The second graph is probably a bit more telling. About 65% preferring a geo-political orientation towards Russia, which is probably accurate.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Sure, but that's a long way from wanting Russia to take over.
I don't think they actually wanted it. It wasn't until the propaganda blitzkrieg when Ukrainian TV stations were taken down and the population were fear-mongered 24/7 with pro-Russian propaganda that more people took the Russian position. Plus the so called referendum was obviously little more than a ploy by the Russian government to legitimize the takeover, as opposed to a real referendum where people had a chance to debate the issue. The only two questions on the ballot were whether Crimea should remain independent or become part of Russia; and farcically no mention of whether voters would like it to remain part of the country to which it is internationally recognized to belong.
With the plane attack most likely coming from the separatists, it could be the end for them. Russia will try to justify their support and deflect about the military support they provided the rebels, but any outside sympathy for the separatists will surely vanish.
Also, the story was front page news pretty much everywhere but Russia.
Also, the story was front page news pretty much everywhere but Russia.
The shoot down will just further expose the frenzy of delusional propaganda that comes out of Russian media.
Russia Today reporter quits over 'lies' on Ukraine
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-today-reporter-quits-over-lies-ukraine-170626565.html
Moscow (AFP) - A London-based reporter for Russia's state-owned English-language channel RT quit Friday in protest at its coverage of the Malaysia Airlines crash in Ukraine.
Sara Firth is the second person since March to publicly resign from RT, formerly known as Russia Today, over its coverage of the Ukraine crisis.
"I resigned from RT today. I have huge respect for many in the team, but I'm for the truth," Firth wrote on her Twitter account @Sara__Firth.
The Kremlin-funded channel, which provides a staunchly pro-Russia version of events, told AFP that Firth "has declared that she chooses the truth; apparently we have different definitions of truth".
"We believe that the truth is what our reporters see on the ground, with their own eyes, and not what's printed in the morning London newspapers, channel spokeswoman Anna Belkina said in an email.
She said RT was "not surprised" by Firth's decision to leave as she had spoken of plans to switch jobs.
A man reads a newspaper with the front page depicting the plane crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH …
Firth's resignation followed her outpour of other critical tweets denouncing the "lies" by RT, which had even led some of her followers to wonder whether her account had been hacked.
Firth made the comments after one blogger accused her RT colleague Polly Boiko of "taking money to spread (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's lies" about the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which went down in rebel-held eastern Ukraine with 298 people aboard on Thursday.
"What am I spreading?" Boiko shot back.
"Lies hun," Firth then stepped in. "We do work for Putin. We are asked on a daily basis if not to totally ignore then to obscure the truth."
"We're taking a paycheck and for that we have to always obey," she later added.
Firth also changed her Twitter handle from @SaraFirth_RT to disassociate her popular account from the channel.
Her last report out of London, according to the RT website, dates from Tuesday.
Washington has said it was a missile from a rebel-held area that likely shot down the MH17 flight with 298 people aboard. RT's coverage, however, has focussed on Russian claims that Ukraine had deployed surface-to-air missiles in the area, without mentioning reports that these systems were also controlled by the pro-Russian separatists.
RT has been accused of biased reporting, particularly since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis last year.
In March a US-based presenter with RT, Liz Wahl, announced during a live broadcast that she was quitting over the channel's "whitewashing" of Kremlin's actions on the Crimean peninsula.
At the time RT described Wahl's resignation as an act of self-promotion.
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-today-reporter-quits-over-lies-ukraine-170626565.html
Moscow (AFP) - A London-based reporter for Russia's state-owned English-language channel RT quit Friday in protest at its coverage of the Malaysia Airlines crash in Ukraine.
Sara Firth is the second person since March to publicly resign from RT, formerly known as Russia Today, over its coverage of the Ukraine crisis.
"I resigned from RT today. I have huge respect for many in the team, but I'm for the truth," Firth wrote on her Twitter account @Sara__Firth.
The Kremlin-funded channel, which provides a staunchly pro-Russia version of events, told AFP that Firth "has declared that she chooses the truth; apparently we have different definitions of truth".
"We believe that the truth is what our reporters see on the ground, with their own eyes, and not what's printed in the morning London newspapers, channel spokeswoman Anna Belkina said in an email.
She said RT was "not surprised" by Firth's decision to leave as she had spoken of plans to switch jobs.
A man reads a newspaper with the front page depicting the plane crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH …
Firth's resignation followed her outpour of other critical tweets denouncing the "lies" by RT, which had even led some of her followers to wonder whether her account had been hacked.
Firth made the comments after one blogger accused her RT colleague Polly Boiko of "taking money to spread (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's lies" about the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which went down in rebel-held eastern Ukraine with 298 people aboard on Thursday.
"What am I spreading?" Boiko shot back.
"Lies hun," Firth then stepped in. "We do work for Putin. We are asked on a daily basis if not to totally ignore then to obscure the truth."
"We're taking a paycheck and for that we have to always obey," she later added.
Firth also changed her Twitter handle from @SaraFirth_RT to disassociate her popular account from the channel.
Her last report out of London, according to the RT website, dates from Tuesday.
Washington has said it was a missile from a rebel-held area that likely shot down the MH17 flight with 298 people aboard. RT's coverage, however, has focussed on Russian claims that Ukraine had deployed surface-to-air missiles in the area, without mentioning reports that these systems were also controlled by the pro-Russian separatists.
RT has been accused of biased reporting, particularly since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis last year.
In March a US-based presenter with RT, Liz Wahl, announced during a live broadcast that she was quitting over the channel's "whitewashing" of Kremlin's actions on the Crimean peninsula.
At the time RT described Wahl's resignation as an act of self-promotion.
As if BBC and CNN are any better.
Infact they're better at propaganda.
Infact they're better at propaganda.
Russia Today is state owned Russian propaganda . It's basically a channel designed to deliberately brainwash people to agree with Putin's policies. The other two are some of the best news sources in the world.
I love what RT is doing. It is exposing the lies of the Western media, making them really uncomfortable, which is why they're resorting to these cheap tactics now.
Actually this story made me even respect RT more because they seem to hire their employers professionally.
By the way these tactics are well known in the middle East, when Saudi Arabia had a problem with Qatar, most of the Saudi people who were working with Al-Jazeera channel quit because "Al-Jazeera was spreading lies", as if they suddenly realized that after working for them for years.
Actually this story made me even respect RT more because they seem to hire their employers professionally.
By the way these tactics are well known in the middle East, when Saudi Arabia had a problem with Qatar, most of the Saudi people who were working with Al-Jazeera channel quit because "Al-Jazeera was spreading lies", as if they suddenly realized that after working for them for years.
I applaud the journalists for quitting rather than spreading lies on RT. At least they can move on instead of having to live with the guilt of having knowingly deceived their audience on behalf of a corrupt dictator.
The BBC and CNN are infinitely better than RT. Despite their own obvious bias, they're not literally a mouthpiece for a dictator.
The Western media does a better job of exposing the lies of western media than RT does.
Last edited:
Them quitting was not about "guilt". They have worked there for years, they didn't know what they're claiming now already? Or is it now because the US and the West are in a semi-direct conflict with Russia that they have suddenly found their "guilt"?
It's a blatant lie that not even most Americans believe, and I don't think even you deep down believe that.
Also, how come Snowden is a traitor and whoever this is is a hero?
At least Snowden wasn't giving just an "opinion" but evidences that show grave wrongdoings by the US government.Much of western media did hail him a hero. Your view of the west is as one-dimensional as fox news' view of foreign countries.Also, how come Snowden is a traitor and whoever this is is a hero?
All the mainstream media was clearly going in the direction of portraying him as a traitor, even though they had to retain some sort of respectability and credibility by giving space to the other opinion, however if Snowden was a Russian agent who exposed what we know now about the Russian government, I don't think there will be any "debate" about it, so you see the point.
I have watched RT many times, it's not nearly as bad as what the American media (or some Americans) are trying to portray it to be (for a reason). Of course it will be in line with the Russian interests, but for a neutral who wants the truth it's important imo to have RT beside CNN (which I think is a pretty decent channel but still has to stay in line with the US policies) and the rest of the Western media outlets.
The mere fact that some are spending so much time and effort to try and discredit RT is an indication that the channel is not really as terrible as they're trying to claim, otherwise, why pay that much attention to it? The reality is that it does expose many lies the Western media (and governments) spread, or at least keep them in check, which is why some are trying to discredit it and stifle it.
I don't think RT is the perfect media outlet, but it's existence is very important because it provides the balance we wouldn't have otherwise if we had only the Western media around.
You haven't seen all the mainstream media unless you have more time than exists. And it's clear you haven't seen them all given the constant generalizations and misinformation you use about them.
News outlets that are run by the Kremlin, or the North Korean government or any other dictatorial state aren't worth taking seriously because they're nothing but propaganda machines. Independent news outlets, while biased, are a significantly better source of news.
News outlets that are run by the Kremlin, or the North Korean government or any other dictatorial state aren't worth taking seriously because they're nothing but propaganda machines. Independent news outlets, while biased, are a significantly better source of news.
Last edited:
Them quitting was not about "guilt". They have worked there for years, they didn't know what they're claiming now already? Or is it now because the US and the West are in a semi-direct conflict with Russia that they have suddenly found their "guilt"?
It's a blatant lie that not even most Americans believe, and I don't think even you deep down believe that.
Also, how come Snowden is a traitor and whoever this is is a hero?
Some have worked there for years, but I suppose what was previously just "spin" has turned into proper lying since the Crimea invasion and they probably don't want to be accomplices to it any more.
You are not a neutral and it isn't important to you for the reasons you give. It is important because you can regurgitate its lies, it lets you spout your anti western bile and feel good. Anyone who says the BBC is just like RT sounds like those daft Americans talking about Fox verses mainstream media. You are making yourself into a joke on here, with this kind of nonsense.
So basically you like to believe lies, propaganda, and distortions so long as they align with your political views. Interesting.
Not a new revelation
Why are you so mad? If you think they're only "spreading lies" then don't watch them and keep watching what makes you feel comfortable (which naturally makes it the "best media outlet" in the world.. For you).
I didn't say I'm a neutral, I said it's important for a neutral (who really wants the truth) to be able to see both sides of the story, something you clearly don't want (for obvious reasons).
I can also tell you what you sound like, but I don't think we're going anywhere with this.
Newsflash, when you say all they report is "lies, propaganda, and distortions" that doesn't really make it a "fact". This is a pretty known strategy that is often used by the Western media (and all media to be fair) to distract the public from the unfavourable news, by attacking the source of the news. Like when they were reporting that "Snowden is a drop-out from school!" as if that's the real thing that needed to be discussed here.
Americans need to learn how to handle freedom of speech better imo. And by the way, I don't think you should have quoted me, because your reply had nothing to do with what I said.
You're ducking the central issue - Its Russian state funded propaganda. The other sources referenced CNN, BBC et al, aren't even in the same galaxy as RT. Fox may be, but RT is worse since it is specifically set up as a state propaganda tool. Also, its not a freedom of speech issue, its about a government using its own state funded media outlet to deliberately spread lies.
Every single news network is biased and has an agenda and will spread lies at the first chance they get. Stop the non-sense about free media that is "not funded by the government". The best way to have neutrality is to let everybody talk and then let the people decide who is lying and who is not. Saying that RT is always wrong and is always spreading lies is clearly untrue, and you do it deliberately to discredit the true things they report, which you don't like to be heard.
FoxNews is also a well known Republican channel (although sometimes they don't want to admit it) and they lie sometimes, but does that mean that they're always wrong, or always lying? No, sometimes they're right and they're reporting true things that happen to be in their favour.
Neutrality for the US media is to be "not a Republican nor a Democrat" (and they have hard times even doing that), but that's as far as they would go with their "neutrality". Would I expect the US media to be neutral in a conflict between the US and Russia? Honestly only an idiot would, which is why for a neutral it's always best to be able to listen to both sides of the story.
You guys are funny. Everyone is using anyone they can for their plans. If you think Putin is better than Obama or vice-versa, you're an idiot. We are all brainwashed, we have no idea whats going on, only what they serve us. I met couple of Americans from the time I was politically active (or something like that) and they still thought Yugoslavia exists. That was 4 or 5 years ago. You only know what you're told, nothing else. That's why history is such powerful weapon in process of making someone in brainless moron who's only purpose is to obey. Ask yourself, are you free? Are you not slaves of political ( and other) regimes?
America is significantly better than Russian. For all of Americas shortcomings, being a low to middle class American is much better than being a low to middle class Russian and that's entirely because their policies are better than the Russians (the upper classes are comfortable everywhere so I won't include them). And Obama being better than Putin is part of the reason why.
For all the cynicism you're displaying there, would you honestly not rather live under Obamas regime than Putins?
For all the cynicism you're displaying there, would you honestly not rather live under Obamas regime than Putins?
We don't even need to go into that discussion because that's not what we're discussing here. We're talking about the rest of the world. Both Obama and Putin give zero fecks about the rest of the world, so when it comes to foreign policies there is no way you can say that Obama (or any US president) is better than Putin.
Depends where in the world you are. The Kosovars for example see Tony Blair as a hero for saving them from Serbia, while the middle east sees him as a war criminal. Their foreign policies are undoubtedly selfish, but not everyone in the world sees all the superpowers as absolute evils.
That's a terrible example, they thought Yugoslavia existed because they're ignorant, not because the US told us that it still existed.
Did I say the US is an absolute evil? No I didn't. You're the one saying (or trying to say) that Russia (or Putin) is an absolute evil and anything that has anything to do with them is bad and "all lies". All I'm saying here is we need to listen to both when it comes to foreign affairs, because in that regard we can't say any of them is better than the other.
Putin is a pretty bad person though, I don't see how that can be argued against. He's corrupt and imprisons his political rivals. As far as listening to them goes, I just don't think the Kremlin is an equal news source to the likes of the BBC. If you disagree, so be it, but don't expect me to listen to their propaganda.
And I'm almost certain that your 'listening to all sides' is a load on nonsense. No one in the world has enough time on their hands to listen to all sides of foreign policy.
Last edited:
Ah, I asked them that, they said they were told. Not by the USA, but someone told them that. And someone told that guy as well, or he simple lied to them. Point was, informations are often molded as seen fit.
How can it be important for someone who wants the truth to listen to known lies from a news channel which is Putin's mouthpiece? People like you watch it to find out which anti western rubbish to spout. There is no validity to it, which is why its reporters quit so regularly. Any one, like you, who chooses to use it to justify their argument, diminishes themselves in the effort. I am not angry just not prepared to let such obviously knowable lies stand any weight in this argument. Are you still sure there are no Russian troops in Crimea and none at all in East Ukraine. That is the nonsense RT feeds you. There is an organisation called the flat earth society, does that mean there are two realistic sides to the world is round debate?
Just hints, mate. The Russian military vehicles with Russian military license plates, the soldiers with muscovite accents, etc are just hints. Even Putin's admission that he sent troops in were just hints that it could, maybe, possibly Russians. RT says differently though, so despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, there were no Russians in Crimea or the East of Ukraine.
It has nothing to do with shaping information. The vast majority of the world don't care about or know anything about things that are, largely, inconsequential to them. Unless the Americans were of Balkan descent or educated recently, they would be unlikely to know much about the break-up of Yugoslavia. Most Americans probably couldn't tell you the difference in the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. A large portion of Americans, along with everyone else in the world, are ignorant about many things, particularly those things that don't affect them. Hell, Congress' approval rating is the teens but you can bet each member of Congress' approval rating is 40+%. People are clueless.It has everything to do with it. If you don't know something, you'll easily believe someone who 'seems' to know more about 'that' than you. And people are using it every day. You, me, him, Obama, masons, illuminati, moon man, everybody. If you're not educated enough about something, you're easier to manipulate with.
This is not a debate. This is a war where both sides would lie at the first chance they get, and both have done numerous times in the past. Failing to recognize that makes you too biased to be able to add much to this discussion.
The reporters who quit hurt their own credibility more than RT's. Like I said, they have been working there for years, and the fact that they only quit when the Russia became in conflict with the US says it all really. For me Snowden quitting was far more meaningful and carried a lot more information with it than mere pointless propaganda.
"RT just gives another side of the story"
*reporters quit RT*
"We don't want to work for a proganda machine anymore"
"feck you, you're not credible anymore!"
Also, no one here is claiming that the US government is a beacon of truth.
*reporters quit RT*
"We don't want to work for a proganda machine anymore"
"feck you, you're not credible anymore!"
Also, no one here is claiming that the US government is a beacon of truth.
Last edited:
Are you being serious? Really? If someone thought Yugoslavia still existed,it is because they haven't been fully educated. Not because of American news.
Wow
You're missing the point. That was example how informations can be used to accomplish your agenda. Nothing else.