Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Deleted]

claiming such a thing is pretty ironic

and yet true

[MerinPally]

claiming such a thing is pretty ironic

Do not confuse unbelievable stupidity with purposeful deceit. Fox news is ridiculously dumb, Russia Today purposely leaves bits out and twists stories to benefit themselves. However, everyone but the lowest common denominator in the west ignores Fox but that doesn't appear to be the case in Russia with RT. People listen to Fox news and realise it's near enough parody, they don't do that with RT.

[Kasierith]

No, it really isn't. Especially with people linking Russia Today and other state run media.

At the end of the day, I'll take something run by the state and know that anything involving the Russian government itself should be taken with a huge grain of salt, than a news media driven completely by boosting sales with being a distributor of information being a secondary objective.

[Shalcker]

Why do you think Russia has monopoly on imperialistic thinking? Why couldn't China have those feelings also?

Because it's easier to expand your empire by projecting influence on weaker states as US is doing now then to butt heads with another empire.

And with Chinese being sane and taking long view, they'll not get around to taking Siberia for about 30-50 years... and by that time lots of things can change.

[Crispin]

At the end of the day, I'll take something run by the state and know that anything involving the Russian government itself should be taken with a huge grain of salt, than a news media driven completely by boosting sales with being a distributor of information being a secondary objective.

It really depends on the media in question, state owned media definately needs to keep their owners pleased, private media does not have this issue, obviously private media throws out some crazy shit, especially fox news, but they dont have to support a goverments 'maybe' hidden agenda and delude an entire country into beliving the world is what their govt wants it to be.


You wont see a state owned media station write negative stories about their owners, not even Berlusconis medias did, and if anything we need the media to keep the ones in power in check, it is after all our country they're trying to run.

[Shalcker]

Hold on, so Russian propaganda said stuff like, "in the west you decide who leads the country, there are no Gulags for people who have another opinion, their prosperous life gives room for the individual" and so on and so forth?

Are you trying to build strawman about propaganda you haven't heard and "dreams of people about West" you know nothing about?

That requires a lot more knowledge then you seem to possess about USSR.

What real alliance? noone in the west consider Russia and China allied, neither do China.

See, that's what i call "too scared to imagine it".

We even did joint Russia-China military drills, done in Russian language... does US do that?

[Crispin]

Because it's easier to expand your empire by projecting influence on weaker states as US is doing now then to butt heads with another empire.

And with Chinese being sane and taking long view, they'll not get around to taking Siberia for about 30-50 years... and by that time lots of things can change.

Let's not forget that USA is telling China to chill the eff out.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you trying to build strawman about propaganda you haven't heard and "dreams of people about West" you know nothing about?

That requires a lot more knowledge then you seem to possess about USSR.

See, that's what i call "too scared to imagine it".

We even did joint Russia-China military drills, done in Russian language... does US do that?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/ameri...01-usa_nato-0/

I'm not sure why you think the west is "scared" of a Russia - China alliance, which wont happen anyway, it seems to be somewhat dodged in Russia, but the US is in a league completely by itself when it comes to military power, and it's not like they arent in combat like all the time.

Anyhow it's a deadend for the debate, since it turns into a "my dad can beat your dad", MAD prevents a war.

[Kasierith]

It really depends on the media in question, state owned media definately needs to keep their owners pleased, private media does not have this issue, obviously private media throws out some crazy shit, especially fox news, but they dont have to support a goverments 'maybe' hidden agenda and delude an entire country into beliving the world is what their govt wants it to be.

You wont see a state owned media station write negative stories about their owners, not even Berlusconis medias did, and if anything we need the media to keep the ones in power in check, it is after all our country they're trying to run.

Which comes down to using news sources in an intelligent manner. The bias of Russia Today has literally nothing to do with, say, reporting events in the medical community, in technology, on national news, economics, or other such things that don't have to do directly with the government. And the statement that they never criticize the government is also false; they do, they just have to keep it controlled and oriented towards things that don't directly attack the Kremlin. What all of this means is that I know where the bias is, and it's largely contained to an identifiable area. "Anything that makes profit" is a lot more ambiguous and hard to touch on where the bias is and how to avoid it.

[Shalcker]

Not you, Shalcker. The argument used is one by the old soviets, things were better back then (for them) and it was only once the west got involved that things went tits up, and that all the positive stuff about the west was a lie.

That's not what i said.

People had their image of West they adored, so they dismantled USSR (on their own! not by western meddling) to get closer to that image. Then they found out about reality that was a lot closer to old propaganda then to their dreams about West, and became resentful. Resentful enough to elect Communist as president in 1996... but then West supported forgery of those results to keep Yeltsin too.

But the positive stuff about the west was not a lie, it was true, it was just prevented from being a shared truth in Russia due to the acts of the Russians. They fucked up their own system and then concluded that the rosy image of the west was a lie, when it was not.

Now, that is just your rosy image of West that has no basis in reality.

Many good things about West became eroded after their "win" in Cold War as Western elites got a bit too complacent when their major opponent disappeared and so decided they could scale back on individual rights, democracy, and general well-being of society.

[Crispin]

You know, as a inhabitant of 'the west', the dismantling of the berlin wall and the USSR does stand out alot, and if anything i think it's a shame that Russians were quick to take advantage of the situation and leave the rest in poverty, there is no doubt that the transition was a complete mess, but blaming the west is way off, I'd also love to see your proff of thoose forgeries in 96'.

Anyhow, the issue is that the image you portray of the west, does not corrospond to the reality we see whatsoever, if anything we should know.

[Marcellus1986]

At the end of the day, I'll take something run by the state and know that anything involving the Russian government itself should be taken with a huge grain of salt, than a news media driven completely by boosting sales with being a distributor of information being a secondary objective.

You'll take Russia Today over BBC, Al-Jazeera or Reuters?

Wow.

This was the exact issue we ran into in the plane crash thread.. People claiming RT was unbiased, and BBC etc. was western propaganda.

[Crispin]

Which comes down to using news sources in an intelligent manner. The bias of Russia Today has literally nothing to do with, say, reporting events in the medical community, in technology, on national news, economics, or other such things that don't have to do directly with the government. And the statement that they never criticize the government is also false; they do, they just have to keep it controlled and oriented towards things that don't directly attack the Kremlin. What all of this means is that I know where the bias is, and it's largely contained to an identifiable area. "Anything that makes profit" is a lot more ambiguous and hard to touch on where the bias is and how to avoid it.

Well in some ways it does, if the reporting of "daily life" in a country is positive, it does not give people any reason for unrest, not a concern of the private media.

Also private media needs to be trustworthy if they want to be taken serious, the only utter bs media that is still running is Fox, which honestly is viewed more as entertainment than actual fact, if people want to read science fiction they'll buy a book.

[Shalcker]

This was the exact issue we ran into in the plane crash thread.. People claiming RT was unbiased, and BBC etc. was western propaganda.

Noone says that RT is not biased. But their bias is well-known and can be accounted for.

It's the West media that is claimed to be completely unbiased and therefore anything said there taken as gospel, which is simply not true.

[Kasierith]

You'll take Russia Today over BBC, Al-Jazeera or Reuters?

Wow.

This was the exact issue we ran into in the plane crash thread.. People claiming RT was unbiased, and BBC etc. was western propaganda.

BBC is my primary source of information, actually. Followed by the New York Times. Sooooo... ya.

[Marcellus1986]

Noone says that RT is not biased. But their bias is well-known and so can be accounted for.

It's the West media that is claimed to be completely unbiased and therefore anything said there taken as gospel, which is simply not true.

Except that the Western media from the beginning as well as al-Jazeera were infinitely more reliable than anything coming out of state run media in Russia.

Many of the posters in that thread kept linking either a)state run Russian media, or b)conspiracy websites. I believe several people over the course of 200+ pages, tried to explain to many posters, including you, why you couldn't link Russian media.

- - - Updated - - -

BBC is my primary source of information, actually. Followed by the New York Times. Sooooo... ya.

BBC and NY Times are not state run media.

[Kasierith]

Except that the Western media from the beginning as well as al-Jazeera were infinitely more reliable than anything coming out of state run media in Russia.

Many of the posters in that thread kept linking either a)state run Russian media, or b)conspiracy websites. I believe several people over the course of 200+ pages, tried to explain to many posters, including you, why you couldn't link Russian media.

Trying to assert your argument by saying "anything coming out of Russia is biased!" doesn't follow at all. All it means is you're intentionally ignoring any opposing viewpoints, and it's an overall immature perspective to hold.

- - - Updated - - -

BBC and NY Times are not state run media.

When did I say they were, exactly?

[Shalcker]

Are you implying that Russia is an empire? Lmaooooo...

Well, you implied China are, so why not? Are you laughing at your own idea?

We do have history of being Empire.

[Marcellus1986]

Trying to assert your argument by saying "anything coming out of Russia is biased!" doesn't follow at all. All it means is you're intentionally ignoring any opposing viewpoints, and it's an overall immature perspective to hold.

- - - Updated - - -



When did I say they were, exactly?

I didn't ignore their viewpoints on things. In fact, I read the articles from RT and several other state sources. The majority of it however didn't appeal to me. Many of the articles (almost all of them actually) tried to paint the Ukrainians in a negative light and/or whitewash russian involvement (however involved Russia may be with the separatists).

As per your second quote I took your statement about bbc and the ny times to mean that you trusted RT more, which is great if it's domestic news.

[Tierbook]

Acting in an imperialistic manner =/= being an empire.

No matter how hard you wished Russia was one.

Oh let him call Russia an Empire it's not like it changes anything.

[Shalcker]

Acting in an imperialistic manner =/= being an empire.

It's easier to pick on weaker neighbours then on strong neighbours for anyone, empire or not, so assuming that China will attack Russia before it goes for some South-East Asian countries is silly.

No matter how hard you wished Russia was one.

Well, give your definition of Empire and we'll see if it fits or not. Those things tend to be highly personal.