American Propoganda

[Jennacarana]

"[Americans tease us] that in Russia there is no summer"

Ahh, lighten up! I get that about Minnsota all the time!

Seriously though, to get back to the original topic -

Frankly? In reading through this post I almost laughed out loud because there are a number of you that actually think that there are some countries that don't have propaganda. Which is absolutely absurd. It's everywhere. Everything is propaganda! Almost everything is biased! So what do you do if you want to get a balanced view of things? You check out different sources, the extremes on both sides, and figure out the middle ground that gets everyone else mad at you, and then you've got at least a somewhat balanced view of the world. I'm majoring in Russian and Political Science, I've been to Russia and Ukraine, and I've seen plenty of propaganda there too, even as I recoginize it at home (home=Minnesota). Its a fact of life. Some people will be fooled by it. Some won't. Sometimes those who aren't fooled by it choose to be because the truth is too difficult to bear. For instance, most Americans about now would really like to believe that our "landmarks are secure" and "we're fully prepared in case of another act of terrorism/bioterrorism", even though we all know how doubtful that is! So propaganda is not always bad (though of course sometimes it is).

Let me be clear though exactly what I mean by "propaganda". I don't mean the outright lies that some of you mentioned - I mean the "spin", the slanted way in which any gov't or organization presents the truth, usually to accomplish a certain goal, which is usually to make themselves look favorable. Sometimes it is deliberate, sometimes its a matter of perspective. Is it "good"? No. Is it absolutely typical of humanity in general and politics in particular? Yes.

I guess I'm just a pragmatist when it comes to this. I can appreciate "spin" for what it is (i.e. "What a beautiful piece of rhetoric that speech just was!"), but when I'm interested in truth I certainly don't rely on it!

I hope I've made myself clear and am not suddonly and horribly misunderstood by everyone here!

Take care,

Elaine

[Chancellor]

Granted, propaganda exists the whole worlds wide, but the difference in the states is that they try to hide it. If you were to have lived in Russia while the communists were in power, you might only have one party to "vote" for, but it's pretty obvious it's not a Republic. If you write somehting against the state, you get put in jail, end of story.... But in America it's done differently, the american people need to be manipulated without them knowing it, due to "free" press (at least before the press was all bought by big corporations). Here are some examples: The american term "historical engineering", used during vietnam to create the history of saving the vietnamese from the viet-kong, (themselves essentialy) by burning thier houses and rice plantations. Also, the 5 conflicting news stories on why no fighters were scrambled after the first plane hit the WTC, when in fact air-base had at least 2 combat ready squadrons. And lastly, the writer of the Narco News being threatened by a NY times writer to discreadit him due to his opposition of certain american "drug war" policies. I lied one more, the sole proud, brave american senater who opposed the attacks on afghanistan being called a "traitor" due to her questioning the expenditure of billions of dollars.

P.S. since when was socialist an insult?

[mastodon]

Welcome to R.com, Chancellor.

American press is free relative to the rest of the world. If you want to find big business owning the press - see Russia.

As for 'socialist' being an insult, unfortunately there are those here who are blindly opposed to anything even resembling socialism.

Dif'rent strokes for dif'rent folks.

[Chancellor]

The only reason american free press is "free" is because it's in the government's best interests to keep it "free". Most political dissent simply isn't published, and it it is, it's there to steer the views of readers. E.g. No articles about "if" you attack afghanistan, only "how far" to take the "war on terrorism"t. Presenting the arguemen in this manner conceals the one-sided views by making it appear as though 2 sides are argued.

~Matt~

[mastodon]

Unfortunately, those who are the primary producers of news keep a tight leash on their wares. What isn't known will always appear to be disproportionately larger than what is known.

I don't agree with you on the extent of censorship you speak of. I believe there is a bit of manipulation in the news industry, but from what you have posted, I don't think I'd agree with you on the extent of alleged censorship.

Just curious, did you follow the whole NTV stink?

[Chancellor]

Fine, then we agree to dissagree . Personnaly I think every major network is showing tailored news, that's why I use the internet instead. Up here in Canada the Media's a little better, but JUST a little. Unfortunately I havn't followed this NTV.. care to fill me in?

~matt~

[mastodon]

I agree completely on using the internet for news. Television news outlets are terrible in terms of content. CNN is on'y good for mass dissemination of information - little else.

NTV was the only independent national news channel in Russia. They made Putin angry by failing to endorse him in the election, criticizing him on Chechnya, and making fun of him on a puppet show. In short, the guy who owned NTV, Vladimir Gusinsky, was in trouble for corruption and had to sell out to Gazprom - Russia's natural gas-giant. Gazprom is in Putin's pocket and there's been alot of gossip about the handy coincidence.

The whole situation is rather old. Media outlets in Russia seem to jump from one proprietor to the next every week. It gets little attention now.