I think the cat is out of the bag. The US’s appetite for the “hope filled”, post USSR, Russian propaganda no longer appears to be present. Putin could not pull it off. It appears the opossum is not really dead, and the opossum knows that it’s predator was not fooled, but waiting the whole time.
“The Kremlin’s bet on marginal right-wing parties has paid off as they have moved into the mainstream. It has pumped out disinformation and propaganda both through its official media channels, such as the RT and Sputnik news networks, and through thousands of paid internet trolls.”
This part seems important.
I’ve suspected some here. When someone only posts about pro-Russia topics or Trump without ever talking about Catholic teaching or even Christianity in general, my alarm bells go off. To remain charitable I keep my suspicions to myself.
That’s like the pot calling the kettle black. The Economist is owned by the Rothschilds.
Can you provide any evidence for your assertion?
I agree with you.
I would assume Catholic Answers is aware of that possibility.
State of the art but by far second to the American media in terms of propoganda.
I have thought the same thing at times. But it is mildly amusing to picture them with little beards and those Trotsky glasses sitting in some pub somewhere with “worker” caps on, same half-empty glass of something or other sitting there all day, holding their cigarettes backwards between their thumb and index finger, putting them down now and then to type some post on a laptop provided by Putin, in between the emails from the Kremlin telling them what to say.
When we fall for this line of reasoning we play right into the hands of the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others of similar mindsets.
None of this would be happening if journalists and those in charge were responsible. The years (possibly decades) of smearing those who are against abortions, those who oppose to changing the definition of marriage, and practically anyone who holds a traditional view of social issues and other conservatives. Every time the predominantly liberal media takes a Bible verse out of context, do they seriously believe a practising Christian wouldn’t know or look it up? Does anyone really want to tune in or read content that constantly misrepresent or ridicule them?
Unfortunately, it does make a lot of Christians and conservatives vulnerable to fake news. I’ve been fooled before years ago.
What I find sad is seeing the traditional news outlets whinging about fake news when they’ve been doing the same thing but producing it in lower quantities for years and sadder when sites like Vox complain. And if I remember correctly, they never made a big deal over it when sites like the Huffington Post or BuzzFeed peddled fake news. What’s sad is they think more smearing of the ordinary Christian or conservative in the West will fix the problem.
Frankly it’s a genie the liberals or whatever label you like who run most of the media and work in can’t put back into the bottle. Any real attempt to do real objective reporting on sensitive issues in the future will not convince many they’ve changed or worse, it will be perceived as an attempt to lure the victims of their smears back just to smear them again. Any attempt to get the other side’s view will be seen as tokenism.
Very true. It is no secret that Russia uses propaganda. What country doesn’t? However, apparently it is a secret to many that American media uses it all the time, as well. We have the left in MSNBC and the neo-con right with Fox, with an assortment of in between. Everyone choses their own verbal poison. After all if you saw it on TV it is true, right?
Our entertainment we zombify ourselves with on TV, radio, newspapers, etc has done a remarkable job tainting our moral codes be it on abortion, same sex marriage, etc. It has the ability to project everyone who doesn’t agree with their view as a bigot or racist or any number of other slurs intended to shame the viewer into accepting their viewpoint.
We need to wake up and realize we are not immune to propaganda in this country. It is rampant. If you don’t wake up, you can join the lemmings over the cliff. You can’t believe everything you read and view. Traffic goes both ways.
Absolutely. I can’t believe the left that is crying foul over some misinformation doesn’t see that it will comeback to bite them. It is funny though seeing every liberal sounding like the conservatives have been sounding for years.
“A biased media with an agenda taints its stories and employs social engineering on a public it wishes to influence disguising it as news!”
Look at the motives of those who are screaming and stamping their feet about the Russian propaganda affecting the election. They’re the same people who wanted to go to war in Syria a few years back when Assad allegedly used chemical weapons: a claim that turned out to be faked. Having remembered the fake intelligence regarding WMD’s in Iraq a decade before, the American people said no, we are not falling for that again, we don’t want to go to war there. That reaction shocked Obama and his henchmen in Congress, so they had to throttle back their plans for escalation in Syria. Now the neocon saber rattlers are back again and they have the mainstream media on their side. Clinton was going to rubberstamp what they wanted, but she lost the election. I mostly do not trust Trump in general, but I definitely do not want a war and I’d much rather Trump talked with Putin than let the saber rattling dominate the environment. If that makes me a Russian lover in the eyes of the neocons, I do not care. Better that than a war that could easily go off the rails and become WW3.
Your inquiry was in reference to another poster, not mine, but:
I was not familiar with the Economist or its ownership, positions or anything about it, However out of curiosity I decided to look.
Here is a Wikipedia link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#cite_note-12, you can read it for yourself as to their position both socially and economically. it also identifies ownership interests if you want to pursue that.
Here is a paragraph taken from the narrative on that page.
The Economist takes an editorial stance of classical and economic liberalism which is supportive of free trade, globalisation, free immigration and cultural liberalism (such as supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage or drug liberalization). The publication has described itself as “a product of the Caledonian liberalism of Adam Smith and David Hume.” It targets highly educated readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers. The publication’s CEO described this recent global change, which was first noticed in the 1990s and accelerated in the beginning of the 21st century, as a “new age of Mass Intelligence.”
Make your own decisions if you want to accept their viewpoint.
I’m not going to be a follower of line of thought.
I’m a long time subscriber to The Economist. While I certainly don’t agree with everything they say, they are very good at reporting on the entire world economy each week.
And when they use the word “Liberal” they are not referring to the colloquial version of today but rather the classical version, i.e., freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and also sometimes used to describe countries that have democratic governments and hold free elections.
Also, even though they have that bias (which they freely acknowledge), they don’t hew to any party line, criticizing and praising both progressive and conservative points of view.
When they criticized Barack Obama for something shortly after his election, many Americans couldn’t believe that a media outlet would do that to their “messiah”.
They are a completely secular publication and so they don’t comment at all on moral issues. That is where I differ with them, especially when they don’t factor those into their analysis.
Do you not view same-sex marriage as a “moral” issue? As a Catholic, I certainly do.
Yes, but we have CNpravdaN, CBpravdaS, NBpravdaC, ABpravdaC, and Saturday Night Pravda Live to mislead our people from the truth, like they did with this election cycle, so there’s that.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady de Rothschild (born Lynn Forester; July 2, 1954) is an American-British businesswoman who is the chief executive officer of E.L. Rothschild, a holding company she owns with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild family. The company manages investments in The Economist Group, owner of The Economist magazine, Congressional Quarterly and the Economist Intelligence Unit, E.L. Rothschild LP, a leading independent wealth management firm in the United States, as well as real estate, agricultural and food interests.
She publicly supports many politicians including Hillary Clinton. She also rallies for a political movement called Inclusive Capitalism. She led the Conference of Inclusive Capitalism in London in 2014 and 2015 and founded the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism . . .
Rothschild is actively involved in policy and social issues, including micro-finance and women’s rights. In 2006, she was appointed as a member of the UN Advisors Group on Inclusive Financial Services. She serves as Chairman of the Board for the American Patrons of the Tate Gallery, FAI, and the International Advisory Board of Columbia University School of Law. In addition, she serves as a Trustee of the ERANDA Foundation (a Rothschild family foundation), the Outward Bound Trust, the Alfred Herrhausen Society of International Dialogue of Deutsche Bank and the Global Commercial Microfinance Consortium Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank. She also sits on the board of the McCain Institute. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (USA), Chatham House (UK), the Institute for Strategic Studies (UK), the International Advisory Council of Asia House (UK), and the Foreign Policy Association (USA).
I saw Lady de Rothschild on CNN Tonight on July 26, 2016 being interviewed by Don Lemon and expressing her support for Hillary Clinton: