Crimea belongs to the Ukraine

[Saxony4]

Russian media is state run media, as in the government decides what the news stations air.

[Tonkyhonk]

I'd rather trust western media.

its nothing relational though...
i once got interviewed by american local media, but when it was issued, whatever i explained turned out to be something they wanted to write, not what i wanted to say. the same happened in my own coutry media over and over (though ours is not "western").
reading my own country's, korean, chinese, and american and some british, it tells me that media is as full of shit as internet, although their info is not always useless and it often challenges our brain and knowledge and asks to read between lines. (and i like reading them anyways.)

[GrapefruitV]

I'd rather trust western media.

its nothing relational though...
i once got interviewed by american local media, but when it was issued, whatever i explained turned out to be something they wanted to write, not what i wanted to say. the same happened in my own coutry media over and over (though ours is not "western").
reading my own country's, korean, chinese, and american and some british, it tells me that media is as full of shit as internet, although their info is not always useless and it often challenges our brain and knowledge and asks to read between lines. (and i like reading them anyways.)

Well, I should probably change "western" to "european", because american media in my scale of trustworthiness is not much higher than russian
But atleast they bothered to interview a real person, lol. In Russia they would just give 10$ to random hobo to read the script or just quote made up person. They use editing thing only for known people (politicians, scientists, artists, etc.)

[Amanda44]

I'd rather trust western media.

its nothing relational though...
i once got interviewed by american local media, but when it was issued, whatever i explained turned out to be something they wanted to write, not what i wanted to say. the same happened in my own coutry media over and over (though ours is not "western").

It is exactly the same over here, and everywhere else, I also have some (small) experience in the field both personally and through relatives that work in the media, one in the press, the other in radio - news 'sells' just like anything else, the more sensationalism, drama and sex - the better - supply and demand. It can be local events or world conflict, it really makes little difference.

reading my own country's, korean, chinese, and american and some british, it tells me that media is as full of shit as internet, although their info is not always useless and it often challenges our brain and knowledge and asks to read between lines. (and i like reading them anyways.)

It's a shame more people aren't challenged and bother to read between the lines. Ofc in times of conflict no one wants to believe they aren't the good guys and patriotism sells. Too many people just blindly accept the media as being gospel, esp when it comes to news worthy items.

But atleast they bothered to interview a real person, lol. In Russia they would just give 10$ to random hobo to read the script or just quote made up person. They use editing thing only for known people (politicians, scientists, artists, etc.)

Honestly, it's not much different anywhere, there has been quite a bit of emphasis on the press over here in recent years, mainly due to internal affairs but, the lengths they go to in order to get a story include planting evidence, paying people to lie and even just outright fabrication.

My relative - who I argue with over it, lol, - justifies it by saying there is 'no smoke without fire', if they have to 'twist' some facts or 'invent' a bit of evidence then at least it gets the story out there. But, on the other side, I knew someone whose life was literally ruined by the media, really, in total tatters, relationship, job, everything and yes, there was a whisp of grey smoke but nothing at all, in any shape or form, deserving of the blazing inferno that came. All because it made a better story and sold more papers. The public are every bit as much to blame for what happened by preferring the fiction to the truth because it was more 'newsworthy', no-one cared less about the innocent people involved who got hurt and now no-one even really remembers - the public demand, the media supplies.

Does any of that sound familiar? It's really no different when it comes to world events.

[Tonkyhonk]

Well, I should probably change "western" to "european", because american media in my scale of trustworthiness is not much higher than russian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies
i doubt french or german media would be any better. (no offense) its just six of one and half a dozen of the other.

oops, beaten to it.

[Sarchi]

I'd still rather trust BBC and certain other news outlets than RT. RT is about as trustworthy as Fox News. Putin claims that Russia is not having a covert operation in Ukraine, and the separatist movement is a spontaneous uprising by the people. How, then, do random civilians fucking shoot down helicopters with missiles? Not to mention that there are pictures clearly showing people dressed in professional equipment with military-grade weapons, just like we saw in Crimea. The only argument I hear people make that is in favor of Russian intervention is "Well, if the USA gets to do it, then who are we to say that Russia can't either?"

For an organization (EU) that extolls the values of democracy, they sure are spineless. Obviously Russia doesn't give a single fuck about "sanctions."

@Amanda:

This is a general problem with journalism. I took a journalism class once just for the hell of it, and all the students were taught was how to make use of sensationalist "news." It's all about what sells, and students are literally taught this. The function of the media is not so much about informing the public about important events as it is about selling some emotion-laden garbage because "that's what people want."

[MagicManICT]

The function of the media is not so much about informing the public about important events as it is about selling some emotion-laden garbage because "that's what people want."

It's a vicious cycle of consumers, media outlets, and the advertisers that pay for the whole thing. The numbers don't lie (though they can be manipulated to hell and back).

Russian media is state run media, as in the government decides what the news stations air.

BBC was for the longest time, too, but it was considered a very reliable media source (not sure if as reliable as, say, NY Times).

Well, I should probably change "western" to "european", because american media in my scale of trustworthiness is not much higher than russian

It's always about the source. You have two types of media everywhere: primary sources that print stories first run where the real investigations were done and then the leeches that report what they read elsewhere. This isn't counting the "propaganda machines" that simply generate the stories they want no matter the facts, of course. You have those no matter what country you're in. (And don't tell me your country doesn't have at least one. If you feel you can say that because there is only one media outlet, then that media outlet is the propaganda machine.)

Hell, let's just go back to 15th century borders. There is no Ukraine, just Crimea. Russia is still a nobody in world politics.

[Amanda44]

I'd still rather trust BBC and certain other news outlets than RT.

Russian media is state run media, as in the government decides what the news stations air.

BBC was for the longest time, too, but it was considered a very reliable media source (not sure if as reliable as, say, NY Times).

Ofc the main media outlets are controlled to differing degrees by the relative governments, but there is always control, one of the many reasons most governments are now questioning worldwide public internet access, the loss of control. Tonky has provided lots of examples of corruption in the BBC, which was respected world wide.
In peace time the media attacks internally but little questions are asked during times of conflict even if they are raised afterwards, (and then swept under the carpet and ignored).

As for intervention, the deciding factor in any intervention is how beneficial, or not, that intervention will be to the party intervening ..................

[Tonkyhonk]

here is an example.

<facts>
1. obama arrived in japan for the top lvl talks.
2. obama and abe had this luxurious sushi course at sukibayashi jiro, a well-known sushi bar.
3. obama said he enjoyed this sushi. he ate 14 pieces of sushi out of 20 served at the course.

<news overseas>
some media reported how obama was lucky to be dined at this sushi place, what a luxury (300$ a course), and how obama loved it and this casual style unlike all the previous dinners other presidents experienced.
some reported how obama was acting like just any gaijin tourist, but not doing his job.
some reported how obama didnt finish the whole course, implying how he didnt enjoy it despite his own words.
some reported how obama hardly talked anything casual at the dinner but kept on bothering about TPP, implying unfriendliness and desparation.
(some korean media reported how obama preferred korean food to japanese because he didnt finish sushi but ate whole bulgogi in korea and showed more smiles and so on, thus korea won japan over dinner-hosting war.)

put pieces of facts differently and it makes totally different pieces of news articles.
media always focus on what they want to show, and choose what not to show, that lead people to misunderstand what actually happened and gives very different impressions on what is actually going on. adding some "innocent" lies here and there, dont write the reporters questions but pick up just pieces of phrases the person used, patching things up sometimes upside down, voila, makes the perfect news that sell.

but ofc, an outright lie, mistranslation, and fake are, out of questions, yet they are buried in everyday news.

i loved one of our media source on why abe decided to pick this particular bar, instead of the sushi place he himself goes regularly, some interesting domestic power-game reasons the journalist assumed.
another i liked from overseas was titled like "enjoy your sushi and hot noodles while you can, the chinese will remain cold" that hardly talked about the dinner itself, but more about the writers opinion piece on obamas asia pivot and china.

[Sarchi]

some reported how obama didnt finish the whole course, implying how he didnt enjoy it despite his own words.

He's been shown on national media to cut a slice of cake in half and only eat one half of it. If anything, I think he only ate 14/20 slices of sushi for health reasons or simply because he was full.