4 ms·

Does it matter? (Hint: no) Their specific lies are leveraged to harm us (the west) therefore something should be done about them. Gone should be the days of g

by w7 4y ago

Does it matter? (Hint: no) Their specific lies are leveraged to harm us (the west) therefore something should be done about them. Gone should be the days of giving autocracies special privileges in the media while they maintain a tight grip on their own.

FpUser 4y ago
One day you might like social scoring your citizens as well.
- pphysch 4y ago
  Who doesn't love their FICO® Score and all the critical economic opportunities that it gates... I mean provides?
sudosysgen 4y ago
Of course it does, because the alternative is giving privilege to other countries for the benefit of power politics. It won't end well either. Relying on censorship for such things really isn't a great idea.
pphysch 4y ago
What special privileges do "autocracies" have? The US government has an official propaganda ministry: USAGM. Large "independent" media like NYT have admitted that they work closely with the DoD and other agencies to screen content before publishing. Also worth noting that the former propaganda chief at USAGM is the current head of NPR. And yet none of the above get "USA state media-affiliated" warnings on social media like Twitter, which digs the hole even deeper. The de facto state media apparatus of the USA is unbelievably huge and underacknowledged. The DoD alone employs over 50,000 people working in "media" roles.
- jollybean 4y ago
  Not true. Most major media outlets around the world confer with state agencies for information, there is some degree of responsibility to protect the lives of individuals and sensitive issues, that does not make them 'State Affiliated' nor 'Propaganda' outlets. The NYT can and does publish whatever it wants. More importantly, the NYT is usually fairly factual. The CBC or BBC are 'state affiliated' though still mostly independent. RT and Russia One are direct branches of state control - they coordinate their entire 'truth agenda' with FSB, GRU, Duma, Military and other officials to promote the state agenda. They promote mostly bombastic rubbish with little bearing on reality, and call for the invasion and nuclear eradication of Europe and America, specifically to get their own citizens in a frenzy. Consistent with this policy is the punishment of anyone who publicly disagrees with the 'party line' or talks about the 'war' in any way that is inconsistent with Putin's wishes. Fortunately, you or I can walk down any street in the USA/West and say almost anything we want about Biden, Bojo or Trudeau, and thankfully nobody will do anything about it. USAGM is obviously biased, but it's also mostly truthy, and it competes with a a variety of any other voices. On the whole, it's hardly influential. Almost zero Americans for example, are affected by anything they say or do. And of course, this notion that the DoD employs 50 000 people in 'media' roles is ridiculously false. American media is painfully biased and narrative driven, it'd be hard to make sense of the world by 'just' watching either CNN, MSNBC or Fox, but thankfully we can watch all three and absorb information from an enormous variety of sources. All with the help 'media bias checkers'. The information situation between Russia and the United States or any other Western country is not comparable.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    You're doing the "our glorious soldiers, their savage brutes" meme, with far too many words. Virtually all of this is true about both USA and Russian media. There are some minor differences due to historical circumstances, but the bottom line is that both have massive & sophisticated domestic and foreign propaganda apparatuses. Both governments crack down hard on credible, organized threats to their control. Saying "I don't like $LEADER" on the street, alone, is neither, and you won't get persecuted in Moscow for doing this no matter how much Radio Free Europe insists. > The information situation between Russia and the United States or any other Western country is not comparable. This is shockingly naive.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
    - jollybean 4y ago
      "Virtually all of this is true about both USA and Russian media. " Really: LIST OF JOURNALISTS MURDERED IN RUSSIA [1] This is as obviously, laughably wrong as the "The DoD has 50 000 secret media men running around!!!". Is 'Q' one of your 'sources' for that? The US has largely a free press, and there's almost nothing you cannot say, and the government has very little, usually no control over information dissemination. US President DJ Trump just spent 4 years screaming about the press, they literally banned him from Twitter and FB and you think 'Mr. US Government' is running the show? US Gov. has no influence over 'Democracy Now' or 'Breitbart' or 'Mother Jones' or 'Joe Rogan' and barely has any influence with CNN/NYT etc. even though in those cases they obviously communicate. There are innumerable sources of information available in the US. Conversely, Putin directly controls most of the main 'information outlets' (i.e. RT, Russia One) as they are designed specifically to be propaganda outlets. He fairly aggressively censors outside information, though Youtube, Google are still available, he just fined Google something like $300M for conveying information he didn't want Russians to have access to i.e. the truth. Of course Putin literally imprisons and murders journalists who dare publish information he disagrees with ... ... and of course they literally censor vast areas of the internet [2] ... and of course they literally ban large swaths of Social Media because they cannot censor it [3] But keep trying to make that 'Russia and USA are the same' argument ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roskomnadzor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roskomnadzor [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_Ru...
- w7 4y ago
  If NYT was a well funded propaganda organ of an armed organization that was explicitly intent on causing harm to a nation state, it absolutely would be restricted in many nation states. This is the special privilege autocracies get, being hostile while also being allowed to speak.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    > of an armed organization that was explicitly intent on causing harm to a nation state So, you mean like USA, every time they bomb some middle eastern country? I mean.. they said "whoopsie" after they reported about iraq having weapons of mass destruction: https://web.archive.org/web/20101105194258/https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101105194258/https://www.nytim...
- Volker_W 4y ago
  > Large "independent" media like NYT have admitted that they work closely with the DoD and other agencies to screen content before publishing. Source?
  - pphysch 4y ago
    Here's a tweet from PR where they admit as much: https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1140091848255578112?s=20&t=eDynMAhZrzsFt_zSTiWuTQ https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1140091848255578112?s=2... "We described the article to the government before publication." They use this as a defence; how can something be "treason" if it was literally approved by the government? The NYT depends on government approval to publish some stories, including probably every international story. Not uncommon to have ex-FP/NatSec people in foreign editor roles. It's easy to see why: if they don't work with the government, the government won't work with them and some other newsroom will get superior access.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
Maybe show and expose their lies? Because with the state of western media and governments, "if they block it, it must be true, and they don't want us to see it". ...and then they post an article like this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacuation-of-azovstal-plant-in-mariupol-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua...

by w7 4y ago

FpUser 4y ago

One day you might like social scoring your citizens as well.

pphysch 4y ago
Who doesn't love their FICO® Score and all the critical economic opportunities that it gates... I mean provides?

sudosysgen 4y ago

Of course it does, because the alternative is giving privilege to other countries for the benefit of power politics. It won't end well either. Relying on censorship for such things really isn't a great idea.

pphysch 4y ago

What special privileges do "autocracies" have? The US government has an official propaganda ministry: USAGM. Large "independent" media like NYT have admitted that they work closely with the DoD and other agencies to screen content before publishing. Also worth noting that the former propaganda chief at USAGM is the current head of NPR. And yet none of the above get "USA state media-affiliated" warnings on social media like Twitter, which digs the hole even deeper. The de facto state media apparatus of the USA is unbelievably huge and underacknowledged. The DoD alone employs over 50,000 people working in "media" roles.

jollybean 4y ago
Not true. Most major media outlets around the world confer with state agencies for information, there is some degree of responsibility to protect the lives of individuals and sensitive issues, that does not make them 'State Affiliated' nor 'Propaganda' outlets. The NYT can and does publish whatever it wants. More importantly, the NYT is usually fairly factual. The CBC or BBC are 'state affiliated' though still mostly independent. RT and Russia One are direct branches of state control - they coordinate their entire 'truth agenda' with FSB, GRU, Duma, Military and other officials to promote the state agenda. They promote mostly bombastic rubbish with little bearing on reality, and call for the invasion and nuclear eradication of Europe and America, specifically to get their own citizens in a frenzy. Consistent with this policy is the punishment of anyone who publicly disagrees with the 'party line' or talks about the 'war' in any way that is inconsistent with Putin's wishes. Fortunately, you or I can walk down any street in the USA/West and say almost anything we want about Biden, Bojo or Trudeau, and thankfully nobody will do anything about it. USAGM is obviously biased, but it's also mostly truthy, and it competes with a a variety of any other voices. On the whole, it's hardly influential. Almost zero Americans for example, are affected by anything they say or do. And of course, this notion that the DoD employs 50 000 people in 'media' roles is ridiculously false. American media is painfully biased and narrative driven, it'd be hard to make sense of the world by 'just' watching either CNN, MSNBC or Fox, but thankfully we can watch all three and absorb information from an enormous variety of sources. All with the help 'media bias checkers'. The information situation between Russia and the United States or any other Western country is not comparable.
- pphysch 4y ago
  You're doing the "our glorious soldiers, their savage brutes" meme, with far too many words. Virtually all of this is true about both USA and Russian media. There are some minor differences due to historical circumstances, but the bottom line is that both have massive & sophisticated domestic and foreign propaganda apparatuses. Both governments crack down hard on credible, organized threats to their control. Saying "I don't like $LEADER" on the street, alone, is neither, and you won't get persecuted in Moscow for doing this no matter how much Radio Free Europe insists. > The information situation between Russia and the United States or any other Western country is not comparable. This is shockingly naive.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
  - jollybean 4y ago
    "Virtually all of this is true about both USA and Russian media. " Really: LIST OF JOURNALISTS MURDERED IN RUSSIA [1] This is as obviously, laughably wrong as the "The DoD has 50 000 secret media men running around!!!". Is 'Q' one of your 'sources' for that? The US has largely a free press, and there's almost nothing you cannot say, and the government has very little, usually no control over information dissemination. US President DJ Trump just spent 4 years screaming about the press, they literally banned him from Twitter and FB and you think 'Mr. US Government' is running the show? US Gov. has no influence over 'Democracy Now' or 'Breitbart' or 'Mother Jones' or 'Joe Rogan' and barely has any influence with CNN/NYT etc. even though in those cases they obviously communicate. There are innumerable sources of information available in the US. Conversely, Putin directly controls most of the main 'information outlets' (i.e. RT, Russia One) as they are designed specifically to be propaganda outlets. He fairly aggressively censors outside information, though Youtube, Google are still available, he just fined Google something like $300M for conveying information he didn't want Russians to have access to i.e. the truth. Of course Putin literally imprisons and murders journalists who dare publish information he disagrees with ... ... and of course they literally censor vast areas of the internet [2] ... and of course they literally ban large swaths of Social Media because they cannot censor it [3] But keep trying to make that 'Russia and USA are the same' argument ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roskomnadzor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roskomnadzor [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_Ru...
w7 4y ago
If NYT was a well funded propaganda organ of an armed organization that was explicitly intent on causing harm to a nation state, it absolutely would be restricted in many nation states. This is the special privilege autocracies get, being hostile while also being allowed to speak.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > of an armed organization that was explicitly intent on causing harm to a nation state So, you mean like USA, every time they bomb some middle eastern country? I mean.. they said "whoopsie" after they reported about iraq having weapons of mass destruction: https://web.archive.org/web/20101105194258/https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101105194258/https://www.nytim...
Volker_W 4y ago
> Large "independent" media like NYT have admitted that they work closely with the DoD and other agencies to screen content before publishing. Source?
- pphysch 4y ago
  Here's a tweet from PR where they admit as much: https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1140091848255578112?s=20&t=eDynMAhZrzsFt_zSTiWuTQ https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1140091848255578112?s=2... "We described the article to the government before publication." They use this as a defence; how can something be "treason" if it was literally approved by the government? The NYT depends on government approval to publish some stories, including probably every international story. Not uncommon to have ex-FP/NatSec people in foreign editor roles. It's easy to see why: if they don't work with the government, the government won't work with them and some other newsroom will get superior access.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

Maybe show and expose their lies? Because with the state of western media and governments, "if they block it, it must be true, and they don't want us to see it". ...and then they post an article like this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacuation-of-azovstal-plant-in-mariupol-in-pictures https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua...