Putin's Propaganda Machine.

originally posted by: mSparks43
and anyway.
let's at least compare that with UK media licencing.

what does it say when 100% of your media is 100% state controlled. (including the internet)
by a monarch none the less.

First british media is not 100 percent state owned. There's ITV Network, and News Corporation, British Sky Broadcasting. Not to mention countless print. And even the BBC i wont go into how the trust works but propaganda is kept to a minimum.

a reply to: dragonridr

I didn't say owned.
I said controlled.

as in regulated licenced, run by the lords and ladies.

and overseen by her majesties courts.

for example

edition.cnn.com...

furthermore. its impossible to run a profitable newspaper in the UK because they aren't allowed to print anything worth reading.

a reply to: mSparks43

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Freedom of Press...really?

The main national news agenda is firmly controlled by the Kremlin. The government sets editorial policy at state-owned television stations, which dominate the media landscape. The country’s more than 400 daily newspapers offer content on a wide range of topics but rarely challenge the official line on important issues such as corruption or foreign policy. Meaningful political debate is mostly limited to weekly magazines, news websites, some radio programs, and a handful of newspapers such as Novaya Gazeta or the business daily Vedomosti, which generally reach a limited audience among urban, educated Russians. These outlets operate with the understanding that the government has the means to close them at any time.

Propaganda from state-owned media outlets intensified after Russia began its military intervention in Ukraine in early 2014. The most egregious disinformation was often reinforced by altered or falsely identified images. In April, for example, Russian media reported that Ukrainian authorities were building a concentration camp in eastern Ukraine, citing pictures that actually showed the abandoned construction site of a European Union–funded facility meant to house illegal migrants. Separately, Russian authorities continued to use paid commentators to influence online content. Media investigations have uncovered paid commenting campaigns organized by pro-Kremlin youth movements, and foreign media outlets in 2014 reported a surge in propagandistic user comments on articles related to Russia or Ukraine.

And then we have this...

The authorities also put pressure on social-media platforms through their owners and managers. Pavel Durov, the founder and chief executive of the popular social-networking site VKontakte, announced in April that he was resigning and leaving the country due to ongoing intimidation from the Federal Security Service (FSB). He had refused FSB demands to hand over the account data of several Ukrainian activists beginning in December 2013. The e-mail provider Mail.ru, owned by Kremlin-friendly businessman Alisher Usmanov, subsequently increased its stake in VKontakte, taking full control by September 2014.

freedomhouse.org...

Freedom of Press in Russia...



You have the freedom to do what the government tells you or you will no longer be in media in Russia.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

->Propaganda from state-owned media outlets
and
->activists

Please explain what you mean by this.
Because so far in this thread this has meant
"Publically humiliating far right nazis who want to kill jews"


As for "put pressure on social-media platforms"
You mean like:
www.businessinsider.com...
and
DMCA and DA notices?

a reply to: mSparks43

I didn't say owned.
I said controlled.

If they aren't government owned the government doesn't control them.

as in regulated licenced, run by the lords and ladies.

and overseen by her majesties courts.

for example

edition.cnn.com...

SO what does this article supposedly prove?

Because it seems they broke a rule that stated...

The regulatory agency also said that broadcasting rules require the license to be held by the person who has control over the network's programs and services. In this case, that would be the Press TV's U.K. hub. An Ofcom investigation, however, revealed the license was held by Press TV International in Tehran.

edition.cnn.com...

Well had they followed the broadcasting rules they would still be on...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

good luck finding "proof" on the internet.
If its proof you are looking for, you are definitely looking in the wrong place.

All the web can do is show you the rabbit holes.
Travelling down them is a journey you make on your own.

The current anti russian propaganda, to me, is quite simple.
Its now a much nicer place to forge out a life than anything offered by the western monarchs and corporations.
And too many of us have left or are leaving the farm for greener fields.

a reply to: mSparks43

->Propaganda from state-owned media outlets
and
->activists

You do understand that if it's state owned it is almost a guarantee the propaganda will fly from them.

Please explain what you mean by this.
Because so far in this thread this has meant
"Publically humiliating far right nazis who want to kill jews"

Care to show me where I said that or anything close to that...seems I would remember what I say.

As for "put pressure on social-media platforms"
You mean like:
www.businessinsider.com...
and
DMCA notices?

Here you go...

Russia intensifies restrictions on blogs, social media

By Elena Milashina/CPJ Moscow correspondent
Also Available in РусскийText Size Print
Share

On August 1, Russia will significantly tighten its grip on blogging and social media conversations and will acquire expanded powers to block Internet services originating abroad. The new authorities, approved by Russia's parliament in April, buttress existing regulations that have already been used to block several independent news sites, some of which reported on the political upheaval in Ukraine in a way that apparently drew the government's ire.

cpj.org...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It was the general outcome of discussing what you posted.
I was looking for confirmation of what you think you've posted.

->already been used to block several independent news sites, some of which reported on the political upheaval in Ukraine in a way that apparently drew the government's ire.

Make up your mind.
One post saying its ok to ban media when they break the governments rules
the next saying its not.

Which is it?

->You do understand that if it's state owned it is almost a guarantee the propaganda will fly from them.
Pretty much my point about the BBC earlier.
But it definately doesn't stop (or even start) at ownership.
In most cases "owners" have little if not no control over what they own.
In those cases its no more than buy things you like and sell things you dont.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It was the general outcome of discussing what you posted.
I was looking for confirmation of what you think you've posted.

->already been used to block several independent news sites, some of which reported on the political upheaval in Ukraine in a way that apparently drew the government's ire.

Make up your mind.
One post saying its ok to ban media when they break the governments rules
the next saying its not.

Which is it?

->You do understand that if it's state owned it is almost a guarantee the propaganda will fly from them.
Pretty much my point about the BBC earlier.
But it definately doesn't stop (or even start) at ownership.
In most cases "owners" have little if not no control over what they own.
In those cases its no more than buy things you like and sell things you dont.

Russian news is totally under putin control. Like today the report was released showing Putin indeed has troops in Ukraine fighting. In the US or UK thus would be a huge story if say Obama had done this. In russia the story isn't mentioned. You have a situa tion were Putin had been caught in an outright lie. And oddly nothing.

If you want to read the article.
They say there aren’t Russian troops [in Ukraine]. We say there are. For Putin, it’s very painful to be caught lying
Ilya Yashin
www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Russian media is no more "totally under putin control" than western media is "totally under Elizabeth's control"
Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?
He's not he wicked witch of the west. he's a normal human being. That at least doesn't pretend he's got blue blood and is given his position by god.

The only real difference is he actually _tries_ to do well for his population. And people, by and large, actually like the rules he sets because it's clear they help them.

a reply to: mSparks43

Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?

Well after reading this...

He's not he wicked witch of the west. he's a normal human being. That at least doesn't pretend he's got blue blood and is given his position by god.

The only real difference is he actually _tries_ to do well for his population. And people, by and large, actually like the rules he sets because it's clear they help them.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

If he was trying to do well for his people he wouldn't be lying about his involvement in Ukraine and he wouldn't be putting the media under the total control of the government...and he wouldn't jail or kill those who oppose him.

Keep believing he is doing what's best for the people.

They help him because they have no choice.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

your belief he is denying involvement is entirely western propaganda. as already posted the mobilization orders are on the government's website.

the use of force was agreed through the Russian parliament.
publicly.
in russian

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

your belief he is denying involvement is entirely western propaganda. as already posted the mobilization orders are on the government's website.

the use of force was agreed through the Russian parliament.
publicly.
in russian

Your funny you do realize Putin has been lying and they have been sending army troops into Ukraine invading eastern Ukraine. The vale is gone Russian troops entered Ukraine and are fighting with the Ukrainian army.When a country does this its a violation of international law. So now your going to claim that because its been exposed hes lying he was telling us the whole time they were Russian troops. Ok at this point i just lost all doubt you are a Russian troll. The approval to use force was revoked by Putin's request. Meaning if there are troops there its illegal according to Russian law.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


And here is Putin about the same time telling us there are no Russian troops in Ukraine you know the lie hes telling the Russian people.



Watch the end of it we get to see protesters arrested lol. But more importantly shows how Russians think the Kremlin is out of touch with the people. And thats going to get worse as things progress.Still cant believe your going to go and say well he told us that all along see its on the website. Wow really?

If Mariupol falls, will they roll the tanks all the way to kiev?

a reply to: dragonridr

->Published on 19 Dec 2014

I agree, Lets recap some basic facts from the thread. (perhaps I should of said "for" western propoganda
I'd of posted more of your opinions, but I couldn't find any sources for them.

UK revokes Iranian network's license
edition.cnn.com...

UK head of state has Dementia and Incontinence.
au.ibtimes.com...

BBC write up of the events in the Ukraine.
www.bbc.co.uk...


.Sergey Glazyev, has one of his interviews translated into English
nationalinterest.org...


Russian mobilisation order from that presentation, 27th June 2014
graph.document.kremlin.ru...

"official" rule in the Ukraine now seems to be held by really bad people with guns.

guys like this

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Ukraine’s neo-Nazi leader becomes top military adviser, legalizes fighters

Ukraine crisis: Tension over rise of nationalist Yarosh

R ight Sector negotiates joining Ukrainian Army as independent division under Yarosh command

War with Russia Now Much Likelier: Ukraine’s Leading Nazi Dimitri Yarosh Gets American Weapons and Support

Interpol puts Ukrainian ultranationalist Yarosh on wanted list


Press freedom in russia
en.m.wikipedia.org...


___
And move a little into the probable future
www.smh.com.au...

a reply to: mSparks43

So your only defense at this point is to attack other countries saying were do it to?? Ok thats just sad first the UK doesnt censor the media as was explined to you Press tv broke the rules for licensing. If they were censoring the media first one they would have shut down is RT for its propaganda. Secondly you seem to think im British and care im not and dont. So your goating is just laughable and shows your trying desperately to deflect the facts away from Putin.Its been shown to you the myth of Nazis in Ukraine best you can do is show one person in their armed forces never mind the fact Nazis could even get enough voted to get a seat in their government. By the way Russians have several Nazis in the Kremlin and they have support. We wont go into the fact its now illegal to say anything the state doesnt agree with in Russia or the jailing and murder of Putins political opponents. Now we see once again Putin lied to the Russian people and illegally has troops in Ukraine since he doesnt have permission according to Russian constitution seeing as that was revoked.

And finally you seem to be infatuated with the queen its not healthy shes way to old for you. but point being everyone but you knows her position is a figurehead for the state all the power is with the prime minister and the parliament. The prime minister is the executive branch and parliament makes the laws.The United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms are all Constitutional Monarchy, which means that all actions of the government are carried out in The Queen's name but all decisions about government policy are made by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. They are elected officials and as much as you like to believe the queen is inconsequential to British government. In fact there are some that believe its time to remove the royal family completely. But traditions run deep in the UK And all things considered it is part of their past.

Now since apparently you think the queen had total control and your against this how do you rationalize to yourself Putin having total control in everything that happens in Russia from laws to what the press can say just curious??

a reply to: dragonridr

We're talking about Putins "propaganda machine"
Surely understanding that involves putting it in the context of the worlds "propaganda machine"?

-> first the UK doesnt censor the media as was explined to you

You mean someone perpetuated the lie?

Independant media is one that is unregulated. Please show me a country, other than Russia, and the US which more or less lets people publish whatever they want and leaves them to "self censor", with the worst repercussion being loosing your job.

Furthermore, we are still waiting for an answer to the question:

Make up your mind.
One post saying its ok to ban media when they break the governments rules
the next saying its not.

Which is it?

____

And no
My point about the Queen is the head of state is a vital role to the country and its people.
She's not just a figure head - it was her orders that sent the UK and the colonies into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya etc. It was her Daddy that declared WWII (theres even a film about that).
I know you have been told that by your media at every single opportunity whenever anyone complains about it.
But it simply isnt true.
And quite frankly its just plain embarrassing to have your figure head stinking of s### because they didn't make it to the toilet again.

But totally grotesque is how that families links to child abuse have been so totally covered up.

a reply to: mSparks43

first the UK doesnt censor the media as was explined to you

You should know that being censored is much different than being told this is what your going to say, because although you are censored the story can still get the information out out...that doesn't happen when the the story is controlled totally by a government.

Independant media is one that is unregulated. Please show me a country, other than Russia, and the US which more or less lets people publish whatever they want and leaves them to "self censor", with the worst repercussion being loosing your job.

It's not about letting media print what they want, because in Russia's case they just fabricate whatever they feel needs to be said to keep them looking as though they are victims...Which makes them different than media in the West.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

you read russian?
you watch russian TV?
or you just guessing?
and that really doesn't answer the fundamental question.

is it OK for a government to interfere with the media and news or not?

personally I like the idea of "state controlled media". nice. clean explanations of why they make the decisions they make.

as long as everyone else can say what they like. when they like. how they like.

the fact that several posts in this very thread have been deleted shows it is endemic in your psychology. I didn't post on here for several years because I don't believe it is the right thing to do. (mSparks username is taken and almost certainly me on a throw away email)

these days I like ats. it's like my eye into into the cia the same way the beeb is my eye into the UK ptp. get to keep deleted posts. and they give a lot more detail than the none deleted posts when I run profiling on the various posters.

a reply to: mSparks43

is it OK for a government to interfere with the media and news or not?

Well then answer this...

Is it okay for a government to take total control over most if not all media and use it to lie to their people?

As far as the government interfering in the media...there are rules that should be followed, and when that rule is broken it can affect the company as a whole, but when you lie to the country it affects them as a whole when the truth comes out...which is what we are slowly seeing happen to Russia.

personally I like the idea of "state controlled media". nice. clean explanations of why they make the decisions they make.

And tell the lies they tell...because it doesn't matter if the story is real or not, as long as it get's out as news.

the fact that several posts in this very thread have been deleted shows it is endemic in your psychology.

So exactly what posts have been deleted that show anything about my psycology?

these days I like ats. it's like my eye into into the cia the same way the beeb is my eye into the UK ptp. get to keep deleted posts. and they give a lot more detail than the none deleted posts when I run profiling on the various posters.

Stalking much? Seriously loosen the old tinny hat and let some fresh air get to the brain, as it sounds tired.