Quote:
|
You insist on characterizing Inside Russia as a propaganda site when it originate perhaps 20% of its own content, and performs little more than a 'Drudge-like' wire editor function for the rest. The quality of the content is uneven, granted, but broadly gathered. Caveat emptor is the rule for any entity that troubles itself to deliver news to your doorstep. Media assets are not valued at billions of dollars for their agnostic aspirations. Media influences.
|
Of course media influences. And it mostly influences those whose critical thinking abilities are impaired. Others laugh at its intended influence as people once laughed at Tokyo Rose, Lord Ha-ha, Ezra Pound.
I will say it again:
Russia Insider (
not Inside Russia, at least try to get the name straight) is a propaganda site and so is its sister medium
Russia Today. It is not hard to find claims that this is so for instance
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhim...king-the-news/ . But if you chose to doubt it, just look at the content of the site. The "broadly gathered" content is in fact carefully selected. This isn't a new media trick. One should be equally dubious when accessing content from say, Fox News, StandWithUs, The Christian Post, Catholic Encyclopedia, Portside, Dabiq, etc.
Afterthought, added in: I include Portside because it has a clear agenda just as the others do. I most often agree with the Portside articles, but not always, and I try to remember that it, like the others, has a bias.
That said, there
are news sources which, on the whole, uphold the idea of democracy, free press, honest information. Do not trust any of them blindly, but be aware that some are more reliable that others.
Reading the rest of your post, Norman, I am still confused about your message. Do you believe that I believe that wealth concentration is a good thing, and so is a "Worker's Paradise"? Liberate yourself from befuddlement and apply your powers of reason why American anti-trust legislation is no longer enforced to put big business in its place; the place intended by a democratic nation which relies on taxes to ensure education, health care, infrastructures, good housing, good roads and good policemen.
To the question of Super-PACs and election integrity.
To combat the ridiculous ranting of demagogues who have taken over a once respectable, albeit conservative, party.
To the question of why so many Americans adore politicians who never, who
never, uttered a sentence that wasn't gobbledygook. Donald Trump and Sarah Palin come to mind but they are only the avant-garde of foggyism and demagoguery.
To the ridiculous claim of American exceptionalism.
To the ridiculous idea of a Second Coming accompanied by cinematic selective rapture.. Oh, wait a minute. Uh...
Dabiq, incidentally, is named for a mythological site relevant to jihadist apocalypse. I mention this in conjunction with Julie's informative post above. May I add that there have been many thought-provoking replies in this debate. I may not agree with every part of every one, but from Nigel's rebuttal and Susan's reflections on Rome and onward, there have been many contributions that I've read with interest.