It's incredible someone can type that out without seeing the hypocrisy in their words. The outlets can't be independent so long as governments are funding them to say things
“We risk losing the achievements of three decades of work and increasing threats to Ukraine’s statehood, democratic values, and pro-Western orientation,” Detector Media, a journalism watchdog, said in a statement on its website last week.
I thought this was all because of what the people there believed.
Moreover, the country’s main broadcasters have been consolidated into a single television channel that promotes stories largely favorable to the government.
Really? First time I've seen the MSM say that.
Detector Media’s head Nataliia Lygachova told The Post that she thought “more than 50 percent” of the media organizations that receive foreign grants were dependent on American assistance.
“I can say that this is really very important not only for Ukraine, but also for the United States,” Lygachova said. “Because it is independent media that ensure, first of all, the existence of democracy and pluralism in Ukraine.”
I feel like I live in the Twilight Zone. Do media consumers normally forget what was written in the previous paragraph?
But many of these journalists, especially the Russian ones, argue that their work is in U.S. interests.
Imagine for a moment an American media outlet getting grants from some sort of Russian Deep State organization, and publicly proclaiming that their work is in Russian interests.
Leda Garina, a Russian activist who founded a St. Petersburg-based feminist activist group, Eve’s Ribs, and who fled into exile, wrote in a post on Facebook that the organization she was currently helping had lost funding which came from two sources.
I'm so glad that Russia is exporting all its trash to Europe. We're the dumping ground for the entire world's least capable and successful people.
Farther outside of Kyiv [sic], the situation is even more serious. Svitlana Zalizetska, chief editor of the internet site RIA South/RIA Melitopol, said that close to 90 percent of their budget comes from USAID.
Zalizetska’s team originally worked in the southern Ukrainian city of Melitopol, but were forced to flee when Russian forces occupied it.
“If such media outlets as ours cease to exist, the entire international community and Ukrainians will not be able to receive information about what is happening in the occupation,” Zalizetska said. “The international community will receive information about the occupied territories of Ukraine from Russian propagandists, not from Ukrainian journalists.”
Do media consumers normally forget what was written in the previous paragraph?
Yes, but they also just say certain "power words" so often they forget they have meanings whatsoever outside just being the magic words that enhance their sentence.
There are a lot of options to pick from as an example of this, but my personal peeve isn't even a political one. Its the words "forever home" which animal people learned some years ago must be said when talking about getting an animal and has absolutely no meaning any longer, as they will still absolutely give up those animals in a first years just the same. But they need to say the power word to stave off criticism and emotionally enhance their sentence.
Though if you want the most important example in recent years, its the Left/MSM using "democracy" as its meaningless sentence enhancer.
Some of the most notable MSM "power words" of the current zeitgeist:
"Far-Right"
"Controversial"
"Green"
"Denocracy / Anti-democratic"
And in the particular case of Russia you have "Russian Opposition Leader" which has variously been applied to Garry Kasparov, Alexei Navalny and other western-friendly politicians who never got more than single-digit percentages of any vote and were never as important in Russian politics as the actual anti-Putin opposition, who are all more nationalistic than he is.
my personal peeve isn't even a political one. Its the words "forever home" which animal people learned some years ago must be said when talking about getting an animal and has absolutely no meaning any longer, as they will still absolutely give up those animals in a first years just the same. But they need to say the power word to stave off criticism and emotionally enhance their sentence.
I think the concept of "forever home" is at least somewhat useful for those involved in pet fostering and animal rescue.
I know some people involved in fostering and the whole system is very haphazard and dominated by very flawed girl bosses.
My experience is that a lot of these organizations are hooked on the adrenaline rush of seizing big cohorts of dogs (a lot on native reservations, more ludicrously, bringing planeloads of Chihuahuas from Mexico) but become negligent and lose interest in maintenance & adoption once the savior complex is over.
For the volunteers who foster these truck & planeloads of abandoned dogs who get shipped in overnight, it's really important to establish boundaries because the actual mucky mucks at the top of these charities immediately forget about the mutts they already have in limbo once you open up your home to them temporarily.
I think the concept of "forever home" is at least somewhat useful for those involved in pet fostering and animal rescue.
The point isn't that the word has a meaning or concept. Its that people say the word devoid of that meaning because it makes them seem more virtuous, smarter, or just to emotionally manipulate.
90% of the people who say "forever home" will still return the pet if they need to move, or it hurts someone, or every other generic and normal reason people give up pets to begin with. You know, the exact thing that "forever" is meant to say you won't do. Its not like pets have legally binding contracts that you sign saying "forever" so its purely performative.
Most people who say "forever home" are only doing it because they know they will get criticized if they don't because of the issues you outlined. So they say the words to ward that off, and nothing else.
Words like "democracy" and "fascism" and "incel" also have meanings, useful definitions, and valid applications. But in the same vein, they become completely meaningless the majority of the time used because people just throw them in uselessly.
what's funny is I've never even heard that term before, and the one and only time I had to give up an animal for adoption (couldn't afford to deal with a health issue he had), it just about broke my heart in two.
Imagine for a moment an American media outlet getting grants from some sort of Russian Deep State organization, and publicly proclaiming that their work is in Russian interests.
Unfortunately I don't have to imagine very hard: "The Independent" in the United Kingdom is owned by a former KGB officer, and nobody seems to think this is a problem.
Imagine for a moment an American media outlet getting grants from some sort of Russian Deep State organization, and publicly proclaiming that their work is in Russian interests.
The public is about to find out just how manufactured their news media truly is
The big media companies themselves invented and promoted the idea, in the early 1900s. After that it became a very useful tool of the state. The "fourth estate" and somehow people think that's a good thing.
FDR basically seized control of radio stations and televisions, and many journalists were already pro-Socialist, pro-Communist, and/or pro-Fascist in the 1930's. Once everything got centralized under the big 3 television stations, it became standard to claim that there was only one view of reality.
"Objective Journalism" is when Woodward & Bernstein work with members of the FBI to destroy the most popularly supported elected president in American history, or when Walter Cronkite is the sole deciding factor of whether or not the war in Vietnam is being waged correctly according to the president, or when the House Unamerican Activities Committee and separately Senator McCarthy is slandered after successfully rooting out Soviet agents in the US by Edward R. Morrow.
Objective Journalism is designed to prevent you from thinking there is an alternative perspective, and it's a Leftist construction stemming from America's favorite Democratic Socialist.
Well we all have our biases. Most people here and with the fifth estate in general aren't objective, it's more like they acknowledge their biases. And I'm actually fine with that.
“We risk losing the achievements of three decades of work and increasing threats to Ukraine’s statehood, democratic values, and pro-Western orientation,” Detector Media, a journalism watchdog, said in a statement on its website last week.
It's incredible someone can type that out without seeing the hypocrisy in their words. The outlets can't be independent so long as governments are funding them to say things
I thought Putin was an autocrat?
The journalists just sit in Tbilisi in Georgia and shitpost from there.
I thought this was all because of what the people there believed.
Really? First time I've seen the MSM say that.
I feel like I live in the Twilight Zone. Do media consumers normally forget what was written in the previous paragraph?
Imagine for a moment an American media outlet getting grants from some sort of Russian Deep State organization, and publicly proclaiming that their work is in Russian interests.
I'm so glad that Russia is exporting all its trash to Europe. We're the dumping ground for the entire world's least capable and successful people.
Yes, but they also just say certain "power words" so often they forget they have meanings whatsoever outside just being the magic words that enhance their sentence.
There are a lot of options to pick from as an example of this, but my personal peeve isn't even a political one. Its the words "forever home" which animal people learned some years ago must be said when talking about getting an animal and has absolutely no meaning any longer, as they will still absolutely give up those animals in a first years just the same. But they need to say the power word to stave off criticism and emotionally enhance their sentence.
Though if you want the most important example in recent years, its the Left/MSM using "democracy" as its meaningless sentence enhancer.
Great point.
Some of the most notable MSM "power words" of the current zeitgeist:
"Far-Right"
"Controversial"
"Green"
"Denocracy / Anti-democratic"
And in the particular case of Russia you have "Russian Opposition Leader" which has variously been applied to Garry Kasparov, Alexei Navalny and other western-friendly politicians who never got more than single-digit percentages of any vote and were never as important in Russian politics as the actual anti-Putin opposition, who are all more nationalistic than he is.
You forgot Fascism and Nazi, which are interchangeable with Far-Right and often contradictory in application.
Or the funniest one, incel, which is usually applied to married men with children or PUA or the complete opposites of what an incel means.
often? always. they're literally the opposite of far right.
I think the concept of "forever home" is at least somewhat useful for those involved in pet fostering and animal rescue.
I know some people involved in fostering and the whole system is very haphazard and dominated by very flawed girl bosses.
My experience is that a lot of these organizations are hooked on the adrenaline rush of seizing big cohorts of dogs (a lot on native reservations, more ludicrously, bringing planeloads of Chihuahuas from Mexico) but become negligent and lose interest in maintenance & adoption once the savior complex is over.
For the volunteers who foster these truck & planeloads of abandoned dogs who get shipped in overnight, it's really important to establish boundaries because the actual mucky mucks at the top of these charities immediately forget about the mutts they already have in limbo once you open up your home to them temporarily.
The point isn't that the word has a meaning or concept. Its that people say the word devoid of that meaning because it makes them seem more virtuous, smarter, or just to emotionally manipulate.
90% of the people who say "forever home" will still return the pet if they need to move, or it hurts someone, or every other generic and normal reason people give up pets to begin with. You know, the exact thing that "forever" is meant to say you won't do. Its not like pets have legally binding contracts that you sign saying "forever" so its purely performative.
Most people who say "forever home" are only doing it because they know they will get criticized if they don't because of the issues you outlined. So they say the words to ward that off, and nothing else.
Words like "democracy" and "fascism" and "incel" also have meanings, useful definitions, and valid applications. But in the same vein, they become completely meaningless the majority of the time used because people just throw them in uselessly.
what's funny is I've never even heard that term before, and the one and only time I had to give up an animal for adoption (couldn't afford to deal with a health issue he had), it just about broke my heart in two.
Yes. They think contradictions are actually "nuanced positions". It's a genuinely clever mental trap by the Left.
Unfortunately I don't have to imagine very hard: "The Independent" in the United Kingdom is owned by a former KGB officer, and nobody seems to think this is a problem.
The public is about to find out just how manufactured their news media truly is
Like Tenet media.
Sure do wonder if we'll ever hear anything more about that, all the freakish commies were screeching to high heaven about Tim
Good.
I also hope you risk going to jail for doing what you did.
Where did the idea of an objective press come from? There has never been an "objective" media. Even the Roman shouters parroted whoever was in power.
The big media companies themselves invented and promoted the idea, in the early 1900s. After that it became a very useful tool of the state. The "fourth estate" and somehow people think that's a good thing.
FDR basically seized control of radio stations and televisions, and many journalists were already pro-Socialist, pro-Communist, and/or pro-Fascist in the 1930's. Once everything got centralized under the big 3 television stations, it became standard to claim that there was only one view of reality.
"Objective Journalism" is when Woodward & Bernstein work with members of the FBI to destroy the most popularly supported elected president in American history, or when Walter Cronkite is the sole deciding factor of whether or not the war in Vietnam is being waged correctly according to the president, or when the House Unamerican Activities Committee and separately Senator McCarthy is slandered after successfully rooting out Soviet agents in the US by Edward R. Morrow.
Objective Journalism is designed to prevent you from thinking there is an alternative perspective, and it's a Leftist construction stemming from America's favorite Democratic Socialist.
lol.
You're actually a part of it.
Right now, here, on this very forum.
You own the media. You are broadcasting in a way your ancestors could only dream of.
You are so bullied you can't even see this.
Well we all have our biases. Most people here and with the fifth estate in general aren't objective, it's more like they acknowledge their biases. And I'm actually fine with that.
quiet part out loud...
If we’re funding them, they’re not independent.
Also why should I give a single fuck about their media?
Not really independent then are they
Are they really independent if they need my tax dollars to operate?