PDA

View Full Version : Do you trust the western media?



Jas
14-02-2013, 15:57
Want a consitent and balanced approach to what's going on? Sick of cheap headlines?
What u shud be reading:
http://rt.com/

Tired of the mullahs presenting a lousy picture of Pakistan?
What u shud be reading:
http://www.ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.ru

Wanna know about how Islamist terrorists are getting trashed in Syria?
What u shud be reading:
http://sana.sy/index_eng.html

mrzuzzo
14-02-2013, 16:44
No media, western or not, should be trusted to have an objective view. Always take what you see from media at face value.

FatAndy
14-02-2013, 17:01
Exactly. I remember old anecdote of last-Soviet times. A patient comes to polyclinic, stays in queue to registratura and then the girl asks - which doctor he needs to visit, to write out direction paper, he answers:
- Either oculist (ophtalmologist) or LOR (otorhinolaringologist)...
- How comes - either... or...???!!!
- You see, honey, I watch and hear things which differ...
;)

The issue is that consistent and balanced approach differs from one nation to another, and inside the nation - from one social group (cl**** organisation, hobby/interest, age, wealth, religion etc.) to another.

Alan65
14-02-2013, 17:15
I dont know what is more believable, this

http://rt.com/sport/olympic-wrestling-gays-conspiracy-105/

or this

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/lampard-to-write-fluffy-bunny-buys-a-bentley-2013021359485

Benedikt
14-02-2013, 17:23
as simple as that.
but also neither the eastern or northern or southern, wherever they might be.
they are just after print runs, advertising revenue and ratings. same as TV. to be taken with a big pinch of salt and lots of common sense.

Nobbynumbnuts
14-02-2013, 17:35
Exactly. I remember old anecdote of last-Soviet times..........

In the days of Pravda and Izvestia (both newspapers) there was another saying:
Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy" (In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth). ;)

rubyrussia
14-02-2013, 17:44
It is commonly said that rt is sponsored by the Kremlin. ;)

mrzuzzo
14-02-2013, 17:46
It is commonly said that rt is sponsored by the Kremlin. ;)

Commonly said???

It's a project by the Russian government.

Jas
14-02-2013, 17:51
It is commonly said that rt is sponsored by the Kremlin. ;)

RT is doing a good job of highlighting issues like how the west and NATO are supporting to Islamist terrorists, how the banks are ripping everyone off, and how Nazis in places like the Baltic are a real danger to the values of the EU.
That's worth listenting to imho.

rubyrussia
14-02-2013, 17:54
RT is doing a good job of highlighting issues like how the west and NATO are supporting to Islamist terrorists, how the banks are ripping everyone off, and how Nazis in places like the Baltic are a real danger to the values of the EU.
That's worth listenting to imho.

:rolleyes: :groan:

rusmeister
14-02-2013, 20:41
They are the megaphones of a small number of wealthy men who have more in common with each other than with the people they sell their propaganda to. But nevertheless, they have managed to shape how nearly all of us think without our being aware of it.

Jack17
14-02-2013, 20:43
They are the megaphones of a small number of wealthy men who have more in common with each other than with the people they sell their propaganda to. But nevertheless, they have managed to shape how nearly all of us think without our being aware of it.
Are you speaking of the Orthodox Church or the News Media?

robertmf
14-02-2013, 21:21
In the days of Pravda and Izvestia (both newspapers) there was another saying:
Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy" (In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth). ;)


The same could be said for the :voodoo: Montana zombie attack (http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/69458-the-montana-zombie-hack).
Only 4 people called the station about the 'attacks'. The rest of Montana was on their horses - :fudd: locked & loaded :drink:

And the mentioned Orson Welles broadcast about Martians invading (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1855120,00.html) New Jersey had plenty of people wetting their diapers :drink:


War of Worlds broadcast (http://archive.org/details/OrsonWellesMrBruns)

Benedikt
15-02-2013, 05:01
Are you speaking of the Orthodox Church or the News Media?


my good -catholic- church is nothing much better,
this is one of the reasons why Benedict had resigned.

rusmeister
15-02-2013, 08:18
Jack, you make my point merely by posting that. That attitude IS what the News Media shouts through the megaphone all the time. You're just regurgitating it. Your thinking HAS been formed by it.

(Oh, you're still on my ignore list. But I see reflections of you once in a while, and your post played right into what I said.)

Jack17
15-02-2013, 11:31
Jack, you make my point merely by posting that. That attitude IS what the News Media shouts through the megaphone all the time. You're just regurgitating it. Your thinking HAS been formed by it.

(Oh, you're still on my ignore list. But I see reflections of you once in a while, and your post played right into what I said.)
Rus, not sure if anyone has said this before; but let me say it now: You are simply rude and insulting. I'm not going to post my CV on this site; but my thinking is most certainly not formed by journalism, good or bad. You seem to be oblivious to the reality that there is highly professional and conscientious journalism, at least in the UK and US.

But as to your personal description of journalism as a whole, yes, I think your description better fits most organized religions than what you're attempting to describe: "a small number of wealthy men who have more in common with each other than with the people they sell their propaganda to" (Grammatically, it should be "to whom they sell their propaganda.") The Metropolitan and other high Orthodox prelates? Wealthy men? In my opinion what they are selling is most definitely "propaganda" of a very old variety. "They have managed to shape how nearly all of us think." Well, they've certainly managed to shape how you think.

Lost in moscow
15-02-2013, 12:03
I don't trust any source, tv, paper, radio, internet. In todays world, even being an eye witness to something isn't enough to know the 'truth' since there are 360 degrees that one can observe an event. Each degree being different.

The only time I get the opportunity to see say the news, or tv in general is when I'm sitting in a cafe. And then again, not paying much attention to it.

Today on the metro I was thinking about how big my digital footprint is, thought over which websites I constantly visit even. With a conclusion that expat.ru is one of 3 websites I visit, the other 2 being turbofilm and Facebook. But even then, I'm not the type that posts about things that are happening to me, nor am I big on post pictures of myself constantly. I mainly use it as a tool to communicate with my international friends.

I stopped paying for TV because I was getting annoyed at the commercials and overall programming on every channel. I used to visit a couple other websites like youtube and similar sites, but the constant commercials between videos and over all ad's has become a major turn off.

FatAndy
15-02-2013, 12:55
I stopped paying for TV because I was getting annoyed at the commercials and overall programming on every channel. I used to visit a couple other websites like youtube and similar sites, but the constant commercials between videos and over all ad's has become a major turn off.
You're more patient than me. I don't watch TV at home already ~17 years - just because of the stream of bu!!$h!t. Only in those cafes and other places I catch sometimes a piece of movie/report/show etc.

rubyrussia
15-02-2013, 13:13
Rus, not sure if anyone has said this before; but let me say it now: You are simply rude and insulting. I'm not going to post my CV on this site; but my thinking is most certainly not formed by journalism, good or bad. You seem to be oblivious to the reality that there is highly professional and conscientious journalism, at least in the UK and US.

But as to your personal description of journalism as a whole, yes, I think your description better fits most organized religions than what you're attempting to describe: "a small number of wealthy men who have more in common with each other than with the people they sell their propaganda to" (Grammatically, it should be "to whom they sell their propaganda.") The Metropolitan and other high Orthodox prelates? Wealthy men? In my opinion what they are selling is most definitely "propaganda" of a very old variety. "They have managed to shape how nearly all of us think." Well, they've certainly managed to shape how you think.

Honestly, I would say you started this one. The Orthodox church is not a media outlet unless you would like to prove otherwise. Do they have an opinion about the news? What you don't? Obviously some people have agreed with Rusmeister as six people "thanked" him for what he said.

Even advertising has been proven to show an influence on how people think and behave. So, I'm sure your very professional journalism like CNN has no influence on you as your worldview seems to be the exact same one that CNN puts forward. I'm sure this is just coincidence however or perhaps it's just that CNN is such a fine and outstanding organization that has a moderate and rational approach to life... just like you? ;)

I'm glad you've decided to lecture on grammar. It is perfectly normal to end sentences in modern English in prepositions. I'm sure you do it all the time yourself. Somehow I have real doubts Jack that you say sentences like this: "To whom are you talking?" Concerning the use of whom in modern English, you might want to check out Michael Swann's Practical English Usage. It's a British English book but that will be good enough for you, won't it?

Oh and one more thing. I have a cartoon for you Jack, the English wizard. 23518

AstarD
15-02-2013, 13:14
I don't trust any source, tv, paper, radio, internet. In todays world, even being an eye witness to something isn't enough to know the 'truth' since there are 360 degrees that one can observe an event. Each degree being different.

The only time I get the opportunity to see say the news, or tv in general is when I'm sitting in a cafe. And then again, not paying much attention to it.

Today on the metro I was thinking about how big my digital footprint is, thought over which websites I constantly visit even. With a conclusion that expat.ru is one of 3 websites I visit, the other 2 being turbofilm and Facebook. But even then, I'm not the type that posts about things that are happening to me, nor am I big on post pictures of myself constantly. I mainly use it as a tool to communicate with my international friends.

I stopped paying for TV because I was getting annoyed at the commercials and overall programming on every channel. I used to visit a couple other websites like youtube and similar sites, but the constant commercials between videos and over all ad's has become a major turn off.
So how do you get any information about what's going on in the world?

Jas
15-02-2013, 13:17
So how do you get any information about what's going on in the world?

He asks his mum.

rusmeister
15-02-2013, 13:58
Honestly, I would say you started this one. The Orthodox church is not a media outlet unless you would like to prove otherwise. Do they have an opinion about the news? What you don't? Obviously some people have agreed with Rusmeister as six people "thanked" him for what he said.

Even advertising has been proven to show an influence on how people think and behave. So, I'm sure your very professional journalism like CNN has no influence on you as your worldview seems to be the exact same one that CNN puts forward. I'm sure this is just coincidence however or perhaps it's just that CNN is such a fine and outstanding organization that has a moderate and rational approach to life... just like you? ;)

I'm glad you've decided to lecture on grammar. It is perfectly normal to end sentences in modern English in prepositions. I'm sure you do it all the time yourself. Somehow I have real doubts Jack that you say sentences like this: "To whom are you talking?" Concerning the use of whom in modern English, you might want to check out Michael Swann's Practical English Usage. It's a British English book but that will be good enough for you, won't it?

Oh and one more thing. I have a cartoon for you Jack, the English wizard. 23518

I'll add that I take a lot of flak here for standing up for the Church, faith, and traditional morality. It takes more than a few insults and rudeness to make my ignore list, which is quite short, and currently has only three members who are active AFAIK. I generally remove people after a week or two of cool-down, but when they get on there repeatedly it can go permanent. In addition, I try to keep my comments to people's ideas, and rarely say anything about the people themselves. I, at least, can tell the difference between people and their ideas. So I find a bit of irony in someone on my IL calling me rude and insulting. But that's what the IL is for - to avoid excessive and unnecessary acrimony when civil discourse cannot be achieved.

Back to the OP, I believe that there are good people in bad systems. I have seen wonderful people struggling to teach well in public schools, but their efforts are stymied by the design of the system and actual intent of the controlling organization - the government. I am equally certain of the existence of the good intent, character and professionalism of many journalists, but again, it should be obvious that they work under the limitations of the ultimate owners of the publications.

Lost in moscow
15-02-2013, 13:59
So how do you get any information about what's going on in the world?

Like what? Why should I care what going on in the world, the information you're exposed to about the world is what the gatekeepers allow you to know, not what really happened. Presidential elections? School shootings? The release date on the iPhone 10? Which celebrity did what with whom? Conflict somewhere? Don't care, don't bother wasting my time on it.
If I want to know something about something, say, a discussion was started, I observe, listen to the opinions of others. If I'm completely oblivious to the subject on hand I search for it, read up on multiple sources, which aren't that many to begin with, most just copy/paste, change the phrasing, etc. Finding them however is another story. And build my own opinion off of that.

I choose what I view, I try to control what I exposed myself to, I don't allow someone else choose for me. doesn't mean I keep myself in a box isolated from everything.

Everything Important that I need to know, I learned in kindergarden.

Jack17
15-02-2013, 20:32
I try to keep my comments to people's ideas

Rus, you routinely criticize and ridicule people who disagree with you. You said I'm regurgitating what the media shouts through their megaphone; those were your words. Such criticism is demeaning and it's not the exception in your posts; it's the rule.

Now you're the poor Christian believer suffering the persecution of non believers - hardly; you're being called to task for your own rude behavior.

Lost in moscow
15-02-2013, 21:14
Honestly, I would say you started this one. The Orthodox church is not a media outlet unless you would like to prove otherwise. Do they have an opinion about the news? What you don't? Obviously some people have agreed with Rusmeister as six people "thanked" him for what he said

Jacks post went over your head. No one said the church is a media outlet, what he did say that Rus's sentence can be used not only to explain the media outlets but also most major religious organization...

Lost in moscow
15-02-2013, 21:16
Religious people can dish out criticism, but they can't handle it if it's aimed at them or their belief

Jack17
15-02-2013, 21:19
Who can argue with Mr. Bean?

Jas
15-02-2013, 21:21
Who can argue with Mr. Bean?

Mr Bean has got it right. It's not about race.

ezik
15-02-2013, 21:34
Media will never be flawless.
Some of the RT reports are interesting, because they provide another angle on news facts. But the same is true for e.g. CNN, Al-Jazeera, the list is endless.

When I'm reading news about Russia, I always use pro- and anti- Kremlin sources within Russia, as well as foreign media.

Media, whether it is TV, radio, newspapers, websites, blogs, will always have some agenda behind it: political, business, or personal.

Even the most integer journalists that I know (and I know a lot of them) are tempted by scoops.

I think it makes news interesting. Myself, I am not waiting for facts, because I know I will never get the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth from media. I personally love it to read different views and interpretations of news facts.

Potty
15-02-2013, 22:07
Personally I've never heard people criticizing ideas in religion. They always tend to criticize something else. That it why it is always boring to listen to them.

Lost in moscow
15-02-2013, 22:58
religion in itself is an idea

rusmeister
15-02-2013, 23:51
Religious people can dish out criticism, but they can't handle it if it's aimed at them or their belief

My dear LIM, I handle it here and elsewhere every single day. Traditional faith and morality are CONSTANTLY under attack, 24/7. Your statement here is about as far from the reality I experience as I can imagine.

Lost in moscow
16-02-2013, 11:17
My dear LIM, I handle it here and elsewhere every single day. Traditional faith and morality are CONSTANTLY under attack, 24/7. Your statement here is about as far from the reality I experience as I can imagine.

I'm sorry did I say Russ can't handle criticism? no I didnt, so stop making everything about you. laws ARE being passed even in the russian government about this, so stop talking out of your butt hole. This IS reality.

sashadidi
16-02-2013, 11:25
So how do you get any information about what's going on in the world?

I look here to see what Jas has posted about....

rusmeister
16-02-2013, 14:33
I'm sorry did I say Russ can't handle criticism? no I didnt, so stop making everything about you. laws ARE being passed even in the russian government about this, so stop talking out of your butt hole. This IS reality.

Let's see, you said, "Religious people". I am known around here to be one of several members that openly take religion seriously and see good things in good religions; that I am "religious", insofar as I think a particular religion to actually describe the true state of affairs of the place of humanity in the universe.
You made a blanket statement implying all such people; I am an example that directly denies your claim.

And FTR, I'm once again hit with open rudeness. (For those who characterize me as rude)
I'd like to see intelligent expression of what it means for me to be talking "out of my butthole". It can be a challenge for people who routinely use that sort of language to manage more intelligent expression. But I'm open to being surprised.

Bogatyr
16-02-2013, 15:10
Do you mean the Orthodox Church?


Rus, not sure if anyone has said this before; but let me say it now: You are simply rude and insulting.

Now this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Rus, perhaps uniquely on this site (and I don't know why he keeps trying year after year, but that's his choice), engages politely and with ideas, and rarely falls into the primary expat-forums- (and internet)-common ad hominem and other logical fallacy patterns with those whom with he disagrees (<- grammar, woohoo! If not a little ponderous).

It's up to you whether or not you're going to respond with your CV, but if you're not going to engage with ideas instead of name calling, why respond at all? Oh right, this is expat....

Bogatyr
16-02-2013, 15:35
Rus, you routinely criticize and ridicule people who disagree with you. You said I'm regurgitating what the media shouts through their megaphone; those were your words. Such criticism is demeaning and it's not the exception in your posts; it's the rule.

Now you're the poor Christian believer suffering the persecution of non believers - hardly; you're being called to task for your own rude behavior.

Nonsense. Rus carries on (bless his heart for trying here, who knows why he does in the face of such unbridled hatred) intellectual discussions. People don't like it when someone points out holes in their thinking, and resort to ad-hominem pretty fast. You're a striking example of that here.

And you *are* regurgitating with your "Orthodox Church" statement. After all, "everyone knows" in the west that the Russian Orthodox Church is just the plaything of a few uber-wealthy men, showing up with photo-ops with Putin just so they get access to the corridors of power for their own nefarious purposes, right? So it's perfectly acceptable to make blind assertions like that, and be completely intellectually justified in doing so, right?

It takes distance and time for the effects of the endless bombardment of propaganda to wane to the point where you wake up and see you've been fed a line of crap, that the emperor has no clothes.

It took a few years, but I myself went from "knowing, nodding, smug" agreement (with no experience to back up my agreement) with the crap the u.s. and the west write about Russia, to realizing (with years of experience now living in Russia) what it really is -- crap, exaggerations, lies, mis-statements, and the blind propagation of them.

Lost in moscow
16-02-2013, 18:19
Let's see, you said, "Religious people"

White People Don't have rhythm,
Blacks love chicken,
Asians are kongfu masters
Muslims hate americans,

Does the list apply to everyone? No so when I said religious people can't handle criticism, and you understand you aren't one of those, why the hell are you assuming I'm talking about you?! I made no indication that I was talking to or about you. STOP making everything about yourself. I'm rude to idiots who think everything revolves around them and everything is about them.

Jack17
16-02-2013, 20:18
And you *are* regurgitating with your "Orthodox Church" statement. After all, "everyone knows" in the west that the Russian Orthodox Church is just the plaything of a few uber-wealthy men, showing up with photo-ops with Putin just so they get access to the corridors of power for their own nefarious purposes, right? So it's perfectly acceptable to make blind assertions like that, and be completely intellectually justified in doing so, right?.

Bogatyr, I would advise everyone to read everything critically. But unlike you and Rus, I don't believe that every journal or gazette is filled with "propaganda;" therefore, I do believe that the Orthodox Church is run by a few wealthy men (actually, probably more then just a few).

You speak of ad hominem attacks; but that is precisely your method. Yours and Rus' technique is to attack the credibility of anyone or any source that challenges your beliefs; if the Western media says that the Metropolitan is a man who has grown rich by gaining exclusive cigarette concessions from the Russian government, then any source that reports such is corrupt and dishonest. It's an old rhetorical device obvious to anyone who reads critically.

rubyrussia
16-02-2013, 20:25
You speak of ad hominem attacks; but that is precisely your method. Yours and Rus' technique is to attack the credibility of anyone or any source that challenges your beliefs...

Where and when did they challenge your credibility? Why do you feel like you need to provide a copy of your CV? What purpose would that serve and what does it prove anyway? A CV is for a job interview. Does anyone here challenge whether you are an educated man or not? I haven't seen that at all.

Bogatyr
16-02-2013, 21:39
Bogatyr, I would advise everyone to read everything critically. But unlike you and Rus, I don't believe that every journal or gazette is filled with "propaganda;"

It has nothing to do with belief. It's all out there for those with eyes to see in just about every printed article about Russia. There are those with an active agenda, and those just blindly parroting what they've read before, not even bothering to check 20-year-old facts to see if they still apply today (e.g., demographic trends). And those who are simply hypocritical (e.g., p-riot, in Russia it's "oppression," in America it's "maintaining peace and public safety." Regardless that the same actions in other countries would result in identical or *more severe* punishment.).

Russian Lad
17-02-2013, 00:39
laws ARE being passed even in the russian government about this, so stop talking out of your butt hole. This IS reality.

Indeed, by promoting this law the religious people made one HUGE mistake - they forgot that they have the omnipotent GOD behind their backs who can punish the people offending HIM by offending their faith, such as Pussy Riot girls. By promoting this law the religious people, including Rus here, have spat at the face of their God with utmost disrespect and lack of faith! They have proven, once again, that their deity is so weak that HE is not even capable of defending HIMSELF, that HE needs human intervention... All those who are believers, think about it. I doubt you can think independently at all, but at least try this time...


Personally I've never heard people criticizing ideas in religion. They always tend to criticize something else. That it why it is always boring to listen to them.

Potty, what I have written above concerns you as well. It is a blow at your ideas, if you are religious and approve, say, sending PR girls to prison and the new law which includes fines and prison terms for sacrilege. Russia is one step from the Dark Ages... A glimpse of light and hope was shimmering at the end of the tunnel, but it turned out to be another train approaching rather fast...

Jack17
17-02-2013, 03:18
Educated people don't 'regurgitate" what they read; they think about it critically and then form their own ideas.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already written; reread Rus' post and my response. Incidentally, neither you, Rus nor Bogatyr have offered one piece of evidence that undermines any respected journal in the West; yet you all seem to believe they voice baseless "propaganda." The Economist, the NY Times, Washington Post, all just print hearsay that I and others mindlessly "regurgitate." Really?

My real question is what do you think the odds are that you would find two admirers of C. K. Chesterton on one web site, one in a billion? I'm surprised one exists anywhere; but two in one place? Phenomenal. Maybe Bogartyr is Rus' alter ego? :question:

Russian Lad
17-02-2013, 03:57
Phenomenal. Maybe Bogartyr is Rus' alter ego?

Their writing style is rather similar. My wild guess would be Rus uses this second account to check out occasionally what the people on his ignore list write here and to respond maybe. Can our esteemed moderators kindly tell us if the IPs of those two posters fall within the same range? :)

rubyrussia
17-02-2013, 08:56
Educated people don't 'regurgitate" what they read; they think about it critically and then form their own ideas.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already written; reread Rus' post and my response. Incidentally, neither you, Rus nor Bogatyr have offered one piece of evidence that undermines any respected journal in the West; yet you all seem to believe they voice baseless "propaganda." The Economist, the NY Times, Washington Post, all just print hearsay that I and others mindlessly "regurgitate." Really?

My real question is what do you think the odds are that you would find two admirers of C. K. Chesterton on one web site, one in a billion? I'm surprised one exists anywhere; but two in one place? Phenomenal. Maybe Bogartyr is Rus' alter ego? :question:

Riiiight,

What are the odds of finding two fans of J. K. Rowling on one site ;)

rusmeister
17-02-2013, 09:38
Given that Jack has guessed that Bogatyr admires Chesterton because of his signature, I can only assume that, because Jack does NOT admire GKC, that he actually PREFERS to be ruled by businessmen who are politicians.

Here is a text that follows on the quote in B's signature; I have my doubts as to whether this text can be read by people with such preferences and considered honestly, let alone honestly critically:


I apologise for the word “king”, which is not strictly necessary to the sense; but I suggest that it would be one of the functions of the philosopher to pause upon such words, and determine their importance and unimportance. The Roman Republic and all its citizens had to the last a horror of the word “king”. It was in consequence of this that they invented and imposed on us the word “Emperor”. The great Republicans who founded America also had a horror of the word “king”; which has therefore reappeared with the special qualification of a Steel King, an Oil King, a Pork King, or other similar monarchs made of similar materials. The business of the philosopher is not necessarily to condemn the innovation or to deny the distinction. But it is his duty to ask himself exactly what it is that he or others dislike in the word “king”. If what he dislikes is a man wearing the spotted fur of a small animal called the ermine, or a man having once had a metal ring placed on the top of his head by a clergyman, he will decide one way. If what he dislikes is a man having vast or irresponsible powers over other men, he may decide another. If what he dislikes is such fur or such power being handed on from father to son, he will enquire whether this ever occurs under commercial conditions today. But, anyhow, he will have the habit of testing the thing by the thought; by the idea which he likes or dislikes; and not merely by the sound of a syllable or the look of four letters beginning with a “K”.
http://www.chesterton.org/discover-chesterton/selected-works/the-philosopher/the-revival-of-philosophy-why/

People can talk about being educated. But I see a simple inability to deal with even a text as simple as this, and in my book, people who can't are simply uneducated, no matter what diplomas they hold.

rusmeister
17-02-2013, 10:14
Oh, and by the way, here are ten thousand pieces of evidence of journalistic unprofessionalism exposed by journalists who DO think journalistic professionalism important, with a focus on how religion in general is treated (these people have been tracking this for well over a decade):

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion

This is all stuff that can be confirmed in all of the mainstream publications. They link, cite sources, and prove the propagandistic nature of mainstream reports rather thoroughly. But of course, people like Jack and RL simply flat out ignore such evidence and simply repeat that there is no evidence, which for me, confirms that their enmity to faith trumps objective considerations (which is why they are on my IL in the first place).

Bogatyr
17-02-2013, 12:37
Their writing style is rather similar. My wild guess would be Rus uses this second account to check out occasionally what the people on his ignore list write here and to respond maybe. Can our esteemed moderators kindly tell us if the IPs of those two posters fall within the same range? :)

Wow what a compliment! I don't consider myself near Rus's league, either in patience, or in philosophical rhetoric.

Russian Lad
17-02-2013, 12:44
Posting both at about the same time, too... Dear mods, please check their IP range, be so kind as to satisfy our idle curiosity...

Russian Lad
17-02-2013, 12:47
Wow what a compliment! I don't consider myself near Rus's league, either in patience, or in philosophical rhetoric.

Well, if you are his MiniMe, you are not supposed to, as you know...

Bogatyr
17-02-2013, 13:43
Well, if you are his MiniMe, you are not supposed to, as you know...

You people are too funny. Can't hack the ideas, so resort to the personal. Again, and again, and again.... and oops, I'm doing the same thing, lowering to your level, but again, I'm not Rus (or am I? Hmmm).

Bogatyr
17-02-2013, 13:45
Educated people don't 'regurgitate" what they read; they think about it critically and then form their own ideas.

I'm not going to repeat what I've already written; reread Rus' post and my response. Incidentally, neither you, Rus nor Bogatyr have offered one piece of evidence that undermines any respected journal in the West; yet you all seem to believe they voice baseless "propaganda." The Economist, the NY Times, Washington Post, all just print hearsay that I and others mindlessly "regurgitate." Really?

My real question is what do you think the odds are that you would find two admirers of C. K. Chesterton on one web site, one in a billion? I'm surprised one exists anywhere; but two in one place? Phenomenal. Maybe Bogartyr is Rus' alter ego? :question:

Just one taste. Adomanis is not without his bias, but he at least makes an effort to get his facts straight, which is more than can be said for most others "covering" Russia.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2011/11/11/sky-news-appalling-factual-inaccuracies-about-russian-abortion-and-demographics/

Judge
17-02-2013, 14:02
Posting both at about the same time, too... Dear mods, please check their IP range, be so kind as to satisfy our idle curiosity...
:10293:
Whilst we are at it, might as well check yours and Lost in moscow's IP, you two share the same ideas about Russia and both don't think too highly of the church..
Let's try and keep on topic and less of the personal stuff..

Potty
17-02-2013, 14:37
:10293:
Whilst we are at it, might as well check yours and Lost in moscow's IP, you two share the same ideas about Russia and both don't think too highly of the church..
Let's try and keep on topic and less of the personal stuff..

Check RL's IP and Jack's. If they are not the same person, they must be twin brothers. Seems like one of them was adopted by an American family in San Diego.

Russian Lad
17-02-2013, 17:03
Check RL's IP and Jack's. If they are not the same person, they must be twin brothers. Seems like one of them was adopted by an American family in San Diego.

Well, to be fair, it is not like we both are quoting here the same author ad nauseam, we recognize that this resource is not for copy-pasting quotes but rather for sharing ideas and discussing events...


This is all stuff that can be confirmed in all of the mainstream publications. They link, cite sources, and prove the propagandistic nature of mainstream reports rather thoroughly. But of course, people like Jack and RL simply flat out ignore such evidence and simply repeat that there is no evidence, which for me, confirms that their enmity to faith trumps objective considerations

By the way, I don't know about Jack, but I do think that most journalists are biased, journalism is called "the second ancient trade" for a reason... However, there are some unbiased journalists, just as there are some sincere believers. I can name you at least one honest journalist - Stephen Sackur who anchors Hard Talk on BBC. Can anyone say he is biased?
However, the difference between them is that honest journalists don't propagate or adhere to some supernatural ideas, they are just doing their job.

robertmf
17-02-2013, 18:12
... but I do think that most journalists are biased, journalism is called "the second ancient trade" for a reason...

I thought journalism was the 3d ancient trade ? - after prostitution and spying ...


:evilgrin:

rusmeister
17-02-2013, 20:45
Wow what a compliment! I don't consider myself near Rus's league, either in patience, or in philosophical rhetoric.

I'm actually just an expat who is here forever. I haven't been home to the states for 8 years now; this is my home, but I miss my native land and family, and have few outlets for serious expression of English, other than what one can get in dealing with students (which is obviously limited). So my patience, if that's what it is, springs more from that than from any serious virtue.

In rhetoric, I simply have had good teachers, who make me look small. I try to tell people, but very few ever trouble themselves to take the recommendations seriously. They think I'm nuts for being enthusiastic about my teachers.

But really, they simply showed me that the world has turned upside-down, and taught me how to "stand on my head", so to speak, so that I might see things as they are, and discover that our ancestors were NOT stupid or backwards, but for the most part it is we that have regressed and barbarized, thinking ourselves enlightened and educated.

In short, CS Lewis, for me, was like Morpheus in "The Matrix", giving me the red pill, and showing me how far down the rabbit hole goes. And Chesterton expanded the view exponentially. They have grounded me so thoroughly, that even if, by some extraordinarily improbable chance, you could introduce doubts I have not already encountered and overcome, I am still left with the words of the apostle Peter: "Where can we go?" (John, ch 6).

Jack17
17-02-2013, 23:35
they must be twin brothers.

Мой брат :11629:

yakspeare
18-02-2013, 01:18
Мой брат :11629:

traitor!

Jack17
18-02-2013, 05:08
Actually, I have two brothers on this site, one's an atheist and the other is Jewish. I also have a great grandfather who lives in Philadelphia.

rusmeister
18-02-2013, 07:34
A social forum can be used for light chat and small talk with people we don't know - but I find small talk only useful for interludes with people I DO know.

But when talking about serious issues - public discourse and debate, there is only one intelligent use of such a forum: to engage each others' ideas. To really consider them.

I post a short text, above, by a journalist read by the average English speaker 100 years ago, and nobody in the here and now engages it. That speaks volumes.

Such an observation is necessarily ad hominem, as there is no engagement to direct a comment to. But at least I can tell the difference, and admit when I do it.

Potty
18-02-2013, 08:38
also have a great grandfather who lives in Philadelphia.

Then you are 1/8 an alien.

Russian Lad
18-02-2013, 16:13
Originally Posted by Potty
they must be twin brothers.
Мой брат

Who knows, I have some distant relatives in the US who went there after 1917, theoretically we can even be relatives.:)) Hehe.:trampoline:
Is Rusmeister talking to himself? Looks like he doesn't need any people to have a conversation going, wonder why he comes to this forum at all, a diary would suffice.

rusmeister
18-02-2013, 20:21
Oh, and by the way, here are ten thousand pieces of evidence of journalistic unprofessionalism exposed by journalists who DO think journalistic professionalism important, with a focus on how religion in general is treated (these people have been tracking this for well over a decade):

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion

This is all stuff that can be confirmed in all of the mainstream publications. They link, cite sources, and prove the propagandistic nature of mainstream reports rather thoroughly. But of course, people like Jack and RL simply flat out ignore such evidence and simply repeat that there is no evidence, which for me, confirms that their enmity to faith trumps objective considerations (which is why they are on my IL in the first place).

I think I'll bookmark this post, so that next time one of these guys say "You never offer any evidence!", I'll just point to what they deliberately ignored.

Russian Lad
18-02-2013, 21:15
He does talk to himself here... How sad and even pathetic.:7525:

FatAndy
20-02-2013, 12:25
In the days of Pravda and Izvestia (both newspapers) there was another saying:
Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy" (In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth). ;)
Well, my grandma always was subscriber of Trud (the newspaper of professinal unions ;) ). And both Pravda and Izvestia were speaking too official (bronze/granit) language.