Curious, did it start with Mulroney, or does it go back long before that?
Oh boy. You should read up on Pierre Trudeau’s hand in tanking the Liberals in 1984. Believe it or not it involved a massive patronage appointment scandal.
Apple falls far from tree.
The Following User Says Thank You to OldDutch For This Useful Post:
Oh boy. You should read up on Pierre Trudeau’s hand in tanking the Liberals in 1984. Believe it or not it involved a massive patronage appointment scandal.
Apple falls far from tree.
I hear that there was some dude named John A. Macdonald that had some scandals too but ended up with 6 majority governments. The original apple and the original Canadian political sin, if you will.
Trudeau Sr. tanked his party so bad that they were out of power for 9 years (which is less than the 13 years they were in power shortly after with Chretien/Martin and roughly the same time as the current PM who bears the same name and some DNA).
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
So anything still thinking that peace with the current Russian administration is still possible, Lavrov made it clear today following meetings with China, and now Turkey, that they will not accept anything other than the establishment of a new world order where Russia has it's own sphere of influence separate of the West. The goalposts have been moved again instead of just the "denazification" of Ukraine to what was Putin's true goal of re-establishing the former Soviet empire. Aside from being clearly deluded, its a clear sign that peace with Putin, while Russia is still militarily coherent within Ukraine's borders, is not possible. Putin is digging on for a long protracted war against the entire Western world and nothing short of an overwhelming embarrassment will change Russian minds.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
Putin is digging on for a long protracted war against the entire Western world and nothing short of an overwhelming embarrassment will change Russian minds.
Too late for that, I wont be over until Putin is removed.
The Following User Says Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
Based on Pentagon sources, the "leaked" documents had genuine base, and then were heavily doctored to quadruple Ukrainian losses and minimize Russian losses, before being pushed on Twitter. The worst part about the leaked original slides were it gave old troop positions and projection of force build up needed to launch the offensive. So Russians know the timing of when the offensive will launch and which units are likely to take part.
NATO demanded Twitter remove the posts and is looking for the leaker (prior ones they found and put in prison for 5+ years). Musk refused to remove the posts and also unbanned and stopped policing all prior Russian and Chinese propaganda Twitter mouthpieces and started labelling NPR/NYT as US state sponsored propaganda despite them being less than 2% government funded. Its like Musk coordinated this with Russians.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
Well, it's actually labelled state-affiliated media, not propaganda. And I think Twitter giving them that label has more to do with the NPR liking the Democrats and Elon not, and him being a child.
The NYT not being a mouth-piece of the US government? Say what? Did you miss their excellent coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq where they definitely had WMDs?
Anyways this is off topic now, but to close, I have no issue with media from any country that is affiliated with their government, being labelled that way. CBC is labelled that way on YouTube and should also be labelled the same way on Twitter in my opinion.
The Following User Says Thank You to activeStick For This Useful Post:
NATO demanded Twitter remove the posts and is looking for the leaker (prior ones they found and put in prison for 5+ years). Musk refused to remove the posts and also unbanned and stopped policing all prior Russian and Chinese propaganda Twitter mouthpieces and started labelling NPR/NYT as US state sponsored propaganda despite them being less than 2% government funded. Its like Musk coordinated this with Russians.
At this point, the Whitehouse needs to consider banning Twitter and investigate Elon Musk for collaborating with the enemy and aiding in the propagation of classified leaked information critical to national security.
That focus they have on TikTok needs to be happening to Twitter.
Last edited by Firebot; 04-08-2023 at 05:31 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
I don't think it's shocking at all that the U.S. and NATO may have been helping Ukraine plan an offensive. Think it was pretty much expected and assumed that Ukraine was getting logistical assistance from them. Before the full scale invasion, Russia was providing the same support to rebels in Donbass, so NATO giving the same support to the actual Ukrainian government shouldn't be unexpected. Russia of course, was supplying men as well. The real story is that someone leaked the documents and apparently altered them as well.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Well, it's actually labelled state-affiliated media, not propaganda. And I think Twitter giving them that label has more to do with the NPR liking the Democrats and Elon not, and him being a child.
The NYT not being a mouth-piece of the US government? Say what? Did you miss their excellent coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq where they definitely had WMDs?
Anyways this is off topic now, but to close, I have no issue with media from any country that is affiliated with their government, being labelled that way. CBC is labelled that way on YouTube and should also be labelled the same way on Twitter in my opinion.
That's extremely flawed position there. State affiliated media are told what to say directly i.e. like China and Iran where you are given topics you cannot say or discuss or you will be arrested, you must take these positions in this exact wording, etc. CBC, NPR, and NYTs have journalistic independence and the reporters are not threatened with gulags at any point. While sure, they may certainly report government positions, may be duped to report false information, or the owners may pull strings to slant some topics, putting them on anywhere the same level is a huge false equivalence and is the exact position Russian/Chinese disinformation campaigns push.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
That's extremely flawed position there. State affiliated media are told what to say directly i.e. like China and Iran where you are given topics you cannot say or discuss or you will be arrested, you must take these positions in this exact wording, etc. CBC, NPR, and NYTs have journalistic independence and the reporters are not threatened with gulags at any point. While sure, they may certainly report government positions, may be duped to report false information, or the owners may pull strings to slant some topics, putting them on anywhere the same level is a huge false equivalence and is the exact position Russian/Chinese disinformation campaigns push.
The bolded is key for me. When any media slants their position to push their government's perspective, as you've correctly noted, it's affiliated to the state. Of course, the degree is different, but many are in the same pile, just to varying extents.
The bolded is key for me. When any media slants their position to push their government's perspective, as you've correctly noted, it's affiliated to the state. Of course, the degree is different, but many are in the same pile, just to varying extents.
No, a slant does not mean they are state affiliated. There is nuance you have to take into account there.
Journalists are people and they can't break down every lie they are told, and this gets passed on to the public sometimes. Reporting what important figures do is also part of their job. Organizations with journalistic standards will do basic fact checking. i.e. all the times now they say Government officials claim X, we checked with experts and they said Y. Or now more recently Government officials claim, without evidence, that X is true.
RT and People's Daily Will Never Make that distinction and are being grouped together with NPR/CBC... like Wtf. There is a huge difference between reporting on the government claims independently vs. pure propaganda labels like you were implying before. Labelling both without any sort of distinction implies both are making the same degree of egregious disinformation same degree of state organization control.
As far as how bad these outlets are, MediaBiasChart/AllSides/Ad Fontes put out factually correct and left/right slanting outlets are w/ the methodology and offending articles, etc. You could never get that with countries w/ state news control.
I don't see the NYT as having any label on Twitter, and I see NPR labeled as government funded' not as state affiliated or as propaganda.
Anyways, the idea that news is automatically propaganda because it comes from the state or that it's automatically not propaganda because it comes from a private source is just a misleading way of looking at things. The distinction between propaganda, publicity, and advertising is mostly just one of sentiment, but they're basically all the same thing. Private media companies are just their own form of private dictatorships, and the media landscape is full of propaganda. It's not like editors have free reign to do as they please just because they're employer is private.
A better thing for Twitter and other social media companies to do if pursuing this approach of labeling would be to have labels for a wide range of governance and funding systems of media sources as well as having a link or icons for something like Media Bias Fact Check or an equivalent.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
The bolded is key for me. When any media slants their position to push their government's perspective, as you've correctly noted, it's affiliated to the state. Of course, the degree is different, but many are in the same pile, just to varying extents.
Ignoring that your position equating media in authoritarian states with cbc/bbc is itself nuts, how do you feel if a media outlet slants its perspective at the behest of the editors, the owner, or a rich donor?
What happens to a media organization that favours the party that isn’t in power, and then that party is in power? Is the Rebel now state media? Is Twitter state media in Alberta as Elon’s politics are similar to Danielle smith?
Back on topic, Russian newspapers say Russian troops are pulling back in some parts of the front in Avdiivka, south of Bakhmut, and Vuhledar to more defensible positions in preparation for the Ukrainian offensive. Guessing things will be static for a bit before Ukraine starts wherever they are going to attack. Speculation is they'll launch a southward push towards Melitopol, Mariupol, or Berdyansk...
Ignoring that your position equating media in authoritarian states with cbc/bbc is itself nuts, how do you feel if a media outlet slants its perspective at the behest of the editors, the owner, or a rich donor?
What happens to a media organization that favours the party that isn’t in power, and then that party is in power? Is the Rebel now state media? Is Twitter state media in Alberta as Elon’s politics are similar to Danielle smith?
I think it's all bad. Looks like Twitter has two labels now: state-affiliated and government funded.
This whole "information age" warfare is weird AF. I wonder how much of the talk about a spring counteroffensive is just speculation vs. leaks vs. disinformation? Are there any benefits to Ukraine for the invaders to know this is coming? Or perhaps to know that *something big* is coming, but not knowing when, how, or where?
I would think the ideal scenario would be to have the invaders think you're defeated, then out of nowhere shove a battalion of tanks up their flank...or something like that.
