Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 7/28/2022 at 4:31 AM, whYNOT said:

But here's one. A factual report, I assume. No "editorializing"

https://www.rt.com/russia/559728-ukraine-escalation-rand-report/

 

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. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

This is propaganda we are discussing, not 'subliminal' advertisements.

What do you mean? It isn't subliminal, its identifying subtext. It's also identifying some pretty straightforward ways of how news articles can actively distort information. I mean, you obviously don't deny that propaganda is a thing, so how do you think it is done? It's not done through bald-faced lies, and distorting quotes is a good way to do it because it isn't a straightforward lie. All I did was point out quote splitting, and what this quote splitting accomplishes. 

By the way, quote splitting isn't what was said/written by someone, it specifically involves inserting snippets which already begins to take a quote out of context.

48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

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.

Yes, this is absolutely true. This is exactly what I'm saying about RT. 

48 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

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.

What-about-ism doesn't help your case. But that's also kind of ironic because you linked a hard Left news source (Democracy Now)  as a kind of anti-propaganda about the war. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

What-about-ism doesn't help your case. But that's also kind of ironic because you linked a hard Left news source (Democracy Now)  as a kind of anti-propaganda about the war. 

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.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

What do you mean? It isn't subliminal, its identifying subtext. It's also identifying some pretty straightforward ways of how news articles can actively distort information. I mean, you obviously don't deny that propaganda is a thing, so how do you think it is done? It's not done through bald-faced lies, and distorting quotes is a good way to do it because it isn't a straightforward lie. All I did was point out quote splitting, and what this quote splitting accomplishes. 

 

Missing the forest for the trees...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The article speaks for itself, neutral and factual. *This* is what was written by xyz. Period.

I quoted what authors of the study consider to be its essence (how to avoid deliberate Russian escalation). I have also quoted critique by the study of what it calls „Kremlin’s brutal invasion”. Nether appear in RT’s rendering of it.

You cannot say that RT’s rendering of the study is “neutral and factual” even after I provided evidence that it was not. Maybe you could have claimed innocently at the beginning that RT’s non-editorializing, because you probably did not read yourself the study (although you should have!), but now you cannot do it in good faith.

Quote

AlexL doesn't know what editorializing means.

Yes, I do know what “editorializing” means: “express opinions rather than just report the news.” Accordingly, RT editorialized indeed:

- in our case, news is the content of RAND Corporation’s study, and

- expressing opinion consisted in omitting to report on the essence of the study, as well as on the opinion of its authors towards the Russia’s aggression.

This example shows that Russia Today is not a neutral source of information. It is not a surprise: Russia’s government is not paying their employees to speak about “deliberate Russian escalation”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. It pays them to deliver international audiences “[the] Russian viewpoint on major global events”, according to its own humble description. And this it does – augmenting their message with the Russian government’s viewpoint on the facts themselves!

Quote

He also searches for innuendoes and hidden messages and the like, that are not there, or imagined, or perceived prejudicially.

Yeah, right! This is your rendering of my comment, in pure RT-style, with your personal crude concoction of facts about what I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AlexL said:

I quoted what authors of the study consider to be its essence (how to avoid deliberate Russian escalation). I have also quoted critique by the study of what it calls „Kremlin’s brutal invasion”. Nether appear in RT’s rendering of it.

 

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

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I consider the obsessive search for revealing hints of possible propaganda in this story, a time-wasting distraction.

No, it wasn't even a search for hints. It was pretty much so clear to me that it was as if they smacked me in the face. But, I decided to point out anyway exactly how to be skeptical of new sources, which you recommended that we do. I pointed out how quote splitting is a form of taking a quote out of context. People don't take quotes out of context for no reason. 

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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.

I mean, regardless of how brief it is, it is never appropriate to split quotes. Here's an example:

Speaking about the "Kremlin's brutal invasion" and why it is not  "included in an RT article", Tony considers how the "propaganda in this story" is written with "heavily edited and paraphrased" information.

I didn't edit your words, I didn't invent anything. I didn't even edit the verb tense. Notice that I didn't even use your scare quotes inappropriately - it's exactly as you wrote it. But with careful placement of words and where to split the quote, it makes it seem like you are suggesting something you never intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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.rt.com/russia/559728-ukraine-escalation-rand-report/

RT Article:
The US and its NATO allies need to take a series of steps to avoid a direct conflict with Russia over Ukraine, the Pentagon’s foremost think-tank advised in a report published on Tuesday.
 
1.) Sanctions against Russia have created conditions for one of the escalation pathways already, while the continuing flow of weapons and volunteers to Ukraine may trigger others, the RAND Corporation warned.
 
The other three possibilities involve
2.) Moscow coming to believe a direct NATO involvement is imminent;
3.) that weapons delivered to Ukraine are making a major difference on the battlefield;
4.) or that unrest within Russia is threatening the government.
 
 
Pathway 0 - Escalation spiral that could have already begun
Preconditions for Escalation
[Preconditions for this pathway, such as comprehensive sanctions on Russia and extensive military assistance to Ukraine, already exist.]
Steps to Escalation
• Russia eventually decides to retaliate for U.S. and NATO measures that are already being implemented.
• Moscow’s preoccupation with war in Ukraine might have delayed the response.
• Such an escalation would likely begin with non-kinetic attacks
 
Pathway 1 - Preemption against perceived NATO intervention in Ukraine
Preconditions for Escalation
• Political pressure for intervention in Ukraine intensifies in NATO member states.
• New NATO long-range strike capabilities are deployed in eastern flank member states.
• Volunteers from NATO member states participate in Ukraine war.
• Russian conventional capabilities are significantly degraded.
Steps to Escalation
• Russia perceives imminent risk of NATO intervention in Ukraine.
• Escalation could begin with an immediate move to kinetic strikes on NATO forces or territory.
• Nuclear use is plausible.
 
Pathway 2 - Interdiction of NATO allies’ military assistance to Ukraine
Preconditions for Escalation
• NATO members transfer more-powerful capabilities to Ukrainian military.
• Moscow is convinced that halting allies’ assistance to Ukraine is necessary to avoid defeat.
 
Pathway 3 - Domestic instability in Russia sparks aggression
Preconditions for Escalation
• Domestic instability in Russia increases dramatically.
• The Kremlin perceives a Western role in fomenting the unrest.
Steps to Escalation
• Escalation could begin with non-kinetic attacks.
• If NATO retaliates, eventual kinetic conflict is possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 10:26 PM, whYNOT said:

Why should "Kremlin's brutal invasion" be included in a RT news article reporting a Rand Corp document?

Because it is in the RAND Corporation document, together with “Russian escalation”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. ! These are not MY comments!

And even if not quoted literally, in an honest summary there should be a mention of the fact that the study considers the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and condemns it in the strongest words. And there should be also a mention of the fact that the study starts from the premise that the Russian Federation needs to be confronted.

These considerations are, for the study, the premises for their recommendations: - to continue to oppose RF, but

- to be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO,

- “but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks”

This last point is a direct quote from the Study, namely from their highlighted assessment:

 “A Russia-NATO war is far from an inevitable outcome of the current conflict. U.S. and allied policymakers should be concerned with specific pathways and potential triggers, but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks.”

Quote

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.

Yes, precisely, the fundamentals, that is the main ideas of the study, in our case, and not some misrepresentation. Here is my very short, but fair summary:

“While considering the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and needed to be confronted, the RAND Corporation study advises that the US policymaker should be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO.”

It has 42 words, This can be augmented by a more or less detailed description of the four circumstances with the potential of being used by Russia as excuses to attack NATO. The total will not exceed 300 words [using the dream-weaver's 245-word summary]. The RT’s misrepresentation of the study has 800 words (the study itself has 2’800 words.) Therefore, “space constraints” is a shameful excuse for omitting to include the general position of the study towards this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2022 at 4:00 AM, Eiuol said:

No, it wasn't even a search for hints. It was pretty much so clear to me that it was as if they smacked me in the face. But, I decided to point out anyway exactly how to be skeptical of new sources, which you recommended that we do. I pointed out how quote splitting is a form of taking a quote out of context. People don't take quotes out of context for no reason. 

 

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.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

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

No animals were harmed during it's creation.

(Didn't mean to omit that juicy tidbit.)

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

 

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.

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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

That's how you produce an objective news article though. 

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You see splitting quotes as ominous. Such 'clues' and word garbling are at most a minor technique and by-product of propagandizing. 

That's the point, it's word garbling. It's a way to deliberately distort the truth at worst, and it is non-objective journalism at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2022 at 11:09 PM, AlexL said:

Because it is in the RAND Corporation document, together with “Russian escalation”, „brutality of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine”, „Russian war crimes” etc. ! These are not MY comments!

And even if not quoted literally, in an honest summary there should be a mention of the fact that the study considers the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and condemns it in the strongest words. And there should be also a mention of the fact that the study starts from the premise that the Russian Federation needs to be confronted.

These considerations are, for the study, the premises for their recommendations: - to continue to oppose RF, but

- to be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO,

- “but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks”

This last point is a direct quote from the Study, namely from their highlighted assessment:

 “A Russia-NATO war is far from an inevitable outcome of the current conflict. U.S. and allied policymakers should be concerned with specific pathways and potential triggers, but they need not operate under the assumption that every action will entail acute escalation risks.”

Yes, precisely, the fundamentals, that is the main ideas of the study, in our case, and not some misrepresentation. Here is my very short, but fair summary:

“While considering the attack of Ukraine by Russia inacceptable and needed to be confronted, the RAND Corporation study advises that the US policymaker should be aware that there are actions which RF will be capable to use as excuses to attack NATO.”

It has 42 words, This can be augmented by a more or less detailed description of the four circumstances with the potential of being used by Russia as excuses to attack NATO. The total will not exceed 300 words [using the dream-weaver's 245-word summary]. The RT’s misrepresentation of the study has 800 words (the study itself has 2’800 words.) Therefore, “space constraints” is a shameful excuse for omitting to include the general position of the study towards this war.

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". 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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.

Wait, what?  Has there been any so called false flags in this conflict?  Any at all?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 5:01 PM, Craig24 said:

Wait, what?  Has there been any so called false flags in this conflict?  Any at all?  

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.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Yup. One at least.

What proof is there?

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

from Russia's angle - if they'd wanted, they could have been hitting the many large clusters and convoys of refugees from the start;

Could it be a matter of Russia nor caring whether it happens?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

An obsolete Russian missile that Ukraine still has stocks of. Automatic western condemnations followed, and predictable Kremlin denials (but who believes them...?).

Ok here's the politifact article debunking this claim

Quote

 

There’s no credible evidence that Ukraine was behind the April 8 attack at the Kramatorsk train station. A video used to bolster this claim is fake — it did not come from the BBC.

The claim has largely been spread by pro-Kremlin accounts following reports of civilian casualties and contradict earlier Russian posts that initially took credit for the bombing. 

The Tochka-U missile used in the attack, and the serial number on it, isn’t proof that it came from the Ukrainian army. Several news reports, legitimate photos and videos show that Russia has used these missile systems recently.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debunked ? 

All that article claims is that a video from the scene was not broadcast by the BBC. 

And that ‘the serial numbers’ aren’t by themselves a definitive way to determine the ‘owner’. 

Debunking a missile strike would mean providing information such as range and trajectory data and relevant unit locations and probably some named sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

What proof is there?

Could it be a matter of Russia nor caring whether it happens?

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Debunked ? 

All that article claims is that a video from the scene was not broadcast by the BBC. 

And that ‘the serial numbers’ aren’t by themselves a definitive way to determine the ‘owner’. 

Debunking a missile strike would mean providing information such as range and trajectory data and relevant unit locations and probably some named sources.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2022 at 8:25 PM, whYNOT said:

Amnesty International finally says something on "human shields".

<link to... Russia Today !>

Why not directly to the AI Report ??? Or to a source which is NOT of one of the belligerents ?

Quote

the Ukraine FM blasted back:

<link to... Russia Today !>

Russia Today is 100% owned by the Russian government, which is party in the conflict. The minimum level of prudence would suggest to find, for yourself, another source. Towards the readers of OO, the minimum level of honesty would be the same - to refer to a source which is not suspect a priori of bias.

But no, for a strange reason, for years you have been taking your info from RT, you have been educated by it, you foolishly trust it. Your views about the West have been at least influenced, if not defined, by RT, despite of the - residual - skepticism you claim having on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...