Russian TV in the service of Iraqi Information Ministry

[The Vagabond]

The Russian and American TVs are equally biased. The difference is only that Russians do it in a more simple-minded or even dull way, while Americans are more sophisticated and exquisite.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming
Attack his lies and slander than... not the poster.
Everybody is welcome to their opinions, even if they may be wrong

He brings it on himself though. One wonders if he just enjoys seeing his name mentioned in a thread in any fashion given the stupidity his posts display.

[The Vagabond]

What often misleads people is that the American TV reports setbacks and opposite views in a seemingly consistent way. However, in essence, alternative sources of information never get a fair (unchecked) tribune for themselves on the American TV.

[The Vagabond]

As for newspapers, they are in general less biased than TV, both in the US and in Russia. For example, in the leading Russian newspapers such as Izvestia or Nezavisimaya Gazeta, there have been a number of rather pro-American articles about the Iraqi campaign.

[Nevs23]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
Saddam's own military has been less effective in avoiding civilian casualties, by bombarding his own capital with unguided SAM's, and AAA fragments, and by violating the Geneva convention, demanding separation of civilian and military forces.

Who said this... CNN?


I think the truth is someplace between the US, Iraq and other media.

The most important question (natural for me ) finally is: Why Iraq?

Why not North Korea?
Why not Katar?
Why not Saudi Arabia?
Why not... etc.

Making jokes about oel seems to be a good way to close the eyes before the truth.

[The Vagabond]

Re: Russian TV in the service of Iraqi Information Ministry

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I've just watched the Russian news reports on 2 major russian channels.

Lucky you! You have a free access to alternative TV sources of information.

The TV policy, I remind you, is dictated by the Kremlin, since it has power over all TV stations in Russia, whether direct, through "regulations" or economical control through state-run comapnies.

Wow, repeating an old cliche makes such a nice intro to your story!

The obscenely falsified facts and doctored video tapes, and provided lious commentatorship to present the American forces in a very bad light.

Other than vaguely comparing it to CNN, how can you be so sure that these are falsified facts, lies, etc.?

For instance, a taping from CNN showing white civilian cars with Iraqi militia inside, shooting at US forces, was cut, only to show the US forces firing back at the car and the car swaying to the side of the road, with the commentator explaining "Many civilians are hit, as US forces first open fire and only later ask questions".

Could it be that it was CNN that added the initial episode in?

Tapings from FOX/SKY of suspect Fedayin members being arrested at their homes are commentated: "Innocent unarmed Iraqi men are brutally kidnapped from their homes just for having expressed support of Saddam Hussein".

Images may be the same, but interpretations may well be different on different TV stations. We can't be completely sure which one is closer to reality.

Tapes from different days and different time frames were edited together, and commentated in a fashion which suggested "heavy iraqi resistance".

There is nothing wrong with compiling them together for this purpose.

That included pictures of UK troops destroying left behind Iraqi vehicles (as seen on SKY) being commentated as if they were hit in the middle of a heavy fire fight.

Again, same images, different interpretations, and we can't be sure which one is true. You obviously choose to believe SKY. Well, it's your personal free choice. Don't impose it on others.

Saturday's probe into Baghdad was titled "a failed american attack, rebuffed by Iraqi divisions" and a tank whose engine failed, and which was left and detonated by the US (so that not to leave usable weapons behind) was commentated as "The american forces suffered 3 casualties as the 3 troops driving this tank were killed when Iraqi forces blew it up".

Again, the only problem I see with this piece is that this bias contradicts to your bias.

A tape showing a person resisting arrest, and a UK trooper forcing him to submit, was presented as if it was normal procedure of "humiliation and beating up of unsuspecting citizens and random check points through out the country".

Even if it is so, didn't the Western media show similar "reports" about Chechnya?

An interview with american renegade reporter (the same who was interviewed by Iraqi TV) was voiced over. The voice over presented it as if the commentator went on and on about how the Iraqis resisted and how the US was not prepared, but are now employing a "no holds barred" tactic to finish the job. A closer listen to the original soundtrack that was not silenced allowed me to conclude that the "no holds barred" part was a russian invention. In reality the reporter talked about the cooperation US troops are attempting with Iraqi civilians.

There is nothing wrong with interviewing American renegade reporters.

Videos of Iraqi trucks fleeing Baghdad were presented as "reenforcements arriving to the scene".

How can you be so sure?

The incident where Russian ambassadors got in the middle of a fight between Iraqi an US forces was presented as if US forces suddenly opened fire on an unsuspecting Russian concoy. This is what all the broadcasters said, except for one Russian journalist who was interviewed, who was actually on the scene when it happenned, who admitted that they got into a middle of a gun fight, and were infact close to a concentration of Iraqi forces.

You see, one Russian journalist presented an alternative point of view on the Russian TV.

As for the episode itself, it still remains unclear what really happened there.

In the recent month, the russian media has made "the iraqi issue" a central one and does it's best to present the events in as anti-american light as possible.

At least they are honest in the sense that it is how they feel.

No one cares about the thousands slaughtered in Chechnya by Russian forces, yet russian TV stations gave special coverages to the issues of "iraqi civilian casualties" where they describe bloody american fighting tactics.

It's funny to hear this from an Isreali about "thousands slaughtered in Chechnya". I thought we were together in this, no?

This is unbelievable. I think that Kremlin wants to create a huge enemocity towards the USA among it's citizens (that have actually been USA's greatest supporters after the fall of communism), and thus justify political steps against the USA.

Wake up, Siro.

Furthermore, this manipulation proves that Russia is not a free country.

What a great line of thought.

I thinkn Putin hopes to gain a status of the most vocal anti-USA democracy, and thus gain more influence, and hopefully leadership of the Anti-US European block.

On the contrary, Putin is doing his best in order to get over the Iraqi issue in the US-Russian relations.

i'm frankly appalled by the amount of lies I've seen in that half hour of russian news. Not since the calbe company terminated the agreement with BBC, do I remember such a bunch of obviuos lies in such a short time span.

Don't be so appalled, Siro. Just don't trust CNN and SKY too much either. Truth lies somewhere in between.

[Ned]

How does Russian TV think they can get away with such lies? Do they censor or restrict access to other media? Or, which is more likely, is the other media in English or some other language the average Russian cannot understand?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Felch X


You obviously know a whole lot about us Americans from your unbiased news sources. There's only one thing we like more than killing babies, and that's killing babies for oil.

Oh I'm not suggesting you're enjoying it. I'm just saying you're doing it. And not only babies and not only for oil, stop being so narrow minded.

When you actually reply seriously, let me know.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by Nevs23

Who said this... CNN?

Its factual. The Iraqi's are using SA-2's, SA-3's and SA-6's in ballistic mode; the proximity fuse is set to detonate on contact, and then the missile is launched without the aid of radar. The SAM's eventually run out of fuel, and they don't explode at that point, but detonate when they hit the ground / market / baby milk factory.

The Iraqi's (mainly) 23 mm AAA doesn't vaporize in the air when it explodes; it fragments into shards, and these shards are the primary method of aircraft kill, not the concussive blast. These jagged metal fragments when they fall from a height of 5,000-10,000 can easily reach terminal velocity. They don't pose too much threat to a well constructed roof, and the inhabitants of such a building, but if you're out in the open, then they can certainly cause significant wounds, much like those on display in Baghdad hospitals.

Both the SAM's and AAA fragments are indiscriminate killers, and the Iraqi's have fired dozens of SAM's and hundreds of thousands of AAA rounds.

If the Iraqi army cared as much about the Iraqi people, as the Coalition do, then they'd place their air defences outside the city.

Then again, they'd be better not bothering with SAM's and AAA in the first place, since the Coalition airforces are going to hit what they want, unopposed anyway.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ned
How does Russian TV think they can get away with such lies? Do they censor or restrict access to other media? Or, which is more likely, is the other media in English or some other language the average Russian cannot understand?

Actually that is many peoples' question about the american media.

One can only think that since there's the internet there could be a way out.

But people enjoy trusting things that flatter them or simply agree with their views.

Besides the US is at "war", which American would want to see the results of this war in gruesome detail, everyday, in the hospitals of Bagdat...?


Besides, that is apparently not for the average American to decide.

Nor is it for the average Iraqi.

Propaganda can be evolved or crude (although even that is very relative), it still is propaganda. And war is never pretty. Unjustified war makes it only a lot worse IMO.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ned
How does Russian TV think they can get away with such lies? Do they censor or restrict access to other media? Or, which is more likely, is the other media in English or some other language the average Russian cannot understand?

The very formulation of your question shows that you deeply trust your own media, and dismiss any conflicting reports as lies.

[The Vagabond]

Truth lies somewhere in between.

Especially if by 'truth' we understand 'CNN'.

[Bereta_Eder]

Yep, don't trust anyone at face value... become Thomas the Unbeliever (hope you know him)... as Umberto Eco said

[Nevs23]

@spiritof1202:
Sounds plausibly.

Question: For which reason must the Iraqis use SAM's and AAA?

Answer: They are attacked by the coalition.

[Ned]

Vagabond, paiktis, We have so many different news sources that it hard to "lie." It is not hard to provide a biased report, however. We know there is a difference between the LA Times and FOX, between the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. They all slant the news. But, nothing like what we have seen from Russian media during this war. They so misreport the facts as to turn truth on its head.

My only question is how they can expect to have any credibility if the people can access Western media which, although somewhat biased, has very high standards about telling telling the truth and not making things up.