whYNOT

And the western propaganda is owned - factually and morally - by the Ukraine Gvt. and military (and so on) - which is party to the conflict. So? The minimum amount of "prudence" would be to follow every source discerningly, but you like to ignore that I've said so. I have been following RT for 4 months. If there were several other Western newspapers which exposed contrasting facts, I'd obviously read and quote those. It is telling that there are not. They all sheepishly copy one another in essence. For propaganda to work, it has to be as universal as possible. All news reports must be initially suspected of a priori bias and subjectivity, until found innocent (rarely). It's useless explaining to you how indoctrinated in one, prepackaged, world-view you are. I understand how oblivious to the bulk of information most people are: They have been prevented from hearing/seeing anything else but an easily-digested, constructed Narrative. In the interests of group-think, mind control. Anyway, all that is 'out there' may disturb their delicate feelings - and force them to think.. You have one standard by which to measure all the News you hear : Reality. Surely, you know this. I see from you a conformist acquiescence to the unquestioning, moral Orthodoxy about this war. Which shows little grasp of "reality" - that which occurs and exists over and above and *despite*- what other people in news outlets inform you. Explaining, therefore, your belief, the ¬revealed knowledge¬ in western propaganda. I keep repeating, it's not only what they tell you, it's what they don't. Did you understand Lawrence's simple but incisive explanation of the propaganda method? In order to fill the 'omission gaps', by one or other media, one would seek out the most opposing sources and eventually, integrate one's knowledge. If you have the courage to face opposing info. It hurts to be disabused of one's pet premises, so for many, don't look!

Great, you saw that. A shrewd piece of conflation, a package deal, to debunk the trivial charge, while not attempting to disprove a thing of the main charge. Politifact seems to understand the "power of leaving out", as any propagandist.

RT reports today: Amnesty International finally says something on "human shields". https://www.rt.com/russia/560193-amnesty-ukraine-humanitarian-law/ Unused to critical investigations, the Ukraine FM blasted back: https://www.rt.com/russia/560228-ukraine-amnesty-kuleba-humanitarian/

The civilian death/injured toll tells otherwise. Careless artillery strikes, willy-nilly, on the population likely would have killed minimum 10 times the present, official count (by UNHRC). And deliberately targeting 'easy' non-combatants - could be 100+K. Figures this disproportionately low, (5200) unheard of in contemporary urban warfare, indicate the logical deduction that Moscow has been adhering to its official policy of avoiding civilian casualties. *Rising incrementally since February - the latest toll. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjl7r3Q3K35AhU8SkEAHcIiDaEQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fstatistics%2F1293492%2Fukraine-war-casualties%2F&usg=AOvVaw0OK_SGfR4XcM-vrBPmUAOc

Yup. One at least. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj60qiZmqv5AhWzmlwKHYuqCGsQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-europe-61036740&usg=AOvVaw3K8UL2jENGNOhpd48RD3AL An obsolete Russian missile that Ukraine still has stocks of. Automatic western condemnations followed, and predictable Kremlin denials (but who believes them...?). No point to the savage attack, from Russia's angle - if they'd wanted, they could have been hitting the many large clusters and convoys of refugees from the start; but every publicity motive, from Kyiv's angle. To seek a PR advantage influencing world opinion, by targeting one's own civilians, as low as it gets. "Politifact" was quick to pronounce the counter-accusation 'false'. I've been watching for developments in the Kramatorsk attack. Since April, news coverage of the event and of a forensic investigation went silent, suspicious itself. But this was a foretaste. I'm looking at a hypothetical, larger and imminent 'false flag'. Only one side will be and is desperately wanting a (foreign-aided) escalation of war to "win" - and to avoid being forced to negotiate peaceful terms, and it's not the Russian side. Ukraine is quickly running out of options.

Fair enough, your points are worthwhile noting. Look closer, and the Rand Corp report has inbuilt bias. It is *Russia* being held responsible for an hypothetical escalation of hostilities. In your words,"... which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO". One can bet money on this. The Kremlin will be very careful to not ever provoke a NATO defensive-attack. What's in it for them? A certain defeat, in conventional war. Logically, the greatest concern, right now: Ukraine trying to incite an escalation. Because they are losing ground - and might well have to submit to making territorial, political and military concessions under a treaty. Which Kyiv already rejected at the start and would find more humiliating now. False flag attacks on civilians, and similar contrived "atrocities" (especially, over the borders into Poland, etc.,) - that could provide "excuses" which would pull NATO into the conflict, the acts being blamed on Russia, of course. With this pre-prepared propaganda campaign, with most of the West adoring/sympathetic of Zelenski and demonizing of Putin, which side do you think would be globally believed, exonerated and morally justified, if the war expanded as a result? Not Putin. The last thing - RT could have simply ignored the Rand report, unpublished. (POLO). It's hardly favorable to Russia's propaganda effort. P. Lawrence: " The distinguishing mark of our time is that the habit of omitting is now institutionalized. It is no longer a question of what is erroneously missing in a news report. The omission of all that I have noted—history, context, chronology, responsibility, and at last causality—is now a daily occurrence".

A timely, intellectual and readable article, the very incisive albeit Leftist journalist, Patrick Lawrence, has a slogan for that: "POLO". https://scheerpost.com/2022/07/28/patrick-lawrence-the-causes-of-things/

Well, I'm "smacked in the face" by the infantile virtue-signaling tricks which CNN's (e.g.) news-readers indulge in on air, the worst irritant, deliberate, affected facial signs: disgust, mockery and so on, when having to speak some politician's name. You see splitting quotes as ominous. Such 'clues' and word garbling are at most a minor technique and by-product of propagandizing. The expressed *content* - greatly more, of NON-content: selectively-omitted information, that is crucial to the readers' understanding and moral judgments - has perpetually been the hallmark of propaganda.

Very good, dream-weaver. You will admit though, your effort produced a dry summary of the report not a news article for average readers.

Here from Rand Corp, an excellent essay on "propaganda". Only thing, while aimed naturally at Russia, it can be read as an even better portrayal and methodology of present and dominant ¬western¬ propaganda. Covering social media also. Actual illustrations of the "Kremlin's propaganda", oddly, get little exposure: one example touched on briefly, the West backing the Ukraine coup, they claim was Russian propaganda that has been "debunked". Hmm. And not a mention of the civil war - more Russian propaganda, one supposes? Yet the methods outlined are useful to know. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Why should "Kremlin's brutal invasion" be included in a RT news article reporting a Rand Corp document? That IS gratuitous editorializing and unprofessional opinionizing by the researchers/authors. RT does however quote "atrocities" [Russian] from the paper. Gratuitous, too. (There are no Ukrainian "atrocities" that will escape Kyiv's press embargo, if indeed a western newspaper would dare to print them) . You ought to know that brevity is important to a newspaper; most the fundaments need to be included while heavily edited and paraphrased for space constraints. I consider the obsessive search for revealing hints of possible propaganda in this story, a time-wasting distraction. Focus on the big picture. That was an extensive report from Rand Corp. is anyone able to edit the following down to less than 500 words? Compare the contents - only the contents, not subtexts - with the RT article, if so inclined. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwie1qy0sqH5AhXJgVwKHeHdAP4QFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rand.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Frand%2Fpubs%2Fperspectives%2FPEA1900%2FPEA1971-1%2FRAND_PEA1971-1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2DCOBeJpIMf767WtOHTfHK

Missing the forest for the trees...

I link everyone that I think relevant, in (my personal) opposition or agreement or impartiality- or merely as a consideration point. There are few clear, partisan demarcation lines lately. You must have realised this. Individuals don't fall into convenient, predictable and collectivist patterns simply by who they vote for. Sometimes an astute observer/thinker who considers himself on the Left (DN isn't "hard" left, that I can tell) - especially among journalists still with professional integrity - is a courageously objective anti-propagandist, and right. That could be in only a limited context. There is apparently a mix of conservatives and Leftists heavily promoting the war, equally another mixture of both against it. For similar or for dissimilar reasons, I don't know.

The article speaks for itself, neutral and factual. *This* is what was written by xyz. Period. AlexL doesn't know what editorializing means. He also searches for innuendoes and hidden messages and the like, that are not there, or imagined, or perceived prejudicially (It is RT - after all...). Things existing only in the mind, and subjective. THIS insert would be opining and "editorializing". "The Rand Corporation - the body concerned with and dedicated to neo-conservative American expansionism, NATO war strategy and armament production - stated yesterday ..." I am surprised you guys have the time to read and assess the rush of news reports if that's the non-objective method you use.

This is propaganda we are discussing, not 'subliminal' advertisements. The objective is the substitution of the contents of the mass of reader-listeners' minds with a pre-packaged world-view, distancing them from reality. To be effective, all the facts and non-facts and deceptions and "value-judgments" broadcast and published must be consistent with the "view". Repetitively. Therefore, the attitude on any subject (a war or politics and politicians, etc., etc.) will be permanently lodged in his/her brain and emotion-responses, to be the valid and ¬morally proper¬ one. You got the people once, you got (many of) them for all time. "Subtexts" and such nuances can contribute on a minor subconscious key: sensations received (the hateful expression depicted on a politician's face in a photo, a subtle phrasing change, connoting this, rather than that...) Propaganda is a concerted effort to indoctrinate universally, I think you don't realize how totalitarian/authoritarian it's been in the West, most by the hard Left.