Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is the media so silent on Kiev's shelling of Eastern Ukraine? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So the truce has ended and they're back to shelling. Of course they target the rebels, but many civilians are being killed too and their homes destroyed. Is it worth it? The people of Eastern Ukraine do not want to be part of the US-EU backed anti-Russian government. How can they when these people have destroyed their homes and murdered their friends and family? All this will do is generate more support and rebels and it might get to the point we're going to see a genocide on our hands.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Western media is generally anti-Russian. It stems from the Russian revolution through red scares and into the Cold War.

    It's an easy line which is popular, the Big Bad Russian Bear.

    Not that Russia is innocent or that many people are even consciously doing it, but the bias is there.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Because Ukraine are the good guys :gthumb:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc92)
    Because Ukraine are the good guys :gthumb:
    That's not how the real world works. :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc92)
    Because Ukraine are the good guys :gthumb:
    Putin is
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I stopped taking the general western media's narrative on the situation seriously after their reporting on the fire in Odessa, horrendous stuff considering the flack Russian media gets for distorting facts
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Because Western media is incredibly biased, just like eastern media is.

    After supporting the current Ukrainian regime, they can't turn around and appear to denounce them after it has become apparent that a lot of what Russia was saying about them, was in fact, true.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Is the media being silent? The BBC covered Ukraine's new offensive pretty extensively over the last couple of days. I'd also take with a pinch of salt claims that the rebel regions are universally pro-Russian. Just look at the evidence suggesting the Crimea referendum was massively rigged. 80% of the population apparently voted in favour, even though almost 40% of Crimeans are ethnically Ukrainian or Muslim Tatars, who either boycotted the referendum or would have backed Kiev.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Western media is generally anti-Russian. It stems from the Russian revolution through red scares and into the Cold War.

    It's an easy line which is popular, the Big Bad Russian Bear.

    Not that Russia is innocent or that many people are even consciously doing it, but the bias is there.
    Not only historical differences but also generally normative, contrasting attitudes about how society should be governed.

    The Western press feel that it should be free from government interference and that it should be all encompassing and all-participating. The other, on the other hand, the media is an overt political tool to dissuade Western association and to actively promote ultranationalism. Once more, the media in Russia is not free where intimidation from Kremlin-aligned factions to journalists reporting the contrary and complete apathy to any journalist who is being intimidated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    Not only historical differences but also generally normative, contrasting attitudes about how society should be governed.

    The Western press feel that it should be free from government interference and that it should be all encompassing and all-participating. The other, on the other hand, the media is an overt political tool to dissuade Western association and to actively promote ultranationalism. Once more, the media in Russia is not free where intimidation from Kremlin-aligned factions to journalists reporting the contrary and complete apathy to any journalist who is being intimidated.
    The independent direction of western media is very much exaggerated as is the Russian media's role as a subservient mouth piece to the Kremlin. I'm willing to guess that in reality the role of government in influencing the general direction of certain issues within both is a lot closer than most people believe it to be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    The independent direction of western media is very much exaggerated as is the Russian media's role as a subservient mouth piece to the Kremlin. I'm willing to guess that in reality the role of government in influencing the general direction of certain issues within both is a lot closer than most people believe it to be.
    You're going to have to quantify your reasoning for the first; the "West" has varying journalistic freedom (though, all qualify as "Free" by freedom, journalism and democracy indices).

    As for Russian media's role in the Kremlin, namely RT as it is the most popular, was established by mandate from RIA-Novosti which are the time of its creation was directly under control of the Russian Ministry of Communications and Mass Media. It was concocted solely for the purposes of delivering current affairs with a pro-Russian stance under the guidance of Vladimir Putin to promote and improve Russia's overseas image in the wake of the economic and social dismay of the latter half of the 90s and early 00s.

    Putin on record has said that the channel "cannot help but reflect the Russian government's official position", which as I'm sure you'll gather is as good as saying that is presents what the Russian government wants it to present.

    It has also been subject to intense criticism by journalistic protection groups such as Reporters Without Borders for being essentially an effective mass-media, propaganda machine woven into the political apparatus of the Kremlin.

    Then you can look at those who have resigned, publically, over impartiality issues such as William Dunbar, Lizzie Phelan and Liz Wahl for not towing the Russian government line.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because they're obsessed with the joos.

    1000 dead in Ukraine, and the BBC has had nothing but Gaza as its main headline for a week.


    Everyone else can **** off as far as the BBC, Guardian etc are concerned.

    It's down to European anti-Israel bigotry which is of course, a manifestation of anti-semitism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    You're going to have to quantify your reasoning for the first; the "West" has varying journalistic freedom (though, all qualify as "Free" by freedom, journalism and democracy indices).

    As for Russian media's role in the Kremlin, namely RT as it is the most popular, was established by mandate from RIA-Novosti which are the time of its creation was directly under control of the Russian Ministry of Communications and Mass Media. It was concocted solely for the purposes of delivering current affairs with a pro-Russian stance under the guidance of Vladimir Putin to promote and improve Russia's overseas image in the wake of the economic and social dismay of the latter half of the 90s and early 00s.

    Putin on record has said that the channel "cannot help but reflect the Russian government's official position", which as I'm sure you'll gather is as good as saying that is presents what the Russian government wants it to present.

    It has also been subject to intense criticism by journalistic protection groups such as Reporters Without Borders for being essentially an effective mass-media, propaganda machine woven into the political apparatus of the Kremlin.

    Then you can look at those who have resigned, publically, over impartiality issues such as William Dunbar, Lizzie Phelan and Liz Wahl for not towing the Russian government line.
    The origins of these indexes, or at least the most noted ones, prevent them from being the completely neutral or detached from any standards specific to one or a group of states. I am not going to make bold claims that all indexes work as public relations services to big up a group of states whilst actively throwing mud at another group. Instead the majority of these indexes are decided by specific western standards. I am not saying things like press freedoms are specifically western characteristics, rather that in detail they may be measured in ways more favourable to the western countries whose standards they are based on thereby giving the illusion that western states in general are more free than some of their eastern counterparts. I recognize that this is a rather weak criticism of the said indexes but I just wanted to clarify that these cannot be appealed to as completely neutral methods of measuring states against each other.

    However, certain organizations that are supposed to be neutral can be accused of deliberately skewering facts to suit a particular political purpose. I draw upon your example of Reporters Without Borders. Whilst no doubt a group that the majority of the time harbours noble intentions, it has nonetheless shown itself to be less than neutral at times with obvious omissions and inconsistencies. For example it worked tirelessly to expose the repressive measures introduced against journalists during the Aristide regime in Haiti yet went silent when the following US-aligned regime carried on with these measures. Equally in the past it seems to focus on states with governments at odds with the US ie Cuba and Venezuela than it does with even more repressive regimes that are allies of the US.

    Even more worryingly, if you check out the section entitled 'Enemies of the Internet' you see it note the surveillance undertaken by the Russian and Venezuelan governments. In the case of the latter, it derides the surveillance apparatus set up by Chavez. Yet nowhere in this section entitled 'Enemies of the Internet' is there any note of the surveillance programs of the United States or United Kingdom which are far more advanced and extensive than any of the systems of the countries it does mention. Nor does it mention the continued persecution of those who have brought these abuses of power to the public's attention such as those in the US charged under the Espionage Act or the partner of journalist Glen Greenwald who was detained under the Terrorism Act at Heathrow in an obvious attempt at intimidating him. Considering all of this I would take RWB's focus on certain states other others with a pinch of salt.

    Nevertheless, Putin's quote of which you have presented cannot be denied. However one can say that there is at least some merit in the fact that he admits this openly meaning people confronted with this are more inclined to take it less seriously. Just because he admits the parallel relationship between RT and the Kremlin doesn't mean that such a relationship doesn't exist between those who don't admit it. One only needs to observe the general conformity across the usually opinionated and divided British media with certain issues in the last few years to recognize that there is some relationship behind the scenes. Look at the lack of questioning behind WMDs in Iraq or responsibility for the chemical weapons attack in Syria. Most recently, look at the way in which all British media gave tacit support to those seizing buildings (whilst ignoring the armed element) by declaring it a revolution of people fighting for their rights in Kiev, only a few months later to criticize those employing the same tactics in the East? You cannot look at this general conformity on such issues and state confidently that you believe there to be no pulling of the strings regarding important foreign policy issues within the mainstream British media?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 15, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.