‘We defeated communist Japan’: Fox News host offers irrefutable proof of America’s greatness

#41
If I wanted discussion and debate, I would talk to my Mrs. I will make sure I get the ok from you on what I have allocated my time to in future though. This is the internet and we are all anonymous. If I dont want to talk to someone, its very easy. U just dont. I have said all that I have to say in 'defence' of my post mate.
OK, so you can't defend your ridiculous position.

Don't fret, as not everyone can grasp the basics of discourse.
 
#44
So the USA is not as great as Russia because 1 news commentator makes a mistake?
If she would call wrong date of Perl Harbour attack then it would be just a mistake but expression 'Communist Japan' tells about complete absence of knowledge in World and US history. It is ignorance at its best.
And such journalists use to 'inform' general public about current events, about interpretation of news in the historical context.
 
#45
We understand yours

It should but that’s the beauty of a free system, even the ‘thickerati’ get a chance to show themselves up. It could also be a genuine slip up, reading the autocue and missing ‘and’

It’s not MSM. It’s borderline the same as RT, pushes an agenda, albeit theirs is politically motivated rather than govt directed.
As I understand Fox News is one of the most popular TV news channel in the USA. If it is not a part of MSM then what mass media do belong to MSM?
 
#46
If she would call wrong date of Perl Harbour attack then it would be just a mistake but expression
How about misspelling?
'Communist Japan' tells about complete absence of knowledge in World and US history. It is ignorance at its best.
Is it? I’d have thought denial of massacres such as Katyn and the Holocaust, or a lack of knowledge of famous battles such as ‘the Alamo’ show ‘ignorance’ of ‘ world and US history’ personally.
And such journalists use to 'inform' general public about current events, about interpretation of news in the historical context.
Really? As before, she’s either lacking in knowledge or missed the ‘and’ on the autocue
As I understand Fox News is one of the most popular TV news channel in the USA. If it is not a part of MSM then what mass media do belong to MSM?
The clue is in the title ‘Main Stream Media’. It’s a politically motivated channel. The US has a different view of what channels can say compared to the U.K. let alone ‘Putin’s agitprop’ as you call it:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Fox-...nt-Fox-News-also-part-of-the-mainstream-media

Like agitprop, if you only watch Fox News you would have a different view to that which is gained from multiple sources.
 
#47
Love how you continue to 'post' in fakeski sovietski accent, da?

Only complete utter feckwittski would continue with riddiculousski nonsense...

Carry onski.
What is your accent, btw? Zionist one?
 
Last edited:
#48
Antisemitic holocaust/Kaytn Massacre/Holodomor denier and professional appolagist for the Soviet Union and putin is Antisemitic holocaust/Kaytn Massacre/Holodomor denier and professional appolagist for the Soviet Union and putin, shock horror
 
#49
As I understand Fox News is one of the most popular TV news channel in the USA. If it is not a part of MSM then what mass media do belong to MSM?
My understanding is that US television falls into two categories - broadcast and cable. "Broadcast" covers traditional over the air television which is also carried on cable, and "cable" covers channels which are only on cable and not broadcast over the air.

For historical reasons, ratings for the two categories are calculated separately. The ratings are audited because revenue depends on them, so we can take them as being reasonably accurate.

Fox News is a cable channel. Of the cable channels, they are the most popular. Here is their July ratings as compared to MSNBC and CNN. In the prime time category they have nearly as many viewers as their next two competitors combined.
U.S. cable news network viewership 2018 | Statistic

As you said Fox has a very significant lead over the others. If Fox is not MSM (in the context of the US), then MSNBC and CCN cannot reasonably be considered MSM either.

Fox are part of the official media industry. They have large audiences, employ full time journalistic staff, have official accreditation at major news events, and all the other reasonable objective characteristics which could be used to define what "mainstream" is within the context of what constitutes "mainstream" in the US. A very significant proportion of the US population happen to like and agree with what Fox News tells them. Another significant proportion however consider Fox to be the shameless political mouthpiece of of a handful of American oligarchs and religious fanatics which is used to brainwash a large but deluded segment of the population.

On the other hand, most people in the rest of the world would consider Fox to be an American right wing nationalist propaganda channel. That however just reflects the differences in political orthodoxy in the US versus many other parts of the world.

Most people consider non-MSM to be sources such as Twitter feeds, blogs, Youtube channels, newsletters, etc. which are not associated with traditional MSM news organizations.

It should always be recalled though that "popular" does necessarily mean "good quality". In my own case I prefer to refer to what I consider to be "reputable" news sources, based on their history of reporting facts and acknowledging errors.
 
#50
How about misspelling?

Is it? I’d have thought denial of massacres such as Katyn and the Holocaust, or a lack of knowledge of famous battles such as ‘the Alamo’ show ‘ignorance’ of ‘ world and US history’ personally.
Typo. Apparently you understood that I meant Pearl Harbour. You know pretty well that I'm well aware about details of mentioned historical events - the Holocaust, Katyn massacre. As for great battle in Alamo then I know that Texas was in fact annexed by the USA. But indeed I have forgotten about such a great battle in Alamo with hundreds victims.
Really? As before, she’s either lacking in knowledge or missed the ‘and’ on the autocue

The clue is in the title ‘Main Stream Media’. It’s a politically motivated channel.
Can you name even one TV news chnannel that is not politically motivated (in the USA and elsewhere)?
The US has a different view of what channels can say compared to the U.K. let alone ‘Putin’s agitprop’ as you call it:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Fox-...nt-Fox-News-also-part-of-the-mainstream-media

Like agitprop, if you only watch Fox News you would have a different view to that which is gained from multiple sources.
Anyway Fox News is one of the most popular news channel.
Fox News controversies - Wikipedia
Fox's cumulative audience (unique viewers who watched at least 60 minutes in an average month) was 41.1 million, coming in second to CNN with 41.7 million.
And note, the Americans regard it as trustworthly
...a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling in January 2010 found Fox News to be the only US television news network to receive a positive rating by the public for trustworthiness...
At the same time the Americans are significantly disinformed and it looks as Fox News contributes to it.
  • 67% of Fox viewers erroneously believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
  • The erroneous belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS.
  • 35% of Fox viewers erroneously believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq (compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS).
Ignorant people can be found everywhere, in any country. It is not so great sin to be ignorant. But ignorant news presenters - it is a shame.
As a result
John Gibson, the former host of an afternoon hour of news coverage called The Big Story, was cited as an example of Fox News blurring the lines between objective reporting and opinion/editorial programming.
Gibson said the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military."
 
Last edited:
#51
Typo. Apparently you understood that I meant Pearl Harbour.
I knew it was a typo. Unlike you knowing whether the presenter was stupid or missed a word on the auto cue
You know pretty well that I'm well aware about details of mentioned historical events - the Holocaust, Katyn massacre. As for great battle in Alamo then I know that Texas was in fact annexed by the USA. But indeed I have forgotten about such a great battle in Alamo with hundreds victims.
Just examples of world and US history. Important examples imo. Not sure you’re in any place on ‘whataboutery’ for annexation either.
Can you name even one TV news chnannel that is not politically motivated (in the USA and elsewhere)?
There’s a difference between bias and ‘political motivation’
Anyway Fox News is one of the most popular news channel.
Fox News controversies - Wikipedia
Is popularity the sole definition of MSM?
And not, the Americans regard it as trustworthly
Some do. Some think it’s a joke
At the sametime the Americans are significantly disinformed and itlooks as Fox News contributes to it.
I’m not sure you should go down the route of misinformation personally. Maskirovka and agitprop being examples
Ignorant people can be found everywhere, in any country. It is not so great sin to be ignorant. But ignorant news presenters - it is a shame.
As a result
Yet you still don’t know if she was ignorant or just missed a word, do you?

You’re really making a ‘song and dance’ over what a Fox News presenter says? Must be a slow weekend in St Petersburg. It’s Fox FFS, what they say needs at least two separate independent confirmations. A bit like your agitprop.
 
#52
Ok it was mildly amusing and you were bored, but was it really worth a thread on its own? It's not as if there is anything unusual about someone at Fox News saying something stupid.
The story itself is something really outstanding. The level of ignorance demonstrated by the Fox News host is too high even for Fox that hardly can be called as reputable news source. Though are there any reputable hand popular) news sources in the USA?
The story has also other aspects. One could hold questions:
- what is the quality of US system of education?
- what features do make a country great?
 
#54
The story itself is something really outstanding.
Only to small minded agitprop merchants
The level of ignorance demonstrated by the Fox News host is too high
You know that’s what she meant to say and didn’t miss a word on the autocue?
even for Fox that hardly can be called as reputable news source.
Stop being silly. Who on earth calls it reputable?
Though are there any reputable hand popular) news sources in the USA?
They’ve all got bias and funnily enough, all make mistakes. That’s what happens with humans
The story has also other aspects. One could hold questions:
- what is the quality of US system of education?
- what features do make a country great?
Why are you hanging your hat on this ‘none story’ so much? It’s almost as though you have an agenda :rolleyes:
 
#55
So the USA is not as great as Russia because 1 news commentator makes a mistake?

Would never happen in Russia, he’d fall out of a car door or out his bedroom window.

Although.......

Technically, the Americans did defeat communist Japan, ok, post war, but great efforts were expended ensuring the communists didn’t get a foothold in Japanese politics, see the ‘Red Purge’ of 1947-1950 that drove communists out of official posts.
 
#56
Typo. Apparently you understood that I meant Pearl Harbour. You know pretty well that I'm well aware about details of mentioned historical events - the Holocaust, Katyn massacre. As for great battle in Alamo then I know that Texas was in fact annexed by the USA. But indeed I have forgotten about such a great battle in Alamo with hundreds victims.

Can you name even one TV news chnannel that is not politically motivated (in the USA and elsewhere)?

Anyway Fox News is one of the most popular news channel.
Fox News controversies - Wikipedia

And note, the Americans regard it as trustworthly

At the same time the Americans are significantly disinformed and it looks as Fox News contributes to it.

Ignorant people can be found everywhere, in any country. It is not so great sin to be ignorant. But ignorant news presenters - it is a shame.
As a result
I thought FOX News's choice of commentator supporting Trump on the withdrawal of security clearance for ex CIA director John Brennan was intersting, it was the Hungarian fake anti-terror expert, alleged NAZI and possible vampire Sebastian Gorka who wasn't able to get security clearance.
 
Last edited:
#57
The story itself is something really outstanding. The level of ignorance demonstrated by the Fox News host is too high even for Fox that hardly can be called as reputable news source. Though are there any reputable hand popular) news sources in the USA?
The story has also other aspects. One could hold questions:
- what is the quality of US system of education?
- what features do make a country great?
American news presenters are apparently chosen more for their looks and voice than for their intelligence and knowledge of the world. For the women, having blonde hair and looking good in a low cut dress will be the most important qualifications.

Fox News has the additional problem that not many good reporters want to work for them knowing that the stain of having been associated with Fox will stick to them for years after. RT and PressTV have the same problem by the way.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#58
Heh. Not much amuses me on ARRSE at the moment. Interesting posters have either sodded off to the secret squirrel bit or nic-switched. But KGB_resident is a gift that keeps giving. Thank you KGB_resident.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#59

  • Sow division
  • divide and rule
  • undermine trust

Another busy day for the FSB's Centre of Public Communications

Source

The FSB approach
In dealing with public opinion, the FSB turned to many methods previously used by the KGB. An emphasis was put on cinema and television.

In 2001, a series, The Special Department, appeared on television. In it, FSB agents in St. Petersburg prevented the theft and smuggling of valuable Russian artworks. The main hero of the show is a descendent of the city’s old intelligentsia who served in special forces in Afghanistan and has returned to protect the artifacts of Russian museums like the Hermitage. Secret Watch, a television series about the FSB Surveillance Service, began airing in the fall of 2005. The show, which featured secret agents following people and tracking down terrorists, was also produced with the support of the FSB. In 2007 Russian TV broadcast Special Group, a 16-part television movie about the Moscow FSB’s heroic acts, such as preventing a terrorist plot and investigating financial transactions. Once again, the FSB was behind the production.

In December 2004, the FSB’s biggest blockbuster premiered — the $7 million Lichnyy Nomer (or Dogtag, but titled Countdown in English).1 The movie, a fictionalized account of two actual terrorist attacks (the 1999 Moscow apartment building bombings and the 2002 Dubrovka Theater siege), was intended to shed favorable light on the FSB.

The portrayal of the bombings in Moscow were left largely unaltered, but in the case of the Nord-Ost hostage crisis, the film’s producers replaced the actual theater with a circus. The protagonist was an FSB officer who was captured in Chechnya and forced to admit he had taken part in the bombings. (This was a fictionalized version of a real and controversial story of the military intelligence officer Alexei Galtin, who was captured by Chechens and had made a similar statement on video. Galtin was later to escape and to disavow his claims as made under torture.)

In the film, an oligarch named Pokrovsky, living in exile in the West, defied the Russian president and colluded with Arab terrorists and Chechens on a hostage-taking plan targeting the Moscow circus. Pokrovsky’s details bore a striking resemblance to those of Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who fled to London in 2001. But the hostage taking is only the first stage of a much bigger terrorist attack—the planned bombing of the G8 summit in Rome. The main character, an FSB officer, saves the day by rescuing the hostages and defeating the terrorists. The producers of the film made no secret of the fact that they were advised by Vladimir Anisimov, who was then deputy director of the FSB, or that the project was filmed with the service’s support.

In February 2006, the FSB reestablished a competition that had existed under Andropov, for the best literary and artistic works about state security operatives.5 Oleg Matveyev, the officer of the FSB Center for Public Communications, acknowledged that the service was openly returning to KGB traditions. He told the newspaper Kommersant, “This is returning to past experience. From 1978 to 1988 there was a KGB award for art. It was also awarded to those who created a positive image of KGB employees. . . . Nowadays, whether in the cinema, in TV serials, or in detective series, it’s common for special services to be shown in a negative light, so we have decided to revive this competition, to reward those who do not discredit employees of the secret services, and to create a positive image of the defenders.” The first year, the award went to Lichnyy Nomer.

Following the success of Lichnyy Nomer, the FSB turned to Russian state TV. Documentaries were considered the best propaganda vehicle, because they are cheaper, can be produced more quickly, and can be presented as an independent journalistic investigation, thereby relieving the FSB of connections. Best of all, they guarantee direct access to millions of viewers. In January 2006, the documentary titled Shpioni (The Spies), devoted to British spy activity in Russia, offered the FSB a boost.

The film’s director, journalist Arkady Mamontov, showed a video taken by an FSB surveillance team of a British embassy official walking on an unnamed Moscow Street. The FSB claimed in the film that the British diplomat, identified as Marc Doe, was trying to retrieve data from a spy communications device disguised as a rock, later widely known as the “spy rock.”

An X-ray of the rock shown in the film, displaying four big batteries and a radio transmitter tightly packed together, was offered as proof of Doe’s involvement in espionage. Then Mamontov’s documentary investigated Doe’s ties with Russian nongovernmental organizations: The names of the most respectable Russian NGOs were shown in the list of the organizations financially supported by the British government, and Doe was called the handler of the NGOs.

The documentary, which aired two weeks after Putin signed legislation toughening the rules for nongovernmental organizations, was used to show that the largest such organizations working in Russia are in touch with British intelligence. The FSB’s Center for Public Communications gladly displayed an example of such a spy rock to journalists. Sergei Ignatchenko, the spokesman for the FSB, said, “According to our experts, this device cost millions of pounds. It’s a miracle of technology.” The FSB claimed that one Russian was suspected of espionage for England, but it turned out that no foreign spies had been detained. The FSB said that the Russian was arrested, but no trial followed.

What is more, the FSB did not even seize the spy rock as proof of espionage. (According to Ignatchenko, the rock presented at the press conference was later found in a different part of Moscow.)

In the end, four members of the British embassy staff were accused of taking part in a spy ring, but they were not expelled from Russia, which is highly unusual for true espionage cases.

While Shpioni was seen by many as transparent propaganda, it nonetheless intimidated nongovernmental organizations, which feared they could be accused of harboring spies.

Shpioni set the tone for subsequent documentaries. In one called Plan Kavkaz (Caucasus Plan), shown in April 2008, a journalist claimed to have found evidence of the CIA’s backing for the first Chechen war.

Under Putin, the FSB returned to police state methods to deal with foreign journalists, using the threat of withholding visas and access to the country as leverage in an effort to influence their coverage.

In May 2002 Nikolai Volobuev, then the chief of the FSB’s counterintelligence department, said thirty-one foreign journalists had had their press passes revoked because they were “conducting illegal journalist activity,” and eighteen among them were refused entry to Russia and had their visas blocked for five years.27 Since then this method has become common practice. According to the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, which is based in Moscow, more than forty journalists were refused entry to Russia between 2000 and 2007.
 
#60
Another busy day for the FSB's Centre of Public Communications
I doubt it, they're probably all updating their CVs and LinkedIn profiles.

We've more than enough people doing all those things off their own bat and having amazing success.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top