Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

trustful medias vs propaganda

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
    So if I tell you to get a chemotherapy it's ok if I use "because I feel like you should" as argument ?
    Maybe I should ask differently then : Is it wrong to say "propaganda" ? How ?
    do what you want

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by ElinaMar View Post

      do what you want
      It doesn't give me any answer... ._.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Moreorless View Post

        That's what I said as well...but somehow you omitted it and came up with this theory of me questioning only far-right sources lol. Speaking of being clueless

        Double standards. You also seem to be supporting propaganda like your commie friend- Jordan.
        No, you liar. You added a ridiculous caveat that I made fun of. You trust the BBC depending on the author and then talked about 'the BBC being better than the 'far-right' Breitbart' (I'm paraphrasing but that's what you said, 'more or less.' :-)

        Also, what 'propaganda' are you talking about? Where did that come from?!? lol What booze are you drinking when you post?

        Haha, it's funny that you're calling someone clueless when you are not even understanding what was said. You are an amusing poster sometimes, m.o.l.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Suna123 View Post
          Which international medias do you know and which do you trust?

          What international medias do you not trust and rate as propaganda? (and why?)

          International medias I trust:
          BBC
          DW
          Aljazeera English

          about the rest I can't say so much. On RT I found interesting things but overall I think it is propaganda.
          CNN I'm also not sure if I can trust or not.
          From Indian perspective, BBC is surely a negative propaganda against us and there is a clear reason why they keep on doing this. When Britain joined UN in 1945 , the biggest bone of content for them was in 200 years of British imperial rule, how India had become a poor ragged country from a rich prosperous country and the only excuse they could give was because we can't take care of ourselves and we ourselves made our condition more worse. So its obvious they need to keep on highlighting such negative issues that we have always been like this. This doesn't mean that negative issues doesn't happen here, but news from other countries seems to be neutral about their newsfeed. Also propaganda of BBC is such that it keeps the India-Pakistan hatred and the border (Line of Control) and the Kashmir hatred issue alive.

          Aljazeera seems propaganda too specifically highlighting Islamic issues, which might polarize the western audiences. Apart from that one thing I like about Aljazeera that it gives Intl news from everywhere, and not biased to western countries and they highlight success stories where fame, money and profit is not the only aim and they normally provide a positive tone in their message.

          I too find RT very interesting and sometimes my materialistic competitive spirit supports them too, but honestly, I too feel they spread propaganda.

          Reuters seems to provide more facts and less opinion, and seems more trustable than others.



          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Suna123 View Post
            Which international medias do you know and which do you trust?

            What international medias do you not trust and rate as propaganda? (and why?)

            International medias I trust:
            BBC
            DW
            Aljazeera English

            about the rest I can't say so much. On RT I found interesting things but overall I think it is propaganda.
            CNN I'm also not sure if I can trust or not.
            Meh i dont trust anything completly............read both sides?(or more)........make up your own mind.

            Dailly, 3 dutch papers, 4 or 5 online newssites(wich link off), vid upload sites, several forums, ect......................morning coffee,lol

            Further if something catches my focus /interest.........i search,docu,sites,ect.

            Mzzls








            Comment


            • #66
              I trust none of them. Even the BBC is beginning to show some extra bias nowadays. Case to point is the BBC's reporting of Catherine Deneuve's remarks:

              http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...95#post3037795

              where the BBC demonstrates bias in the manner in which they translated the remarks from French into English.

              If you really want to dig into a story, it's better to actually look at a few sources of the story - and not just rehashed Reuters releases on a few platforms.

              Understand the implicit bias of the media outlet in their reporting and factor that in. Also look at the implicit bias of the individual reporters and their professionalism. You are never ever going to get purely "unbiased" reporting. Never have and most likely never will. However, some are definitely demonstrating more bias and less professionalism than others.

              And yes, CNN is a POS. I've had the very recent "pleasure" of watching an hour of CNN while waiting. Nothing has changed with CNN. It's the left fanboy's version of Fox.

              Comment


              • #67
                BBC is biased as well even if not so vulgar like german pseudo intellectual media, maybe i just understand the hidden liberal remarks in german better.
                RT is a russian new version of Pravda. Some articles especially about EU's failed immigration politics are credible and rational, but there is a lot of fear mongering towards NATO and paranoia about Mother's Russia "lost children" after collapse of USSR. So it's limited credible.
                DW as Suna mentioned is a parody sometimes, like many german sites where I stopped to read the articles and go direct into comment section after reading the headline.
                Al Jazzeera, don't read propaganda of enemies.
                CNN comedy show, as far as lobotomized people can be funny for somebody.
                Breitbart don't read because i know who stays behind this pseudo nationalistic subversive site
                Infowars, can't be taken too serious. Jones and his reporters and YT blogger are too sarcastic and too funny so it's rather societal satire, but enjoy to watch their vid blogs.
                4chan /pol/ "board of peace" like "religion of peace" any reader/poster knows that's satire.

                Personally, i don't have some special preferences. For me is not too "over moderated" forum/comment section a must have. We all know that for some sites are comments and free speech on it the worst enemy of their political agenda. (eg. YT, Twatter ....)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  From Indian perspective, BBC is surely a negative propaganda against us and there is a clear reason why they keep on doing this.
                  The BBC bends over backwards to give a good impression about India to the world. They could be writing far far more that is negative being reported if that were the agenda as you had claimed.

                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  When Britain joined UN in 1945 , the biggest bone of content for them was in 200 years of British imperial rule, how India had become a poor ragged country from a rich prosperous country
                  European colonialists - not just the British - were able to walk into India because Islamic rule and plunder over about 1000 years had weakened it so much that resistance to western colonial invasion was essentially tokenist.

                  India had already been largely plundered long before Europeans were on the scene.

                  What is fascinating is how India has managed to move relatively much more ahead than Pakistan and Bangladesh since 1947. I find the dearth of reporting and analysis about this "interesting" to say the least.

                  It's already been 70 years since the British left. That's a long time. So why have the Chinese - who came from a worse position than India and who even went through self-inflicted disasters such as the Cultural Revolution - have moved far far ahead of India? There are very few hard questions being asked in the BBC and other media about that.

                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  and the only excuse they could give was because we can't take care of ourselves and we ourselves made our condition more worse.
                  Islamist conquerors left India plundered. While the British and other colonialists were not exactly "nice", they did provide genuine infrastructure for India such as an extensive railway system, openned the first universities there since Islamic conquest and generally educated many people.

                  India had a massively expanding population under British rule - something that did not happen under Islamic domination where the rule was harvesting the population for slaves.

                  On a whole, British rule was better for India and Indians than the previous Islamic one.

                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  So its obvious they need to keep on highlighting such negative issues that we have always been like this. This doesn't mean that negative issues doesn't happen here, but news from other countries seems to be neutral about their newsfeed.
                  There seems to be a highly disproportionate number of "good news stories" about India compared with those dealing with the massive issues confronting India. Too many BBC journalists are eating good Tandoori Chicken or Rogan Josh and allowing that to cloud their judgement when reporting about India.

                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  Also propaganda of BBC is such that it keeps the India-Pakistan hatred and the border (Line of Control) and the Kashmir hatred issue alive.
                  The Indian-Pakistan governments do a very good job on this without the BBC's "help"

                  A lot of the sectarian problems in general in India seem to be undercovered "for whatever reason"... The BBC in fact should be reporting on this far far more if they are serious about being more objective.

                  Indian friends have filled me in on the details and their accounts check out when I research them. Not every Indian person is into woo woo speak... Indian people have even warned me about how it works regarding this sort of speaking and the mind games that get played.

                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  Aljazeera seems propaganda too specifically highlighting Islamic issues, which might polarize the western audiences. Apart from that one thing I like about Aljazeera that it gives Intl news from everywhere, and not biased to western countries and they highlight success stories where fame, money and profit is not the only aim and they normally provide a positive tone in their message.
                  Qatar is playing the usual "nice" Islamist game with Al Jazeera. Lots of "neutral" stuff but slip the propaganda in where needed - such as the ongoing political crisis between Qatar and the GCC states of which Saudi Arabia is the main power.

                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  I too find RT very interesting and sometimes my materialistic competitive spirit supports them too, but honestly, I too feel they spread propaganda.
                  They do... the Russians have learnt a lot about how to do propaganda since the days of "Radio Moscow". They play a very good woo woo language game in their English reporting - like all good "quality" propaganda.

                  Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                  Reuters seems to provide more facts and less opinion, and seems more trustable than others.
                  I've also see a lot of crap come through Reuters...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Suna123 View Post
                    Else I agree that no source can be trusted fully. Most interesting is always what they do NOT report.
                    Hence this is a perfect reason why you should look at sources that you don't even trust and are counter to your viewpoint.



                    Comment


                    • #70
                      The word media is the plural of the Latin "medium". This is the theory of Toronto can't replace the truth and a lie detector. The truth is Assange ... is a crime. Рropaganda (from lat. propaganda — to be distributed) of the truth is a weapon.

                      Media vs propaganda of the truth.

                      Last edited by dmitri11; 01-13-2018, 05:00 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        In the UK the media is not too bad, there is a strong sense of journalistic integrity - if the government, or a major company was seen to be exerting undue influence, the journalists themselves would be the first to report it. For example, if you took the time the read both The Times and the Guardian newspapers each day you would have a reasonably rounded view of current affairs. (Time being broadly right wing, Guardian being left wing - both have columnists who will rant from quite extreme points of view, but the main stories are covered with a degree of fairness.

                        What does scare me is when I see people, especially foreign people talking about the BBC as some kind of paradigm of virtue. It operates far from the centre ground and is in no way balanced. A look at the coverage in the run up to the UK's EU referendum is a good example, the BBC essentially became the propaganda arm of the EU commission.

                        I can understand why the BBC likes the EU, they both have the "drunken sailor" approach to spending public money and both operate the "who do you think you are talking to, peasant?" form of accountability to the people who pay their wages.

                        I don't think that the BBC is necessarily beholden to a particular political party, but the editorial direction comes from the attitude of a tiny proportion of people in London; these people live in a bubble.

                        There are two types of lies in the media, made up stories (Freddie Starr ate my Hamster) but a potentially more pernicious one is lying by omission - and that is what the BBC does, any story that does not fit with its view of the world gets ignored - and because so many people have the BBC as their "goto" news source, doing that they almost make it as if these things never happened.

                        I feel so dumb, I have a lower IQ than a 10 year old; yeah, that's right my IQ is only 161. It took some really bright guy using logic to prove how stupid I am.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

                          The BBC bends over backwards to give a good impression about India to the world. They could be writing far far more that is negative being reported if that were the agenda as you had claimed.



                          European colonialists - not just the British - were able to walk into India because Islamic rule and plunder over about 1000 years had weakened it so much that resistance to western colonial invasion was essentially tokenist.

                          India had already been largely plundered long before Europeans were on the scene.

                          What is fascinating is how India has managed to move relatively much more ahead than Pakistan and Bangladesh since 1947. I find the dearth of reporting and analysis about this "interesting" to say the least.

                          It's already been 70 years since the British left. That's a long time. So why have the Chinese - who came from a worse position than India and who even went through self-inflicted disasters such as the Cultural Revolution - have moved far far ahead of India? There are very few hard questions being asked in the BBC and other media about that.



                          Islamist conquerors left India plundered. While the British and other colonialists were not exactly "nice", they did provide genuine infrastructure for India such as an extensive railway system, openned the first universities there since Islamic conquest and generally educated many people.

                          India had a massively expanding population under British rule - something that did not happen under Islamic domination where the rule was harvesting the population for slaves.

                          On a whole, British rule was better for India and Indians than the previous Islamic one.
                          By the way the infrastructure of railway system was made from the tax of poor farmers which was primarily used to export coal from india to Europe at complete free of cost. And those illiterate farmers were deceived by the woo woo of contract law to only cultivate cash crops which were further exported to Europe at almost free of cost(including the hazardous indigo farming),The ships that exported coal to Europe had to be loaded with salts while returning as large ships cant voyage on ocean if it is empty. And thus salts were imported and sold at high price, although India, having a huge stretch of sea beach, were not allowed to manufacture salts. Anyways, may be some other day regarding merits and demerits of British colonialism.

                          Its the western scientific knowledge, which i may not be able to debate against and this is what separates the British colonials from the islamic rulers. Although all the positive influences that benefited Indians on the long run were mostly initiated by the Scottish and the Irish people. For example, proper scientific education system, English laws(As knowledge, not the legal applications in British India), influencing Indians to make a common man's political party like that in the west or Trade union etc. Even these were done by the backing of Scottish/Irish churches who were mostly critical against British colonials.

                          The Indian-Pakistan governments do a very good job on this without the BBC's "help"

                          A lot of the sectarian problems in general in India seem to be undercovered "for whatever reason"... The BBC in fact should be reporting on this far far more if they are serious about being more objective.

                          Indian friends have filled me in on the details and their accounts check out when I research them. Not every Indian person is into woo woo speak... Indian people have even warned me about how it works regarding this sort of speaking and the mind games that get played.
                          If you are an Islamophobic but an avid reader of BBC, you should realize that BBC is normally Pro-Kashmiri, and if Kashmir gets independence, it will be just another Islamic country under complete Sharia law. Sounds like '50 shades of hypocrisy' . Although Pluralism has always been the part and parcel of the British system.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post

                            ... 50 shades of hypocrisy ...
                            I'd say you are a good English teacher.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              By the way the infrastructure of railway system was made from the tax of poor farmers which was primarily used to export coal from india to Europe at complete free of cost.
                              Ummmm no. While the initial reason for developing Indian railways was indeed to export raw products like cotton, the ultimate impetus for Indian railway expansion was passenger traffic:

                              http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dbogart/i...conachieve.pdf

                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              And those illiterate farmers were deceived by the woo woo of contract law to only cultivate cash crops
                              Like farmers all over the world at that time (and largely even now) including the US and Britain itself..

                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              which were further exported to Europe at almost free of cost(including the hazardous indigo farming),
                              Indian railways were highly profitable during colonial rule. Yes, exports were "almost free of cost" - the whole idea of implementing railways is how efficiently and cheaply they moved goods and people!!!!

                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              The ships that exported coal to Europe had to be loaded with salts while returning as large ships cant voyage on ocean if it is empty. And thus salts were imported and sold at high price, although India, having a huge stretch of sea beach, were not allowed to manufacture salts. Anyways, may be some other day regarding merits and demerits of British colonialism.
                              if salt were being manufactured in India during British rule, then your complain would be about "British rulers subjecting Indians to terrible conditions manufacturing salt" if this were happening under British colonial rule:

                              http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inp...114732598.html

                              Unless you mechanise the production of salt via water sources (as opposed to mining rock salt) then for the people doing the work it is a terrible business.

                              And, by the way, in spite of the salt tax being abolished during the last days of British rule in India, it was reintroduced again in the 1950s and remains in place.

                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              Its the western scientific knowledge, which i may not be able to debate against and this is what separates the British colonials from the islamic rulers. Although all the positive influences that benefited Indians on the long run were mostly initiated by the Scottish and the Irish people. For example, proper scientific education system, English laws(As knowledge, not the legal applications in British India), influencing Indians to make a common man's political party like that in the west or Trade union etc. Even these were done by the backing of Scottish/Irish churches who were mostly critical against British colonials.
                              Yes, it was scientific knowledge and modern political and social systems that that truly benefited the Indian people wasn't it?

                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              If you are an Islamophobic
                              The terminology "Islamophobia" is total bullshit:

                              http://forum.interpals.net/forum/int...91#post2777991

                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              but an avid reader of BBC, you should realize that BBC is normally Pro-Kashmiri, and if Kashmir gets independence, it will be just another Islamic country under complete Sharia law. Sounds like '50 shades of hypocrisy' .
                              The BBC, along with many other media outlets, gives a very uncritical Pro-Kashmiri-Islamist viewpoint. That comes from naive Westerners - including journalists - who buy into Islamic-inspired lying and bullshit, or for that matter Eastern woo woo.

                              Hint: I've had experiences with quite a few non-Western cultures and don't get conned so easily. I'm also not a journalist so I don't get the filtered accounts that people usually give when they know that they are speaking with a journalist.

                              Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                              Although Pluralism has always been the part and parcel of the British system.
                              Yes it is... Gandhi was not thrown into a Gulag in the 1930s and was relatively free to politically agitate - to give but one of many examples.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post


                                Yes it is... Gandhi was not thrown into a Gulag in the 1930s and was relatively free to politically agitate - to give but one of many examples.
                                Gandhi was not thrown into a Guantanamo. Nothing is ever Gulag and Vernichtungslager.
                                Last edited by dmitri11; 01-15-2018, 04:35 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X