War with Russia

[Transmitter Man]

Isn't it a little dangerous these days being a journalist in a war zone as many have found out even over the past few years?

So unless you're embedded with the regime to protect you and for you to report with a positive bias how do you get a balanced report from the war zone if not by video and twitter uploads?

I still however feel you can takes all reports and make up your own mind and over a period of time it becomes easier as to who is reliable and who is less so.

Geolocated images and time & date stamped video's from regular posters tend to have the edge over posts without any source links.

Phil

[Mr Whippy]

Transmitter Man said:

Geolocated images and time & date stamped video's from regular posters tend to have the edge over posts without any source links.

They should add a sense of faith, but they're so easily fudged by editing the metadata entries.

You can easily be mis-sold things even from the bloggers.

The best part of many blogs I read is user comments. Very often if there is foul to be called on an article or bias, it's called... which then makes you read deeper.

But even that is difficult these days because both sides (West and East) are employing specialist units to write propaganda on sites... so even the user comments now are not always reliable.


And ultimately who makes news dissemination unreliable? It's the governments mainly. Our very own UK government has a propaganda battalion to spread the 'correct' perspective on news... sick really that we're paying to have our own military lie to us.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 23 April 16:27

[Transmitter Man]

Other than the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg and I'm sure there are other government sponsored institutions who work in promoting Russia in the correct light, which organisations or government agencies carry out similar work in the UK, to your knowledge?



Phil

[Mr Whippy]

Transmitter Man said:

Other than the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg and I'm sure there are other government sponsored institutions who work in promoting Russia in the correct light, which organisations or government agencies carry out similar work in the UK, to your knowledge?



Phil

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31070114

???

[Transmitter Man]

Well, we've just come round in a big circle with keyboard warriors.

What about the guys on the ground?

Doesn't their feedback count any longer?

I happen to think it does.

If someone takes a video of lets say for example, a checkpoint which yesterday had been destroyed by IS but the video showed Assad soldiers then with a bunch of dead beardies lying around the place would you consider (I didn't say accept) that just maybe the beardies were no longer in charge of said checkpoint?

Phil

[Mr Whippy]

Transmitter Man said:

Well, we've just come round in a big circle with keyboard warriors.

What about the guys on the ground?

Doesn't their feedback count any longer?

I happen to think it does.

If someone takes a video of lets say for example, a checkpoint which yesterday had been destroyed by IS but the video showed Assad soldiers then with a bunch of dead beardies lying around the place would you consider (I didn't say accept) that just maybe the beardies were no longer in charge of said checkpoint?

Phil

The video could be showing anything. I have to trust that beardies are even dead, that the Assad soldiers are really Assad's soldiers, etc etc.

Without significant background checks and a history moving backwards and forwards that allows you to draw conclusions, I wouldn't even consider that video meaningful.


I'll be honest, I don't really care. All I see is a few powerful individuals playing full retard. Using tribal mentality the leadership of each country manages to corral the plebs to go fight for the powerful individuals betterment, at the cost of their own lives and liberty.

I see NO virtue in going all tribal over someone else's inferiority, greed or psychopathic problems.


Dave

[skyrover]

BBC reporter happens to be in the firing line from DNR forces in East Ukraine

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32429614

What ceasefire?

[Cobnapint]

Ah Skyrover, but you're just repeating what some probably biased reporter from a discredited news agency in London says on some shakey video taken with some background noises probably dubbed in later - eh Mr Whappy.

Without knowing what happened before/after this video means that you are drawing conclusions based on just what you've read/heard on line. And that's just bang out of order in this world of cheap flights.

It is not permissible to make any statements on this forum without actually having BEEN there yourself, whereupon you can post geo-tagged selfies (which are officially regarded as admissible evidence on PH) with lost Russian soldiers in the background staring cluelessly at torn maps while convoys of Russian tanks rumble past heading in a westerly direction. THEN, and only then, will we actually believe that the ceasefire isn't holding.

[isee]

skyrover said:

BBC reporter happens to be in the firing line from DNR forces in East Ukraine

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32429614

What ceasefire?

What cease fire indeed:
dated 7 April 2015

OSCE said:

The SMM observed an increase in the number of ceasefire violations in the Donetsk region, especially around Donetsk airport. The SMM monitored the situation in the area of Shyrokyne and assessed the security situation as remaining tense. The SMM monitored five heavy weapons holding areas belonging to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In Luhansk region, the SMM observed the security situation to be relatively calm.

OSCE said:

The SMM continued to monitor in the Donetsk region and observed a general increase in the number of ceasefire violations. While at the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC) observation post at the Donetsk railway station (8km north-west of Donetsk, Donetsk People’s Republic (“DPR”)-controlled), between 10:25 and 12:15hrs, the SMM heard sounds of 132 explosions, heavy-machine gun and small-arms fire originating from the west-north-west, north-west, north and north-north-east directions at a distance of 2-5km from the SMM’s position.

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/150396

Can you show me BBC's concern or at least a mention of this so it doesn't look like they are taking the rebel's retaliation out of context and paint them as the aggressors as it currently appears?

I'll wait.

[Bluebarge]

isee said:

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/150396

Can you show me BBC's concern or at least a mention of this so it doesn't look like they are taking the rebel's retaliation out of context and paint them as the aggressors as it currently appears?

I'll wait.

So the BBC shouldn't publish an eyewitness report of ceasefire violations because it didn't have a reporter present at a ceasefire violation elsewhere? Interesting perspective.

Do you know what tends to happen to Western reporters who have reported from the pro-Russian side? Do you think that might have some impact on what the BBC can do in the region?

[isee]

Bluebarge said:

So the BBC shouldn't publish an eyewitness report of ceasefire violations because it didn't have a reporter present at a ceasefire violation elsewhere? Interesting perspective.

It shouldn't cherry pick events and report on them out of context, deliberately misleading the reader into an option they would not have formed had they been properly informed. I saw a Russian-filmed video showing Ukrainian army attack on Donetsk used by BBC without author's permission and spun as exactly the opposite, i'll try to find you a link.

Bluebarge said:

Do you know what tends to happen to Western reporters who have reported from the pro-Russian side? Do you think that might have some impact on what the BBC can do in the region?

They get passed over for promotion for not toeing the party line?

Edited by isee on Friday 24th April 11:22

[scherzkeks]

isee said:

They get passed over for promotion for not toeing the party line?

As someone who has worked quite a bit in journalism, I can assure you that you are on the right track here.

[Bluebarge]

scherzkeks said:

As someone who has worked quite a bit in journalism, I can assure you that you are on the right track here.

I'm all ears. What are your credentials for implying that all Western reporters from every country in the EU/USA etc are required to toe a party line and are punished for not doing so?.

Or is this another of your laconic interventions where you tell a lie to reinforce a propaganda position and then disappear?

[Bluebarge]

isee said:

Bluebarge said:

So the BBC shouldn't publish an eyewitness report of ceasefire violations because it didn't have a reporter present at a ceasefire violation elsewhere? Interesting perspective.

It shouldn't cherry pick events and report on them out of context, deliberately misleading the reader into an option they would not have formed had they been properly informed. I saw a Russian-filmed video showing Ukrainian army attack on Donetsk used by BBC without author's permission and spun as exactly the opposite, i'll try to find you a link.

Bluebarge said:

Do you know what tends to happen to Western reporters who have reported from the pro-Russian side? Do you think that might have some impact on what the BBC can do in the region?

They get passed over for promotion for not toeing the party line?

Edited by isee on Friday 24th April 11:22

Well, here is the BBC report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32429614
It just reports on what the BBC reporter saw. If you read the article it reports the Kremlin position. If you don't think the article is balanced then write to the BBC. You also know why the BBC and Western reporters rarely report from the pro-Russian side - because the pro-Russian forces will not allow them to, just as those same forces have been preventing the OCSE monitors from doing their work on occasion,as the latest OCSE report states. If Western reporters were allowed on the pro-Russian side, they would be able to report on what they see, but they might also see the large numbers of tanks and heavy weapons which the OCSE monitors have spotted, which is probably why reporters are not welcome there.

[scherzkeks]

Bluebarge said:

isee said:

Bluebarge said:

So the BBC shouldn't publish an eyewitness report of ceasefire violations because it didn't have a reporter present at a ceasefire violation elsewhere? Interesting perspective.

It shouldn't cherry pick events and report on them out of context, deliberately misleading the reader into an option they would not have formed had they been properly informed. I saw a Russian-filmed video showing Ukrainian army attack on Donetsk used by BBC without author's permission and spun as exactly the opposite, i'll try to find you a link.

Bluebarge said:

Do you know what tends to happen to Western reporters who have reported from the pro-Russian side? Do you think that might have some impact on what the BBC can do in the region?

They get passed over for promotion for not toeing the party line?

Edited by isee on Friday 24th April 11:22

Well, here is the BBC report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32429614
It just reports on what the BBC reporter saw.

The framing begins as early as the lede.

[scherzkeks]

Bluebarge said:

I'm all ears. What are your credentials for implying that all Western reporters from every country in the EU/USA etc are required to toe a party line and are punished for not doing so?.

My, my. That's quite a challenge you've set! Not sure anyone has the credentials to answer that question.

I look forward to your next post (as always). There is no individual better equipped to deliver unintended humor than the narcissist.

[Mr Whippy]

Bluebarge said:

So the BBC shouldn't publish an eyewitness report of ceasefire violations because it didn't have a reporter present at a ceasefire violation elsewhere? Interesting perspective.

Do you know what tends to happen to Western reporters who have reported from the pro-Russian side? Do you think that might have some impact on what the BBC can do in the region?

Circular argument warning

The response to your answer goes both ways depending on if you have faith that they're not biased to begin with.


So faith determines the answer to your question.

You clearly have faith in the BBC.

Given they lied to everyone over MP paedophile stuff, and helped cover things up for decades, I worry about where their impartiality lays, or their straight up trustworthiness.

They're too in bed with political vested interests, especially because it's where their 'food' comes from in the form of the TV license fees, that I struggle to have faith in them.

Dave

[Mojocvh]

Mr Whippy said:

Bluebarge said:

So the BBC shouldn't publish an eyewitness report of ceasefire violations because it didn't have a reporter present at a ceasefire violation elsewhere? Interesting perspective.

Do you know what tends to happen to Western reporters who have reported from the pro-Russian side? Do you think that might have some impact on what the BBC can do in the region?

Circular argument warning

The response to your answer goes both ways depending on if you have faith that they're not biased to begin with.


So faith determines the answer to your question.

You clearly have faith in the BBC.

Given they lied to everyone over MP paedophile stuff, and helped cover things up for decades, I worry about where their impartiality lays, or their straight up trustworthiness.

They're too in bed with political vested interests, especially because it's where their 'food' comes from in the form of the TV license fees, that I struggle to have faith in them.

Dave

Whilst I agree I also believe that at the grass roots level there are reporters out there trying to do a fair and accurate job.

However it seems once a subject becomes "visible" at a particular "level" [website hits?] then it is deemed "manageable" and it is deemed "steerable" from that point onwards. IMO.

[Bluebarge]

scherzkeks said:

Bluebarge said:

I'm all ears. What are your credentials for implying that all Western reporters from every country in the EU/USA etc are required to toe a party line and are punished for not doing so?.

My, my. That's quite a challenge you've set! Not sure anyone has the credentials to answer that question.

I look forward to your next post (as always). There is no individual better equipped to deliver unintended humor than the narcissist.

you claimed some inside knowledge my friend; I asked you to back that up; you sidestepped; again.

As to narcissism, I have been accused of many things, but never that, and if you knew what I looked like, you'd know why

[Mr Whippy]

Mojocvh said:

Whilst I agree I also believe that at the grass roots level there are reporters out there trying to do a fair and accurate job.

That's it, it's finding people you believe in and they're usually independent type bloggers etc.

Once a story gets out there proper, trying to Google/search for anything is impossible. Any Google result you get is one of about 10,000 of the same story just re-reported elsewhere.

I don't even get how half of these news sites exist. Web traffic supported only?

Dave