Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    73

Everything posted by whYNOT

  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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/
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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".
  7. 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/
  8. 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.
  9. Very good, dream-weaver. You will admit though, your effort produced a dry summary of the report not a news article for average readers.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. A trap set for Putin. First I've heard of this notion I ventured, voiced explicitly by any analyst. Short, sweet:
  16. But here's one. A factual report, I assume. No "editorializing" https://www.rt.com/russia/559728-ukraine-escalation-rand-report/ Comment beneath: "It seems to me that this Rand group is misnamed. There doesn't appear to be much thinking going on..." Ha ha! O'ists get around.
  17. What? I've been taken to task for linking a few articles. Do you want me to flood the pages with many more? (besides, I won't. You can do your own reading from freely available western media).
  18. In context of the media response to this war. From my short list above, leaving out dozens of other main examples and hundreds of headlines, etc.etc., can anyone tell me who most propagandized the responses to this war? The facts speak for themselves. Propaganda by the war-mongers who anticipated it, wanted it and want to perpetuate it. They found a strong public response (for now) from many who are simply kind-hearted people, unaware of the war's antecedents. The fundamental remains. In a democracy the government HAS to get a majority of the people on side to remain in power; an autocracy - by definition, much less so. An autocrat only needs to worry about not being over- repressive and angering his populace, at risk of a revolt. Otherwise he has mostly a free hand in domestic and foreign affairs. Where and when a free-ish democracy's Press is most supportive of their Gvt. policy, they will tend to indulge in favorable publicity on its behalf, even propaganda. The media-consumer in a free country needs to be discerning to remain free. Eiuol: Obviously you wish to stereotype me with favoritism for RT. When all else fails... "Reliable" was not a word I applied to it. It was another poster's query about a website. I have advised often that one needs to contrast several sources in order to avoid the propaganda trap. One can verify simple facts, many events and politicians' quotations, and those plainly take up the majority of RT stories, and little or no commentary or moralizing. Where one might find propagandizing is in RT op-eds and debates, the latter always with some western participants none of whom condones the invasion, while explaining the deep background which few westerners want to know about.
  19. Let's get straight just which war propaganda has been most broadcast to more people and more egregiously devious, by a long way: the western media. There is not a semblance of equivalence. "That's Russian propaganda!" The smear used to silence opposition and to conceal the West's own propaganda-for-war-machine, working flat-out. If one maintained that diplomacy, a truce and peace treaties with concessions, were and are the only solution - "appeasement, you are pro-Putin. No peace! We will beat and humiliate him with (Ukraine's) warfare". Or: tell anyone that the oil shortages, food prices, falling economies, inflation, probable 3rd World hunger, etc. were due not to Putin, but directly caused by our rulers' unthinking imposition of total sanctions (which could have been held in reserve, or incrementally imposed - 'the stick' - with some 'carrots' - to get Putin negotiating, early as March) - that's "Russian propaganda". (The adolescent's causation - we block and contain Russia's exports to try to kill its economy, then moan and complain that - hell - the world is suffering shortages ... and who's to blame: Russia's invasion!). I and anyone could go on at length about the blunders and self-sacrifices by the West's leaders that are being justified and sanitized for public consumption: Western propaganda. You only have to see recently the accounts (begrudgingly and belatedly admitted in western media) of Ukraine's v. Russia's retreats/advances in the field, to know the indoctrinated unreality a large part of the West lives in, when all of a sudden reports of glorious victories are less heard (but still dreamed of). Anyone who knew anything, could and did tell us, mostly unpublished in the msm, from the beginning that Russia was not going to lose this war (in the East). Not an expert, I knew that. Unacceptable! The latest further arming of Ukraine with more extreme-range weapons at this stage is clearly suicidal. It only prolongs the war and the Russians will advance their lines deeper for a wider buffer zone. But to state any of that - Russian propaganda!
  20. A misrepresentation. If anyone thinks propaganda isn't playing a major role in starting and sustaining this war, then they're well under the sway of that very "propaganda". To illustrate propaganda in operation, there is no better way than to place contesting articles up for examination, pro and anti, one side or the other's relating of facts and events, narrative and agendas. One doesn't see it until one appreciates the clear contrasts (especially from the prevailing and dominant western news reports). So, I went to and have put up RT stories where one would expect the most extreme differences from western propaganda. My "thoughts", right. While I try to be careful to not suggest how others ~are supposed~ to think about and take away from the articles. Would it be better to tell Objectivists what to think and what judgments to make? Always you return to the "source", a "name" which will somehow, by association, guarantee or degrade the credibility of some individual writer's account, opinions, article, or essay. I've insisted to you before how non-objective that is; authoritarian and intrinsicist. As if the entire "source" (website, magazine, newspaper and broadcaster) automatically lends an account truthfulness and moral respectability - or - e.g. with anything from Russia Today - must be a pack of lies and immorality. Propaganda's effectiveness has been exacerbated by and depends on the public's dogmatism: the Word of Authority. Simply accepted on mindless faith.
  21. "Reliability and understanding"? I have not the slightest idea. I just came across the site.
  22. To prompt thoughts. And a reassessment for someone, who knows? To learn - as not one individual knows all the facts.
  23. It's hardly as if I do not communicate directly to all, sans mystic intermediary. Give the vid a shot, risk boredom for a possible gain.
  24. "What did you hope to find? ...are you in agreement with the entire article". I'm afraid there is nothing and nobody "binary": exclusively true/false, right/wrong, to be found out there in the media. "Facts" reported of activities and events, often morph with different eye-witness accounts, I've known; the journalist might often allow in his own biases in what he selectively writes and shows; at times he works in coercive conditions; his Editor has ultimate control of final content, according to the publisher's political (etc.) policies ... these may and do open a wide gap between the objective occurrences in reality and the final reportage presented to consumers. To read and listen to them, it's like carefully selecting the pieces of articles that you judge to be in accordance with reality, while discarding other pieces that ring dubious/false. The object, to assimilate/ integrate the valid parts all together conceptually, of course. To illustrate, John Pilger, an old fashioned Leftie journalist I had many occasions to criticize back decades ago, I know to be -also - an expert at his craft, has integrity and is one of the most experienced war correspondents. Certainly his entire writing and world view couldn't be acceptable (to me), while I can respect him and have total agreement on a specific topic like this interview, where he rues the propaganda at work in this war: "You must be skeptical of -absolutely - everything".
×
×
  • Create New...