Telegram as a vehicle for war propaganda

[ohio jones]

Of course Telegram is a vehicle for war propaganda. One of the top three, in fact.

Conventional wisdom from years gone by (no longer politically correct or culturally acceptable or technologically relevant, so I beg a bit of indulgence for bringing it up in good humour and assure all readers that no offense is intended in any way) says that the most efficient ways to spread propaganda, news, "news", gossip, and other information are as follows:

1. Telephone
2. Telegram
3. Tell a woman

[Dan Z]

I'll restate that the best practice is to look to a cross-section of institutionally accountable free-press (i.e. non-governmental, balanced, fair-minded) sources with a proven track record of journalistic integrity, (yes - kept in check by unaccountable alternate sources). The world is still served by good journalism - one has to be a bit discerning to find it in the information age.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are looking at things through rose-colored glasses. This latest conflict is a perfect example of just how untruthful the "free-press" has been. Numerous fake stories faithfully printed without any vetting whatsoever.

I don't doubt that the "fog of war" and human biases have resulted in some off-the-mark stories along the way. Plus, the propaganda motives on both sides are pretty strong as well...like in any war. But overall I have been very impressed with the reporting thus far in Ukraine. There are hundreds of world reporters risking their lives to tell the story of what is going on at street level (Fox News and the NY Times have recently each had a reporter killed). I admire them for what they do. And yes - any serious news organization is vetting and verifying as they go. I believe most of the reporters from established sources are telling it as truthfully as they can...and the world is better off knowing rather than not knowing - or worse yet, knowing only through the eyes of state and military sources.

[Szdfan]

I'll restate that the best practice is to look to a cross-section of institutionally accountable free-press (i.e. non-governmental, balanced, fair-minded) sources with a proven track record of journalistic integrity, (yes - kept in check by unaccountable alternate sources). The world is still served by good journalism - one has to be a bit discerning to find it in the information age.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are looking at things through rose-colored glasses. This latest conflict is a perfect example of just how untruthful the "free-press" has been. Numerous fake stories faithfully printed without any vetting whatsoever.

I don't doubt that the "fog of war" and human biases have resulted in some off-the-mark stories along the way. Plus, the propaganda motives on both sides are pretty strong as well...like in any war. But overall I have been very impressed with the reporting thus far in Ukraine. There are hundreds of world reporters risking their lives to tell the story of what is going on at street level (Fox News and the NY Times have recently each had a reporter killed). I admire them for what they do. And yes - any serious news organization is vetting and verifying as they go. I believe most of the reporters from established sources are telling it as truthfully as they can...and the world is better off knowing rather than not knowing - or worse yet, knowing only through the eyes of state and military sources.

This is also the "most wired" war that's ever happened, with many of the scenes of war captured by cell phones and mobile devices. Both sides are certainly engaged in propaganda or trying to portray themselves in the best light possible -- the narrative of the fearless Ukrainians defending their homeland is also propaganda, even if it is a reflection of reality.

One of Nett's Twitter sources claims that the war is completely fake and that victims are "crisis actors" and the fighting and damage are CGI creations digitally inserted. I'm highly skeptical of that. I think there's too much footage out there to effectively fake this and there are at this point three million refugees who are clearly running from something.

In response to the invasion, the Russians have shut down independent media in the country in order to control the narrative at home. Right now, there's only State-approved media in Russia parroting the official state narrative. To call the invasion a "war" and not a "military action" risks a fifteen-year prison sentence. That's not the situation in the US or the West, where we no longer have the traditional gate-keepers and instead have an informational free-for-all. I think there are a lot of good things about the democratization of media, but I also think we may have access to more information than we know what to do with and struggle to discern truth from fiction.

I think there's too much media in the West (even so-called mainstream media) to coordinate in order to effectively fake a war. That doesn't mean that there isn't bias or group think or that the media runs stories that turn out to be wrong or inaccurate, but it seems to me highly unlikely that it would be possible for NATO or the US or someone else to fake an entire war.

I need more from those who claim that the media is lying about what's going on in Ukraine. I think two things can be true at the same time -- that bias is an unavoidable part of the human condition and that yelling "bias" whenever there's a story you don't like is intellectually lazy. Of course there is a media narrative about Ukraine. Of course the US is hypocritical in how it views the Russian invasion versus how it views its own military adventures -- that doesn't mean that the Russians aren't trying to bomb Ukrainian cities into submission.

I'm on the Left. I've spent years hearing (and believing) that the US is hypocritical and lying about what it does around the world. However, just because the US is bad doesn't mean that its opponents and enemies are good. The US invasion of Iraq doesn't absolve Russia of its invasion of Ukraine. The US's hypocrisy doesn't make what Russia is doing right. I find this kind of black and white thinking to be deeply unsatisfying and I need more than what's being presented here to convince me.

[nett]

I'll restate that the best practice is to look to a cross-section of institutionally accountable free-press (i.e. non-governmental, balanced, fair-minded) sources with a proven track record of journalistic integrity, (yes - kept in check by unaccountable alternate sources). The world is still served by good journalism - one has to be a bit discerning to find it in the information age.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are looking at things through rose-colored glasses. This latest conflict is a perfect example of just how untruthful the "free-press" has been. Numerous fake stories faithfully printed without any vetting whatsoever.

Do you believe that you have the capacity and ability to vet which stories are true and which ones are fake?

Not without previously reading the author. But I do have the apparently rare ability to wait 8 hours to find out stories are fabricated.

[nett]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are looking at things through rose-colored glasses. This latest conflict is a perfect example of just how untruthful the "free-press" has been. Numerous fake stories faithfully printed without any vetting whatsoever.

I don't doubt that the "fog of war" and human biases have resulted in some off-the-mark stories along the way. Plus, the propaganda motives on both sides are pretty strong as well...like in any war. But overall I have been very impressed with the reporting thus far in Ukraine. There are hundreds of world reporters risking their lives to tell the story of what is going on at street level (Fox News and the NY Times have recently each had a reporter killed). I admire them for what they do. And yes - any serious news organization is vetting and verifying as they go. I believe most of the reporters from established sources are telling it as truthfully as they can...and the world is better off knowing rather than not knowing - or worse yet, knowing only through the eyes of state and military sources.

One of Nett's Twitter sources claims that the war is completely fake and that victims are "crisis actors" and the fighting and damage are CGI creations digitally inserted. I'm highly skeptical of that. I think there's too much footage out there to effectively fake this and there are at this point three million refugees who are clearly running from something.

That is such an exaggeration, it's almost not worth a response, but since you decided to wade into it, are you saying there has not been front-page news that uses either staged or unrelated (ie from a different war) footage? Please go on record saying this.

[nett]

Real or fake?

[Soloist]

I think there's too much media in the West (even so-called mainstream media) to coordinate in order to effectively fake a war. That doesn't mean that there isn't bias or group think or that the media runs stories that turn out to be wrong or inaccurate, but it seems to me highly unlikely that it would be possible for NATO or the US or someone else to fake an entire war.

I need more from those who claim that the media is lying about what's going on in Ukraine. I think two things can be true at the same time -- that bias is an unavoidable part of the human condition and that yelling "bias" whenever there's a story you don't like is intellectually lazy. Of course there is a media narrative about Ukraine. Of course the US is hypocritical in how it views the Russian invasion versus how it views its own military adventures -- that doesn't mean that the Russians aren't trying to bomb Ukrainian cities into submission.

I'm on the Left. I've spent years hearing (and believing) that the US is hypocritical and lying about what it does around the world. However, just because the US is bad doesn't mean that its opponents and enemies are good. The US invasion of Iraq doesn't absolve Russia of its invasion of Ukraine. The US's hypocrisy doesn't make what Russia is doing right. I find this kind of black and white thinking to be deeply unsatisfying and I need more than what's being presented here to convince me.

I would agree with your post and in response to the bolded, I have not said the media is lying but rather there is a great deal of propaganda. Little things or big depending on how you look at them paint a perception of the overall war. Is Russia doing as bad as the media says? we have an interest in making Russia look bad and making the defenders look good. Perhaps Russia miscalculated but I suspect this simply is a sign of engaging a military that is using modern equipment and this might be their Vietnam. The things I really see are the bombings of the schools, the residential area's and the hospitals. This doesn't justify the invasion and there is indeed a war going on with real casualties on both sides. The question really is why is Russia bombing these places? are the defenders hunkering down in these spots to cause Russia to look bad? or coincidental? Either way we would do the same thing Russia is doing and have done the same thing several times. Because we won, no real war crimes ever got brought up, but I know other countries believe we committed war crimes and just as we decry them, they did the same.
Growing up I believed America was a great God fearing nation full of honest honorable people. Then I joined the military and a great deal of my blinders were removed. I would read articles decrying some little nation fighting and committing war crimes and then listen to my instructors tell about the war crimes committed either intentionally or accidentally by our forces. I also learned about our breaking the laws we agreed to whenever it suited us and how we justify it by saying "they were not lawful combatants" If you recall, Germany treated American POW's pretty good but treated others quite poorly. We locked Americans up in camps purely because they were Japanese and the Japanese didn't follow good war practices so we didn't either.
Landmines set for 60 pounds or greater are considered antipersonnel landmines and historically cause serious problems with killing after the war is over, cluster munitions leave up to 30% unexploded ordnance that blows up later often in a child's hand. Tactics designed to maim rather then kill have been used and the list goes on of the poor war practices. I hated what we supposedly stood for and much of this colored why I because a non-resistant Christian. Initially I would have been a pacifist until I read Dean's book.
As I started this journey while I was still in the military I begin to see more reason behind these practices and that every country will do whatever it wants to achieve its own goals and that every country is corrupt and will use whatever it desires to achieve its goals if the cost is calculated as low enough. We regularly act as though we are enlightened and decry these other countries for using things resulting in a self image to ourselves that somehow we are this great nation of liberty and just wars.

So to conclude my lengthy reply, I believe that Ukraine is going to attempt to get Russia to commit war crimes and Russia is going to do them if they think its justified or can get away with them. Ukraine will also do war crimes and I personally believe they have committed them in regard to how they treat POW's and fleeing civilians. I also believe Russia has committed war crimes but in regard to both of these nations, I really doubt these committed war crimes were ordered by official military orders and that standing orders for both countries is likely not to do them.

There is a book series where the enemy committed war crimes and then the "good guys" did too. The result was that no one was willing to trust the other side and regardless of justification and arguments over if NATO did this agreement in the past, Russia believes we said it and now doesn't believe us. Likewise we don't believe them so what is the worth of any agreement made with them or with us? How can one convince the enemy that they will be truthful this time?

[temporal1]

nett:
.. Likewise we don't believe them so what is the worth of any agreement made with them or with us?
How can one convince the enemy that they will be truthful this time?

Hope springs eternal.

Quote by Alexander Pope: “Hope springs eternal in the human breast - Goodreads

“Hope springs eternal in the human breast; Man never Is, but always To be blest.
The soul, uneasy, and confin'd from home, Rests and expatiates in a life to ...

Every agreement is just the beginning. It takes time to live out the reality. Matthew 18:22

Not to be blind, stupid, in denial. But cautious, caretaking, vigilant, hopeful.

Nothing of man or earth will last. Still, earthly life must be navigated, one day at a time. No shortcuts.

[temporal1]

I have learned a lot from Internet sources.
For example the Jussie Smollett hoax was faithfully re-narrated by the WSJ and the NYT at a time when Internet sources had already looked into the story and found inconsistencies.

Without external forces (the local police got miffed by the costs for a useless search and took the risk to accuse Smollett), the WSJ and NYT would still now re-narrate their original stories.

Internet sources like Telegram are indispensable for to find the weak points in the ruling narratives.

Good example.

It’s highly likely you’re correct about “indispensable,” to be clear, the track record for personal accountability in human pursuits is bleak. The loftier, more trusted, the worse the offenses. Including in churches. There are abundant examples of ghastly failures in every human construct.

This forum is fairly unique in allowing representation of nearly all sides for discussion. Of course, some do not want that!
They are allowed to not want it.

For myself, i find the text/content in mainstream dripping with bias; if not outright lies, the rhetoric is most often so shamelessly saturated with bias, i wonder how it gets past an editor. (i’m not sure there are editors.) Then i remember, most stuff “out there” comes from new college grads, who produce what they’re told, what they’ve been taught, under pressure to pay student loans.

No matter source, skew or bias, i read wondering what is true, what is not? The mainstream is not an exception.
They claim a higher standard, thus they warrant greater scrutiny. imho.

[steve-in-kville]

Of course Telegram is a vehicle for war propaganda. One of the top three, in fact.

Conventional wisdom from years gone by (no longer politically correct or culturally acceptable or technologically relevant, so I beg a bit of indulgence for bringing it up in good humour and assure all readers that no offense is intended in any way) says that the most efficient ways to spread propaganda, news, "news", gossip, and other information are as follows:

1. Telephone
2. Telegram
3. Tell a woman

I can't be the only person that finds this funny