What Explains Russians loss of Memory ?

[Boethius]

I don't disagree that corporate agendas play a significant role in media reporting.  Dan Rather has discussed this extensively.  However, most of that is on domestic matters.

[Gator]

Yet we have some Einsteins here who think they have everything figured out because, well, "Western Media" said  so and they are not state controlled like those other guys.

Yes, but keep in mind the diversity of Western media and the journalistic creed to which IMO a majority of the reporters subscribe based on my encounters with the press, particularly vetting a source and reporting contrary opinions. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

I don't disagree that corporate agendas play a significant role in media reporting.  Dan Rather has discussed this extensively.  However, most of that is on domestic matters.

Why would it matter?  If a news outlet clearly show bias on domestic matters, I can't say I would trust them on any matter, globally or domestic. 

[Boethius]

It is not showing bias, it is mostly not reporting on issues that could affect their business interests (by just ignoring them).

[Shadow]

The people of Britain.  Flawed as the BBC may be in some respects, it is not an organ of government in its reporting.

The people of Britain as it being state media.
The government sets very strict standards for those who are working, including staffing according to representation and a clear view on moral and social issues.
As such, while the State may not be directly involved in the work, they have a huge influence on the opinion of people working there.

[Boethius]

Were that true, the BBC would not have broken many UK based scandals.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Yes, but keep in mind the diversity of Western media and the journalistic creed to which IMO a majority of the reporters subscribe based on my encounters with the press, particularly vetting a source and reporting contrary opinions.

Like the way Rolling Stone vetted the UVA rape story? 


I wish what you said was true.  It would make it a lot easier to figure out the truth, Gator.  Unfortunately, I see too many stories whipped up from the hip rather than waiting for facts to come out.


I think we all have seen stories pop up and analysis being done while the story is taking place.  By the time the story is finished and the facts are all out, there is so much crap to wade through anyone would have a hard time figuring out was was hypothesis and what was true facts.

[LiveFromUkraine]

It is not showing bias, it is mostly not reporting on issues that could affect their business interests (by just ignoring them).

IMO, ignoring facts is a show of bias and does just as much damage as lying.  I also don't completely agree this is specific to business interests.  I don't think political agendas stop at purely business interests.

[fathertime]

It is not showing bias, it is mostly not reporting on issues that could affect their business interests (by just ignoring them).

I'd say a media that ignores (see no evil)can have about the same affect as a media that knowingly prints untruths.  One sounds better than the other.  That said, I suspect the media is kept in the dark usually.

Fathertime!

[Boethius]

IMO, ignoring facts is a show of bias and does just as much damage as lying.  I also don't completely agree this is specific to business interests.  I don't think political agendas stop at purely business interests.

I don't think it is ignoring facts, so much as not reporting certain stories.  Rather gives the example of a story on a congressional action, which CBS did not report on because their parent company wanted favours from congress later.

[LiveFromUkraine]

I don't think it is ignoring facts, so much as not reporting certain stories.  Rather gives the example of a story on a congressional action, which CBS did not report on because their parent company wanted favours from congress later.

I do agree with many of the things you say, BO,  but believe this goes beyond that.


 I think it really smacked me in the face when Ron Paul ran for president and many of the news outlets wouldn't even name the guy.  They did run stories on the elections but would not even mention Ron.  Even John Stewart made fun of those stories. 


After that, if a story is interesting to me I need to research it from many different sources because I don't trust our media.   That is why I can't take the holier than thou attitude that our media is better.  It some ways it is better and some ways just as bad. 


I don't expect most to agree with me on this and I'm okay with that. 

[Faux Pas]

I don't think it is ignoring facts, so much as not reporting certain stories.  Rather gives the example of a story on a congressional action, which CBS did not report on because their parent company wanted favours from congress later.

National news media in any nation isn't about news, it's about control under the guise of entertainment. The sooner the viewer recognizes this invariable can they then began to discern truth from fiction and there is plenty of both in most news reports in national media

[Boethius]

There is bias in everything because we are all imperfect human beings.  However, there is no government control of Western media, no will to bend stories to one particular narrative, as is currently the case in Russia.

[LiveFromUkraine]

There is bias in everything because we are all imperfect human beings.  However, there is no government control of Western media, no will to bend stories to one particular narrative, as is currently the case in Russia.

I agree there is no government control even if there can be some government influence.  I don't agree that it is ok for journalism to have bias even if they are humans.  I do think corporations and more importantly corporate culture will bend stories to fit not only their agendas but also their beliefs.   


Edited to add:  I did not intend to imply you thought bias was ok. 

[Faux Pas]

I agree there is no government control even if there can be some government influence.  I don't agree that it is ok for journalism to have bias even if they are humans.  I do think corporations and more importantly corporate culture will bend stories to fit not only their agendas but also their beliefs.

That's where you're wrong. Corporations will constantly and continually bend to the influence of money. Thus, those with the money will have the influence. It's the inherent nature of corporations. Journalist integrity will not intervene in profits

[LiveFromUkraine]

That's where you're wrong. Corporations will constantly and continually bend to the influence of money. Thus, those with the money will have the influence. It's the inherent nature of corporations. Journalist integrity will not intervene in profits

I don't disagree with that, FP.  I am not sure what part of my statement made you think otherwise.  That is part of the reason I think our media is as bad as state controlled.  We may not be government controlled, but we are controlled by money which is what I posted earlier.

[Gator]

That's where you're wrong. Corporations will constantly and continually bend to the influence of money. Thus, those with the money will have the influence. It's the inherent nature of corporations. Journalist integrity will not intervene in profits

I wish what you said was true.  It would make it a lot easier to figure out the truth, Gator.  Unfortunately, I see too many stories whipped up from the hip rather than waiting for facts to come out.

It is good  to be skeptical, but when one feels like getting off the fence, who should you consider more reliable?    Would Woodward and Bernstein have been able to do the same investigation and reports in Russia?  How many journalists have been fettered if not murdered in America vs. Russia?

[Gator]

Journalist integrity will not intervene in profits

GM is a major advertiser.

[LiveFromUkraine]

It is good  to be skeptical, but when one feels like getting off the fence, who should you consider more reliable?    Would Woodward and Bernstein have been able to do the same investigation and reports in Russia?  How many journalists have been fettered if not murdered in America vs. Russia?

Well, that isn't really a question I would ask nor ask in that context.  I don't trust any media.  At least until the story comes out and the facts laid out.  Sometimes that never happens so it's more of a matter of piecing things together from different sources which takes time.


Like I said, some ways we are better and some we are the same.  If we are to say we are better because we don't kill journalist I would agree.  That, in itself, doesn't say the stories released are indeed true and not motivated by other agendas.

[Faux Pas]

I don't disagree with that, FP.  I am not sure what part of my statement made you think otherwise.  That is part of the reason I think our media is as bad as state controlled.  We may not be government controlled, but we are controlled by money which is what I posted earlier.

Perhaps I didn't expand on it enough. That being there is something more than government controlled. Money and corporate controlled can and is much more damming than government controlled. All national news media is influenced and it is influenced by money. In the present instance of Russia, it's influenced first by government and second by money. If the West has it's way, Russian media will be influenced first by money.

To the average viewer anywhere in the world, is one worse than the other?

[Faux Pas]

It is good  to be skeptical, but when one feels like getting off the fence, who should you consider more reliable?    Would Woodward and Bernstein have been able to do the same investigation and reports in Russia?  How many journalists have been fettered if not murdered in America vs. Russia?

American WH administrations learned a lot from Woodard and Bernstein. The Obama Admin has probably benefitted the most thus far from those lessons

[Boethius]

The differences are:


1.  Independent news sources - far more prolific in the West
2.  Varying points of view - not all papers are reporting the same thing
3.  Reporters who have true independence - they do exist in the West.  In Russia, not so much.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Perhaps I didn't expand on it enough. That being there is something more than government controlled. Money and corporate controlled can and is much more damming than government controlled. All national news media is influenced and it is influenced by money. In the present instance of Russia, it's influenced first by government and second by money. If the West has it's way, Russian media will be influenced first by money.

To the average viewer anywhere in the world, is one worse than the other?

Thanks for the explanation and I agree. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

The differences are:


1.  Independent news sources - far more prolific in the West
2.  Varying points of view - not all papers are reporting the same thing
3.  Reporters who have true independence - they do exist in the West.  In Russia, not so much.

Bo, I agree, but the real question is will these differences lead to more reliable sources. 


Maybe they do, but part of the problem is finding these independent sources when you have a whole lot of sources that are not reliable.  Flooding topics with bias slanted stories effectively wiping out those independent sources isn't what I consider better.   The bigger media outlets have the most exposure.  They also happen to be owned by corporate interests.


Let's face it, most people will read their news from one of the main news media outlets, formulate their opinion based on those outlets and leave it at that.  I don't think most people are searching for more independent sources.  They trust what they read as truth much like Russians trusting their sources.

[Gator]

Back to this opinion:

Yes, I think that the answer, or at least part of it, can be found in how Russians have developed two tracks over a great period of time.

One: is the siege mentality after experiencing so many invasions over the centuries.

I observed siege mentality, particularly xenophobia, in Iran, a country where invaders decapitated citizens and stacked their heads in pyramids.   Now consider Poland.  They have experienced as many invasions as Russia (notably fierce invaders on their way to Russia).   I do not know Poland very well, yet today they seem to be more like the West. 

So why is Russia more like Iran than Poland?   Why does Russia not allow Ukraine to follow the model of Poland? 

Two: is an inferiority complex.

I see such in Russian personal buying patterns.  Much spent on new and expensive things that depreciate.   


I would add contributing to this is a great sense of pride.  Perhaps that is part and parcel of the two tracks (inferiority complex and nationalism).  The point is that the RW I met had so much pride about themselves and their country.   It also was rare to find a RW who would admit she was wrong as that would harm her pride..   So if Russia is the motherland, its spirit is that of its women.

Russians have always felt a strong sense of nationalism, and have adopted a "them against us" mentality, but that has not stopped them from conquering new territories.

Your final point is what I find inexplicable.  The territories Putin has conquered are insignificant.  So, this is nothing more than a petty show of power  greatly overshadowed by the harm it has done to Russia's economy, the destruction and death in Ukraine, and the ill-will in diplomatic circles.   Why persist?  Why not work diplomatically out of this rather than perpetuate a lie.

What is interesting is the Western world needs Russia.  We need Russia for more than a gas station and a purchaser of our exports.   The events today in Paris show the need. 

The West faces a threat greater than the worst we can imagine about Putin.  The threat is deadly, attacks the core of our values, has supporters throughout the world, and would show little restraint if armed with nuclear weapons.   We need Putin as an ally in this fight, not as someone who upsets international harmony.   And Putin needs the West and international harmony if his goal is to lead Russia to a better life and the prosperity shown a year ago at the start of the Sochi Olympics.   

What a year.    Since Sochi ended,  Russia has taken steps backwards  and still leans in that direction.  Russia needs to decide who is "them."  Pogo:  "We have met the enemy and he is us."