Russia to ban Simpsons and South Park [Archive]

TheStorm

09-25-2008, 11:56 PM

Russia to ban Simpsons and South Park

The Kremlin was accused of a return to Soviet-style indoctrination after Russia moved to ban American cartoons like The Simpsons and replace them with programmes teaching children to be patriotic.

By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
Last Updated: 6:55AM BST 25 Sep 2008
Russia to ban Simpsons and South Park
One episode of South Park has been accused of promoting religious hatred Photo: TELEVISION STILLS

The move came as Russia's broadcast watchdog began hearings on whether or not to revoke the license of a cartoon network as punishment for transmitting episodes of South Park, The Simpsons and Family Guy.

The American cartoons, all of which have adult themes, have been fallen foul of recently tightened extremism laws that critics say have been used to muzzle opponents of the Kremlin.

The State Duma, Russia's parliament, said that the frequency given to the 2x2 cartoon channel would instead be given to new government network that "reflects the state position in the area of youth policy".

In place of foreign cartoons, Russia's children would instead watch programmes teaching them patriotism, respect for family values and the importance of sport, the Duma's youth committee said.

The move comes as MPs are also considering the compulsory introduction of patriotism classes in all Russian schools. Under one proposal lessons in Russian literature could be scaled back to find room on the curriculum.

The proposal to create a new state channel, criticised in some quarters as an attempt to seize lucrative frequency rights from a private broadcaster, was likened by some activists to Soviet era moralizing that fettered the minds of the young.

"The wish to create a youth patriotic channel is one of many attempts by the authorities at indoctrinating and brainwashing the young," said Lev Ponomarev, a veteran human rights activist and member of Garry Kasparov's outlawed opposition party.

"The authorities are accelerating their own death by all this."

The Kremlin has also come under criticism for creating nationalist youth movements like Nashi, whose members have sworn allegiance to Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, and have been used to disrupt opposition protests.

The anticipated closure of 2x2, which will learn its fate within days, has also raised questions over the manner in which Russia's authorities are interpreting legislation ostensibly introduced to fight xenophobia.

The channel is facing a criminal investigation for broadcasting an episode of South Park that allegedly promoted religious hatred.

The episode, titled "Mr Hankey's Christmas Classics" featured a taking faeces that emerges from a lavatory every Christmas Eve to give presents to children whose diet is suitably fibre-rich. Mr Hankey led a variety show of Christmas songs whose lyrics had been twisted to include profanities and digs at organised religion.

Prosecutors also alleged, without elaborating, that The Simpsons and Family Guy violate the rights of children.

Implementation of the extremism law has courted controversy on several occasions in the past year. In August, a blogger who criticized the FSB, the intelligence agency that replaced the KGB, was charged with extremism.

An online newspaper was closed in April after an anonymous reader posted a comment at the bottom of a story calling for violence against government officials.

Others have faced investigation simply for criticising Mr Putin, among them Andrei Piontkovsky, a prominent political analyst, and a group of mothers whose children were killed during the Beslan school siege of 2004.

The late British historian High Trevor-Roper also fell foul of the law after one of his books was banned for carrying quotes from Hitler that disparaged Jews and Russians. A hobbyist who built replica Second World War tanks was also investigated earlier this year.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3074454/Russia-to-ban-Simpsons-and-South-Park.html).

..."reflects the state position in the area of youth policy"? "ostensibly introduced to fight xenophobia."?

Jeez, even I never thought it would get this bad. Are there not some Russians out there who are slightly disturbed by this? Seeing some familiar themes?

Sign #52 of a banana republic: banning American shows for "KORRUPTING R CHILDREN1!!11!"

Parx400

09-26-2008, 12:25 AM

My god. The Russians are going to become about as rational as the Arabs. Well done.

Kilgor

09-26-2008, 12:31 AM

Southpark , I could understand that.

But the Simpsons ? This is just soviet era xenophobia

Fiber

09-26-2008, 12:40 AM

My source in the Kremlin said they are going to fill Simpsons timeslot with Assud the rabbit.

BloodyTalon

09-26-2008, 12:44 AM

This clip is so ironic and relevant now its not even funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxD4xcELlGw&feature=related

Fiber

09-26-2008, 01:02 AM

No wonder they are taking it off the air. The dubbing is horrible!

Kilgor

09-26-2008, 01:08 AM

This clip is so ironic and relevant now its not even funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxD4xcELlGw&feature=related

To be replaced with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nviaWnxwo&feature=related

Sloppy Joe2

09-26-2008, 01:11 AM

is this reason enough to go to war? if i was in Congress i would say yes, yes it is.

PeterRJG

09-26-2008, 01:59 AM

Good for Russia - both cartoons are equally retarded! :D

Phaelen

09-26-2008, 02:01 AM

But will they be brave enough to ban "Drawn Together" .....

loganinkosovo

09-26-2008, 02:18 AM

Southpark , I could understand that.

But the Simpsons ? This is just soviet era xenophobia

Promotes questioning authority and disrespecting authority.....

Can't have that in the new Soviet Socialist Republic of Putinistan

CCCPeePee Forever!!!!!

GazB

09-26-2008, 02:27 AM

Kilgor

09-26-2008, 02:30 AM

Snoshi

09-26-2008, 02:31 AM

Andarius-Militarius

09-26-2008, 02:42 AM

The Simpsons mock Russian culture in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHBlgu8YFTg

AlexMartin2

09-26-2008, 02:42 AM

Good for Russia - both cartoons are equally retarded! :D

Unfortunately regulators seems to allow 2x2 TV channel to show it.

Lokos

09-26-2008, 02:44 AM

It's nice that hearings are now taken as fait accompli positive decisions here.

L.

Kilgor

09-26-2008, 02:57 AM

The Simpsons mock Russian culture in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHBlgu8YFTg

Thats nothing compared to the Australian episode.

loganinkosovo

09-26-2008, 04:35 AM

loganinkosovo

09-26-2008, 04:44 AM

The Simpsons mock Russian culture in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHBlgu8YFTg

Obviously not authentic! Not enough garbage on the streets........

:)

loganinkosovo

09-26-2008, 04:49 AM

Time for the International Friendship Song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI3tGgD4nMk

We mess with everyone equally!

:)

Elemental666

09-26-2008, 04:53 AM

Satire is often strictly defined as a literary genre or form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_genre); although, in practice, it is also found in the graphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_arts) and performing arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_art). In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlesque), irony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony), or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#cite_note-0) Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wit).

A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of irony or sarcasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm), but parody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody), burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre) are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. The essential point, however, is that "in satire, irony is militant".[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#cite_note-1) This "militant irony" (or sarcasm) often professes to approve the very things the satirist actually wishes to attack.
Source: Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire).

You're welcome.

jaybe

09-26-2008, 05:52 AM

Bs 123456789

Neoboy

09-26-2008, 06:23 AM

I always find it funny how everytime there's an episode in Simpsons about a certain country there's an outcry to say that it's a racist show that mocks all the countries of the world.

So basically a show set in US with a useless and underfunded education system, laughable police service, corrupt and cheating mayor, lazy and unproductive (with dash of alcoholism) father, with a talented daughter who is held back because the family can't afford a better school, hooligan son and housewife who's not appreciated is pro US and mocks other countries?

BugHunt

09-26-2008, 06:40 AM

Always find countries that cant larf at themselves to be most backwards in outlook and culture....

The americans are the exception that makes the rule - they larf at themselves but yet are backwards and retarded ;)

Fiber

09-26-2008, 06:41 AM

Vympel

09-26-2008, 06:43 AM

All russia? Or just some old farts wrote pettiotion and asked to cancel simpsons and south park shows?

Vympel

09-26-2008, 06:49 AM

Instead of simpsons i would like to see this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cvZD2WBcco
pshyyyychooo

Alexandr

09-26-2008, 07:18 AM

Simpsons are not banned.South Park has been recomended to change show time to late evening instead of afternoon on cartoon channel "2x2"
article is histerical BS

Kitsune

09-26-2008, 07:23 AM

The extremely negative depiction of Russians in every American movie or TV program that even mentions Russians would be enough reason to ban it all in my opinion. When was the last time a Russian was depicted as being a good and normal person in anything on US TV?
Extremely negative depiction? Please. While Russians are sometimes depicted negatively in the American media, there are also lots of cases where the opposite is the case. Various American series even feature Russian sidekicks and some even have main characters with ties to Russia (numerous examples for this, from beginning with good Ol'Chekov...the female super agent in "Alias" has a Russian mother, the super lawyer of "JAG" has a Russian halfbrother, heck, there is even a whole comic series with a heroine that is a former Soviet superspy).

Compared to this, Germans, should they appear in American movies, series or novels, are virtually always depicted in a negative fashion, often even as straightforward enemies (wether Nazi era, before or after does not matter), and never as sidekicks, let alone partners or friends. (Anyone having even one single counterexample to this, hmmm?) And this did by no means start with the German refusal to partake in OIF but was so long before.

If one now keeps in mind that Germany is an ally of the US (or so they say), while Russia is not in the least, there is really no reason to complain for Russians about how they are shown by the US media. If there should be a Anti-Russian conspiracy at work, it's not doing its job very well. Besides, I bet that in Russian movies Americans are not quite always the heroes, either.

redfox0035

09-26-2008, 08:04 AM

Are there not some Russians out there who are slightly disturbed by this?

Why should we be slightly disturbed by idiotic articles?

The South Park cartoon was aired TWICE before — by RenTV channel and by Russian MTV. The Simpsons were on RenTV for years.

The problem with "2x2" is pure business: one financial-industrial group needs this channel using all this "moral buff" as deceptive measures.

AlexMartin2

09-26-2008, 09:33 AM

Simpsons are not banned.South Park has been recomended to change show time to late evening instead of afternoon on cartoon channel "2x2"
article is histerical BS

It seems that level of discussion of political topics dramatically dropped here last month.
I dont know, is there any point to participate in such threads anymore? :( Probably not...

TheStorm

09-26-2008, 09:56 AM

The South Park cartoon was aired TWICE before — by RenTV channel and by Russian MTV. The Simpsons were on RenTV for years.

That's nice but irrelevant. The past =/= the present. What does it have to do with the Russian government considering a ban in the present?

It's nice that hearings are now taken as fait accompli positive decisions here.

L.

The State Duma, Russia's parliament, said that the frequency given to the 2x2 cartoon channel would instead be given to new government network that "reflects the state position in the area of youth policy".

If the Duma says this is what's going to happen, why should it be doubted? Especially since it is so heavily controlled by a single party. (Edit: see my following post.)

It seems that level of discussion of political topics dramatically dropped here last month.
I dont know, is there any point to participate in such threads anymore? :( Probably not...

I'll tell you the answer: no, there is no point in participating in this thread. Because given the fact you came into this thread and had a whine, it's safe to say you won't be missed.

redfox0035

09-26-2008, 10:17 AM

What does it have to do with the Russian government considering a ban in the present?

Nothing. As well as the whole article's "political tone": the problem with "2x2" was pure business, all this "moral buff" & govermental pressure were used as deceptive measures.

The Russian federal broadcasting commission recommended Wednesday extending the license of the 2x2 TV channel, which shows cartoons aimed at a young adult audience and is facing charges of promoting extremism.

"It was a unanimous decision to recommend extending the license," said Mikhail Seslavinsky, the head of the Federal Agency for Print and Mass Media.

TheStorm

09-26-2008, 10:27 AM

Nothing. As well as the whole article's "political tone": the problem with "2x2" was pure business, all this "moral buff" & govermental pressure were used as deceptive measures.

The Russian federal broadcasting commission recommended Wednesday extending the license of the 2x2 TV channel, which shows cartoons aimed at a young adult audience and is facing charges of promoting extremism.

"It was a unanimous decision to recommend extending the license," said Mikhail Seslavinsky, the head of the Federal Agency for Print and Mass Media.

Well, that's good news. Clearly, the Russian government takes some extreme measures to put the heat on its opponents.

NicNZ

09-26-2008, 04:34 PM

Thats nothing compared to the Australian episode.
I always found that to be a pretty fair representation of Australia :)

Ulytau

09-26-2008, 04:39 PM

Especially about South Park i can say internet&download rules rofl woot

Snoshi

09-26-2008, 04:40 PM

I always found that to be a pretty fair representation of Australia :)

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/thumb/9/9c/Bartandboot.jpg/250px-Bartandboot.jpg

Breakfast in Vegas

09-26-2008, 04:41 PM

Extremely negative depiction? Please. While Russians are sometimes depicted negatively in the American media, there are also lots of cases where the opposite is the case. Various American series even feature Russian sidekicks and some even have main characters with ties to Russia (numerous examples for this, from beginning with good Ol'Chekov...the female super agent in "Alias" has a Russian mother, the super lawyer of "JAG" has a Russian halfbrother, heck, there is even a whole comic series with a heroine that is a former Soviet superspy).

Compared to this, Germans, should they appear in American movies, series or novels, are virtually always depicted in a negative fashion, often even as straightforward enemies (wether Nazi era, before or after does not matter), and never as sidekicks, let alone partners or friends. (Anyone having even one single counterexample to this, hmmm?) And this did by no means start with the German refusal to partake in OIF but was so long before.

If one now keeps in mind that Germany is an ally of the US (or so they say), while Russia is not in the least, there is really no reason to complain for Russians about how they are shown by the US media. If there should be a Anti-Russian conspiracy at work, it's not doing its job very well. Besides, I bet that in Russian movies Americans are not quite always the heroes, either.And how positively are Americans portrayed in American movies?

Cops always corrupt, military always either bungling or plotting and politicians corruptable and self-serving.

Only one of three is correct.

People need to lighten up.

PVJ

09-26-2008, 04:44 PM

But will they be brave enough to ban "Drawn Together" .....

Im surprised that show hasn't been banned in North America yet, it crosses so many lines, nothing is sacred on that show.

Kilgor

09-26-2008, 05:18 PM

I always found that to be a pretty fair representation of Australia :)

despite some innacurates it is a very funny eppisode :)

BAF

09-26-2008, 05:25 PM

the 3 best cartoons ever and they are going to ban them, i feel sad for the russian teenagers, but hey they can always download them from the internet. or are they going to ban certain site's to?

jaybe

09-26-2008, 05:28 PM

the 3 best cartoons ever and they are going to ban them, i feel sad for the russian teenagers, but hey they can always download them from the internet. or are they going to ban certain site's to?

I really doubt what here in Russia are teenagers who like these cartoons and don't have them on their computers or dvd

rusak

09-27-2008, 02:47 AM

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3074454/Russia-to-ban-Simpsons-and-South-Park.html).

..."reflects the state position in the area of youth policy"? "ostensibly introduced to fight xenophobia."?

Jeez, even I never thought it would get this bad. Are there not some Russians out there who are slightly disturbed by this? Seeing some familiar themes?

Sign #52 of a banana republic: banning American shows for "KORRUPTING R CHILDREN1!!11!"

This article is a good example of anti-Russian propaganda in the Western media. It contains a bunch of deliberate distortions and outright lies. And it works quite well, as we can see from the comments in this thread. People just believe the sh!t without question, and of course without any deeper critical investigation. And what do they need to investigate anything for anyway? After all, they know that they live in a Western democracy, so how could their good democratic Western media possibly be deceiving them? It's out of the question, they wouldn't even consider it. "Those savages... they want to ban the Simpsons!"

Russia to ban Simpsons and South Park

The Kremlin was accused of a return to Soviet-style indoctrination after Russia moved to ban American cartoons like The Simpsons and replace them with programmes teaching children to be patriotic.Bullsh!t starting from the headline. No serious observers in Russia have connected "the Kremlin" to this thing with this cartoon channel. The thing began earlier this year after a Protestant group complained about the content on the channel. Since then an investigation has begun. Also, the channel's license to broadcast in Moscow and St. Petersburg comes up for renewal in October. This business is seen as an attempt to take over the channel's broadcast frequency or something else, but not anything to do with the Kremlin.

The American cartoons, all of which have adult themes, have been fallen foul of recently tightened extremism laws that critics say have been used to muzzle opponents of the Kremlin.Like who? What opponents? Bullshaaaaat.

Another thing here, folks... This term "the Kremlin"... You see in the Western media terms like "pro-Kremlin" and "anti-Kremlin" and "opponents of the Kremlin". If you don't understand why this is fundamentally wrong, I'll explain it to you. "The Kremlin" is to Russia as "Washington" or "the White House" is to the United States, even deeper than that. How often do you hear about "pro/anti-White House" or "anti-Washington" Americans in the Western media? Practically never. But it's "pro-Kremlin" this, "anti-Kremlin" that. See, this is a "subtle" example of brainwashing (mindf*cking) in the Western media. With these terms "pro-Kremlin"/"anti-Kremlin" they are actually questioning the legitimacy of the Russian state/statehood itself - that is what "the Kremlin" symbolizes to Russians, nothing less.

The State Duma, Russia's parliament, said that the frequency given to the 2x2 cartoon channel would instead be given to new government network that "reflects the state position in the area of youth policy".Blatant lie. The State Duma did not say that. A particular deputy of the Duma stated that a new patriotic youth channel could claim the frequency of the cartoon channel if their license is not extended, but that they would be going ahead with this youth policy stuff regardless of what happens with the cartoon channel. Moreover, Russia has a constitution. It is not for the Duma to decide what to do with a private television channel. That would be for the government agencies and courts. The idea behind the BS here: present an image of a barbaric state with a barbaric order.

"The wish to create a youth patriotic channel is one of many attempts by the authorities at indoctrinating and brainwashing the young," said Lev Ponomarev, a veteran human rights activist and member of Garry Kasparov's outlawed opposition party.Blatant lie. Kasparov's opposition party is not outlawed.

As for "indoctrinating and brainwashing the young" - indoctrinating into what exactly? Hmm... look at the next sentence.

The Kremlin has also come under criticism for creating nationalist youth movements like Nashi, whose members have sworn allegiance to Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, and have been used to disrupt opposition protests.Deliberate distortion. This is meant to conjure up images of the Hitler Youth and storm troopers, you see. But Nashi is not that kind of nationalism. In Nazi Germany there was ethnic nationalism, racism, in addition to "love of country". Nashi is basically just "love of country" stuff and a lot of foolishness. There is no comparison with the Nazis. Making these allusions though, the author is also in effect comparing the intentions of Putin to those of Hitler.It's idiotic and ridiculous.

Lokos

09-27-2008, 03:06 AM

If the Duma says this is what's going to happen, why should it be doubted?

The Duma stated what would happen if such a decision were made. Which is why we're talking of hearings and not decisions.

L.

TheStorm

09-27-2008, 02:22 PM

This article is a good example of anti-Russian propaganda in the Western media. It contains a bunch of deliberate distortions and outright lies. And it works quite well, as we can see from the comments in this thread. People just believe the sh!t without question, and of course without any deeper critical investigation. And what do they need to investigate anything for anyway? After all, they know that they live in a Western democracy, so how could their good democratic Western media possibly be deceiving them? It's out of the question, they wouldn't even consider it. "Those savages... they want to ban the Simpsons!"

Someone's throwing stones while living in a glass house. The Russian media is no stranger to anti-West reporting. And I hate to break it to you, but media will always be biased. At any given time, I can find numerous articles in the Western press unfairly critical of the United States. Why are Russians so insecure about this? Just point out the inaccuracies and be done with it.

Another thing here, folks... This term "the Kremlin"... You see in the Western media terms like "pro-Kremlin" and "anti-Kremlin" and "opponents of the Kremlin". If you don't understand why this is fundamentally wrong, I'll explain it to you. "The Kremlin" is to Russia as "Washington" or "the White House" is to the United States, even deeper than that. How often do you hear about "pro/anti-White House" or "anti-Washington" Americans in the Western media? Practically never. But it's "pro-Kremlin" this, "anti-Kremlin" that. See, this is a "subtle" example of brainwashing (mindf*cking) in the Western media. With these terms "pro-Kremlin"/"anti-Kremlin" they are actually questioning the legitimacy of the Russian state/statehood itself - that is what "the Kremlin" symbolizes to Russians, nothing less.

Nonsense. You clearly do not understand how surrogate terms like that are used in English reporting.

And the idea that there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the image of Russia in the Western media is absurd. Perhaps you think the governments control the media in the west - that is simply not true, as is evinced by the countless number of articles and opinions in the Western press critical of their own governments.

The Duma stated what would happen if such a decision were made. Which is why we're talking of hearings and not decisions.

L.

I see.

Mousepad

09-27-2008, 03:43 PM

btw, what happened to SouthPark, i can't find any episode past 12/07 "Super Fun Time", they have any trouble?

rusak

09-27-2008, 11:14 PM

Someone's throwing stones while living in a glass house. The Russian media is no stranger to anti-West reporting. And I hate to break it to you, but media will always be biased. At any given time, I can find numerous articles in the Western press unfairly critical of the United States. Why are Russians so insecure about this? Just point out the inaccuracies and be done with it.
Do you actually know what you're talking about here? Do you know Russian, so that you can meaningfully talk about the Russian media? Can you name 3 Russian newspapers without googling?

I'm going to get right to the point here. Are there "unfairly critical" articles about the United States in the mainstream Western press? Yes, there are some. But it is absolutely NOWHERE NEAR how Russia is portrayed. There is no comparison whatsoever, and that is what you need to understand here. Are you seriously going to claim that the level bias is anywhere near comparable? It's not simply "unfairly critical" articles when it comes to Russia, it's way beyond that. Where in the mainstream Western press do you see such blatant distortion and lying about the US? In this article you posted there are a number of blatant lies about KEY matters in Russia. It's like if the Times would write that in the US Ross Perot's party is "outlawed" and that the US Congress decided to seize AIG.

Please show me an article in the mainstream Western press that is comparably as biased toward the United States as the one you posted is toward Russia. Do what you have to do and find one, or feel free to admit that you weren't exactly right in what you said.

Nonsense. You clearly do not understand how surrogate terms like that are used in English reporting.It's not nonsense, it's the truth. I know English just fine and you're evading. Answer the question if you can, why do you never see terms like "pro-White House movements" or "anti-White House demonstrators" in the Western press but it's constantly pro-Kremlin this, anti-Kremlin that? Do you think that's right? "Pro/anti-White House" would sound absurd to Americans, wouldn't it? What is this "anti-White House" - that would mean that you are "anti-America" in general. That's why you never hear it. You hear "anti-administration" or occasionally "anti-Washington establishment" but never "anti-White House". Why do you never hear Putin's opponents described as "anti-administration"? Because one might almost think Russia was a normal country instead of a crazy evil Mordor dictatorship.

And the idea that there is some grand conspiracy to tarnish the image of Russia in the Western media is absurd. Perhaps you think the governments control the media in the west - that is simply not true, as is evinced by the countless number of articles and opinions in the Western press critical of their own governments.You're the one mentioning a grand conspiracy here, not me. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy in the sense of a group of people sitting around a table deciding to do something. I think it is the result of a kind of confluence of factors in the West (especially the US). Namely, for decades it has been (considered to be) in the interests of, or at least not really against the interests of, big business (including the US military-industrial complex) to pursue a generally hostile policy toward Russia/USSR. That is one of the reasons why you do not see this kind of attitude toward China (and other countries), where the democracy/human rights situation is by far worse than in Russia - because it would substantially hurt US business interests. Also, there is the activity of what I call the hostile diasporas (Poles, Ukrainians, Balts) in the US, who actively pursue ancient "ethnic grudges" by trying to influence US foreign policy. There is no comparable ethnic Russian diaspora in the US to counter them. So there has been this climate of impunity for decades. The author of this article probably won't be punished or made to answer for it.

You talk about governments controlling the media. Who do you think controls the governments? "The people"? Ha, yeah really. Big money effectually controls the governments, and it also controls the media. There are some deviations here and there but it doesn't change the overall picture. The US government and media are very close indeed, as was clearly evident for example in the run up to the Iraq invasion. I was in the US then and I remember watching all the main news stations, CNN, FOX, etc. I remember all that big emotional music playing (DUN-DA-DA-DUNNN!) and all that "support our troops" BS and the way it was all presented. I was thinking, God damn, it's just so blatant, do these people (regular Americans) realize what they are being subjected to? I found it disturbing then.

GazB

09-27-2008, 11:36 PM

Source: Wiki.

You're welcome.

So you think it is normal that the depiction of Russians is always negative in everything they are shown in is OK... is normal?

Is everything on US television or Movie satire?

Would suggest you look up another word starting with s called stereotype.

Various American series even feature Russian sidekicks and some even have main characters with ties to Russia (numerous examples for this, from beginning with good Ol'Chekov...the female super agent in "Alias" has a Russian mother, the super lawyer of "JAG" has a Russian halfbrother, heck, there is even a whole comic series with a heroine that is a former Soviet superspy).

So they can be the butt of various jokes and inuendos.

Besides, I bet that in Russian movies Americans are not quite always the heroes, either.

But all of Russian media is controlled by Putin personally and Russia is currently a communist state. Shouldn't America be the example to the world that there is a real world out there with people who are not the enemy. You mention JAG... what a joke. It is the pinnacle of "America is not to blame". Within about 5 minutes of the story you know it is the foreigner at fault.

Snoshi

09-28-2008, 02:42 AM

Gazb... Really..

Eat a bullet

09-28-2008, 03:40 AM

So you think it is normal that the depiction of Russians is always negative in everything they are shown in is OK... is normal?
I can't believe there are idiots in New Zealand, oh well...

Is everything on US television or Movie satire?
Oh, of course not...

Come on Gaz, you're gonna be so black & white??

Kilgor

09-28-2008, 03:49 AM

I must get out read heat for a watch :)

TheStorm

09-28-2008, 01:11 PM

Do you actually know what you're talking about here? Do you know Russian, so that you can meaningfully talk about the Russian media? Can you name 3 Russian newspapers without googling?

There are many English-language Russian media sources on the web - RIA Novosti, RussiaToday, The Moscow Times, The St. Petersburg Times, ITAR-TASS - and the bias is clearly evident in all of them. Heaven only knows what they're saying in Russian, if that is the kind of BS they print when they know foreigners are reading. Shall I start documenting their bias for you?

I'm going to get right to the point here. Are there "unfairly critical" articles about the United States in the mainstream Western press? Yes, there are some. But it is absolutely NOWHERE NEAR how Russia is portrayed. There is no comparison whatsoever, and that is what you need to understand here. Are you seriously going to claim that the level bias is anywhere near comparable? It's not simply "unfairly critical" articles when it comes to Russia, it's way beyond that. Where in the mainstream Western press do you see such blatant distortion and lying about the US? In this article you posted there are a number of blatant lies about KEY matters in Russia. It's like if the Times would write that in the US Ross Perot's party is "outlawed" and that the US Congress decided to seize AIG.

I see "blatant distortion and lying about the US" all the time, actually. And I doubt you can objectively prove that there are an abnormally large number of anti-Russian articles in the Western press. You see Russia-hatred in every mention of the country.

Please show me an article in the mainstream Western press that is comparably as biased toward the United States as the one you posted is toward Russia. Do what you have to do and find one, or feel free to admit that you weren't exactly right in what you said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree

Hundreds of them. And that's just one media outlet.

"Pro/anti-White House" would sound absurd to Americans, wouldn't it? What is this "anti-White House" - that would mean that you are "anti-America" in general. That's why you never hear it. You hear "anti-administration" or occasionally "anti-Washington establishment" but never "anti-White House".

Um, no. Not at all. The term "anti-White House" is in regular use by large and respected media sources and no one construes it to mean "anti-American."

There is also disquiet about what US officials view as double dealing by special advisers briefing an anti-White House message in London and a more favourable one in Washington.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/health/1564939/Britain-%27no-longer-closest-Bush-ally%27.html).

That argument simply inflamed anti-White House sentiment, especially after Mr. Skinner made it this week in an interview with The Washington Times. Over His Head?

New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD1138F93AA15751C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all).

We now appear to be caught in a cycle of competing leaks from the various sides in the Plame case, with this anti-White House tidbit seemingly being leaked in response to yesterday's pro-White House leak.

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006734.php).

But Goss's most pressing task is to exact retribution for the anti-White House stories emanating from the CIA in the months before the election.

The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041220/cockburn).

With the Senate divided between 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one reliably anti-White House independent, Democrats need only a net gain of two seats in November to tip the balance of power back their way.

Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article484773.ece).

Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who has made a reputation as a go-to Republican for an anti-White House quote, may have outdone himself yesterday in an address before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802273_2.html).

But thanks for playing.

Namely, for decades it has been (considered to be) in the interests of, or at least not really against the interests of, big business (including the US military-industrial complex) to pursue a generally hostile policy toward Russia/USSR. That is one of the reasons why you do not see this kind of attitude toward China (and other countries), where the democracy/human rights situation is by far worse than in Russia - because it would substantially hurt US business interests. Also, there is the activity of what I call the hostile diasporas (Poles, Ukrainians, Balts) in the US, who actively pursue ancient "ethnic grudges" by trying to influence US foreign policy. There is no comparable ethnic Russian diaspora in the US to counter them. So there has been this climate of impunity for decades.

"Military-industrial complex"? Hostile diasporas?

I'm not going to indulge this paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense. Until you can produce some objective evidence for these wild assertions, your argument remains invalid. The idea that the defense industry is "big business", and the media is "big business", therefore they have the same interests is lame equivocation, nothing more. As for Eastern European immigrants, they hold very few positions of power in the US, and they are not rich enough nor large enough in population to exert serious influence on US politics.

The author of this article probably won't be punished or made to answer for it.

Are you kidding me? We don't do that in civilized countries. Freedom of the press and speech is critical to democracy. But I wouldn't expect you to realize that.

You talk about governments controlling the media. Who do you think controls the governments? "The people"? Ha, yeah really. Big money effectually controls the governments, and it also controls the media. There are some deviations here and there but it doesn't change the overall picture. The US government and media are very close indeed, as was clearly evident for example in the run up to the Iraq invasion. I was in the US then and I remember watching all the main news stations, CNN, FOX, etc. I remember all that big emotional music playing (DUN-DA-DA-DUNNN!) and all that "support our troops" BS and the way it was all presented. I was thinking, God damn, it's just so blatant, do these people (regular Americans) realize what they are being subjected to? I found it disturbing then.

Ah, this old chestnut again. You completely miss the mark in you ascription of the "support our troops' messages to media "closeness" with the government. The only possible exception is Fox, which is conservative, NOT blindly pro Bush administration (see the networks' fierce opposition to Bush's immigration deal, the Dubai ports deal, Fox's Tony Snow's negative comments about Bush (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush/).)

The fact of the matter is, feel good BS makes money for the networks, nothing more, nothing less. And people who's main source is the government-funded media - NPR, PBS - are the least likely to tow the Administration's line (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html). It's amusingly obvious that you don't know jack sh!t about the media's relationship with the government here. It is highly critical of it.

During the 2004 presidential election, for example, media coverage was two-to-one positive for Kerry and over 60% negative for Bush. (source [PDF] (http://www.cmpa.com/PressRel/Archive/2004/2004.09.09.Networks%20Praise%20Kerry%20Fox%20News%20Buries%20Him.pdf)).

Moreover, "regular Americans" do not take the media nearly as blindly as you think they do. Only 43% think the press is "moral" and only 28% think it is willing to admit mistakes. Additionally:

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 75% of Americans believed that news organizations were more concerned with “attracting the biggest audience,” while only 19% thought they cared more about “informing the public.”1...

The public also increasingly sees the press as slanted. Nearly three quarters of Americans (72%) in the summer of 2005 saw the press as favoring one side, up from 66% two years earlier. And 60% saw the press as politically biased, up from 53% in 2003....

Yet different surveys of journalists also suggest that while the preponderance of news people see themselves as moderate, the percentage who identify themselves as liberal is growing, while the percentage who see themselves as conservative is shrinking...

More Americans (60%) believe a critical press “keeps leaders from doing things that shouldn’t done” than did in 2001 and 2003 (when the number was 54%).5...

By February 2006, the numbers had reversed, with 56% favoring reporting to 34% more concerned with government security.6...

In 2005, roughly 7 out of 10 Americans (68%) believed the press should be “neutral” rather than “pro-American,” even in covering the war on terrorism. That support for the idea of a neutral the press has remained consistent since the Pew surveys first began asking the questions in the early 1990s.7...

Source (http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2006/narrative_overview_publicattitudes.asp?cat=8&media=1).

You've no leg to stand on. I recommend you do some research before throwing out silly talking points from the "LOL AMERIKANS R DUMB SHEEP" crowd.

Karaahmetoglu

09-28-2008, 03:16 PM

TheStorm

09-28-2008, 03:21 PM

You also forgot about pravda.ru

Yeah, there's Pravda, but from what I've seen it's like a tabloid as opposed to a serious news source. But if you want to include it, it's really biased.

rusak

09-29-2008, 12:41 AM

There are many English-language Russian media sources on the web - RIA Novosti, RussiaToday, The Moscow Times, The St. Petersburg Times, ITAR-TASS - and the bias is clearly evident in all of them. Heaven only knows what they're saying in Russian, if that is the kind of BS they print when they know foreigners are reading. Shall I start documenting their bias for you?
The Moscow Times is not Russian media, it's American media. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that, but you don't. You fail again. It's American media in Russia, that's it, and it's biased against Russia, not the US. But please do start documenting something, because I asked for a single article in mainstream media that is comparably as biased and you have not provided one.

I see "blatant distortion and lying about the US" all the time, actually. And I doubt you can objectively prove that there are an abnormally large number of anti-Russian articles in the Western press. You see Russia-hatred in every mention of the country.You can doubt what you want, but I'll bet you anything that I can. You want to play this game? We can play it, but what's in it for me? I know I will destroy you in it, but what do I get? Will you admit you were wrong and apologize? If so then we can do this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree

Hundreds of them. And that's just one media outlet.These are not real articles. What's next, are you going to point to blog entries? I was talking about real articles in mainstream media, not this quasi-blog nonsense. Again, please show me ONE ARTICLE. I asked you for JUST ONE, it can't be that hard to find, right? According to you?

Um, no. Not at all. The term "anti-White House" is in regular use by large and respected media sources and no one construes it to mean "anti-American."Oops, big mistake. You really shouldn't have done that. Now I must break you. Watch this.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/health/1564939/Britain-%27no-longer-closest-Bush-ally%27.html).Google search results for the Telegraph:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 56.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk+%22anti-white+house&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 1.

56 to 1. Hmm, interesting. No indication of bias whatsoever, huh?

Let's continue.

New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD1138F93AA15751C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all). http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Results for anti-Kremlin - 387.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 2.

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006734.php).This in not mainstream media in the same league as the New York Times and you know it. Moreover, the use of the term is different from what I was talking about. Show me something about "anti-White House demonstrators/protestors/groups/movements/activists/etc". Not "tidbits".

The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041220/cockburn).Again, not in the same league as major media. But the results are still 3:2 "in favor" of the Kremlin.

Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article484773.ece). http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atimesonline.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 12.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atimesonline.co.uk+%22anti-white+house&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 1.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802273_2.html).http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22anti-kremlin%22+&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 74.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 2, one of which is a blog comment.

But thanks for playing.You're welcome, but we're not done yet. Let's continue.

BBC:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 104.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

LA Times:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Alatimes.com+%22anti-Kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 132.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Alatimes.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Boston Globe:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.boston.com+%22anti-kremlin&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 24.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.boston.com+%22anti-white+house&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

International Herald Tribune:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aiht.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 28.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aiht.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Your beloved Guardian:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=site%3Aguardian.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin&spell=1

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 74.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aguardian.co.uk+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Time:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.time.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 10.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.time.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Should I keep going or is that enough? See, this is what will happen to you if you try to argue with me about this. Like I said, I will prove you wrong.

"Military-industrial complex"? Hostile diasporas?

I'm not going to indulge this paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense. Until you can produce some objective evidence for these wild assertions, your argument remains invalid. The idea that the defense industry is "big business", and the media is "big business", therefore they have the same interests is lame equivocation, nothing more.There are no conspiracy theories here, everything is actually out in the open. The military-industrial complex benefits from "conflict" and bad relations with Russia and is actually hurt (net balance) by good relations and the absence of conflict.

As for Eastern European immigrants, they hold very few positions of power in the US, and they are not rich enough nor large enough in population to exert serious influence on US politics.They aren't as rich as they should be and I would say some more about that but the mods would probably suspend my account again for "abusing Poles" or something. However, these people have undoubtedly affected US foreign policy. Look at who wrote the Captive Nations Resolution - Dobryansky was a west Ukrainian nationalist, anti-Russian to the marrow of his bones. Look at Brzezinski and there are many others. And there is no real counterweight in the form of an ethnic Russian diaspora to keep swine in line. It doesn't take that much force to change the course of a huge ship by a few degrees and those few degrees could be very important in the long run. To doubt the importance of "diaspora influence" you really have to be beyond ignorant and naive.

Are you kidding me? We don't do that in civilized countries. Freedom of the press and speech is critical to democracy. But I wouldn't expect you to realize that.You don't do libel suits in civilized countries? Look at what happened with David Irving. And don't even try to take that tone with me, son. Look at how good my English is. I didn't learn it in Moscow and I know more about the West than you do.

Ah, this old chestnut again. You completely miss the mark in you ascription of the "support our troops' messages to media "closeness" with the government. The only possible exception is Fox, which is conservative, NOT blindly pro Bush administration (see the networks' fierce opposition to Bush's immigration deal, the Dubai ports deal, Fox's Tony Snow's negative comments about Bush (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush/).)Wrong again. I am not talking about Bush at all. I am not talking Republicans and Democrats. I'll put it like this, to understand how America works, you have to follow the big money.

The fact of the matter is, feel good BS makes money for the networks, nothing more, nothing less. And people who's main source is the government-funded media - NPR, PBS - are the least likely to tow the Administration's line (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html). It's amusingly obvious that you don't know jack sh!t about the media's relationship with the government here. It is highly critical of it.I just told you that the government and the media are both controlled by big money and thus are in effect part of the same overall "system". If you want to understand what goes on in America, follow the money, follow the interests of the military-industrial complex, follow the interests of the large corporations. Aside from "the money" there is also the influence of what I will call "public sentiment". Occasionally "public sentiment" (including hostile diasporas) can trump the money (temporarily at least) but generally the money dominates and actively tries to shape that very public sentiment - that's what the media is about. That doesn't mean that there aren't any articles critical of Bush or Clinton or Republicans/Democrats, not at all. These are all just "temporary faces" in the game. The interests of big business remain regardless.

During the 2004 presidential election, for example, media coverage was two-to-one positive for Kerry and over 60% negative for Bush. (source [PDF] (http://www.cmpa.com/PressRel/Archive/2004/2004.09.09.Networks%20Praise%20Kerry%20Fox%20News%20Buries%20Him.pdf)).Irrelevant. This is not about a Bush or Kerry.

rusak

09-29-2008, 12:58 AM

Yeah, there's Pravda, but from what I've seen it's like a tabloid as opposed to a serious news source. But if you want to include it, it's really biased.
Wow, at least you recognized that. pravda.ru is not the old Pravda at all. It's not a serious media source at all, it's on the level of a tabloid-blog. By the way, neither RIA Novosti, Russia Today, or ITAR-TASS are actual newspapers. So how about those 3 newspapers? Remember, no googling. Oh, and what do you think - what percentage of Americans think that Pravda was the only paper in the Soviet Union? Is it more or less than say... 30%? 40%? 60%? And what percentage of Americans do you think know what precipitated the "Cuban Missile Crisis"?

Serjey

09-29-2008, 01:55 AM

rusak

09-29-2008, 01:56 AM

Can't stop, won't stop, hehe...

Google search for The Scotsman:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ascotsman.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 440.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ascotsman.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 0.

AFP in English:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aafp.google.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 15.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=site%3Aafp.google.com+%22anti-white+house%22&spell=1

Results for "anti-White House" - 0.

CNN:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Acnn.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 51.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Acnn.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 0.

Gotta do this one... Radio Bullsh!t, err, I mean Radio Garbage, err, I mean Radio "Liberty":

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Arferl.org+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 30.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Arferl.org+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 0.

Oh, but you see, "the term "anti-White House" is in regular use by large and respected media sources"!!! rofl

big_les

09-29-2008, 05:26 AM

Always good to think critically about media reports, whoever or whatever they concern. Thanks for the analysis on this one.

However, I would suggest that "anti-Bush" is the term adopted for criticising "the White House" (which they do in fact do quite a bit). The media are not consistent in their language.

Mousepad

09-29-2008, 06:14 AM

Well its all about 2x2 chanell, church thinks too many violence there, and South Park insults religion..
2x2 is not for kids chanell, there are alot of sarcasm cartoons, like Robo-Chicken, Jet Groove, Modern Toss, Brothers Ventura, Brack Show, etc..
but they found something insulting in South Park and Simsons....! WOW!

Oh pfflease, there is nothing about religion or morale, that's just cartoons with biggest rating, so someone just want a slice of pie, i'm just waiting when retired FSB general will pop on board of channel directors, and things will get back to normal. "Morale", "wat about children", "Outrage of religious 50%-sect cronies" - bull crap. Anyway i'm not watching 2x2 coz of crappy translation, it kills halth the lulz. Just my 0.02 ruble.

lightfire

09-29-2008, 07:25 AM

Yes, that is BS, the great motherland would not do sucha thing, it's all western propoganda as usual. Even if it was true, then those godless brainless warmongering yanki cartoons well deserve it, since they mock the glorious motherland and should be banned <end sarcasm>

TheStorm

09-29-2008, 01:39 PM

The Moscow Times is not Russian media, it's American media. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that, but you don't. You fail again. It's American media in Russia, that's it, and it's biased against Russia, not the US.

Wrong.

Until 2005, the paper was owned by Independent Media, a Moscow-registered publishing house that also prints a Russian-language daily newspaper, Vedomosti, and Russian-language versions of popular glossy magazines such as FHM, Men's Health and Cosmopolitan. That year, Independent Media was acquired by the Dutch-Finnish publishing group Sanoma.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moscow_Times).

Isn't it time you stopped making a fool of yourself? You keep throwing sh!t and it keeps rebounding on you. In case you didn't know, neither Moscow, The Netherlands nor Finland are in America. Hit the books. Try an atlas.

You can doubt what you want, but I'll bet you anything that I can. You want to play this game? We can play it, but what's in it for me? I know I will destroy you in it, but what do I get? Will you admit you were wrong and apologize? If so then we can do this.

The proof had better be good, but yeah, I'll admit it.

These are not real articles. What's next, are you going to point to blog entries? I was talking about real articles in mainstream media, not this quasi-blog nonsense. Again, please show me ONE ARTICLE. I asked you for JUST ONE, it can't be that hard to find, right? According to you?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ar·ti·cle /ˈɑrtɪkəl/ ****unciation Key - Show Spelled ****unciation[ahr-ti-kuhl] ****unciation Key - Show IPA ****unciation noun, verb, -cled, -cling.
–noun
1. a written composition in prose, usually nonfiction, on a specific topic, forming an independent part of a book or other publication, as a newspaper or magazine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth

For someone who boasts about his command of the English language, you are woefully ignorant of such a basic concept.

Oops, big mistake. You really shouldn't have done that. Now I must break you. Watch this.

Google search results for the Telegraph:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 56.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk+%22anti-white+house&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 1.

56 to 1. Hmm, interesting. No indication of bias whatsoever, huh?

Let's continue.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Results for anti-Kremlin - 387.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 2.

This in not mainstream media in the same league as the New York Times and you know it. Moreover, the use of the term is different from what I was talking about. Show me something about "anti-White House demonstrators/protestors/groups/movements/activists/etc". Not "tidbits".

Again, not in the same league as major media. But the results are still 3:2 "in favor" of the Kremlin.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atimesonline.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 12.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atimesonline.co.uk+%22anti-white+house&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 1.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22anti-kremlin%22+&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 74.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 2, one of which is a blog comment.

You're welcome, but we're not done yet. Let's continue.

BBC:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 104.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

LA Times:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Alatimes.com+%22anti-Kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 132.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Alatimes.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Boston Globe:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.boston.com+%22anti-kremlin&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 24.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.boston.com+%22anti-white+house&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

International Herald Tribune:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aiht.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 28.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aiht.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Your beloved Guardian:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=site%3Aguardian.co.uk+%22anti-kremlin&spell=1

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 74.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aguardian.co.uk+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

[FONT=Verdana]Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Time:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.time.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for “anti-Kremlin” – 10.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.time.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Results for “anti-White House” – 0.

Should I keep going or is that enough? See, this is what will happen to you if you try to argue with me about this. Like I said, I will prove you wrong.

Not regular use then, but still use. And your original lie - that the term is "never" used, and my original assertion that no one construes it to mean anti-American, still stand.

There are no conspiracy theories here, everything is actually out in the open. The military-industrial complex benefits from "conflict" and bad relations with Russia and is actually hurt (net balance) by good relations and the absence of conflict.

They aren't as rich as they should be and I would say some more about that but the mods would probably suspend my account again for "abusing Poles" or something. However, these people have undoubtedly affected US foreign policy. Look at who wrote the Captive Nations Resolution - Dobryansky was a west Ukrainian nationalist, anti-Russian to the marrow of his bones. Look at Brzezinski and there are many others. And there is no real counterweight in the form of an ethnic Russian diaspora to keep swine in line. It doesn't take that much force to change the course of a huge ship by a few degrees and those few degrees could be very important in the long run. To doubt the importance of "diaspora influence" you really have to be beyond ignorant and naive.

More inane foolishness. These are ramblings without a shred of evidence to support them. And saying "LOL UR DUMB LOL" doesn't count as proof, FYI.

You don't do libel suits in civilized countries? Look at what happened with David Irving. And don't even try to take that tone with me, son. Look at how good my English is. I didn't learn it in Moscow and I know more about the West than you do.

rofl

Libel? Against a country? Or perhaps you mean Putin and/or his officials. Regardless, your comparison with David Irving is patently absurd. You're going to have to do better than that. Far better. On the one hand, we have a newspaper article on the actions of a country's government. On the other, you bring up a nutcase neo-Nazi. Hilarious.

Incidentally, your English does not impress me, and you do not control which tone I will take with you. I suggest you come to terms with that fact immediately. Else, you look pathetic.

Wrong again. I am not talking about Bush at all. I am not talking Republicans and Democrats. I'll put it like this, to understand how America works, you have to follow the big money.

Rich people have influence. In other news, 2+2 = 4.

Unfortunately for you, you have not taken into account all the industries - many of them more powerful than the defense industry - whose business is damaged by cold relations with a country which has the size, population, expertise, and resources of Russia. Your logic fails.

I just told you that the government and the media are both controlled by big money and thus are in effect part of the same overall "system".

You were wrong and haven't proven otherwise. Your argument is a silly non-sequitur. "Big money" is not a monolithic entity. Various wealthy factions have different goals. There are many opposing industries.

If you want to understand what goes on in America, follow the money, follow the interests of the military-industrial complex, follow the interests of the large corporations. Aside from "the money" there is also the influence of what I will call "public sentiment". Occasionally "public sentiment" (including hostile diasporas) can trump the money (temporarily at least) but generally the money dominates and actively tries to shape that very public sentiment - that's what the media is about. That doesn't mean that there aren't any articles critical of Bush or Clinton or Republicans/Democrats, not at all. These are all just "temporary faces" in the game. The interests of big business remain regardless.

Irrelevant. This is not about a Bush or Kerry.

Nice try, but no dice. You said the media was in bed with the government, I proved it wasn't. Feel free to admit your knowledge of American media is sorely lacking.

Wow, at least you recognized that. pravda.ru is not the old Pravda at all. It's not a serious media source at all, it's on the level of a tabloid-blog.

Of course. Given that tabloids are populist however, the America-hatred is telling. It sells well, apparently.

By the way, neither RIA Novosti, Russia Today, or ITAR-TASS are actual newspapers. So how about those 3 newspapers? Remember, no googling.

I don't care about your little challenge. Two of the five media sources were newspapers.

Oh, and what do you think - what percentage of Americans think that Pravda was the only paper in the Soviet Union? Is it more or less than say... 30%? 40%? 60%? And what percentage of Americans do you think know what precipitated the "Cuban Missile Crisis"?

Red herrings.

rusak

09-30-2008, 05:50 AM

Until 2005, the paper was owned by Independent Media, a Moscow-registered publishing house that also prints a Russian-language daily newspaper, Vedomosti, and Russian-language versions of popular glossy magazines such as FHM, Men's Health and Cosmopolitan. That year, Independent Media was acquired by the Dutch-Finnish publishing group Sanoma.
Moscow-registered doesn't mean that the Moscow Times is Russian media. The original publishing company was founded by Dutch investors and the editorial management of the Moscow Times has always been mostly American. So how is it a Russian newspaper when the editor-in-chief and most of the managing editors have always been Americans? Moreover, its bias is obviously anti-Russian, certainly not anti-American.

And of course I had to do this... Google search of the Moscow Times:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Athemoscowtimes.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 47.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Athemoscowtimes.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 0.

And another one, *******:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A*******.com+%22anti-kremlin%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-Kremlin" - 284.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3A*******.com+%22anti-white+house%22&btnG=Search

Results for "anti-White House" - 0.

The proof had better be good, but yeah, I'll admit it.OK, so you decide what proof you will accept and how you want to define "abnormally large number of anti-Russian articles".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth

For someone who boasts about his command of the English language, you are woefully ignorant of such a basic concept.You can't be serious... OK, please show me with some specific examples (quotes) how this article is comparable to the one you posted here. First of all, you do realize that the article you posted here was NOT an editorial or "comment", right? It was supposed to be an overview of some current events in Russia. But this overview was one big deliberate distortion from start to finish, containing numerous blatant crazy, preposterous lies. The article paints a picture of "Mordor" - do you understand that? With these lies about Kasparov's party being banned and the Duma deciding to seize a private television channel on a whim, it deliberately tries to create a picture of a ridiculous bandit state/dictatorship.

And you are comparing this to what? First of all, an EDITORIAL, but anyway this editorial isn't even comparable. The author doesn't like American "global leadership" and is gloating a little over America's decline from this status. There is an obvious leftist slant, he doesn't like "deregulation" etc, blah blah blah. So what terrible fate does this awfully biased editorial consign America to? To being "only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape."

Wow. Let me tell you, we would love to see articles like this about Russia. It would be like a dream come true. And you are comparing this to friggin "Mordor"? You just can't stand any criticism or non-adoration of America at all.

Not regular use then, but still use. And your original lie - that the term is "never" used, and my original assertion that no one construes it to mean anti-American, still stand.Originally I said "practically never" and that is the truth. It's almost never used by mainstream media, while "anti-Kremlin" is regularly used.

You don't seem to understand the key point in this. I wouldn't have a problem with "anti-Kremlin" if "anti-White House" was similarly used by the mainstream media. But it's not. "Anti-Kremlin" is regularly used, "anti-White House" almost never. The obvious implication here is that somehow it is OK to be "anti-Kremlin" but not OK to be "anti-White House". Most Americans would not accept the term "anti-White House" because, as they would tell you, the White House is supposed to be part of the essence of America. So if you are anti-White House, you are anti-America in general. Opponents of the (ruling) executive in the US are usually called "anti-administration" or "anti-Bush". So why are opponents of Putin's administration "anti-Kremlin"?

You can sit there and try to convince yourself that this is all just some wacky coincidence or you can recognize that it clearly is not any coincidence and from there, one might have to re-evaluate some things...

More inane foolishness. These are ramblings without a shred of evidence to support them. And saying "LOL UR DUMB LOL" doesn't count as proof, FYI.What specifically do you disagree with?

Libel? Against a country? Or perhaps you mean Putin and/or his officials. Regardless, your comparison with David Irving is patently absurd. You're going to have to do better than that. Far better. On the one hand, we have a newspaper article on the actions of a country's government. On the other, you bring up a nutcase neo-Nazi. Hilarious.Irving was punished for what he wrote and that's the whole point here. There was no "comparison" here other than the fact of the legal proceedings.

Incidentally, your English does not impress me, and you do not control which tone I will take with you. I suggest you come to terms with that fact immediately. Else, you look pathetic.You should try to be a little less obvious when your feelings are hurt, mm-k? rofl

Unfortunately for you, you have not taken into account all the industries - many of them more powerful than the defense industry - whose business is damaged by cold relations with a country which has the size, population, expertise, and resources of Russia. Your logic fails.No, I have taken them into account, and their business is not actually directly damaged because for the most part it simply doesn't exist. The US-Russia business relationship is very weak, as you can see from here for example:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0807yr.html

As you can see, Russia is not among the US' top 15 import or export partners. To have some frame of reference, in 2007, the US' exports to Belgium were worth over 3.4 times more than the US' exports to Russia. Again, the trade relationship is very weak. Due to the 70 years of "Communism" the business relationships that exist with many countries were not developed and the idiotic climate that has persisted in the US since the so-called end of the Cold War has basically ensured that this situation continues. So, for the most part, American business is not directly hurt by bad relations with Russia. They do "lose out" in the long run of course, but they don't stand to immediately lose something due to bad relations.

"Big money" is not a monolithic entity. Various wealthy factions have different goals. There are many opposing industries.Of course it isn't a monolithic entity and it doesn't need to be. The tendency is a vector sum, and the point is that there is no "balance" in the form of a sufficiently powerful and active "wealthy faction" with the goal of at least "less bad" relations with Russia or a serious incentive to do something in order to change the situation. It's not that all the wealthy factions have this goal of pursuing hostile relations.

Nice try, but no dice. You said the media was in bed with the government, I proved it wasn't. Feel free to admit your knowledge of American media is sorely lacking.I certainly did not say that. Your reading comprehension skills are what is sorely lacking.

Red herrings.Absolutely not. This goes to the core of this discussion, to your funny little idea that the Western media in general gives someone like yourself a sufficiently accurate and objective picture of Russia. I'm telling you that's not the case. So why don't you answer the questions, what are you afraid of? I can assure you that if you go into the average "American street" and ask people, a very significant percentage would agree that Pravda was the only newspaper in the USSR and many others at least wouldn't be sure that it wasn't. And seriously, what % of Americans know about the American missiles in Turkey? In the popular narrative, you see, the Americans are the heroes (are they ever not the heroes?). They "faced down" down those dastardly Russians, right? Where do these people get all these funny ideas? And what would they think if they knew more about America's real role in that situation and in so many others around the world?

perdurabo

09-30-2008, 01:39 PM

TheStorm

09-30-2008, 08:21 PM

Moscow-registered doesn't mean that the Moscow Times is Russian media. The original publishing company was founded by Dutch investors and the editorial management of the Moscow Times has always been mostly American. So how is it a Russian newspaper when the editor-in-chief and most of the managing editors have always been Americans? Moreover, its bias is obviously anti-Russian, certainly not anti-American.

1. It's based in Russia, focuses on Russia, and is distributed in Russia.

2. You are correct. I erred in including The Moscow Times when I included it in the "biased" category.

OK, so you decide what proof you will accept and how you want to define "abnormally large number of anti-Russian articles".

It needs to be somewhat scientific (perhaps not a peer-reviewed study, but certainly not an Internet poll.) And by "abnormally large" I mean more than (percentage-wise) than other countries the US has historically had cold relations with.

You can't be serious... OK, please show me with some specific examples (quotes) how this article is comparable to the one you posted here. First of all, you do realize that the article you posted here was NOT an editorial or "comment", right? It was supposed to be an overview of some current events in Russia. But this overview was one big deliberate distortion from start to finish, containing numerous blatant crazy, preposterous lies. The article paints a picture of "Mordor" - do you understand that? With these lies about Kasparov's party being banned and the Duma deciding to seize a private television channel on a whim, it deliberately tries to create a picture of a ridiculous bandit state/dictatorship.

"Mordor"? Come on. It was negative but I can think of far, far, worse accusations to throw than suppressing freedom of the press.

And you are comparing this to what? First of all, an EDITORIAL, but anyway this editorial isn't even comparable. The author doesn't like American "global leadership" and is gloating a little over America's decline from this status. There is an obvious leftist slant, he doesn't like "deregulation" etc, blah blah blah. So what terrible fate does this awfully biased editorial consign America to? To being "only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape."

Hence, why I said "articles", which is a general term.

Wow. Let me tell you, we would love to see articles like this about Russia. It would be like a dream come true. And you are comparing this to friggin "Mordor"? You just can't stand any criticism or non-adoration of America at all.

But it's not the criticism that gets me. It's the misrepresentations (something that I would have thought you would understand, given your complaints about the use of "Kremlin".)

E.g.

the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed. Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth).

Which is completely BS. The economy hasn't collapsed, the government hasn't collapsed, and I still believe the free market is the way to go. Banks in trouble? I oppose the bailout (Which the lefties support. Ironic, because they love to say they'll stop pandering to the rich). I say let the bankruptcies roll. No use of public money to save people from their own mistakes.

But that's a whole 'nother issue, so I'll leave it at that.

Originally I said "practically never" and that is the truth. It's almost never used by mainstream media, while "anti-Kremlin" is regularly used.

You don't seem to understand the key point in this. I wouldn't have a problem with "anti-Kremlin" if "anti-White House" was similarly used by the mainstream media. But it's not. "Anti-Kremlin" is regularly used, "anti-White House" almost never. The obvious implication here is that somehow it is OK to be "anti-Kremlin" but not OK to be "anti-White House". Most Americans would not accept the term "anti-White House" because, as they would tell you, the White House is supposed to be part of the essence of America. So if you are anti-White House, you are anti-America in general. Opponents of the (ruling) executive in the US are usually called "anti-administration" or "anti-Bush". So why are opponents of Putin's administration "anti-Kremlin"?

See big_les's post. While the specific terms "pro/anti-White House" may be rarely used, the term White House (to refer to the Bush administration) is quite commonly used, as a search of Google News will show. It is also used in political contexts. Excerpts from the first few pages of 192,631 Google News results:

Justice Dept. probe flays White House

Buffeted by unusually aggressive pressure from the White House,

Opposing the White House's Wall Street bailout and letting stocks take a beating was a worthwhile price to pay ...

The White House has begun to consider "small policy changes"

Etc.

When I hear "The White House says X" or "The White House wants to do Y" what immediately comes to mind is the (political, elected) Bush administration. Not the institution of the executive branch of the federal government, and certainly not the White House itself as an iconic American symbol.

Same when I hear the Kremlin. The Putin/Medvedev administration is what's in my mind. If Gary Kasparov (heh) became President of Russia tomorrow, and begin implementing strong pro-West policies, I have no reason to doubt that the Western media would continue to say Pro-Kremlin to describe his (pro-Western) supporters and "anti-Kremlin" to describe the new (anti West) opposition).

What specifically do you disagree with?

The idea diasporas as small and poor as the Eastern European ones can exert a political force strong enough to keep relations with Russia cold, against many much larger factors that may be working for or against such ends. When AIPAC speaks, Congress listens. The Poles? Relative nobodies. If other factions want a warmer relationship with Russia, it will get warmer, whether the Polish diaspora wants it or not. The ship may be sailing towards colder relations, but it would be sailing that way without the Poles anyway. And when the rest of the crew decides to change course, they won't be able to stop it.

Irving was punished for what he wrote and that's the whole point here. There was no "comparison" here other than the fact of the legal proceedings.

You brought up libel in direct response to my saying that, to paraphrase, "we don't punish people or make them account in civilized countries for articles like this, due to freedom of the press/speech".

You don't do libel suits in civilized countries?

What would be the basis of a libel suit against the author of the Telegraph article?

No, I have taken them into account, and their business is not actually directly damaged because for the most part it simply doesn't exist. The US-Russia business relationship is very weak, as you can see from here for example:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0807yr.html

As you can see, Russia is not among the US' top 15 import or export partners. To have some frame of reference, in 2007, the US' exports to Belgium were worth over 3.4 times more than the US' exports to Russia. Again, the trade relationship is very weak. Due to the 70 years of "Communism" the business relationships that exist with many countries were not developed and the idiotic climate that has persisted in the US since the so-called end of the Cold War has basically ensured that this situation continues. So, for the most part, American business is not directly hurt by bad relations with Russia. They do "lose out" in the long run of course, but they don't stand to immediately lose something due to bad relations.

Of course it isn't a monolithic entity and it doesn't need to be. The tendency is a vector sum, and the point is that there is no "balance" in the form of a sufficiently powerful and active "wealthy faction" with the goal of at least "less bad" relations with Russia or a serious incentive to do something in order to change the situation. It's not that all the wealthy factions have this goal of pursuing hostile relations.

But many American industries are losing out on Russia's economic boom. Take oil for instance. You think that the oil industry (which supposedly has a ton of influence on the American government) are happy about it? They aren't.

In 2002:

IN a little over a year, the United States has done a startling diplomatic about-face on Russia, moving it from second-rate-power status to vital ally, thanks mostly to one thing: oil.

Eager to develop sources of oil outside the Middle East, the Bush administration is pushing American oil companies to invest in Russia, and President Vladimir V. Putin has thrown his weight behind tax and regulatory changes to draw foreign investment.
Source (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E3DE1339F937A15752C1A9649C8B63).

and:

Oil trade strengthens US-Russian ties (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2116133.stm).

Defense industry couldn't do jack about that.

But in 2006:

Putin plan to shut out US oil giants
Kremlin will favour Norwegian firms to develop Barents Sea field after differences with Bush scupper Russia's bid to join WTO

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/jul/23/russia.money).

Or the IT industry, which is hugely important to the US economy.
It has nothing to gain and everything to lose by cold relations. As do the majority of the top industries (www.mc-mncppc.org/research/analysis/economic%20forces/2000/usa.pdf) in the US.

I certainly did not say that. Your reading comprehension skills are what is sorely lacking.

You certainly implied it:

Big money effectually controls the governments, and it also controls the media.

If big money, in the interests of the defense industry, controls both the media and the government, it makes sense that it would want to promote politicians (Bush) who would take a harder line towards Russia over politicians who wouldn't (Kerry). But that wasn't the case.

Absolutely not. This goes to the core of this discussion, to your funny little idea that the Western media in general gives someone like yourself a sufficiently accurate and objective picture of Russia. I'm telling you that's not the case. So why don't you answer the questions, what are you afraid of? I can assure you that if you go into the average "American street" and ask people, a very significant percentage would agree that Pravda was the only newspaper in the USSR and many others at least wouldn't be sure that it wasn't. And seriously, what % of Americans know about the American missiles in Turkey? In the popular narrative, you see, the Americans are the heroes (are they ever not the heroes?). They "faced down" down those dastardly Russians, right? Where do these people get all these funny ideas? And what would they think if they knew more about America's real role in that situation and in so many others around the world?

1. I don't think the Western media in all cases gives "a sufficiently accurate and objective picture of Russia" - hence why I read the Russian news sources I listed. But as I said in an earlier post, the same is true of Russian media in relation to the West.

2. I bet your average American wouldn't know WTF Pravda is. Or have more than a passing familiarity with the Cuban Missile Crisis. But that's typical of any average citizen, not just Americans. Those interested in international relations, such as myself, know about the missiles in Turkey.

3. Wow. Check this out. One's fellow countrymen are the heroes, and the foreigners are the villains. That has to be a rare story, right?

4. I'm informed on the history of American foreign policy. Has it been perfect? No. But I know more than the average American and I find basis to support America. I look at it from a different perspective than you do.

5. I will not be drawn into a discussion of America's foreign policy. This thread is (well, is now) about media bias.

weka

10-01-2008, 05:43 PM

I always found that to be a pretty fair representation of Australia :)

Like most eposodes though it take the piss out US culture, the boot in my view was the cane used on the idiot who ran over the roof of several parked cars in Singapore and his defence was basically "i'm an American and i shouldn't be punished by your laws, did i mention i'm an American... "

Ought Six

10-02-2008, 06:20 PM

Lokos

10-02-2008, 11:36 PM

Holding hearings to review the license of a TV station that aired cartoons that lampooned the Russian government is clearly an example of rampant Kremlin paranoia.

It is the job of any government to defend the interests of its electorate. In this case, a religious group issued a complaint. The government responded, with moral conservatives leading the charge in a hearing. Said hearings resulted in no censure. Apologists? The very fact that some see this development as necessitating apologetics is telling. Basic governance in action only draws this sort of response when the 'culprit' is Russia.

L.

rusak

10-03-2008, 02:01 AM

It needs to be somewhat scientific (perhaps not a peer-reviewed study, but certainly not an Internet poll.) And by "abnormally large" I mean more than (percentage-wise) than other countries the US has historically had cold relations with.
OK, so how do you want to do this? It's really funny, because to me and basically any Russian who knows English this is like the most obvious thing in the world. There is clearly an overwhelming negative bias in the Western media, to the extent that it is in effect an anti-Russian "media environment", I don't know what else to call it. I have been following the English language media since 1999, and I am telling you that this is how it is. We can look at all these articles, I can show you plenty of examples. To understand just how biased and factually incorrect and deliberately deceptive a lot of this sh!t is you need to have knowledge of the actual reality to compare it to.

"Mordor"? Come on. It was negative but I can think of far, far, worse accusations to throw than suppressing freedom of the press.No, it's not just suppressing freedom of the press. The article deliberately tries to make it seem like property rights and a justice system basically don't exist in the country, which ties into typical anti-Russian propaganda themes. These are not minor issues at all, they are KEY issues in any country. Then there is the "nationalist youth groups" nonsense, which tries to connect the current Russian government to the Nazis in the mind of the reader. What kind of overall impression does all this create?

But it's not the criticism that gets me. It's the misrepresentations (something that I would have thought you would understand, given your complaints about the use of "Kremlin".)

E.g.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth).

Which is completely BS. The economy hasn't collapsed, the government hasn't collapsed, and I still believe the free market is the way to go. Banks in trouble? I oppose the bailout (Which the lefties support. Ironic, because they love to say they'll stop pandering to the rich). I say let the bankruptcies roll. No use of public money to save people from their own mistakes.He says "model of government" and, it's not quite clear from the language, he may also be saying "model of the economy" but anyway... This is obvious hyperbole and perhaps "wishful thinking" by the author. Just about anyone who isn't braindead knows that the US government at least has not collapsed, and I don't think the author was trying to fool anyone here, he's just saying it to "make a point". This is not same as or even comparable to the level of deliberate deception in that Telegraph article.

See big_les's post. While the specific terms "pro/anti-White House" may be rarely used, the term White House (to refer to the Bush administration) is quite commonly used, as a search of Google News will show. It is also used in political contexts.Yes, I know that. However, there is an explicit understanding that "the White House" refers to the current presidential administration only, and not anything wider than that. That is why you don't see "anti-White House" - because "anti" (or "pro") something implies something more categorical, more permanent. The White House is an iconic American symbol and is associated with the entire political system and even way of life that Americans are taught to be proud of. So you don't hear about "anti-White House protesters" - because there's an element of unacceptable disrespect in the idea of someone being anti-White House. When the media uses the term "anti-Kremlin" they actually legitimize that term in the eyes of the public. See, being anti-Kremlin is all right, it is legitimate, it's in the press. And why would that be? What are they really saying about the Kremlin?

The idea diasporas as small and poor as the Eastern European ones can exert a political force strong enough to keep relations with Russia cold, against many much larger factors that may be working for or against such ends.The Polish diaspora for example is not that small and the hostile Eastern European diasporas were literally dozens of times larger than the ethnic Russian diaspora. I wasn't talking about their lobbies so much as the activity of many of these people in government. I mentioned Dobriansky and the Captive Nations Resoluton for example. How are you going to tell me that these people haven't had a significant influence on American policy?

When AIPAC speaks, Congress listens. The Poles? Relative nobodies. If other factions want a warmer relationship with Russia, it will get warmer, whether the Polish diaspora wants it or not. The ship may be sailing towards colder relations, but it would be sailing that way without the Poles anyway. And when the rest of the crew decides to change course, they won't be able to stop it.Other factions literally don't have the interests to make them seriously act to change course. Like I said, the economic relations that would otherwise serve as an "anchor" still basically don't exist. There is literally nothing to punish them for doing something or not doing something. That's not the case with China, for example. With China there would be a price to pay, literally.

What would be the basis of a libel suit against the author of the Telegraph article?Are you trying to say that one can lie as much as one wants in the mass media while presenting it as fact? Trust me, that is definitely not allowed in civilized countries.

But many American industries are losing out on Russia's economic boom. Take oil for instance. You think that the oil industry (which supposedly has a ton of influence on the American government) are happy about it? They aren't.Yes they are losing out but that's not because of these cold relations, but because of their own inaction. They have failed to gain new markets, they haven't made investments, but it's not because they are barred or anything like that, they just haven't done it. Why haven't they done it? I think there are a number of factors, but the end result is essentially a kind of market failure, where market players fail to act "rationally".

IN a little over a year, the United States has done a startling diplomatic about-face on Russia, moving it from second-rate-power status to vital ally, thanks mostly to one thing: oil.That was ridiculous when I read it then and it's even more ridiculous now in retrospect.

and:

Oil trade strengthens US-Russian ties (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2116133.stm).This is all just talk, nothing substantial actually happened.

But in 2006: Yes and I'm thinking that it's going to take a lot of bonks upside the head like this to make them get on their job. Still, the Shtokman gas field is not expected to start production for years. So this doesn't hurt their immediate bottom line. And that was 2006, where were they before?

Or the IT industry, which is hugely important to the US economy.
It has nothing to gain and everything to lose by cold relations. As do the majority of the top industries (http://www.mc-mncppc.org/research/analysis/economic%20forces/2000/usa.pdf) in the US.I repeat, they haven't actually lost anything due to these cold relations, conditions have not been changed for them because of them.

If big money, in the interests of the defense industry, controls both the media and the government, it makes sense that it would want to promote politicians (Bush) who would take a harder line towards Russia over politicians who wouldn't (Kerry). But that wasn't the case.This "in the interests of the defense industry" is yours, not mine. The defense industry is part of "the money" but I didn't say that it controls everything. And I think that "military-industrial complex" is a more correct term for what I meant because the actual defense industry is connected to many other industries which are not specifically "defense" and I was also talking about the government agencies/companies that are funded by taxpayer money, like the army.

About Kerry and Bush, this "harder line" stuff is nonsense. There wouldn't have been any substantial difference with Kerry. What would the difference be, what would he do, not expand NATO? Like Clinton didn't expand NATO? If you pay attention, in foreign policy especially, the Democrats and Republicans pursue generally the same aims and arrive at the same "destinations" if by somewhat different proclaimed routes.

1. I don't think the Western media in all cases gives "a sufficiently accurate and objective picture of Russia" - hence why I read the Russian news sources I listed. But as I said in an earlier post, the same is true of Russian media in relation to the West.So what have you seen in RIA Novosti or ITAR-TASS or even Russia Today which was comparably as "intentially deceptive" (to hell with "biased", this is more appropriate) as that Telegraph article.

2. I bet your average American wouldn't know WTF Pravda is. Or have more than a passing familiarity with the Cuban Missile Crisis. But that's typical of any average citizen, not just Americans. Those interested in international relations, such as myself, know about the missiles in Turkey.Where do they get their passing familiarity with these things? From the media, obviously. And these messages form their worldview. I'm telling you that you've absorbed so much of this distorted anti-Russian "information" that you now have this "guilty until proven innocent" attitude ("even I never thought it would get this bad") that is not supported by actual facts.

rusak

10-03-2008, 02:23 AM

The Russian government has been quick to overreact to any perceived criticism. Holding hearings to review the license of a TV station that aired cartoons that lampooned the Russian government is clearly an example of rampant Kremlin paranoia. It goes right along with a clear pattern of persecuting any media outlets or journalists who dare report government misconduct or ridicule the Putin administration. This is nothing new. It is just more of the same.

And as always, the very same people here are engaging in the very same sort of apologetics for the suppression of free dissent in Russia. SSDD. :roll:
Did you actually read the thread or not? This person is illustrates how this anti-Russian propaganda works and how effective it is.

Holding hearings to review the license of a TV station that aired cartoons that lampooned the Russian government is clearly an example of rampant Kremlin paranoia.
Key point here. Nowhere in the article did it say that the cartoons lampooned the Russian government. They didn't, they were just regular cartoons. So where did you get that? You literally made it up, you pulled it out of your mind. This is like when people's prejudices affect their "memories". You didn't remember that, you imagined it.

The Russian government has been quick to overreact to any perceived criticism.
A few examples, please.

It goes right along with a clear pattern of persecuting any media outlets or journalists who dare report government misconduct or ridicule the Putin administration.
Clear pattern, huh? So you wouldn't mind listing a few examples, right? This should be good.

Digimon

10-03-2008, 03:40 AM

The situation had been clarified recently in an interview by one of the owners of channel 2x2. Here is the brief recap.

From 2001 to 2007, the channel TV3 ran a religious program “Good News” (Благая Весть) conducted by an American Evangelical priest Rick Renner, who is also the head of the Russian United Christians of Evangelical Faith (aka "пятидесятники"). At the time, TV3 was controlled by an American group of investors, and was the only channel with Federal reach that carried evangelical content (over 1300 hours of programming over 7 years). The channel profited from airing the programs and made over 3 million dollars from the groups connected to evangelicals.

On November 7th, 2007, TV3 was bought by ProfMedia, which, then, cancelled the contract with “Good News”. In April, after the company started its programming and after unsuccessful attempts at negotiation, the evangelicals started a mass campaign against the channel. According to one of the main owners of ProfMedia, the ultimate aim of this campaign is to gain the access to federal airtime through transferring the license to one of ProfMedia’s competitors. Two of the three experts specializing in pre-school psychology who were brought to evaluate the programming had been previously noted for criticisms of the channel and its content.

Source: http://www.izvestia.ru/tv/article3121116

I find it curious that it is the American Evangelicals who are transplanting these typical for US pressure methods into the Russian media space. They are also responsible for most gay bashing, whom Russian Orthodox Church considers “lost” but not evil. The Russians are quite apathetic and are not easily enticed into protests or moral outrage. I find it curious that Russia becomes in many respect more American than either the Russians or the Americans are willing to admit...

Having said all that, I must note that the present head of Russian Radio and Communication agency that licenses media channels and distributes airspace views the role of the agency as political. That much was clear from his interviews to Kommersant over the year. Previously, the agency refused to be involved as content regulator; their role was purely technical. The letter from the agency indicating that the public input will be considered in the decision to extend the license would not have been possible just a couple of years ago. Clearly, the regulators do not understand that if the channel is competitive then a great deal of people have already approved of it by choosing it over others. I have little doubt that this failure will eventually lead to greater censorship...

Kremlin, of course, had nothing to do with it. If they wanted to clean up television, all they had to do is introduce some tough and sweeping legislation. They can certainly pass just about any bill they want, and they have no need to be sneaky about such matters.

ayanami_tard

10-03-2008, 04:38 AM

at least they didn't ban japanese animationp-)

『back to topic』

Ought Six

10-03-2008, 04:51 PM

L:
"It is the job of any government to defend the interests of its electorate. In this case, a religious group issued a complaint. The government responded, with moral conservatives leading the charge in a hearing. Said hearings resulted in no censure. Apologists? The very fact that some see this development as necessitating apologetics is telling. Basic governance in action only draws this sort of response when the 'culprit' is Russia."So I guess we are to believe that there is totally equal enforcement of these rules across the board by the Russian government. They do not dismiss any of these complaints as unfounded. They do not single out private TV stations broadcasting American TV shows for special harassment, threatening their broadcasting license and forcing them to deploy lawyers and other expensive resources in their defense to send them a message. Instead, they hold hearings for every single complaint. Do you seriously believe this? "Defending the electorate" ??? Please. :roll:
----------
"Basic governance in action only draws this sort of response when the 'culprit' is Russia."Pretending persecution is just whining, not a valid argument. Your statement is also completely false. When EU nations engage in political correctness in limiting free speech, they are roundly criticized here. So is American misconduct, such as 'free speech zones'. The idea that on this board, Russia alone is criticized for bad acts by its government is too silly to merit anything other than a chuckle.

==========================================================================

r:
"OK, so how do you want to do this? It's really funny, because to me and basically any Russian who knows English this is like the most obvious thing in the world. There is clearly an overwhelming negative bias in the Western media, to the extent that it is in effect an anti-Russian "media environment", I don't know what else to call it. I have been following the English language media since 1999, and I am telling you that this is how it is. We can look at all these articles, I can show you plenty of examples. To understand just how biased and factually incorrect and deliberately deceptive a lot of this sh!t is you need to have knowledge of the actual reality to compare it to."The facts prove you wrong. Russian leaders that engaged with other nations, instead of invading them, were treated like the Second Coming by the western media. Putin and his new lapdog are disliked and distrusted in the west for good reason. There is a bias, but it is one that the present and former administrations created with their own actions.
----------
"No, it's not just suppressing freedom of the press. The article deliberately tries to make it seem like property rights and a justice system basically don't exist in the country, which ties into typical anti-Russian propaganda themes. These are not minor issues at all, they are KEY issues in any country."Please provide specific quotes from the article to support your assertion.
----------
"Then there is the "nationalist youth groups" nonsense, which tries to connect the current Russian government to the Nazis in the mind of the reader. What kind of overall impression does all this create?"A fairly accurate one in that narrow sense, so far as I can see. The Duma stating they would institute 'patriotic programming' for youth is an open admission that the authoritarian government intends to use political propaganda on government-controlled mass media for the purposes of nationalist indoctrination of Russian youth. This sort of thing is one of the hallmarks of a fascist (again, small 'f') regime. That idea should be utterly repugnant to any free people.
----------
"Yes, I know that. However, there is an explicit understanding that "the White House" refers to the current presidential administration only, and not anything wider than that. That is why you don't see "anti-White House" - because "anti" (or "pro") something implies something more categorical, more permanent. The White House is an iconic American symbol and is associated with the entire political system and even way of life that Americans are taught to be proud of. So you don't hear about "anti-White House protesters" - because there's an element of unacceptable disrespect in the idea of someone being anti-White House. When the media uses the term "anti-Kremlin" they actually legitimize that term in the eyes of the public. See, being anti-Kremlin is all right, it is legitimate, it's in the press. And why would that be? What are they really saying about the Kremlin?"So 'anti-White House' is okay because it is not really anti-American, but 'anti-Kremlin' is a code phrase for some sort of anti-Russian bigotry or something? The tortured non-logic you use to try and sell this ridiculous assertion is indicative of just how specious it really is. If you look hard enough for Russia-bashers behind every bush, sooner or later you will start 'seeing' them everywhere. You aleady see them in even the slightest criticism of anything Russian.
----------
"About Kerry and Bush, this "harder line" stuff is nonsense. There wouldn't have been any substantial difference with Kerry. What would the difference be, what would he do, not expand NATO? Like Clinton didn't expand NATO? If you pay attention, in foreign policy especially, the Democrats and Republicans pursue generally the same aims and arrive at the same "destinations" if by somewhat different proclaimed routes."So Clinton would have invaded Iraq after 9/11?
----------
"Did you actually read the thread or not? This person is illustrates how this anti-Russian propaganda works and how effective it is."Your response clearly illustrates how fanboyism blinds people completely to reality.
----------
"Key point here. Nowhere in the article did it say that the cartoons lampooned the Russian government. They didn't, they were just regular cartoons. So where did you get that? You literally made it up, you pulled it out of your mind. This is like when people's prejudices affect their "memories". You didn't remember that, you imagined it."I guess you missed the discussion on this thread of how South Park and The Simpsons lampoons every nation, including Russia, and that this was likely a major factor in the decision to hold hearings on this particular complaint from the religious group. In fairness, I should have drawn that distinction clearly in my response.
----------
"A few examples, please."
-----
"Clear pattern, huh? So you wouldn't mind listing a few examples, right? This should be good."There is thread after thread on this board with lengthly discussion and examples of precisely this, as you well know. Are you pretending that you are unaware of this, or do you somehow think that demanding people repeat the same evidence over and over bolsters your weak arguments?

==========================================================================

D:
"Kremlin, of course, had nothing to do with it. If they wanted to clean up television, all they had to do is introduce some tough and sweeping legislation. They can certainly pass just about any bill they want, and they have no need to be sneaky about such matters."The Kremlin saw a chance to harass a private TV network that airs American content, and jumped on it. They wish to preserve their facade as a non-dictatorial government, and do not want to simply march in with troops and sieze private media outlets. So instead they wage a campaign of harassment, intimidation and violence to extort media compliance with the national media agenda set by Putin's regime. The license hearings were a clear warning. They also help build a case creating a pretext for the eventual closing of independent stations, and taking their spectrum for government propaganda channels. We will see if this is where things are heading.

Digimon

10-03-2008, 06:54 PM

D:The Kremlin saw a chance to harass a private TV network that airs American content, and jumped on it. They wish to preserve their facade as a non-dictatorial government, and do not want to simply march in with troops and sieze private media outlets. So instead they wage a campaign of harassment, intimidation and violence to extort media compliance with the national media agenda set by Putin's regime. The license hearings were a clear warning. They also help build a case creating a pretext for the eventual closing of independent stations, and taking their spectrum for government propaganda channels. We will see if this is where things are heading.

Here is where you are making a mistake, they do not really care--their reputation is already at zero. Additionally, American content is shown on all channels, and even more on state channels than on any other ones (you should check out the programming). There were no harassment from the state, only from the evangelicals sending in letters; the regulating agency already recommended to extend the license unanimously.

Look, I understand your indignation and I would share it if it were not provoked by a myth. The problem, as I pointed out, is not that the Kremlin is doing something nasty in this case--there are no reasons to believe it is--but that it can easily do something like this any time it decides to do so. They have sufficient legislative tools and public support to shut any station they want. And although the current Kremlin administration is only politically conservative, there will certainly come a time, I am sure, when it will also be sufficiently socially conservative to clump down on Godless rock-and-roll...

You are confusing superficial symptoms with structural problems and seem to be too willing to ignore facts to preserve your background theory. Try to discover the truth, not justify your position... I, on the other hand, am no longer interested in this conversation...

rusak

10-04-2008, 01:54 AM

L:So I guess we are to believe that there is totally equal enforcement of these rules across the board by the Russian government. They do not dismiss any of these complaints as unfounded.
They do dismiss them as unfounded. You don't know what you're talking about but you're still talking. A similar complaint against REN-TV was dismissed.

They do not single out private TV stations broadcasting American TV shows for special harassmentOf course they don't. That's absurd. There are American and other foreign shows and movies on all the major channels, including of course the state-run channels, all the time. There's plenty of American crap on the state-run Channel One right now: http://www.1tv.ru/shedweek

threatening their broadcasting license and forcing them to deploy lawyers and other expensive resources in their defense to send them a message. Instead, they hold hearings for every single complaint. Do you seriously believe this?What lawyers, what hearings? They are not on trial. This is just hilarious... What do you think, that this channel is some "mom and pop" operation...run by a few brave pro-Western, democracy-loving souls, right? That's what your well-informed brain has come up with, isn't it? Prof-Media, the company that owns this channel is owned by Interros. Look up what Interros is. It's one of the largest conglomerates in Russia.

The facts prove you wrong. Russian leaders that engaged with other nations, instead of invading them, were treated like the Second Coming by the western media. Putin and his new lapdog are disliked and distrusted in the west for good reason. There is a bias, but it is one that the present and former administrations created with their own actions.I wasn't even talking about Russian leaders but about anything to do with Russia. The Western media "liked" Russian leaders that sold out Russian interests for nothing and basically destroyed their country. The invasion of Georgia took place in August 2008, what countries did Putin invade before then? How did Putin not "engage" with other nations? Putin, among other things, closed bases in Cuba and Vietnam, was the first to call Bush, offered help in Afghanistan. What did the United States do to engage with Russia? They didn't even repeal Jackson-Vanik, which shouldn't have even made it past Clinton. <--- If you don't respond to this point, don't bother responding at all.

Please provide specific quotes from the article to support your assertion.You didn't read my earlier posts in this thread and now you're basically asking me to repeat myself? I explained this in detail already, read this (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3578420&postcount=44) post.

A fairly accurate one in that narrow sense, so far as I can see. The Duma stating they would institute 'patriotic programming' for youth is an open admission that the authoritarian government intends to use political propaganda on government-controlled mass media for the purposes of nationalist indoctrination of Russian youth. This sort of thing is one of the hallmarks of a fascist (again, small 'f') regime. That idea should be utterly repugnant to any free people.You can't see anything and that's the problem. Like I said earlier, the Duma did not say that. That's one of the blatant lies in the article. Read my previous posts, I explained this already.

So 'anti-White House' is okay because it is not really anti-American, but 'anti-Kremlin' is a code phrase for some sort of anti-Russian bigotry or something?Do you even understand English? I was talking about the dichotomy between these terms in the Western media, why one is regularly used in the mainstream media and the other almost never used. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't have a problem with "anti-Kremlin" if "anti-White House" was used similarly, but it isn't.

You aleady see them in even the slightest criticism of anything Russian.This article isn't criticism, it's blatant lying and deliberate deception. There's a difference.

So Clinton would have invaded Iraq after 9/11?I don't want to diverge too much from the topic here.

I guess you missed the discussion on this thread of how South Park and The Simpsons lampoons every nation, including Russia, and that this was likely a major factor in the decision to hold hearings on this particular complaint from the religious group. In fairness, I should have drawn that distinction clearly in my response.So how does The Simpsons lampoon Namibia? This is all your fantasy. If the cartoons lampooned the Russian government, the article would not have left that out. It was not major factor or a factor at all.

The Kremlin saw a chance to harass a private TV network that airs American content, and jumped on it. They wish to preserve their facade as a non-dictatorial government, and do not want to simply march in with troops and sieze private media outlets. So instead they wage a campaign of harassment, intimidation and violence to extort media compliance with the national media agenda set by Putin's regime. The license hearings were a clear warning. They also help build a case creating a pretext for the eventual closing of independent stations, and taking their spectrum for government propaganda channels. We will see if this is where things are heading.You see, this is the result what what I call mindf*cking by the Western media. The whole statement is a bunch of fantasy, based on distortion, based on distortion, based on lies. It's a bunch of nonsense.

Some facts and points:

1. No serious observers in Russia see the Kremlin as being behind this. Quite the contrary, they are saying that the Kremlin does not support this and it won't go through. The article made up this whole central premise of the Kremlin being behind this.

2. All the major networks in Russia air American content. The Simpsons, Family Guy etc have been shown for years. So why now all of a sudden would the Kremlin want to jump on this cartoon channel? Where is the logic? Where is the common sense?

3. "campaign of harassment, intimidation and violence" - this is a bunch of buzzwords that the media throws at you, and of course it is BS. Violence? Really? What, you trying to connect this to the "murdered journalists" sh!t? About those journalists, read this:
http://fkriuk.blogspot.com/2008/02/audit-of-committee-to-protect.html

4. "national media agenda set by Putin's regime" - what national media agenda is that? Because judging from the past 8 years, it would seem that this agenda has been about showing more and more filth and nonsense on TV. The government does promote patriotism on the state channels but "banning the Simpsons" is not in line with that.

5. "The license hearings were a clear warning." - clear warning to do what exactly?

6. "build a case creating a pretext for the eventual closing of independent stations" - what, weren't all the independent stations closed a long time ago? What have they been waiting for?

TheStorm

10-04-2008, 10:12 PM

OK, so how do you want to do this? It's really funny, because to me and basically any Russian who knows English this is like the most obvious thing in the world. There is clearly an overwhelming negative bias in the Western media, to the extent that it is in effect an anti-Russian "media environment", I don't know what else to call it.

Yeah, well, it's not very obvious to anyone else. Thin-skinned Russians and their narrative of evil capitalist Western meanies attacking poor old Mother Russia is not something we lose sleep over.

I have been following the English language media since 1999, and I am telling you that this is how it is. We can look at all these articles, I can show you plenty of examples. To understand just how biased and factually incorrect and deliberately deceptive a lot of this sh!t is you need to have knowledge of the actual reality to compare it to.

Well, stop beating around the bush and cough up the evidence then. I've already given you my criteria.

No, it's not just suppressing freedom of the press. The article deliberately tries to make it seem like property rights and a justice system basically don't exist in the country, which ties into typical anti-Russian propaganda themes. These are not minor issues at all, they are KEY issues in any country. Then there is the "nationalist youth groups" nonsense, which tries to connect the current Russian government to the Nazis in the mind of the reader. What kind of overall impression does all this create?

I was thinking more along the lines of genocide and slavery. That's "Mordor". "Property rights and a justice system that basically doesn't exist?" Not even close. This is just another example of Russians blowing all Western reporting on Russia way, way out of proportion.

And yes, Nashi is a disturbing organization. It is a nationalist youth group, it is supported by the Russian government, and it deserves all the criticism it gets.

He says "model of government" and, it's not quite clear from the language, he may also be saying "model of the economy" but anyway... This is obvious hyperbole and perhaps "wishful thinking" by the author. Just about anyone who isn't braindead knows that the US government at least has not collapsed, and I don't think the author was trying to fool anyone here, he's just saying it to "make a point". This is not same as or even comparable to the level of deliberate deception in that Telegraph article.

Oh, of course. He's "trying to fool anyone here, he's just saying it to "make a point"." Mmmmmkay. I wonder how Russians would react if the author said the same things about Russia? Oh wait, we already know. They'd throw the tantrum of the century. We can't have any "hyperbole", "wishful thinking", and "point-making" when it comes to Russia. I mean, you'd have to be some kind of evil, racist, anti-Russian propagandist to engage in that.

You make silly excuses to justify that BS as no big deal, but the reality is that you're just a hypocrite. You're right, it's not even comparable to the Telgraph article. It's far beyond it. "an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed". That phrase alone blows the Telegraph's article out of the water as far as "blatant lies" and "deliberate distortions" are concerned.

Yes, I know that. However, there is an explicit understanding that "the White House" refers to the current presidential administration only, and not anything wider than that. That is why you don't see "anti-White House" - because "anti" (or "pro") something implies something more categorical, more permanent.

There is no basis for that conclusion. You irrationally give special import to the words "anti" and "pro". "Anti" means against, "pro" means for. No more, no less. The White House/Kremlin have no power outside of the presidents who occupy them. Political presidents. They're not formal institutions of the government in and of themselves.

The White House is an iconic American symbol and is associated with the entire political system and even way of life that Americans are taught to be proud of.

The White House represents only the executive branch and in no way represents the American way of life - the "American Dream", if you will. I don't know where you got those ideas from, but they're patently false.

So you don't hear about "anti-White House protesters" - because there's an element of unacceptable disrespect in the idea of someone being anti-White House. When the media uses the term "anti-Kremlin" they actually legitimize that term in the eyes of the public. See, being anti-Kremlin is all right, it is legitimate, it's in the press. And why would that be? What are they really saying about the Kremlin?

No. See what I said above and my previous post on the use of "anti-Kremlin".

The Polish diaspora for example is not that small and the hostile Eastern European diasporas were literally dozens of times larger than the ethnic Russian diaspora. I wasn't talking about their lobbies so much as the activity of many of these people in government. I mentioned Dobriansky and the Captive Nations Resoluton for example. How are you going to tell me that these people haven't had a significant influence on American policy?

The US was hostile to communism and would've opposed the Soviet Union with or without the influence of Eastern European diasporas. Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous. Dobriansky was in a dog-and-pony show.

Other factions literally don't have the interests to make them seriously act to change course. Like I said, the economic relations that would otherwise serve as an "anchor" still basically don't exist. There is literally nothing to punish them for doing something or not doing something. That's not the case with China, for example. With China there would be a price to pay, literally.

Are you trying to say that one can lie as much as one wants in the mass media while presenting it as fact? Trust me, that is definitely not allowed in civilized countries.

Hate to break it to you, but it is. If CNN said in a news report tomorrow that the US government was a murderous dictatorship, and Bush was Hitler 2.0, the government wouldn't (and couldn't) do jack about it. Freedom of speech/the press includes freedom to say things that are not true, especially when it comes to public figures' political decisions and organizations. The responsibility lies with the consumer to figure out what is and isn't true.

That was ridiculous when I read it then and it's even more ridiculous now in retrospect.

This is all just talk, nothing substantial actually happened.

Perhaps, but it goes to show that non-defense industries can certainly influence the US's attitude towards Russia.

Yes and I'm thinking that it's going to take a lot of bonks upside the head like this to make them get on their job. Still, the Shtokman gas field is not expected to start production for years. So this doesn't hurt their immediate bottom line. And that was 2006, where were they before?

Come off it. Of course these resources take a while to develop, but that doesn't mean the loss of the opportunity to develop it hurts any less. If companies operated by your logic, they would be crushed by competitors due to shortsightedness.

I repeat, they haven't actually lost anything due to these cold relations, conditions have not been changed for them because of them.

Cold relations may not be the only factor, but it will influence the awarding of contracts. And losing a contract to your competitor is just that - losing. Common sense tells you that's not good for a company.

This "in the interests of the defense industry" is yours, not mine. The defense industry is part of "the money" but I didn't say that it controls everything. And I think that "military-industrial complex" is a more correct term for what I meant because the actual defense industry is connected to many other industries which are not specifically "defense" and I was also talking about the government agencies/companies that are funded by taxpayer money, like the army.

The point is that the media is not advancing the "military-industrial complexes" supposed aims of colder relations with Russia.

About Kerry and Bush, this "harder line" stuff is nonsense. There wouldn't have been any substantial difference with Kerry. What would the difference be, what would he do, not expand NATO? Like Clinton didn't expand NATO? If you pay attention, in foreign policy especially, the Democrats and Republicans pursue generally the same aims and arrive at the same "destinations" if by somewhat different proclaimed routes.

More ignorance of American politics. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, Kerry would have pulled us out of Iraq, would've negotiated with Iran, and in particular, given the fact that Russians love to whine about it, wouldn't have pushed for missile defense in Eastern Europe, among many other things.

Do your research next time.

So what have you seen in RIA Novosti or ITAR-TASS or even Russia Today which was comparably as "intentially deceptive" (to hell with "biased", this is more appropriate) as that Telegraph article.

I've seen my fair share. There's an attitude of paranoia towards the US/West.

Where do they get their passing familiarity with these things? From the media, obviously. And these messages form their worldview. I'm telling you that you've absorbed so much of this distorted anti-Russian "information" that you now have this "guilty until proven innocent" attitude ("even I never thought it would get this bad") that is not supported by actual facts.

You can tell me as much as you want, but it won't make it true.

loganinkosovo

10-05-2008, 12:38 AM

It's classic Comedy....so suck it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V52pi2ofJD4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V39UraRaHE8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6LgURzQihw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUONr3zi9_g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfDteNoTIMY

loganinkosovo

10-05-2008, 01:37 AM

Putin will really lose his mind when we start sending over Futurama, The Family Guy and American Dad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZATf1io4q1c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGwC7U6Sf3o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJZnHVdlqX4

rusak

10-05-2008, 04:55 AM

Yeah, well, it's not very obvious to anyone else. Thin-skinned Russians and their narrative of evil capitalist Western meanies attacking poor old Mother Russia is not something we lose sleep over.
See, even this idiotic "evil capitalist" sh!t is the result of this continual stream of misinformation. I certainly didn't saything like that, so how did this monkey feces find its way into your brain? You weren't born with it, the Western media put it there.

Well, stop beating around the bush and cough up the evidence then. I've already given you my criteria.What evidence do you want? Many major publications have a very consistent (I know because I've been reading the sh!t since the late 90s) negative bias toward Russia. For example, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post. And no, you don't find in the mainstream Western media a comparable level of bias toward the US. There is consistently an overwhelming negative bias which is often ridiculous and completely insane. I can give you a few recent examples. There is this garbage from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11355554

While The Economist is practically always biased against Russia -- and this is not even close to the worst of it -- in this one they take special care to expose themselves for the morons that they are. Look at this line:

"...and military jets whizzed past your correspondent's kitchen window, scaring children and knocking over plants."

Wow. Knocking over plants? The author should be shot for that, for insulting people's intelligence like that. You see, they just completely don't care. They don't even care if something is physically possible, just as long as it goes along with the usual anti-Russian garbage, it's fine and the reader will accept it regardless.

Another example. Now this one is really something... From The Wall Street Journal, no less. The author accuses the Russians of everything except eating Georgian babies, though I probably just missed that part:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122220864672268787.html

I don't even know what to say. The sh!t is just completely insane. I think I'm going to create a separate topic for this article. And this is in the WSJ.

I was thinking more along the lines of genocide and slavery. That's "Mordor". "Property rights and a justice system that basically doesn't exist?" Not even close. This is just another example of Russians blowing all Western reporting on Russia way, way out of proportion.I did put Mordor in quotations, with a little sarcasm to it. How is it way, way out of proportion? Explain that please. Are you actually going to dispute that these are KEY ISSUES in any country?

Let's stop this bullsh!t already. Are you going to acknowledge that there are blatant lies in the article or not? Are you going to acknowledge that it amounts to deliberate deception or not? I need to know if there is any sense in continuing this. What is it going to take to get you to acknowledge these things?

And yes, Nashi is a disturbing organization. It is a nationalist youth group, it is supported by the Russian government, and it deserves all the criticism it gets.Nashi is a lot more important in the Western press than it is in Russia, does that tell you anything?

Oh, of course. He's "trying to fool anyone here, he's just saying it to "make a point"." Mmmmmkay. I wonder how Russians would react if the author said the same things about Russia? Oh wait, we already know. They'd throw the tantrum of the century. We can't have any "hyperbole", "wishful thinking", and "point-making" when it comes to Russia. I mean, you'd have to be some kind of evil, racist, anti-Russian propagandist to engage in that.I told you how Russians would react to this type of article overall. It would be considered a huge improvement, a dream come true. It's obvious that the author was just using hyperbole to make a point. It was not an attempt to fool anyone. Do you acknowledge this or not? Do you actually think the author was trying to deceive someone into thinking that the US government had collapsed? Are you serious? Who was going to read that and be fooled into actually thinking that? Wouldn't they notice a lack of other articles talking about the collapse of the US government? It's not the same as intentional misinformation.

You make silly excuses to justify that BS as no big deal, but the reality is that you're just a hypocrite. You're right, it's not even comparable to the Telgraph article. It's far beyond it. "an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed". That phrase alone blows the Telegraph's article out of the water as far as "blatant lies" and "deliberate distortions" are concerned.It doesn't blow anything out of the water because it is obvious hyperbolic rhetoric, not a statement of fact. That is an opinion piece. Do you understand the different between an opinion piece and an article that purports to inform about current events (news/analysis)? Are you saying that a lie in one is no different than a lie in the other? Do you not see that there is a principal difference here?

There is no basis for that conclusion. You irrationally give special import to the words "anti" and "pro". "Anti" means against, "pro" means for. No more, no less. The White House/Kremlin have no power outside of the presidents who occupy them. Political presidents. They're not formal institutions of the government in and of themselves.It's not irrational. This is about the language. When someone is anti- or pro- something, it usually means all (or at least most) manifestations of that something, all (or most of) the time. Do you dispute this or not? If someone is anti-white, that means all/most white people, all/most of the time. Not one white person, in a particular capacity, for 4 years. Do you see what I'm talking about or not? The use of pro/anti is in regard to categorical, permanent views.

The White House represents only the executive branch and in no way represents the American way of life - the "American Dream", if you will. I don't know where you got those ideas from, but they're patently false.It's associated with America in general, including "way of life". Like they say about apple pie, baseball and all that. It is a symbol associated with America in general, and you have to be out of your mind to dispute that.

No. See what I said above and my previous post on the use of "anti-Kremlin".No, what? You have not explained this dichotomy that exists between these two terms in the Western media. What is your explanation for why "anti-White House" is almost never used, while "anti-Kremlin" is regularly used in the mainstream media? It's not like it's even close, as I demonstrated here. So what's the reason? Nothing just is for no reason.

The US was hostile to communism and would've opposed the Soviet Union with or without the influence of Eastern European diasporas. Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous. Dobriansky was in a dog-and-pony show.It would have opposed Communism in a different way. In fact it would have opposed specifically Communism, and not Russia. Dobriansky opposed Russia as such and "anti-Communism" was just a vehicle for it.

Hate to break it to you, but it is. If CNN said in a news report tomorrow that the US government was a murderous dictatorship, and Bush was Hitler 2.0, the government wouldn't (and couldn't) do jack about it. Freedom of speech/the press includes freedom to say things that are not true, especially when it comes to public figures' political decisions and organizations. The responsibility lies with the consumer to figure out what is and isn't true.What does it even mean to say "Bush is Hitler" or "murderous dictatorship"? It doesn't mean anything, it's not specific, it's just an "opinion". However, if they claimed that a government agency or Bush did something specific that they didn't actually do, they could be held liable. Defamation laws are real, I didn't make this sh!t up. As for the responsibility lies with consumer, that's bullsh!t. Fraudulent advertising is prohibited in the US.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "hyperbolic rhetoric" in an opinion piece and deliberate, intentional deception in a news/analysis article. Do you understand the difference or not?

Perhaps, but it goes to show that non-defense industries can certainly influence the US's attitude towards Russia.No one was denying that here. Try again.

Come off it. Of course these resources take a while to develop, but that doesn't mean the loss of the opportunity to develop it hurts any less. If companies operated by your logic, they would be crushed by competitors due to shortsightedness.I'm saying that it hurts them less in the short term. It does not hurt them like losing a multi-billion dollar investment that has already been made would hurt them. Moreover, US energy companies know that they won't get what they want from Russia. They will not get the kind of deals they want, cold relations or otherwise. And what are you talking about "my logic"? It's not my logic, it's their logic. I'm saying that thus far apparently the incentives/missed opportunities have not been sufficient to get them to put some serious resources into getting the ship to change course. And because they have failed to become involved on the ground much, they don't stand to take substantial immediate losses, so they don't have to worry about trying to prevent that either.

Cold relations may not be the only factor, but it will influence the awarding of contracts. And losing a contract to your competitor is just that - losing. Common sense tells you that's not good for a company.They have not become involved in Russia by their own choice, not because of any problems due to cold relations.

The point is that the media is not advancing the "military-industrial complexes" supposed aims of colder relations with Russia.Let me ask you this, how do you explain this media environment? It's almost uniformly negative. Are you going to claim that it is really just a reflection of objective facts on the ground? I'm telling you that it isn't. So what do you tell me? You going to tell me that this what a truly free and impartial media has produced? Where is the "other side"? You almost never see anyone question all this BS.

More ignorance of American politics. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, Kerry would have pulled us out of Iraq, would've negotiated with Iran, and in particular, given the fact that Russians love to whine about it, wouldn't have pushed for missile defense in Eastern Europe, among many other things.

Do your research next time.You don't know what they would have done. When he was first running for president, Bush was saying that he is against "nation-building" and that the US should be less involved internationally.

I've seen my fair share. There's an attitude of paranoia towards the US/West.You've seen sh!t. I didn't ask about an attitude of paranoia, I asked about blatant lying and intentional deception comparable to the article you posted. If you've never seen anything like that, feel free to admit it.

You can tell me as much as you want, but it won't make it true.And you can look at the facts and say "no" as much as you want, but it won't make them not true.

eugenlitwin

10-06-2008, 02:41 PM

TheStorm

10-07-2008, 12:42 AM

See, even this idiotic "evil capitalist" sh!t is the result of this continual stream of misinformation. I certainly didn't saything like that, so how did this monkey feces find its way into your brain? You weren't born with it, the Western media put it there.

Don't be disingenuous. First, it was...hyperbole. Second, there's no denying that, especially during the Gorbachev administration, Russians had a considerable amount of resentment of the new free market and "Westerners trying to take advantage of it".

What evidence do you want?

It needs to be somewhat scientific (perhaps not a peer-reviewed study, but certainly not an Internet poll.) And by "abnormally large" I mean more than (percentage-wise) than other countries the US has historically had cold relations with.

I'm waiting to be "destroyed". Now the "destroyer" just needs to stop beating around the bush.

"...and military jets whizzed past your correspondent's kitchen window, scaring children and knocking over plants."

Wow. Knocking over plants? The author should be shot for that,

You need help. You've become consumed with anger, and lost the ability to think rationally.

for insulting people's intelligence like that. You see, they just completely don't care. They don't even care if something is physically possible, just as long as it goes along with the usual anti-Russian garbage, it's fine and the reader will accept it regardless.

It is indeed physically possible. Very. Sorry.

Another example. Now this one is really something... From The Wall Street Journal, no less. The author accuses the Russians of everything except eating Georgian babies, though I probably just missed that part:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122220864672268787.html

I don't even know what to say. The sh!t is just completely insane. I think I'm going to create a separate topic for this article. And this is in the WSJ.

That's commentary, just like the Guardian articles I posted. That should have been obvious to you by the style of writing in the article.

I did put Mordor in quotations, with a little sarcasm to it. How is it way, way out of proportion? Explain that please. Are you actually going to dispute that these are KEY ISSUES in any country?

Never said they weren't. But not nearly as "key" as some other issues.

Let's stop this bullsh!t already. Are you going to acknowledge that there are blatant lies in the article or not? Are you going to acknowledge that it amounts to deliberate deception or not? I need to know if there is any sense in continuing this. What is it going to take to get you to acknowledge these things?

Referring to your post #44 in this thread, I remain unconvinced by your complaints about the articles' use of "The Kremlin" and description of Nashi. The rest? Apparently false. But that was settled by redfox0035's post #34, and my subsequent response.

Nashi is a lot more important in the Western press than it is in Russia, does that tell you anything?

Well, obviously, I can conclude the Russians aren't as disturbed by it as Westerners are.

I told you how Russians would react to this type of article overall. It would be considered a huge improvement, a dream come true. It's obvious that the author was just using hyperbole to make a point. It was not an attempt to fool anyone. Do you acknowledge this or not?

B.S. If Russia went through a credit crisis like the one the US is experiencing, Russians would be blowing their tops if a Western newspaper said that Russia's model of government and economy had collapsed. The point the author is trying to make, hyperbole or no, is a pretty nasty one.

Your blatant hypocrisy is amusing at best.

Do you actually think the author was trying to deceive someone into thinking that the US government had collapsed? Are you serious? Who was going to read that and be fooled into actually thinking that? Wouldn't they notice a lack of other articles talking about the collapse of the US government? It's not the same as intentional misinformation.

The article didn't say that the US government had collapsed.

an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.

In my response to it, I didn't include "model". But my criticism still applies. The models haven't collapsed. Not even close.

It doesn't blow anything out of the water because it is obvious hyperbolic rhetoric, not a statement of fact. That is an opinion piece. Do you understand the different between an opinion piece and an article that purports to inform about current events (news/analysis)? Are you saying that a lie in one is no different than a lie in the other? Do you not see that there is a principal difference here?

Lies are lies. The simple fact is, these articles openly and shamelessly attempt to stir up anti-American sentiment. That's a problem.

It's not irrational. This is about the language. When someone is anti- or pro- something, it usually means all (or at least most) manifestations of that something, all (or most of) the time. Do you dispute this or not? If someone is anti-white, that means all/most white people, all/most of the time. Not one white person, in a particular capacity, for 4 years. Do you see what I'm talking about or not? The use of pro/anti is in regard to categorical, permanent views.

Except white people is a specific group. "The Kremlin" is not. It's another way of saying Russia's presidential administration, regardless of what party it belongs to and what political views it holds, whether for or against the West. If someone from the future came out of a time machine and said "I hate white people" it's clear he's racist. If he said, "I hate the Kremlin", there's no telling what views he holds. He could be left wing, and the Kremlin is occupied by a right-wing administration. Or vice-versa.

It's associated with America in general, including "way of life". Like they say about apple pie, baseball and all that. It is a symbol associated with America in general, and you have to be out of your mind to dispute that.

Thanks for stating the obvious-but-irrelevant. The White House is used in political contexts;

Justice Dept. probe flays White House

and nobody thinks the Justice Department was flaying the "American way of life". Anybody with a brain can separate the contexts "the White House" is used in.

Justice Dept. probe flays Kremlin

Would that be objectionable to you?

No, what? You have not explained this dichotomy that exists between these two terms in the Western media. What is your explanation for why "anti-White House" is almost never used, while "anti-Kremlin" is regularly used in the mainstream media? It's not like it's even close, as I demonstrated here. So what's the reason? Nothing just is for no reason.

Same when I hear the Kremlin. The Putin/Medvedev administration is what's in my mind. If Gary Kasparov (heh) became President of Russia tomorrow, and begin implementing strong pro-West policies, I have no reason to doubt that the Western media would continue to say Pro-Kremlin to describe his (pro-Western) supporters and "anti-Kremlin" to describe the new (anti West) opposition).

It would have opposed Communism in a different way. In fact it would have opposed specifically Communism, and not Russia. Dobriansky opposed Russia as such and "anti-Communism" was just a vehicle for it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You're being intellectually dishonest. The Soviet Union is the relevant state here, not Russia. Russia was a union republic. And the Soviet Union was communist. Therefore, it was opposed. How else would you oppose communism if not by opposing its biggest sponsor? Which was, again, the Soviet Union, not Russia.

What does it even mean to say "Bush is Hitler" or "murderous dictatorship"? It doesn't mean anything, it's not specific, it's just an "opinion".

An absurd opinion, at best, and only if you lack a modicum of intelligence. Otherwise, they're clearly lies. But we are in agreement. So a reporter could say the same things about Putin and Russia and not be guilty of libel.

However, if they claimed that a government agency or Bush did something specific that they didn't actually do, they could be held liable. Defamation laws are real, I didn't make this sh!t up.

If and only if it can be proven that it was a malicious and intentional falsehood.

As for the responsibility lies with consumer, that's bullsh!t. Fraudulent advertising is prohibited in the US.

Since you clearly weren't aware, we're talking about news, not advertising. Good try at covering your ass, though.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "hyperbolic rhetoric" in an opinion piece and deliberate, intentional deception in a news/analysis article. Do you understand the difference or not?

That article was not mere hyperbolic rhetoric. The whole article follows that tone. The author believes what he's saying 100%. And your silly attempts to wave it away as no big deal are starting to get boring. Moreover, what proof do you have that the falsehoods in the Telegraph article were deliberate and intentional?

The Telegraph writer got some facts about Russian politics wrong. The Guardian writer, on the other hand, gloatingly comes straight out and says "The Americans are wrong, they were wrong all along, and their system of government and economy is a failure." That's hostile, unfair, and false. What more do you want in blatant propaganda?

No one was denying that here. Try again.

Try what again?

I'm saying that it hurts them less in the short term. It does not hurt them like losing a multi-billion dollar investment that has already been made would hurt them. Moreover, US energy companies know that they won't get what they want from Russia. They will not get the kind of deals they want, cold relations or otherwise.

They will get few if any deals because of the cold relations. And it's better to get a worst-than-optimal deal, and perhaps make a smaller profit than you wanted, than let it fall into the hands of your competitors. Then you completely lose.

And what are you talking about "my logic"? It's not my logic, it's their logic. I'm saying that thus far apparently the incentives/missed opportunities have not been sufficient to get them to put some serious resources into getting the ship to change course. And because they have failed to become involved on the ground much, they don't stand to take substantial immediate losses, so they don't have to worry about trying to prevent that either.

I don't buy that, for reasons stated above. Also, you have not addressed the issue of other industries that would not want colder relations.

Let me ask you this, how do you explain this media environment? It's almost uniformly negative. Are you going to claim that it is really just a reflection of objective facts on the ground? I'm telling you that it isn't.

Your words, not mine. Enjoy your argument with yourself.

So what do you tell me? You going to tell me that this what a truly free and impartial media has produced?

Free? For the most part. Impartial? Certainly not. Media bias is something I'm well aware of.

Where is the "other side"? You almost never see anyone question all this BS.

Actually, I do. I see many articles critical of the US's foreign policy, including its policy towards Russia.
William Pfaff (www.williampfaff.com), who is a significant contributor to editorial pages in the West, is just one of the commentators who criticized the US's and Georgia's actions in the recent war. See this article (http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=336), for one.

You don't know what they would have done. When he was first running for president, Bush was saying that he is against "nation-building" and that the US should be less involved internationally.

I cannot prove a negative. Regardless, your ignorance is astounding. 9/11, which was a huge, once-in-a-lifetime event, changed all that. It gave the neoconservatives in Bush's administration momentum. Educate yourself before you continue spouting this drivel. "You don't know what they would have done?" Foolish argument. I also don't know if I'll be struck by a car if I go walking outside. It's just extremely unlikely. As would Gore invading Iraq, Kerry surging instead of pulling out, or putting missile defense installations in Eastern Europe have been. Do you contend otherwise? Because if you do, you're hopelessly deluded.

For one, the invasion of Iraq was championed by neoconservatives in the Bush administration, which would not have been present in a Gore administration. Any idea that Gore would have insisted on invading Iraq, in the face of opposition from lefties and allies such as France and Germany, plus the UN, is pure fantasy. For another, the Democratic base behind Kerry sorely wanted the US to leave Iraq, and given how bad the situation was in 2004, there's no reason to believe Kerry would've bucked public opposition to the war and surged instead. Moreover, Kerry wanted to scale back the missile defense program and wanted a more "cooperative" foreign policy.

These things are painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about American politics. You clearly do not.

You've seen sh!t. I didn't ask about an attitude of paranoia, I asked about blatant lying and intentional deception comparable to the article you posted. If you've never seen anything like that, feel free to admit it.

I don't care what you asked about. I argue my own arguments, not the arguments you want me to argue so you can prove a point.

And you can look at the facts and say "no" as much as you want, but it won't make them not true.

Uh-huh. Since you've presented no facts to back up the assertion you made, I don't have to worry about that.