Winner
Diverse in Unity
At least the ruling duo finds it funny:

I would find it even more funny if you gave a source.Funny how "the west" (i.e., the USA) had no problem with financing and supporting Yeltsin several manipulations of russian elections, not even Putin's first, and now cries wolf...
"Propaganda" doesn't equal to "misleading, scandalous headlines with an aim to increase sales no matter what". That is called yellow press. At least that is how I understand it.
What about CNN headline "Russia attacks Georgia" with picture of Georgian MRLs firing at Tskhinvali in the background?
Victims of Putin's bombing in Gori, with one "corpse" in clean clothes lying in different poses in multiple pictures?
What about Fox News shutting up Ossetian girl when she's trying to say that the Russians came to save them?
I can find pictures or video if anybody wants.
I would like to see them.![]()
That would be relevant if I claimed that Russia never bombed Gori. Whether any civilian was killed, that is the question.Similarly, the photo The Falling Soldier was later found to have been staged, therefore the Spanish Civil War didn't really happen. Anyone who disagrees is just biased against the Spanish.
First, CNN news. Georgian MRLs firing at Tskhinvali shown starting from 0.30.
Headline - "Russia invades Georgia"
Second - Reuters pictures.
1. Corpse and victim's alleged relative:
2. "Corpse" rotating
3. Grieving guy got changed and continues his performance.
Third - Fox news report (0:32 - "She was able to flee to Russia... flee to North")
I would find it even more funny if you gave a source.
It's about as correct as headline "USSR invades Germany" would be correct in 1944.Umm...
1) The headline in the first news story is correct, isn't it?
They were shown in the same order as I placed them here. Also, IIRC, Reuters reporter confessed later that pictures were made up, because they arrived on site too late.We don't know in what succession the pictures are taken, do we? The grieving guy is obviously the same person, he simply seems to have taken off his jacket and shirt. If the second and third photo are taken earlier, why would it be strange for him to have turned the corpse around?
Isn't it clear that their message was surprise for spokesman? Of course he couldn't just shut them off, that would be too obvious - but they would not be allowed to say anything if he knew that beforehand.3) They could both speak their mind and they got their message across quite clearly, didn't they?
I bet you wouldn't be impressed even with Reagan and his "Empire of Evil" speech. This all was true, not propaganda!If that is the best "anti-Russian propaganda" you have, color me unimpressed.
That article rings depressingly true.Feel free to track sources, starting here, for example.
I bet you wouldn't be impressed even with Reagan and his "Empire of Evil" speech. This all was true, not propaganda!![]()
No. It is more important when and where it all started, and the answer is Yeltsin.I think you should be more concerned about widespread reports of ballot boxes being rigged all accross Russia and percentages adding up to more than 100%, and less concerned with a supposed bias in western press against Russia
Those were the proofs in the question whether there's propaganda or not, and not the question whether there was war or not.Similarly, the photo The Falling Soldier was later found to have been staged, therefore the Spanish Civil War didn't really happen.
Was it? I think it was at least completely uncalled for and someone who brands a whole country as capital-E-Evil can't be out for a rational and fact based discussion.Political speech is not the same as a propaganda or disinformation campaign... it is a political speech. Jeez.
Also, last time I checked, TIME is part of Western press? Black sheep like Fox News will always produce nonsense, but it's the big picture that counts.I think you should be more concerned about widespread reports of ballot boxes being rigged all accross Russia and percentages adding up to more than 100%, and less concerned with a supposed bias in western press against Russia. If anything Russia gets favourable treatment in the western press when compared to say Israel (was it Reuters or AP that admitted photoshopping a picture to make the effect of a israeli strike look more damaging than it was?).
Very natural to grow such a habbit when everyone around you have it, you know. Plus to the habbit of complaining about you regardless of anything.But it's become Russian habit to complain about past injustices and lost greatness rather than focusing on the problems at hand. And their government is good at abusing that.
From left to right the four curves represent Mexican legislative election 2009, second round of Polish presidential election in 2010, Bulgarian legislative election in 2009 and Swedish legislative election in 2010.
Now let's take a look if Russian elections in 2011 follow the same logic:
The pale brown curve is for the 2003 legislative election, the dark brown curve is for the 2007 legislative election, the light blue curve is for the 2004 presidential election and the dark blue curve is for the 2008 presidential election.
Picture on the left is about Russian legislative election 2007, the second picture is from Moscow city parliament election in 2009. Every dot represents the amount of votes that a party had at a polling station. The X-axis is for turnout of the polling station and the Y-axis is for the percentage of votes a party had at that station. Different colors represent different parties.
[Purple is UR]
The Y-axis is for the amount of polling stations, the X-axis is the vote percentage.
["EP" is UR]
This is a curve of United Russia votes in Magnitogorsk...