5 ms·

When the Soviet Union fell apart BBC opened a number of journalism schools in Russia. The schools were sponsored by George Soros. My dad attended one of those a

by moltar 11mo ago

When the Soviet Union fell apart BBC opened a number of journalism schools in Russia. The schools were sponsored by George Soros. My dad attended one of those and then was called into FSB office (former KGB) to be questioned. My suspicion to this day is that these schools were both a spy front and long-game propaganda, where they were teaching how to make news more western-aligned. Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that? How does Soros benefit from that?

lmm 11mo ago
> Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that? The BBC's mission is to inform, educate, and entertain, not to benefit themselves. > How does Soros benefit from that? I'm more anti-Soros than most, but he is fairly open that he wants to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust and a free press and western-style civil liberties are things he sees as supporting that. Even if you want to see it in selfish terms, the guy is rich and Jewish and wants the kind of society that doesn't victimise people like him; that doesn't mean he's part of some kind of cloak-and-dagger conspiracy.
notepad0x90 11mo ago
The goal there is similar to why the US state department sponsored the Tor project. They want a democratic society in Russia, and they want the Russian people to have friendly views of the west. The objective wasn't so much to teach them their ways, but to establish rapport with the journalism community in Russia. Journalists decide if for example Putin's power grabbing and dictatorship is covered as a negative or a positive thing. That rapport goes a long way with influencing their unavoidable bias. I think "influence" is correct, not "propaganda" unless there was specific messaging being disseminated. Also, look up "confucius institutes" all over the US and the world setup the Chinese government to do something similar.
- suddenlybananas 11mo ago
  >They want a democratic society in Russia They don't give a damn about democracy. There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.
  - gambiting 11mo ago
    Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them. >>There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America And that is for the exact reason I mentioned above. With a democracy it's just much easier to make sure the government is alligned with you(look at American meddling in UK politics), with a tsar like Putin it's not, because at this point he's beyond bribery or red carpets rolled out for him. So sure, for now anyone with any kind of position of power will tell you that they would support democracy in Russia - because then there is hope normal trading relationships could be restored and money made. This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.
    - suddenlybananas 11mo ago
      Yes of course, they want things in their own interest, democracy is entirely orthogonal to that.
    - notepad0x90 11mo ago
      > Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them. I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy, cold or any other type of 'war'). > This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not. Yes, as it should. I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy. First and foremost, the people of the US expect their government to protect their security and economic prosperity, we don't car as much about our "image".
      - 11mo ago
- littlecorner 11mo ago
  Its the messy application of FDR's claim that the USA should be the arsenal of democracy and should protect people everywhere. Which sounds all well and good, until you get different ideas about what is the best and that 'I' know better than you. Basically all the mess of the Cold War and propaganda and advertising
  - LtWorf 11mo ago
    USA is the arsenal of democracy as long as you vote their candidate (or all candidates are their candidate, like in Italy)
lauri_jo 11mo ago
It seems somewhat obvious that more democratic Russia would be in the interests of the rest of the Europe. Similarly self evidently, the former KGB is against it. Freedom of press is rather important part of democracy, and the state controlled media is an important part of an authoritarian play book. The lack of democracy in Russia has now ended up costing millions of lives and trillions in damages, so maybe we should have actually invested more?
Angostura 11mo ago
The BBC has a wide commitment to help run training courses in many developing countries. https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/media-action/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/media-action/
teamonkey 11mo ago
The UK government used to greatly believe in “soft power” in that their global influence would be improved through familiarity with British media, values and teaching, using the BBC World Service and organisations like the British Council. So yes, essentially propaganda, but in the same way Hollywood is.
- netsharc 11mo ago
  There's a "state of the world" forum post from a famous author years ago talking about how the UK used to be the adults in the room, how countries went to them and asked them for advice; and how they were seemingly actively shedding their reputation to be the US's aircraft carrier, opening their legs for any oligarch. I think this was written during Cameron's rule, and of course the facepalming got even harder with BoJo and Liz Lettuce Truss.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
gambiting 11mo ago
>>Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? Why does US benefit from every kid on the planet being able to name the avengers and instantly recognize Coca-Cola cans? I'm not saying this is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the elites - but projecting your power by making sure everyone is aligned with you ideologically and culturally helps long term, both in making allies and in avoiding wars.
pjc50 11mo ago
Two things are both true: the Soros Open Society foundation and BBC activities were pro-Western propaganda, and that does not make them bad or wrong or false. If they had succeeded in turning Russia into a pluralist liberal democracy, that would have been better for millions of Russians and everyone else. Instead Russia turned into a petro-state oligarchy, sponsored a number of wars, and finally threw hundreds of thousands of young Russians into a meatgrinder war in Ukraine.

by moltar 11mo ago

lmm 11mo ago

> Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? How do they benefit from that? The BBC's mission is to inform, educate, and entertain, not to benefit themselves. > How does Soros benefit from that? I'm more anti-Soros than most, but he is fairly open that he wants to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust and a free press and western-style civil liberties are things he sees as supporting that. Even if you want to see it in selfish terms, the guy is rich and Jewish and wants the kind of society that doesn't victimise people like him; that doesn't mean he's part of some kind of cloak-and-dagger conspiracy.

notepad0x90 11mo ago

The goal there is similar to why the US state department sponsored the Tor project. They want a democratic society in Russia, and they want the Russian people to have friendly views of the west. The objective wasn't so much to teach them their ways, but to establish rapport with the journalism community in Russia. Journalists decide if for example Putin's power grabbing and dictatorship is covered as a negative or a positive thing. That rapport goes a long way with influencing their unavoidable bias. I think "influence" is correct, not "propaganda" unless there was specific messaging being disseminated. Also, look up "confucius institutes" all over the US and the world setup the Chinese government to do something similar.

suddenlybananas 11mo ago
>They want a democratic society in Russia They don't give a damn about democracy. There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America. Hell, they even helped steal the 1996 Russian election.
- gambiting 11mo ago
  Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them. >>There's a reason they stole plenty of elections across Europe and Latin America And that is for the exact reason I mentioned above. With a democracy it's just much easier to make sure the government is alligned with you(look at American meddling in UK politics), with a tsar like Putin it's not, because at this point he's beyond bribery or red carpets rolled out for him. So sure, for now anyone with any kind of position of power will tell you that they would support democracy in Russia - because then there is hope normal trading relationships could be restored and money made. This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not.
  - suddenlybananas 11mo ago
    Yes of course, they want things in their own interest, democracy is entirely orthogonal to that.
  - notepad0x90 11mo ago
    > Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is - "they"(and that's not just US who wants this) want a stable trading partner, because Russia has goods and resources we want to buy, and we have goods and services we want to sell to them. I would say that's partly true, but Russia doesn't have much you can't get elsewhere, other than maybe oil? Not having to fight wars with russia seems to be the overarching goal (proxy, cold or any other type of 'war'). > This isn't an excuse for it btw - I'm just stating the fact that US especially will pursue their own interest first and foremost, if democracy furthers those then they will support it, if it doesn't then they will not. Yes, as it should. I don't know why people expect the US to be some beacon of global morality or democracy. First and foremost, the people of the US expect their government to protect their security and economic prosperity, we don't car as much about our "image".
    - 11mo ago
littlecorner 11mo ago
Its the messy application of FDR's claim that the USA should be the arsenal of democracy and should protect people everywhere. Which sounds all well and good, until you get different ideas about what is the best and that 'I' know better than you. Basically all the mess of the Cold War and propaganda and advertising
- LtWorf 11mo ago
  USA is the arsenal of democracy as long as you vote their candidate (or all candidates are their candidate, like in Italy)

lauri_jo 11mo ago

It seems somewhat obvious that more democratic Russia would be in the interests of the rest of the Europe. Similarly self evidently, the former KGB is against it. Freedom of press is rather important part of democracy, and the state controlled media is an important part of an authoritarian play book. The lack of democracy in Russia has now ended up costing millions of lives and trillions in damages, so maybe we should have actually invested more?

Angostura 11mo ago

The BBC has a wide commitment to help run training courses in many developing countries. https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/media-action/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/media-action/

teamonkey 11mo ago

The UK government used to greatly believe in “soft power” in that their global influence would be improved through familiarity with British media, values and teaching, using the BBC World Service and organisations like the British Council. So yes, essentially propaganda, but in the same way Hollywood is.

netsharc 11mo ago
There's a "state of the world" forum post from a famous author years ago talking about how the UK used to be the adults in the room, how countries went to them and asked them for advice; and how they were seemingly actively shedding their reputation to be the US's aircraft carrier, opening their legs for any oligarch. I think this was written during Cameron's rule, and of course the facepalming got even harder with BoJo and Liz Lettuce Truss.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

gambiting 11mo ago

>>Why would BBC want to teach their methods in Russia? Why does US benefit from every kid on the planet being able to name the avengers and instantly recognize Coca-Cola cans? I'm not saying this is some grand conspiracy orchestrated by the elites - but projecting your power by making sure everyone is aligned with you ideologically and culturally helps long term, both in making allies and in avoiding wars.

pjc50 11mo ago

Two things are both true: the Soros Open Society foundation and BBC activities were pro-Western propaganda, and that does not make them bad or wrong or false. If they had succeeded in turning Russia into a pluralist liberal democracy, that would have been better for millions of Russians and everyone else. Instead Russia turned into a petro-state oligarchy, sponsored a number of wars, and finally threw hundreds of thousands of young Russians into a meatgrinder war in Ukraine.