Indeed.
Considering we've probably killed a lot of Russians and their Talib friends in Afghanistan already in response, I think this might as well be a moot issue if it wasn't for the completely lackluster response by the White House.
Advertisement
by Organized States » Sun Jul 12, 2020 7:30 pm
by The Sovereign Realist State » Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:43 pm
Cisairse wrote:It's been verified for quite some time.
by The Sovereign Realist State » Mon Jul 13, 2020 7:44 pm
Gormwood wrote:The U.S. intelligence community is Russophobia Central obviously.
by Shofercia » Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:19 pm
The Sovereign Realist State wrote:Cisairse wrote:It's been verified for quite some time.
Nope. It was just another hoax as usual:
Saagar Enjeti: Intel FALLS APART on Russian bounties as neocons, Biden want MORE WAR in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_AzI7_7GQ
The whole moronic allegation is collapsing just as all other Russophobic insane stories inevitably do.
As Jussie Smollet did
Convington kids did
Rise in attacks against minorites following Trump election, did
Russiagate did
Ukrainegate did
racist Nascar did
etc etc etc
rinse and repeat
by Slavakino » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:30 am
by Kowani » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:10 am
The Sovereign Realist State wrote:Cisairse wrote:It's been verified for quite some time.
Nope. It was just another hoax as usual:
Saagar Enjeti: Intel FALLS APART on Russian bounties as neocons, Biden want MORE WAR in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_AzI7_7GQ
The whole moronic allegation is collapsing just as all other Russophobic insane stories inevitably do.
As Jussie Smollet did
Convington kids did
Rise in attacks against minorites following Trump election, did
Russiagate did
Ukrainegate did
racist Nascar did
etc etc etc
rinse and repeat
by Shofercia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:38 am
Kowani wrote:The Sovereign Realist State wrote:
Nope. It was just another hoax as usual:
Saagar Enjeti: Intel FALLS APART on Russian bounties as neocons, Biden want MORE WAR in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_AzI7_7GQ
The whole moronic allegation is collapsing just as all other Russophobic insane stories inevitably do.
As Jussie Smollet did
Convington kids did
Rise in attacks against minorites following Trump election, did
Russiagate did
Ukrainegate did
racist Nascar did
etc etc etc
rinse and repeat
Saagar Enjeti
Slavakino wrote:Suprised this crappy thread is still going
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:42 am
Shofercia wrote:The thread's now evolving into a discussion on how to hold the NYT to account for their constant pounding of the drums of war, sending black kids to die in foreign countries for no reason, while yelling "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" at the top of their lungs.
by Shofercia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:03 am
Cisairse wrote:Shofercia wrote:The thread's now evolving into a discussion on how to hold the NYT to account for their constant pounding of the drums of war, sending black kids to die in foreign countries for no reason, while yelling "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" at the top of their lungs.
What a ridiculous idea. You do realize that NYT literally published an article, written by the editorial board, titled "Don’t Let Russian Meddling Derail Afghanistan Withdrawal Plans?"
According to the paper, Trump was briefed on the activity months ago, but no discernible action has been taken.
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am
Shofercia wrote:So what exactly was the purpose of the initial article, if not to escalate tensions in Afghanistan?
by Kowani » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:50 am
by Shofercia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:59 am
Cisairse wrote:Shofercia wrote:So what exactly was the purpose of the initial article, if not to escalate tensions in Afghanistan?
Believe it or not, journalism outlets often report facts simply because they are facts and that's what journalists do, not because they have some nefariously conspiratorial ulterior motive.
This project derives a set of research expectations from the propaganda model, a structural model of the corporate news media developed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The model predicts that the news media will reflect elite views and priorities and marginalize views outside the range of elite opinion. Consequently, it is expected that the media will tend to support the elite’s preferred modes of exercising state power in international affairs. This often entails demonizing official enemies of the United States in order to justify military interventions while downplaying the crimes of the United States and its allies.
To see how well these expectations are borne out in recent times, I apply discourse and content analysis to a sample of the New York Times’ coverage of Libya in the weeks preceding the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Three research expectations are presented: Coverage will mirror the U.S. government story line, conforming to the tenets of American exceptionalism; Muammar Gaddafi will be demonized, the nature and extent of his crimes will be exaggerated; Gaddafi’s victims will receive extensive, sympathetic coverage, while black Libyan victims of the anti-Gaddafi opposition will be marginalized. The analysis of New York Times articles on Libya from February 15 to March 19, 2011, shows that the research expectations are met, providing empirical support for the propaganda model.
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:21 am
Shofercia wrote:Cisairse wrote:
Believe it or not, journalism outlets often report facts simply because they are facts and that's what journalists do, not because they have some nefariously conspiratorial ulterior motive.
Believe it or not, but NYT chooses which facts to report. For instance, here's a factoid that NYT would never report:
I wonder why... The facts that NYT reports typically beat the drums of war, as was shown in an article cited in this post: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_thesesThis project derives a set of research expectations from the propaganda model, a structural model of the corporate news media developed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The model predicts that the news media will reflect elite views and priorities and marginalize views outside the range of elite opinion. Consequently, it is expected that the media will tend to support the elite’s preferred modes of exercising state power in international affairs. This often entails demonizing official enemies of the United States in order to justify military interventions while downplaying the crimes of the United States and its allies.
To see how well these expectations are borne out in recent times, I apply discourse and content analysis to a sample of the New York Times’ coverage of Libya in the weeks preceding the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Three research expectations are presented: Coverage will mirror the U.S. government story line, conforming to the tenets of American exceptionalism; Muammar Gaddafi will be demonized, the nature and extent of his crimes will be exaggerated; Gaddafi’s victims will receive extensive, sympathetic coverage, while black Libyan victims of the anti-Gaddafi opposition will be marginalized. The analysis of New York Times articles on Libya from February 15 to March 19, 2011, shows that the research expectations are met, providing empirical support for the propaganda model.
Facts that demonize those whom NYT thinks are enemies of the United States are regurgitated ad nauseum, but telling the other side of the story, rather than barely giving a snippet, is something that NYT fails at, repeatedly. For instance, if I wanted to present NS moderators as biased I would simply focus on the facts around their COVID-19 rulings and ignore everything else, thus portraying them as 100% biased, all the time, when they were only biased in a single area for a short period of time.
by Kowani » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:31 am
Cisairse wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Believe it or not, but NYT chooses which facts to report. For instance, here's a factoid that NYT would never report:
I wonder why... The facts that NYT reports typically beat the drums of war, as was shown in an article cited in this post: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_theses
Facts that demonize those whom NYT thinks are enemies of the United States are regurgitated ad nauseum, but telling the other side of the story, rather than barely giving a snippet, is something that NYT fails at, repeatedly. For instance, if I wanted to present NS moderators as biased I would simply focus on the facts around their COVID-19 rulings and ignore everything else, thus portraying them as 100% biased, all the time, when they were only biased in a single area for a short period of time.
The idea that the NYT is somehow biased against Russia is pretty silly when you realize that NYT was the only Western newspaper that was willing to publish an op-ed written by President Putin.
Your repeated attacks on the credibility of NYT are completely without merit.
by Shofercia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:46 am
Kowani wrote:Shofercia wrote:
If you can't attack the argument, attack the person making it, and add four smilies to make your post even more credible.
I’m attacking the source because he’d write for Breitbart if he didn’t want credibility. He’s just a generally unreliable person, and a fundamentally dishonest actor.
Cisairse wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Believe it or not, but NYT chooses which facts to report. For instance, here's a factoid that NYT would never report:
I wonder why... The facts that NYT reports typically beat the drums of war, as was shown in an article cited in this post: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_theses
Facts that demonize those whom NYT thinks are enemies of the United States are regurgitated ad nauseum, but telling the other side of the story, rather than barely giving a snippet, is something that NYT fails at, repeatedly. For instance, if I wanted to present NS moderators as biased I would simply focus on the facts around their COVID-19 rulings and ignore everything else, thus portraying them as 100% biased, all the time, when they were only biased in a single area for a short period of time.
The idea that the NYT is somehow biased against Russia is pretty silly when you realize that NYT was the only Western newspaper that was willing to publish an op-ed written by President Putin.
Your repeated attacks on the credibility of NYT are completely without merit.
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:50 am
Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican? The very fact that you're citing a single opinion piece as evidence of NYT's lack of bias, when I provided numerous sources showing said bias, tells me quite a bit. There's been a funny parody made, called "If Google Was a Guy" where a lady comes up to him and says: Global Warming is fake and Google gives her plenty of evidence that Global Warming's real. Then she uses the quotes "Global Warming is fake" and Google sighs and gives her a single piece of paper.
That's what you're doing. After I provided plenty of evidence for NYT's bias here: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556 your response is "but they published a single op-ed over a decade long timespan, they can't be biased because of that, how dare you?!" Lolwut?
by Shofercia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:13 pm
Cisairse wrote:Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican? The very fact that you're citing a single opinion piece as evidence of NYT's lack of bias, when I provided numerous sources showing said bias, tells me quite a bit. There's been a funny parody made, called "If Google Was a Guy" where a lady comes up to him and says: Global Warming is fake and Google gives her plenty of evidence that Global Warming's real. Then she uses the quotes "Global Warming is fake" and Google sighs and gives her a single piece of paper.
That's what you're doing. After I provided plenty of evidence for NYT's bias here: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556 your response is "but they published a single op-ed over a decade long timespan, they can't be biased because of that, how dare you?!" Lolwut?
My point is that NYT reports facts and publishes opinions of mostly anyone of note who wishes to publish an op-ed through them.
The fact that you think I'm accusing the Times of being biased towards anyone they have published works by demonstrates how divorced you are from reality.
by Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:18 pm
Shofercia wrote:Cisairse wrote:
My point is that NYT reports facts and publishes opinions of mostly anyone of note who wishes to publish an op-ed through them.
The fact that you think I'm accusing the Times of being biased towards anyone they have published works by demonstrates how divorced you are from reality.
Please show me where I'm accusing you of accusing New York Times of being biased.
Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican?
Shofercia wrote: I'm, me, not you, we're different people Cisairse, I'm accusing New York Times of being biased against Russia and being pro-war, because they have a Neoliberal bias. That's my accusation. Not yours. I did not accuse you of making any claim towards NYT being biased. I implicitly accused you of having a foolish belief that NYT isn't biased, merely because they publish op-eds from different sides once in a year or a decade.
If you run 100 anti-Russia articles, and then let President Putin publish a single pro-Russia article, guess what Cisairse? You're biased! And if you fail to grasp that simple fact, then you are the one who's divorced from reality, and I'd encourage you to stop projecting.
by Shofercia » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:35 pm
Cisairse wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Please show me where I'm accusing you of accusing New York Times of being biased.Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican?Shofercia wrote: I'm, me, not you, we're different people Cisairse, I'm accusing New York Times of being biased against Russia and being pro-war, because they have a Neoliberal bias. That's my accusation. Not yours. I did not accuse you of making any claim towards NYT being biased. I implicitly accused you of having a foolish belief that NYT isn't biased, merely because they publish op-eds from different sides once in a year or a decade.
If you run 100 anti-Russia articles, and then let President Putin publish a single pro-Russia article, guess what Cisairse? You're biased! And if you fail to grasp that simple fact, then you are the one who's divorced from reality, and I'd encourage you to stop projecting.
Ah yes, now I'm biased for viewing situations objectively.
Protip. If you view objective reality as biased, you might have a warped worldview. Or you're just looking at facts with a specific opinion that you refuse to consider evidence against.
Just because I'm bored, I'll grant you hypothetical way more attention than it deserves to make you happy. If NYT ran 100 anti-Russia articles and 1 pro-Russia article, it is likely that there were 100 incidents which cast Russia in a bad light, and only 1 incident which cast Russia in a good light. This is not indicative of anti-Russia bias, but it is indicative that Russia is doing things that cast them in a negative light.
This project derives a set of research expectations from the propaganda model, a structural model of the corporate news media developed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The model predicts that the news media will reflect elite views and priorities and marginalize views outside the range of elite opinion. Consequently, it is expected that the media will tend to support the elite’s preferred modes of exercising state power in international affairs. This often entails demonizing official enemies of the United States in order to justify military interventions while downplaying the crimes of the United States and its allies.
To see how well these expectations are borne out in recent times, I apply discourse and content analysis to a sample of the New York Times’ coverage of Libya in the weeks preceding the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Three research expectations are presented: Coverage will mirror the U.S. government story line, conforming to the tenets of American exceptionalism; Muammar Gaddafi will be demonized, the nature and extent of his crimes will be exaggerated; Gaddafi’s victims will receive extensive, sympathetic coverage, while black Libyan victims of the anti-Gaddafi opposition will be marginalized. The analysis of New York Times articles on Libya from February 15 to March 19, 2011, shows that the research expectations are met, providing empirical support for the propaganda model.
by The Sovereign Realist State » Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:57 pm
by Red Intria » Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:20 pm
by Shofercia » Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:54 pm
Red Intria wrote:Now that the main issue is the credibility of the NYT, I think we can safely discern that Russia did not put a bounty on the heads of American soldiers. If Occam's Razor wasn't enough. Because that would be weird and dumb. And something I wouldn't even expect from the villain in a Die Hard sequel. Its not even fun.
But folks are talking about bounties on twitter, so another point for Western propaganda, I guess?
by Organized States » Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:17 pm
Red Intria wrote:Now that the main issue is the credibility of the NYT, I think we can safely discern that Russia did not put a bounty on the heads of American soldiers. If Occam's Razor wasn't enough. Because that would be weird and dumb. And something I wouldn't even expect from the villain in a Die Hard sequel. Its not even fun.
But folks are talking about bounties on twitter, so another point for Western propaganda, I guess?
by Shofercia » Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:14 pm
Organized States wrote:Red Intria wrote:Now that the main issue is the credibility of the NYT, I think we can safely discern that Russia did not put a bounty on the heads of American soldiers. If Occam's Razor wasn't enough. Because that would be weird and dumb. And something I wouldn't even expect from the villain in a Die Hard sequel. Its not even fun.
But folks are talking about bounties on twitter, so another point for Western propaganda, I guess?
Except we can’t. We don’t have access to any of the actual decision making on either side of this issue.
The only real clue as to what happened will be how many dead GRU officers come home from Afghanistan this year.
"We’re not saying Ben Sasse or any other senator is doing Singer’s bidding purely for the cash," Carlson said. "But why not remove all doubt? If one of your biggest donors turned out to be a pornographer or a mass distributor of OxyContin, you’d send back the donation. You wouldn’t want to be associated with someone like that. You’d want to be clear about your own values. Senator Sasse should be clear about his."
by The Sovereign Realist State » Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:43 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cyptopir, Dauchh Palki, Google [Bot], Statesburg, Zurkerx
Advertisement