Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Pravda.ru's, Bancroft-Hinchey, explains the Ukraine standoff


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 03 March 2014 - 05:45 AM

In "Ukraine: The Law, the Putsch and the Imposter," Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey finally makes Pravda.ru among the first global geopolitical news outlets, to show us who the real players in the current Ukrainian turmoil really are.

 

History teaches us that the most successful revolutions are often those in which the core revolutionary group accepts the loose affiliation of virtually every populist cause that comes along.  That's how the American populist revolt against the Vietnam War, which began in the early 1960's, grew to become a movement with multiple causes.  Racial and gender equality were adopted as allied causes within the anti-war movement; environmentalists were also made welcome; virtually every stripe of freedom fighter or civil rights campaigner from Jane Fonda and Daniel Elsberg, to Martin Luther King and the Smothers Brothers, they all gained strength from the much greater numbers of ant-war activists marching all around them.  You could call it a political herd mentality, but regardless of how you label it, the synthesis of dozens of seemingly unrelated causes under the philosophical umbrella of one extremely popular cause, has attracted vast numbers of people into revolutionary movements, time after time throughout history.  We may be witnessing it happening yet again in the Ukraine today.

 

What the western media tells us is a diverse movement of people taking a stand, against the heavy hand of Russian economic domination over the Ukraine, may actually be nothing more than an army of virtual mercenaries, plucked from the ranks of various fascist groups and criminal cabals.  In this way it may be similar to the situation in Syria, where rebel groups are said to be united under a host of causes as diverse as constitutional reform and cannibalism.  The Syrian rebels are so diversified at their ideological roots, that one wonders if it took the expertise of some major international security and espionage bureaucracy to create such a madcap alliance of so called revolutionaries.  And given the considerable economic importance of the Ukraine, one can't help but wonder if that situation also is being fueled by competing foreign powers sending in their agent provocateurs.

 

What I find interesting is Bancroft-Hinchey's style of campaign journalism.  This type of journalism can be called propaganda, but that doesn't mean it is not informative and honest journalism.  You should know when you access a publication like Pravda.ru, that you are about to read the news written from a particular viewpoint.  The reports may seem like opinion pieces only, but the personal views and observations of the writer, add a lot of clarity and accuracy to the story.  Bancroft-Hinchey is a master of campaign journalism, and I'm one westerner who appreciates the fact that Pravda.ru still publishes work by this writer and others like him.

 

 


  • 0

#2 RobertD

RobertD

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20982 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:50 PM

It's not propaganda, it's "pro-Russia", a big difference. Propaganda doesn't bother with facts and truths, unless they push the cause. Anyone can slant information for or against anything. American journalism is more propaganda than what Bancroft-Hinchey writes, by a long shot.

And truth is Ukraine is much better under Russia's protection than under the thumb of the banksters who are salivating at the prospect of looting Ukraine without fear of being arrested.

Edited by RobertD, 04 March 2014 - 04:51 PM.

  • 0

#3 Colombo

Colombo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:27 AM

It's not propaganda, it's "pro-Russia", a big difference. Propaganda doesn't bother with facts and truths, unless they push the cause. Anyone can slant information for or against anything. American journalism is more propaganda than what Bancroft-Hinchey writes, by a long shot.

And truth is Ukraine is much better under Russia's protection than under the thumb of the banksters who are salivating at the prospect of looting Ukraine without fear of being arrested.

The western theory of good journalism is that it should be objective.  Subjective compositions are for the editorial page and for columnists.  Russian journalism permits more personal observations by the writer thus it is pro-Russia.  But the moment you become openly pro-anything, you cease to be objective and that makes propaganda.  But it doesn't matter because just as the west does not have a monopoly on democratic principles, nor does it have a monopoly on good journalism.  The personal views of the writer can be a key to making readers truly understand what happened, or is happening.  I personally prefer that openly subjective style, to the false objectivity found in western media.  Call it propaganda or call it pro-Russian.  It seeks to inform people in a way that will form their opinions.  Publishers and journalists in every country consider propaganda to be a legitimate function of mass media, but I think when the subjective elements of the story are open and not hidden, as in Russian journalism, the propaganda is honest and worthwhile journalism.  When the personal views of the writer/witness/observer are hidden between the lines, or deleted entirely, the story becomes dry and turgid.  People may still read it to gather what information they can, but without that personal view, they can never be as well informed or as entertained as they could be, and in my view should be.

 

On a forum like this one, all the posts are like the compositions of personal columnists.  Therefore, subjective views will always be valid on this kind of platform.  Besides, as I already said, subjectivity is part of Russian journalism.  I imagine you are simply conditioned to have a bad reaction to the word "propaganda" yet you probably often read propaganda in the Globe & Mail or another paper, without even recognizing that it's propaganda.

 

Regardless of whether you call it propaganda or not, it is always the journalist's job to sell a system to the masses. 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2018 Pravda.Ru