It`s a second Cold War!

[kartveli2]

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

[Elfstone44]

"Cold War", i.e. "The 45 Years War," i.e. "World War III," i.e. the "Red-White conflict" - 1946-1991. It involved a titanic world-wide struggle between two conflicting messianic ideologies. There was no room in the world for them both.
...-- One was "change-oriented" i.e. "flexibility," capitalist (state does not control the economy), and democratic (ascension of the individual over government);
...-- The other conservative (no change, no possibility for change, no flexibility), communist (state controls the economy) and totalitarian (ascension of the state over the individual).
And the whole world was bi-polar and every square on the board, student movements, space race, art, olympics...was colored red or white.

Without that ideological component, there can be no "second Cold War." You can have "Russia vs the World." But you won't recreate what was.; you cannot mobilize the "masses" to support an imperialist Russia with out the Marxist Internationalist component. And "what was" was the defining phenomena of the last half of the 20th century and one of the great conflicts in history. 100 years from now that period will be taught as a bloc..not separate lessons on Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Congo, Cuba, Moon, Mars, mapping of the sea bottom, creation of NATO and EC, civil war in Greece, Palestinian-Israel conflict and its corrollary socialist Egypt, Iraq and Syria conflict with Israel, euro-terrorism, Che Guevara and Bolivia, etc.

[BlackFlag]

the Red-White conflict.

Red= Bolshevik

White= Anti-Bolshevik Tsar supporters/ Mensheviks.

[SBL]

*cough* Russia Today *cough*

[muttbutt]

*cough* Russia Today *cough*No no, as a light entertainment channel it's great....pitty it's supposed to be a news channel, but what ya gonna do?


plus that Peter Lavalle guy is a hoot, if he was anymore up Vlad's brown ring he'd be his siamese twin.

[Doublethinker]

If for God's sake FOX NEWS is a news channel, why not Russia Today? It sure is more objective by far, than the former.

And it doesn't have a set of clownish hosts who shout down everyone who exhibits an opinion different from the General Party Line.

[SBL]

If for God's sake FOX NEWS is a news channel, why not Russia Today? It sure is more objective by far, than the former.

And it doesn't have a set of clownish hosts who shout down everyone who exhibits an opinion different from the General Party Line.
B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t.

[Doublethinker]

B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t.

Care to extrapolate? If you want to compare Fox news and Russia Today with regards to range of opinions available as well as host conduct, I'm all for it.

[SBL]

Care to extrapolate? If you want to compare Fox news and Russia Today with regards to range of opinions available as well as host conduct, I'm all for it.

Sure, I'll humor you.
RT is:
1. A state-created service
2. Goverment funded
3. Invariably extols the Kremlin's stance on every issue

Even the casual observer can spot blatant propaganda- and this was none more evident than during the war with Georgia. It's almost comical.
Now we all know Fox News has an angle to sell, but that happens to be neither here nor there, as my criticism of RT is in no way based on the assumption that propaganda in the media is exclusive to other countries.
Besides, Fox News happens to be privately-owned and operated, and is unrelated to the topic at hand, making the comparison moot.

[Doublethinker]

Fox News exibited exactly the same approach during the Ossetian War.
And the dorkish hosts still praise Saakashvilli as a hero and champion of democracy, next only after God and George Washington.

Sure, I'll give you that, RT is more openly 'pro-government', yet to deny that Fox News has been a neocon tool applauding each American foreign adventure is silly. And the fact that they act independent on issues irrelevant to the White House is to divert from the main point of scrutiny.

Its not just an 'angel to sell', and the fact that they aren't directly controlled by the White House is irrelevant, since they deliver a message AS IF they were controlled from the White House.

[Mousepad]

Wow, it was kinda promicing title "New Cold War!!! yeah baby bring it on"

But all i learned, that RT correspondents are way hotter than Fox counterparts.

[Kilgor]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/30/rupertmurdoch.wallstreetjournal

Rupert Murdoch heaps praise on Barack Obama

Somehow I cant see the chairman of RT saying wonderful things about the opposition in Russia.

[Ordie]

I like to watch RT every so often.
I was captivated about a story of Russian truckers on RT.

RT provides an insight of Russia's image and international concerns. It seems they are not to thrilled about Obama's choice in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Russians associates the Clinton era with Yeltsin many considered as the low period.

I do not buy the concept of a new Cold War. Both the US and Russia today have a lot more common interest than one would imagine.

[SBL]

Fox News exibited exactly the same approach during the Ossetian War.
And the dorkish hosts still praise Saakashvilli as a hero and champion of democracy, next only after God and George Washington.

Sure, I'll give you that, RT is more openly 'pro-government', yet to deny that Fox News has been a neocon tool applauding each American foreign adventure is silly. And the fact that they act independent on issues irrelevant to the White House is to divert from the main point of scrutiny.Uhh, well nobody here tried to deny that Fox News is biased. In fact, nobody had even mentioned Fox News until you showed up.
Nice deflection attempt.

Its not just an 'angel to sell', and the fact that they aren't directly controlled by the White House is irrelevant, since they deliver a message AS IF they were controlled from the White House.

Well, you see, it is an angle to sell. Fox happens to be a business, and they're selling their 'brand' of news/infotainment/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to a particular audience. They're free to alter that message however they see fit.
You say they deliver a message "as if they were controlled from the white house".
Likely they'll magically and instantly become very critical of White House policy come January 20th; something I'd very much like to see RT attempt.
Are you directly controlled by the Kremlin? Am I to take it then, that any person or group that broadcasts a message that is favorable to the sitting administration for a given period, to be propagandists?


I'm still waiting to hear how RT can be considered 'more objective'.

[Hogan]

As previously mentioned and known for years. Russia Today is simply a state owned political tool, just like all the VGTRK channels, RIA-Novosti, NTV, etc. Not saying that a lot of American media isn't bias, as it's fairly obvious some lean to the left or right politically, but at least they aren't state owned and obligated to spewing out pro government and biased cr4p.

[Ordie]

Well, I guess people who don't speak Russian don't have any other channel to watch.

RT has English programs that are well produced. Many of the anchors are from the UK, US and Canada working in Russia as a starting gig. Many of the stories are light showing everyday life in Russia.

The commentaries follow government policies. Which is good because I could understand what Putin and Medeyev are thinking. That's much better than the old days reading between lines of Pravda.

The reason why there's no cold war? Russia and US aare open to each other.

[asch]

Not saying that a lot of American media isn't bias, as it's fairly obvious some lean to the left or right politically, but at least they aren't state owned and obligated to spewing out pro government and biased cr4p.
sure, they privately owned and obligated to spewing out pro owner and biased cr4p

that's a biig difference here.

[Flamming_Python]

sure, they privately owned and obligated to spewing out pro owner and biased cr4p

that's a biig difference here.

Good point, not much of a difference between being owned by Government or Big Businesses, both of them will twist facts to suit their agenda and preferences. You can converse & debate with the political commentator of Russia Today (Peter Lavelle) right here, as well with a number of other experts:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Untimely_Thoughts_An_Expert_Discussion_Group_on_Russia?lnk=srg&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Say what you will, but the guy really knows his stuff.

For my part, Russia Today may be overtly biased and controlled, but it provides a much needed counter-balance to the Western Media which has an opposing and equally strong bias against Russia. Put the both of them together and you can have a better idea of what's going on.

[davey]

..........obligated to spewing out pro government and biased cr4p.

Although not obligated, they still spew out biased crap on a grand scale. And what they spew out isn't determined by a political commissar, it is merely the greatest common denominator of what Western audiences like to hear - relaying and reinforcing existing biases and prejudices. Mindless infotainment that most certainly does not inform.

But a second factor in the lack of objectivity of Western media is the influence of public relations companies and other media influence agents. Although political commissars don't screen Western news channel content, massive amounts are spent by governments, national defense forces, counterintelligence services and private companies to influence the media and it certainly affects what you see on your TV screen. This applies not only to Fox but to all Western news channels. Recent coverage of the Georgia / Russia war was just plain scandalous. - courtesy of Saakashvili's PR team. This was really a most shameful chapter in the history of the Western media.

Yes, RT is government owned and controlled. And it does have its bias, relatively crude and unsophisticated. But we know what it is and it does not as far as I can see, pretend to be anything else. It is a poor player in the influence game and therefore does relatively little damage. But, OTOH, if you are really objective, you have to admit that it often gives you facts that you will never see on Western television.

Western media bias and misrepresentation is much more sophisticated, and therefore, much more dangerous - to the extent that most viewers don't seem to notice.

We all should stand up for our right to be informed in an even handed and neutral manner and not be fed all this biased fodder. Because one day, something may happen that affects your life, and the truth will matter to you.

[toki]

Some people seem to forget what coldwar actually meant. THIS actual "crisis" is about governments having some issues. Cold war meant that the actual next door guy felt it. Speak about concrete, barbed wire - divided countries, Europe split in half etc. This is Kindergarten compared to it.

[Afro-European]

It's professor Stephen Cohen who braught up the "cold war" word,not the RT journalist.Anyway i thaught Stephen Cohen was a Jewish-American!!!

[Ordie]

Some people seem to forget what coldwar actually meant. THIS actual "crisis" is about governments having some issues. Cold war meant that the actual next door guy felt it. Speak about concrete, barbed wire - divided countries, Europe split in half etc. This is Kindergarten compared to it.

X2

We have a generation of people who have never grew up with the idea of Nuclear war may happen at a moment's notice. Where the only way out of Communism was to defect, and everything in the Old Soviet Union was centrally controlled and monitored.

Russia is 180 degree difference than the USSR.

Both Russia and the US have mutual interest in security. More specifically in regards to its southern border region.

For example, given that the US supply route from Pakistan is compromised with sabotage and attacks, why not work with Russia in developing a "rail bridge" between bases in Western Europe and Afghanistan.

[kartveli2]

Some people seem to forget what coldwar actually meant. THIS actual "crisis" is about governments having some issues. Cold war meant that the actual next door guy felt it. Speak about concrete, barbed wire - divided countries, Europe split in half etc. This is Kindergarten compared to it.

Well, we can call it more civilized, informative, positional war then... But in any ways, certainly it is some kind of emulation; There are many issues of misunderstanding between two superpowers of world; USA and Russia or Good and Evil or democracy and communism which leads two sides in diverse kinds of oppositions. Including military. It is "warm war" Which is cooling very fast and has no signs of stopping unless either side won't give up its imperial ambition. They are not face to face yet, but they are getting there.

[INAT]

Since we are talking about Russian/US propaganda this is an interesting story on the topic from the eXile.



The essential problem with Al Hurra is the same problem that Russia Today faces. Both the American and Russian elite believe that their country's negative image is merely a consequence of perception, of bad PR, rather than policy, and that with the right marketing and branding and PR, anyone can be made to believe anything. As Donald Rumsfeld said, "The Iraq conflict is a war of perceptions." In his mind, and the mind of those who run America, the negative reaction to the American occupation of Iraq is a matter of propaganda. The US wants to brand it a "liberation," while the dead-enders want to brand it an "invasion" and "colonization." The masses of people who "choose" between these perceptions are merely consumers whose opinions must be molded by PR...
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7789&IBLOCK_ID=35

[asch]

Well, we can call it more civilized, informative, positional war then... But in any ways, certainly it is some kind of emulation; There are many issues of misunderstanding between two superpowers of world; USA and Russia or Good and Evil or democracy and communism which leads two sides in diverse kinds of oppositions. Including military. It is "warm war" Which is cooling very fast and has no signs of stopping unless either side won't give up its imperial ambition. They are not face to face yet, but they are getting there.
sorry to burst your alarmist bubble, but it's just usual ordinary political games.
no "war" for you.

[Flamming_Python]

Well, we can call it more civilized, informative, positional war then... But in any ways, certainly it is some kind of emulation; There are many issues of misunderstanding between two superpowers of world; USA and Russia or Good and Evil or democracy and communism which leads two sides in diverse kinds of oppositions. Including military. It is "warm war" Which is cooling very fast and has no signs of stopping unless either side won't give up its imperial ambition. They are not face to face yet, but they are getting there.

asch is right; it's business as usual - tension between great powers; this sort of thing has played out time and time again since at least the 19th century.

[C.Fodder]

I quite like RT,for light infotainment,a different perspective and hot hosts,but if i want factual and detailed news i turn the tv off. None off them give detail or true objectivity and they ALL favour news to suit their audience and the availability of footage.

this guy was just giving his(informed?) opinion,and RT gave him exposure thinking their target audience would lap it up.
Fox news is just C#ap...,you can feel your IQ dropping as u watch.