Mass media wars with 'foreign agents'

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Nov 21, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It is not sufficient. RT must be closed and removed from US mass media space completely

    3 vote(s)
  2. Absolutely right decision and Moscow's counter measures are not justified

    3 vote(s)
  3. Right decision and Russian move was something expected.

    8 vote(s)
  4. Both sides are not right

    3 vote(s)
  5. Washington is not right and Moscow's replay is logical

    1 vote(s)
  6. The best solution is to stop this 'foreign agents' games in the name of freedom of speech

    7 vote(s)
  1. Russia prepares to label US media as 'foreign agents' | News | DW | 10.11.2017
    Deputy speaker of Russian Parliament Pyotr Tolstoi (btw, descendant of famous Russian writer Lev Tolstoy) said
    OSCE watchdog slams Unites States, Russia for "foreign agent" media laws
    Prominent Russian lawmaker and journalist mr.Pushkov ridiculed the OSCE.
    Where were you before? Pushkov ridiculed the OSCE for criticism of the media law-registered as a foreign agent – Russia news today
    I sincerely believe that it is important and serious issue closely connected to the freedom of speech principle and I hope to see only serious, thoughful comments.
  2. The title should be read 'Mass media wars ... '
    The word media was erased by mistake
  3. See? This is what happens when you don't have topless weather forecasters. You can't say you weren't warned, take a leaf from Mexican or Italian TV and get your tits out for the sunny spells.
    • Funny Funny x 4
  4. RT was the media arm of the Russian government in the USA, and here as it happens.

    As long as you recognise this all is well.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. And what is your attitude to the call from OSCE?
  6. Couldn't give a shiny shite.
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Then edit the title. It's your thread.
    You (and Russia) once again fail to differentiate between agitprop and media bias. For example, please point me to a dozen articles on RT and Sputnik extracting the urine from Putin much as many US media outlets are doing on Trump.

    When you find the RT and Sputnik articles, you may find the difference between agitprop and media (biased or otherwise)
    • Like Like x 4
  8. I don't know how it could be done.
    It is an interesting theoretical question. I mean definitions. What is agitprop and what is media bias?
    And if agitprop uses only proven facts then should it be banned? And on what ground?
    If biased mass media source uses lies, present allegatins as facts then is it acceptable.
    It's simple. There are political elites in the USA that in fact control main MSM. Mr.Trump was elected by American people despite their objections and enormous efforts (including loud campaign in MSM). The informational war in the USA continues and we see how it goes.
    By contrast, in Russia main mass media are controlled by Putin's clan. So one could no expect the same 'media battle'.
    However, try to formulate it. Give definitions, please.
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 4
  9. Go to the first post. Click on 'Thread tools' then 'Edit Title'
    Avoidance and obfuscation
    There's a great many media outlets in the US. Most are biased one way or another, but that is generally left and right wing. I know of no media outlet in the US which pushes wholly for the US agenda in world affairs and never has a critical word to say about those actions and/or POTUS be it Trump or any predecessors.
    Of course not. A pity your countrymen believe it. Moscow Times appears to be one of the few sites which some truth is mentioned on.
    Agitprop is your (as in Russian) word. You like Wiki definitions when it suits you. Find the dozen articles by RT and Sputnik on Putin extracting the urine and disagreeing with Russian policy if you really need it widening.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Thanks.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2017
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  11. Even Google thinks RT and Sputnik are agitprop trash, not news.

    “We’re working on detecting this kind of scenario ... and de-ranking those kinds of sites,” Schmidt said, in response to a question at an event in Halifax, Canada. “It’s basically RT and Sputnik. We’re well aware and we’re trying to engineer the systems to prevent it.”
  12. I have another point of view. Too many Americans use to watch RT to be aware about alternative coverage, alternative point of view, about unpleasant facts and details (unpleasant for ruling elites). It doesn't mean that regular RT users each time agree with everything. But they have more information to make own judgment.
    RT became an influental mass media outlet in the USA and it is the true cause for Washington to brand it as 'foreign agent' and thus to build obstacles to its normal functioning.
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  13. No problem

    I agree with McCAIN:
    What's your point?
  14. Not that influential - RT even lies about its own viewing figures

    Putin’s Propaganda TV Lies About Its Popularity

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. You quote this fragment from sen.McCain's statement

    1.The United States should not shirk defending our democracy by calling RT what it is—a propaganda network—and requiring its U.S. channel to register as a foreign agent.
    2. At the same time, together with our allies in the Free World, we should continue to support the right of the Russian people to access media willing to report the truth.

    1.Inside the USA Washington is free to do whatever it wishes. But other countries have the same right. Propaganda is not forbidden in the USA. And Washington propagandist outlets are free to continue their propagandist activity in Russia.
    2.At the same time Voice of America terminated radio broadcasting in Russian and BBC made the same move. The cause is very simple - there are too few listeners. Washington's propaganda is too primitive and ineffective.
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1