly connected to warcrimes such as the Iraq War, are in those same outlets, they are not pounced on and demanded to answer for that catastrophe. It's not seen as a must-discuss. However, occasionally, occasionally discussion of American malfeasances are allowed to occur. It is not mandated the same way North Korea's are. Now, would one have to be an advocate of Korea, a believer in their propaganda or anything of the like, to see a huge disparity in reactions to coverage of Korea in American media compared to coverage of itself? "But American sins are mentioned!" But not to nearly the same extent as sins of designated enemies. So this whole differentiation of RT as a unique bogeymen while not nearly leaning into portraying American media as a similar bogeyman is also an obvious disparity. Anyway, Discendo Vox posted:The US is not. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ quote:It’s worth recalling that the Bush administration appeared determined to attack Iraq for any number of reasons beyond suspicions of WMDs; officials simply seized on WMDs because they concluded that that represented the strongest case for an invasion. “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair in 2003. Seems like the definition of throwing poo poo against the wall to me. This would become the ongoing narrative from major media for the next two years to the point where Phil Donahue was fired from his job for objecting to it despite ostensibly being the voice on a station that opposed the ruling party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The part of your claim that's incorrect, imo (can't speak for Cease to Hope ofc) is that the repetition of different lies is for the purpose of obscuring their actual position. Russia, in publicly acknowledged (mostly) directly controlled channels, is usually pretty direct with those beliefs. I would say that my position is that you cannot reliably determine Russia's actual position from the lies they tell and to do so is just an exercise in reading tea leaves. Observing the narrative the state is pushing is not observing the internal position of the state. The narrative that the state is strong does not mean that the state actually feels that it is itself strong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
By the way, Discendo Vox, if you're going to continue to accuse me of being imprecise as not to be falsifiable, I'm going to return that argument right back at you and ask what you mean when you say RT. Do you mean Ed Schultz? Chris Hedges? Jesse Ventura? Rick Sanchez? Lee Camp? All part of RT America. You're really going to have to be more specific in order for your argument to be considered falsifiable or not. (Or you can agree there's commonly held definitions and stop being pedantic, because I've kept my references to MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the like, as opposed to something niche like a blog.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:So this whole differentiation of RT as a unique bogeymen while not nearly leaning into portraying American media as a similar bogeyman is also an obvious disparity. I think this is the part I have the most issue with - are all media sources biased in some way? Yes, I agree. Are Western new sources bad in some ways? Absolutely. Are they bad in the same way? I would say no. However, I think there is a matter of degree - where some sources are complete garbage not worth considering at all except for academic reasons (not as news) and others worth examining for their biases when reporting actual news. If your position is that all media outlets are naked propaganda outlets and are therefore equally valid, that's where I'm going to have to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:This may have been true in the middle of last century, but the current media climate has led to a much stiffer leash done under the guise of "preventing misinformation." In the middle of last century, Congress had an anticommunist censor board with subpoena powers. You should know better than to appeal to an idyllic past. In any event, you've gotten hooked up on individual examples of the system continuing to work to enforce a liberal consensus without thinking about what that liberal consensus is. Losing a greater perspective is a real risk of being too online. What pressure existed to "combat misinfo" was primarily aimed at social media sites over covid, and with the net effect of a fart. Cable and network news (appearing to be) leaning further and further right is one half not remembering where they were 10, 20, 30 years ago and one half their audience greying, and doesn't have anything to do with a shortlived and defunct effort to "combat misinfo". As for how the press reports on war, you're right about the Iraq War, but perhaps not so much paying attention to the intervening decade and a half. The corporate press's interests run to emphasizing Important Developments or Difficult Controversies, so it's easy to manipulate into cheerleading for a new war, or exaggerating the viewpoints on an issue to dissemble about it. But they also love Government Failure and new revelations on a Controversial Quagmire, too. You can easily map a response onto a single historical example, but it requires ignoring all the times it was more profitable or strategic to take a different angle. Psaki is definitely a government proxy. It's probably helpful to talk about the roles of surrogates and proxies but this post is long enough. Discendo Vox posted:I agree here, with the caveat that internal inconsistency is also believed to be a part of the Russian model not because it obscures their actual position, but because One has to wonder who is doing this believing. This Kremlinology analysis is a favorite of useless, media-friendly DC thinktanks who often (including in this case) are little more than conspiracy theorists. It mirrors the leftist commentary you so despise, where press is the direct mouthpiece of capital. When the supposed strategy is indistinguishable from cynical disinterest, apply Ockham's razor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:which is so broad that it completely defies falsifiable claims Nobody is making any falsifiable claims in this thread. This aren't a lot of testable hypotheses here, let alone predictive ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Generally do not think Russia is a pioneer of "lying their rear end off until something sticks," pretty sure that can be credited to every two-year-old ever. The exotification I was discussing. No. I have already shared a source discussing the things that made Russia notable in their deployment of these methods, which were not presented as "lying their rear end off until something sticks". You not reading is not grounds for assuming I am being racist. Probably Magic posted:This is a common rhetorical tactic, though, in terms of hiding a clear bias, usually found in discussions of, for instance, North Korea. When North Korea is discussed in American media, ranging from major cable news television to newspapers with major reading bases to even late night shows that are generally doing softball interviews, then the immediate response to any advocacy for diplomacy is immediately met with prolonged questions about North Korea's civil rights record. Now, when military officials, even officials directly connected to warcrimes such as the Iraq War, are in those same outlets, they are not pounced on and demanded to answer for that catastrophe. It's not seen as a must-discuss. However, occasionally, occasionally discussion of American malfeasances are allowed to occur. It is not mandated the same way North Korea's are. Now, would one have to be an advocate of Korea, a believer in their propaganda or anything of the like, to see a huge disparity in reactions to coverage of Korea in American media compared to coverage of itself? "But American sins are mentioned!" But not to nearly the same extent as sins of designated enemies. Your argument is explicitly unfalsifiable on multiple levels, and continues to be worthless as a result. You are transposing a specific claim about treatment of one subject (North Korea) to a scope of media ("American" with a vague set of outlets), then making an ill-described shift to coverage of a different specific subject (warcrimes such as the Iraq war), to make an incredibly broad and vague categorical comparison between two categories applicable to all subjects. All of this with zero evidence. To demonstrate, even if all this were held true, that...some media, not actually defined in scope, in the US 1. Individuals who are advocating for a specific action regarding North Korea address questions about that action relating to North Korea's civil rights record and 2. Individuals "directly connected to warcrimes such as the Iraq War" are not "pounced on and demanded to answer for that catastrophe". Even your equivocation isn't very equi. You follow this with a demand that "American sins" are mentioned to the same extent as the "sins of designated enemies". Which requires the assumption that scope of subjects, of coverage, and of the sins, are identical. All of this, based on no actual evidence, is used to equivocate between the entirety of an ill-defined US media and the direct foreign-facing state controlled Russian disinformation propaganda apparatus. Probably Magic posted:So this whole differentiation of RT as a unique bogeymen You are still the only one saying that Russia is a "unique bogeyman". RT stands out and comes up in discussion frequently not because it is uniquely terrible but because its problems are so well-documented and obvious. Probably Magic posted:while not nearly leaning into portraying American media as a similar bogeyman is also an obvious disparity. Probably Magic posted:Anyway, You are attacking a position you have made up, and are continuing to shift your scope to newly ambiguous terms like "major media". Maybe you'd like to try "mainstream media" next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
For a country that values open debate, the US government certainly loves to publish propaganda internationally through Voice of America and put pressure on social media companies and cable providers not to air views contrary to the position of the state department on Ukraine and Israel. I don't agree with those positions very much. I do see Putin as more in the wrong on Ukraine and I fully condemn his eliminationist attitude and the attitude of his allies on LGBT people but shutting down the anti-war perspective isn't right. There are times for moderation and pruning but merely being pro-Russia or anti-Ukraine war are not those times. I don't think that crossed the line. We have to face a reality where there is no algorithm for truth and that while moderation is necessary, no one with power can be trusted to do the moderation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:36
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:By the way, Discendo Vox, if you're going to continue to accuse me of being imprecise as not to be falsifiable, I'm going to return that argument right back at you and ask what you mean when you say RT. Do you mean Ed Schultz? Chris Hedges? Jesse Ventura? Rick Sanchez? Lee Camp? All part of RT America. You're really going to have to be more specific in order for your argument to be considered falsifiable or not. (Or you can agree there's commonly held definitions and stop being pedantic, because I've kept my references to MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the like, as opposed to something niche like a blog.) They're mediated through RT, the entity explicitly controlling the scope and content of their output. It's not complicated. You've still avoided any definitions and are still dodging into "and the like". Cease to Hope posted:Nobody is making any falsifiable claims in this thread. This aren't a lot of testable hypotheses here, let alone predictive ones. There's plenty; for example, Probably Magic has claimed that "The constant fear mongering over RT that's completely absent from Western sources who are just as propagandists is just xenophobia". I think this is falsifiable; in fact I think it's false. a) I don't think there's constant fearmongering over RT, b) I don't think there's a complete absence of concern about Western sources (that vague definition again, remarkable how it contorts), c) I don't think "Western sources" are "just as propagandists" as RT, and d) I don't think concern about RT as a source of propaganda is just xenophobia. Cease to Hope posted:One has to wonder who is doing this believing. Do you have any specific objections to the source or its claims? It's certainly the case that Russia uses entities as proxies other than RT that take inconsistent positions as part of a strategy of disinformation propaganda that obscures its sources and targets different fringe groups. In the media literacy thread, I provided an example of how RT uses nondisclosure of a source tie in order to remediate messaging. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:40
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:For a country that values open debate, the US government certainly loves to publish propaganda internationally through Voice of America and put pressure on social media companies and cable providers not to air views contrary to the position of the state department on Ukraine and Israel. I don't agree with those positions very much. I do see Putin as more in the wrong on Ukraine and I fully condemn his eliminationist attitude and the attitude of his allies on LGBT people but shutting down the anti-war perspective isn't right. There are times for moderation and pruning but merely being pro-Russia or anti-Ukraine war are not those times. I don't think that crossed the line. We have to face a reality where there is no algorithm for truth and that while moderation is necessary, no one with power can be trusted to do the moderation. However problematic it may be, I think you may not be familiar with the governance structure of VoA as compared with an entity like RT or, for example, redfish. I can't evaluate your claim about "putting pressure on social media and cable companies to not air views contrary to the position of the state department on Ukraine and Israel" because I don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. Can you provide any sources?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:43
|
|
|
I suppose "middle of last" I would mean more like "Watergate exposure," but also that censor board never really went away, just found more colorful labels to use than "communist." I do see an abrupt shift in tone from even the Bush years where the faux neutrality of statements has given away to a much more propagandistic structure, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, but perhaps that is a change in personal perspective that allows for such charged statements to be seen more for what they are. I do think the news is driven more than just by public interest, that there is vested interest in a state, specifically military, narrative. One could hardly forget that Van Jones claimed Trump had "finally become presidential" or however it went over drone striking Libya, while the liberal press's coverage of his clumsy overtures to Korea were met with huge derision. It's clear that the only way Trump could win mainstream approval from more than just his niche base was to become more of a hawk, and seeing a bunch of generals drone on about what missiles they used in such and such strike on the news really hammered that perspective for me. And I'd argue the media specifically didn't highlight certain news stories during the campaign that they would have in the past to ease the transition to a president who was friendlier with the military who so frequently guested on their programs. MSNBC and CNN couldn't help yapping about Reverend Wright during Obama's ascendancy because, yes, they want the views. When it came to Hunter Biden, complete silence. What changed? I think state directive played a part. "Don't turn this into a horserace, we need to get rid of the guy who keeps napping through our powerpoint presentations to gently caress up Iran." But didn't Fox News cover the Hunter stuff? Sure, but they practically treated Pizzagate as real. It serves as this dance of giving fodder to the masses but never trumping up a real narrative. Everyone talked about e. bola in 2014 and that was a non-story. There's a loose leach, but it tightens fast when it knows what it wants. Like NBA owners all bickering with each other until it's time to throw someone out and suddenly they remember class loyalty and keep the ranks rigid. But there's more speculation in that than necessarily authoritative statement. As for Psaki, I think that's more to my point, that such proxification should be made official instead of the blurred line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:However problematic it may be, I think you may not be familiar with the governance structure of VoA as compared with an entity like RT or, for example, redfish. I can't evaluate your claim about "putting pressure on social media and cable companies to not air views contrary to the position of the state department on Ukraine and Israel" because I don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. Can you provide any sources? here's one: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/2/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-us-moves-to-ban-tiktok
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They're mediated through RT, the entity explicitly controlling the scope and content of their output. It's not complicated. You've still avoided any definitions and are still dodging into "and the like". So to be clear, when Larry King had a show on RT, you think he was engaged in a disinformation campaign on behalf of the Russian government? Okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:47
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:here's one: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/2/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-us-moves-to-ban-tiktok These articles do not describe anything like what you asserted. Probably Magic posted:So to be clear, when Larry King had a show on RT, you think he was engaged in a disinformation campaign on behalf of the Russian government? Okay. Larry King's show appeared on a state propaganda channel targeting, in particular, the US. This does not in itself mean any particular statements from him were disinformation, which is a narrower category of propaganda. To quote O'Donnell & Jowett (You'll also see references to "black propaganda"; O&J have a white/grey/black typology that I'm not repeating because it's not very well-defined): quote:To ensure the highest possible reception of the congruence of source and message, the specialized form of black propaganda known as "disinformation" has been refined in the twentieth century. The world[sic] was adopted in 1955 from the Russian term "dezinformatsia," taken from the name of a division of the KGB devoted to black propaganda. It means "false, incomplete, or misleading information that is passed, fed, or confirmed to a targeted individual, group, or country (Shultz and Godson 1984, p. 37). The term should not be confused with the word "misinformation" because it has a much more deliberate and complex goal. The techniques of disinformation are subtle and sometimes highly effective variations of black propaganda, often using news stories deliberately designed to weaken adversaries, or to present them in a negative light, but passed off as real and from credible sources. In practice we can be confident that when King was working for RT, the outlet as a whole was engaged in disinformation propaganda. edit: okay, you may have wanted to be clearer that King's show was purchased and re-aired by RT. In practice, then, the goal of the show was to draw more viewers to the channel with "normal" programming to onboard them to other material. It was, at a minimum, a stupid move; by 2016 few people with a choice or a conscience touched RT, and it looks like the show was still airing for a while after. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jan 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:As for Psaki, I think that's more to my point, that such proxification should be made official instead of the blurred line. Who would they be a proxy for? What sort of nebulous entity Fox News could claim to be a representative of? Or CNN? Or anybody? Are they all magical mouthpieces for the establishment or the US government? My understanding of what you're saying is that because the execution of free speech isn't perfectly separate from influence, we should just do away with the notion of it entirely and just call all US news organizations the equivalent of state mouthpieces because at least its honest. While I would argue that that's not the case and that our media is actually still a giant step up from state mouthpieces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:edit: okay, you may have wanted to be clearer that King's show was purchased and re-aired by RT. In practice, then, the goal of the show was to draw more viewers to the channel with "normal" programming to onboard them to other material. It was, at a minimum, a stupid move; by 2016 few people with a choice or a conscience touched RT, and it looks like the show was still airing for a while after. No, it's on you to be more clear about what you're talking about if you're going to lecture everyone on being obtuse. We're unclear on what Zoeb meant when he said "RT," he could've just meant Chris Hedges segments, you know, ones where criticized Russia's imperialism and the like, something he'd been doing when he was with American press as well before they dislodged him. As it is, going to need you to define "choice or conscience" when discussing RT too while we're at it, because that doesn't seem falsifiable or particularly concrete either but a very generalized statement. (I would not work for RT, but I wouldn't work for MSNBC or the like either.) WarpedLichen posted:My understanding of what you're saying is that because the execution of free speech isn't perfectly separate from influence, we should just do away with the notion of it entirely and just call all US news organizations the equivalent of state mouthpieces because at least its honest. While I would argue that that's not the case and that our media is actually still a giant step up from state mouthpieces. What I'm saying is that a better way to understand the influence of state entities would be to let them have an official-official mouthpiece which would also allow for other US News organizations to act as separate actors. If those actors parrot the mouthpiece, we know what they are. But I'm not and never would argue for entirely forsaking the fourth estate to the state. Basically, Public Option for Media. Probably Magic fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
Zoeb posted:I don't agree with those positions very much. I do see Putin as more in the wrong on Ukraine and I fully condemn his eliminationist attitude and the attitude of his allies on LGBT people but shutting down the anti-war perspective isn't right. The press is reporting plenty on the US right wing's arguments against supplying Ukraine. And, honestly, you can find the pro-Palestinian argument in their coverage, too, just treated as one side of a controversy. I don't think these framings are dictated to them by the US government. In large part because their hawkish position on Israel is very inconvenient to the US government! Biden keeps saying he wants to be seen as the neutral, moderating, bridge-building voice, not Bibi's partner in crime. Biden can't get the press on board with that very much, because, well, it's incoherent, and runs into the pressure from both American Zionist lobbies and the press to say he unconditionally supports Israel. You can explain this by saying the press is actually a mouthpiece for the deep state or whatever, who lust for Arab blood, rather than being a mouthpiece for the actual head of government. A simpler explanation is that the press is picking up the party line of American Zionists, who aren't shy about announcing how they're putting pressure on the press. A righteous war is a good story. Discendo Vox posted:There's plenty [of falsifiable claims]; for example, Probably Magic has claimed that "The constant fear mongering over RT that's completely absent from Western sources who are just as propagandists is just xenophobia". I think this is falsifiable; in fact I think it's false. PM's statement is an opinion, not a claim that can be objectively true or false. the rand corporation's analysis is equally explained by cynical disinterest, and that sort of thinktank has long been in the business of overcomplicating russia. they don't call it kremlinology because it was a science. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:No, it's on you to be more clear about what you're talking about if you're going to lecture everyone on being obtuse. s'not complicated. During the 2010s there were multiple exposes about how RT recruited from the US journalistic workforce and their internal practices. This caused a loss of staff, support and ultimate efficacy that caused them to shutter RT America and go harder on proxy entities. Again, your equivocation between the state-controlled propaganda disinformation outlet and "American press" speaks to the fundamental problem with your position. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today Cease to Hope posted:PM's statement is an opinion, not a claim that can be objectively true or false. There's a Fox joke in here somewhere; plenty of PM's statements are falsifiable, it's just that they're pretty clearly false; some of them place an improbable burden on that falsification, is all. Cease to Hope posted:the rand corporation's analysis is equally explained by cynical disinterest, and that sort of thinktank has long been in the business of overcomplicating russia. they don't call it kremlinology because it was a science. Again, if you've got actual objections to the content you can make 'em. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:What I'm saying is that a better way to understand the influence of state entities would be to let them have an official-official mouthpiece which would also allow for other US News organizations to act as separate actors. If those actors parrot the mouthpiece, we know what they are. But I'm not and never would argue for entirely forsaking the fourth estate to the state. Basically, Public Option for Media. yeah they have a ton of these, what are you even talking about
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:yeah they have a ton of these, what are you even talking about It's like the old "what's the difference between an opinion segment on Fox versus a regular news segment on Fox," but in this case, the proxies like Psaki and Hannity are placed alongside Chris Wallace, whichever channel he's on, can't even keep track anymore, which kinda firms up my point lol. Basically, an American BBC. That's what I want. But unlike the BBC, doesn't hold a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:What I'm saying is that a better way to understand the influence of state entities would be to let them have an official-official mouthpiece which would also allow for other US News organizations to act as separate actors. If those actors parrot the mouthpiece, we know what they are. But I'm not and never would argue for entirely forsaking the fourth estate to the state. Basically, Public Option for Media. Yeah that makes no sense, Russia doesn't just have RT, it tries to push its narrative in other outlets as well. The existence of a Public Option wouldn't reduce government influence in the other news sources at all. I've said in other threads that the government absolutely has to attempt to control the info-space it operates in because if it doesn't it just cedes that entirely to outside actors without those qualms. But the lines between influence and control are blurry and any act of moderation can be seen as inappropriate. That also doesn't account for the default biases people have just from coming from a society. Like just having writers and editors being American will influence how news is presented. I absolutely think foreign news is worth looking at just to see how those biases come into play. But in the end, everybody is human and you still have to pick and choose sources that pass a sniff test as bedrock for your examination. Edit: I think what you might actually want is some form of stronger disclosure and transparency requirements when it comes to news? Like the platonic ideal for this might be the wikipedia page edit history? WarpedLichen fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It's like the old "what's the difference between an opinion segment on Fox versus a regular news segment on Fox," but in this case, the proxies like Psaki and Hannity are placed alongside Chris Wallace, whichever channel he's on, can't even keep track anymore, which kinda firms up my point lol. Basically, an American BBC. That's what I want. But unlike the BBC, doesn't hold a monopoly. I’m not sure how the BBC is supposed to be fundamentally different from NPR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Again, if you've got actual objections to the content you can make 'em. it's equally easily explained by cynical disinterest on the part of RT. that is the objection. dunno how i can make it clearer than that. i even made a bunch of posts about how RT hires heterodox english-speaking commentators with basically no agenda except not intruding on specific russian interests, then occasionally feeds them laughably bad quotes or "leaks" on subjects of specific russian interest to see if someone bites. the rand corporation's attempt to spin up indifferent neglect interspersed with occasional wall-poo poo-throwing into a master russian plan is utterly unconvincing to me. additionally, if those are their goals and these are the results, they're so bad at this that i never have to care. oh no they've subverted jimmy dore!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today quote:"They were way ahead of the WikiLeaks story," a former employee said. "But not because they believed in the free flow of information — but because it looked terrible for the U.S." loving lol. I'm reminded of America's attempts to frame the United States civil rights as Kremlin propaganda in the 60s. This isn't to defend RT, mind you, it's a bad news agency, but also, spoiler alert, interviews get edited and mandated in America too. One particular example is Melissa Harris-Perry leaving MSNBC because they wanted to pivot so much to Trump coverage over any minority perspectives. https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...13e8_story.html Speaking of, guess which news station downgraded their Muslim correspondents once the Israel-Palestine stuff kicked off?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:32
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:This isn't to defend RT, mind you, it's a bad news agency, but also, spoiler alert, interviews get edited and mandated in America too. Obviously. The difference is specifically who is doing the editing and in the service of what interests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:37
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Obviously. The difference is specifically who is doing the editing and in the service of what interests. I think there is also the consideration of how able/willing a person is to speak up when an interview they did is edited like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I’m not sure how the BBC is supposed to be fundamentally different from NPR. According to themselves when they got hit with "state-sponsored media," they're extremely not! Which lol. (But yeah, give NPR a station.) WarpedLichen posted:Edit: I think what you might actually want is some form of stronger disclosure and transparency requirements when it comes to news? Like the platonic ideal for this might be the wikipedia page edit history? Possibly, but it's easy to manipulate, as can be seen with American media where there's a bunch of plausible deniability. Similar to Hillary Clinton taking money for speeches but those "aren't campaign donations," so too is "having a guest with the government" when it comes to not having influence later on. (Not to say any time a state voice is on a channel is an exchange of influence, obviously not, but I also think exchange of influence is definitely in America's current media environment.) Versus listening to some person on NHK freaking out about the South China Sea like it's the most important thing in the world and chuckling about it or BBC trying to go bat for BP after an oil spill and chuckling about it. Much more relaxing experience. As for actual information... yeah, we probably don't know anything about anything until twenty years after the fact. Which I don't love, but I'm not sure how you stuff the genie back into the bottle that is narrative saturation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:it's equally easily explained by cynical disinterest on the part of RT. that is the objection. dunno how i can make it clearer than that. i even made a bunch of posts about how RT hires heterodox english-speaking commentators with basically no agenda except not intruding on specific russian interests, then occasionally feeds them laughably bad quotes or "leaks" on subjects of specific russian interest to see if someone bites. I don't think that's close to what the Rand report says. The claim in question was about the use of different contradictory positions, which is a part of the Russian strategy in disinformation across multiple channels, not just RT. Russia does have an explicit practice of promoting and controlling divergent fringe positions in countries they target. Very few of these efforts work very well, but when they do work, they tend to stick around because through the mediated entities, they produce a self-sustaining source of civic conflict that is detached from reality. Thanks for the youtube video. Here's a discussion, followed by an even longer discussion, of all the reasons Chomsky's propaganda model is not a useful tool of media analysis and instead serves principally as a form of motivated reasoning. This is the part where you should think about why Al Jazeera, which is also a state-funded foreign-facing propaganda outlet, wants you to find this model useful. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't think that's close to what the Rand report says. The claim in question was about the use of different contradictory positions, which is a part of the Russian strategy in disinformation across multiple channels, not just RT. Russia does have an explicit practice of promoting and controlling divergent fringe positions in countries they target. Very few of these efforts work very well, but when they do work, they tend to stick around because through the mediated entities, they produce a self-sustaining source of civic conflict that is detached from reality. The example brought up in your article was Occupy Wall Street. Do you think Occupy Wall Street was a "civic conflict that is detached from reality?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:47
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:According to themselves when they got hit with "state-sponsored media," they're extremely not! Which lol. (But yeah, give NPR a station.) I think it really depends on how you read news and what your takeaways are from them. I don't think a label necessarily makes a source's bias easier to parse. I think for me personally if the concrete facts around the reporting are solid, there's at least some value to take away with you slice off all the fluff and presentation, but if the concrete facts are manufactured and passed off as real, that's when it's time to throw the whole thing into the bin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:The example brought up in your article was Occupy Wall Street. Do you think Occupy Wall Street was a "civic conflict that is detached from reality?" I literally linked the sources I was referring to in my post, and discussed and cited discussion of other such examples earlier. I also gave you a definition of disinformation that specifically discusses this sort of coverage and its use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I literally linked the sources I was referring to in my post, and discussed and cited discussion of other such examples earlier. I also gave you a definition of disinformation that specifically discusses this sort of coverage and its use. Answer the question directly, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 00:52
|
|