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

[newthinking]

Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

We are the propagandists: The real story about how The New York Times and the White House has turned truth in the Ukraine on its head

A sophisticated game of manipulation is afoot over Russia: power, influence and money. U.S. hands are not clean

Vladimir Putin (Credit: AP/Mark Lennihan/Photo montage by Salon)

Excerpt:

Ever since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, reality itself has come to seem up for grabs. Karl Rove, a diabolically competent political infighter but of no discernible intellectual weight, may have been prescient when he told us to forget our pedestrian notions of reality—real live reality. Empires create their own, he said, and we’re an empire now.

The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic. It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. “Unprecedented” is considered a dangerous word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration’s furious efforts to manufacture a Ukraine narrative and our media’s incessant reproduction of all its fallacies.

At this point it is only sensible to turn everything that is said or shown in our media upside down and consider it a second time. Who could want to live in a world this much like Orwell’s or Huxley’s—the one obliterating reality by destroying language, the other by making historical reference a transgression?

Language and history: As argued several times in this space, these are the weapons we are not supposed to have.

Ukraine now gives us two fearsome examples of what I mean by inverted reason.

Full Story:
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/03/we_are_the_propagandists_the_real_story_about_how_the_new_york_times_and_the_white_house_has_turned_truth_in_the_ukraine_on_its_head/

[newthinking]

1. Addendum: Not just Salon: The Nation Mag, Counterpunch, Project Censored, and many other

progressive sources have been on to this story for a while.

The mainstream media reporting on wars has become narrative based (not simply biased but often untruthful). Purposely. This is very serious stuff.

It is not about "Putin", it is about modern media and our future. Marketing psychology is reaching new heights and unless we find ways to deal with it we will be lead by the nose to a very uncomfortable future.

[valerief]

7. You mean people believe "the news?" I thought we all assumed they lied, especially re WAR. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Yes, yes, yes!

I'm no marketing or PR expert, but I can see the ways in which they use psychological principles at work in the media. An example is the promulgation of FUD--Fear, Uncertainty, Distrust, which they then channel into rage at their chosen targets.

There are also a lot of instances of them simple classically conditioned emotional responses to chosen targets. (Photo of Bush with halo effect; Obama bows to foreigners, etc.)

This is how they win elections. This type of marketing, backed by massive amounts of money, is what gave us Scott Walker.

Well that and running DINO anti-union Mary Burke.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Why do folks refuse to get it that Russia loves NATO nuclear missiles on it's borders as much as America

would love Russia nuclear missiles in Cuba?

[newthinking]

6. You get it

It's not about accepting Putin, it is about wisdom, diplomacy, some semblance of empathy (enough to understand other points of view), and about not undermining our own democracy and people by ends justifies means approaches.

And consistency in our own sphere. Putin was not the first one to use the tactic of hidden special ops, or "little green men". This is why I believe that he said there need to be "new rules", because the old rules are no longer being held to. There is an argument that his tactics are in response to the last 30 years of precedence.

[jeff47]

10. You know what would have prevented NATO expansion into Ukraine?

Not giving Ukraine a reason to want to join NATO. You could, for example, not steal large chunks of their country.

[Nitram]

3. You lost me at "Karl Rove."

[newthinking]

8. Me? Salon wrote it. And if you actually dig you will find the NeoCon's are very much all over this.

They still have power with the military through the Senate, like minded people in high places in the military, and very powerful institutions like the IRI. They have even managed to heavily influence the State Department under Obama's administration and heavily corrupted our "Democracy building" institutions.

[Nitram]

17. Not you, the author.

Of course they're all over it. What else would you expect?

[stonecutter357]

4. fuck putin.....

[newthinking]

5. fuck all propaganda, period.

[jeff47]

11. This article is insane.

Russia seized a large chunk of Ukraine. There is zero dispute about that. It's called Crimea. "But they voted!!" Yes, AFTER Russia's military took it over. Hold the vote before invading and Russia might have had a legitimate claim.

Russia has seized a large chunk of Georgia. There is zero dispute about that.

This article claims that Russian expansionism is propaganda.

Next, I expect them to tell me the sun rising in the East is a NATO plot.

[newthinking]

12. Bloomberg: One year later, Crimean's prefer Russia

If you search history, they *always* preferred Russia.

The press completely obliterates history and distorts the facts on the ground when it comes to war reporting.

The name of Crimea was not just "Crimea", it was "The AUTONOMOUS Republic of Crimea". Imagine that?

Last year was not the first referendum, there was one in 1991. Guess what? 93% voted for independence.

Ukraine has stifled Crimean efforts to be completely independent or Join Russia. When this constitutional crisis occurred they did what they had tried to do many times before. Russia was not holding a gun to their heads. That is complete bullshit. But people buy bullshit if it feeds their bias.

Bloomberg: One year later, Crimean's prefer Russia
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-06/one-year-later-crimeans-prefer-russia

[jeff47]

13. Hrm...if only I had explicitly addressed this in the post.

Oh wait! I did!!

You don't get to seize your neighbor's house. And you don't get to seize a chunk of your neighboring country.

[newthinking]

14. Trouble is that is not what happened. Russia secured the area during what the Crimean parliment

declared a constitutional crisis.

They were asked to, and it was first secured by local militia, but the new government, which Crimea considered illegitimate, was in the process of attempting to get the Ukrainian forces in the region to clamp down on the Ukrainian parliment and people.

You can argue that it was not a clean process. It certainly wasn't. But neither was the overthrow, which despite the propaganda, was not done constitutionally.

[jeff47]

15. No, it is exactly what happened.

Crimea was part of Ukraine.

Palestine is part of Israel. Should Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt get to take chunks of it because the people in Palestine would prefer it?

You know who doesn't want to be part of Russia? Chechyans. Did Russia let them go yet? No? Huh...wonder why you aren't up in arms about that when you are up in arms about Crimea.

But neither was the overthrow, which despite the propaganda, was not done constitutionally.

That's because the (former) president fled the country. You're going to get upset that he didn't formally resign first?

Oh, you're also forgetting that Georgia (barely) exists, and Russia now owns a chunk of it. Not surprising since that kinda destroys the "Russia is great" vibe you're trying to build.

[newthinking]

18. I have not been to chechnya nor do I know people there

Nor do I know as much about the region and the truth of that location.

I am not here to argue what I don't know. But I *do* know Ukraine and that the bullshit that people have been fed is just that. I know that the party that took power were minority parties, who disenfranchised the country, persecuted the other party members, hunting and even killing some of them; essentially destroyed the foundations of political competition, they did indeed align with and now have actually absorbed extremists including neo-nazis and in fact acted out policy for them, and they have and they are not the nice good guys we are fed to think of them of. I KNOW they are right wingers and extreme right wingers and if not for the propaganda I have no doubt that most on this site would see them as worthy of support.

So are you basically saying that the Salon writer does no know what they are talking about or are lovers of Putin?

[jeff47]

19. Because you have to personally meet them before noticing the anti-Russia bombings.

I am not here to argue what I don't know.

One of the main points of coming here is to find out what you don't know, and then learning about it.

Also, your unwillingness to challenge what you do not know means we can safely ignore any of your analysis. Because it is woefully uninformed, and you are not willing to learn about "ancient history" less than a decade old.

But I *do* know Ukraine and that the bullshit that people have been fed is just that.

No, you don't know that. You started with the conclusion that it was bullshit, and stopped when the evidence no longer supported that.

Your claim is, fundamentally, that Russia is not expansionist and Crimeans have the right to leave Ukraine. Why does Chechnya not have the same right? If Russia is not expansionist, why did they invade Georgia?

I know that the party that took power were minority parties, who disenfranchised the country, persecuted the other party members, hunting and even killing some of them

And when Russia did that to Chechnya?

So are you basically saying that the Salon writer does no know what they are talking about or are lovers of Putin?

I'm saying the Salon writer started with a story he wanted to tell - Russia is not expansionist and NATO is bad. He then wrote a story about it without bothering to do more than the most shallow analysis. He doesn't even bother to provide any evidence that NATO's claims are wrong. He just asserts NATO must be lying. He couldn't even bother to claim satellite photos showing Russian artillery bombarding Ukraine from Russia are fake based on a moronic pretext like "they aren't sharp enough".

[newthinking]

20. Take it or leave it

Provide your own links if you wish.

I am not going to sit here and let you change the argument to a personal argument.

Bu bye.

[jeff47]

21. Because you can't find google and type in "Chechen Rebels"?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Chechen+Rebels

It's 20 years worth of fighting. There isn't a single link that will summarize it for you. There is definately not a link that will summarize it for you and back up your claims about Ukraine and Crimea.

[swilton]

16. 1,000 Recs -

Russia stands in the way of the neocon - imperial project by virtue of its nuclear capability and world energy resources. Toppling Ukraine by virtue of setting up its Poroshenko puppet government is designed not as an end but a means to get at Russia. Neocons did not leave the State Department when Obama became president. Although the US is the de facto leader of NATO, all 28 countries are far from united behind the 'official' NATO position. And within those countries (Poland, Baltic states +/-) the populations are divided.