4 ms·

I don't think we are watching the same news at all. CBS and NBC regularly have reports that the government would stop if they could. >I said that some US news

by learc83 11y ago

I don't think we are watching the same news at all. CBS and NBC regularly have reports that the government would stop if they could. >I said that some US news is "as bad as" them. I've seen plenty of reports on NBC or CBS criticizing Obama (or Bush before him), have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT? How would this even work. Do they switch stories depending on who is in power?

Someone1234 11y ago
> have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT? Yes. Additionally I didn't say Obama was running anything, I was more thinking the DoD. They likely fund, produce, or have produced specific bottled segments. Which isn't to say they have direct editorial control, just that propaganda is a common sight on US TVs. Plus I can back up what I am saying, here's a program from 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_prog... So from 2002 to 2008 I can prove that this occurred. But since then it has definitely continued, I'm sure they renamed it, and retooled it, and involved more private entities to act as legal buffs, but it definitely still goes on to this day. > How would this even work. Do they switch stories depending on who is in power? I don't understand the question.
- electricblue 11y ago
  The US isn't run by an autocracy so there are competing interests in the government. It doesn't make sense to claim they are being controlled by the government, because they wouldn't agree with each other on what should be said. That said, there's definitely an implicit bias that America is right and North Korea/Iran/Russia etc are wrong but that's a nationwide problem, hardly evidence of some mass conspiracy.
  - rdancer 11y ago
    You're replying to a comment that links to an article on the domestic PsyOps program run by the DoD, officially, since shortly after 9/11. The issue is not that people are patriotic. It is not even that political dissent is not tolerated in mainstream media. It is that propaganda pieces, manufactured with the expressed purpose to manipulate the electorate, are broadcast. It's not like there is a party line on everything. You are allowed to have differing opinions on benign issues, such as cooking, celebrities, or football.
abalone 11y ago
There is a saying.. We in the USA have one party, the Business Party, with two right wings. The Democrat-Republican spectrum spans the spectrum of opinion that is fundable by the business community. There is plenty of vigorous debate within that spectrum. But money wins elections and funds advertising-dependent media, so that's how non business friendly perspectives get filtered out. It's not a conspiracy, it's more "unnatural selection" by money in the media and political systems. The working class press of a century ago had a much broader spectrum of opinion, for example. But it didn't rely on advertising.
- stvswn 11y ago
  If money wins elections, can you explain why Jeb Bush isn't polling first in the Republican primary process right now? Can you also explain why Bernie Sanders is within single digits of Clinton nationally, and beating her in Iowa and New Hampshire? You'd expect that the candidates who spend the most (and represent the monied establishment) would do the best, right? Is it possible that there are other forces at play (for instance, popular opinion?)
  - abalone 11y ago
    Those are not election wins. We are not even close to the peak of the election cycle where the real money gets spent. There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role.
    - learc83 11y ago
      >There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role. I don't think money is close to playing the key role. If that were true it would only take a few billion to buy a presidential election. Money is definitely necessary, but I don't think it's sufficient.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Removed old comment, replaced it with this one: Here, read this: http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-political-parties.html http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-politica...
ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "I've seen plenty of reports on NBC or CBS criticizing Obama (or Bush before him), have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT?" Here you go: http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs
- learc83 11y ago
  And immediately after she said that RT executives issued statements saying that she was "misled by the American media" and that “In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea." RT then used this one piece of dissent against the normal pro Russia coverage of Crimea to parade around as example of their openness. You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network." Fair point, but I wouldn't say the US networks were much better... http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

by learc83 11y ago

Someone1234 11y ago

> have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT? Yes. Additionally I didn't say Obama was running anything, I was more thinking the DoD. They likely fund, produce, or have produced specific bottled segments. Which isn't to say they have direct editorial control, just that propaganda is a common sight on US TVs. Plus I can back up what I am saying, here's a program from 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_prog... So from 2002 to 2008 I can prove that this occurred. But since then it has definitely continued, I'm sure they renamed it, and retooled it, and involved more private entities to act as legal buffs, but it definitely still goes on to this day. > How would this even work. Do they switch stories depending on who is in power? I don't understand the question.

electricblue 11y ago
The US isn't run by an autocracy so there are competing interests in the government. It doesn't make sense to claim they are being controlled by the government, because they wouldn't agree with each other on what should be said. That said, there's definitely an implicit bias that America is right and North Korea/Iran/Russia etc are wrong but that's a nationwide problem, hardly evidence of some mass conspiracy.
- rdancer 11y ago
  You're replying to a comment that links to an article on the domestic PsyOps program run by the DoD, officially, since shortly after 9/11. The issue is not that people are patriotic. It is not even that political dissent is not tolerated in mainstream media. It is that propaganda pieces, manufactured with the expressed purpose to manipulate the electorate, are broadcast. It's not like there is a party line on everything. You are allowed to have differing opinions on benign issues, such as cooking, celebrities, or football.

abalone 11y ago

There is a saying.. We in the USA have one party, the Business Party, with two right wings. The Democrat-Republican spectrum spans the spectrum of opinion that is fundable by the business community. There is plenty of vigorous debate within that spectrum. But money wins elections and funds advertising-dependent media, so that's how non business friendly perspectives get filtered out. It's not a conspiracy, it's more "unnatural selection" by money in the media and political systems. The working class press of a century ago had a much broader spectrum of opinion, for example. But it didn't rely on advertising.

stvswn 11y ago
If money wins elections, can you explain why Jeb Bush isn't polling first in the Republican primary process right now? Can you also explain why Bernie Sanders is within single digits of Clinton nationally, and beating her in Iowa and New Hampshire? You'd expect that the candidates who spend the most (and represent the monied establishment) would do the best, right? Is it possible that there are other forces at play (for instance, popular opinion?)
- abalone 11y ago
  Those are not election wins. We are not even close to the peak of the election cycle where the real money gets spent. There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role.
  - learc83 11y ago
    >There certainly are more forces at play, but money plays the key role. I don't think money is close to playing the key role. If that were true it would only take a few billion to buy a presidential election. Money is definitely necessary, but I don't think it's sufficient.
cbd1984 11y ago
Removed old comment, replaced it with this one: Here, read this: http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-political-parties.html http://stevedutch.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-are-both-politica...

ZenoArrow 11y ago

> "I've seen plenty of reports on NBC or CBS criticizing Obama (or Bush before him), have you ever seen a report that was critical of Putin on RT?" Here you go: http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs http://youtu.be/ZolXrjGIBJs

learc83 11y ago
And immediately after she said that RT executives issued statements saying that she was "misled by the American media" and that “In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea." RT then used this one piece of dissent against the normal pro Russia coverage of Crimea to parade around as example of their openness. You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "You'll also notice that less than a year after saying that she was off the network." Fair point, but I wouldn't say the US networks were much better... http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/ozxzNjRqCiE http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY http://youtu.be/HrKKkGl3TnY
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]