10 ms·

It is fascinating that this article comes out in context of Broadcast Board of Governors announcing that US is losing the information war with Russia. Surprisin

by osipov 12y ago

It is fascinating that this article comes out in context of Broadcast Board of Governors announcing that US is losing the information war with Russia. Surprisingly it does not occur to the media that telling the truth is the best antidote to Russian propaganda. Instead, the government is complaining that "broadcasters are not always in tune with U.S. foreign policy objectives." Frankly, since I'm paying my taxes to US government, I want free and independent journalism, not the one that is driven by advertisers, corporate sponsors, or US foreign objectives. We used to have that before 1990s when just 6 major media conglomerates ate up 90% of the media companies. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/25/usa-broadcasting-idUSL2N0WP23620150325 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/25/usa-broadcasting-i...

wtbob 12y ago
> It is fascinating that this article comes out in context of Broadcast Board of Governors announcing that US is losing the information war with Russia. Surprisingly it does not occur to the media that telling the truth is the best antidote to Russian propaganda. Is it though? I know that in a business context I've often been told that I have an 'incredible ability to see both sides of a question'; that's actually a problem, because at some point one has to decide for one side or another on a particular question. Likewise, in real life there often aren't cut-and-dried issues: rather, there are two (or more!) sides, each with valid perspectives, valid grudges, and they can't all win; indeed, in some cases compromise is simply impossible. And yet people must decide between them. Indeed, the more one learns the truth about an historical conflict, the less obvious is the Right Thing to do in that situation. But what great masses of people need is a clear, obvious Right Thing. You don't win WWII by emphasising that the post-WWI plebiscites were fixed against Germany, or that Japan had some valid grievances against the U.S.
- osipov 12y ago
  wow your reply is as off topic as it gets...care to connect the dots?
  - xtrumanx 12y ago
    It didn't seem off-topic to me. The fellow he replied to stated he wanted free and independent journalism and the thesis of his reply seemed to me that free and independent journalism would cause confusion to the "great masses of people" and instead a simple narrative would be more effective instead of letting them decide for themselves who's right and who's wrong. I don't agree with him and he could have perhaps left some bits out of his comment but I don't think it deserves downvotes and to be greyed out.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  It's a matter of opinion that the masses "need" a simplified, black-and-white view of every historical event rather than a nuanced one.
  - aleh 12y ago
    wtbob's comment being downvoted is kind of proof in itself.
    - emodendroket 12y ago
      I don't see how.
      - aleh 12y ago
        My train of thought was following: 1. vote result represents opinion of "masses" 2. the comment in question says "masses of people need a clear, obvious Right Thing" 3. the comment itself is not clear and obvious as it contains double bind (asks to consider to be inconsiderate) 4. comment got downvoted which confirms #2 Just our of curiosity I've replied with another double bind "downvotes proof comment worthiness" which seems have reversed the trend. Speaking on topic, I think that choosing between Right Thing and Full Picture for the "masses" is like choosing between acceleration and breaks for a car: it is better to have both. Right Thing mobilizes masses while Full Picture helps to avoid dumb aggression.
        ionwake 12y ago
        Good break down regarding your own comment
- pyre 12y ago
  > Japan had some valid grievances against the U.S. I'm curious what Japan's valid grievances against the Chinese, Koreans, or various Pacific island groups was...
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    Well, none (well I mean plenty if you want to go through thousands of years of history, but realistically, none), but modernizing largely meant copying Western ideas and that included having their own colonies and spheres of influence, just like Western powers. It's not as though that is the reason the US went to war with Japan.
    - pyre 12y ago
      > It's not as though that is the reason the US went to war with Japan. I realize this, but WW2, for Japan, was mostly about taking over much of SE Asia and that would have happened regardless of them going to war with the US.
      - emodendroket 12y ago
        I think the popular American image of the wartime Japanese doesn't have much to do with that, although they certainly did brutalize the places they took over.
  - speeder 12y ago
    Japan attacked other asian nations to imitate UK and US, and defend against UK and US. Japan until mid 1800s was happily doing their own thing, and not caring for their neighbours, suddenly they had US metal ships on their docks, and the mighty China falling to UK. Their solution was outright imitate what western powers was doing, in several aspects (even clothes, mannerisms and cultural trends were copied), with the most important one being to act imperialistic, invade weak countries, and try to build the most strong military that you could, using resources from all the colonies as needed. Japan was only following a bad example set by the western powers, and trying to not become China.
danielam 12y ago
I think that almost everyone agrees that a free and independent media is preferred, but I think that you overstate the freedom the press had before. The press is and always has been highly dependent on its patrons. In "The Free Press", Hillaire Belloc describes exactly this relation of dependence as it existed at the beginning of the 20th century and describes the technological innovations of the day that shaped it and made the modern press possible (the locomotive, for instance). The press makes very little from subscribers and must resort to advertising or funding to cover its expenses and as we know, all funding comes with conditions, both good and bad. You also neglect two additional factors. The first is that during the Cold War, the US was playing an information war that often exceeded the Soviets in sophistication. Why? Because where the Soviets were able to employ physical violence against their own citizens, the Americans resorted to "softer" tactics to maintain the status quo. The press was often that fourth estate. Edward Bernays comes to mind. The second is that the 1990s were also met with an increase in independent internet media. The access to information became greater.
- osipov 12y ago
  >you overstate the freedom the press had before. I'm comparing the journalism in US before media consolidation and after. After 1987 repeal of the FCC fairness doctrine, rules of the game changed and companies started to buy up media assets knowing that they can use media to tell just their side of the story. This process finished in 1990s with 90% of media companies owned by 6 media conglomerates. The other seminal moment in US media space the was 2013 amendment to the Smith Mundt Act, allowing US to employ the same propaganda both inside and outside of the United States. So, I am not overstating the loss of freedom and diversity that the US media experienced over the past 25 years.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
xnull6guest 12y ago
> that telling the truth is the best antidote to Russian propaganda The truth sometimes is extremely damaging and narrative is a national security concern. The US works because of a couple of key national advantages - one being that it carries very positive international political capital and soft power. Some truths if widely understood, like the US caused colored revolutions in Ukraine and the Baltics including Euromaiden and its current coup-making and revolution kindling in Venezuela, harm the US's narrative of justified interventionism. It's therefore important that the US and media don't open up about it.
- trwired 12y ago
  Do you have any reliable proof of the claim that US is responsible for colored revolutions in Ukraine (as opposed to citizens themselves taking matters into their own hands)? By reliable I mean reputable sources, not a random website no one has ever heard before. I'm asking because what you just did here - that is make a backhanded comment suggesting countries opposing Russian agenda don't operate on their own accord, while suggesting they are steered by the US - is a prime example of how Russian trolls operate.
  - xnull6guest 12y ago
    Yes. Thanks for asking. There's plenty of evidence - CSOs/NGOs/USAID/UNITER aside - let's start with CANVAS. Here's wikileaks documents: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-06-18-08-canvas-how-a-us-funded-group-trains-opposition.html https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-06-18-08-canv... These are conversations at Stratfor with and about an 'export-a-revolution' group for hire. If you look through the (ppt) slides in the Introduction to CANVAS you will see them boasting about their role in the colored revolutions. Get back to me on that and if you want more there's more.
    - cromwellian 12y ago
      Strafor boasts about a lot of stuff, they are after all, a commercial enterprise. It remains to be seen how much of it is bullshit bluster from a bunch of desk jockeys with delusions of grandeur, and how much of it is real. I get a heavy soldier-of-fortune wanna-bee vibe from them. US spy agencies are relatively incompetent by historical measure, which is why it the attempts to remove all agency from foreign actors and put it into the hands of manipulations by secret groups is just nutty conspiracy theories. Even this Russian trolling stuff is probably ineffectiveness compared to what is already forums filled with noisy trash comments. Are they really influencing anything, or just making comments worthless and untrustworthy to the average person?

by osipov 12y ago

wtbob 12y ago

> It is fascinating that this article comes out in context of Broadcast Board of Governors announcing that US is losing the information war with Russia. Surprisingly it does not occur to the media that telling the truth is the best antidote to Russian propaganda. Is it though? I know that in a business context I've often been told that I have an 'incredible ability to see both sides of a question'; that's actually a problem, because at some point one has to decide for one side or another on a particular question. Likewise, in real life there often aren't cut-and-dried issues: rather, there are two (or more!) sides, each with valid perspectives, valid grudges, and they can't all win; indeed, in some cases compromise is simply impossible. And yet people must decide between them. Indeed, the more one learns the truth about an historical conflict, the less obvious is the Right Thing to do in that situation. But what great masses of people need is a clear, obvious Right Thing. You don't win WWII by emphasising that the post-WWI plebiscites were fixed against Germany, or that Japan had some valid grievances against the U.S.

osipov 12y ago
wow your reply is as off topic as it gets...care to connect the dots?
- xtrumanx 12y ago
  It didn't seem off-topic to me. The fellow he replied to stated he wanted free and independent journalism and the thesis of his reply seemed to me that free and independent journalism would cause confusion to the "great masses of people" and instead a simple narrative would be more effective instead of letting them decide for themselves who's right and who's wrong. I don't agree with him and he could have perhaps left some bits out of his comment but I don't think it deserves downvotes and to be greyed out.
emodendroket 12y ago
It's a matter of opinion that the masses "need" a simplified, black-and-white view of every historical event rather than a nuanced one.
- aleh 12y ago
  wtbob's comment being downvoted is kind of proof in itself.
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    I don't see how.
    - aleh 12y ago
      My train of thought was following: 1. vote result represents opinion of "masses" 2. the comment in question says "masses of people need a clear, obvious Right Thing" 3. the comment itself is not clear and obvious as it contains double bind (asks to consider to be inconsiderate) 4. comment got downvoted which confirms #2 Just our of curiosity I've replied with another double bind "downvotes proof comment worthiness" which seems have reversed the trend. Speaking on topic, I think that choosing between Right Thing and Full Picture for the "masses" is like choosing between acceleration and breaks for a car: it is better to have both. Right Thing mobilizes masses while Full Picture helps to avoid dumb aggression.
      - ionwake 12y ago
        Good break down regarding your own comment
pyre 12y ago
> Japan had some valid grievances against the U.S. I'm curious what Japan's valid grievances against the Chinese, Koreans, or various Pacific island groups was...
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Well, none (well I mean plenty if you want to go through thousands of years of history, but realistically, none), but modernizing largely meant copying Western ideas and that included having their own colonies and spheres of influence, just like Western powers. It's not as though that is the reason the US went to war with Japan.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > It's not as though that is the reason the US went to war with Japan. I realize this, but WW2, for Japan, was mostly about taking over much of SE Asia and that would have happened regardless of them going to war with the US.
    - emodendroket 12y ago
      I think the popular American image of the wartime Japanese doesn't have much to do with that, although they certainly did brutalize the places they took over.
- speeder 12y ago
  Japan attacked other asian nations to imitate UK and US, and defend against UK and US. Japan until mid 1800s was happily doing their own thing, and not caring for their neighbours, suddenly they had US metal ships on their docks, and the mighty China falling to UK. Their solution was outright imitate what western powers was doing, in several aspects (even clothes, mannerisms and cultural trends were copied), with the most important one being to act imperialistic, invade weak countries, and try to build the most strong military that you could, using resources from all the colonies as needed. Japan was only following a bad example set by the western powers, and trying to not become China.

danielam 12y ago

I think that almost everyone agrees that a free and independent media is preferred, but I think that you overstate the freedom the press had before. The press is and always has been highly dependent on its patrons. In "The Free Press", Hillaire Belloc describes exactly this relation of dependence as it existed at the beginning of the 20th century and describes the technological innovations of the day that shaped it and made the modern press possible (the locomotive, for instance). The press makes very little from subscribers and must resort to advertising or funding to cover its expenses and as we know, all funding comes with conditions, both good and bad. You also neglect two additional factors. The first is that during the Cold War, the US was playing an information war that often exceeded the Soviets in sophistication. Why? Because where the Soviets were able to employ physical violence against their own citizens, the Americans resorted to "softer" tactics to maintain the status quo. The press was often that fourth estate. Edward Bernays comes to mind. The second is that the 1990s were also met with an increase in independent internet media. The access to information became greater.

osipov 12y ago
>you overstate the freedom the press had before. I'm comparing the journalism in US before media consolidation and after. After 1987 repeal of the FCC fairness doctrine, rules of the game changed and companies started to buy up media assets knowing that they can use media to tell just their side of the story. This process finished in 1990s with 90% of media companies owned by 6 media conglomerates. The other seminal moment in US media space the was 2013 amendment to the Smith Mundt Act, allowing US to employ the same propaganda both inside and outside of the United States. So, I am not overstating the loss of freedom and diversity that the US media experienced over the past 25 years.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

xnull6guest 12y ago

> that telling the truth is the best antidote to Russian propaganda The truth sometimes is extremely damaging and narrative is a national security concern. The US works because of a couple of key national advantages - one being that it carries very positive international political capital and soft power. Some truths if widely understood, like the US caused colored revolutions in Ukraine and the Baltics including Euromaiden and its current coup-making and revolution kindling in Venezuela, harm the US's narrative of justified interventionism. It's therefore important that the US and media don't open up about it.

trwired 12y ago
Do you have any reliable proof of the claim that US is responsible for colored revolutions in Ukraine (as opposed to citizens themselves taking matters into their own hands)? By reliable I mean reputable sources, not a random website no one has ever heard before. I'm asking because what you just did here - that is make a backhanded comment suggesting countries opposing Russian agenda don't operate on their own accord, while suggesting they are steered by the US - is a prime example of how Russian trolls operate.
- xnull6guest 12y ago
  Yes. Thanks for asking. There's plenty of evidence - CSOs/NGOs/USAID/UNITER aside - let's start with CANVAS. Here's wikileaks documents: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-06-18-08-canvas-how-a-us-funded-group-trains-opposition.html https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-06-18-08-canv... These are conversations at Stratfor with and about an 'export-a-revolution' group for hire. If you look through the (ppt) slides in the Introduction to CANVAS you will see them boasting about their role in the colored revolutions. Get back to me on that and if you want more there's more.
  - cromwellian 12y ago
    Strafor boasts about a lot of stuff, they are after all, a commercial enterprise. It remains to be seen how much of it is bullshit bluster from a bunch of desk jockeys with delusions of grandeur, and how much of it is real. I get a heavy soldier-of-fortune wanna-bee vibe from them. US spy agencies are relatively incompetent by historical measure, which is why it the attempts to remove all agency from foreign actors and put it into the hands of manipulations by secret groups is just nutty conspiracy theories. Even this Russian trolling stuff is probably ineffectiveness compared to what is already forums filled with noisy trash comments. Are they really influencing anything, or just making comments worthless and untrustworthy to the average person?