meaningless because our reporters are the ones looking at it and will choose what to publish.
Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
41–48 of 48 posts
Re: Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
#42This reads like propaganda and misses what I consider a big question: why did Putin claim himself as "the main target" when the media wasn't focused on him and there was no evidence really damning him? It just raises questions rather than deflecting them. Putin does not seem so stupid. Why would he do this? It's like getting pulled over for a speeding ticket and saying "I didn't kill him, there's no evidence, this is…
I'm not sure how any of this comes off as bad for Putin. What's the harm in letting the world know that his friends get rich? Combined with what we already know about the effects on life expectancy of being in the opposition, this sends a pretty strong message. "Gold for my friends, lead for my enemies." I see the whole thing as a declaration from Putin to Russia, especially given his protestations. Authoritarian reg…
"I see the whole thing as a declaration from Putin to Russia"
After thinking about it, I think you're right on this. I'm evaluating it as bad international PR when it's probably more internal propaganda.
Re: Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
#43More speculation that confirms our theory without any evidence. * The theory is "we're good. Anyone we don't like is bad" The evidence collection goes "confirms our theory, it's true." Or " Contradicts it, we either ignore it our dismiss it" Case in point, the unaoil scandal is much more serious than anything in these Panama papers, it involves "the good guys" and it's largely forgotten a week after it release. * iro…
Clearly it was a collaboration between the CIA and Putin.
Re: Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
#44More speculation that confirms our theory without any evidence. * The theory is "we're good. Anyone we don't like is bad" The evidence collection goes "confirms our theory, it's true." Or " Contradicts it, we either ignore it our dismiss it" Case in point, the unaoil scandal is much more serious than anything in these Panama papers, it involves "the good guys" and it's largely forgotten a week after it release. * iro…
RT is propaganda/psyops on a level that doesn't quite have a Western equivalent. This is not a statement in support of Western journalistic independence and objectivity, so much as it is how carefully packaged/constructed RT is. edit: Hah! Downvotes. I read RT. I read WSJ (even OpEds sometimes, but I don't enjoy it). I read AJ. I read NYT. I read from many sources and high degree of skepticism of all of them. But if…
I up voted you. I read RT, but their juicier bits I always look up to cross check.[1]
But I don't live in Russia so Putin can't harm me. Therefore, I'm not scared of them.
However, it is an invaluable source to know what we're doing. RT wants to discredit the West, and there is too much truthful material for them to work with for to have to fudge too much.
[1] although is disagree with you there is no western equivalent. I used to be a big fan of the WSJ, NYT and The Economist, after Syria and the Snowden leaks, they have become unreadable. Only The Intercept is left (npr gets a pass because I have a 40 minute drive to work)
Re: Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
#45More speculation that confirms our theory without any evidence. * The theory is "we're good. Anyone we don't like is bad" The evidence collection goes "confirms our theory, it's true." Or " Contradicts it, we either ignore it our dismiss it" Case in point, the unaoil scandal is much more serious than anything in these Panama papers, it involves "the good guys" and it's largely forgotten a week after it release. * iro…
Interestingly the Unaoil scandal wasn't even reported by the BBC (except a brief mention on their World Service). I'm interested to know exactly why this scandal on the other hand is being covered so heavily by them and other outlets.
I'm sure if you google it there'll be blurb on their website. But Chomsky points out that appearing impartial is part of the media manipulation.
They'll print the juicier bits, but buried deep were few except geeks and junkies like me will read it.
Another two techniques that infuriate me:
1. Editing published articles after they are published and making the original unavailable. (Editing should look like word's auto-track feature: in bright red)
2. Not following up on a story after you launched salvos into a person/ideas truth worthiness and they are vindicated
Re: Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
#46More speculation that confirms our theory without any evidence. * The theory is "we're good. Anyone we don't like is bad" The evidence collection goes "confirms our theory, it's true." Or " Contradicts it, we either ignore it our dismiss it" Case in point, the unaoil scandal is much more serious than anything in these Panama papers, it involves "the good guys" and it's largely forgotten a week after it release. * iro…
Clearly it was a collaboration between the CIA and Putin.
A bit much, even for me.
But Orwell wouldn't be surprised a bit of quid pro quo. Both are power structures, in competition, ultimately trying to preserve their own controll.
Re: Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
RT is propaganda/psyops on a level that doesn't quite have a Western equivalent. This is not a statement in support of Western journalistic independence and objectivity, so much as it is how carefully packaged/constructed RT is. edit: Hah! Downvotes. I read RT. I read WSJ (even OpEds sometimes, but I don't enjoy it). I read AJ. I read NYT. I read from many sources and high degree of skepticism of all of them. But if…
I up voted you. I read RT, but their juicier bits I always look up to cross check.[1] But I don't live in Russia so Putin can't harm me. Therefore, I'm not scared of them. However, it is an invaluable source to know what we're doing. RT wants to discredit the West, and there is too much truthful material for them to work with for to have to fudge too much. [1] although is disagree with you there is no western equival…
I upvoted you, too! That's usually why I read it.
I think as bad as the mainstream US media source you mentioned can be, they're still not equivalent on the whole. Wish they weren't so actively trying to close the gap, though...
edit: there are sources as bad, and there are source as prominent, but I don't think any are in the intersection. Honestly, it's more of hand-waving/gut feel on my part, though.
Re: Are the Russians Actually Behind the Panama Papers?
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not once he mentions that the behaviors the papers expose are criminal Are they criminal ? Having an offshore company generally isn’t illegal. There may be questions about how some political figures' (for example) funds were obtained in the first place, but the mere existence of funds in some tax-advantaged vehicles is no evidence of a crime. gosh, one would think that some of the funds might be ill-gotten proceeds…
There is an 'or' in there. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and the assertion that there is a crime is not related to the point was trying to make.
> There is an 'or' in there.
Fair enough. There was.
> Anyway, I'm not a lawyer
Are you sure? Your very first sentence sounded very lawyer-like! :-)