• n0m4n@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I have followed ‘news’ from Russian outlets such as RT and Sputnik, being recast as Right wing talking points within hours. This is not just recent, it has been going on for years. Hamilton68 documents examples. The parallels of this propaganda being sown to the lies dispensed to Ukraine to sow dissention is obvious. It is a cheap warfare, and it works. Tucker was and is in the trade of packaging Russian propaganda as news. He should be labeled as such. Carlson was discredited and fired by Fox. Spreading lies, admitting to doing so on archived tapes, and iirc, sexual harassment was in his part of the discovery on Fox’s $780M settlement. In short, Tucker Carlson is on record for knowingly spreading lies, for personal monetary benefit. This is more of the same. I hope every person watches Carlson, knowing that Carlson reports what enriches him, not truth. Carlson has a transparent agenda. The unanswered question is who pays Carlson. That will be obvious by who’s boots that Carlson’s reports shine.

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is in part one of those situations where your argument amounts to question-begging. The reason being, just as a test: What if Russia was on the correct side of the war, would this still be coherent? Is there any contradiction in these Russian publicity outlets publishing correct information that is then opportunistically used by the rival party to the current US administration to discredit the latter?

      If you already assume slava ukra’ini and that reactionaries have some magical inability to say things that are true, you can make a coherent story, but I would argue that the antithesis is at least as coherent a story.

      I’m sure RT, etc. also publish bullshit that is also used by the right just as readily, but imo the Russian center-right can get by on policy wrt Ukraine by simply reporting facts faithfully, because theirs is a position [shared by much of the Russian left as well] that is only more justified as historical context increases and actors are more closely scrutinized. I was objectively late to the party when, in 2018, I was reading about the CIA backing Azov, but still I saw reality completely recast leading up to the invasion and thereby I had some advantage over the liberals who seem to believe that Ukraine is Palestine despite the fact that it’s Ukraine slaughtering ethnic minorities.

      It doesn’t help that Ukraine can’t seem to find pictures of its military that don’t include fascist symbols, or that they absolutely wear their banderite bullshit on their sleeve if you actually listen to them speak. You can just report on these things faithfully and make the Ukrainian government and especially its military look monstrous to many viewers.

  • davel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Why does the page have a “fairness” feedback meter, and how is enlightened centrism “factual and fair”?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I always love how quickly the liberal mask falls off. The west is all about freedom, democracy, and free speech, until it’s something the lib mainstream doesn’t like to hear. It’s quite telling you’re not asking why Assange and Snowden are being prosecuted for revealing what they revealed, but you’re upset that this isn’t happening more.

      Turns out that those who label Communists as tankies and authoritarians are well-aware of the necessity to suppress divergent viewpoints. Freedom of expression is limited to ideas that align with the liberal narrative; when faced with opinions they deem detrimental, liberals demand cancellation, imprisonment, or even death for the proponents.

      The real disagreement liberals have with the Communists is over what set of ideas has merit. When liberals screech about authoritarianism what they’re really saying is that it’s their ideology that’s being suppressed.

    • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Find me a single American journalist that interviewed Hitler after he invaded Poland. I’ll wait.

      • LalSalaamComrade@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Karl H. von Wiegand, an American journalist, met Hitler first in 1921. Poland was invaded on 1 September, 1939 by the Third Reich. A month after Germany invaded France in World War II, on June 11, 1940, he secured another interview with Hitler. He’s the only American who had the chance to interview Hitler.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Not only that, but US companies such as Ford and IBM continued to do business with Germany well into the war. And of course, we shouldn’t forget that nazis were directly inspired by US race laws, but initially even they found them to be too extreme.

          Moyers: Bilbo said, “One drop of Negro blood placed in the veins of the purest Caucasian destroys the inventive genius of his mind and palsies his creative faculty.” Is it true that the Nazis thought the one-drop rule too extreme?

          Whitman: They did indeed. They never proposed anything nearly as extreme as the one-drop rule. In fact the standard, the most far-reaching Nazi definitions of who counted as a Jew, matched the least far-reaching ones to be found in the American states. Virtually all American definitions of who counted as a black were far more draconian than anything found in any Nazi proposal. At the same time, the Nazi literature expressed real discomfort about the so-called one-drop rule, which, I have to say, was not found in every American state, as there were a variety of approaches in the US. But it was understandably notorious. The Nazis, difficult as it is to imagine, described the one-drop rule as inhuman, as “involving human hardness that’s going much, much too far, you couldn’t do that kind of thing,” they said. And their own definitions for who counted as a Jew, especially those that were ultimately attached to the Nuremberg Laws, were more restricted than anything to be found in American states at the time.

          https://billmoyers.com/story/hitler-america-nazi-race-law/

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Just so we’re clear here, what you’re suggesting that engaging in wars of aggression automatically equates the country with the nazi Germany?

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      #BlueAnon report:

      Reporter: [REDACTED]
      Reason: smells like russian troll