Russian / Other Eastern European posters -- whats with the chip on the shoulder?
Alex Pavloff
Reading this newsgroup, it that a majority of the, shall we say,
"imflammatory" posters claim to be Russian, Yugoslavian, etc etc.
Now, while of course us "Westerners" have our own rabble rousers, why
do I get the feeling like all "Easterners" have this massive chip on
their shoulder and have this huge axe to grind against anything
Western.
It is because Russia is currently at a low point, and it is convenient
to strike out against those in better situations than oneself to
relieve frustration?
What?
--
Alex Pavloff - xp...@earthlink.net
/loony/bin - where crazed programmers are sent
don_e...@my-deja.com
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Reading this newsgroup, it that a majority of the, shall we say,
> "imflammatory" posters claim to be Russian, Yugoslavian, etc etc.
Depends on what you consider "imlammatory".
While some of them are clearly out of mind (Mladen,...), others
present their views quite intelligently.
Judging from the (often inflammatory) reactions of the "western"
posters, the most inflammatory is the fact that someone has different
opinion, not the way it is presented. Too bad.
> Now, while of course us "Westerners" have our own rabble rousers, why
> do I get the feeling like all "Easterners" have this massive chip on
> their shoulder and have this huge axe to grind against anything
> Western.
There are several reasons, especially for Russians (and of course Yugo).
In one sentence: loss of naive expectations & humiliation.
If you want to have with someone reasonable relationship, you should not
humiliate him, even if you have good possibilities to do so.
> It is because Russia is currently at a low point, and it is convenient
> to strike out against those in better situations than oneself to
> relieve frustration?
Of course. Especially to strike at those who humiliate you. There are
several other reasons, including unfortunate western economic policies
towards Russia.
> What?
Hm, do you consider your post non-inflammatory?
> --
> Alex Pavloff - xp...@earthlink.net
> /loony/bin - where crazed programmers are sent
Stefan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
p_...@my-deja.com
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Reading this newsgroup, it that a majority of the, shall we say,
> "imflammatory" posters claim to be Russian, Yugoslavian, etc etc.
>
> do I get the feeling like all "Easterners" have this massive chip on
> their shoulder and have this huge axe to grind against anything
> Western.
>
> to strike out against those in better situations than oneself to
> relieve frustration?
>
Is this an attempt of phychoanalysis? If so not very profesional.
Usually they do this in terms of sexual propensities, libido etc..
Why would no you go this way?
But seriously. As for my personal reasons I can say you
I am outraged by fasle anti-Russian and anti-Serb propaganda
on western mainstearm media. It is OK that Russia and West
have opposite interests in many (not all) vital areas.
BUT DO NOT LIE IF YOU PRETEND TO HAVE FREE MEDIA!
Michael
>
> --
> Alex Pavloff - xp...@earthlink.net
> /loony/bin - where crazed programmers are sent
>
>
Raptor
time to get into them. I do offer this one point:
p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> BUT DO NOT LIE IF YOU PRETEND TO HAVE FREE MEDIA!
>
> Michael
If the media is truly free, it is free to lie.
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
STEVE JOBS: We're better than you are. We've got better stuff.
BILL GATES: You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter!
"Pirates of Silicon Valley"
Photo Restoration done here:
http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/PhotoIndex.html
Alex Pavloff
>Depends on what you consider "imlammatory".
>While some of them are clearly out of mind (Mladen,...), others
>present their views quite intelligently.
Of course.
>Of course. Especially to strike at those who humiliate you. There are
>several other reasons, including unfortunate western economic policies
>towards Russia.
I don't doubt that. Yugoslavians and Russian don't like us much.
>Hm, do you consider your post non-inflammatory?
Mildly so. :-)
Vladimir Malukh
Alex Pavloff wrote:
> >Of course. Especially to strike at those who humiliate you. There are
> >several other reasons, including unfortunate western economic policies
> >towards Russia.
>
> I don't doubt that. Yugoslavians and Russian don't like us much.
>
??? Who told you so? I personally have plenty of friends
in western Europe, I like these countries. As far as I can
see most of my local firends and collegues feel in the same
way. Actually most of russian just don't care about west
at all. If CNN tells you differnet story - it's up to them..
And one more - what crazy idea to mix Ygoslavia and Russia?
What is so common btwenn huge ex-empire (thanks god not anymore)
and small mid-european country?
--
Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
-----------------------------------------
Vladimir Malukh
Alex Pavloff wrote:
> >??? Who told you so? I personally have plenty of friends
> >in western Europe, I like these countries. As far as I can
> >see most of my local firends and collegues feel in the same
> >way. Actually most of russian just don't care about west
> >at all. If CNN tells you differnet story - it's up to them..
>
> Correction -- what I MEANT (and failed miserably to say <g>) is that
> there appear to be a decent amount of people on this newsgroup that
> claim to be from Russia and other Eastern European countries that have
> a quite vocal dislike of the West.
Need to add: most of them are seems living on the west and use
all of the benefits produced by western civilization :)
Not too many posters in this NG are really live in Russia,
though have russian names (this is a hint :)
> Here in the US, most of the people don't care at all, like in Russia,
> I guess. But those of us that "care" about Russia enough to
> participate in conversations like this generally don't have as
> confrontational an attitude as the "Easterners" do toward the
> Americans.
Well, honestly I do not know what exactly russian people
may like in America. It's too different for us. So,
any attempts introduce american way to do things
are not very welcome here. That's perfectly understanadble
in any country. The point of confrontation
is in fact that US media and politicians are seem
to keen to teach everyone (with some reason European
ones do it in far less agressive way), which forces
people to answer.
> >And one more - what crazy idea to mix Ygoslavia and Russia?
>
> When I say "Yugoslavians" and "Russians", I'm meaning not the
> countries or general population, but the members of those populations
> that participate on these newsgroups.
Why do not say Russian and Chinese? Or Russian and Yamaikas?
This NG is suppose to have something common with militray
aviation - lets see the facts, Russia did a lot on that
field, unlike countries Ygoslavia or say Greece and Turkey.
So what the point to join us with them?
> >What is so common btwenn huge ex-empire (thanks god not anymore)
> >and small mid-european country?
>
> A little bit of blood maybe... that's about it from my point.
?? Who bombed ygoslavians last time - Russia? Blood is everwhere,
where war goes.
> But the Yugoslavian and Russian posters on this newsgroup definitely
> appear to be on the same "side".
At least not me. I'm on my own russian side. All political
games are just speculations. Being precise these posters
are not on the same side as most of say US posters. Well, no wonder.
But not all american posters are also on the same side - ones
are pure KKK supporter other - prefectly normal human being,
who I enjoy to conversfte about avitoon with. All attempts
to force us into political falmes are just annoying.
PS Try to find in your own post anything about military aviation?
p_...@my-deja.com
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> We've got free media, no doubt.
I have doubts about this. In my personal view your
"free" media has a switch somethere. 90% of time
it indeed looks like free and provide more or less
balanced information. For instance the story about
the Indian plane captured by yet another muslim
terrorosts. But if it comes to a serious business like
Serbs, Russians or some other things someone turn
the switch and the media become purely propaganda
mashine, a lot false information, totaly wrong trasnlations of
what people said, selling one side view and the wrong
personal impression as a final true. This is very visiable
from my standpoint of view.
>
> In general, many of these east/west flame wars go like this:
>
> 1) Western person posts question based on a story in some paper on on
> CNN or something.
> 2) Eastern person says that its propaganda and shouldn't be believed.
> 3) Other Western people ask for other sources ( the repeated calls
> for pictures come to mind).
> 4) Sources fail to materialize.
Can you give a recent example. I do not recall a single case like this.
>
> In regards to the current Chechen conflict, I'm not noticing a lot of
> vocal opposition to conflict from the west. Most of us agree that
> you've got to stop terrorism, but the only sticking point that many of
> us Westerners have on this group is the indiscriminate use of
> firepower.
How do you define what is appropriate and what is "indiscriminate"
filepower. After you give me a definition. Please explaine how
you can conclude from what you see on your TV that the firepower
is indeed indiscriminate. Use of particular equipment, MLRS for
instance, does not guarantee that this was indiscriminate because
you need to know exactly what was its target. And you never
know. For instance the main battle in Grozny during last three
day was for the high hill of TV antenna which dominate the city.
There is no civilians there, only chechens fighters. Is it
appropriate to use MLRS there? Russian government said
that 90% of all villages and cities liberated so far had NO DAMAGE
AT ALL. Do you think, if it is true, that this is a better measure
of firepower use by russian army?
>
> Compare this to the Kosovo conflict. We have Venik, posting up every
> single taking every single report of NATO aircraft being shot down, no
> matter the source, as fact.
According to Venik (and I totaly agree with him here) he made
a huge job to collect lots of rummors and unconfirmed reports,
that might be useful for an true investigator in future who would
gain access to official data. I keep ? mark on all these reports
until more of solid data comes up.
>
> Are there any westerners doing that for the chechens?
>
Might be not that bad idea to do. Of caurse not to count a/c
shoot down. RuAF reports it quickly and as far as I know there
is no big disagreement with Chechens reports. But for tanks,
APCs and personnel killed would useful to compare afterwords.
I have seen an interesting analisys in Russian about casualties etc.
It says that official reports are only twice lower that final account
indisputable account from the war of 94-96. We have been losing
200 men/month at that time and now it is decreased officialy to
100 men/mouth. The author said that this is not that low rate,
because this is common place that we waged the war very badly.
This also supports the view that official numbers are probably
close to reality. Definetly we are much better now. But it is
possible to say also the last time we were doing not that bad,
in terms of casualties. The only thing that corrupt polititians
did not allowed army to finish their job.
Michael
p_...@my-deja.com
Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
> I'm interested in these east-west exchanges, but don't take/have the
> time to get into them. I do offer this one point:
>
> p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > BUT DO NOT LIE IF YOU PRETEND TO HAVE FREE MEDIA!
> >
> > Michael
>
> If the media is truly free, it is free to lie.
Great note. Would you mind if I borrow your
comment for use elsewhere?
Michael
>
> --
> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
> STEVE JOBS: We're better than you are. We've got better stuff.
> BILL GATES: You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter!
> "Pirates of Silicon Valley"
> Photo Restoration done here:
> http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/PhotoIndex.html
>
p_...@my-deja.com
Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote:
>
>
> Alex Pavloff wrote:
>
> > >Of course. Especially to strike at those who humiliate you. There are
> > >several other reasons, including unfortunate western economic policies
> > >towards Russia.
> >
> > I don't doubt that. Yugoslavians and Russian don't like us much.
> >
>
> in western Europe, I like these countries. As far as I can
> see most of my local firends and collegues feel in the same
> way. Actually most of russian just don't care about west
> at all. If CNN tells you differnet story - it's up to them..
>
> and small mid-european country?
>
>
> Vladimir Malukh Novosibirsk, Russia
> -----------------------------------------
Different people have normaly different views on about anything.
But I did noticed that those who live inside Russia do
indeed have more friendly feeling to westeners compare to that
of those who have to live for a while on the west. I mean later
ones have much more negative events per day in common life or
in western media. This might explaine the difference. As for
friends I also do have good friends here. But we are talking not
about friends we are talking about policies.
Michael
Stephen Harding
> ??? Who told you so? I personally have plenty of friends
> in western Europe, I like these countries. As far as I can
> see most of my local firends and collegues feel in the same
> way. Actually most of russian just don't care about west
> at all. If CNN tells you differnet story - it's up to them..
From this NG, I get the distinct impression that the West and
US in particular are roundly hated in Russia. The current
difficult economic situation, and seeming lack of national
interest in Russian leadership are all the fault of the West.
The US via IMF and other means intends to destroy Russia through
economic warfare.
Even Chechnya is portrayed as an almost Cold War effort to
undermine Russia, much the same as was done in Afghanistan.
It seems the most rabid anti-Western Russians (and Serbs for
that matter) in this NG actually live in the West themselves!
Russian posters with .ru addresses generally seem much more
moderate and certainly civil in their disagreements.
Must be the air.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> I have doubts about this. In my personal view your
> "free" media has a switch somethere. 90% of time
> it indeed looks like free and provide more or less
> balanced information. For instance the story about
> the Indian plane captured by yet another muslim
> terrorosts. But if it comes to a serious business like
> Serbs, Russians or some other things someone turn
> the switch and the media become purely propaganda
> mashine, a lot false information, totaly wrong trasnlations of
> what people said, selling one side view and the wrong
> personal impression as a final true. This is very visiable
> from my standpoint of view.
Hmmm. Interesting view.
Who turns on this "switch"? Where is the switch located?
Is the President in control of this switch or someone else?
Could the Prez divert attention from...oh...let's say some sexual
scandal he might be having...no, no, that's too unlikely, how
about some political dirty trick he might have done, and is
trying to cover up?
Or is Free Press Propaganda Mode only applied against Russians
and Serbs?
It seems this could be a *really* useful switch for a President
to have access to...and for more than just 10% of the time!
SMH
p_...@my-deja.com
Stephen Harding <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I have doubts about this. In my personal view your
> > "free" media has a switch somethere. 90% of time
> > it indeed looks like free and provide more or less
> > balanced information. For instance the story about
> > the Indian plane captured by yet another muslim
> > terrorosts. But if it comes to a serious business like
> > Serbs, Russians or some other things someone turn
> > the switch and the media become purely propaganda
> > mashine, a lot false information, totaly wrong trasnlations of
> > what people said, selling one side view and the wrong
> > personal impression as a final true. This is very visiable
> > from my standpoint of view.
>
> Hmmm. Interesting view.
>
> Who turns on this "switch"? Where is the switch located?
> Is the President in control of this switch or someone else?
>
You can ask Cristian Amanpour (if I spell it correctly) from CNN.
She must know. Every time I see her somewhere I know
the huge propaganda mashine is going to start again.
Евгений Ожогин
>
>Reading this newsgroup, it that a majority of the, shall we say,
>"imflammatory" posters claim to be Russian, Yugoslavian, etc etc.
>
>Now, while of course us "Westerners" have our own rabble rousers, why
>do I get the feeling like all "Easterners" have this massive chip on
>their shoulder and have this huge axe to grind against anything
>Western.
Not against anything, Alex, just against anything the westerners of the NG
make to sound too bullshitteous. Us Ivans seldom hit the roof due to
rational, sensible postings.
>
>It is because Russia is currently at a low point, and it is convenient
>to strike out against those in better situations than oneself to
>relieve frustration?
This might be, too. However, I'd rather not boil it all down to our desire
to smear shit all over yanks, brits, aussies, you name it in here. Whenever
it comes to shitslinging, all the above are as proficient in ti as us ivans
are.
>What?
How does it feel being a newly-annointed American (or whatever you are now)?
Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=
Stephen Harding
> > Who turns on this "switch"? Where is the switch located?
> > Is the President in control of this switch or someone else?
> >
> I have now idea where and how. But do know who knows.
> You can ask Cristian Amanpour (if I spell it correctly) from CNN.
> She must know. Every time I see her somewhere I know
> the huge propaganda mashine is going to start again.
I don't get CNN, but "Christian Amanpour" sounds suspiciously
furrin to me, and therefor not the fault of us 'Mericans.
Can't believe they'd put control of the Free Press Propaganda Mode
switch in the hands of a furriner!
Geeez the person who controls the switch that he (she?) knows
could even be a Russkiy!!!!
SMH
TJ
> a huge job to collect lots of rummors and unconfirmed reports,
> that might be useful for an true investigator in future who would
> gain access to official data. I keep ? mark on all these reports
> until more of solid data comes up.
You'll need the biggest question mark in the world to cover those reports!
During the campaign Venik was like an excited child about the reports that
were coming in from the Serbian and Russian civilian and military
organizations. He totally believed everything that he came across. In fact
he was practically drooling!
Direct quote from Venik:
'I apologize for not being able to conceal my delight at NATO's losses...'
'From all the information that I have seen in regard to NATO's losses in
Yugoslavia and being entirely objective in my evaluation of claims from both
sides - Yugoslav and NATO - I can conclude with all certainty that NATO is
experiencing substantial aircraft losses.'
Examples of this 'total belief' can be found with the Serb claims of the F-4
being downed and the details surrounding the B-2s that were claimed shot
down. After being scammed with the 'Cajun Fear' audio he left the audio and
details on his site and invented the story that I was a PRO (Public
Relations Officer) based at RAF Fairford and that it was my job to produce
such things.
Direct quote from Venik:
'This particular fake was produced by a person known as "TJ1324" (AKA
"Fairford Janitor"), who is regularly posting to the rec.aviation.military
newsgroup. This gentleman is a public relations officer at RAF Fairford
(which I suppose explains his obvious excess of free time and 24-7 online
presence) and in this instance his attempts to discredit anti-NATO claims
were not just innocent fun but his job. Well, he fooled me, but then, he is
a professional. I hope he is getting paid well.'
Venik the Spin-Master! Other examples of his 'total belief' was his report
of the two Serb MiG-29 wrecks that ended up in Bosnia. He steadfastly
believed that these MiG-29s were actually USAF or Luftwaffe examples sent on
some sort of mission and he reported them as being shot down by NATO SAMs.
He even believed that NATO aircrew were still being held after the campaign
ended in Belgrade jails. His detailed pages on Tuzla and Rinas AFB raids are
pure fantasy which he full supports and believes in. Since absolutely
nothing has come to light on these 'rumours and unconfirmed reports' Venik
has left these on his site and did the old 'I'm collecting these for
investigative journalists in the future' routine. Only the very gullible
would believe these reports on his site!
Venik quote;
'According to information I received from military sources in Yugoslavia,
NATO demanded that Yugoslavia keeps all evidence of NATO losses secret,
otherwise it will not receive any compensation for the damages caused by
NATO aircraft.'
His totally absurd claim that NATO was hiding its war losses with peace-time
crashes is another example of his ridiculous
theories. The fact that people died in these peace-time crashes is simply
dismissed.
Total and utter BS. Venik simply hides behind these conspiracy theories!
TJ.
Gordon
>> According to Venik (and I totaly agree with him here) he made
>> a huge job to collect lots of rummors and unconfirmed reports,
>> that might be useful for an true investigator in future who would
>> gain access to official data. I keep ? mark on all these reports
>> until more of solid data comes up.
>> Michael
Michael, doesn't it seem odd to you that after almost a year, no further
photographs or piles of wreckage have surfaced to back up his outlandish
claims? What about the hundreds of Special Forces that he says were killed and
the multi-helicopter crash site that he insists exists? You have a brain and
are not a juvenile - use your own logic and come up with the answer: its
simple; Venik wanted desperately to believe everything that the propaganda
machinery of Serbia cranked out. If they claimed the moon was made of crack
cocaine, Venik would present "evidence" to support that claim on his site.
Come-on, Michael, think... Even Serbia hasn't released any follow up reports
or details of these fantasy successes over NATO forces although its pure
science fiction that NATO intends to pay reparations - so the "motive" for them
to keep quiet about the "evidence" or else "NATO won't pay for the damage
caused by the aircraft". Patently absurd. The truth of this debate is that in
each and every case that he presented "evidence", it was successfully and
logically debunked using widely varied sources that support none of his claims.
In every case that he promised "evidence", in the end his proof did not
materialize. EVERY case. Not in one or two, EVERY time. If my little neighbor
kid insists on telling stories about green aliens and promising evidence, it
wouldn't take me a year of listening to his BS to figure out he just wants
attention... Insert Venik's name and Serbian NATO victories into that analogy
and you can see where this is going.
>
>You'll need the biggest question mark in the world to cover those reports!
>Venik quote;
>'According to information I received from military sources in Yugoslavia,
>NATO demanded that Yugoslavia keeps all evidence of NATO losses secret,
>otherwise it will not receive any compensation for the damages caused by
>NATO aircraft.'<
Does this sound like reality or fantasy to you? Michael, use your head. Venik
is deluded, and I mean that in the kindest way possible. Not one source
anywhere on the planet has claimed THIS doozie except for our little pal,
Venik. "Well, they destroyed my other fantastic theories - let's try this
one!" The only problem is, this one doesn't match the facts either.
>
>His totally absurd claim that NATO was hiding its war losses with peace-time
>crashes is another example of his ridiculous
>theories. The fact that people died in these peace-time crashes is simply
>dismissed.
>Total and utter BS. Venik simply hides behind these conspiracy theories!
That is pretty clear, TJ; he gets backed into a corner because he is unable to
produce evidence that people will accept (uhhh, a... picture of a wreck or a
captured pilot perhaps? Just ONE out of 100+ "shut down" NATO warplanes?) so
he is forced to either give up his precious "Serbian Victories" or find other,
more fanciful theories that he can use to cover his "facts" -- this causes the
typical liars downward spiral and it won't be long before he tries to suggest
that Yeltsin is a US agent dropped by a Canberra to assassinate the real
article to keep the Russians from coming to the Serb's aid. After all, its the
only theory that fits all of his facts...
v/r
Gordon
Paul J. Adam
writes
>> If the media is truly free, it is free to lie.
>
>Great note. Would you mind if I borrow your
>comment for use elsewhere?
Michael, the good side of a free press is that _someone_ will be
telling the truth No Matter What. The downside is that many of them
will ignore a _real_ but un-newsworthy story to chase something
trivial that will get ratings, and a few will say "who cares if it's true?
It'll _sell!_"
For instance, one of my main news sources is Sky News. That's a
Robert Maxwell channel and so I have to consider his bias and
preferences in mind whenever I use his news outlets. Because we
have a free news media, that means I have an awesome amount of
information available... but I have to consider the bias and slant and
emphasis for all of them. One useful thing Usenet provides is
exposure to many more news channels... but you have to consider
each one seperately.
There is no "impartial source". There are just sources who have a
direct interest, sources that have an agenda, and sources that want to
boost their ratings .The obligation's on the receiver to filter the
information... nobody is going to give you an impartial view because
there _is_ no impartial view.
"I am a heroic freedom fighter, you are a guerilla, he is a murderous
terrorist." A 'Yes, Minister' irregular verb that is too close to the truth.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Michael Kagalenko
]From this NG, I get the distinct impression that the West and
]US in particular are roundly hated in Russia. The current
]difficult economic situation, and seeming lack of national
]interest in Russian leadership are all the fault of the West.
]The US via IMF and other means intends to destroy Russia through
]economic warfare.
You must have missed the testimony of American economist in the Russian
parliament, who believes that IMF consciousky detroyed Russian economy
by the conditions it forced on the Yeltsin government. I posted it a week
or so ago.
]Even Chechnya is portrayed as an almost Cold War effort to
]undermine Russia, much the same as was done in Afghanistan.
It is hard to avoid such an impression after reading the coverage
of events in Chechnia. Virtually no report of those events mentions
more than thousand kidnapped people held in Chechnia for ransom, for
example. Chechnia is a small territory, and majority of Chechens
had to be complicit to perpetrate such a massive kidnapping. Western
media also never, ever mentions that the war was started by
the invasion of Dagestan from Chechnia, that most Dagestanis
(who are Moslem, btw) support the war against Chechen warlords,
and that "moderate" (according to the US media) Maskhadov refused
to condemn the invasion of Dagestan, and is implicated in smuggling for
ransom. Thus, when West calls for "negotiations" and "political settlement,"
Russian public has to wonder whether the Western media and politicians
are incredibly stupid, or harbor malicious intentions towards Russia.
]It seems the most rabid anti-Western Russians (and Serbs for
]that matter) in this NG actually live in the West themselves!
a) Very few people in Russia can afford net connection. Not all
of those who can are fluent in English.
b) Russians in Russia don't experience the Western propaganda machine
first-hand.
]Russian posters with .ru addresses generally seem much more
]moderate and certainly civil in their disagreements.
They didn't have as much time as us to get fed up with contnious distortions
and russophobia of "the most free in the world" media.
Michael Kagalenko
]
]> I have doubts about this. In my personal view your
]> "free" media has a switch somethere. 90% of time
]> it indeed looks like free and provide more or less
]> balanced information. For instance the story about
]> the Indian plane captured by yet another muslim
]> terrorosts. But if it comes to a serious business like
]> Serbs, Russians or some other things someone turn
]> the switch and the media become purely propaganda
]> mashine, a lot false information, totaly wrong trasnlations of
]> what people said, selling one side view and the wrong
]> personal impression as a final true. This is very visiable
]> from my standpoint of view.
]
]Hmmm. Interesting view.
]Who turns on this "switch"? Where is the switch located?
Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent" has a convincing explanation
of the inner workings of establishment control of the media. Briefly,
only people who exhibit "right-think" are ever promoted to the positions
where they might make their opinions and commentary public in large-
circulation print and TV outlets. Nothing so crude as overt censorship
is needed (most of the time, anyway).
]Could the Prez divert attention from...oh...let's say some sexual
]scandal he might be having...no, no, that's too unlikely, how
]about some political dirty trick he might have done, and is
]trying to cover up?
Yes if there were consensus in the establishement that he ought to
be able to. No if there are influential enemies of him.
]Or is Free Press Propaganda Mode only applied against Russians
]and Serbs?
No, not all. Chinese are the prominent target, but there are others as well.
]It seems this could be a *really* useful switch for a President
Vladimir Malukh
p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Different people have normaly different views on about anything.
> But I did noticed that those who live inside Russia do
> indeed have more friendly feeling to westeners compare to that
> of those who have to live for a while on the west.
:) I personally spent over 18 months working abroad by contract-
in Germany and UK. So what - I love those countries!
> I mean later
> ones have much more negative events per day in common life or
> in western media. This might explaine the difference. As for
> friends I also do have good friends here. But we are talking not
> about friends we are talking about policies.
Well, I wouldn't say that I like too much policy of our
governments (too many of them passed last years) too.
Though still to belive that Mr. Klinton is most
hypocritical a...le I ever heard of, unlike our
president, who is brutal, unpredictable etc. but honest.
p_...@my-deja.com
Sounds sensible...this time.
Also I cannot believe the guys who wants
to control whole world did not install a
system to control its own media.
p_...@my-deja.com
p_...@my-deja.com
krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon) wrote:
> >
> >> According to Venik (and I totaly agree with him here) he made
> >> a huge job to collect lots of rummors and unconfirmed reports,
> >> that might be useful for an true investigator in future who would
> >> gain access to official data. I keep ? mark on all these reports
> >> until more of solid data comes up.
> >> Michael
>
> Michael, doesn't it seem odd to you that after almost a year, no further
> photographs or piles of wreckage have surfaced to back up his outlandish
> claims?
Yes it does. But I believe in statistics, the laws of big numbers.
They (serbs) managed to down F117 and damaged another one. This
is indisputiable, right? This plane is the most protected one
against air defenecies used in the war. Thus probibality to be
shoot down is lower than that of other less advanced a/c. Right?
Also they (f177) present a small fraction of sorties did by
NATO over Yugoslavia. These are independent probabilities and
we should multiply them. As a result you have to have approximate
very small fraction of F117 in total NATO losses. Right?
But the official fraction is 50%. I just cannot believe this
number.
Russian intel sources confirmed NATO 38 a/c were down. I see
no good reasons for GRU to overestimate NATO losses and lie
about this. If it is true the fraction of F117 will be 1/38.
much closer to that we would expect to have.
But I agree that we need something on the ground to talk
seriousely about. That's why I keep my ? mark.
p_...@my-deja.com
Totaly agree. But what is the fraction of people
capable for this kind of analysis. What is fraction
of the population that watch CNN as the main source of news?
The answer is clear the first number is very small
and the last number is very high. This is what the
propaganda mashine is based on.
Stephen Harding
> Yes it does. But I believe in statistics, the laws of big numbers.
> They (serbs) managed to down F117 and damaged another one. This
> is indisputiable, right? This plane is the most protected one
> against air defenecies used in the war. Thus probibality to be
> shoot down is lower than that of other less advanced a/c. Right?
> Also they (f177) present a small fraction of sorties did by
> NATO over Yugoslavia. These are independent probabilities and
> we should multiply them. As a result you have to have approximate
> very small fraction of F117 in total NATO losses. Right?
> But the official fraction is 50%. I just cannot believe this
> number.
If the F-117s were sent on their missions using the *same* path for
3 or 4 nights in succession, would this not raise the probability
of such an aircraft being lost, even if it's initial probability
of loss were quite low?
> Russian intel sources confirmed NATO 38 a/c were down. I see
> no good reasons for GRU to overestimate NATO losses and lie
> about this. If it is true the fraction of F117 will be 1/38.
> much closer to that we would expect to have.
There is still the problem of no physical evidence of so many lost
aircraft and *crews*.
What do you think the probabilities would be of Russia or Serbia
staying quiet while holding *evidence* that would *destroy* the
leaders of several NATO nations? The bonus for staying quiet would
have to be so tremendous that I can not imagine what it might be.
Rebuilding Serbia seems a small return on this type of political
advantage, over so many wealthy countries.
SMH
p_...@my-deja.com
Stephen Harding <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Yes it does. But I believe in statistics, the laws of big numbers.
> > They (serbs) managed to down F117 and damaged another one. This
> > is indisputiable, right? This plane is the most protected one
> > against air defenecies used in the war. Thus probibality to be
> > shoot down is lower than that of other less advanced a/c. Right?
> > Also they (f177) present a small fraction of sorties did by
> > NATO over Yugoslavia. These are independent probabilities and
> > we should multiply them. As a result you have to have approximate
> > very small fraction of F117 in total NATO losses. Right?
> > But the official fraction is 50%. I just cannot believe this
> > number.
>
> If the F-117s were sent on their missions using the *same* path for
> 3 or 4 nights in succession, would this not raise the probability
> of such an aircraft being lost, even if it's initial probability
> of loss were quite low?
This can increase first probability. its theoretical maximum is 1.
Thus the fraction of F117s dawned must be <= fraction of
sorties they flew. Still it is <<0.5.
> > Russian intel sources confirmed NATO 38 a/c were down. I see
> > no good reasons for GRU to overestimate NATO losses and lie
> > about this. If it is true the fraction of F117 will be 1/38.
> > much closer to that we would expect to have.
>
> There is still the problem of no physical evidence of so many lost
> aircraft and *crews*.
Sure.
>
> What do you think the probabilities would be of Russia or Serbia
> staying quiet while holding *evidence* that would *destroy* the
> leaders of several NATO nations? The bonus for staying quiet would
> have to be so tremendous that I can not imagine what it might be.
This is complex matter. This kind of weapon (a blackmailing) is
useful only if two parties involved are aware of its existence.
This might be the only weapon Miloshevich still has against
western governments.
Today I read an interesting news (ITAR-TASS) that might
contribute to understanding of why most the advanced a/c
was downed first. Today Yugoslav ambasodor in Russia
awared top Yugoslav battle orders to 20 unspecified Russian
army officiers. I can imagine if we played a role there
downing of a F117 or two would be probably a main goal
in order to test a new experimental equipment, if any. Downing
of > two was probably too dangerous to expose the experiments
and also politicaly in terms of our "good" relations with US.
Although this is of caurse pure speculation.
Stephen Harding
> You must have missed the testimony of American economist in the Russian
> parliament, who believes that IMF consciousky detroyed Russian economy
> by the conditions it forced on the Yeltsin government. I posted it a week
> or so ago.
Our news server here is lazy, often taking naps causing me to miss posts.
There is general acknowledgement that the IMF has been too "high handed"
in its demands on fund recipients.
WRT to Russia, the primary fault of IMF actions was being too loose in
monitoring how the money it loaned was spent! It *clearly knew* much
of the money was being stolen, but didn't seem to care.
However I don't believe for a moment that it represented a scheme to
economically destroy Russia. IMF dealings with Russia have not been
much different than with any other country that recieves its loans.
> It is hard to avoid such an impression after reading the coverage
> of events in Chechnia. Virtually no report of those events mentions
> more than thousand kidnapped people held in Chechnia for ransom, for
> example. Chechnia is a small territory, and majority of Chechens
> had to be complicit to perpetrate such a massive kidnapping. Western
You seem to be saying "the only good Chechen is a dead one", which from
this direction sounds disturbingly familiar. Do you have any concerns
that you may be negatively stereotyping an entire people?
> media also never, ever mentions that the war was started by
> the invasion of Dagestan from Chechnia, that most Dagestanis
> (who are Moslem, btw) support the war against Chechen warlords,
> and that "moderate" (according to the US media) Maskhadov refused
> to condemn the invasion of Dagestan, and is implicated in smuggling for
> ransom. Thus, when West calls for "negotiations" and "political settlement,"
> Russian public has to wonder whether the Western media and politicians
> are incredibly stupid, or harbor malicious intentions towards Russia.
I suppose one could get that impression, especially if you were prone to
regard the West, or US, as a mortal enemy.
All the events you cited above *have* been reported in the US papers at one
time or another. The US press does focus on human disasters, and scenes of
artillery shells exploding in Grozhny and fleeing civilians makes for good
copy, but is not the product of a propaganda machine attempting to put
anything Russian in a negative light.
I think you are confusing "news that sells" with "government controlled
propaganda". You and other Russians in this NG attribute news as too much
a product of government than it truely is. Every special interest tries
to spin news to its advantage, but there is no guarantee of their success
in doing so.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent" has a convincing explanation
> of the inner workings of establishment control of the media. Briefly,
> only people who exhibit "right-think" are ever promoted to the positions
> where they might make their opinions and commentary public in large-
> circulation print and TV outlets. Nothing so crude as overt censorship
> is needed (most of the time, anyway).
Well if you want finely crafted wording of anti-American sentiment with the
added credibility of coming from an American, I can think of few persons
better to quote than Chomsky (Ramsey Clark doesn't write especially well).
[Chomsky is not really anti-American per se, but his anarchist/libertarian/
socialist leanings often put him at odds with some very basic American
principles.]
Chomsky represents an intellectualization of dissent. Rather than accept
that he has views that are generally not palatable to the masses, he creates
processes that manipulate the masses (unknowningly of course) into false
beliefs and acceptance of untruths.
In other words, if you disagree with me, it's because you are uneducated or
being manipulated by the "establishment", since, if you were educated, or
free of manipulation, you'd agree with me.
SMH
Stephen Harding
> Stephen Harding <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> >
> > If the F-117s were sent on their missions using the *same* path for
> > 3 or 4 nights in succession, would this not raise the probability
> > of such an aircraft being lost, even if it's initial probability
> > of loss were quite low?
>
> This can increase first probability. its theoretical maximum is 1.
> Thus the fraction of F117s dawned must be <= fraction of
> sorties they flew. Still it is <<0.5.
I think your probabalistic way of looking at aircraft loss as a means of
indicating larger numbers of aircraft lost is rather interesting, but
invalid.
I can buy the idea of some aircraft having higher probabilities of loss
than other types. However I think it's difficult to apply on a combat
mission basis.
By using poor tactics, the probability of aircraft loss can go dramatically
up, independent of the ability of the aircraft and crew. Same can be said
for incompetent planning or leadership.
One of the most prominent characteristics of war is plain, dumb luck (or
lack thereof). It leaves participants scratching their heads wondering
what the heck happened. It shouldn't have happened, or had every expectation
of happening but didn't. The F-117 loss *could* concievably defy your set of
probabilities in such a case.
OK. So one F-117 goes down. Because this is so unlikely, it must prove
that *many* other non-F-117 aircraft went down as well. Problem with this is
the independence of shootdown events. The shootdown of an F-16 is totally
independent of whether an F-117 was downed. Just because someone gets hit
by lightning on a Golf course (a low P event) doesn't guarantee you will get
hit by lighting on top of a radio antenna during a thunderstorm (a much
higher P event). They are independent events! Over a *period of time* I'll
agree that we would expect to see more F-16 shot down than F-117. We'll have
to disagree as to whether enough time occurred for the event distributions
reflecting P(loss) to have emerged.
> > What do you think the probabilities would be of Russia or Serbia
> > staying quiet while holding *evidence* that would *destroy* the
> > leaders of several NATO nations? The bonus for staying quiet would
> > have to be so tremendous that I can not imagine what it might be.
>
> This is complex matter. This kind of weapon (a blackmailing) is
> useful only if two parties involved are aware of its existence.
> This might be the only weapon Miloshevich still has against
> western governments.
Damn good weapon if you ask me! And in the hands of a consumately
capable manipulator, who is willing to do most anything to further his
political ambitions? Many Serbs will not deny this view of Slobo.
It would indeed be far far too complex for my political mind to fathom
why Slobo would pass up such an opportunity at political mayhem in the
West if he had the means at his disposal.
> Today I read an interesting news (ITAR-TASS) that might
> contribute to understanding of why most the advanced a/c
> was downed first. Today Yugoslav ambasodor in Russia
> awared top Yugoslav battle orders to 20 unspecified Russian
> army officiers. I can imagine if we played a role there
> downing of a F117 or two would be probably a main goal
> in order to test a new experimental equipment, if any. Downing
> of > two was probably too dangerous to expose the experiments
> and also politicaly in terms of our "good" relations with US.
>
> Although this is of caurse pure speculation.
I don't doubt for a moment that the Russians had equipment in Serbia to
test against NATO. I further would not doubt if Russians had a hand in
the loss of the F-117, directly or indirectly.
SMH
Kerryn Offord
p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
><SNIP>
> Yes it does. But I believe in statistics, the laws of big numbers.
> They (serbs) managed to down F117 and damaged another one. This
> is indisputiable, right? This plane is the most protected one
> against air defenecies used in the war. Thus probibality to be
> shoot down is lower than that of other less advanced a/c. Right?
Not quite right. Because of its relative invulnerability the F-117 flew
the most dangerous missions, increasing its shoot down probability. Only
compared with other aircraft performing the same mission is its (F-117)
probability lower. (This is why they use the F-117 for these more
dangerous missions.)
> Also they (f177) present a small fraction of sorties did by
> NATO over Yugoslavia. These are independent probabilities and
> we should multiply them. As a result you have to have approximate
> very small fraction of F117 in total NATO losses. Right?
> But the official fraction is 50%. I just cannot believe this
> number.
>
Again you are ignoring the relative risks of missions. You are assuming
that flying at 15,000 ft over Kosovo is as risky as flying a bombing
mission over Belgrade.
If for example, P(losing F-117 over Belgrade) = .1 per sortie, and
P(losing F-16 over Kosovo) = .01, then F-16s have to fly 10 sorties for
ever F-117 sortie to have equal probability of being shot down. NB:
these are nice round numbers used to illustrate a point, not real
probabilities.
> Russian intel sources confirmed NATO 38 a/c were down. I see
> no good reasons for GRU to overestimate NATO losses and lie
> about this. If it is true the fraction of F117 will be 1/38.
> much closer to that we would expect to have.
How did they confirm NATO losses?
Michael Kagalenko
]
]> You must have missed the testimony of American economist in the Russian
]> parliament, who believes that IMF consciousky detroyed Russian economy
]> by the conditions it forced on the Yeltsin government. I posted it a week
]> or so ago.
]
]Our news server here is lazy, often taking naps causing me to miss posts.
]
]There is general acknowledgement that the IMF has been too "high handed"
]in its demands on fund recipients.
]
]WRT to Russia, the primary fault of IMF actions was being too loose in
]monitoring how the money it loaned was spent! It *clearly knew* much
]of the money was being stolen, but didn't seem to care.
That was not the primary fault. The primary fault was urging the adoption
of policies that were bound to cause the economic collapse.
]However I don't believe for a moment that it represented a scheme to
]economically destroy Russia. IMF dealings with Russia have not been
]much different than with any other country that recieves its loans.
Not so. In Russian case IMF motives were heavily politicised.
]> It is hard to avoid such an impression after reading the coverage
]> of events in Chechnia. Virtually no report of those events mentions
]> more than thousand kidnapped people held in Chechnia for ransom, for
]> example. Chechnia is a small territory, and majority of Chechens
]> had to be complicit to perpetrate such a massive kidnapping. Western
]
]You seem to be saying "the only good Chechen is a dead one", which from
]this direction sounds disturbingly familiar. Do you have any concerns
]that you may be negatively stereotyping an entire people?
No. What I am saying is confirmed by the wide range of sources. Even
Anatol Lieven, British journalist who does not hide his admiration
of Cehchens in his book "Chechnia: the Tombstone of the Russian Power"
remarks on the tradition of banditism in Chechen culture. Kidnapping
for ransom and slavery is senturies-old tradition in Chechen society.
This is not a prejudice; this is a fact.
]> media also never, ever mentions that the war was started by
]> the invasion of Dagestan from Chechnia, that most Dagestanis
]> (who are Moslem, btw) support the war against Chechen warlords,
]> and that "moderate" (according to the US media) Maskhadov refused
]> to condemn the invasion of Dagestan, and is implicated in smuggling for
]> ransom. Thus, when West calls for "negotiations" and "political settlement,"
]> Russian public has to wonder whether the Western media and politicians
]> are incredibly stupid, or harbor malicious intentions towards Russia.
]
]I suppose one could get that impression, especially if you were prone to
]regard the West, or US, as a mortal enemy.
One can not help getting such an impression regardless of one's
attitudes towards the West. One recalls that Russians were very
pro-West and pro-American in 1990; but 9 years of following American advice
did what 80 years of Communist propaganda couldn't; a large number of
Russians now bnelieve that the US intends to weaken and destroy Russia.
]All the events you cited above *have* been reported in the US papers at one
]time or another. The US press does focus on human disasters, and scenes of
]artillery shells exploding in Grozhny and fleeing civilians makes for good
]copy, but is not the product of a propaganda machine attempting to put
]anything Russian in a negative light.
You neglect to answer the questions I pose above. The calls for "negotiation
andf "political settlement" invariably omit mentionining the facts I
present above.
]I think you are confusing "news that sells" with "government controlled
]propaganda". You and other Russians in this NG attribute news as too much
]a product of government than it truely is. Every special interest tries
]to spin news to its advantage, but there is no guarantee of their success
]in doing so.
I again refer you to the book "Manufacturing Consent" for the analysis
of the way US media operates. It is telling that Chmosky is de-facto
pariah in large-circulation news outlets. The control is not
always governmental; in the US, government and corportations
form a symbiosis.
Michael Kagalenko
]> of the inner workings of establishment control of the media. Briefly,
]> only people who exhibit "right-think" are ever promoted to the positions
]> where they might make their opinions and commentary public in large-
]> circulation print and TV outlets. Nothing so crude as overt censorship
]> is needed (most of the time, anyway).
]
]Well if you want finely crafted wording of anti-American sentiment with the
]added credibility of coming from an American, I can think of few persons
]better to quote than Chomsky (Ramsey Clark doesn't write especially well).
]
][Chomsky is not really anti-American per se, but his anarchist/libertarian/
]socialist leanings often put him at odds with some very basic American
]principles.]
]
]Chomsky represents an intellectualization of dissent. Rather than accept
]that he has views that are generally not palatable to the masses, he creates
]processes that manipulate the masses (unknowningly of course) into false
]beliefs and acceptance of untruths.
That is quite misleading. Chomsky's views are not "not palatable to
the masses." They are not palatable to the media. There are studies that
show that American media is polittically to the right from most Americans
on the issues.
]In other words, if you disagree with me, it's because you are uneducated or
]being manipulated by the "establishment", since, if you were educated, or
]free of manipulation, you'd agree with me.
For some reason, Chmosky's point of view is not presented by "the most
free media in the world." Perhaps American public won't buy it, but
it will remain unknown until he is given a hearing.
As for your allegation that Chmosky does not tolerate dissent, your
dishonesty makes me puke.
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de
> From this NG, I get the distinct impression that the West and
> US in particular are roundly hated in Russia. The current
> difficult economic situation, and seeming lack of national
> interest in Russian leadership are all the fault of the West.
> The US via IMF and other means intends to destroy Russia through
> economic warfare.
> Even Chechnya is portrayed as an almost Cold War effort to
> undermine Russia, much the same as was done in Afghanistan.
> It seems the most rabid anti-Western Russians (and Serbs for
> that matter) in this NG actually live in the West themselves!
> Russian posters with .ru addresses generally seem much more
> moderate and certainly civil in their disagreements.
Those people have less access to Western media sources than we
do. But it quickly changes when people get exposed to the same
amount of US media. I've such an example in front of my eyes
here in Ulm. Frankly to Western lovers in Russia I'd strongly
recommend to try living here and would _oblidge_ them to read
/listen/see US made news. I think one can hardly find more powerful
propaganda weapon to turn them into patriots of Russia.
BTW, Ivan_the_Bear, I've little propostion for you.
Why wouldn't you (say with my help) translate some posts from
"civilised Westerners" from this NG and give it to your co-service
fellas? I can imagine that say if one make access to this USENET
group for RVSN operators we can expect to get rid of "non-reliable
operator" problem in principle.
Side note.
As backlash of the Soviet anti-"nuclear war" propaganda about
fears of nuclear exchange some analitics in USSR General Stuff
predicted that there could be massive human factor based
malfunctions while nuclear strike to US.
> Must be the air.
> SMH
--
Andrey Nikolaev Ulm university,
Department of Biophysics. Germany.
Email: Andrey.Nikolaev@!get-lost-spammer!.uni-ulm.de
Substitute physik instead of !*! .
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de
[..]
> All the events you cited above *have* been reported in the US papers at one
> time or another. The US press does focus on human disasters, and scenes of
> artillery shells exploding in Grozhny and fleeing civilians makes for good
> copy, but is not the product of a propaganda machine attempting to put
> anything Russian in a negative light.
> I think you are confusing "news that sells" with "government controlled
> propaganda". You and other Russians in this NG attribute news as too much
> a product of government than it truely is. Every special interest tries
> to spin news to its advantage, but there is no guarantee of their success
> in doing so.
> SMH
I must disagree. Here we deal with just the case of "government controlled
propaganda".
F.e. US Congress sponsors Radio Liberty. Radio Liberty employs correspondent
Andrei Babitsky.
In one of his radio talks Andrei Babitsky said that
"Chechens cut throats of Russian POW not because they are sadistic but to
make war more picturesc, bright".
Thus comes innevitable conclusion: the position of the US Congress towards
inhumane treatment of POWs by bandits in Chechnya is following that it is
not something bad but merely an attempt to attract an attention and make
the war more newsworthy.
Living aside little detail that this report itself undermines denials of
bandit supporters which state that there were no such cases I want to
concentrate on the following:
Such news coverage from US state owned news outlet
1. clearly fits pattern of US media effort while Yugoslavia-NATzO 99 conflict;
2. smacks apparent anti-Russian racism;
3. shows that there is a continious anti-Russian effort underway masked
under different pretexts.
Евгений Ожогин
<386c0...@news.uni-ulm.de> ...
>Stephen Harding <har...@hobart.cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> BTW, Ivan_the_Bear, I've little propostion for you.
> Why wouldn't you (say with my help) translate some posts from
>"civilised Westerners" from this NG and give it to your co-service
>fellas? I can imagine that say if one make access to this USENET
>group for RVSN operators we can expect to get rid of "non-reliable
>operator" problem in principle.
Thanks, Andrei, it might be a good idea. However, my mates from the Military
University where I work can read all they want (some of them, actually, lurk
in this and other MGs from time to time) in whatever languages they know.
However, I often use some materials from Johnson's Russia List (nice thing
to read - they make it 50-50 as far as publications are concerned) and other
western media for my cadets to practive their translation skills. Of course,
we often discuss what we translate. :-))
RSVN operators... You know, I'd rather not let them read our little
squabbles here - they might want to DO something to correct the lost sheep
in here, and I don't want this NG nuked. :-))) It's fun to be part of it -
kind of prevents one's brains from petrifying. :-)))
Happy New Year, folks!
Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just beer=
p_...@my-deja.com
ka...@its.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>
> > Russian intel sources confirmed NATO 38 a/c were down. I see
> > no good reasons for GRU to overestimate NATO losses and lie
> > about this. If it is true the fraction of F117 will be 1/38.
> > much closer to that we would expect to have.
>
> How did they confirm NATO losses?
>
>
I heard this on radio Russia. Or you might ask how they
get the information. I guess we still have lots of spyes
in NATO. also there was special spy ship in Mediterian
which had equipment to record all radio coversations
around.
Kevin Fitzgerald
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:84gs01$e5i$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu...
> There are studies thatshow that American media is
>polittically to the right from most Americans
> on the issues.
Um, I think that is incorrect. You meant "LEFT of most Americans", right?
Studies have shown more than 80% of the Washington DC press corps
consistently votes for Democrat candidates (read leftists). And if you read
an editorial in any major US city newspaper, you will discover
left-leaning, elitist opinions there too.
I know of only two right wing newspapers (Wall Street Journal and Washington
Times), and one right-leaning TV news network - Fox (a minor player in the
scheme of things). Sure, there is a smattering of individual right wing
mouths, but they are not the establishment. They just don't pretend to be
objective observers, as the mojority of the media do.
Kevin Fitzgerald
> In article <19991229193108...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon) wrote:
>
> Russian intel sources confirmed NATO 38 a/c were down. I see
> no good reasons for GRU to overestimate NATO losses and lie
> about this.
Not even if it meant cold, hard cash for missile sales?
There is no way you can keep the families of the other 37 pilots quiet. Not
in the West. Our governments would hear about it big time. And so would
the rest of us.
Alex Pavloff
>I said "guys". These "guys" manipulate not only your
>media but also control your government regardless of
>who (democrats or republicants) are in power, or who is
>personaly occupy oral office.
Oral office? Nice pun. :-)
>Do not ask me an address
>or a tel. phone number of the guys. I do not know. But I do
>think those must include big bosses of US industry, polititians
>of both main parties, profesional generals, high flying journalists etc.
>The so called US ruling class. Do you remeber what
>president Eisenhauer said about danger to democracy
>from US military-industrial complex at the very end of his term?
>Nowaday we are witnessing the final stages of the process.
In general, I think your conspiracy theory is absolutely laughable.
Then again, other people seem to believe it also. If there WAS a
military-industrial complex, they've done an very bad job of
protecting their power. We've got the smallest military in years and
the American industrial base is laughable.
>This story was long ago and I guess present no particular
>interest or danger to the interests of those guys. That's why
>the press is allowed. Also to be useful the US media should
>not looks like pure propaganda mashine. If so in an important
>moment just noone are gonna to beileve it. Therefore
>publishing of such stories is even can be important aspect of
>the whole business.
More conspiracy stuff....... Ever seen the X-Files?
>You think so? Probably that's why US declares the whole
>world as the priority area of national ineterests. In my view
>US is very much in the business and never left it.
The whole world? Yeah, we REALLY care about Africa. South America
too. We need our bananas, after all.
>As you see, I am personaly of very low opinion
>about your country. But I am sure you will excume for this,
>will you? This is not to say that other countries (including
>my country) are just angels compare to evil US. Not at all.
>But there is no doubt in my mind nowaday US imperialism
>presents the main threat to human civilization, as it was
>before with Nazi Germany and Communist USSR. The
>methods might be different but the aim is the same. That's
>why I am pessimistic about this century. It is gonna be as
>bloody as last one.
And honestly, I think your "shadow government" and "great conspiracy
to take over the world" are absolutely moronic ideas.
Did they fake the moon landing too?
--
Alex Pavloff - xp...@earthlink.net
/loony/bin - where crazed programmers are sent
p_...@my-deja.com
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:03:44 GMT, p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >Also I cannot believe the guys who wants
> >to control whole world did not install a
> >system to control its own media.
>
> Is that hard to believe because you think that the media is nothing
> more than an arm of the government?
I did not say this and moreover I do not think this.
Please do not assign to me your own wrong ideas.
I said "guys". These "guys" manipulate not only your
media but also control your government regardless of
who (democrats or republicants) are in power, or who is
personaly occupy oral office. Do not ask me an address
or a tel. phone number of the guys. I do not know. But I do
think those must include big bosses of US industry, polititians
of both main parties, profesional generals, high flying journalists etc.
The so called US ruling class. Do you remeber what
president Eisenhauer said about danger to democracy
from US military-industrial complex at the very end of his term?
Nowaday we are witnessing the final stages of the process.
>
> From a Russian perspective, I can understand you disbelief at the US
> government's ability to control its media, but you know what? Its
> true. Our media has its own agenda. I'm still reading stories in the
> paper about how US forces in Korea blew bridges with civilians on them
> during the DPRK advance, how orders were sent out to massacre
> civilians for fear of North Korean infiltrators, and air strikes being
> called on civilians also.
>
This story was long ago and I guess present no particular
interest or danger to the interests of those guys. That's why
the press is allowed. Also to be useful the US media should
not looks like pure propaganda mashine. If so in an important
moment just noone are gonna to beileve it. Therefore
publishing of such stories is even can be important aspect of
the whole business.
>
> And are you saying that America wants to eventually make the entire
> world "America?"
Not at all. In my view it just want to put under US control
as much as possible of mineral resources of the world.
The America will be only in America. The rest of the world
will be used and throw out. This is very basic nature of US
capitalism.
>
> Thats a laugh. Sure, we apparently have this insidious culture of
> consumerism that seems to infect other countries and piss them off,
> but we're not in the business of global domination.
You think so? Probably that's why US declares the whole
world as the priority area of national ineterests. In my view
US is very much in the business and never left it.
> Hell, we could
> take Canada and Mexico like *that* if we felt like, but we don't.
>
Simply, there is no need so far. Your dollar does the job
very well without such complications. And not only in Canada
or Mexico. However recent history shows we cannot
rule out any options.
As you see, I am personaly of very low opinion
about your country. But I am sure you will excume for this,
will you? This is not to say that other countries (including
my country) are just angels compare to evil US. Not at all.
But there is no doubt in my mind nowaday US imperialism
presents the main threat to human civilization, as it was
before with Nazi Germany and Communist USSR. The
methods might be different but the aim is the same. That's
why I am pessimistic about this century. It is gonna be as
bloody as last one.
Michael
p_...@my-deja.com
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> In general, I think your conspiracy theory is absolutely laughable.
Common! This is not a conspiracy theory. This is how your
democracy officialy works. Yesterday the leading journalist
said on NBC that Bush has already guarantee support of
majourity of delegates to the party congress. If so then they
do not need any party meetings. The US parties meetings
are fun parties, TV shows or whatsoever but serious
democratic business where delegats have to make
the important political decisions.
> Then again, other people seem to believe it also. If there WAS a
> military-industrial complex, they've done an very bad job of
> protecting their power. We've got the smallest military in years and
> the American industrial base is laughable.
They maximise not the size of the army. US showed this
can be quickly done in the war time. Their aim is to maximise
their profits. Look they are going to sell you F22 for 200 mil/piece.
The comparable stuff from Europe or Russia would cost
10 times less. You paid 4bil for Y2K fixing in nuclear military only
while Russia spend only 4 mil to check security of its nuclear stuff
of the same size. I can continue, if you want. The rest of the world
calls this kind of business a corruption.
>
>
> >You think so? Probably that's why US declares the whole
> >world as the priority area of national ineterests. In my view
> >US is very much in the business and never left it.
>
> The whole world? Yeah, we REALLY care about Africa. South America
> too. We need our bananas, after all.
You know very well what I am talking about. America inserts
its nose everythere where there is a smell of oil, gaz,
or any other strategic materials. Russia must be really a
headache for those guys. The size of economy was
successfuly reduced to that of Holland, but still it is
resisting to give up its territory, 1/6 of the world.
>
> >As you see, I am personaly of very low opinion
> >about your country. But I am sure you will excume for this,
> >will you? This is not to say that other countries (including
> >my country) are just angels compare to evil US. Not at all.
> >But there is no doubt in my mind nowaday US imperialism
> >presents the main threat to human civilization, as it was
> >before with Nazi Germany and Communist USSR. The
> >methods might be different but the aim is the same. That's
> >why I am pessimistic about this century. It is gonna be as
> >bloody as last one.
>
> And honestly, I think your "shadow government" and "great conspiracy
> to take over the world" are absolutely moronic ideas.
No more moronic than American public who
"honestly" believes in its corrupted "democratic
system"
>
> Did they fake the moon landing too?
>
No idea about who, but no doubts about what.
Bill Silvey
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:071uODCeLVScy3...@4ax.com...
<snip P_MG's paranoid ravings>
> Did they fake the moon landing too?
>
He absolutely believes "THEY" faked the moon landings - do a browse through
dejanews...
BUFDRVR
>The comparable stuff from Europe or Russia would cost
>10 times less.
Actually I believe the price of the euro fighter is rapidily approaching the
Raptor.
>You paid 4bil for Y2K fixing in nuclear military only
>while Russia spend only 4 mil to check security of its nuclear stuff
>of the same size.
LOL...where the hell did you get that from ? US ICBM's just went through a mod
called REACT. It began in '94 and was *designed* to be Y2K compliant, so no
additional funds were needed there. The SLBM's were *checked*, not fixed and
there was no problem there. The B-52 OAS doesn't care if its 1900, 2000 or 1776
for that matter, all we did was a simple 2 flight check. I don't know, and
haven't heard how the B-2A was checked, but I can assure you it didn't cost $1
milllion US and certainly not *4 billion*.
>I can continue, if you want.
Go ahead I need another good laugh
>No idea about who, but no doubts about what.
Oh yeah, you don't believe anyone landed on the moon either, never mind this
post then...ROFLMFAO
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Alex Pavloff
wrote:
Yeah, I know.
Alright, I'm done talking to this guy. Anyone who claims that "THEY"
are behind everything and "THEY" are really good at covering their
tracks and "THEY" have a secret plan for everything....
Just isn't worth talking too.
Besides, I could be one of "THEM".
Now if you'll excuse me, my Black Helicopter is here to take me to
Atlantis.
Alex Pavloff
>Common! This is not a conspiracy theory. This is how your
>democracy officialy works. Yesterday the leading journalist
>said on NBC that Bush has already guarantee support of
>majourity of delegates to the party congress. If so then they
>do not need any party meetings. The US parties meetings
>are fun parties, TV shows or whatsoever but serious
>democratic business where delegats have to make
>the important political decisions.
Gee, remember those allegations that Little Georgie Bush snorted
cocaine? You should see what the press is doing to George --
comparing him right up there with Clinton.
>They maximise not the size of the army. US showed this
>can be quickly done in the war time.
War time in the 40s maybe. You can't just start pumping out todays
weapons like you could then.
>Their aim is to maximise
>their profits. Look they are going to sell you F22 for 200 mil/piece.
You have got to be kidding me. You don't know a damn thing about
aircraft costs, do you? The 200 million sum comes from taking the
total production cost + total R&D costs and dividing them by the
number of aircraft. If they sold MORE aircraft, the cost would DROP,
yet, profits would increase.
>The comparable stuff from Europe or Russia would cost
>10 times less.
Yeah, except for the fact that the comparable stuff from Russia has
less chance of actually flying EVER than the F-22.
>You paid 4bil for Y2K fixing in nuclear military only
>while Russia spend only 4 mil to check security of its nuclear stuff
>of the same size. I can continue, if you want. The rest of the world
>calls this kind of business a corruption.
Gee, did you ever think of the fact that the reason the US spent 1000
times more on Y2K becase...... WE HAVE A THOUSAND TIMES MORE
COMPUTERS?
>You know very well what I am talking about. America inserts
>its nose everythere where there is a smell of oil, gaz,
>or any other strategic materials. Russia must be really a
>headache for those guys. The size of economy was
>successfuly reduced to that of Holland, but still it is
>resisting to give up its territory, 1/6 of the world.
Gee, didn't I recall a certain Russian political candidate a couple
years back who said he was going to take Alaska back from us? Get off
your high horse. If any country is run by "behinds the scenes
interests", its Russia and its corrupt government.
>> And honestly, I think your "shadow government" and "great conspiracy
>> to take over the world" are absolutely moronic ideas.
>
>No more moronic than American public who
>"honestly" believes in its corrupted "democratic
>system"
You don't get it, do you?
Grand conspiracies don't work in this country. Never have. Of
course, the lack of evidence towards this conspiracy is of course, the
proof that it exists.
Michael Kagalenko
]
]
]Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
]news:84gs01$e5i$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu...
]> There are studies thatshow that American media is
]>polittically to the right from most Americans
]> on the issues.
]
]Um, I think that is incorrect. You meant "LEFT of most Americans", right?
No. I mean what I wrote. They put questionary to press corps about
their stand on various social issues. Their replies tended to the
right of Americans at large.
]Studies have shown more than 80% of the Washington DC press corps
]
]
Michael P. Reed
> Now if you'll excuse me, my Black Helicopter is here to take me to
> Atlantis.
Personally, I prefer Shangri-La (the women are much more beautiful there),
and my helicopter is not black, but a really deep purple.
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Andrew P Pavacic
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:03:44 GMT, p_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Thats a laugh. Sure, we apparently have this insidious culture of
>consumerism that seems to infect other countries and piss them off,
>take Canada and Mexico like *that* if we felt like, but we don't.
Heheheh. Come get us bad boy. Has your butt stopped burning from the
last try? :)
-Andrew Pavacic
Stephen McCullough
>
>Common! This is not a conspiracy theory. This is how your
>democracy officialy works. Yesterday the leading journalist
>said on NBC that Bush has already guarantee support of
>majourity of delegates to the party congress. If so then they
>do not need any party meetings. The US parties meetings
>are fun parties, TV shows or whatsoever but serious
>democratic business where delegats have to make
>the important political decisions.
>
Ah, conventions are not party congress and Bush can not have any delegates yet
because there have been no primaries yet. George W. Bush does have the support
of most party leaders but that means jack unless he wins in the primaries.
>
>They maximise not the size of the army. US showed this
>can be quickly done in the war time. Their aim is to maximise
>their profits. Look they are going to sell you F22 for 200 mil/piece.
>The comparable stuff from Europe or Russia would cost
>10 times less. You paid 4bil for Y2K fixing in nuclear military only
>while Russia spend only 4 mil to check security of its nuclear stuff
>of the same size. I can continue, if you want. The rest of the world
>calls this kind of business a corruption.
Comparing the cost that are in devalued rubbles to the dollar is laughable. I
realize communism was weak in economics but surely since 1990 you could have
picked up a thing or two.
Stephen McCullough
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
p_...@my-deja.com
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >Look they are going to sell you F22 for 200 mil/piece.
> >The comparable stuff from Europe or Russia would cost
> >10 times less.
>
> Raptor.
I doubt this. But if so IT IS JUST GREAT! Then Russians are the
only ones who is still in the aviation business. Fighter for this
price is not useful for anything but to have one peace in Museum
of Human Stuipidty. We really need one.
>
> >You paid 4bil for Y2K fixing in nuclear military only
> >while Russia spend only 4 mil to check security of its nuclear stuff
> >of the same size.
>
> LOL...where the hell did you get that from ? US ICBM's just went through a mod
> called REACT. It began in '94 and was *designed* to be Y2K compliant, so no
> additional funds were needed there. The SLBM's were *checked*, not fixed and
> there was no problem there. The B-52 OAS doesn't care if its 1900, 2000 or 1776
> for that matter, all we did was a simple 2 flight check. I don't know, and
> haven't heard how the B-2A was checked, but I can assure you it didn't cost $1
> milllion US and certainly not *4 billion*.
>
The numbers were taken from CNN New Year Y2K report.
I guess many saw this. But do you understand that you
just confirmed my point? So if you right (and I think you
absolutely right) where money, those CNNs 4bil, gone?
Stephen Harding
Kevin Fitzgerald is correct Michael. The "Press", by it's own admission, tends
to vote Democratic in elections and considers itself "liberal" in political
perspective. The study you're referring to (I presume) showed just the opposite
of what you are stating.
The respondents disagreed that this perspective makes them biased in their
reporting though (of course).
I believe this survey was done in the early-mid 90's.
SMH
BUFDRVR
>absolutely right) where money, those CNNs 4bil, gone?
It never went any where. Either you misunderstood the story, or CNN
misunderstood. You really think that someone is able to defraud the US
government out of *$4 billion* ? $4 million yes, $4 billion, not a chance,
there would be a Congressional hearing the day after the CNN report.
Michael Kagalenko
]>
]> Kevin Fitzgerald (ekf...@prodigy.net) wrote
]> ]
]> ]
]> ]Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
]> ]news:84gs01$e5i$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu...
]> ]> There are studies thatshow that American media is
]> ]>polittically to the right from most Americans
]> ]> on the issues.
]> ]
]> ]Um, I think that is incorrect. You meant "LEFT of most Americans", right?
]>
]> No. I mean what I wrote. They put questionary to press corps about
]> their stand on various social issues. Their replies tended to the
]> right of Americans at large.
]>
]> ]Studies have shown more than 80% of the Washington DC press corps
]> ]consistently votes for Democrat candidates (read leftists). And if you read
]> ]an editorial in any major US city newspaper, you will discover
]> ]left-leaning, elitist opinions there too.
]> ]
]> ]I know of only two right wing newspapers (Wall Street Journal and Washington
]> ]Times), and one right-leaning TV news network - Fox (a minor player in the
]> ]scheme of things). Sure, there is a smattering of individual right wing
]> ]mouths, but they are not the establishment. They just don't pretend to be
]> ]objective observers, as the mojority of the media do.
]
]Kevin Fitzgerald is correct Michael. The "Press", by it's own admission, tends
]to vote Democratic in elections and considers itself "liberal" in political
]perspective. The study you're referring to (I presume) showed just the opposite
]of what you are stating.
Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
Whether the press considers itself "liberal" is immaterial to the qusetion
whether it really is, or whther it is compared to most Americans. Ditto
for voting Democrats - only kooks like Rush Limbaugh or Jay Severin
believe that US Democratic party is "leftist."
]
]The respondents disagreed that this perspective makes them biased in their
Michael P. Reed
> Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
> http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
The Accuracy and Fairness in Reporting is hardly an objective observer.
Don't let the high sounding name fool you. It is. in fact. a left wing (and
by "left wing" I mean card carrying communist left, and not the "left of
center" normally associated with that term in American politics) organization
who has (or had) Ed Asner (an openly avowed communist) as their spokesman.
These guys make Barney Frank look like a fasciast.
Reuben Kincaid
Kagalenko) wrote:
> Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
>http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
>Whether the press considers itself "liberal" is immaterial to the qusetion
>whether it really is, or whther it is compared to most Americans. Ditto
>for voting Democrats - only kooks like Rush Limbaugh or Jay Severin
>believe that US Democratic party is "leftist."
Only kooks like fair.org believe that the press is conservative. Of
course you obviously bought their drivel hook, line, and sinker. This
along with quoting that hopelessly out of touch and long ignored
fossil Chomskey shows you to be just another naive little socialist in
college bleating about "the evil omnipotent corporations, man". Even
his equally extreme nemesis Ayn Rand has more credibility nowadays,
not that that's saying much. Here's a site that tears "the facts" old
Noam likes citing to shreads...
http://www.carnell.com/left_watch/noam_chomsky/index.html
I know you want to justify your Motherland's utterly horrendous record
by reading every loon that claims the US is worse, but it just proves
you're a loon too. Democracy and capitalism won. Totalitarian
statism and communism (BTW don't believe the latter can exist without
the former) lost. Hell, even hippie-hero "Governor Moonbeam" Jerry
Brown has seen the light. Go listen to your "Rage Against the
Machine" tapes in fetal position with your slacker buds if you can't
handle it. Viva Che! Or is it "nice shot, CIA"? :P
Finally, I see your fair.org and raise you...
http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/nq/dishonors.html
Sure it's biased the other way but at least it lists clear examples of
media bias (with RealAudio to boot). Fair just goes on long,
Chomskyesque verbal meanderings until they've distorted the argument
to the point that suits them. I do love how they're so infuriated by
John Stossel, one of the very few reporters out there without a
liberal bias (and a fellow Princeton alum to boot!). Picturing them
having such a hissy fit when he comes on that they drop their bongs on
the floor of the commune is quite amusing.
Mr. Kincaid
Reuben Kincaid
wrote:
>mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) :
>
>
>> Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
>> http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
>
>The Accuracy and Fairness in Reporting is hardly an objective observer.
>Don't let the high sounding name fool you. It is. in fact. a left wing (and
>by "left wing" I mean card carrying communist left, and not the "left of
>center" normally associated with that term in American politics) organization
>who has (or had) Ed Asner (an openly avowed communist) as their spokesman.
>These guys make Barney Frank look like a fasciast.
I've already tried illuminating Mr. Kagalenko on such facts but sadly
he may be too far gone. Considering the indoctrination while in his
homeland and currently amidst the ivory towers of a Boston campus,
I've no doubt he'll soon be shattering the windows of a Starbucks near
you.
Mr. Kincaid
p_...@my-deja.com
buf...@aol.com (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> > So if you right (and I think you
> >absolutely right) where money, those CNNs 4bil, gone?
>
> It never went any where. Either you misunderstood the story, or CNN
> misunderstood. You really think that someone is able to defraud the US
> government out of *$4 billion* ? $4 million yes, $4 billion, not a chance,
> there would be a Congressional hearing the day after the CNN report.
>
> BUFDRVR
>
Sure I could misanderstood CNN. And also it lies all the
time. So why it should be different this time? But you are
an officier of US strategic forces, right? Could you please
get an official number via a Army sources of Y2K spending
in US nuclear arsenal? I guess it is not a secret since CNN
is talking about this openly.
It might be useful to know that CNN was talking about this
staying in NORAD command center where Russian
communication officiers are placed now. It is my
understanding that CNN was talking about spending
of 4bil USD for upgrading command center computers in
US while crytising Russia for speding only 4mil USD for
the same purpose.
Of caurse the money were not stolen, in a direct sense.
They probably officialy purhased a couple good computers
for 2bil USD each.
Dangerpig
chemical weapons on POW's and civilians without checking the facts first is
"RIGHT WING", is nuts. You need to put that bong down right now. Someone
needs to expand their horizons and quit reading so much propaganda.
"Reuben Kincaid" <re...@partridge.bus> wrote in message
news:8m837s4i72ejnf5mg...@4ax.com...
> >http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
Dangerpig
> Reuben Kincaid (re...@partridge.bus) wrote
> ]On 4 Jan 2000 03:49:03 GMT, mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu (Michael
> ]Kagalenko) wrote:
> ]
> ]> Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
> ]>http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
> ]>Whether the press considers itself "liberal" is immaterial to the
qusetion
> ]>whether it really is, or whther it is compared to most Americans. Ditto
> ]>for voting Democrats - only kooks like Rush Limbaugh or Jay Severin
> ]>believe that US Democratic party is "leftist."
> ]
> ]Only kooks like fair.org believe that the press is conservative. Of
> ]course you obviously bought their drivel hook, line, and sinker. This
> ]along with quoting that hopelessly out of touch and long ignored
> ]fossil Chomskey shows you to be just another naive little socialist in
> ]college bleating about "the evil omnipotent corporations, man". Even
> ]his equally extreme nemesis Ayn Rand has more credibility nowadays,
> ]not that that's saying much. Here's a site that tears "the facts" old
> ]Noam likes citing to shreads...
>
> You sound more and more like raving lunatic.
>
> ]
> ]http://www.carnell.com/left_watch/noam_chomsky/index.html
> ]
> ]I know you want to justify your Motherland's utterly horrendous record
> ]by reading every loon that claims the US is worse, but it just proves
> ]you're a loon too. Democracy and capitalism won. Totalitarian
> ]statism and communism (BTW don't believe the latter can exist without
> ]the former) lost. Hell, even hippie-hero "Governor Moonbeam" Jerry
> ]Brown has seen the light. Go listen to your "Rage Against the
> ]Machine" tapes in fetal position with your slacker buds if you can't
> ]handle it. Viva Che! Or is it "nice shot, CIA"? :P
> ]
> ]Finally, I see your fair.org and raise you...
> ]
> ]http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/nq/dishonors.html
> ]
> ]Sure it's biased the other way but at least it lists clear examples of
> ]media bias (with RealAudio to boot). Fair just goes on long,
>
>
> ]Chomskyesque verbal meanderings until they've distorted the argument
> ]to the point that suits them. I do love how they're so infuriated by
> ]John Stossel, one of the very few reporters out there without a
> ]liberal bias (and a fellow Princeton alum to boot!). Picturing them
> ]having such a hissy fit when he comes on that they drop their bongs on
> ]the floor of the commune is quite amusing.
> ]
> ]Mr. Kincaid
>
>
> service often affects very adversely one's thinking and critical
> skills. To return to the main point, which you failed to engage in
> any way, shape or form, Prof. David Croteau of Virginia Commonwealth
University
> sent questionnaires to Washington journalists, and compared the responses
> with the responses of the public at large. The journalists were to the
> right of the public on many issues, such as healthcare, taxes on the rich,
> free trade or welfare. Unless you are accusing Prof. Croteau of fraud, or
> have the conflicting study, I will consider the matter settled.
>
>
The way I read the article, they are saying that journalist are to the right
in regards to economics. Given their salaries that is probably so. But if
you examine their views on social issues, the military and foreign policy
they fall more in line with the leftist point of view. In regards to most
reports on the military by the media, it is marked with ignorance and
laziness, and it repeatedly shows an unwillingness to check facts. I have
seen this time and again on subjects that I have personal knowledge of. It
makes one wonder if they do this with stories on the military are they this
sloppy in reporting other subjects as well.
Personally, I don't really care who a reporter votes for. They should
however, strive to present a balanced picture of whatever story they report
on. If they don't it becomes opinion and not reportage.
Michael Kagalenko
]mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) :
]
]
]> Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
]> http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
]
The study is reported by FAIR, not performed by them.
]Don't let the high sounding name fool you. It is. in fact. a left wing (and
]by "left wing" I mean card carrying communist left, and not the "left of
]center" normally associated with that term in American politics) organization
]who has (or had) Ed Asner (an openly avowed communist) as their spokesman.
]These guys make Barney Frank look like a fasciast.
The study that I referenced is not opinion piece. It is basic logical error
to respond to factual report with ad hominem.
Michael Kagalenko
]On 4 Jan 2000 03:49:03 GMT, mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu (Michael
]Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]>http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
BUFDRVR
>an officier of US strategic forces, right? Could you please
>get an official number via a Army sources of Y2K spending
>in US nuclear arsenal?
Well, first it would be USTRATCOM who I would "ask", second I wouldn't be doing
anything different then any other private citizen, just e-mailing STRATCOM. I'm
interested enough, I'm a little busy, but I'll look into it.
>Of caurse the money were not stolen, in a direct sense.
>They probably officialy purhased a couple good computers
>for 2bil USD each.
This would go into the catagory with the $15,000 US wrench that the DoD bought
in the late 70's, which was of course investigated. Believe me, the GAO would
surely raise hell if the DoD spent $2 billion US on a computer.
Michael Kagalenko
]
]"Michael Kagalenko" <mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
]news:84u54l$sup$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu...
]> Reuben Kincaid (re...@partridge.bus) wrote
]>
]The way I read the article, they are saying that journalist are to the right
]in regards to economics. Given their salaries that is probably so.
Politics is economics with a bit of window dressing. That is particularly
true in the US, where the vale placed on material success is notoriously
high.
The link that I posted earlier was to the FAIR summary of the study. The
results of the study itself are summarized by Prof.Croteau at URL
http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
Here's a bit from Introduction:
"The idea that the mainstream media have a "liberal bias" has long been
conventional wisdom. At various times, public figures from Richard
Nixon to Newt Gingrich have all taken refuge in the claim that the
"liberal" media were out to get them. A legion of conservative talk
show hosts, pundits and media-watch groups pound away at the idea that
the media exhibit an inherently "liberal" tilt. But the assertion is
based on remarkably little evidence and is repeatedly made in the face
of contradictory facts.
In particular, the conservative critique of the news media rests on two
general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the
public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that
accentuates these left perspectives. Researchers and analysts have
discovered persuasive evidence against the latter claim. Content
analyses of the news media have, at a minimum, shown the absence of any
such systematic liberal/left tilt; some studies have found a remarkably
predictable press usually reflecting the narrow range of views of those
in positions of power, as well as a spectrum of expert opinion that
tilts toward the right.
But even some progressives have been willing to cede to conservatives
the first point: that journalists' views are to the left of the public.
Professionals in general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings
on social issues and there is no reason to expect journalists to be any
different. However, they have also argued convincingly that the norms
of "objective journalism" and the powerful corporate interests which
own and sponsor the news media ensure that news content never strays
too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo. You don't
understand the corporate ideology of General Motors by studying the
personal beliefs of the assembly-line workers, the argument goes.
Ideological orientation is introduced and enforced by those high in the
organizational hierarchy who have the power to hire and fire, to reward
and punish. Working journalists, despite their sometimes high
visibility, usually do not call the shots in the nation's media
corporations. (The documentary "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom"
provides vivid illustrations of this situation.) Consequently, the
private views of individual journalists often matter little.
Such an analysis of organizational dynamics is fundamental to
understanding the news process. It, indeed, is a crucial argument that
kicks the legs out from the conservative critique and gets at the more
fundamental structural elements that set the news agenda. Still, this
approach begs the question: are journalists really to the left of the
public? This element of the conservative critique has not been
adequately addressed; it's one reason why the "liberal media" charge
gets repeated without serious scrutiny.
The small amount of current data on this issue may be due, in part, to
journalist's resistance to answering surveys lest results somehow
compromise their professional stance of objective "neutral" observers.
This presents a challenge for researchers. Still, despite the
methodological hurdles, this question is an interesting one and this
report describes the results of one effort to examine this essential
underpinning of the "liberal media" claim. "
] But if
]you examine their views on social issues, the military and foreign policy
]they fall more in line with the leftist point of view.
That is higly questionable reading of the study. Do you consider the views
on welfare and corporate power not "social issues" ? Quoting Croteau's
report: "The general public is more critical of the concentration of
corporate power in the United States than are journalists. When asked
whether they felt "too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few
large companies," 57% of the journalists agreed, while 43% felt they
did not have too much power (Q#12). The numbers were quite different,
though, when the Times Mirror Center asked the same question of the
general public in October 1995. A full 77% of the public felt that
corporations had too much power, with only 18% feeling that they did
not."
The *only* issue where the study found journalists to be on the
left side of the spectrum was the environmental protection.
] In regards to most
]reports on the military by the media, it is marked with ignorance and
]laziness, and it repeatedly shows an unwillingness to check facts. I have
]seen this time and again on subjects that I have personal knowledge of. It
]makes one wonder if they do this with stories on the military are they this
]sloppy in reporting other subjects as well.
I can tell that the USA media is horrible sloppy and biased in their
coverage of Russia's politics. Their bias is squarely right-wing.
]Personally, I don't really care who a reporter votes for. They should
]however, strive to present a balanced picture of whatever story they report
]on. If they don't it becomes opinion and not reportage.
The study I quoted does not deal with voting preferences, or the professional
output of journalists - just with their personal views.
Michael P. Reed
> Michael P. Reed (mpr...@removeme.tdi.net) wrote
> ]mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) :
> ]
> ]
> ]> Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
> ]
> ]The Accuracy and Fairness in Reporting is hardly an objective observer.
>
> The study is reported by FAIR, not performed by them.
No, it does not mention who did the survey. More than that, they are
choosing their "facts" very carefully and in such a way as to make one
believe what is being reported is true.
> The study that I referenced is not opinion piece. It is basic logical
error
> to respond to factual report with ad hominem.
I made no ad-hominems. I have seen these people plead their case, Hell, I
even have one of their books around here somewhere. Most of them are openly
avowed communists, and they shape their "facts" to make their points. You
can believe anything you want, but if you seriously believe that the media is
to the RIGHT of American public opinion, then you are gravely mistaken.
FAIR has a left-wing agenda disguised as an objective non-partisan group,
when they are anything but. If you choose to believe that they represent the
main stream of American public opinion, then you are woefully ignorant of
Americans.
Michael Kagalenko
]> Michael P. Reed (mpr...@removeme.tdi.net) wrote
]> ]mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) :
]> ]
]> ]
]> ]> Not at all. The study I am referring to is available for perusal at
] http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html
]> ]
]> ]The Accuracy and Fairness in Reporting is hardly an objective observer.
]>
]> The study is reported by FAIR, not performed by them.
]
]No, it does not mention who did the survey.
Yep, it does. You clearly have not read the article.
] More than that, they are
]choosing their "facts" very carefully and in such a way as to make one
]believe what is being reported is true.
This is bullshit allegation. You clearly have run out of meaningful arguments
and resort to vague generalities.
]> The study that I referenced is not opinion piece. It is basic logical
]error
]> to respond to factual report with ad hominem.
]
]I made no ad-hominems. I have seen these people plead their case, Hell, I
]even have one of their books around here somewhere. Most of them are openly
]avowed communists, and they shape their "facts" to make their points. You
]can believe anything you want, but if you seriously believe that the media is
]to the RIGHT of American public opinion, then you are gravely mistaken.
]FAIR has a left-wing agenda disguised as an objective non-partisan group,
]when they are anything but. If you choose to believe that they represent the
]main stream of American public opinion, then you are woefully ignorant of
]Americans.
Again, I do not have to believe that they represent anything and anyone.
The study that I referred to is a survey of opinions of Washington journalists
on a range of issues, comparedd to the survey reslts of American public. It
demonstrates (read carefully; neither "opines", nor "alleges" but
demonstrates statistically) that journalists hold views that are to the
right of American public on average. Unless you are willling to accuse the
author of the survey, Prof.Croteau, of deliberate fraud, you have no way out
of this one.
Eni23
>>or a tel. phone number of the guys. I do not know. But I do
>>think those must include big bosses of US industry, polititians
>>of both main parties, profesional generals, high flying journalists etc.
>>The so called US ruling class. Do you remeber what
>>president Eisenhauer said about danger to democracy
>>from US military-industrial complex at the very end of his term?
>>Nowaday we are witnessing the final stages of the process.
They are called capitalists. Marx mentioned what you are saying in Das Kapital.
Stephen McCullough
Still a true believer Eni? You must be the last communist not having tenure in
the west.
p_...@my-deja.com
en...@aol.com (Eni23) wrote:
> >>Do not ask me an address
> >>or a tel. phone number of the guys. I do not know. But I do
> >>think those must include big bosses of US industry, polititians
> >>of both main parties, profesional generals, high flying journalists etc.
> >>The so called US ruling class. Do you remeber what
> >>president Eisenhauer said about danger to democracy
> >>from US military-industrial complex at the very end of his term?
> >>Nowaday we are witnessing the final stages of the process.
>
> They are called capitalists. Marx mentioned what you are saying in Das Kapital.
I look at this slightly different. I think this is a rather small
group of people who got power to believe that they own
the whole country. Unlike many I think communism never
existed. In this century we had tried one or another form of
state capitalism in USSR and other places. This of caurse
was very important negative experience to learn what should
not be done.
In this way I think central comitttee of communisitic party of
USSR was very similar group of very similar people who
owned the country as their privat property.
It seems the real communism (or whatsoever word will be used
to call it) which is based on democracy, efficient public economy
and, the most improtantly, with well defined reasonable public
goals (that is totaly absent in any known capitalitic form) has to
be build in this century. If, of caurse, human civilization wants
to survive in long term. The Russia due to its reach history
and its current unestablished state, in my view, is one of the best
candidats to chose this way to go first. While future of
States with its old good wild form of capitalims looks pretty poor from
this point of view.
Eni23
>>>>or a tel. phone number of the guys. I do not know. But I do
>>>>think those must include big bosses of US industry, polititians
>>>>of both main parties, profesional generals, high flying journalists etc.
>>>>The so called US ruling class. Do you remeber what
>>>>president Eisenhauer said about danger to democracy
>>>>from US military-industrial complex at the very end of his term?
>>>>Nowaday we are witnessing the final stages of the process.
>>
>>They are called capitalists. Marx mentioned what you are saying in Das
>>Kapital.
>
>in
>the west.
>
>Stephen McCullough
>
>"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
No, just pointing out that Marx also mentioned the capitalist controlled gov.
Jörg Bihlmayr
Eni23 schrieb:
Did you read Marx, Eni? And did you understand what he wrote? BTW:m Only the
original Marx papers can be easy understand. They are in German. The Russian
translation had some mistakes in it.
Jörg
Eni23
>original Marx papers can be easy understand. They are in German. The Russian
>translation had some mistakes in it.
>
>Jörg
I don't read Russian Jorg. I read it in English. The version by Engels.
Jörg Bihlmayr
Eni23 schrieb:
Engels books an Marx books are different books, Eni.
And Engels was a german too. He wrote in german.
Y.P.
everyone had exams with this shit.
This just to note, don't try to clash about this subj. with former SU's.
Most likely you will be inveted to endless duscussion with undefined result.
Jörg Bihlmayr <joerg.b...@student.uni-ulm.de> wrote in message
news:389581BB...@student.uni-ulm.de...
Jörg Bihlmayr
"Y.P." schrieb:
> Scientific communism was an obligate discipline in soviet universities,
> everyone had exams with this shit.
> This just to note, don't try to clash about this subj. with former SU's.
> Most likely you will be inveted to endless duscussion with undefined result.
thats right...
But I don't think, that Eni had exams on Marx or Engels...
Jörg
Eni23
>the
>> >original Marx papers can be easy understand. They are in German. The
>Russian
>> >translation had some mistakes in it.
>> >
>> >Jörg
>>
>> I don't read Russian Jorg. I read it in English. The version by Engels.
>
>Engels books an Marx books are different books, Eni.
>And Engels was a german too. He wrote in german.
No, it was his translation of Das Kapital in english.
Keith Willshaw
Eni23 <en...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000203175417...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
I see once again you cannot pass up any opportunity
to be wrong. You claim to be a Marxist and know NOTHING
about one of the leading lights othat misguided philosophy
Here's a clue
Das Kapital
Written: 1867
Source: First english edition of 1887 (4th German edition changes included
as indicated).
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR
First Published: 1887
Translated: Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling - edited by Fredrick Engels
Online Version: mea 1995, marxists.org 1999
Transcribed: Zodiac, Hinrich Kuhls, Allan Thurrott, Bill McDorman, Bert
Schultz and Martha Gimenez (1995-1996)
HTML Markup: Stephen Baird and Brian Basgen (1999)
Here's another
at
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/index.htm
You will find a list of the works and the texts of many of
the works of Marx and Engels
Engels was never just a translator and marx hardly needed
one given that most of his books were written while
living in London
Keith
Jörg Bihlmayr
Eni23 schrieb:
> >> >Did you read Marx, Eni? And did you understand what he wrote? BTW:m Only
> >the
> >> >original Marx papers can be easy understand. They are in German. The
> >Russian
> >> >translation had some mistakes in it.
> >> >
> >> >Jörg
> >>
> >> I don't read Russian Jorg. I read it in English. The version by Engels.
> >
> >Engels books an Marx books are different books, Eni.
> >And Engels was a german too. He wrote in german.
>
> No, it was his translation of Das Kapital in english.
mhhhh. You told, that you read Engels, than you tell me, that you read Das
Kapital in English. Do you know, who hqas written Das Kapital? Seems to me not.
Jörg
Eni23
>everyone had exams with this shit.
>This just to note, don't try to clash about this subj. with former SU's.
>Most likely you will be inveted to endless duscussion with undefined result.
Well since we are already in endless discussions with undefined results, what
the hell.
Eni23
Das Kapital was written by Marx but was translated into english by Engels. Got
it now.
Keith Willshaw
>
> Das Kapital was written by Marx but was translated into english by Engels.
Got
> it now.
WRONG
Das Kapital
Written: 1867
Source: First english edition of 1887 (4th German edition changes included
as indicated).
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR
First Published: 1887
Translated: Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling - edited by Fredrick Engels
Online Version: mea 1995, marxists.org 1999
Transcribed: Zodiac, Hinrich Kuhls, Allan Thurrott, Bill McDorman, Bert
Schultz and Martha Gimenez (1995-1996)
HTML Markup: Stephen Baird and Brian Basgen (1999)
Keith