Credibility of soviet sources

No. First I wanted to say that this tread should be moved to the Stump, then I have realized that it would be waste of resources. This tread was rather amusing but now it is like a horse in Stalingrad. Just bones..

 

Ah, the diverse beauty of the English language...

 

For a exceptionally long time the Trojan War was considered by most scholar's to be nothing more than inspired fiction, that is until Hissarlik was excavated and that excavation was shown to mirror events in the Iliad.

What was seen as nothing more than propaganda turned out to be surprisingly accurate considering the media (oral history) of the time.

 

You could try, but you may get a smack.

 

Recently, a certain Finn has mistaken me for an Aussie. That must be because of my awkward English language.

 

I had to consult the Urban Dictionary to clear this finesse of English language. Well, I must admit, the Aussie/UK version is absolutely the best. :twohearts: That's no propaganda - I really mean that. :evillaugh:

 

Have you ever heard that pretty girls love the bad boys.

Wow. This propaganda tread turns into an amusing conversation, again.

 

Since you must be referring to me, I feel I must respond. Again - like Putin - you state something which is not true.

I wrote, that "since you are most likely NOT an Aussie". Which part of that text makes you believe I think you are one?

I admit, a foreign language might be sometimes difficult to understand but still...

BTW - when I was younger I used to be rather good in something. We traveled around the world to compete.
In ten years there was only one place where the organizer of the competition conned our little team. That happened in Ljubljana. Funny co-incidence, don't you think...?

 

Oh no! Propaganda again. That was another Finn:

 

Back to the credibility of the official soviet sources. This is one example of the official Russian information of today:

"On Friday November 14th, Russian state television ran a story of supposed foreign satellite images showing the last moments of flight MH17, with a fighter jet appearing to fire at the plane. Suspicions arose immediately on Twitter, and inconsistencies were pointed out, quickly leading to the conclusion the image is a crude fabrication."

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2014/11/14/russian-state-television-shares-fake-images-of-mh17-being-attacked/

Since this is the norm now in the supposedly "modern, democratic" Russia, what must it have been like back in the days of "good old Uncle Joe"...?

 

Exactly - and still they used it in the state television. And it was by far not the first time...

 

Why? It costs too much, and you're not going to convince the non-believers anyway. This is strictly for consumption by the already converted.

 

In a society founded on negative sellection and nepotism the “professionals” are so good that even children can do it better. Soviet propaganda has always been so amateurish that the repressive methods had to be used to make population “beleive”.

Regarding the fabrication of the “truth” the West isn't much better but their propaganda machine is highly efficient system of deception. However, even they have often miserably failed. At the following link you may read about CNN's Top-Five Credibility Catastrophes of 2013.

Every society needs the means to control own population. So where is the difference?

 

Where is the difference?

Regrettably, by this statement, I can only conclude that you were born yesterday.

The difference is who controls the information being released...In the Soviet Union it was the State/government which controlled the release of information to the public, and they released only what they wanted the public to hear and nothing else. For a newspaper/reporter to do otherwise meant a trip to the Gulag or worse. In the West, well, in the United States at least, the control, for the most part, lies with the owners of said media companies. The government has little control over what the said companies publish/present. That being said, the main news outlets tend to hire those that "agree" with their owner's political/social political views, thus presenting the "news" with a certain amount of "spin", either left or right. I for one would love to see Rush Limbaugh do a stint on CNN, that would be awesome.

 

I ain't that young either.
Who owns the media and who decides what the public needs to know? Who owns the government?