Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.

[Doobedoo]

I'm not really sure what your point is.

You believe Propaganda is synonymous with media outlets such as RT I'm saying Propaganda is very much rampant not only in Russia but also here.

“You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

 

[dowie]

You believe Propaganda is synonymous with media outlets such as RT I'm saying Propaganda is very much rampant not only in Russia but also here.

My comment was about Russian media being state controlled and the lack of criticism towards the regime, journalists being killed... try to stick with what I've posted not what you think I believe.

 

[Doobedoo]

My comment was about Russian media being state controlled and the lack of criticism towards the regime, journalists being killed... try to stick with what I've posted not what you think I believe.

Where are the sources for your claims?

 

[dowie]

Where are the sources for your claims?

What in particular are you questioning - that mainstream in Russia is controlled by the state, that journalists critical of the regime have been killed? Are you not aware of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia

The organisation Reporters Without Borders compiles and publishes an annual ranking of countries based upon the organisation's assessment of their press freedom records. In 2016 Russia was ranked 148th out of 179 countries, six places below the previous year, mainly due to the return of Vladimir Putin.[4] Freedom House compiles a similar ranking and placed Russia at number 176 out of 197 countries for press freedom for 2013, putting it level with Sudan and Ethiopia.[5] The Committee to Protect Journalists states that Russia was the country with the 10th largest number of journalists killed since 1992, 26 of them since the beginning of 2000, including four from Novaya Gazeta.[6] It also placed Russia at number 9 in the world for numbers of journalists killed with complete impunity.[7]

Like I said, not even comparable....

 

[Doobedoo]

Have you seen the latest one on the iplayer? Putin,Russia and the West.

Vladimir Putin began his career as a KGB spy, but when he became president he made himself a valued ally of the west. How did he do it? And what made Washington and London turn against him?

In this four-part series Putin's top colleagues - and the western statesmen who eventually clashed with him - tell the inside story of one of the world's most powerful men.

In this opening episode, George W Bush meets Putin in June 2001 and declares he looked him in the eye and 'got a sense of his soul'. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice recall their discomfort. But Rice, the only Bush adviser in the private talks, reveals that, three months before 9/11, Putin gave Bush a prophetic warning about Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban. After 9/11, Putin describes how he convinced his shocked colleagues that Russia should align with the West. Sergei Ivanov, Russian's defence minister, tells how the Taliban secretly offered to join forces with Russia against America.

So would you not say that is a form of propaganda?

 

[dowie]

So would you not say that is a form of propaganda?

What does that have to do with my post?

What makes it propaganda?

 

[jpaul]

but we also have been known to be very active in propaganda for many years.

we're not there yet A Russian law that bans the use or provision of virtual private networks (VPNs) will come into effect Wednesday.

edit - why have the fancy bears not published the opcw report ?

 

[Doobedoo]

What in particular are you questioning - that mainstream in Russia is controlled by the state, that journalists critical of the regime have been killed? Are you not aware of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Russia



Like I said, not even comparable....

Not comparable to who? I have already shown you how Blair & Bush's dedicated tightly knit propaganda unit was responsible for falsely informing the public about Iraq's WMD's. The British Broadcasting Corporation did absolutely nothing to prevent this in anyway shape or form. instead they just towed the party line. A million people lost their lives as a result of this and all our unbiased media did what to help inform you exactly? Nothing, they told you exactly what they needed you to hear.

Now what part of what is being described in this video is wrong or doesn'nt apply to our media outlets and journalists as well as other countries?

 

[dowie]

Not comparable to who?

To the UK

 

[Nasher]

Not comparable to who? I have already shown you how Blair & Bush's dedicated tightly knit propaganda unit was responsible for falsely informing the public about Iraq's WMD's. The British Broadcasting Corporation did absolutely nothing to prevent this in anyway shape or form. instead they just towed the party line. A million people lost their lives as a result of this and all our unbiased media did what to help inform you exactly? Nothing, they told you exactly what they needed you to hear.

Now what part of what is being described in this video is wrong or doesn'nt apply to our media outlets and journalists as well as other countries?

The BBC wouldn't have been in on it, they just report what they are told or find out. Blair is pretty unpopular for what happened and he was exposed by the UK press. Can you say the same would happen in Russia for Putin etc? Any journalist that tried would probably vanish or mysteriously die.

Go and look at some Russian "news" and you won't find anything negative about Russia, Putin, or his party anywhere on RT. Go to the BBC and you get opinions from both sides.

 

[Doobedoo]

To the UK

So our media outlets do not engage in propaganda then?

 

[Danny75]

edit - why have the fancy bears not published the opcw report ?

Presumably because Russia's foreign minister is going to ask some questions to the OPCW about it, including alleged Swiss lab information that never made it into the report. They also have questions for the UK, who are not obliged to answer but can if it is decided to show "goodwill". Not sure if anyone else has released the full report to the public yet?

 

[Doobedoo]

The BBC wouldn't have been in on it, they just report what they are told or find out. Blair is pretty unpopular for what happened and he was exposed by the UK press. Can you say the same would happen in Russia for Putin etc? Any journalist that tried would probably vanish or mysteriously die.

You hit the nail on the head now who is telling them? And why do they report false information without verifying it first? That is not journalism that is just reading from a script.

The five rules of propaganda.

Here are five basic rules of propaganda, courtesy of Norman Davies in his extraordinary book "Europe: A History":

• The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.
• The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
• The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.
• The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.
• The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

 

[Nasher]

You hit the nail on the head now who is telling them? And why do they report false information without verifying it first?

And how can they verify military intelligence data?

 

[dowie]

So our media outlets do not engage in propaganda then?

How do you mean?

Channel 4 and the BBC are state owned but are run independently. The BBC tries to eliminate bias in its reporting but is perhaps pro human rights, pro democracy etc...

 

[Rroff]

I certainly expect there is propaganda going on in our media but to compare it to Russia is ridiculous... (that isn't to say any of it is good).

 

[jpaul]

Not sure if anyone else has released the full report to the public yet?

THE fancy bears https://www.fancybear.net/ yes ? (such a release would prove they are not under state control)

Blair & Bush's dedicated tightly knit propaganda unit was responsible for falsely informing the public

the virtues of Brexit ... arguably a bigger lie - the facts were available, but the UK population bought the 'propaganda'

 

[SPG]

You hit the nail on the head now who is telling them? And why do they report false information without verifying it first? That is not journalism that is just reading from a script.

The five rules of propaganda.

Here are five basic rules of propaganda, courtesy of Norman Davies in his extraordinary book "Europe: A History":

• The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.
• The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
• The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.
• The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.
• The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

TIN Foil or what....

A free press is a fundamental to our way of life (although they do need to be reigned in), Russia is mess, thing is if we didnt have a putin then it would be a bigger mess.

 

[stopper]

You believe Propaganda is synonymous with media outlets such as RT I'm saying Propaganda is very much rampant not only in Russia but also here.

And you are totally right.
Even here the media is controlled by the government. Maybe not at company level like RT is, but Ofcom still control what the BBC and all other news outlets are allowed to publish.
Anyone who thinks British media is not biased is a complete tool, or any other media for that matter.

 

[Doobedoo]

And how can they verify military intelligence data?

So who's military "intelligence data" would they be reporting and for what purpose?

Why are they relying on state produced military intelligence data when the UN was reporting the opposite?

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL

ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRA https://www.un.org/press/en/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

The Director-General of the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei, reported that, after three months of intrusive inspections, the Agency had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. There was also no indication that Iraq had attempted to import uranium since 1990 or that it had attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

Do you remember what happened to David Kelly? https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/tom-mangold/do-you--remember-what-happened-to-david-kelly

Think you remember the David Kelly affair? The government arms inspector who killed himself thirteen years ago after a huge scandal involving Tony Blair’s Labour government, the war in Iraq and all that ?


I bet you don’t.


So a quick simple reminder. Here’s what happened:


In 2002 Tony Blair’s government was looking for valid reasons to join with the United States to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.


An intelligence report published that September with No. 10’s full approval stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which posed a clear and present danger to the West. The report headlined the claim that Iraq could deploy and activate chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order being given.


So Britain went to war in March 2003 assuming the dodgy dossier was the truth, and we won. Unfortunately, after the war, nobody ever found any weapons of mass destruction. As a result it slowly became obvious that the war and its terrible consequences had been based in part by the nation being hoodwinked into thinking the invasion had been justified by a government whose prime minister was simply too anxious to join the Americans into going to war in the first place.


The political crisis really began in May 2003.


David Kelly, one of the world’s top weapons inspectors, and an employee of our Ministry of Defence gave a non-attributable background briefing about the missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Andrew Gilligan, a BBC defence reporter working for BBC Radio 4.


However the version of the Kelly briefing transmitted by Andrew Gilligan on the BBC’s Today programme claimed that his anonymous contact had told him that the published intelligence dossier had been `sexed up’ before its publication, especially that 45 minute claim – a claim that made headlines in the British press when it was published, and a claim taken very seriously by the public.[1]


The clear implication of Gilligan’s BBC report was that the government had had a hand in an attempt to deceive the public and that Britain’s intelligence services were unhappy with this Whitehall interference. A few days later, in a story in the Mail On Sunday, Gilligan went on to claim that his source had named Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s Communications Director as being behind the inflation of the language in the dossier. An act which amounted to bending the truth to suit a political aim. In other words, the prime minister himself had been responsible through his communications chief, of lying to Britain in order to join the Americans in invading Iraq.