US Propaganda on Crimea Misleading, But 'Understandably' So - French MP

[newthinking]

US Propaganda on Crimea Misleading, But 'Understandably' So - French MP

According to French senator Yves Pozzo di Borgo, who visited Crimea together with a group of ten French legislators, US propaganda over Crimea is understandable even though it does not reflect the peninsula's realities.

French parliament member Jerome Lambert, who visited Crimea together with a group of ten French legislators, told Sputnik that the visit showed that US propaganda over Crimea is understandable even though it does not reflect realities on the peninsula.

"The US is trying to deploy in Europe and counteract Russia. The American point of view is understandable. And when there is an understanding of this, there are explanations to American propaganda, the propaganda of some US allies in Europe," Jerome Lambert said.

The French lawmakers, led by lower-house National Assembly Foreign Affairs Committee member Thierry Mariani, said they came to Crimea to get a real sense of what is really going on in the Black Sea peninsula. During the July 23-24 trip, the parliamentarians visited Crimea, where they met with government officials.

Full story:
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150727/1025105309.html

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Sputnik News? You mean this one? ----------->>>>>>>>>>

Sputnik is an international multimedia news service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on 9 December 2013. Sputnik replaces the RIA Novosti news agency on an international stage (which remains active in Russia)[2] and Voice of Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)

Just so everyone knows the credibility of the sourcing.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Shhhhh, you are not supposed

To tell.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. What happened? Has RT been replaced?

[newthinking]

7. Some of us are more aware than others obviously

Some are under the influence of western propaganda and have been convinced to reject any information that does not follow it.
I would not exactly be so proud to proclaim it lol.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Yup. And some of us know that there's a well funded operation underway to spread Putin propaganda.

Of course, that may be coming to an end, cause the workers who didn't get paid, have let the cat out of the bag.

[newthinking]

13. So, you know about that because someone sued the contractor. In the US?

That story was about a supposed employee upset about not being payed who went to the press and spilled the beans.

In the US such operations are protected by severe penalties. They are considered "Top Secret" and for anyone to discuss such operations risks 10-30 years in the slammer for treasonous activity (exposing state secrets).

We are far more effective in keeping our own sophisticated operations out of the press.

And the last few administrations have been very serious about pursuing these leaks.

THINK!

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. I'll bet leakers/journalists in Russia wish they only got prosecuted, but they usually turn up dead.

[newthinking]

4. Yes it is a russian news agency. News is **all* narratized and sanitized

I can repost the articles about the New York Times and it's many propagandized pieces as well.

We have discussed this plenty of times. Our media is just as shallow and tabloid, not inclined to upset powerful and wealthy interests.

Most people here are aware of this. Care to find the western version of this story? It will be difficult because one of the prominent methods of western propaganda is not even presenting the information that does not fit their narratives.

People are intelligent enough to sift through media reports because that is necessary in this age of heavy politicization of the media.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. If you say so. But, I wouldn't want to think the "news" was "wholly owned & operated" by the State.

I guess it depends on which "State" you prefer for your propaganda.

[newthinking]

9. Noam Chomsky: The New York Times is pure propaganda

It doesn't take ownership.

We are far ahead of most of the world in technique. We have the best of modern marketing and influence science under our wings. But go ahead and continue to be naive.


http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_times_is_pure_proganda_partner/

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Noam Chomsky. I'm sorry, but you must do better. n/t

[newthinking]

6. Salon: We are the propagandists: The real story about how The New York Times and the White House

We restarted the Cold War: The real story about the NATO buildup that the
New York Times won’t tell you

Our leaders and media push time-worn nonsense about American innocence, while taking aggressive moves.
Look out
Patrick L. Smith

Salon Magazine

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/25/we_restarted_the_cold_war_the_real_story_about_the_nato_buildup_that_the_new_york_times_wont_tell_you/


Vladimir Putin, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (Credit: Reuters/RIA Novosti/Jonathan Ernst/Photo montage by Salon)

Have you picked up on the new trope du jour? We are all encouraged to bask in our innocence as we lament the advent of a new Cold War. The thought has been in the wind for more than a year, of course, at least among some of us. But we witness a significant turn, and I hope this same some of us are paying attention.

As of this week, leaders who know nothing about leading, thinkers who do not think and opinion-shaping poseurs such as Tom Friedman are confident enough in their case to sally forth with it: The Cold War returns, the Russians have restarted it and we must do the right thing—the right thing being to bring NATO troops and materiel up to Russia’s borders, pandering to the paranoia of the former Soviet satellites as if they alone have access to some truth not available to the rest of us.

James Stavridis, the former admiral and NATO commander, quoted in Wednesday’s New York Times: “I don’t think we’re in the Cold War again—yet. I can kind of see it from here.”

I can kind of see it, too, Admiral, and cannot be surprised: NATO has missed the Cold War since the Wall came down and the Pentagon’s creature in Europe commenced a quarter-century of wandering in search of useful enemies. At last, the very best of them is back.

The theme of new Russian aggression sounded over the past couple of months reeked of orchestration from the first, as suggested in this space when it was first sounded. It was too consistent in language, tone and implication, whether it came from the Pentagon, NATO or Times news reports—which are, naturally, based on Pentagon and NATO sources.

Anything counted: Russia’s military exercises within its own borders were aggressive. Russian air defense systems on its borders were aggressive. Russia’s military presence in Kaliningrad, Russian territory lying between Lithuania and Poland, was an aggressive threat.

Full story:

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/25/we_restarted_the_cold_war_the_real_story_about_the_nato_buildup_that_the_new_york_times_wont_tell_you/

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Are you Patrick Smith? The American people disagree with him, RT & Sputnik. There are pro-Russia..

journalists in this country, all one has to do is look at RT. That doesn't make them right, it just makes them equally well paid propagandists.

[newthinking]

16. So you just stated that any "pro-russian" perspective is suspicious propaganda...

Your take is obvious. Excuse me for thinking it is a bit simple if not unhealthy.

I don't implicitely trust western or eastern media. But I do allow research and information from outside the narrow range of the MSM.

It also helps that I actually have personal experience in the regions. You won't convince me to swallow a perspective that contradicts my own experience in actually traveling to the locations involved and knowing Ukraine in particular and it's politics well.

[OnyxCollie]

2. Integration propaganda

Jacques Ellul (1973) calls the type of propaganda designed to incite revolution or to undermine existing regimes the "propaganda of agitation." Ellul also describes another type which he believes to be much more important than agitation propaganda for people living in developed nations. Every modern social system uses what Ellul calls the "propaganda of integration" to promote acceptance and support among its citizens for that system.

Integration propaganda is important because no modern society can function for long without at least the implicit support of most of its citizens. Integration propaganda is promulgated not in pamphlets put out by small groups of subversives or in broadcasts made by foreign powers, but in the main channels of communication - newspapers, television, movies, textbooks, political speeches etc.-produced by some of the most influential, powerful, and respected people in a society. It is therefore difficult to recognize despite (or perhaps because of) its omnipresence, particularly because it is based upon ideals and biases that are accepted by most members of the society.

It is important here to point out an assumption that may be disputed by some psychologists that underlies all propaganda analysis: That beliefs, attitudes, and cognitions play a crucial role in the determination of political opinions and behavior. Propaganda researchers should participate in determining the exact role played by ideas in politics, but few scholars would become actively involved in propaganda analysis if they did not believe that what people read, hear, see, and think is an important determinant of their political actions.

Silverstein, B. (1987). Toward a science of propaganda. Political Psychology (8)1. 49-59.

[KoKo]

14. Always find "contrarian views" interesting to read to keep perspective....

[newthinking]

15. What is interesting is how badly even some here want to keep others from perspectives

even from western politicians.

They would like us to only see and hear what verifies a narrative. Even to the point of not viewing documentary or even video without commentary. Truly Orwellian.

[KoKo]

18. Its "Cold War Thinking." And, particularly strange since the Soviet Union Disbanded itself because

it didn't have resources to keep up the Cold War with ever and ever more Military Spending. They were moving forward...where it seems we are moving backward preparing an uptick in armaments to fight a threat that was proven to to be not a threat because it was all Bravado...and on both sides.

It was interesting to see both Kerry and Obama come out in the last few weeks and declare that Russia is NOT our ENEMY since they aided in the Iran negotiations. So, if both Kerry and Obama can agree then why are there still those who want to ban any site that has to do with Russia's view?

The "Cold Warriers" are the MIC interests. War is Good for some Corporations and they aren't going to give it up...it seems.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. No it's not. The OP uses literal State produced propaganda which calls other views propaganda

If your source is a freaking Government owned outlet speaking a Government approved message, and you lead with 'that other source is propaganda' you are inherently dishonest and silly. I can understand skepticism toward all sources but not skepticism for some while Government owned and operated sources are presented as 'contrary views'. The views are not contrary to the views of the Government that is publishing them. How is spouting the Government line for a Government check 'contrary'? It's not. But you want to use that word anyway so you do because you have no respect for the intelligence of others.

[bemildred]

22. Welcome to Cold War 2.0: Russia’s New and Improved Military Doctrine

It fucking well is Cold War thinking, that's what it's proponents call it.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/welcome-cold-war-20-russia%E2%80%99s-new-improved-military-doctrine-11961

Just because Sputnik is propaganda, which it is, does not mean that what the US government says is not.

[GeorgeGist]

19. If you repeat something 3 times ... it's more true.

Silly wabbit.

[Nitram]

20. Pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine propaganda on Crimea misleading but...

...but...but...well, it's just misleading.