Do you guys think they're doing the right thing by banning BBC and other medias like it?

As much as i find Bbc news entertaining lets be real, they are becoming more like Fox News everyday, complete BS.......They are turning people against each other around the world, they're doing everything just to push their ratings up. Even tho alot of people understand that you can't trust news all the time we still believe alot of things we hear anyway.

For example how many Americans hate Russian and the other way around because of all the media bs wich been turning us against each for like 50 years, media's pretty much changing history on how we think/look at others.

Bbc was trashing China's government right during the Olympic Games, we might not like how China runs their country but you can't do it right during the Olympic Games, that's just wrong that's probably one of the reasons why they're banning bbc or what about the Georgian conflict.....again, i might not agree with what Russia have done but the fact is Georgia attacked S.O. first wich Georgian president already said but when i turned Bbc news on that day they were showing Russian tanks and it said 'Russia invades Georgia', they made Russia look like they just want they territory back, even tho some time after they started changing their view on who started it all alot of people still think Russia started it because BBc's headlines made Russia look like it's starting the WW3, they didn't even show how Georgian president said they started the war, one sided news.


I'm not saying that News medias should ignore wars and such but at least have some facts before they do and try not to turn normal people against each other.

I think we should all be forced to watch only Russian and Chinese state-controlled media. We can call it Pravda International.


Because only Putin and Hu Jintao know the truth...


P.S. It seems Russia has re-adopted the "Brezhnev Doctrine" invented back when Russia invaded Czechoslovakia...

__________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
- Milton Friedman

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

I like the BBC and think the countries are making a mistake. China also has long had a censorship policy and does not allow a true free press, only one of many human rights objections and other kinds of widespread objections raised against the regime there.

IMO, the BBC does a good job normally with pressing tougher digging questions and pressing politicians so they don't get away with softballing answers. Some of their reporters do exhibit ideological opinions and biases when doing so but allow for frank return answers--that is what many try to provoke so the exchange is more frank and meaty rather than canned talking points. That is also helpful at times because if there is something genuinely controversial then the public has a need to avoid canned talking point answers and get a real exchange going.

At times it could do with some reporters being less cheeky. It's a British style sometimes to be blunt and forward but there are points where it can become crass.

Take for example a BBC interview I heard a few days ago where a radio reporter was interviewing the Israeli Ambassador to the US regarding the current Gaza actions. Obviously the conflict there is very controversial with lots of sides and blame games going on, mutual grievances and wrongdoings and complicated factions of both sides, etc. But the BBC reporter did jibe the Ambassador during the interview over an answer about Israel's intent to keep up its actions in Gaza given the ongoing shellings and other Hamas activities as to whether it represented the 'final solution to the Palestinian question.' The Ambassador kept his composure and rejected it as a 'loaded term' in Israeli views given the history of that terminology and proceeded to keep answering with Israel's official strategies and reasons behind its Gaza actions. I felt the reporter crossed a line there and it is that sort of thing that fans flames and distracts and deflects from the point of the interview--i.e., get a frank discussion going on a subject and keep the focus there.

__________________

I didn't say we should have Russia/Chinese controlled media, i just said they should get the story right before showing it. Why if Russia or China does something bad it gotta be the truth and if something good happens then it's 'Russia/Chinese propaganda', the fact is that Georgia started murdering people but Bbc made it look like Russia did so how is that not BS and this is not the only time they did it, most of the worldwide media said it was the Georgia starting all the mess except for bbc and couple of other one sided medias. Fox News is much worse than BBC but Fox is not really a worldwide known media, nobody really cares about Fox news but Bbc is and i think it shouldn't show bullshit stories like that.

If BBc would've said U.S. invaded Iran today and tomorrow it would've said false alarm most of people would think U.S. did invaded Iran because it's a huge headline. If it would've been some small thing then fine but we're talking about wars, stories like that should be rechecked 100 times before showing them.


Like i said you guys can have medias like Fox News all you like there in the U.S., that's obviously why Americans hate rest of the world but i think worldwide medias should have positive stories for all of the world, U.S. destroying Middle-east = Good job U.S.!, GO democracy go!, Russia defends S.O. from Georgia = AGRESSION, INVADERS, Russia cutting Ukraines Gas because Ukraine simply doesn't pay for it = OMG KGB RUSSIA, we should just give Ukraine free gas then they wouldn't make such a big deal out of it but even then they would've made it look bad somehow.....

You guys can say whatever you want but medias will always be defending their own country no matter who it is and what they've done, BBC/CNN, western medias, western medias trashing Russia/China/Middle-east......wow big surprise lol, get real. Even if there would be a positive story about one of those places they would still turn it around somehow to make it look bad, to make it look like there's a twist but when it comes to the U.S........Oil, World domination? NO WAY, it's about freedom, spreading the democracy.

Yeah you're right, we should only watch U.S./British controlled media like we do now....good point champ. Do you seriously think that BBc/Cnn is not one sided when it comes to some countries, come on.....

I take it you enjoy when your countries media talks shit about another country but when as you said 'Pravda' says something bad about your country then it's 'BS PROPAGANDA' right? I don't read Pravda, it's just like Fox News, just bullshit but the fact is no one is perfect, there should be stories bad or good about every country and not 'We are the best everyone else is shit'.

Btw nice one Eagleseven, you comparing/blaming Russia for/to things we've done 40 years or so, what next? you're gonna blame Iran/Persia for invading Greece 2 and a half thousand years ago..............

I didn't suggest that you thought censorship was ok. I was just pointing out that China has had a long policy of it. The former Soviet Union also did that.

From my observations, most of the news critiques come over real or perceived setbacks on the friendliness and/or freedoms of Russia. I'm quite certain few ordinary joes on the streets want to see any return to 'the old days' and have liked the 'friendly Russia' they have hoped for since Gorbachev's days in the Soviet Union. That wasn't too long ago that things thawed out, so maybe just hopes for that to remain the case accounts for some jitters.

Russia has also had some setbacks and some really big bumps (whether it's internal fault or dilemma, or not its fault, or maybe a bit of both) and that gets reported.

Some of that has to do with the radical changes in regional dynamics (former Soviet satellites integrating into the EU, Schengen, NATO, etc, international trade issues involved in the dynamics as well as Russia's newfound wealth and power in oil and gas, local conflicts with separatists and/or hostile groups like with Chechnya, Georgia, etc).

Also, I think news tends to be local too much in each nation unless other regimes go good public relations outreaches and tactics. Domestic news in the US is especially local to a fault IMO. More international news would be better. Too often the overly domestic focus of news leads to sloppy international coverage when it is done and/or a public not properly informed to fully comprehend all the background and current issues to process it properly.

I also think Russia could do a better job 'advertising itself.'

In that I mean on an official level. There is a large Russian immigrant population in the US and they get accepted just like others. There are plenty of Russian petrol (gasoline) filling stations and they get full use like anyone else, so it's not like people are paranoid about a 'red scare' of anyone or anything Russian.

But, the Russian government does too little outreach in the US and elsewhere for public relations and to get out its side of things. It seems officially that Russia in both Soviet times and even today just tends toward an insular approach and that is a huge mistake.

Gorbachev was a big exception to that and he shattered block ice into a warm puddle. Heck, there were even American pinball games in parlours that used him in a honourary fashion given he was that popular. He did that by being an outreacher and great ambassador for Russia and he spoke with the media and the people about Russia. He made people understand the Soviet Union, showed he meant well, took fears away, etc.

This is especially important because Russia is powerful. Just like the US, nations are always going to be concerned about powerful nations because they can help or hurt others so easily because they have the power to do it.

Take the latest missile flap over the proposed missile shield in Poland and the Russian response that it will put missiles in Kaliningrad Oblast. To ordinary people in the US, Russia and elsewhere, that makes many of them nervous. Nobody wants to even envision 'the old days' again of cold relations, nukes pointing all around, etc.

But IMO, neither the Bush Admin nor the Russian government have done a good public relations blitz to explain their respective cases. Neither regime had done a good job of that generally on many things IMO and the negative results show from it in both nations' current standing with each other and with other nations as it concerns them. Had they done so, people would understand the issues better. This would also force governments to react to them because the public would understand the issues, they would know who is in the rights and wrongs, etc.

So, if Russia feels the US is mistaken, overreacting, up to no good, etc, on an issue ...or anyone else for that matter ... then the government should use public relations to get out its side of the stories. It ought to have its officials and ambassadors and others calling the media, calling press conferences, doing social outreaches, etc.

__________________

Yes, our media is biased with a pro-West perspective, but we have variety, alternatives, and competition. One could easily argue that the BBC actually has an anti-US bias, as well. Oddly, I don't see Western countries moving to ban Chinese and Russian news. Further, Western journalists have never been arrested, no matter what they say about our President. I cannot say the same for Chinese journalists.

We, unlike China, still have a press that is free to criticize our leaders. This is undeniable.


How many Russian papers were critical of the War in Georgia? I can tell you, off the top of my head, that the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC were all against the War in Iraq and have openly critized the President at every opportunity.


It is not a matter of blame or condemnation. Russia has a bold history of territorial aggression, one that several of my relatives witnessed first-hand. They can now empathize with the Georgians. Considering the KGB background of Russia's current leader, should we not view Russia's conduct with a historical perspective, or should we just pretend the Russians are as innocent as the Swiss? If it walks like a duck...

__________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
- Milton Friedman

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

That last part is especially why I recommend that the Russian government work on its international public relations (PR). For example, I once date a Lithuanian woman. Given their history she and her family easily recall their experience of Russian/Soviet conquests, rule and/or domination over their nation. Now that Lithuania has reachieved its independence and has joined the EU, any moves seen as possibly aggressive against them are taken very seriously. Even if misjudging, they have good cause for nervousness.

Their case is a common one. Only the very young have not seen or experienced the days of the Soviet Union and many of the aggressions in which it was involved. That other nations also might not have clean faces for grievances is irrelevant on what the Soviet Union did wrong and how that might affect how others view Russia today if they see something that reminds them of 'the old days.'

Those days weren't long ago and that is why good PR is so essential to calm nerves and allow Russia to frame its own case and image in a peaceful and productive manner so people can understand them without fearing the old uniforms are being tested in the closets and mirrors. If it does so and means well, then time will put the past in the past in due course.

__________________

Considering your comments in another thread where you backed up your agrument about the intelligence of Americans with a link to YouFool with an interview run on CNN, I think it's a bit ridiculous to now be making your above statement. First you use some stupid interview on CNN to back up your argument that Americans are dumb and don't have a clue about the rest of the world, now you say the above. So which is exactly your stance? Or do you just use whatever happens to be handy to justify your opinion. What nonsense.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

I love Pravda. I have a few of their hand bags, shoes and two dresses. Oh...sorry, I didn't see the V.

__________________
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he said. "It's the post office that's always having problems." Barack Obama on government run healthcare. 08/11/2009

American by birth.
Conservative by the grace of God.

Still sore about the war of northern aggression.

__________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
- Milton Friedman

"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."
- George Orwell

I mean, dude, get real.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Bis interimitur qui suis armis perit...

any port in storm....

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Bis interimitur qui suis armis perit...

Live by YouFool, die by YouFool.

I am constantly amused by people's inability to see how foolhardy it is to use a media piece to back up their point. Any idiot knows that the media is not a reliable 'fact based' source.

Now, with the case in point, the piece, run on CNN, showed Americans who could not answer basic questions, such as 'what is the predominent religion in Israel'. Now, in order to establish that Americans are truly stupid, we would obviously need to know how many answered correctly, not just shown a few that answered wrong. I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing the absolute absurdity of this 'argument'.

As you rightly said, any port in a storm but that doesn't mean I should take shelter in the same port. I'm more inclined to ride the waves of reality.

__________________


Great Quotes from Great Americans:

"With regard to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of the powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphisis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Dinosaur Media Death Alert!

Ooops, wrong forum, never mind.