Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Privately-owned TV media is a rarity everywhere in the world excepting the US. Which would indicate by your gauge that outside the USA nobody is getting ¬any¬ of the truth. That's plainly false.

You clearly don't know the difference between a state run propaganda outlet, versus a state funded media outlet. RT isn't the Russian equivalent of BBC. We are talking about something like Chinese news media. BBC tries to provide some attempt at the truth, while something like RT has an overall interest in promoting all Russian interests as its goal, instead of the truth. And even if you disagree about my comparison about the BBC, RT has a far greater degree of state propaganda, and does propaganda better. Trusting the message of RT is like trusting the message of Chinese media. I'm obviously not saying that privately run and owned media can't be wildly non-objective, but state run media propaganda is far worse, and historical record shows the same thing. If I have to explain to you why the government being involved with private matters is especially bad, it's like you never read Rand.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Many a story, like with a reporter's investigation into a politician's doings, or exposed vaccine facts, or the discovery of war atrocities by the 'good' side will often be spiked and shoved under the rug as unfitting and in conflict with the station's ideological-political-financial agenda. 

Yeah, that's RT, and backed by an authoritarian government, this is what you get. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You clearly don't know the difference between a state run propaganda outlet, versus a state funded media outlet. RT isn't the Russian equivalent of BBC. We are talking about something like Chinese news media. BBC tries to provide some attempt at the truth, while something like RT has an overall interest in promoting all Russian interests as its goal, instead of the truth. And even if you disagree about my comparison about the BBC, RT has a far greater degree of state propaganda, and does propaganda better. Trusting the message of RT is like trusting the message of Chinese media. I'm obviously not saying that privately run and owned media can't be wildly non-objective, but state run media propaganda is far worse, and historical record shows the same thing. If I have to explain to you why the government being involved with private matters is especially bad, it's like you never read Rand.

Yeah, that's RT, and backed by an authoritarian government, this is what you get. 

 

Obviously you have unfounded faith in your news channels. You haven't understood or heard what I say: it's Leftist US propaganda I have greatly paid attention to in recent years and can see the consequences. But yes, I've noted the milder forms on Fox.

When media moved from news-reportage to news-influencing, they destroyed their trust-worthiness. It's forgotten or never grasped, that reporting is conducted by humans: who each or combined make a "selective recreation of reality according to" their premises, social, political, etc.

News is not direct 'reality' it's reality that's been filtered through *someone's* mind. The best of reporters and editors endeavor to offset that partiality with the most accuracy possible within time and space restraints, and reporting accounts from many sources, but they are uncommon. 

There seems no difference to you that I have been in the business of news gathering, studied it from inside and out and can see better the techniques to control the 'message' they send, evidently with the objective of power over minds, ideology and politics. Not "fact' by 'fact', rather the entirety of a repetitive, 'groomed narrative', which a conceptualist should be able to extract and abstract.

However, you know better than "a South African" possibly could, an arrogance not merited.

Leftist news media, CNN etc. have the most expertise at indoctrination. "Authoritarian"? And how. And as I said, they deliver it worldwide, even as its audience ratings slipped at home. CNN was one of hugest distributors and propagandists of corrupt, antiscience, anti-liberty, inhumane, pandemic policies. 

RT, if one is objectiive, is often refreshingly blunt and candid by contrast, with a wider range of opinions allowed.

The net effect of CNN etc. has been the separation of the population's minds from reality. You don't see that? Those not firmly-grounded are its victims.

"Propaganda" is what is working on people when they cannot see it's working on them. Because they think they are too smart and too skeptical.

Rand: It's your minds they want.  

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 4:17 PM, Grames said:

What makes Putin's forward defense strategy difficult for me to understand is that I can't imagine an invasion of Russia from any quarter.  No Napoleon or Hitler or Khan is going to come for them, especially in the modern urban era where populations are contracting.  With no plausible opponent the forward defense strategy is not moored to reality but still requires keeping non-Russian populations under the control of Russia or in other words an empire.  The imperial nature of the Russian strategy is why Putin is against nationalism, even Russian nationalism.  

Russia's defense strategy is to keep an empire, but Russia doesn't need an empire because they are not worth invading in the first place.

Well, Russia does have some things of major, present and future value to the West (and the CCP). First is space, millions of hectares of it. To the increasingly resource-hungry industrialized nations, who sacrificed their energy independence, some, even nuclear power stations - their raw steel production and farmlands - in the name of environmentalism: the RF has vast supplies of coal, crude oil and natural gas and rare minerals galore and timber - and agriculture.

What would be NATO's plans and intentions in the 30+ years is still a mystery to me. Defensive or offensive? There seems to be something unprincipled, irrational and arbitrary, almost ominous, by its expansion program since the USSR dissolved. If there is a hidden purpose - what? Has anyone conveyed it to Putin? It could be enough to make anyone paranoid.

(Reduced to the concrete perception -- it is like some guy who is steadily encroaching on your personal space for no obvious reason, who keeps assuring they mean no harm, but doesn't stop. Eventually, you/Putin, issue a warning: That's far enough, no further, or there will be trouble! They keep coming, sure enough there's trouble.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one needs or wants Russia's space because populations are not exploding, the era of lebensraum is over.  Wheat covered steppe and long cold winters isn't anyone's idea of paradise either unless one is born there.  As long as Russia is peaceful the entire world is able to access their grain, fertilizer, oil and gas and minerals exports by simply purchasing them, no invasion necessary.  The era of mercantilist, vertically integrated colonial empires that don't trade much with each other is over.

NATO's continued existence and expansion has two good reasons for it.  First, it makes the idea of an EU army redundant and it is important that the EU never have an army.  Second, as long as Russia keeps to the logic of empire the smaller countries close to Russia continue to want NATO protection and deterrence.  Sweden and Finland were quite content to continue indefinitely as neutrals until Russia invaded Ukraine, not much CIA involvement there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Leftist news media, CNN etc. have the most expertise at indoctrination. "Authoritarian"? And how. And as I said, they deliver it worldwide, even as its audience ratings slipped at home. CNN was one of hugest distributors and propagandists of corrupt, antiscience, anti-liberty, inhumane, pandemic policies. 

If you really think a privately run media propaganda outlet could ever be worse than a state run media propaganda outlet, then I don't know what to say. RT is run by an authoritarian government, not figuratively, literally. CNN has no implicit government force behind it, RT does. RT has literally no interest in the truth, so when you say refreshingly blunt, it simply means truthiness has reached maximum levels. Now I just await you saying that Xinhua is refreshingly blunt whenever it is that China finally invades Taiwan. I'm calling it here first.

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Propaganda" is what is working on people when they cannot see it's working on them. Because they think they are too smart and too skeptical.

🤡

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

If an EU army is redundant under a NATO scheme , in what way do ‘they’ not have an army?

And why shouldn’t the EU , redundant or not have an army? In post empire and mercantilist eras?

NATO is America's European army, an EU army would be Germany's European army.  Germany has latent imperial tendencies that must be kept in check.  In a world with an EU army under German domination then Putin is right and Russia needs forward borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

CNN has no implicit government force behind it, RT does.

Why would that matter when propaganda is just words, images and memes?  Propaganda works as well regardless of the source, it is the quality of the propaganda that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stone on Putin,  NATO, Donbass, invasion, propaganda, nuclear war: 27m to 1.34

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Grames said:

Propaganda works as well regardless of the source, it is the quality of the propaganda that matters.

I don't see how, the recipient of any message is affected by the messenger. The nature of the messenger affects what kind of message they want to get across. It's fine if the government wants to express its internal operations to the public, but molding current events for the public to consume with the power and authority of force behind it adds to the quality of the propaganda. 

Or in other words, the mind of the person receiving the message is just as important - and the air of authority the government grants affects many people in a profound way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

If you really think a privately run media propaganda outlet could ever be worse than a state run media propaganda outlet, then I don't know what to say. RT is run by an authoritarian government, not figuratively, literally. CNN has no implicit government force behind it, RT does. RT has literally no interest in the truth, so when you say refreshingly blunt, it simply means truthiness has reached maximum levels. Now I just await you saying that Xinhua is refreshingly blunt whenever it is that China finally invades Taiwan. I'm calling it here first.

🤡

 

I've said that "there is no guarantee" that private-owned media is certain to be more truthful than state-owned. 

There is less guarantee when some media in a free-ish country is ostensibly trying to brainwash the public into its ideological goals through political power.  What don't you plainly see about elements of your nation that seeks mass power over minds, to make it less free, and unfree?

Even a less free country or autocracy, the officials who run the state propaganda machine know very well there are limits to fooling their public, or will lose their trust.

Merely because a Press is free, above constraints, doesn't ensure its truth and good values. Like every commodity in a capitalist market, there is, by defintion, a greater responsibility on individuals to think clearly and assess the quality of the news they purchase, in order to remain free.

No interest in the truth? Obviously you've read and seen very little of RT. I'm not trying to laud it as a reliable source, like all of them, private and not, one needs to read it advisedly, - but it provides at least a counter to 'disinformation' from others to contrast. Most of RT is straight reportage of events and politicians' statements (Etc.) you can fact-check anywhere. For opinions about facts, that panel discussion I linked earlier is propaganda-free. Thoughtful or dissenting opinions you can agree with or disagree. Don't be nervous, listening is not going to steal your mind.

I say again, you are over-influenced with *who* said what, and *where* it's published, which is non-objective. Peikoff's "arbitrary assertion", that when "a savage utters" something valid, you can dismiss it out of hand - might have some bearing. How does one know he is ignorant and a "savage"? By his dress? How do you know this or that news item is false? Because it says "RT" or "Breitbart" in the headline?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Merely because a Press is free, above constraints, doesn't ensure its truth and good values.

I don't know why you think I believed this. All I said is that state run media is worse. 

29 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I say again, you are over-influenced with *who* said what, and *where* it's published

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Who says something is part of how you judge the meaning of what was said... I'm judging the message. It's crucial to knowing when and if someone is trying to manipulate you. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grames said:

NATO is America's European army, an EU army would be Germany's European army.  Germany has latent imperial tendencies that must be kept in check.  In a world with an EU army under German domination then Putin is right and Russia needs forward borders.

Because Germans hate Russians ? Pretty sure Americans are supposed to hate Russian too, no wait just Putin , keep forgetting that part .

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@tadmjones

Hating the Russians, or just Putin fits with attacking the president of the US, whoever the current one is.

A commentator of yore used to quip, the Chinese people are our friends, it's the CCP that one need be wary of.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind’s judgment of the facts of reality—" AR Lexicon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

US Party-Press Era 

Much later, while I was a child, in the 1950's, the newspapers we had were aligned with either Democratic Party or Republican. They made no bones about it, and everyone, even children, understood that that was the way it was. The other way to get news was by radio. I don't recall our family getting news by that medium; we listened to boxing, popular music, and skits like Fiber, McGee, and Molly. News was in reading newspapers. The elections for Governor or US Senator were decided by the Democratic Primary, because it was a forgone conclusion the the Democrat would easily win over the Republican in the general election. There was no Democrat state-wide newspaper, but there was a Republican one out of Oklahoma City. In 1962, the first-ever Republican was elected Governor.* His Democratic opponent blamed it all on the publisher of that OKC state-wide newspaper. But really, it was mainly that the Republican candidate had found a winning motto: "no new taxes." His Democratic opponent was proposing adding a penny to the State sales tax. The losing candidate, who was a successful businessman, then established a state-wide Democrat newspaper. Some things were easy to know notwithstanding newspaper favoritisms and slants: that there was an election, who won, and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't see how, the recipient of any message is affected by the messenger. The nature of the messenger affects what kind of message they want to get across. It's fine if the government wants to express its internal operations to the public, but molding current events for the public to consume with the power and authority of force behind it adds to the quality of the propaganda. 

Or in other words, the mind of the person receiving the message is just as important - and the air of authority the government grants affects many people in a profound way. 

Ok, but words are not force.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Because Germans hate Russians ?

Off and on since the Hapsburgs and Holy Roman Empire, yes.  Two empires that share a land border will find excuses to make war.  A European Union dominated by Germany is a default German empire.  An EU army would at first be used to enforce compliance with unpopular mandates out of Brussels, and then later for foreign adventures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Grames said:

Ok, but words are not force.  

Objectively true.

Words have "force" to subjectivists, evidently, and they are the majority to contend with.

(Safe spaces, trigger warnings, banned literature, censored speech ... words *hurt* people, viscerally, pre-conceptually).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Grames said:

Ok, but words are not force.  

I was responding to your question "why would it matter", I'm not arguing that the words/images/etc. constitute an initiation of force. I'm saying that it is destined to fail at objectivity, or inclines people to think non-objectively. I probably wasn't very clear about what I meant by government force being behind RT. Perceived authority is granted by the government's monopoly on force, not that RT can wield force. 

You said propaganda works as well regardless of source, which doesn't make sense, because the source directly impacts either what other people think of the message, or the objective of the message. I'd be glad to get into it in a different thread, it's getting really off-track now.

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Words have "force" to subjectivists, evidently, and they are the majority to contend with.

Right, but you would be completely wrong if you thought I was trying to say that words are force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm saying that it is destined to fail at objectivity, or inclines people to think non-objectively.

Propaganda can be created by selective focus on truths.  Because competent propaganda is not exclusively lies or threats or appeals to authority it can't be easily dismissed by ad hominem attack.  Once some other person has been persuaded by propaganda just attacking the source is inadequate as counter-persuasion.  Sincere engagement with the argument and mind behind it might work, but nothing else can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 I'd be glad to get into it in a different thread,

But the two are inseparable. This is also a propaganda war - "for hearts and minds", the latter I use ironically. It is all about controlling feelings and perceptions, the reality and contexts be hanged. Why is and was it waged, but like any propaganda campaign, to get 'the people' on the same side, unresisting and obedient to the edicts of governments which are pouring arms and wealth into the (losing, it seems) battle.

And further, to pre-justify any extreme acts they might decide to take. After, it must be stressed, avoiding rational negotiations and a truce. Send in Western soldiers to change the outome; OR: set off a tactical nuke when the war in the East looks to be irretrievably lost: "So sad - but Putin could not be seen to be victorious, after the massive investment in Ukraine by the West and the Russians deserved it..."

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Today (RT) Margarita Simonyan said on air that the war in Ukraine will either end with Russia's victory or a catastrophe for all humanity.

Quote

"If we wanted to, couldn't we have dealt with Ukraine in a matter of hours, not days? But we're conducting a special military operation, that's why it's not war," Simonyan said.

Which set of words?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EC said:

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-tv-says-nuclear-war-only-alternative-russia-victory-ukraine-1709539

Why don't you take them at their word? I don't understand why you guys ignore what they actually say daily.

Who's ignoring? These threatening statements by her are dumb and immoral in the extreme. All part, it must be said, of the escalating rhetoric from all parties which could lead to actual escalations. When the British are overtly supporting air attacks on civilians and installations in Russian territory what did they expect would follow from Moscow? {That's okay, all's fair in love and war?} So the newly-militant Brits are actively inviting and welcoming a response. They seem to want the excuse to take this up a notch and have to go in.

All pretences aside of a "proxy war", the Russians have made it clear they are aware the West is at war with Russia. Is that doubted? E.g We want a weakened Russia.

As I said, "we" provide the best weapons for free, we use our Intel and satellite survillance, we select the targets for you - you push the button. We are not -really- involved...

They are complicit.

Why the West got involved at all, is the premier question. Or, why not get involved any earlier, when the Donbas was shelled and attacked continuously by Kyiv for eight years and a treaty was broken?

Edited by whYNOT
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...