Latest Breaking News

DonViejo

(60,536 posts) Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:52 PM Oct 2017

FBI document cache sheds light on inner workings of Russia's U.S. news (and propaganda) network

Source: Yahoo News

Hunter Walker and Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News • October 13, 2017

WASHINGTON — On Jan. 23, 2017, the day he started as a Washington correspondent for Sputnik, Andrew Feinberg was emailed a copy of a “style guide” that laid out the organization’s mission.

The 103-page handbook for publications of Sputnik’s Kremlin-owned parent company, Rossiya Segodnya, made it clear that traditional journalistic neutrality was not the company’s mandate. Instead, Sputnik reporters were told they should provide readers “with a Russian viewpoint” on issues and “maintain allegiance” to the country.

“Our main goal is to inform the international audience about Russia’s political, economic and ideological stance on both local and global issues,” the guide reads. “To this end, we must always strive to be objective but we must also stay true to the national interest of the Russian Federation.”

The guide, which was written in English, is included among more than 10,000 internal Sputnik messages on a thumb drive that Feinberg provided to the FBI, which is investigating the agency for possible violations of the law that requires agents of foreign nations to register with the Justice Department. The guide appears to contradict repeated claims by Sputnik executives that they follow traditional journalistic standards and operate independently of the Kremlin and are dedicated to objective reporting. For example, in August, when Sputnik opened a headquarters in Scotland, Sputnik editor and director Nikolai Gorshkov told a local news agency, “No one has ever called me from Moscow.”

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-document-cache-sheds-light-inner-workings-russias-u-s-news-propaganda-network-172317008.html

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

FBI document cache sheds light on inner workings of Russia's U.S. news (and propaganda) network (Original Post) DonViejo Oct 2017 OP

The #TrumpRussia drip, drip, drip is now over the banks, flood mode. Reminds me of Watergate. L. Coyote Oct 2017 #1

Don't see the contradiction. Igel Oct 2017 #2

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)

1. The #TrumpRussia drip, drip, drip is now over the banks, flood mode. Reminds me of Watergate.

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 03:33 PM

Oct 2017

Resignations coming soon. People are scrambling to cover up involvement.

Link to tweet

Igel

(35,309 posts)

2. Don't see the contradiction.

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:28 PM

Oct 2017

You have to get your head to the right place, but it's where lots of Russians used to routinely exist.

You must voluntarily, eagerly, willingly demonstrate your allegiance and your pride in your country. In so doing, you follow your own standards, because your viewpoint's been internalized and your biases become part of the landscape. Within that framework, objectivity is possible, to some extent. How great the extent really depends on the topic. Even within that framework, though, there's no need for completely fake news--just incomplete news.

Now, the objection that "but this isn't objectivity, they need to be like western sources" is blatantly false. Look at any news source, from The Guardian to NPR to Fox to CBS to NBC and what you find is obviously biased reporting--this battle for "as objective as possible" was subverted in the '70s and '80s. After all, absolute bias is impossible, so why try--have a perspective, have a viewpoint. It's hard sometimes for me to tell what's an op-ed piece and what's "fact-based" reporting.

If it's the same as the reader's or the viewer's, then it's perceived as completely unbiased and thoroughly objective. If it's at odds, then the bias makes it so obvious that you don't need to pay the least attention to it. If you question everything, then it's fairly obvious in both kinds of sources. For most, "question authority" means "question those who you don't agree with." Of course, the most important authority to question is the authority you *do* agree with because they're the ones you're most likely to give a pass when it's not appropriate.

My analogy is a polarized light filter: To the extent that light lines up with the direction of the polarization, it gets through undiminished. To that extent what you see is objective. It's screened, to be sure, but it all gets through. Of course, some stuff doesn't make it at all. Mostly some information is lost, but that might be just 1 or 2%. In the dimness created by diminished transmissibility you get to inject your own opinions and views, and if you don't, the mere screening and presentation of partial information is, in itself, injecting your own opinion.

Reply to this discussion