social media With the Help of Silicon Valley, Hillary Clinton Calls for Bipartisan Effort to Regulate Alleged Fake News

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

of course she supports this

this bitch is anti american and anti liberty

wanted to ban violent video games

lock up journalists for leaks 

lock up people voicing ''objectionable opinions on radio''

pretty much ban guns like australia 

import millions of more leeches into the usa 

supports tpp

supports the spying

supports banning other media or ''regulating'' it

against encryption and vpns 

 

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

On 12/10/2016 at 2:55 AM, zacRupnow said:

Only News I can trust is TYT.

AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHA 

oh jesus that legitimately made me laugh

you trust the leftist retards at tyt that bitch about spider womans ass or blah blah blah racist white person or how the second amendment doesnt grant individuals the right to firearms?

[Trik'Stari]

Worth pointing out that these so called "fact checkers" are almost all entirely left biased or have histories of being leftists.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/

 

Try to create an echo chamber all you want, leftists, but people have seen through your lies.

[RocketFarmer]

Through the funneling of data via algorithms with the intent to market the hell out of people, we already have echo chambers.

 

Pretty funny that Soros is behind the fake news thing, which is used to have political leverage so he can make money off of forcing businesses out of business (like coal), shorting currencies and making profits for himself at the expense of many people. He's the epitome of the demon most progressives claim to be fighting against.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 10/12/2016 at 3:57 PM, Trik'Stari said:

Either way you end up with a "ministry of truth", which is a horrible idea either way. Government run or not, it won't be trustworthy because sooner or later, someone (Hillary and the Democrats) will try to subvert it to push their own agenda. All of the "fake news" during this election, was coming entirely from the left side of the political spectrum.

Mostly correct, but there where some outlets like Breitbart and I forward that have some pretty dubious stuff. 

[Delicieuxz]

Sounds like the USA mainstream media might be shifting from already being state-sponsored towards being completely state-owned:

 

 

USA mainstream media, while being corporate owned, though heavily state-sponsored, is already much more fictional propaganda and slanted than all of these state-owned news stations:

 

State-owned CBC in Canada

State-owned BBC in UK
State-owned France 24 in France
State-owned Deutsche Welle in Germany

State-owned Euronews in Europe

 

And RT is probably better than all of those outlets at hosting and encouraging unbiased coverage of all issues, and perspectives, and presenting truthful considerations.

 

If USA MSM becomes fully state-owned (which, much of it effectively already sort of is), well, I don't really want to think about how bad USA MSM would be, then.

[f22luke]

On 12/8/2016 at 9:27 PM, zMeul said:

the US GOV should establish a new independent agency and accompanying legislation

this agency would have a council of independent accredited journalists from already established international news agencies and US mass media members

this body would vet reports of misinformation from the media and if found, they can rule (based on the law)

• that outlet to be forced to display they promoted misinformation and pay a fine; websites found in breach would be forced to display this message each time a user logs in into their site to ~30sec
• if the media outlet does not comply, the government can size and shut them down
• for each subsequent offence, the fine applied doubles

The problem is that "established international news agencies" are not with out a bias.  They are in fact suffering due to lack of interest in the garbage that they print.  This bill would enable them to penalize or defame their competitors in the small start up news operations.  I am all for non profit organizations that uncover false hood and champion truth but I am totally against ANY government involvement.  This sort of power is always miss used in every example we have in real life.  Government can never just stay within their little space.

[zMeul]

2 hours ago, f22luke said:

The problem is that "established international news agencies" are not with out a bias.  They are in fact suffering due to lack of interest in the garbage that they print.  This bill would enable them to penalize or defame their competitors in the small start up news operations.  I am all for non profit organizations that uncover false hood and champion truth but I am totally against ANY government involvement.  This sort of power is always miss used in every example we have in real life.  Government can never just stay within their little space.

then who will enforce it?

there needs to be legislation behind any regulatory agency

[Blade of Grass]

14 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

USA mainstream media, while being corporate owned, though heavily state-sponsored, is already much more fictional propaganda and slanted than all of these state-owned news stations:

 

State-owned CBC in Canada

State-owned BBC in UK
State-owned France 24 in France
State-owned Deutsche Welle in Germany

State-owned Euronews in Europe

 

And RT is probably better than all of those outlets at hosting and encouraging unbiased coverage of all issues, and perspectives, and presenting truthful considerations.

Citation? RT is obviously biased in favour of Russia when reporting about near everything contentious relating to Russia. 

Quote

When there’s nothing for the propaganda channel to propagate, RT’s message becomes a slightly schizophrenic, ad hoc effort to push back against what comes out of the West. And if there’s nothing to push back against, other than the ghosts of a bygone era, then what, really, is left to say that others aren’t already saying, and saying better? 

http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

[Delicieuxz]

20 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

Citation? RT is obviously biased in favour of Russia when reporting about near everything contentious relating to Russia. 

Citation for what? That those news stations are state-owned, or that my personal belief that RT is probably better than all of those outlets at presenting unbiased coverage of all issues? If the latter, then here is my citation: I confirm that what I said is my personal belief.

 

Here is a substantiation of my belief:

 

Regardless of whether there is some bias, "biased" does not mean 'presents arguments when arguments are there to be presented.' If I'm accused of something that I know I didn't do, and I say I argue my case that I didn't do that thing, that's not an example of personal bias, it's just the non-partial truth. I think that you may be interpreting some of what is simply an objective argument as bias, because it isn't conforming to, and is so different from the Western MSM depiction of things.

 

RT doesn't do the same things as those Western outlets, such as report on subjects as diversions from other that are critical of Russia. RT posts both the criticisms of Russia, and the information that RT believes counters those criticisms.

 

 

Before starting with examples of Western MSM reporting bias and propaganda, here is a simple though decent starters guide to the conflict in Syria: The Syrian War Condensed: A more Rigorous Way to Look at the Conflict

 

 

Now, on to the examples.

 

Example 1:

In Western media, we're being inundated with information about Aleppo - information that isn't coming from actual reporters, and which is not representative of all sides of the issue... and this reporting is meant to inflame anti-Assad and Russia sentiment, and also to be a diversion against the USA-and-allies's own assault on the city of Mosul, Iraq, which is going worse for them than Aleppo went for Assad's government and their allies:

 

Civilian casualties from Mosul are overwhelming capacity, U.N. warns

Quote

Civilian casualties in the city have been huge. The most recent UN statistics showed that 685 civilians were injured by fighting in and around Mosul from December 5 to 11, a 30 per cent rise on the previous week. On average, civilian casualties in the city are running at a rate of more than 600 people a week. “The ratio varies according to military activity,” [Dr. Oliver Valentovic] added. “On average we get about 40 casualties per day with a five to one civilian to military ratio.

 

The West has no reporters in East Aleppo, so why are we getting so much news about that region, when we could be getting more content and more reliable information about Mosul, an even bigger mess, if the West was willing to shine the light on its own conflict, rather than that of its geopolitical opponents?

 

 

Example 2:

Now, here's some reporting about the situation in Aleppo and Syria, from an actual journalist who has actually been in Aleppo:

 

Journalist Vanessa Beeley refutes of the Western media's Syria propaganda as being "lowest of the low," "obscene," and "a mountain of lies." Vanessa also calls Syria an external, proxy, and dirty war, rather than a civil war.

Vanessa Beeley gives testimony regarding Syria along the same lines as Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett (who also has been in Aleppo) - that most people in East Aleppo have not even heard of "White Helmets," while one man claimed to Vanessa that White Helmet deliberately killed his daughter. Other people claim that White Helmets didn't help anybody out of rubble, but told people to dig themselves out. Others say that White Helmets stole jewelry off their bodies and left them covered in rubble. Vanessa also says that civilians escaping rebel-held regions were desperate to tell their stories to her.

Vanessa also mentions that civilians who escaped the rebels have been reporting that anyone who was suspected of sympathizing with or supporting the Syrian government was executed by the rebels. Also, a woman who was begging for food was shot by the rebels in the mouth, in public.
 

Vanessa Beeley's account of Syria is like that of the journalists on this UN press conference panel:

 

 

 

Example 3:

Also, all this coverage of the 7 year-old Syrian girl Bana that's been happening in Western media has been without any mention that her family are jihadists (which brings into question the nature and intention of the postings on Bana's Twitter profile):

 

(There seems to an issue with the LTT forum software, where it removes % symbols and some nearby characters from links. So, some of these references will be uploaded screenshots)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example 4:

About that photographer: The man behind the viral ‘boy in the ambulance’ image has brutal skeletons in his own closet [IMAGES]

 

Notice that this photographer who promoted Bana is also the same one who covered those who cut off the head of the 11 year-old boy, and also that sensationalized photo of the boy retrieved from rubble. Notice that his comments show that he is a jihadist, himself (that makes for 2 jihadist propagandists that Bana has been photographed with her arm around). Now, why hasn't this been covered in Western MSM? What does that information imply about the reliability of the Bana, and rubble-boy stories which were so prominently-hyped in Western MSM?

 

 

Example 5:

Another example of the inferior and biased coverage from Western MSM is its lack or reporting of the 14 USA-coalition military contractors who have recently been captured in East Aleppo by the Syrian Army. Their names are:

 

Mutaz Kanoğlu – Turkey
David Scott Winer – USA
David Shlomo Aram – Israel
Muhamad Tamimi – Qatar
Muhamad Ahmad Assabian – Saudi
Abd-el-Menham Fahd al Harij – Saudi
Islam Salam Ezzahran Al Hajlan – Saudi
Ahmed Ben Naoufel Al Darij – Saudi
Muhamad Hassan Al Sabihi – Saudi
Hamad Fahad Al Dousri – Saudi
Amjad Qassem Al Tiraoui – Jordan
Qassem Saad Al Shamry – Saudi
Ayman Qassem Al Thahalbi – Saudi
Mohamed Ech-Chafihi El Idrissi – Moroccan

 

 

Example 6:

And, for some reason, there has been no interview with any of Syria's government in Western MSM. It's kind of important to hear what a party has to say, if you want to objectively report about their actions and what they're doing, don't you think? But, doing so would contradict the Western MSM's obscenely biased and fictionalized narrative, and that's probably why it hasn't been done. It's propaganda by omission, which is a pillar of Western MSM.

 

To rectify that situation, and counter that propaganda, here's an excellent and very eye-opening interview with Syrian MP Fares Shehabi: http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/12/11/episode-164-sunday-wire-liberation-aleppo-with-guests-fares-shehabi-mp-vanessa-beeley/

 

Fares Shehabi enters the radio program at about 42 minutes into the broadcast.

 

 

Example 7:

 

It is all kinds of hypocrisy that Western MSM will endlessly hype up the Syrian government and its allies for ridding Aleppo of terrorists as a tragedy, and yet have nothing to speak about the USA-coalition deliberately targeting civilians in Syria, and bombing them.

 

‘Beyond a massacre: France deliberately bombed Syrian civilians after Nice attack’

French Air Force avenges Nice massacre, kills 100+ civilians (Pictures)

 

 

Example 8:

 

Hit-and-run propaganda is a mainstay of Western MSM, and also Western government, which will present ideas and allegations as if fact and certainty, and then never return to those ideas and allegations once further information comes out that discredits those accusations. Claims of Russia bombing certain hospitals were used by Western MSM as hit-and-run propaganda.

 

 

And starting at 19:10 of this video:

 

Example 9:

To not mince words, Western MSM is a deliberate and hard-worked-for fictional narrative. The only way RT would be worse is if it were even more of a fictional narrative. But RT actually reports the claims of the West, and also reports information that discredits those claims, and which enters into debate with those claims. RT hosts guests who are supporters of those Western claims and allows them to have first and last words on their shows about those claims. Western MSM does not feature anything which contradicts or argues its own narrative.

 

And this is only one recent example, while there are many examples even from just recently. Hosting guests who are of Western MSM perspectives is a regular occurrence on RT - though they tend to not have as much information to work from as those they're in debate with, and often end up just repeating the same inane rhetoric over and over.

 

 

Example 10:

The Western narrative was being called out in 2012:

 

... yet since that time, Western MSM hasn't chosen to cover anything more than an ultra-narrow, one-sided, and conniving distortion of what has happened in Syria. RT covers more unfiltered information, participant and observer arguments, and witness-testimony regarding Syria in a month than Western MSM has in 4 years.

 

 

Conclusion:

The above-given examples are by no means exhaustive.

 

So, how could RT be anything but superior in news reporting to Western MSM, and including Western state-sponsored-and-owned MSM, when RT contains the Western MSM side of things, plus a whole lot more in addition to it, which Western MSM does not include? In the light of those facts, it's impossible to say anything other than that Western MSM is less objective, less reporting of all sides, and less informative than RT.

 

You'd have to completely have blinders on, willingly, to have spent some time actually reading all sources for news, and conclude that there RT is not head-and-shoulders above Western MSM in doing a better job at presenting all sides to stories than Western MSM, which doesn't present more than one heavily contrived, fictionalized, and isolated narrative to matters it does actually report (with many important things not being reported in Western MSM, at all). The narrow slice that Western MSM reports is also covered in RT - but with a whole lot more that Western MSM works hard to keep from being mentioned in its news media.

 

 

Quote

http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

^ That zero-citation ad hominem denigration would be called propaganda, and is an obvious expression of bias. The claims in that article come from a book titled "Putin's Propaganda Machine," which itself provides no names, and no references for any of its claims. They're just non-substantiated stories from an obviously biased and intending-to-propagandize source.

 

RT's Western anchors have said on multiple occasions that nobody at RT tells them what to talk about, or what to not talk about. One of the anchors said that at BBC, they would have to do hours of pre-show prep to make sure that their newscasts would not contradict or run afoul of the British government position, whereas at RT there's none of that, and they're free to go where they choose to, have on the air who they decide, and bring up the topics that they want. That sounds like a dispelling of the anti-Putin book's anonymous stories.

 

The criticisms I've mentioned about Western media do not come from imagination, or anonymous sneering, but are grounded in tangible facts, on-record and verified first-hand testimony, and publicly-recorded events and history.

 

The arguments from Western MSM that RT is propaganda is a part of the Western media's propaganda, intended to defend their many completely-false narratives, and to protect the Western MSM's stranglehold on mind-share in Western countries. But, speaking objectively, Western MSM political news coverage is probably just about at North Korea's level of being fictional propaganda. So, whatever you want to classify RT as, the hard-evidence shows that its reporting is head-and-shoulders above that of Western MSM.

[Delicieuxz]

One other thing that can be added to the above information about Bana's Twitter postings, in addition to the details that her parents are jihadists, and her photographers are pro-jihadist and ISIS, is that she is also even seemingly named after the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna.

 

So, the situation with Bana's Twitter account might be akin to two proud Nazi parents, who are approving guards in a concentration camp, naming their child Hitler, and pretending to be their child tweeting about the horrors of encroaching Allied forces, aimed at manipulating Allied-nation audiences. So, I find the Western MSM fawning over those postings to be very peculiar.

 

 

 

In other MSM propaganda news, Jeff Bezos, the sole owner of Washington Post (the news outlet that has been leading the charge in hysterical anti-Russia conspiracies and CIA speculations), has recently signed a $600 million deal with the CIA, to build its data-infrastructure.

 

CIA Cloud Over Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post

IBM Concedes $600M CIA Cloud Deal To Amazon

 

There's also a petition calling on The Washington Post to fully disclose its conflict of interest by being a CIA business partner:

Washington Post: Readers Deserve Full Disclosure in Coverage of CIA

 

 

 

On the other side of things, it's nice to see that there are people out there in semi-MSM actually calling out fake news:

 

 

[Rodinski]

She was fine when the fake news promoted her but is now upset because it didn't work. What a moron. 

[WaikikiSailor]

On 12/17/2016 at 7:14 PM, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

of course she supports this

this bitch is anti american and anti liberty

wanted to ban violent video games

lock up journalists for leaks 

lock up people voicing ''objectionable opinions on radio''

pretty much ban guns like australia 

import millions of more leeches into the usa 

supports tpp

supports the spying

supports banning other media or ''regulating'' it

against encryption and vpns 

 

I feel like someone needs to point out the obvious error in the bold text quoted above. 

Gun Related Deaths in 2014

Australia: 230

USA: 33.599

While it is true that enforcing gun control will not completely eliminate tragic deaths related to firearms.. it significantly reduces the numbers. So, if we're going to keep it real on this matter, anyone who is against enforcing gun control places a higher value on their ability to own an inanimate object than they place on a human life. And that is really all you need to know about those who oppose gun control. Period.

On a second note, you refer to immigrants as "leeches." Well, I hate to tell you this but, technically speaking, we are all spawn of "leeches." I should also inform you that Isolationism and Nationalism.. are bad things and failed concepts. It is the little things in life that can easily divide us while the rich run off with the money. Things like borders, flags, and racism. From an early age we are all groomed to think that are town, city, state, or country is better than the rest. That our team is the good team. Where these feelings are not taught, fear fills the void. We fear what we do not know - what is foreign to us. Religion is another fine example of an ideology that divides us. Sadly, the only way to conquer these issues is to tear down the borders and raise only one flag - the human flag. At the end of the day, we are all human beings fighting for survival on the same planet with rapidly depleting natural resources. Maybe it's time we stop referring to the people on the other side of some river as "leeches?"

Agree or disagree, just some food for thought. 

[Delicieuxz]

On 20/12/2016 at 7:51 AM, Delicieuxz said:

Example 1:

In Western media, we're being inundated with information about Aleppo - information that isn't coming from actual reporters, and which is not representative of all sides of the issue... and this reporting is meant to inflame anti-Assad and Russia sentiment, and also to be a diversion against the USA-and-allies's own assault on the city of Mosul, Iraq, which is going worse for them than Aleppo went for Assad's government and their allies:

 

Civilian casualties from Mosul are overwhelming capacity, U.N. warns

 

The West has no reporters in East Aleppo, so why are we getting so much news about that region, when we could be getting more content and more reliable information about Mosul, an even bigger mess, if the West was willing to shine the light on its own conflict, rather than that of its geopolitical opponents?

Quote

Civilian casualties in the city have been huge. The most recent UN statistics showed that 685 civilians were injured by fighting in and around Mosul from December 5 to 11, a 30 per cent rise on the previous week. On average, civilian casualties in the city are running at a rate of more than 600 people a week. “The ratio varies according to military activity,” [Dr. Oliver Valentovic] added. “On average we get about 40 casualties per day with a five to one civilian to military ratio.

 

 

Shortly after I posted that article and its quote (many days ago), the above Reuters article was edited to remove mention of the specific numbers of civilians that are being killed per week in Mosul, Iraq. I was surprised that the article initially mentioned the figure, because Western mainstream news media normally will not mention any information that begs calling into question Western government positions, or which might make its geopolitical opponents appear better by comparison, or that will diminish the negative impression against them that MSM has been working hard to hype. That omission of information, or removal of information called conniving, or, propaganda by omission. And it's routine practice in all mainstream Western news media.

 

I had a feeling that that civilian death-toll information was going to be edited out of the article, as typically happens with such clarity-enabling details, and it was.

 

The thing to note about it, is that, if you look at civilian deaths from Syria, Russia, and Iran's campaign to free Aleppo, Syria from West-supplied-and-encouraged extremists, the monthly civilian casualty figures range from 623, to a worst of 1,787, per month. Whereas, the civilian deaths ongoing right now, and for a while, from the USA-coalition's campaign in Mosul, Iraq, is an average of more than 600 per week, which means that the USA-coalition campaign in Mosul, Iraq is causing more than 2,614 civilian deaths, per month.

 

 

Now, isn't the basis for all the anti-Syria, anti-Russia rhetoric we've been hearing in MSM the large devastation that's happened in Aleppo, and the huge civilian death toll? Western news organization didn't even have any reporters in Aleppo conflict zones during the battle for Aleppo, and yet there were many new article each day hyping up how atrocious Syria and Russia were for their campaign to retake Aleppo from extremists who were starving civilians, shooting civilians who tried to flee the extremist-held zones, executing anyone suspected of sympathizing with the government, even executing people who begged for food (though the West MSM didn't mention any of those details).

 

But, the USA and its allies are producing more destruction, and more than double the weekly and monthly average civilian deaths in Mosul, Iraq, as was caused throughout the campaign for Aleppo, Syria - and yet Western MSM doesn't utter a peep about it. Obviously, destruction and civilian death isn't actually the motivating factor in the Western MSM's reporting.

 

 

 

To think of mainstream news media as reporting what's happening in the world would be to be already successfully subdued into a stupor by Western mainstream media's propaganda.

 

Western mainstream news media is either state-owned, or it is corporate-owned and state-funded, and its objective is largely in-line with the CIA's, which is to disseminate information that manipulates public sentiment in ways that allow for exploitation of that public sentiment, to justify campaigns, to rally public support for or against designated targets, to keep people from figuring things out, to prod the type of behaviour that those who own those corporate-owned media outlets, or the government, wants to be happening.

 

Western mainstream news outlets couldn't care less about how many civilians died in either Aleppo or Mosul - if they did, then they'd report twice as much about Mosul as about Aleppo, because there is more than twice as much destruction and civilian death occurring in Mosul, and Mosul is the campaign that Westerns news media outlets' own governments are responsible for. Even if destruction and death were equal across Aleppo and Mosul, it would be unjustified and hypocrisy to not report on Mosul more, since the destruction and death of that campaign is responsibility of those Western nations. But, what Western media did instead, is report nonstop bogus and hyped information about Aleppo, and nothing about Mosul - but Western media is rather shielding their publics from the damning information about what they're doing in Mosul.

 

Aleppo was just an opportunity to capitalize upon demonizing Western-nation's geopolitical opponents, the legal, and democratically-supported government of Syria, and Russia.

 

 

 

So, remember, whatever criticisms you might think towards Russia and Syria over their Aleppo campaign, the USA, and its Western allies are more than twice as bad by the same measurement - and are even worse for their hypocrisies and lies to their own public, and because these conflicts are against extremists created and sponsored by the USA and its allies, not by Syria or Russia and their allies. Western media strategy is to use false information to make other look bad, so that, by having public support, Western governments can dominate the targets of their propaganda, so that those targets can be exploited to benefit Western nations. It's not really different than slavery, theft, or murder, and in fact it is those things - just conducted on an international scale, and kept disguised under false narratives. The MSM is a machine that is specifically tailored to produce and enforce those false narratives.

[Trik'Stari]

4 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

Shortly after I posted that article and its quote (many days ago), the above Reuters article was edited to remove mention of the specific numbers of civilians that are being killed per week in Mosul, Iraq. I was surprised that the article initially mentioned the figure, because Western mainstream news media normally will not mention any information that begs calling into question Western government positions, or which might make its geopolitical opponents appear better by comparison, or that will diminish the negative impression against them that MSM has been working hard to hype. That omission of information, or removal of information called conniving, or, propaganda by omission. And it's routine practice in all mainstream Western news media.

 

I had a feeling that that civilian death-toll information was going to be edited out of the article, as typically happens with such clarity-enabling details, and it was.

 

The thing to note about it, is that, if you look at civilian deaths from Syria, Russia, and Iran's campaign to free Aleppo, Syria from West-supplied-and-encouraged extremists, the monthly civilian casualty figures range from 623, to a worst of 1,787, per month. Whereas, the civilian deaths ongoing right now, and for a while, from the USA-coalition's campaign in Mosul, Iraq, is an average of more than 600 per week, which means that the USA-coalition campaign in Mosul, Iraq is causing more than 2,614 civilian deaths, per month.

 

 

Now, isn't the basis for all the anti-Syria, anti-Russia rhetoric we've been hearing in MSM the large devastation that's happened in Aleppo, and the huge civilian death toll? Western news organization didn't even have any reporters in Aleppo conflict zones during the battle for Aleppo, and yet there were many new article each day hyping up how atrocious Syria and Russia were for their campaign to retake Aleppo from extremists who were starving civilians, shooting civilians who tried to flee the extremist-held zones, executing anyone suspected of sympathizing with the government, even executing people who begged for food (though the West MSM didn't mention any of those details).

 

But, the USA and its allies are producing more destruction, and more than double the weekly and monthly average civilian deaths in Mosul, Iraq, as was caused throughout the campaign for Aleppo, Syria - and yet Western MSM doesn't utter a peep about it. Obviously, destruction and civilian death isn't actually the motivating factor in the Western MSM's reporting.

 

 

 

To think of mainstream news media as reporting what's happening in the world would be to be already successfully subdued into a stupor by Western mainstream media's propaganda.

 

Western mainstream news media is either state-owned, or it is corporate-owned and state-funded, and its objective is largely in-line with the CIA's, which is to disseminate information that manipulates public sentiment in ways that allow for exploitation of that public sentiment, to justify campaigns, to rally public support for or against designated targets, to keep people from figuring things out, to prod the type of behaviour that those who own those corporate-owned media outlets, or the government, wants to be happening.

 

Western mainstream news outlets couldn't care less about how many civilians died in either Aleppo or Mosul - if they did, then they'd report twice as much about Mosul as about Aleppo, because there is more than twice as much destruction and civilian death occurring in Mosul, and Mosul is the campaign that Westerns news media outlets' own governments are responsible for. Even if destruction and death were equal across Aleppo and Mosul, it would be unjustified and hypocrisy to not report on Mosul more, since the destruction and death of that campaign is responsibility of those Western nations. But, what Western media did instead, is report nonstop bogus and hyped information about Aleppo, and nothing about Mosul - but Western media is rather shielding their publics from the damning information about what they're doing in Mosul.

 

Aleppo was just an opportunity to capitalize upon demonizing Western-nation's geopolitical opponents, the legal, and democratically-supported government of Syria, and Russia.

 

 

 

So, remember, whatever criticisms you might think towards Russia and Syria over their Aleppo campaign, the USA, and its Western allies are more than twice as bad by the same measurement - and are even worse for their hypocrisies and lies to their own public, and because these conflicts are against extremists created and sponsored by the USA and its allies, not by Syria or Russia and their allies. Western media strategy is to use false information to make other look bad, so that, by having public support, Western governments can dominate the targets of their propaganda, so that those targets can be exploited to benefit Western nations. It's not really different than slavery, theft, or murder, and in fact it is those things - just conducted on an international scale, and kept disguised under false narratives. The MSM is a machine that is specifically tailored to produce and enforce those false narratives.

Well that's all terrifying and depressing as hell.

 

I'd like to point out that Western Media isn't the only one who does this. China has done it for quite some time, as well as the Soviet Union when it was still around. Basically, this kind of shit has been going on since the beginning of time.

 

What's important is that we, as a species, finally have the communications tool (internet) to reach everyone and eventually make everyone aware of this shit. Eventually people will start to wake up, and changes will happen.

 

At least, that's what I like to hope.

[Delicieuxz]

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

What's important is that we, as a species, finally have the communications tool (internet) to reach everyone and eventually make everyone aware of this shit. Eventually people will start to wake up, and changes will happen.

 

At least, that's what I like to hope.

I hope so, too.

 

 

I should have also noted in my previous post that it is standard journalistic practice, when revising an article after it's published, to include mention that the article has been updated somewhere on the article itself (usually as a notice at the top or bottom of the article), with a listing of the reason for the change (usually a correction to the information). That Reuters article I quoted has no mention of the article having been altered after its publishing, which means that those who altered it really didn't want to draw attention to the fact that they removed content, and to the information that was in the content they removed.

 

 

Here's a bit of information about the "White Helmets" (a West-nation government-funded group, founded by British ex-military) reuse of the same children for different propaganda photo-ops:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/10/18/crisis-extras-are-syrias-white-helmets-recycling-their-barrel-bomb-victims/

 

And here's some information about one of the photographers for those photo-ops (which I posted before):

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/19/the-man-behind-the-viral-boy-in-the-ambulance-image-has-brutal-skeletons-in-his-own-closet-images/

That same photographer photographed with Bana

[Inkz]

On 12/14/2016 at 8:40 AM, Misanthrope said:

But they're so much better than you:

 

Cannot not post this enough.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

17 minutes ago, Inkz said:

Cannot not post this enough.

LOL tyt, they hired the fake affirmative action black guy shaun king.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

fucking hilarious that is.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

fucking hilarious that is.

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

LOL tyt, they hired the fake affirmative action black guy shaun king.

So much new meme material:

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

In another act of Fake News, the USA government is currently trying to claim to have killed only 188 civilians in both Syria and Iraq since 2014 - a figure which flies in the face of the public record established by the UN, Amnesty International, 1st-hand witnesses, and other counts, such as Air Wars.

 

 

From just the 1-month period of October 25 to November 25, there were 148+ civilian deaths caused by USA bombings - and that's just in Mosul, let alone all of Iraq, let alone all of Iraq and Syria for that 1-month period, let alone all of Iraq and Syria since 2014:

60 civilians killed, 200 injured as US-led coalition strikes Mosul residential areas – Russian MoD

Mosul: US airstrike that killed Iraqi family deepens fears for civilians

In Mosul campaign, reported civilian deaths in U.S. strikes climb

 

And there could be more reported USA-caused civilian deaths from that period, these are just a few articles I immediately discovered on the first page of Google with a single search.

 

The USA also bombed another hospital in Mosul just a few days ago: US military says Mosul airstrike may have killed civilians at hospital

 

There's also the average weekly Mosul, Iraq civilian casualty numbers that were mentioned in this Reuters article, before Reuters edited this paragraph out of the article.

Quote

Civilian casualties in the city have been huge. The most recent UN statistics showed that 685 civilians were injured by fighting in and around Mosul from December 5 to 11, a 30 per cent rise on the previous week. On average, civilian casualties in the city are running at a rate of more than 600 people a week. “The ratio varies according to military activity,” [Dr. Oliver Valentovic] added. “On average we get about 40 casualties per day with a five to one civilian to military ratio.

 

 

 

In Syria, Amnesty International released a report in October 2016 that claims 300 civilians were killed by USA forces in Syria, from just 11 attacks: Amnesty International: USA must come clean about civilian deaths caused by Coalition air strikes in Syria

 

There were over 100 civilian deaths in just a single attack by USA-coalition forces in Northern Syria, which was an attack of terrorism that deliberately targeted civilians, in revenge for the terrorist attack that occurred in Nice, France (which killed 86 civilians, compared to the USA-coalition's over 100-civilians-killed revenge attack): French Air Force avenges Nice massacre, kills 100+ civilians (Pictures)

 

 

 

US report on civilian casualties in Iraq & Syria: ‘Figures plucked out of thin air’

 

It is likely that the civilian deaths caused by the USA's actions in Mosul and Syria since 2014 are upwards of 55,000.

 

Whatever the actual numbers of Syrian and Iraqi civilians killed by the USA since 2014 is, it is obviously orders of magnitude greater than what the USA is admitting to.

[straight_stewie]

On 12/8/2016 at 10:51 PM, Michael McAllister said:

Clinton intimated that she wants to regulate fake news

Unfortunately, that necessitates a violation of the first amendment. 

There are, however, some regulations that I can agree with. The prime one being "no news outlets can be 'for profit'". However, that is problematic because it would require all Supreme Court Justices to adopt Justice Potter Stewart's logic when he said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of [things] I understand to be embraced within that description , and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it", which is very problematic in-and-of itself in most cases.