Russia's at it again

'Morrissey from the UK'.
 
I meant the broken BBC sign and the Saville shot.

To be fair though, when they ran the Do the Conservatives have a right wing problem segment nobody complained about the images at all:

a6kmZQT.jpg
 
I meant the broken BBC sign and the Saville shot.

To be fair though, when they ran the Do the Conservatives have a right wing problem segment nobody complained about the images at all:

a6kmZQT.jpg

Definitely bias, they haven't even got in a Tory apologist on the panel!

The Jimmy Savile one represented the story accurately in that the scandal had left the BBC's reputation broken, just like the Corbyn image represented the story.

If the BBC are ordering their staff to create coded images to discredit Corbyn in an ongoing propaganda campaign against him, I wouldn't worry, something like that won't stay secret for long. I mean with a better level of evidence than tweet quoting an anonymous source claiming it was a coded message of course.
 
Definitely bias, they haven't even got in a Tory apologist on the panel!

The Jimmy Savile one represented the story accurately in that the scandal had left the BBC's reputation broken, just like the Corbyn image represented the story.

If the BBC are ordering their staff to create coded images to discredit Corbyn in an ongoing propaganda campaign against him, I wouldn't worry, something like that won't stay secret for long. I mean with a better level of evidence than tweet quoting an anonymous source claiming it was a coded message of course.

My point is slightly more prosaic than believing a wide ranging conspiracy exists - just that at least in this instance they were less than impartial - probably because they are wont to dramatise for the sake of presentation. Just as how the Saville picture next to the broken BBC logo tells a narrative so does the picture of a plausibly commie hatted Corbyn, bathed in red, sitting between the Kremlin and St Basils. If the question is "Do Labour have a Russia problem?" then the picture is obviously begging the question. It's editorialising via image.
 
My point is slightly more prosaic than believing a wide ranging conspiracy exists - just that at least in this instance they were less than impartial - probably because they are wont to dramatise for the sake of presentation. Just as how the Saville picture next to the broken BBC logo tells a narrative so does the picture of a plausibly commie hatted Corbyn, bathed in red, sitting between the Kremlin and St Basils. If the question is "Do Labour have a Russia problem?" then the picture is obviously begging the question. It's editorialising via image.

Have you even watched the piece? The image, ironically, has only taken significance as a tone setter because a faction of the left are propagating it around social media as proof of a conspiracy. The actual piece, in full context, is quite kind to Corbyn on the matter I thought. It doesn't leave you with the idea that Corbyn is a fully paid up member of the Putin fan club.

Out of interest, in seriousness, if the Tories were accused of having a far right problem, what kind of backdrop would you expect?
 
I watched a piece of the piece, but only absent mindedly - I think I was having a half arsed chat at the same time. The content of the interview seemed alright, the content of the background notsomuch. Like I said I don't think it was necessarily intentional, merely that even if unintentional it overstepped a boundary by begging the question.

One of the arguments Newsnight used in its defence was that the backdrop was simply a rehash of one it used in a story about Gavin Williamson:

DYgJFOdXUAEHacK.jpg

The reason I have less problem with the above image is that Williamson is not blended into the scene - he stands apart from the background. It's a crap photo, but only that. Any random, undoctored photo of Corbyn striking a similar pose would have been ok. Instead they found a recent commie looking one, painted him red and blended him into Red Square. This was part of a visual narrative Newsnight had been using from the outset:

DYW2mqzW4AEQJoI.jpg

For the hypothetical right-wing segment I'd maintain that whatever else it does the image needs remain equivocal in order to preserve the impartiality of the question. I suppose at a push something similar to the Williamson one would have done - a depiction of the perceived problem (a large right wing protest or whatever) and then if we have to make it personal a picture of May standing somewhat apart from it and not standing at the head of the rally.

My personal preference would be for sod all graphics and a picture of the London skyline or whatever. The graphics lend drama, but I'm not sure they're essential.
 
In terms of graphic design the Williamson one is a poor effort. The Corbyn one was actually quite nicely done I thought.

In a piece questioning if Corbyn was Russia'd up i.e. if there is still a fetishisation in Corbyn's faction of the Labour party with Russia and sympathy to some of their positions in geopolitics, then Corbyn wearing his Lenin hat is the perfect image.

In the hypothetical image, if a Tory politician had a fondness for wearing garb associated with the far right then you would expect it to make the image.

I agree with your final point. Lose the graphics and as a result, these mini controversies.
 
Last edited:
SKY News:

Russia's response designed so nobody could see it as guilty

Kommersant, Russia's leading daily business newspaper, has said that the denials from various Russian politicians over involvement in the Skripals' poisoning, was calibrated to ensure nobody could interpret Russia's reaction as an indirect admission of guilt.
Well that didn’t work did it.
 
Its not just US production - many countries are now discovering that they have shale deposits and with the extraction and transport technology improving, they will start to create their own oil and even ship it to other countries. That will keep the price of oil down for the foreseeable future.
What countries are those exactly? In most countries where it could make an ounce of difference this technology is actually banned. It seems to me, that you have very little idea about oil market. China has very expensive shale oil it simply won't produce it. It's economically viable at oil price more than 200$, so that's off the table. So just you know China's oil production is actually falling, they lost around 0.5m bpd in the last couple of years. There is also Canada, but they are very oil-sand dependent, their shale oil won't be on the market in the next 5 years. So Canada's shale might add around 100,000 bpd if that. That's nothing in today's market. All in all their production is at the near maximum capacity and still way short of 5m bpd. So for the foreseeable future oil is simply not going to go over 50-55 threshold which is a comfortable rate for Russia. Because of the shale it won't go above 75-80 either. So as i was saying from the very start, shale oil is only a factor in terms of maintaining oil prices as they are in a 60-70 bracket. But that's not a factor that can allow oil price to fall beyond 55$. Simply because at those price shale companies will cease production if anything.

So all in all we have a simple situation, apart from pure fiction scenarios there is no credible way an oil price can come down to 40 and below mark hurting Russia's economy.
 
What’s the significance of the “just 7km from Salisbury?”

They're implying that because it's just 'up the road' from Salisbury it would be easy for us to have carried out some kind of false flag operation. Using the distance between Porton Down and Salisbury is a tenuous association at best.
 
They're implying that because it's just 'up the road' from Salisbury it would be easy for us to have carried out some kind of false flag operation. Using the distance between Porton Down and Salisbury is a tenuous association at best.

The current British government is exactly the type of focused, disciplined unit that could successfully organize and implement a sophisticated false flag operation.
 
They are a false flag operation.
 
“Exactly the type of focussed, disciplined unit”........sounds just like the FSB.

The FSB has nothing on the likes of David Davis and his relentless attention to detail. Or the former GP who is a leading expert on international trade deals. Or Boris with his incredible double bluff of being an idiot impersonating a smart guy who is pretending to be an idiot.
 
The FSB has nothing on the likes of David Davis and his relentless attention to detail. Or the former GP who is a leading expert on international trade deals. Or Boris with his incredible double bluff of being an idiot impersonating a smart guy who is pretending to be an idiot.
Aye, it’s Russia for sure, getting rid of a traitor and getting the focus taken off Syria. One job, 2 hits.
 
Load of coordinated expulsions of Russian diplomats from US, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain.
 
USA - 60 + Closure Russian consulate in Seattle.

Europe - 39 (Germany, Poland, France, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Denmark, Czech, Italy, Ukraine)

Lithuania also banned 44 from entering the country.

Of the 60, most I would imagine, are intelligence operatives masquerading as diplomats who the US have been tracking for some time.