Character assassination of Russia by western media

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
I just also found that among the trustees of this so called "Institute of Modern Russia" are Pavel Khodorkovsky (son of criminal Mikhail Khodorkovsky) and Lyudmila Alexeeva (who co-founded NGO/front organization named Memorial). Pavel is also the President of "Institute of Modern Russia."

In terms of propaganda the West is doing a post-doctoral, while countries like China and Russia are still fooling around in college; India on the other hand is still in KG, thinking that B'wood and Yoga are projecting soft power. Sigh.
Well at least you have computers in kindergarten, or are you posting from internet cafe? Difficult to keep those 286's running, huh? ;)
 

Razor

STABLE GENIUS
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
7,701
Likes
9,099
Country flag
Well at least you have computers in kindergarten, or are you posting from internet cafe? Difficult to keep those 286's running, huh? ;)
Your propaganda is post doc level, but your humour is just meh.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Re: Civil war in Ukraine

Dissecting the Outrageous Deceptions of The New York Times

  • International law is sacred when it limits Russia.
  • But does not exist when it limits the US.
  • Russian grievances are (fact-based) conspiracy theories.
  • US conspiracy theories are (evidence-free) facts.


A neocon front operation...

Robert Parry (Excerpt) [SOURCE]

This is an excerpt from an article that originally appeared at Consortium News.


In the multilayered double standards of its international coverage, The New York Times demonstrates how propaganda works:

Outrage is the only appropriate response when an adversary breaks a rule but a shrug is okay when it's "our side."

Plus, there must be perfect evidence to accuse "our side" of an offense but anything goes when it's an adversary.

Recent Times' articles illustrate how this hypocrisy works.

Take, for example, international law, especially prohibitions against aggression.

When the topic is Ukraine and the alleged violator is Russia, no extreme is too extreme in denouncing Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

But the concern about international law simply disappears when discussing Syria and the desirability of U.S. President Barack Obama overthrowing the government there.

In Ukraine, despite the murky circumstances surrounding last February's coup d'etat ousting the elected president and unleashing war in the ethnic Russian east, the Times refuses to see any merit in the Russian side of the argument.

It's all about the sacred principle of non-intervention; the mitigating circumstances don't matter.

However, when it comes to demanding Obama dispatch the U.S. military to take out Syria's government, the Times forgets international law; it's all about the mitigating circumstances that justify the U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops and paving the way for a rebel victory.

Indeed, the Times' coverage of the Syrian crisis often looks like a replay of the newspaper's gullible acceptance of the neocon-predicted "cakewalk" through Iraq in 2003.

In the Iraq War, too, there was scant attention paid to the question of the United States violating international law and to the chance that the invasion might not go as smoothly as the neocons dreamt.

While ignoring the issue of U.S. aggression in a war on Syria, the Times presents the Ukraine crisis as a simple matter of Russian "aggression" by leaving out the context of a U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22 that forced President Viktor Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives and prompting resistance to the new order from eastern and southern Ukraine which had been Yanukovych's political base.

As former Rep. Dennis Kucinich has written, this important background – and the earlier expansion of NATO into eastern Europe – would put the Ukraine story in a very different light:

"NATO encirclement, the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, an attempt to use an agreement with the European Union to bring NATO into Ukraine at the Russian border, a U.S. nuclear first-strike policy, are all policies which attempt to substitute force for diplomacy.

"Russia's response to the terror unleashed by western-backed neo-nazis in Crimea and Odessa came after the local population appealed to Russia to protect them from the violence. Russia then agreed to Crimea joining the Russian Federation, a reaffirmation of an historic relationship.

"The Western press begins its narrative on the Crimea situation with the annexation, but completely ignores the provocations by the West and other causal factors which resulted in the annexation.

This distortion of reality is artificially creating an hysteria about Russian aggressiveness, another distortion which could pose an exceptionally dangerous situation for the world, if acted upon by other nations. The U.S. Congress is responding to the distortions, not to the reality."

Another way that the New York Times makes itself useful as a neocon propaganda vehicle is by applying two radically different standards for proof when an accusation is made.

If, for instance, anyone notes that U.S.-funded "non-governmental organizations" played a behind-the-scenes role in instigating the Ukrainian coup – even though there is clear documentary evidence from the public reports of the National Endowment for Democracy and similar U.S.-funded entities – that is deemed a "conspiracy theory."

However, if you want to accuse the Russians of secretly financing anti-fracking groups in Romania, you don't need any evidence at all, just vague assertions.

So, on Dec. 1, the Times published a lengthy article by Andrew Higgins promoting the Romanian government's suspicions that local environmental groups which have blocked Chevron's use of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas are fronts for Russia's energy industry.

The article acknowledges that "this belief that Russia is fueling the protests, shared by officials in Lithuania, where Chevron also ran into a wave of unusually fervent protests and then decided to pull out, has not yet been backed up by any clear proof. And [Russia's] Gazprom has denied accusations that it has bankrolled anti-fracking protests.

"But circumstantial evidence, plus large dollops of Cold War-style suspicion, have added to mounting alarm over covert Russian meddling to block threats to its energy stranglehold on Europe."

It's not exactly clear what the Times' "circumstantial evidence" is either, but the article next turns to more unsubstantiated accusations aired in September by then-NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who "pointed a finger at Russia" by citing its alleged support for NGOs, another hypocritical twist because many NGOs are actually funded by the U.S. government and are deployed to disrupt or destabilize adversaries around the world.

Ignoring this hypocrisy, Rasmussen declared:

"Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas."

Again, the Times notes that Rasmussen presented no proof, saying that his judgment was based on what NATO allies had reported. Yet, despite this admitted lack of evidence, the Times still devotes portions of two pages to this Russian-hand-hidden-behind-the-anti-fracking-cause hypothesis. If such flimsy speculation were aimed at the United States, it would be laughed off as a paranoid conspiracy theory or labeled "disinformation."
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
The BBC Can't Stop Screaming about "Russian Aggression"

"Russian aggression" is the BBC's "meme of the month". Next month's meme: "Bomb Syria!"


Don't fall for the vicious anti-Russian propaganda that the BBC spout at us.

Oliver Tickell [SOURCE]

This article originally appeared at Counterpunch.


"Russian aggression" is the BBC's meme of the day. I lost count of how many times the phrase popped up in the first 15 minutes of Radio 4's World at One programme, devoted entirely to the 'Russian problem – but the theme was drummed in relentlessly.

The idea is that Russia presents a huge a growing threat to world peace and stability. Russian bombers are threatening the 'English' Channel (albeit strictly from international airspace). Russia is an expansionist power attacking sovereign nations, Ukraine in particular. And watch it – we're next!

Commentators wheeled into the studio were unanimous in their views. NATO must stand up to the threat. Presient Vladimir Putin is a dangerous monster who refuses to abide by the rules of the international order. NATO countries must increase their defence spending to counter the Russian menace.

Not a single moderating voice was included in the discussion. No one to ask Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, if alliance aircraft ever fly close to Russia's borders (they do). No one to point out that the real Ukrainian narrative in is not that of Russia's 'annexation' of Crimea – but of NATO's US-led annexation of Ukraine itself.

No one to argue that Russia's assimilation of Crimea was effected with hardly a shot being fired, backed by overwhelming support in a referendum which reflected the popular will – and if you're in any doubt, just compare it to Israel's ongoing and endlessly justified annexation of Palestine.

The lies are in what the media don't tell us

There was no one to discuss NATO's plan to expand right up to Russia's boundary with Ukraine, string its missile launchers along the frontier, and to seize the Sebastopol naval base, home to Russia's Black Sea fleet, and hand it over to the US Navy. Aside: how would the US react if Russia tried that trick in Mexico and Guantanamo, Cuba?

While BBC news is prepared to speak of the million or so refugees from fighting in the Eastern provinces, there is no mention that those refugees have overwhelmingly fled to safety in Russia – a peculiar choice of destination if Russia is indeed the aggressor in the conflict.

Nor is there any mention that the massive humanitarian crisis in Eastern Ukraine that forced the refugees from their homes is overwhelmingly caused by the NATO / Kiev campaign of shelling and rocketing civilian areas of Donetsk and other cities. Or that local rebels' fierce and ultimately victorious battle for the airport terminal was necessitated by its use as a base for Kiev's heavy artillery to massacre the ordinary citizens of Donetsk.

Just as there was never any hint from the BBC that the Malaysian MH17 civilian aircraft downed over Eastern Ukraine could possibly have been shot down by any agency other than Russia's. And now, as indications emerge that MH17 may in fact have been shot down by Ukrainian SU25s, the story has vanished from the news altogether.

And of course the BBC would never reveal, in other than the most guarded terms, that the real threat to world peace and stability is not Russia, which has more than enough resources – and problems to occupy itself with – within its own boundaries, but "¦ NATO itself, and the wider Atlantic Alliance.

The other big threat the BBC endlessly warns of is that of Islamic extremism. But does it ever point out that, until recently, three independent secular regimes stood as firm bulwarks against Islamic extremism: Iraq, Libya and Syria? And if we go back a little further, why not add in Afghanistan, where the US created Al Qaida to overthrow a moderate Islamist regime?

And does the BBC ever point out that it is the deliberate destruction of these secular or moderate regimes by NATO and its allies that created the void that has been filled by Islamic State? And has lead to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in north and west Africa, including the murderous Boko Haram?

Or does it ever let slip that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were in fact citizens of Saudi Arabia, our great ally in the Middle East, and that this made NATO's choice of Afghanistan as the country to go to war against a little "¦ paradoxical?

It's deju-vu all over again "¦

Anyway – the BBC's dismal performance today on "Russian aggression" stirred up memories – memories of the run up to the Iraq war, when the BBC was similarly gung-ho in its depictions of Saddam Hussein as a real and present danger to us all, whose ambitions had to be countered by military force.

This gives me to cause to fear that we are being softened up for war. But this time, there's a difference. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were, as many of us suspected, but we all now know, an invention of our mendacious politicans and intelligence services.

But Russia's nuclear weapons are all too real, as is the danger they present. A full scale nuclear war would be an unthinkable disaster for all people and the entire planet. Yet NATO is deliberately baiting the Russian bear, and what we are now seeing, in Russia's so called 'aggression', is that Russia is getting cross, and defensive. As they have very right to.

So what is NATO's motivation? One simple reason is that NATO was set up as a cold war military alliance, and with the end of the cold war its raison d'etre evaporated. Simply put, we no longer need it, and its drain on our resources. So, the NATO logic goes, we had better start making some reasons fast. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Another reason is the US's aspiration for a 'unipolar world' in which it enjoys 'full spectrum dominance'. These ideas are those of the neocons who enjoyed supremacy under the presidenices of George W Bush. But they have now become the core philosophy of the American Imperium – and Barack Obama adheres to them as firmly as 'Dubya' ever did.

First, don't fall for it!

So what, as ordinary citizens, can we do to block this push to a war that could, literally, annihilate civilization and much of life on planet Earth?

First, don't fall for the vicious anti-Russian propaganda that the BBC and other news outlets relentless spout at us. Second, talk about it – with friends, family and down the pub. Share this article, and these thoughts, on social media.

Third, make it an election issue. Push electoral candidates in your area on where they stand. Emphasize the importance of making peace with Russia, rather than goading it into a wholly unnecessary and stupid war. Tell them your number one election priority is not the NHS, not immigration – but peace!

And remember – it can work. In August 2013 NATO was all set to go to war on Syria on the grounds – entirely unsupported by evidence – that President Assad was waging chemical warfare against his enemies in the civil war unleashed by "¦ NATO, its member states and allies.

Overwhelming political pressure on MPs, and Labour MPs in particular, caused Ed Miliband to back out of a tentative agreement to back Cameron's military adventurism. On 30th August the Commons vote for war was lost. In turn this undermined the US's drive to war.

And while the situation in Syria remains dreadful, it's surely nothing like as bad as it would have been with the additional devastation of millions of tonnes of NATO bombs. Just look at the failed states we have created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to see how bad things can get.

Yes, it's hard for the essential sanity and peacefulness of ordinary people and families to prevail against the world's most powerful military and propaganda regime. That's why we need to be constantly bombarded with media lies: to overcome our right and proper horror of war, and manipulated into risking our lives, health, prosperity and wellbeing, all for a false cause of futility and destruction.

But it can be done. And for all our futures, for all generations to come and for Earth herself, sanity must prevail.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Media Peddles "Defenseless Europe" Tripe: Germans Have No Guns! Forced to Use Broomsticks!

German soldiers attached broomsticks to armored cars that don't use mounted weapons during a training exercise in Norway...last year. Verdict: Europe needs more guns!

Riley Waggaman [SOURCE]



Germany's elite NATO response force, according to trusted western newspapers

How long can Civilization hold out against Putin's Czarist-Stalinist-Fascist Aggression? The combined military spending of all NATO members "constitutes over 70 percent of the global total"—so basically Europe is doomed.

This grim and inevitable reality was recently highlighted by a German bombshell that shook the entire freedom-loving world. Here's how The Telegraph explains it:

German soldiers used broomsticks painted black instead of guns during a joint Nato exercise last year due to severe equipment shortages, it has emerged.

Have you died from horror? If not, allow The Telegraph to continue:

Soldiers in the Panzergrenadierbataillon 371 took part in the exercises last September in Norway

...

Soldiers resorted to painting broomsticks black and attaching them to Boxer armoured vehicles to simulate gun barrels.

The German Defence Ministry sought to downplay the incident, saying the Boxer vehicles in question were being used as mobile headquarters, and were never supposed to be armed.

The shortages of handguns and machine-guns have since been rectified, a spokesman said.

So: German soldiers mounted broomsticks on armored cars that don't use mounted weapons—during a training exercise in Norway...last year. What does this mean? Only The Washington Post fully grasps the terrifying significance of this historic event:

The awkward revelation on Tuesday came at the worst possible moment for Germany's defense ministry. The same day, Ukraine's army was about to suffer a defeat in the town of Debaltseve, putting a renewed focus on the question whether Europe's NATO allies would be able to manage the crisis militarily – without an American intervention, if necessary.

To make matters worse, the broom-equipped German soldiers belong to a crucial, joint NATO task force and would be the first to be deployed in case of an attack. Opposition politicians have expressed concerns about Germany's ability to defend itself and other European allies, given that even some of the most elite forces lack basic equipment.

Yes. Germany (and the rest of Europe) faces total annihilation at the hands of Putin's Red Terror Army. Or as the Pentagon's own newspaper reminds us:

NATO remains by far the largest military force in the world, outstripping any potential rivals in terms of numbers and defense expenditures, according to annual statistics released by the alliance.

In conclusion, Russia is going to steamroll the entire world.



P.S. Don't even think about cutting "defense" spending, Europe.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Hilarious: Guardian Appears to Know How Awful Its Russia Coverage Is
Why else would it go so far as to censor comments that link to their critics at Off Guardian?

(Off Guardian) | Russia Today


Proudly the most Russophobic daily in the UK

This article originally appeared at Off Guardian

The Guardian’s coverage of Russia is, famously, rather petty these days. Petty and confusing and full of conflicting assertions from various people with differing sizes of axe to grind.

On the one hand you have Luke Harding interviewing “entrepreneurial” oligarchs and believing every self-serving lie that comes out of their mouth, and on the other you have decreasing poverty statistics portrayed as (somehow) “a bad thing”.

And then you have this kind of thing: ‘Woman who sued pro-Putin Russian ‘troll factory’ gets one rouble in damages’. A non-story, writ large on the front page. Without merit, or analysis, or even sources (save the Guardian itself, you gotta love the way they do that).

Nobody really cares – save the half dozen lost souls who patrol BTL on Russia stories making jokes about vodka and polonium. But God fordbid you try and draw attention to the actual news, about Russia, Ukraine and the developments in the chaos out there. As this man did:



That link is actually to our site – this story. Thanks for that Jeff, whoever you are – but be warned that links to our site are loca non grata these days. As you can see:



Yup. There is no civil war in Ukraine anymore. It’s not worth discussing, reporting, or even acknowledging. But Russia is awful. And also vodka.

Those posters BTL who endeavoured to point out that GCHQ has been proven to carry out similar activities are met with a predictable response:



For example, this story, about Government twitter accounts being used to spread propaganda – is tucked well away in the psychology section. There’s also this one from last year – which, again, was hardly front page news.

Feel free to scream “WHATABOUT!” in the comments.

UPDATE, 18/8/2015 13:06: After less than 10 hours on the front-page, the story was closed for comments and moved further back. A new story, gloriously lacking in irony, has opened in the New East Network. Feel free to troll away. Let’s all really earn that sweet Kremlin money.
 

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
Its not new....Whenever they do not like somebody or are afraid of being challenged....the main stream paid media AKA presstitutes....come out with 24/7 breaking news to DEMONIZE that person or that country.
Over years, this demonizing phenomenon we have witnessed...in form of Saddam is evil and has WMDs (lies)
Putin is dictator ( lie) In fact 92% Russians support Putin. Average Americans are gullible and easily believe the lies which mainstream media concocts and feeds all day long. Debt ridden, worried average person has no time or energy to look for alternate source of News to verify the truth of "news" and "analysis" paid to project and reinforce these lies. The propaganda is even more sinister than in communist countries.
The same mafia pays BBC, CNN, Guardian, New York Times and they are different faces of this one monster group who think they can control the world and that 6 billion people of the world are all stupid and do not understand their tricks. This group also thinks they own entire America.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Ukraine Rightists Kill Police - New York Times Blames Putin
You can't make this stuff up. The New York Times again proves equal to the task - of showing how Ukraine far-right nationalists attacking police and leaving 3 dead and 100 injured is really Putin's fault

Robert Parry | (Consortium News) | Russia Insider


'Putin did it' reaches new levels of absurd

This article originally appearedat Consortium News

As I read the latest example of The New York Times’ propagandistic coverage of the Ukraine crisis on Tuesday, it struck me that if these same reporters and editors were around in 1953, they would have cheered the coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh as a popular “revolution” putting the beloved and benevolent Shah back on the Peacock Throne.

Similarly in 1954, these credulous journalists would have written about another people’s “revolution” in Guatemala removing President Jacobo Arbenz and restoring law and order behind well-regarded military commanders. The Times would have airily dismissed any suggestions of U.S. manipulation of events.

And, for decades, that was how the Central Intelligence Agency wanted American journalists to write those stories – and the current crop of Times’ journalists would have fallen neatly into line. Of course, we know historically that the CIA organized and financed the disorders in Tehran that preceded Mossadegh’s removal and pulled together the rebel force that drove Arbenz from office.

And, the evidence is even clearer that U.S. government operatives, particularly Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, helped orchestrate the 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Indeed, journalists knew more about the coup-plotting in Ukraine in real-time than we did about the coups in Iran and Guatemala six decades ago.

In the Ukraine case, there was even an intercepted phone call just weeks before the Feb. 22, 2014 coup revealing Nuland handpicking the new Ukrainian leaders – “Yats is the guy,” she said referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who would become the post-coup prime minister – as Pyatt pondered how “to midwife this thing” and Nuland dismissed the European Union’s less aggressive approach with the pithy remark, “Fuck the EU!”

Several months earlier, on Sept. 26, 2013, Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy (a U.S. government-funded operation that was financing scores of Ukrainian activists, journalists and business leaders), stated in a Washington Post op-ed that Ukraine was “the biggest prize” and would serve as a steppingstone toward eventually destabilizing Russia and removing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

After Gershman’s op-ed pronouncement, Nuland and Sen. John McCain personally cheered on anti-government protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square. Nuland literally passed out cookies, and McCain, standing on stage with right-wing extremists from the Svoboda Party, told the crowd that the United States was with them in their challenge to the Ukrainian government. Meanwhile, Pyatt advised the coup-makers from the U.S. Embassy.

The U.S. interference was so blatant that George Friedman, founder of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, called Yanukovych’s ouster “the most blatant coup in history.”

Blatant to anyone, that is, who wasn’t part of the U.S. government’s propaganda team, which included the foreign desk of The New York Times and virtually every mainstream U.S. media outlet. Following the script of the State Department’s propagandists, the Times and the MSM saw only a glorious people’s “revolution.”

Resistance to the Coup

However, ethnic Russians from Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the key bases of support for Yanukovych, resisted the new order in Kiev. The people of Crimea organized a referendum in which 96 percent of the voters favored seceding from Ukraine and rejoining Russia, ties that went back to the Eighteenth Century. When Putin and Russia agreed to accept Crimea, the Times and the MSM announced a “Russian invasion,” although in this case the Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea under the Sebastopol port agreement.

Ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine also rose up demanding independence or at least autonomy from the hostile regime in Kiev. The new government responded by labeling the dissidents “terrorists” and mounting an “Anti-Terrorist Operation,” which killed thousands and was spearheaded by neo-Nazi and Islamist militias.

Although the Times at times would acknowledge the key role played by the neo-Nazis and other ultra-nationalists, that troublesome information – along with the Nuland-Pyatt phone call and other evidence of the coup – would disappear into the Memory Hole when the Times was summarizing the Ukraine narrative or was decrying anyone who dared use the word “coup.”

As far as the Times was concerned, what has happened since February 2014 was simply a glorious “revolution” with “pro-democracy” Ukrainian idealists on one side and propaganda-deluded ethnic Russian automatons on the other, depersonalized and ready for the killing. And behind all the bloodshed was the evil Putin.

Putin Blamed

The Times reprised its propagandistic narrative on Tuesday in an article by Andrew E. Kramer, who tried to put the best face possible on a violent protest by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists against a proposed constitutional change that would grant more autonomy to eastern Ukraine as part of the Minsk II peace agreement reached last February between German, French, Ukrainian and Russian leaders.

Authorities identified a member of Sych, the militant arm of the right-wing Svoboda Party (John McCain’s old friends), as the person who threw a grenade that killed three police officers, but the Times made clear that the real villain was Vladimir Putin. As Kramer wrote:

“The [autonomy] measure is fiercely opposed by Ukrainian nationalists and many others, who loathe any concession to Mr. Putin and see him as the driving force behind a civil war that has claimed more than 6,500 lives. President Petro O. Poroshenko had conceded the constitutional change, which is included in the text of the Minsk agreement, with a metaphorical gun to his head: thousands of Ukrainian soldiers surrounded by Russian-backed rebels near the Ukrainian railroad town of Debaltseve.

“Supporters of the change say granting special status to the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk would co-opt the rebels’ major selling point, blunting the drive for separatism. Yet the war has angered Ukrainians to such an extent, opinion polls show, that members of Parliament are struggling to win support from voters for any concession.”

While the Times’ narrative paints Putin as the instigator of all the trouble in Ukraine, it also portrays him as a villain who is on the run because his “aggression” led to Western sanctions, which along with lower oil prices, are collapsing the Russian economy.

Kramer wrote:

“Hopes for a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis have been rising lately in Europe as oil prices have sunk, increasing financial pressure on Mr. Putin. With the Russian economy reeling, the thinking goes, he should be more willing to compromise on eastern Ukraine, the source of damaging Western economic sanctions. But that thinking was not shared by many in Ukraine. …

“As Parliament approved the concessions, protesters outside the building scuffled with police, and shouted, ‘Shame! Shame!’ The demonstrators grew more agitated. Some tore helmets from the riot police and threw them on the paving stones. ‘They are trading in our blood and our corpses,’ said a veteran of the war in the east, Volodymyr Natuta, referring to members of Parliament who supported the measure. ‘They sold out Ukraine.’…

“It [the right-wing killing of the first police officer on Monday] was the first death in politicized street violence in the capital since the 2014 revolution … Officially, the Russian government denies having any hand in propping up the two enclaves in eastern Ukraine. But Ukrainians — not to speak of virtually every Western government and NATO — universally reject that, holding Moscow responsible for all the carnage in the east.”

So, having brushed aside the evidence of a U.S.-backed coup and ignoring the role of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists in both overthrowing an elected leader and launching attacks against ethnic Russians, the New York Times has settled on the only permissible view of the crisis: that it is all Vladimir Putin’s fault. Perhaps history will know better.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Dear Guardian Editors: This Is Why No One Believes You Anymore
Guardian says Russia now realizes it has found itself in a political and military quagmire. Wait a minute, wouldnt that be Kiev and its western sponsors??
  • Hands down the worst paper in Britain
Black Catte | (Off Guardian) | Russia Insider


Constantly rewriting history

This article originally appearedat Off Guardian

Dear Guardian editors, especially the Anonymous Perpetrator of Sundays Guardian view on Ukraine –

While this is just the latest on the conveyor-belt of state-promoted Stalinist ‘alternative realities, which now constitutes the vast majority of your (ahem) political analysis, I feel the need to make a few observations, more out of pity than anger.

You must be wondering why, after over a year of a continued propaganda campaign that has seen you defending neo-nazis, racist massacres, and the wholesale terrorising of innocent civilians, you are still largely failing to get the message across, even to your core traditional readership. I can sense a rising panic, bafflement and bewilderment in you. And it makes me want to reach out. To bridge the gulf and explain why you are so totally failing to convince anybody of anything.

It’s not just because you cosy up with nazis (sorry, ‘nationalists’), while queasily obscuring their crimes and ideologies. It’s not just because you fail to see that your go-to Russia correspondents such as Shaun Walker and Luke Harding come over either as racist Russophobes or idiot-shills, on a par with, if rather more intelligent than your other poorly chosen protegé, the tragi-comic Eliot Higgins.

It’s because you’re just terribly bad at what you do.

Look at this from your most recent Anonymous offering:

“President Putin’s recent language may nevertheless indicate that he is looking for a way out of what may have turned into something of a military and political quagmire.”

Russias in a political and military quagmire?

Russia?

How many people who have been even half paying attention for the past year and a half do you think are going to believe that?

Lets recap. The US neocon plan of financially annexing Ukraine and drawing Russia into a proxy war with NATO seems to be dead. And lets hope it stays that way, because while it lived it was so hardline even Kissinger repudiated it. So insane it almost sparked a nuclear war. So incompetent it dragged Europe to the point of financial ruin, the fallout of which we are still experiencing and will continue to experience for the foreseeable future.

Dont forget, dear Graun, we have spent the last 18 months watching our political leaders in Europe and the US demonstrate they are equally divided between lunatics, morons and moronic lunatics. We’ve seen the likes of Cameron, Merkel and Hollande trundle their people to the edge of Armageddon, just because Nuland et al told them to, blinking in the headlights of the oncoming juggernaut, passive, helpless and completely idiotic.

We’ve discovered (if we didn’t already know) the US State Department is run by a hard core of dangerously insane halfwits who have zero understanding of realpolitik or anything else. We’ve been forced to realise these people don’t understand their own (profound) limitations, can’t comprehend that Ukraine is not Tunisia, not Egypt, not even Georgia. We’ve had to face the incredible fact that these guys actually believed they could have another of their ridiculous ‘color revolutions’ in Russia’s strategic and political and emotional heartland, use the usual rent-a-mob to throw Russia’s Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea, and not ignite a thermonuclear war.

We have seen Ukraine torn apart and die economically, spiritually, politically and militarily, all in pursuit of serving this fatuous, self-defeating, sub-intelligent agenda.

And you think you can make us forget all of that and believe it’s Russia in the quagmire, just because the Guardian says so?

The same Guardian that has destroyed its own reputation in offering unquestioning support for this lunatic death-train from the beginning?

How much power do you think you have to sway opinion these days? Have you checked on that recently? Do you realise you are competing with literally hundreds of other outlets, big and small, not all of which are offering your version of reality? Do you realise it’s as easy for today’s Well Meaning Guardian Reader to click on RT as the Graun? On Global Research as the Indy? Do you think you have a magic filter that blocks their access to these places, just because you used to have a monopoly?

It’s as if you think you can tell us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and we’ll obey. How else to explain why you continue to write as if an interested or sceptical party can’t source check you in five minutes, and find you wanting?

As here:

“After annexing Crimea last year, Mr Putin raised the stakes by launching a conflict in the Donbass”

Here’s a little bit of Internet 101. Online publications have things called “archives.” Look it up. The Guardian has one, just as we do, and all web based journals do. Your readers can visit that archive in a few clicks. And there they can read what you were writing about ten years ago – or a year ago. And they can see quite easily if you are trying to subtly – or not so subtly – change the narrative. For example, here’s some extracts from the Guardian’s archive concerning the start of that “conflict in Donbass” you now want us to believe was kicked off by Putin riding in to Donetsk on the back of a tank…

Guardian, April 10 2014:

Military Assaults against pro-Russian occupiers rumoured in Eastern Ukraine

“…After pro-Russian protesters demanding referenda on greater autonomy from Kiev stormed government buildings in the eastern regional capitals of Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk over the weekend, rumours of a military response by the Ukrainian authorities have run rampant….”

Guardian, April 16 2014:

Ukrainian troops ‘demoralised’ as civilians face down anti-terror drive

“…The situation has been repeated several times now across east Ukraine following Kiev’s announcement of its anti-terrorist operation at the weekend: Ukrainian troops and their hardware are blocked by angry residents, who stop them in their tracks and convince them to turn round or even withdraw….”

Guardian, April 16 2014:

Ukraine: government troops move against pro-Russia separatists – live

“…The Ukrainian military resumed operations in the east Thursday, moving in troops and vehicles and battling with separatists for control of an arms depot and at least one checkpoint outside the city of Slavyansk. There were conflicting reports of fatalities on the militia side…..”

Ah yes, the ATO, as you described it not so very long ago. That glorious moment when John Brennan of the CIA visited Kiev and coincidentally, just a few days later Yats and Turch decided to name all the people of Donbass “terrorists” and launch a military operation to obliterate them. The images of armoured vehicles being stopped and disarmed by the women of Slavyansk. The videos of unarmed civilians being murdered in Odessa and Mariupol.

You see how sleazy and manipulative your agenda immediately appears when you pretend these things didn’t happen, while at the same time your archive proves you know full well they did? You see how morally and intellectually bankrupt you seem when you opt for simplistic summations that are basically lies? You see how scummily cavalier you seem to be about truth, reality and human lives?

This is why people don’t believe you any more.

Obviously, in the end your chums at the top will manage to close down, or entirely control the internet, but until they do, if you want to sell their sociopathic agenda, you really need to become a bit more au fait with how the world wide web works. Just lying about everything isn’t enough any more. You need to cover your own tracks. Rewrite your own recent past. Erase the inconvenient shards of truth therein.

If you’re going to lie, serially and self-contradictingly, then don’t forget to use the Memory Hole.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Guardian’s Mockery of Rebel Volunteers in Stark Contrast to Its Glowing Write-Up of Kiev's Neo-Nazis
You get the feeling The Guardian is on the wrong side of the argument there

(Off Guardian) | Russia Insider



Originally appeared at Off Guardian

Interesting to compare Shaun Walker’s sneering piece in today’s Guardian on the foreign volunteers fighting for the”separatists”, with the grotesque and shameful fan write-up the same newspaper gave the neo-nazi “Women of the Aidar Battalion” back in March.

That article proved to be a PR disaster for the Guardian, as it features this photo:



of a van bearing avowedly and unambiguously nazi symbolism. Within minutes of it appearing the Guardian’s comments section erupted in indignation that this supposedly liberal paper was running a sentimental sympathy piece about a collection of openly Hitler-worshipping racists.

The moderators initially tried to stem the tide with extreme censorship, scything down any mention of what the numbers on that van actually meant. But in the end the sheer press of people posting proved too much. The paper conceded defeat, and changed the caption of the offending photo from

“Anaconda says she is being treated well by the men in her battalion, but is hoping that the war will end soon.”

to

“Anaconda alongside a van displaying the neo-Nazi symbol 1488. The volunteer brigade is known for its far-right links.”

It was a small victory. Though the Graun didn’t alter or take down their glowing endorsement of the female fascists of Aidar, which stands today as it did then.

Note in today’s article Walker still feels able to put the word “fascists” in those obligatory quotes.

You be the judge of the ethical standards and human values on display here.
 

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
The gang which includes BBC, CNN, NYT, Guardian, Huffington Post etc are a news-mafia which starts demonizing any leader or any nation 24/7 on TV and websites ...at the instructions of their payers.
These mafia presttitutes are not only united and act in unison to paint back leaders and nations which are assertive and do not become subservient to their payers. They start calling Mr Putin 'dictator" , Mr Modi "communal" . The real reason is that this little gang of thugs who want to control world thru force, weapons and wars are scared of strong leaders of other major nations. The good news is that more and more people are now understanding the dirty tricks these media monsters are using.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
No ISIS Where Russia Is Bombing–Except Last Week, When ISIS Was Killing Gay Men There?
Memo furiously being distributed to all at CNN, ABC, NBC etc: ‘Remember all the times were reported on ISIS in Homs? Well scratch them from your memories! There is no ISIS in Homs!’

Jim Naureckas | (FAIR) | Russia Insider


So who’s really fighting for rights of gays here?

Originally appeared at FAIR

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia suddenly escalated the stakes in his contest with the West over influence in the Middle East on Wednesday, as Russian pilots carried out their first airstrikes in Syria….

Russian officials and analysts portrayed the move as an attempt both to fight Islamic State militants and to try to ensure the survival of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Russia’s main ally in the Middle East. But Homs is not under the control of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.​

—New York Times (9/30/15)


A Syrian opposition activist network, the Local Co-ordination Committees, said Russian warplanes hit five towns—Zafaraneh, Rastan, Talbiseh, Makarmia and Ghanto—resulting in the deaths of 36 people, including five children.

None of the areas targeted were controlled by IS, activists said.

—BBC (9/30/15)

The Islamic State jihadist group executed nine men and a boy it accused of being gay in central and northern Syria on Monday, a monitoring group said.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the jihadists shot dead seven men in Rastan, a town in Homs province of central Syria, “after accusing them of being homosexual.”

—AFP (9/21/15)
_________________________________________________________________________

Commentary: It is amusing to see how these imbecilic western propaganda media change their hue. At whose behest? That is the question.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
A Great Analysis of the Neocon BS the Guardian Has Been Selling Lately
Surprise, surprise, the moronic Shaun Walker figures prominently…

CJCL | (Off Guardian) | Russia Insider


Disgraceful Guardian sinks to a new low

This article originally appeared at Off Guardian

Sometime in the last two years a strange pattern of behaviour has repeated and repeated and repeated in the mainstream media. It’s possible it has been going on longer than that, but the recent international entanglements have brought into the spotlight. It is a peculiar obsession: The re-arranging of the priorities of journalism, the need to preserve a story over presenting the facts. It is a practise that reeks of a growing sense of powerlessness.

The Guardian, our go-to source, our perfect little microcosm of the media and the people they claim to work for, provides clear examples.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND SYRIA

Jonathan Jones’ latest bilious out-pouring is classic recipe. Hatred, dishonesty and emotive language. It is the man’s forte. The Guardian wheel him out to write objectionable pieces, militant in his moral superiority and able to lie with the ease with which most of us breathe. Never really questioning why an arts correspondent is anyway qualified to discuss geopolitics.

When the man claims that Blairites are the moral center of the labour party, and that Corbyn’s socialist policies are at best mis-guided and worst hypocritical and evil…he really believes it. When he says we shouldn’t laugh at Putin, despite him being inside a submarine, because “people used to laugh at Hitler, and look how that turned out” he expects to be taken seriously.

His piece on the UN starts out in a much gentler vein. Putin is the Devil. When you read that opening line you have to take a breath and really focus….because you realise you’re about to read an astute, balanced and educated take on current events.

In essence it is a retreat, one identical in tone to pieces appearing all over the MSM lately. A reversal of policy disguised as a moral victory. Doublethink mode engaged. We have always been at war with…wherever.

The truth is that the NATO countries have been using ISIS et al to destabilise Syria for years, and it has not worked as well as they would like. The truth is that this “civil war” was started in much the same way as the Afghan civil war in 1979 – from the outside, with Western money and western weapons. And the truth is that, no matter how many “chemical attacks” they invent, or how many “barrel bombs” Assad uses…nobody wants a war with Syria. And the truth is now the Russians are coming.

Russia, Iran, and China – who all took their fair share of shots at the US during their UN speeches – have gamed the system here. They say “Oh no, there are terrorists in Syria – we should fight them”, and America, and their Saudi friends, can do nothing but grit their teeth, unable to object without revealing the real agenda.

None of this is in Jones’ column.

Obama’s UN speech, where he calls for the removal of a head of state – with no elections or negotiations – is, for Jones, a defence of “democratic values.” Whereas Putin’s insistence on working with the legitimate Syrian government to defeat ISIS is dismissed by the simple trick of putting the word “legitimate” in “sarcastic quotes.”

Putin is indeed a scary guy to shake hands with. He is cheerfully post-democratic, and at the UN argued that only by straightforwardly supporting Syria’s “legitimate” government. Jonathan Jones – The Guardian

Vladimir Putin, winner of three presidential elections in one of the most diverse democracies on the planet, and currently the most popular leader in the world – is brushed aside as “cheerfully post-democratic,” because he defends the rule of law. Perhaps no word in the modern world has so reversed its meaning as “democratic.” Now it means “obedient to western interests.”

Putin is described as “ruthless,” “sinister” and “disturbing” – which, to be fair is a reasonable description of Satan. There is no mention, of course, that if one were to put a death toll counter beneath the awkward hand-shake photo of Obama and Putin, that Obama’s score would dwarf Putin’s by a factor of ten.

Jones’ attempts to shape the world around a flattering story go further:

Then the Arab spring began in 2010, and it turned out that people across North Africa and the Middle East wanted democracy and human rights – the great western values. At once keen to support the liberal ideals the Arab spring sought to universalise, and paralysed by the bad conscience of the Iraq war, western foreign policy is totally confused and ineffectual.

This – to put it bluntly – is a lie. Heinous and vain and pathetic. Iraq and Libya are only declared failures because of the dishonesty of the avowed intent. Libya is chaos. Iraq is murder. These are twin success stories. War makes people money. Cheap oil bought from local war-lords makes people even MORE money.

The policy in the middle-east is turn it into a mosaic of paranoid, militant mini-states. All exchanging oil for American made weapons and nobody – NOBODY – even considering leaving the petro dollar.

Western foreign policy is not “confused” on Syria. They want to make it “democratic.” They want to remove Assad. They need to remove him. All other priorities are secondary.

Obama’s foreign policy is rich in liberal rhetoric, weak on actually helping anyone.

“Help” is another sly bit of Newspeak. We all know what to really means. The myth of amiable American impotence is always deployed at times like these. It was plastered all over Fox and MSNBC last year during the Ukraine crisis. It was flying around in the air during the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. And it’s coming back for an encore here. America is the well-meaning, straight talking, reticent hero. The only country with the guts to tell the world how to sort itself out, and yet always held in check by modesty and doubt. It is, frankly, laughable.

No rational, human being could look over the history of late 20th and early 21st century and say to themselves “The problem here, is that America didn’t bomb enough places.” And yet this is the narrative that we’re expected to lap up, as odious hypocrites like Mr Jones dole it out on plates before us.

THE UKRAINIAN WAR

The Syria situation is neatly mirrored in the current Guardian piece on Ukraine. Shaun Walker, fresh from juvenile and ridiculous twitter coverage of the UN, has thumped his keyboard with his forehead a few times and come out with this turkey-dropping of an article: As Russia enters war in Syria, conflict in Ukraine begins to wind down

Welcome to Walker-World. Truth is passé. Reality inconvenient. Reason a long forgotten concept, like the four humours or alchemy. The mechanism is very simple – simply pretend the world is different from the perceivable reality of the situation.

You see – according to Walker at least – Kiev’s forces have finally stopped shelling Donetsk. And this is because of Moscow’s involvement in Syria. The lunacy knows almost no bounds in this piece. First off he readily admits that the rebels are on the receiving end of the bombardment:

At a highly fortified separatist position near the village of Peski outside Donetsk, the pro-Russia fighters have been getting used to an unusual sound in recent weeks: silence.

But then he tacks on this rhetorical trick:

As Russia ratchets up military action in Syria, the fighting in east Ukraine is winding down.

It’s almost brilliant in it’s simplicity – he doesn’t outright claim they are directly connected, because that would be absurd – but he leaves the statements there, next to each other, for the readers to do the rest.

For months now the only obstacle to peaceful settlement has been the government in Kiev. They are between a rock and a hard place. They can’t/won’t give autonomy to the rebel states, as they promised in Minsk II, without displeasing the Nuland faction in Washington and/or running the risk of a Nazi – sorry, “ultra nationalist” – throwing a grenade through their window or dropping them off a building. And they can’t keep on fighting without raising the ire of Mama Merkel and risking all out protest from western civilians as well.

Simply put, if they stop shelling Donbass it’s because they are being forced by economic and political circumstance to finally start implementing all the agreements they signed months ago, and had every intention of ignoring forever. It would be, from the Kiev/US/UK point of view, a total failure. The only possible response is to pretend you’ve won. To claim victory and flee the field.

So here we have it:

In Moscow, too, there are rumblings that the “Novorossia project” to carve out a pro-Russian statelet in east Ukraine has been well and truly closed down.

Do you see now? In halting the fighting and granting Donetsk and Luhansk increased autonomy and (possibly) federal status – Kiev would not be capitulating. They would not be giving the civilian protesters what they asked for 18 months ago. They would not be doing what Russia have been suggesting since last summer. They would not be doing what so many of us got banned from CiF for even talking about. They would actually be winning.

Ukraine wants us to believe they have defeated Russia’s “NovoRossia project,” which was totally real and they didn’t just make it up. Shame on you for thinking it. Russia were planning on using the civilian protesters Kiev shot at as an excuse to invade Ukraine (possibly dozens of times) and build a land-bridge to Crimea whilst adding a new state to the federation that stretches from the Black Sea to Kharkov.

Now, you maybe forgiven for wondering why – if Russia’s plan was to capture Ukrainian land – they steadfastly refused to accept Donetsk and Luhansk into the Russian Federation. But that’s because you’re a Putinbot and/or useful idiot.

If Kiev end up granting the people of Eastern Ukraine every single one of their demands, this will be them defeating Russia. Welcome to Walker-world.

CONCLUSION

The Guardian – and the other heads of the media hydra – think they can simply say something, and make it the truth. That, through the pummelling of the message and the right sad photos, you can change the meaning of words. Just repeat and repeat and repeat the propaganda.

“Russia is internationally isolated” – they repeat it all the time. No matter how ridiculous a statement it is. “We are supporting the moderate Syrian rebels”, repeated everywhere despite it being totally untrue. We have to start a war to stop the refugee crisis. We have to ban comments to preserve freedom.

Fighting ISIS will help Assad. Russia is non-democratic. Assad kills his own people. Israel is just defending itself. Ignorance is strength. Corbyn is an anti-Semite. The west is pro-democracy. We have an independent media. Giving up is victory. War is humane. Freedom is slavery.

________________________________________________

Two interesting comments on the article:

colinjones201417 hours ago


It seems The Daily Telegraph has gone full baby killer:

'Russia kills US-backed Syrian rebels in second day of air strikes as Iran prepares for ground offensive'

"The Free Syrian Army, a Western-backed rebel group, said that one of its commanders had been killed by Russian bombs." - hmmm, this is the same CIA-backed, US-funded group that has released weapons to ISIS (fact) and many of whose members have defected to ISIS (fact).

So...when is the terrorist group not a terrorist group? Whenever it's CIA trained and US funded...

It does seem like the Western media are in PROPAGANDA OVERDRIVE today.



colinjones201417 hours ago


We can even go a little further, let us take the story today (2nd Oct): "Russia admits targeting non-Isis groups in Syria as airstrikes continue"

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Shocking right? Let's have a little read of the article:

"Moscow admitted it had targeted groups other than Islamic State" - my god, Russia admitted this? .....hmmm let's continue reading...

"Moscow appeared to admit it was striking more widely" - argh, now it's "appeared to", we continue...

"Russian president seized on US and western disarray and insisted that Russia was targeting Isis." - ok, Putin so says no.

"In Russia, television news broadcasts showed pictures of fighter jets executing air raids against targets described as Islamic State arms" - ok, so Russian tv says no.

"Lavrov emphatically denied that Russia considered the western-backed Free Syrian Army a terrorist group" - ok, Lavrov says no.

"But his words appear at odds with those of Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, who was dismissive of the FSA when asked about it on Wednesday. “Does it exist, the Free Syria Army? Haven’t most of them switched to IS group? It existed but whether it does now nobody knows for sure, it’s a relative concept.”

Alright - so it seems just because Dmitry Peskov asked 'if the Free Syria Army really exists' - inferring it's created by the CIA - the Guardian have taken THAT statement to mean that "Russia are targeting non-Isis groups" - pathetic work Guardian.

I also like the way the headline states "targeting" with a picture of explosions in the article - one may think the Guardian was trying to imply "killing" when saying "targeting"...

Oh look, Shaun Walker is one of the "Journalists". Oh look, 3800+ "comments" which all suddenly where generated in under six hours....

 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
A Useful Prep-Sheet on Syria for Media Propagandists - Must Read!
We loved this piece - brilliantly sums up everything that is wrong with American media and officialdom

Gary Leupp | (CounterPunch) | Russia Insider


You too can be like Chris Cuomo - he'll say anything the government wants him to

This article originally appearedat CounterPunch

State Department talking points on Syria for cable news anchors:

* Keep mentioning the barrel bombs. Do not mention how their use was pioneered by the Israeli Air Force in 1948, and how they were used by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam in Operation Inferno in 1968. Keep repeating, “barrel bombs, barrel bombs” and stating with a straight face that the Syrian regime is using them “against its own people.” Against its own people. Against its own people. Against its own people.

* Keep mentioning “200,000.” (The UN estimates that 220,000 have been killed in the conflict since 2011.) Declare like you really believe it that this is the number of civilians the Syrian government of Bashar Assad has killed during the war. (Do not be concerned about any need to back the figure up. No one is ever going to call you on it publicly.)

Do NOT mention that around half of the war dead (estimates range from 84,000 to 133,000) are Syrian government forces waging war against an overwhelmingly Islamist opposition, and an additional 73,000 to 114,000 are anti-government combatants.

Do not discuss these figures because they would call into question the claim that the Syrian government is targeting and killing tens of thousands of civilians willy-nilly. (If feeling any qualms of conscience, recall Karl Rove’s immortal dictum that “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”)

* Keep mentioning the “Arab Spring” and how in 2011 Syrians peacefully mobilized to challenge the regime were violently repressed. But don’t dwell on the Arab Spring too much. Realize that the State Department was actually shocked by it, particularly by its repercussions in Egypt, where democratization brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power before the U.S.-backed military drowned its opponents in blood.

And recall but do NOT mention how in Bahrain, peaceful demonstrations by the majority Shiites against the repressive Sunni monarchy were crushed by a Saudi-led invasion force tacitly supported by the U.S. And NEVER mention that the bulk of the peaceful protesters in the Syrian Arab Spring want nothing to do with the U.S.-supported armed opposition but are instead receptive to calls from Damascus, Moscow and Tehran for dialogue towards a power-sharing arrangement.

Do NOT explain that the pro-democracy student activists and their allies fear most is the radical Islamists who have burgeoned in large part due to foreign intervention since 2011.

* Keep mentioning the “Free Syrian Army” and the “moderate opposition” to give the impression that they actually exist in the real world.

Do NOT point out that the FSA organization is actually a joke; that its leaders live in Turkey; that its remaining units are headed by CIA officers; that U.S. efforts to train over 5000 FSA troops have been an utter failure; that the tiny group of 54 recently sent to the front were immediately captured by the al-Nusra Front and another 70 dispatched from Turkey immediately turned over their arms to that al-Qaeda-linked group; that their chief of staff has resigned protesting U.S. incompetence; that Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the top American commander in the Middle East, told Congress last month that only “four or five” Syrians had been trained by the U.S. to fight ISIL; and that the U.S.-trained forces have been accused of multiple human rights abuses.

Do NOT mention these things. They are so totally embarrassing that the State Department officials responsible just want to curl up into a ball and roll into a corner. Your mission is to put a bright face on this and continue to pretend there’s something in Syria, supported by the U.S., that falls between the terrorists and the Assad regime.

* Keep expressing consternation if not outrage that Russia is “interfering” in Syria. Scrunch up your face and act like you think it’s puzzling.

Do NOT mention that Syria is much closer to Russia than to the U.S. and that Russia faces a much greater threat of Islamist terror than the U.S. (in places like Chechnya and Dagestan that your viewers can’t locate on a map).

Downplay the fact that Russia has had a military relationship with Syria since the 1950s no more nor less legitimate that the U.S. military relationship with Saudi Arabia. (And avoid any objective comparisons of the human rights records of Saudi Arabia and Syria since the former’s is manifestly so much worse than the latter’s!)

Do NOT imply any moral equivalence between Russia’s desire to prevent U.S.-backed regime change in Syria and the U.S.’s desire to inflict another Iraq or Libya-type regime change on that tragically war-torn country.

* Keep treating the Assad regime as an obvious pariah, whose leader has “lost legitimacy.” Say that with an air of authority, like you really believe that U.S. presidents—like Chinese emperors of the past or medieval popes— enjoy so much “legitimacy” that they can confer this on, or remove it from, anybody else.

Study CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s facial expressions and body language when he announces—so matter-of-factly, as a self-evident fact, as a done deal—that (come on, everybody!) “Assad hast lost legitimacy.”

(Chris is your model. He’s the State Department’s pleasantly vapid headed scion-of-privilege poster boy, whose occasional dark flashes of indignation—especially those directed towards anyone questioning the official talking points on Russia—embody the attitude Foggy Bottom seeks to encourage in the corporate press.)

Do NOT remind viewers that the Syrian government is internationally recognized, holds a UN seat, retains cordial relations with most nations and is engaged in a life-and-death struggle against people who enslave, crucify, behead, bury alive and burn alive people and want to replace Syria’s modern secular government with a medieval religious one intolerant of any diversity.

* Keep insisting that the Assad regime somehow is responsible for, and even in league with, the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front and ISIL. Since this makes no logical sense, just have faith in the ignorance of the viewership and its disinclination to distinguish one Arab from another and to assume that they’re all linked in ways that aren’t worth even trying to sort out. Imply that by staying in power (and not complying with Obama’s demand that he step down) Assad has actually invited the presence of radical Islamists to his country, or provoked their emergence.

Do NOT mention that al-Qaeda offshoots have proliferated globally since the U.S. invaded and wrecked Iraq in 2003, in a war based entirely on lies, and that there was no al-Nusra Front or ISIL until the U.S. set out to effect regime change throughout the Middle East. Do NOT let on that State Department PR strategy is precisely to obfuscate the real causal relationship, and to impute to the beleaguered Assad phenomena actually generated by U.S. aggression in the region.

* Keep treating Russian President Vladimir Putin as America’s Enemy Number One, an ally of a Syrian government that U.S. has said must go, deploying force in Syria to bolster Assad rather than (as Moscow claims) to target ISIL.

Do NOT lend any credence to the Russian assertion that the Syrian Army is the force best placed to defeat ISIL. Do NOT point out the incongruity of the U.S. invading and attacking countries from Pakistan to Libya since 2001 while expressing alarm that Moscow is (after much hesitation) taking action against Islamist terrorists at Damascus’s invitation.

* Do not harp on the past, revisit history, or attempt to place the contemporary situation in Syria in perspective. Do NOT complicate the storyline by mentioning Damascus’s cooperation in the “War on Terror” and the U.S. use of Syrian torture chambers in its “special renditions” program after 2001. Do NOT mention Syria’s large Christian minority or its historical support for Assad’s Baath party, which was co-founded by a Syrian Christian.

Please keep everything simple, following the examples set by MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Scarborough and CNN’s Cuomo, and inculcate in the mind of the viewer that Assad is the main problem and most horrible actor in the Syrian situation. Tell them that Putin, while striving to revive the tsarist empire, is backing Assad as a loyal ally and using his military to prolong his rule that Washington condemns rather than (as he states) taking action against ISIL.

If you do all this, you will demonstrate your loyalty to the State Department, the bipartisan foreign policy consensus, the military-industrial complex, the One Percent, your advertisers, your producers and editors, and the unsung heroes behind the scenes who arrange your teleprompter scripts.

You too could be an Andrea Mitchell, or Christiane Amanpour, posturing as an “expert” while trotting out our talking points. And even after they’re exposed as bullshit, you won’t have to say you’re sorry. People will soon forget anyway.

Those unconscionable barrel bombs! 200,000 civilians killed by the illegitimate regime! U.S. support for the moderate opposition! Russia up to no good, supporting Assad and not really targeting ISI!. Russian moves “worrisome” (whereas U.S. moves are not.)
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Western Media Is Dying Out Rapidly; Alternative Media Surging
The targeting of Seymour Hersh after his exposé discrediting Syrian gas attack claims shows the death of real journalism in the West

Tony Cartalucci | (NEO) | Russia Insider



Lying mainstream western media is being rejected

This article originally appeared at NEO: New Eastern Outlook

Seymour Hersh has risked much over his decades of journalism. He is a true journalist who has been attacked, slandered, and shunned by all sides simply because he seems to resist taking any side.

When he reported on US atrocities in Vietnam, he was first attacked and denounced as a traitor or worse. In time, both the truth and Hersh were vindicated and the importance of what he did as a journalist to both inform the public and serve as a check and balance against the special interests of ruling power were recognized with a Pultizer Prize.

In 2007, when he exposed the then Bush-administration’s plans to use the Muslim Brotherhood and militant groups linked to Al Qaeda to overthrow the government of Syria – the result of which is unfolding today – the New Yorker gladly welcomed his work as a message they perceived would resonate well with liberal audiences.

But then in 2013, when Hersh brought forward information contradicting the West’s official narrative regarding a chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus, the New Yorker decided not to publish it. His report, “Whose Sarin?” instead found itself published in the London Review of Books.

The story of Hersh bringing this information forward to the public and how the Western media attempted to first discourage it, then bury it, before attempting to discredit both the report and Hersh himself is a microcosm of the dying Western media.

The Final Nail

Hersh’s report went on in detail covering the manner in which Western leaders intentionally manipulated or even outright fabricated intelligence to justify military intervention in Syria – eerily similar to the lies told to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the escalation of the war in Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

And not only did the report punch holes through the official narrative, it helped hobble what little momentum was left for Western military aggression against Syria based on the lies told by the US and its allies regarding the chemical attack.

In Hersh’s follow up report, “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” also published by the London Review of Books, he revealed information not only further exposing the lies told by the US and its allies, but suggested NATO member Turkey and close US-ally Saudi Arabia may have played a role in supplying those responsible for the attack with the chemical weapons.

Should Hersh’s reports reach wider audiences and the idea of a West capable of conceiving, carrying out, then trying to exploit a crime against humanity to justify expanded, unjust war, Western foreign policy would irrevocably be disfigured and perhaps begin to unravel.

Outsourcing Trust

The methods of augmenting an increasingly discredited and distrusted Western media have become very creative. With the advent of the Internet and social media, attempts to produce viral content and seemingly outside sources to help guide the public back who are turning away from the mainstream media in droves was actually the subject of an entire policy paper by former Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein. The paper was covered in a Salon article titled, “Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal,” which stated (emphasis added):

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

It would be these – what are essentially government-paid liars – who the West would turn to in an attempt to bury Hersh and the remnants of real Western journalism with him.

The “Independent Credible Voices”

UK-based unemployed government worker Eliot Higgins began and maintained a popular blog amalgamating online photos and videos from the Syrian conflict. Journalists and analysts from all sides used his resource as a sort of “wartime encyclopedia.” While Higgins possessed no qualifications or background in warfare, geopolitics, or weapons specifically, what he did possess was a great amount of time. In this time he was able to accurately look up and catalog the media on his blog.

However, it wasn’t long before the Western media approached him to fulfill the role of “independent credible voice.” Whether Eliot Higgins was the recipient of “secret payments” at that time or not, it is clear now that he was both approached by and sought those willing to pay him for his services and that his work from then on was decidedly both biased and dishonest.

Higgins was furnished with his own “weapons expert,” Dan Kaszeta, who either owns or is an associate of multiple dubious “consulting” firms. Together from the beginning Higgins and Kaszeta bolstered the West’s narrative that the Syrian government was responsible for using munitions filled with nerve agents right in front of UN inspectors in Damascus.

Using what they collectively called “open source intelligence” – watching YouTube videos and looking at Google Earth – they claimed the type of rocket and nerve agent used could only have been deployed by the Syrian government.

Hersh contested these claims in both of his reports and in additional interviews pointing out that the rockets were crude and could just as easily be homemade, while the production of nerve agents – certainly the work of a state actor – could have been done in either Turkey or Saudi Arabia or with either nations’ assistance, then deployed by militants in Syria.

To this day, the UN’s official conclusion is that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that rockets containing nerve agents were launched at Damascus suburbs – assigning no blame, nor indicating from where either the rockets or the nerve agents originated.

Higgins and Kaszeta, featured in the London Guardian and Foreign Policy Magazine, would directly attack Hersh’s claims citing YouTube videos and UN reports as evidence that the Syrian government possessed the type of rockets used in the attack and the type of nerve agent contained in the rockets – omitting one very important question – what if the attack was meant to look like the work of the Syrian government?

In reality, all Higgins and Kaszeta proved was that whoever carried out the attack – designed solely to grant the US and its allies justification for direct military intervention – spent a lot of time and effort to make the attack appear as if the Syrian government carried it out. They predicate their entire argument upon claiming the West would not – for some reason – fabricate an attack to justify a war they sought to wage but lacked any justification to do so.

Along side Higgins and Kaszeta’s rebuttal was a scathing indictment of not only Hersh, but traditional journalism in general. The London Gaurdian’s Brian Whitaker would pen a piece titled, “Investigating chemical weapons in Syria – Seymour Hersh and Brown Moses go head to head,”claiming (emphasis added):

While seeking to re-ignite the “whodunnit” debate about chemical weapons, Hersh’s article unwittingly revealed a lot about the changing nature of investigative journalism. Hersh is old-school. He operates in a world of hush-hush contacts – often-anonymous well-placed sources passing snippets of information around which he constructs an article that challenges received wisdom.

The Hersh style of journalism certainly has a place, but in the age of the internet it’s a diminishing one – as the web-based work of Higgins and others continually shows.

It is a talking point that Higgins himself would again make in the space afforded to him by Foreign Policy magazine – that traditional journalism with real sources is out, and Cass Sunstein’s army of paid “independent credible voices” are in.

Vindication

A Russian-brokered deal that saw the entirety of Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles removed from the country under the supervision of the United Nations means that there are neither chemical weapons for the Syrian government to use (or be blamed for using), nor chemical weapons left for terrorists fighting the Syrian government to pilfer and use.

Yet now along Turkey’s border – the nation Hersh has suggested was behind the 2013 gas attack – terrorists from the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) are allegedly deploying chemical weapons.

Initial reports indicate the use of mustard gas – a blistering agent. Like nerve agents, the production and deployment of these weapons requires state resources.

The Western media, in a bid to explain how ISIS has acquired these weapons, has begun spinning theories that Syria’s weapons on their way out of Syria somehow ended up in ISIS’ hands. The presence of chemical weapons in northern Syria and Iraq indicates that just as Hersh suggested, chemical weapons are being passed on to terrorists operating in Syria from either Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or both.

With this recent development, literally years of Higgins and Kaszeta’s lies have been exposed, vindicating award-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh and the traditional methods of journalism he employed to draw his conclusions. It also exposes Sunstein’s army of “independent credible voices” as just another facet in the echo chamber of discredited, now widely distrusted lies of the Western media.

In an attempt to get Higgin’s and Kaszeta’s opinion on who they believed were supplying ISIS with chemical weapons, Kaszeta replied by saying, “lizard men.” Higgins refused to comment. When asked if either would like to extend an apology to Hersh, Kasezta would inexplicably reply, “Hersh owes me an apology, now get lost you useless sack of sh*t.

One might expect a higher degree of professionalism and civilized debate from “experts” regularly deferred to by the Western media not only in regards to the Syrian conflict but also in Ukraine, where Eliot Higgins is now offering his “independent credible voice” to the MH17 disaster. However, admittedly employed by Western think tanks and consultancy agencies, Higgins no longer possess an “independent” voice, and considering his intentional and unrepentant deceit regarding Syria, he no longer possess a “credible’ voice either.

Sunstein’s Failed Experiment

Using chemical weapons has never been an effective means of fighting war. Beyond their psychological effects, conventional weapons have proven a vastly superior means of waging and winning war.

During the deadly 8 year war between Iraq and Iran, chemical weapons were used including nerve agents. Yet a document produced by the US Marine Corps, titled, “Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War” under “Appendix B: Chemical Weapons,” revealed less than 2-3% of all casualties were the result of chemical warfare.The report concluded that even large scale use of chemical weapons offered little advantage to either side and suggests that attacks carried out with such weapons required almost perfect weather and geographical conditions to be of even limited benefit. On a smaller scale, the use of chemical weapons would be tactically and strategically useless – unless of course used as a means of implicating your enemy and justifying wider war.

Likewise, shooting down a civilian airliner over Ukraine offers no benefit to a warring party unless of course they did it to implicate their enemies and justify wider war. Discerning this is a product of critical thinking – which is what drove people away from the Western media in the first place. Sunstein’s mistaken belief that somehow those drifting away from the Western media were as easily fooled as those still watching it is why people like Higgins have ended up chased out of the independent media and back, deeply within the system that co-opted and used him in the first place.

For Hersh, he proves that dedication to the truth when it is unpopular is a small price to pay to keep one’s dignity. The ridicule and accusations of those without dignity fades, but the truth is everlasting. When the truth Hersh has pointed out beneath the lies finally surfaced for all to see, vindication exposed people like Higgins and Kaszeta for all to see.

With the veils of legitimacy and professionalism yanked from them, they are reduced to vulgar, miniature versions of the rotting system that created them. Without realizing their very creation as “consultants” lies in the decline of those who sought them out, not because of their talent, but because of their willingness to do what those with dignity refuse to do, they will likely go on with their ignoble work. But like the media houses that desperately needed their “independent credible voices” to begin with, fewer will be listening and reading.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Unnamed US Official: Thousands of Orphans Dead After Russian Missiles ‘Fell in Iran’
Unnamed U.S. officials never lie


Riley Waggaman | Russia Insider


This cruise missile destroyed a Taco Bell full of pregnant Iranian women, according to unnamed US officials

Thousands of orphans, and at least 5 puppies, are presumed dead after Russian missiles launched from the Caspian Sea missed their targets inside Syria.

The missiles, carrying radioactive cluster munitions that have been outlawed by all civilized nations, landed on an Iranian kindergarten for disabled orphans, according to reliable, anonymous U.S. officials.

But Moscow and Tehran, both in total self-delusional denial, vehemently deny the accusations. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Igor Konashenkov said that “any professional knows that during these operations we always fix the target before and after impact. All our cruise missiles hit their target.”

Spoken like someone who just murdered 1,000 disabled orphans, and all of their puppies.

Admit to your crime, Russia.
____________________________________________________________________
Commentary: The part in blue led me to British propaganda website BBC, but I did not see anything written as claimed in the blue part above. It is unclear whether this article should be taken as a satire or BBC actually amended their article
 

Cadian

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
824
Likes
795
Unnamed US Official: Thousands of Orphans Dead After Russian Missiles ‘Fell in Iran’
Unnamed U.S. officials never lie


Riley Waggaman | Russia Insider


This cruise missile destroyed a Taco Bell full of pregnant Iranian women, according to unnamed US officials

Thousands of orphans, and at least 5 puppies, are presumed dead after Russian missiles launched from the Caspian Sea missed their targets inside Syria.

The missiles, carrying radioactive cluster munitions that have been outlawed by all civilized nations, landed on an Iranian kindergarten for disabled orphans, according to reliable, anonymous U.S. officials.

But Moscow and Tehran, both in total self-delusional denial, vehemently deny the accusations. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Igor Konashenkov said that “any professional knows that during these operations we always fix the target before and after impact. All our cruise missiles hit their target.”

Spoken like someone who just murdered 1,000 disabled orphans, and all of their puppies.

Admit to your crime, Russia.
____________________________________________________________________
Commentary: The part in blue led me to British propaganda website BBC, but I did not see anything written as claimed in the blue part above. It is unclear whether this article should be taken as a satire or BBC actually amended their article


http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/vova_borodach/53036461/96096/96096_600.jpg
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Russians Must Stop Trying to Please the West
The western media is not likely to change its negative approach towards Russia anytime in the near future. It’s time for Russians to embrace themselves

Ajay Kamalakaran | (Russia & India Report) | Russia Insider


Russia is its own brand

This article originally appeared in Russia & India Report

Before writing this column I would like to make it absolutely clear that I am not anti-West, and there are a lot of things about western countries that I absolutely admire. However, I find this need among many influential people in Russia to have western approval absolutely cringe-worthy.

Over the last two and a half decades, the American film and television industry has managed to completely capture the Russian market. It’s incredibly difficult to find a Russian film being screened in Moscow. The cinema halls mostly show dubbed Hollywood pictures. This domination of the Russian cultural space by the U.S. and its allies has led to many Russians seeing their own country through a western prism.

While there may be some justification for calling St Petersburg the ‘Venice of the North, why is Vladivostok called the ‘Russian San Francisco?’ The list goes on with some smaller regions in the Caucasus being labeled the ‘Switzerland of Russia.’ As nice as Venice, San Francisco and Switzerland are, they have their plus and minus points just like any other place on earth. The problem with many Russians is that they blindly accept the hype over places in the West and try overly hard to equate their own cities with benchmarks set in Europe and the U.S.

This lack of self confidence and need for approval from the West were the direct result of perestroika and the losing of superpower status. It has however been almost a quarter of a century since the USSR collapsed. Over this time, Russia has managed to revive and reinvent itself. The country is blessed with so much natural beauty and some of the most charming cities in the world. It’s time to develop thick skin and no longer care what the West thinks.

I take the example of a country like India that is constantly under siege from the western media and its local ‘sepoys.’ No article published by a western newspaper or wire service on India’s achievements would be complete without a mention of the country’s poverty. Whether it’s the space program or some massive infrastructure project, somewhere or the other, there will be a line about the percentage of people living below the poverty line in the country. The same goes with western news agencies and their photo desks. A poor person, a cow or some sign of poverty is an essential part of a photograph of India.

As India continues to grow economically and takes the right steps to eradicate poverty, an increasing number of Indians just do not care about biased media coverage from the West. The prevailing wisdom in the country is on the lines of ‘let them wallow in their own ignorance.’ While there are those in cities like Udaipur, who call their city, ‘the Venice of the East,’ the decision-makers in the state of Rajasthan are more keen to promote their beautiful culture than falling prey to such silly comparisons.

Russians need to develop thick skin and have a similar attitude towards western negativity. Over the last decade, there has been a clearly visible improvement in infrastructure and standards of living across Russia. But we’ll never read about this in any western publication. If something unusually negative happens in a Siberian village, it has a great chance of making headlines around the world.

It’s amazing how Europeans have the reasoning and logic to separate American foreign policy from culture, but still jeer at Russian performers at the Eurovision contest. For many in the West, the aggressive American military adventures do not equal American people, but different yardsticks get easily applied to Russia. Of course, this is the result of years of very effective brainwashing.

Russia has tremendous goodwill in Asia, the Balkans, Africa and Latin America. It’s time to capitalize and build on this. Many people in these regions want to see Russians have the same kind of confidence in their country as they did in the heyday of the USSR.

The first step on the road to building this confidence is de-hyphenation with the West. Let us stop the comparisons with Venice and San Francisco (and the free publicity these cites keep getting) when we talk about St Petersburg and Vladivostok. Russia needs to create it own tourism brand distinct and free of the West. Of course, it would be nice to have more western tourists in Russia, but the world is certainly not just the West. This is precisely what some decision-makers in Russia need to understand.

Tailpiece:

Given all the restoration and redevelopment going on across the country, Russian cities will be at their best when the country hosts the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The sporting carnival is Russia’s best opportunity to showcase itself to the world. No amount of negative media coverage will be able to offset what football fans from around the world will see with their own eyes.

_____________________________________________
Commentary:

For the Indian readers, it is my impression, that Indians are no longer taking things lying down. One advantage Indians have is the sheer number of English educated population who are more than willing to fight it out with the western plebs, who comment as a consequence of being constantly fed with negative propaganda about India.

For the Russian readers, here is a good bit of humour, that tells us, not every Russian is trying to impress the West.

 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
How Anti-Russia ‘Experts’ Change Their Tune to Suit the Market
RT is either a feeble brand nobody pays attention to or a behemoth about to take over the world

(RT) | Russia Insider



Originally appeared at RT

Recently, The Moscow Times - the Russian capital’s only English-language daily - has been on something of an anti-RT crusade. Could this stem from frustration over RT’s success?

Like the British rock band The Smiths, opinions of RT can ‘oscillate wildly.’ Pundits hope to convince their readers with harrowing stories that RT is about to take over the world. On other occasions, RT is casually dismissed as an outlet that nobody watches or reads.

Amusingly, it seems that both narratives can apparently co-exist in the same publication.

The Moscow Times has always been a rather interesting journal. Beginning life in the dying days of the USSR as a small bi-weekly called the Moscow Guardian, it was originally a genuine attempt to create a world class daily newspaper in Europe’s largest city. Since its 1992 launch, a motley crew of journalists, liberal arts graduates and chancers has passed through its doors. Some have loved Russia, others have hated it.

Occasionally, domestic Russian experts have slammed The Moscow Times for its strong opposition to most Russian government policy. Israel Shamir of Izvestia dubbed it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia.”

Its current editor Nabi Abdullaev conceded this point in 2014, saying that “biased journalism (against Russia)… robs the West of its moral authority.” However, Abdullaev held firm in the paper’s stance against Russia’s current leaders, calling them “cynical.”

Does this anti-RT crusade stem from frustration over RT’s success? Web analytics service, Similiarweb, confirms that RT enjoys 54.5 million unique monthly visits, compared to The Moscow Times’ 1.3 million.

Interestingly, according to Alexa, 29 percent of Google searches linking to their site were actually looking for “Moscow Time.” Presumably most of those users were devastated to learn that they weren’t accessing the Russian version of the speaking clock.

If comparison to RT seems a bit unfair, Russia Insider – founded only last year on a shoe-string budget – is hot on Moscow Times’ heels with over 600,000 monthly visits. Furthermore, Russia Insider’s stats don’t benefit from it being confused with a time-keeping device.

Going to America

In the past few months, The Moscow Times has carried various dubiously researched anti-RT hit-pieces. For example, Daria Litvinova has tried to convince her audience that RT, Sputnik and other Russian state media outlets are weaker than is widely thought. Hence, she claims, Russia will not be able to convince the West about the necessity and effectiveness of Russian airstrikes in Syria.

Litvinova quotes Vasily Gatov, calling him “a Russian media analyst and visiting fellow at the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy in California.” Gatov was employed at state-owned RIA Novosti before it was disbanded in 2013. Could he possibly have a personal grudge against Russian media and the state which replaced his former concern? He’s recently been quoted by Bloomberg, the Daily Beast and Politico, criticizing RT.

Just before that, in the same pages, Professor Konstantin Sonin wrote that “RT is a mock-up of the real thing.” After stepping down from Moscow’s Higher School of Economics in December, Sonin emigrated to America and now teaches at the University of Chicago.

A few weeks earlier, The Moscow Times published an op-ed by Maria Snegovaya, the fiercely pro-western Vedomosti columnist and a PhD. student at Columbia University in the US. The Moscow Times – in common with myriad other media – seems to believe that the only Russians qualified enough to analyze the country all reside across the Atlantic.

A tangled web

Snegovaya quotes Andrew Foxall from Britain’s extremist Henry Jackson Society. This think tank“believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate.” In other words, it doesn’t recognize China, the world’s largest economy, or Saudi Arabia, the West’s number one Arab ally, as “truly legitimate states.”

Not content with that, Snegovaya then cites Kevin Rothrock, an American anti-Russia activist. Rothrock is employed by Meduza, a Russian-expat led website which refuses to declare its funding.

Prior to landing his gig at Meduza, Rothrock used his Global Voices column to call it “the coolest thing to hit online Russian journalism in recent memory.” In his “come and get me” plea, Rothrock delivers such gems as “it’s been up and running for less than a day, but Meduza already has a small cult following” and “because of Meduza’s hybrid design (it aggregates! it originates!), the website’s methodology has been a cause for curiosity (sic).”

Snegovaya presents Rothrock as a Russia expert. Rothrock recently used a fake Dmitry Kiselev Twitter account to source a recent Global Voices commentary. He almost got away with it too, until Russian blogger Korobkov called him out on it.

She also uses Michael Weiss and Peter Pomeranstev as references. Pomerantsev has built an entire career out of interchangeable tirades against Russian media. Weiss formally worked for the Henry Jackson Society. The Khodorkovsky family, who claim to fund Weiss’ Interpreter project, are also alleged to be Meduza’s mysterious backers. Furthermore, Snegovaya writes for Khodorkovsky’s Institute of Modern Russia. Connect the dots and you understand that the world of anti-Russian activism is quite small.

Flip-flopping

Now, this is where it gets funny. Three weeks after Snegovaya’s piece was published, the US government's lavishly funded broadcaster RFE/RL carried a major warning of the success of Russian media’s Syria coverage. Who does RFE/RL quote to validate their position? One Maria Snegovaya.

In a few weeks, Snegovaya has made a 180 degrees shift in stance. Of course, it suits The Moscow Times to portray RT as feeble, in order to distract from the size of its own readership. On the other hand, RFE/RL, with 610,000 monthly visitors to its English-language portal, needs to create the impression that RT is a major threat. That helps with agitating for funding increases. Its parent, the BBG, has a state-funded budget of $733 million and has requested $751.5 million in 2016, for what is primarily a combination of radio and online services. By contrast, RT’s 2016 allocation is less than half that.

There are increasing attempts to attack Russian media and RT through “experts” like Snegovaya, who write for US think tanks and alter their opinions with great frequency. So long as the overall narrative remains “Russia and RT bad, America/NATO/West good,” anything goes.

As James Petras explains in a current Eurasian Review article:

“The Western media has backed every oligarch, gangster and fraudster who has gone on trial and been convicted during Putin’s term in office. The propagandists tell us the reason for this affinity between the Western media and the gangster-oligarchs is that these convicted felons, who claim to be ‘political dissidents’ and critics of Putin’s rule, have been dispossessed, and jailed for upholding ‘Western values.’

Nobody is accusing exiled Russian journalists, academics and activists of being gangsters or fraudsters, but the attitude is similar. As long as they remain anti-Kremlin, they will stay in the Western media’s favor.


Note: As this Editorial was being processed, The Moscow Times made some major announcements. The newspaper will, in the future, appear only once a week, rather than daily. However, it shall retain its web presence.

Meanwhile, the paper’s editor, Nabi Abdullaev has resigned.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top