• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Insights Into Western Propaganda Vis A Vis Ukraine Part 2

oneworld2

Handsome Pitbull
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
22,771
Reaction score
3,890
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
June last year saw a BBC news report from onboard the british battleship HMS Defender. We can ask just how convenient it was for the BBC camera crew and reporter to accompany the ship into waters off the coast of Ukraine but its just obvious. The news report showed footage of the brinksmanship of the British ship and its ongoing confrontations with Russian ships and jets.

We were treated to the laughable line of " to paraphrase, the " Royal Navy is out there making sure that international laws and order are being respected" The illegal attack on Iraq all but forgotten apparently

After the tooing and froing the report ends.

There is a written article on the BBC website that is something of a transcript of the news report but with an add on in the last sentence that is crucial in understanding what was really going on other than the Brits being good and the Russians being bad

The last sentence, only found in the last sentence of the written article, they are hoping nobody bothers reading it to the end? I think so............. states..........

It said the UK and Ukraine had signed an agreement to jointly build warships and construct two naval bases.

So, I did some digging and it's true

At the same time HMS Defender was buzzing the coast of Crimea and having face offs with the Russian military it had signed an agreement to build two naval bases in Odessa just in the same neck of the woods as the huge Russian naval base of Sevastopol AND the agreement was signed where?.........onboard HMS Defender itself

Related sources below


The video report from the BBC news programme



written transcript article on the same

 
I don't get it. What is the message being propagandized in that article?
 
If you are going to talk about Western propaganda, why not talk about something substantial, like the way the military influences media to manufacture consent?

 
I don't get it. What is the message being propagandized in that article?

If you understand how propaganda works you will know it is made up of a mixture of facts and crucial ommissions, thus creating a skewed picture of an event.

S0

We are told the British navy is making sure international order is being maintained on the high seas. We are the ones doing the good here. We are , likewise, guided to the view that the Russians don't follow international rules IE annexation of Crimea, the Russiana are therefore the bad.

The crucual ommission that is left out is that the Russians are aware that this ship, that is buzzing waters they believe are theirs and are being patrolled by their forces, has just been the signing point of a deal whereby a NATO member has agreed to build two naval ports in Ukraine along with naval vessels to go with it

You might not think that that is a provocative move but I'm sure the Russians did and it might have factored into how committed they were to seeing off the British warship parading around the waters of the Black Sea

I have acrtually asked people about this incident and nobody I have spoken to, some of whom are pretty interested in such things, are aware about the agreement made between the British and Ukrainians regarding new naval facilities in Odessa.

To bring us right up to date on this my guess is that this is why we are seeing such frantic fighting in and around Mariupol . The plan will be to seize Odessa and deny Ukriane the proposed naval bases
 
If you are going to talk about Western propaganda, why not talk about something substantial, like the way the military influences media to manufacture consent?



Because it is too indepth a subject to go into here. Not only that, it is a general theme and thus not specific to this conflict. The two examples of western propaganda I have cited thus far ARE relevant to this conflict. The latter will help explain what the score is on the fighting on Ukraines Black Sea coast is about.
 
Because it is too indepth a subject to go into here. Not only that, it is a general theme and thus not specific to this conflict. The two examples of western propaganda I have cited thus far ARE relevant to this conflict. The latter will help explain what the score is on the fighting on Ukraines Black Sea coast is about.
It's just the way western media has propagandized this war is so minor compared to the conflicts we have been directly involved in. Like, the article you cited is such a tame framing of events compared to, say, how the media covered Iraq. Nobody is going to look at this and be horrified by the milquetoast narrative here.
 
If you understand how propaganda works you will know it is made up of a mixture of facts and crucial ommissions(sic), thus creating a skewed picture of an event.

S0

We are told the British navy is making sure international order is being maintained on the high seas. We are the ones doing the good here. We are , likewise, guided to the view that the Russians don't follow international rules IE annexation of Crimea, the Russiana(sic) are therefore the bad.

The crucual(sic) ommission(sic) that is left out is that the Russians are aware that this ship, that is buzzing waters they believe are theirs and are being patrolled by their forces, has just been the signing point of a deal whereby a NATO member has agreed to build two naval ports in Ukraine along with naval vessels to go with it

You might not think that that is a provocative move but I'm sure the Russians did and it might have factored into how committed they were to seeing off the British warship parading around the waters of the Black Sea

I have acrtually(sic) asked people about this incident and nobody I have spoken to, some of whom are pretty interested in such things, are aware about the agreement made between the British and Ukrainians regarding new naval facilities in Odessa.

To bring us right up to date on this my guess is that this is why we are seeing such frantic fighting in and around Mariupol . The plan will be to seize Odessa and deny Ukriane(sic) the proposed naval bases

Anything Ukraine does is "provocative" to the Putinista.
 
June last year saw a BBC news report from onboard the british battleship HMS Defender. We can ask just how convenient it was for the BBC camera crew and reporter to accompany the ship into waters off the coast of Ukraine but its just obvious. The news report showed footage of the brinksmanship of the British ship and its ongoing confrontations with Russian ships and jets.

We were treated to the laughable line of " to paraphrase, the " Royal Navy is out there making sure that international laws and order are being respected" The illegal attack on Iraq all but forgotten apparently

After the tooing and froing the report ends.

There is a written article on the BBC website that is something of a transcript of the news report but with an add on in the last sentence that is crucial in understanding what was really going on other than the Brits being good and the Russians being bad

The last sentence, only found in the last sentence of the written article, they are hoping nobody bothers reading it to the end? I think so............. states..........



So, I did some digging and it's true

At the same time HMS Defender was buzzing the coast of Crimea and having face offs with the Russian military it had signed an agreement to build two naval bases in Odessa just in the same neck of the woods as the huge Russian naval base of Sevastopol AND the agreement was signed where?.........onboard HMS Defender itself

Related sources below


The video report from the BBC news programme



written transcript article on the same


YAY PUTIN!

.jpg
 
If you understand how propaganda works you will know it is made up of a mixture of facts and crucial ommissions, thus creating a skewed picture of an event.

S0

We are told the British navy is making sure international order is being maintained on the high seas. We are the ones doing the good here. We are , likewise, guided to the view that the Russians don't follow international rules IE annexation of Crimea, the Russiana are therefore the bad.

The crucual ommission that is left out is that the Russians are aware that this ship, that is buzzing waters they believe are theirs and are being patrolled by their forces, has just been the signing point of a deal whereby a NATO member has agreed to build two naval ports in Ukraine along with naval vessels to go with it

You might not think that that is a provocative move but I'm sure the Russians did and it might have factored into how committed they were to seeing off the British warship parading around the waters of the Black Sea

I have acrtually asked people about this incident and nobody I have spoken to, some of whom are pretty interested in such things, are aware about the agreement made between the British and Ukrainians regarding new naval facilities in Odessa.

To bring us right up to date on this my guess is that this is why we are seeing such frantic fighting in and around Mariupol . The plan will be to seize Odessa and deny Ukriane the proposed naval bases
But Ukraine had a legal right to sign this agreement with the UK. And they had good reason to after the annexation of Crimea. They weren't doing anything underhanded. Any interference from Russia, whether it should have been expected or not, is Russia being 'bad.'

I don't see how leaving out the signing of an agreement with the UK changes the calculus here. Why should I care how Russia felt about this Ukraine/UK agreement after it annexed Crimea? Russia is the bad actor here. Ukraine and the UK are the good actors engaged in a legal deal.
 
If you understand how propaganda works you will know it is made up of a mixture of facts and crucial ommissions, thus creating a skewed picture of an event.

S0

We are told the British navy is making sure international order is being maintained on the high seas. We are the ones doing the good here. We are , likewise, guided to the view that the Russians don't follow international rules IE annexation of Crimea, the Russiana are therefore the bad.

The crucual ommission that is left out is that the Russians are aware that this ship, that is buzzing waters they believe are theirs and are being patrolled by their forces, has just been the signing point of a deal whereby a NATO member has agreed to build two naval ports in Ukraine along with naval vessels to go with it

You might not think that that is a provocative move but I'm sure the Russians did and it might have factored into how committed they were to seeing off the British warship parading around the waters of the Black Sea

I have acrtually asked people about this incident and nobody I have spoken to, some of whom are pretty interested in such things, are aware about the agreement made between the British and Ukrainians regarding new naval facilities in Odessa.

To bring us right up to date on this my guess is that this is why we are seeing such frantic fighting in and around Mariupol . The plan will be to seize Odessa and deny Ukriane the proposed naval bases

“My guess is”.
 
It's just the way western media has propagandized this war is so minor compared to the conflicts we have been directly involved in. Like, the article you cited is such a tame framing of events compared to, say, how the media covered Iraq. Nobody is going to look at this and be horrified by the milquetoast narrative here.

Well you say this war has been only slightly propagandized by the western media ( I wonder whether you live in a cave) but if that were the case we wouldn't be witnessing the ridiculous reactions from the western populations we are seeing.

You mention Iraq but the same was true of that war, Virtually all articles supported the war, peddled the same lies that the govts peddled. The voices referrenced were nearly always military folk who were pro war. it was only AFTER the war had started, and we are talking years after it started that the MSM started to publish more critical articles about the whole affair. That's how it works

You think that saturation coverage of the victims in this war is " so minor"? really?

How many times did we see pictures of Iraqi women and kids crying and telling the world how scared they were?

We were treated to " shock and awe" not the vile destruction of civilian areas of Baghdad etc

Just look at the common reaction to such relevant stuff as the expansion of NATO..............." Putin propaganda"....... no hugely relevant to understanding how we got here

The defacto NATOisation of Ukraine with exercises, arms , training and, as the story I cited earlier, the proposed/agreed building of naval bases

TBH I am shocked that this has obviously bypassed you but bypass you it has. If you are familiar with manufacturing consent you shouldn't need to be led by the hand through this but it seems you do need it
 
Well you say this war has been only slightly propagandized by the western media ( I wonder whether you live in a cave) but if that were the case we wouldn't be witnessing the ridiculous reactions from the western populations we are seeing.

You mention Iraq but the same was true of that war, Virtually all articles supported the war, peddled the same lies that the govts peddled. The voices referrenced were nearly always military folk who were pro war. it was only AFTER the war had started, and we are talking years after it started that the MSM started to publish more critical articles about the whole affair. That's how it works

You think that saturation coverage of the victims in this war is " so minor"? really?

How many times did we see pictures of Iraqi women and kids crying and telling the world how scared they were?

We were treated to " shock and awe" not the vile destruction of civilian areas of Baghdad etc

Just look at the common reaction to such relevant stuff as the expansion of NATO..............." Putin propaganda"....... no hugely relevant to understanding how we got here

The defacto NATOisation of Ukraine with exercises, arms , training and, as the story I cited earlier, the proposed/agreed building of naval bases

TBH I am shocked that this has obviously bypassed you but bypass you it has. If you are familiar with manufacturing consent you shouldn't need to be led by the hand through this but it seems you do need it
The difference is the public doesn't really need to be convinced of much of anything in this case, so there is no need for the extreme level of propagandizing that happened during Iraq. While we obviously are supporting Ukraine, America isn't in this war. Ukraine obviously has been pumping out propaganda.

The level of intentional propaganda going on isn't even comparable to when we had to justify ongoing conflicts we were participating in.
 
The difference is the public doesn't really need to be convinced of much of anything in this case, so there is no need for the extreme level of propagandizing that happened during Iraq. While we obviously are supporting Ukraine, America isn't in this war. Ukraine obviously has been pumping out propaganda.

The level of intentional propaganda going on isn't even comparable to when we had to justify ongoing conflicts we were participating in.

The reference recall was in the build up to this war. You are comparing different times as though they are a comparable fit. That's not a compelling argument imo

You mean illegal wars of aggression you were involved in
 
But Ukraine had a legal right to sign this agreement with the UK. And they had good reason to after the annexation of Crimea. They weren't doing anything underhanded. Any interference from Russia, whether it should have been expected or not, is Russia being 'bad.'

I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that it was all but left out of the conversation regarding the " Black Sea Incident" precisely because it would have explained the Russian reaction a little more clearly and that is not allowed. Maybe the British people might also have asked why we are aiding the Ukrainian naval aspirations while our own health service is dying on its feet.

You also don't appear to want to factor in how this is further evidence of how Ukraine was becoming a defacto NATO member whilst everyone was keeping quiet on this. It wasn't lost on the Russians and be sure that Odessa as a result we either be destroyed or annexed off the back of it. Not a judgement call on whether that is right or not, to me it's not, but to the Russians the threat will be taken care of during this conflict if they can manage it.


I don't see how leaving out the signing of an agreement with the UK changes the calculus here. Why should I care how Russia felt about this Ukraine/UK agreement after it annexed Crimea? Russia is the bad actor here. Ukraine and the UK are the good actors engaged in a legal deal.

You don't have to care, the Russians care about the greatest military alliance in history that considers them an enemy lining up on its borders
 
I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that it was all but left out of the conversation regarding the " Black Sea Incident" precisely because it would have explained the Russian reaction a little more clearly and that is not allowed. Maybe the British people might also have asked why we are aiding the Ukrainian naval aspirations while our own health service is dying on its feet.

You also don't appear to want to factor in how this is further evidence of how Ukraine was becoming a defacto NATO member whilst everyone was keeping quiet on this. It wasn't lost on the Russians and be sure that Odessa as a result we either be destroyed or annexed off the back of it. Not a judgement call on whether that is right or not, to me it's not, but to the Russians the threat will be taken care of during this conflict if they can manage it.




You don't have to care, the Russians care about the greatest military alliance in history that considers them an enemy lining up on its borders

A whole what.... 5% of their border?
 
I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that it was all but left out of the conversation regarding the " Black Sea Incident" precisely because it would have explained the Russian reaction a little more clearly and that is not allowed. Maybe the British people might also have asked why we are aiding the Ukrainian naval aspirations while our own health service is dying on its feet.

You also don't appear to want to factor in how this is further evidence of how Ukraine was becoming a defacto NATO member whilst everyone was keeping quiet on this. It wasn't lost on the Russians and be sure that Odessa as a result we either be destroyed or annexed off the back of it. Not a judgement call on whether that is right or not, to me it's not, but to the Russians the threat will be taken care of during this conflict if they can manage it.




You don't have to care, the Russians care about the greatest military alliance in history that considers them an enemy lining up on its borders
That doesn't give them the right to use military force to prevent it.
 
A whole what.... 5% of their border?

Ukraine NATO membership adds another 1200 miles to the NATO Russia border and completes a pretty good encirclement of Russia western border, Belarus aside entire
 
That doesn't give them the right to use military force to prevent it.

That's why I consider the Russian invasion to be a crime. That said , in the real world of geopolitics, actions have consequences. Russia stated years back that NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia were a red line.

I'm sure in a role reversal you would accept a vast Russian led military alliance agreeing with Mexico to build naval bases and possibly missile bases that pointed their missiles at US cities ? You know they have the sovereign righ to defend themselves from you? Like Cuba was allowed to defend themselves with Russian missiles?
 
This, in an earlier post, had me laughing

If you understand how propaganda works you will know it is made up of a mixture of facts and crucial ommissions
missing, of course, the qualification of "unless it's me doing it".

:LOL:
:LOL:
 
You consider it a "provocation" when China steams a warship in the S China Sea....LOL.

>smirk<


Yep, how dare the Russians set up their border against the borders of NATO. What on earth are they playing at?
 
I knew you'd come back. In lieu of having no content, attacking posters is all you got.

Look at your reply in post 8

Does that address the content of my post? No, it completely evades the content and attacks the poster. Your lack of self awareness makes you a very very easy target to rubbish and a fine example of what psychological projection is .

Epic failure there Roberto.
 
June last year saw a BBC news report from onboard the british battleship HMS Defender. We can ask just how convenient it was for the BBC camera crew and reporter to accompany the ship into waters off the coast of Ukraine but its just obvious. The news report showed footage of the brinksmanship of the British ship and its ongoing confrontations with Russian ships and jets.

We were treated to the laughable line of " to paraphrase, the " Royal Navy is out there making sure that international laws and order are being respected" The illegal attack on Iraq all but forgotten apparently

After the tooing and froing the report ends.

There is a written article on the BBC website that is something of a transcript of the news report but with an add on in the last sentence that is crucial in understanding what was really going on other than the Brits being good and the Russians being bad

The last sentence, only found in the last sentence of the written article, they are hoping nobody bothers reading it to the end? I think so............. states..........



So, I did some digging and it's true

At the same time HMS Defender was buzzing the coast of Crimea and having face offs with the Russian military it had signed an agreement to build two naval bases in Odessa just in the same neck of the woods as the huge Russian naval base of Sevastopol AND the agreement was signed where?.........onboard HMS Defender itself

Related sources below


The video report from the BBC news programme



written transcript article on the same

You clearly haven’t a clue as to what propaganda actually is. Here’s a hint: it’s an attempt to convince a populace of that which is essentially not true.


You clearly haven’t a clue as to what propaganda actually is. It is a widespread attempt to convince a population that what is essentially a falsehood is actually true.

Here’s a formal definition: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”


As such, here is propaganda: “WMD in Iraq!”
Here is another: “Special military operation to de-Nazify Ukraine”.

Your so-called propaganda #1 was just a OPINION of ONE MAN. It’s not a widespread attempt to “propagandize”.
And neither is #2 actually “propaganda”. Brits “buzz” Russian coast lines. Russians “buzz” Brit coastlines. To try to make this one-sides shows a deep-seated lack of objectivity in the matter, and is the ACTUAL propaganda.

In fact, if there is any propaganda in DP, for instance, it is YOU who is doing so by taking these little anthills and falsely building them into big ole mountains, like you did with those two items. Propaganda also normally includes lots of REPETITION of outright falsehoods or highly biased information, which you are a master at.
So if you really want to post items of propaganda, just repost some of your blatant biased falsehoods.

So there you have it. Two more FAIL posts from you. More to follow, no doubt.
 
Back
Top Bottom