While I can sympathise with not wanting to view most US media, why would you go to an admitted Russian Govt propaganda site for a "more rounded view" of anything other than Russian propaganda?
Why is Russian government propaganda more palatable to you than US media propaganda?
Back in the day, the Soviet Union had a newspaper called Pravda, which is the Russian word for 'truth'.
The paper's propaganda was about as subtle as its title. Since then, political systems and ideologies have changed, but in 2005 when the Kremlin was getting back into the news business, it created Russia Today, or RT, as it is now known.
RT is an international news channel set up to rival Western news channels and to provide a Russian perspective.
The network has since added two more channels, broadcasting in Spanish and Arabic. RT's English-language project is getting mixed reviews. Its criticism of Washington's political agenda is relentless and it has a penchant for off-beat stories and conspiracy theories.
Listening Post's Ana de Sousa looks at a channel that often seems more interested in reviving the Cold War than reporting what is really happening in Russia today.
Where had anyone claimed that someone 'admitted VOA or Fox news as propaganda sites????? Why are you asking questions that are irrelevant to whether of not Russia Today is trustworthy? Please stick to the topic Oxy.
Where had anyone claimed that someone 'admitted VOA or Fox news as propaganda sites????? Why are you asking questions that are irrelevant to whether of not Russia Today is trustworthy? Please stick to the topic Oxy.
The thread is is RT trustworthy, well that is a relative question by any standards. That is why it has been compared to other news outlets/propaganda sites previously on this thread.
So my question is valid although that can quickly be over ruled and silenced on this site if Mick doesn't like the comparison. No doubt it would be accompanied by the usual... 'if you don't like it post elsewhere'. But until then, I ask the question out of impartiality.
The thread is is RT trustworthy, well that is a relative question by any standards. That is why it has been compared to other news outlets/propaganda sites previously on this thread.
Sorry but I have to disagree. I think it is entirely relative. No one or no site is entirely trustworthy, (inc this one), all have agenda's and predispositions. All seek to 'tell or get their truth' across and people or sites who disagree must be marginalised in order to validate 'their' position.
No matter how hard someone tries not to do it, they still do it. If they didn't they would have to admit they were wrong and people do not like to admit they are wrong.
i.e. Who says, 'I know it is wrong and evil to kill people but I am going to do it anyway'? It is virtually unheard of... virtually everyone justifies what they do, even people like the Yorkshire ripper, 'God told me to do it'... Hitler thought he was doing a good thing, eugenicists thought it was right, the church thought it was right to burn/kill witches, the poor black guy in South Africa justifies killing someone and taking their car because, 'he is downtrodden by the whites'.
Sorry to witter on a bit but I wanted to instance what i was talking about.
So no, I trust no one implicitly, not even myself because yes, I am fallible. But I find much of what RT says is valid. They are critical of the west but I feel with good cause and the things they criticise can be validated.
They are less critical of Russia but that is to be expected. I look to western media to uncover flaws in Russian goings on and expect the western media to promote western ideas... this is pretty much the case.
Call me unorthodox if you will but I do have strong feelings about what is right and wrong and just because I do not make a big deal out issues I think are wrong in Russia, does not mean i agree with everything they do.
But scrap all that, I find RT to be pretty factual and reliable in most things and not only that, they deal with deeper issues than most western media.
Sorry but I have to disagree. I think it is entirely relative. No one or no site is entirely trustworthy, (inc this one), all have agenda's and predispositions. All seek to 'tell or get their truth' across and people or sites who disagree must be marginalised in order to validate 'their' position.
But scrap all that, I find RT to be pretty factual and reliable in most things and not only that, they deal with deeper issues than most western media.
They deal with deeper issues because that's their target audience. Intelligent people like you who are actually interested in these issues, and have a bit of a conspiracy theory slant. I think they are quite deliberately trying to foment distrust of the US establishment. You can do that with well selected and reliable facts.
They are deliberately trying to manipulate you Oxy. And I think they are doing it more so than most of the Western media.
They deal with deeper issues because that's their target audience. Intelligent people like you who are actually interested in these issues, and have a bit of a conspiracy theory slant. I think they are quite deliberately trying to foment distrust of the US establishment. You can do that with well selected and reliable facts.
They are deliberately trying to manipulate you Oxy. And I think they are doing it more so than most of the Western media.
I can't disagree with that Mick. They are definitely trying to do that. I feel the onus is on 'our governments' to behave better and not to give RT the ammunition which they keep giving them.
I can't disagree with that Mick. They are definitely trying to do that. I feel the onus is on 'our governments' to behave better and not to give RT the ammunition which they keep giving them.
There is a point there, in that 'trustworthiness' is a subjective term. Perhaps the thread should have been whether RT is accurate and unbiased and do they admit when they have made a factual error, which are more objective assessments.
Three excellent posts IMO. This is indeed a complex matter.
If I can validate what they say, and it makes sense, I will accept it. As to their motive? They undoubtedly have an agenda. What that agenda is, is pure speculation but I think all news sources are equally suspect in that.
There is a point there, in that 'trustworthiness' is a subjective term. Perhaps the thread should have been whether RT is accurate and unbiased and do they admit when they have made a factual error, which are more objective assessments.
And perhaps that is a better analysis, but more emphasis on the accuracy. I find it heartening that you appear to have changed your position slightly and that is meant as a compliment. I feel we all need to be ready to adjust our viewpoints to changing scenarios. To be open to the concept that we may not be right all the time.
I am open to the view that there can be opposing views which are neither right or wrong but right for the holder of said view but there are many instances where something is actually right or wrong in a factual context.
Bollocks, if I can be so blunt. The difference between western propaganda and Soviet propaganda was that those living under the Soviets eventually came to know that it was all just propaganda. I can't recall which ex KGB chief acknowledged his envy of the western media outlets for the belief their audience had in what was printed.
We don't have to look to far back in time to see examples of what he was envying. The tales of weapons of mass distraction in Iraq (at least 1 million dead thanks to that particular bit of bullshit), or maybe look at our 'liberation' of Libya ...
I hadn't seen or heard that stuff, the few reports I'd seen on RT seemed reasonable enough. As I've said, I don't pay any attention to RT, or the Iranian station, or a lot of others. There are about 20 or so sites I use to sift through the news that's fed out by the BBC, Guardian, Independent, your American stations, etc. If I watch news then I usually watch Real News Network and Democracy Now. I look at what the main media puts out, and then I look a bit deeper. FAIR is a good source for identifying bias, the same is true for MediaLens in the UK, and for NewsUnspun.
Bollocks, if I can be so blunt. The difference between western propaganda and Soviet propaganda was that those living under the Soviets eventually came to know that it was all just propaganda. I can't recall which ex KGB chief acknowledged his envy of the western media outlets for the belief their audience had in what was printed.
We don't have to look to far back in time to see examples of what he was envying. The tales of weapons of mass distraction in Iraq (at least 1 million dead thanks to that particular bit of bullshit), or maybe look at our 'liberation' of Libya ...
The party also sought to control journalists by combining higher education and Higher Party Schools with schools of journalism. Reporters and editors thus were trained under the aegis of the professional party elite. For newspaper journalists and television and radio reporters, newspaper photographers, and literary editors, Moscow University's School of Journalism provided a main conduit to party positions concerned with the media. In the 1980s, some 2,500 graduate, undergraduate, evening school, and correspondence students annually graduated from the School of Journalism. Students were taught party strictures within the following eight departments: Theory and Practice of the Party-Soviet Press, History of the Party-Soviet Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting, Movie-making and Editorial-publishing Work, Foreign Press and Literature, Russian Journalism and Literature, Stylistics of the Russian language, and Techniques of Newspaper Work and Information Media. By the late 1980s, Moscow University's School of Journalism had graduated approximately 100,000 journalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_media_in_the_Soviet_Union
Here is an interesting comment from Vlad Putin on RT:
"Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign."
I didn't mean to imply any such thing. But looking back at the coverage from the UK, the BBC and The Guardian, both held up as bastions of impartiality or left-leaning (former and latter), the thrust was pro-war and backed the establishment. There were massive civilian demonstrations against war, particularly in Britain and Spain, and the numbers reported were considerably less than the actual numbers of participants. The WMD issue was reported basically as taking the official stance as truth, with barely a mention given to the experts (Hans Sponeck, etc.) view that it was bullshit. In the case of Libya, this was even more pronounced.
Do I think there is an 'explicit' western equivalent to the soviet control of media? No. Sadly, it doesn't have to be explicit. Have a read of Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent', or 'Newspeak in the 21st Century' by Cromwell and Edwards. Western media does an excellent job of pretending to present both sides of any argument, but analysis proves otherwise. FAIR does an excellent job of highlighting bias in US media, and MediaLens likewise takes the Beeb and Guardian to task regularly. Why the focus on those two in particular? Because they are held so highly. We expect right-wing guff from the likes of the Mail, Express, and the tabloids, but people mistakenly expect better from the other two. The Beeb's coverage of the Israel/Palestine problem is ALWAYS biased towards Israel, for example. So no, there is no 'explicit' equivalent. There doesn't need to be. The point I was making was that in the USSR most people knew they were being lied to, whereas in the west most people think they're being told the truth. We use propaganda far better. We allow the occasional dissenting voice to be heard - Pilger, Fisk, Chomsky, Greenwald, for example.
What's to elaborate on? We allow dissenting voices, occasionally. Those four named are examples of dissenting voices. Fisk is a fine reporter on the middle east, I've been reading his stuff for decades too.
What's to elaborate on? We allow dissenting voices, occasionally. Those four named are examples of dissenting voices. Fisk is a fine reporter on the middle east, I've been reading his stuff for decades too.
Briefly: in any given media outlet, a certain amount of dissent is allowed. Pilger writes for the New Statesman (on average, 2 articles per month), Fisk writes in the Independent (an article a week, sometimes more), etc. etc. Chomsky's articles can appear in a number of outlets, but unless you visit Znet you will likely miss his most caustic criticisms.
All of this, censorship in corporate owned media, is well understood. I suggest, again, reading "Manufacturing Consent" or "Newspeak in the 21st Century" if this concept seems strange to you, as it has been thoroughly researched by far more intelligent people than myself. If you prefer watching stuff to reading, then there's a decent enough documentary on Chomsky's ideas here:
or if that's too long the ideas have been somewhat distilled into an hour on this one: The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News (1997)
I am well aware of Chomsky's views (appeal to authority- I saw him give a talk whilst I was a student in Boston- also took a class with Howard Zinn)
But I still do not understand the characterization of being "allowed" to voice dissent...or even as you said "occasionally"- That just seems like tired rhetoric that really isn't applicable. Chomsky has written 100+ books over decades- professor emeritus at one of the most respected universities in the World- Fisk 100s of articles over decades, books, many awards etc...
No one is censoring these people. Chomsky,Fisk et al are just a on a long spectrum of dissent that is "allowed" by nothing more that their beliefs, desire to heard and some resonation of those beliefs with others.
"Manufacturing Consent" is still relevant today but its also 25yrs old and technology has changed the game significantly. In an era when, in seconds, something going "viral" can reach more eyes and ears than a typical nightly newscast, it is not the same game. Information is not as easily controlled. Dissent now as as much access to (almost) everyone else as the corporate media does.
Chomsky,Fisk et al are just a on a long spectrum of dissent that is "allowed" by nothing more that their beliefs, desire to heard and some resonation of those beliefs with others.
Alas, this is woefully off topic- my apologies...perhaps we should take it private or start a new thread...
Lol... Kerry and co do not like being called out on their BS. Noticeable how he echoes the sentiment of the 'debunkers' here, that RT is propaganda.
Strange how it turns out that the propaganda comes from him and his warmongering cohorts... manufacturing or using fake disinfo to attack Russia and RT. But RT rebuts it all in a highly professional manner. Diplomacy... wonder where they teach that. Kerry and co should ask for their money back.
'Trustworthy' is such a subjective term that it's pointless. Each guy down the line will have different opinions on which news sources are trustworthy. Even if you focus just on RT, you may think 'well more conspiracy minded individuals tend to trust RT' but if you think you can prove that, then you're proving the opposition'a bias against RT. so when RT is used as a source of evidence for a claim, instead of looking at their evidence the tactic seems to be 'RT - they're not trustworthy' without giving them a chance.
RT may not be 100% trustworthy all the time, but no news source is. So do we simply label them as 'not trustworthy' and move on? Shouldn't we examine each piece they offer and fact check to find out what's valid? They can't be wrong 100% of the time. So why try to demonize them? So what if they put an anti-US spin on things? If they present facts and the facts point that direction in some cases, how can you argue that?
I have to agree with Oxy that it's difficult to even try to discuss "trustworthiness" without asking "relative to what?"
I need to survey many sources of news, daily and weekly, and there are times that I would consider
"News Outlet A" significantly more trustworthy/credible than "News Outlet B"
but--later the same day, on a different issue--knowing their relative slants,
I may now consider "News Outlet B" more trustworthy than "News Outlet A."
As to the specific case of Russia Today, yes, I take their material with an especially large grain of salt...
and just as Kentucky Fried Chicken probably didn't switch to KFC just to save sign space, Russia Today almost certainly decided that their brand of propaganda would be more effective if casual readers only saw "RT" (never even weighing the fact that the story was coming from the Russian government)
That said, I don't skip a story just because it's from Russia Today...I just take their angle/lean into account (as I do with 100 other sources).
Lol... Kerry and co do not like being called out on their BS. Noticeable how he echoes the sentiment of the 'debunkers' here, that RT is propaganda.
Strange how it turns out that the propaganda comes from him and his warmongering cohorts... manufacturing or using fake disinfo to attack Russia and RT. But RT rebuts it all in a highly professional manner. Diplomacy... wonder where they teach that. Kerry and co should ask for their money back.
This is an example of RT's propaganda....they take the comment from undersecretary Nuland that the US spent $5 billion in Ukraine and turn it into the headline.
"US foreign aid agencies paid for Kiev street violence"
This is the comment in question- see at ~ 7 minute mark:
What they didnt tell you is that $5 Billion is money spent since 1991 and was used to promote democratic institutions and good governance and given through the auspices of NGO's - like the National Endowment for Democracy- who summarizes their actions in Ukraine as such:
Since its 2010 election, the Yanukovych government has rolled back the gains of the Orange Revolution (see Spotlight). In response, NED boosted support to analytical centers that monitor officials and track the country’s backsliding. With pressure mounting against civil society, NED strengthened regional NGOs engaging in grassroots campaigns to foster local civic activism. Support also went to traditional and new media outlets fostering freedom of the press, defending journalists, and informing citizens about the country’s direction.
This is exactly where they spent their money (only copied part- see link for full list of projects)
AHALAR Center for Humane Technologies
NGO Strengthening $35,230
Furthering Ukraine's Democratic TransitionTo increase civil society’s influence on Ukraine’s democratic transition by facilitating cooperation between NGOs and the media. AHALAR will organize three training seminars for 60 representatives from the media and civil society, a four-day study trip to Warsaw for 12 participants focusing on successful examples and best practices of cooperation between civil society and the media in the Polish context, a small grants competition and an online networking platform at www.activarte.org.ua.
Alliance Center
Accountability $24,758
Promoting Accountability in Eastern Ukraine To increase the accountability of local governments in eastern Ukraine. The Donetsk-based Alliance will conduct four workshops and convene eight working groups to strengthen the capacity of newly formed local civic councils. The events will focus on using tools and strategies for networking, monitoring and advocacy campaigns to help the councils be more effective in engaging and influencing local government activities. Alliance will also develop and maintain a resource library to disseminate information and best practices and hold a three-day final conference for 30 council members.
Association of Ukrainian Law Enforcement Monitors
Human Rights $38,334
Monitoring Human Rights Compliance by Law Enforcement AgenciesTo promote Ukraine’s adherence to international human rights standards. The Association will conduct three trainings in Ukraine’s regions for a total of 60 NGO activists, monitor human rights violations by the police, and publish the results in its annual report, as well as develop recommendations to prevent future abuses. The Association will also print and distribute 300 copies of the report in Ukrainian and English.
Center for International Private Enterprise Developing Market Economy $357,707
Building Advocacy MomentumTo build the capacity of Ukrainian business associations and improve the entrepreneurial climate through coalition-based advocacy. CIPE will build the skills of reform-minded business leaders through training seminars, workshops and small grants designed to stimulate advocacy on targeted issues. CIPE will also support partner business associations to advocate for improvements in the entrepreneurial environment with a focus on reducing corruption and improving public-private dialogue. Center for Research on Social Perspectives in the Donbas
Freedom of Information $34,995
Supporting Independent Regional MediaTo continue disseminating independent information about and for Ukraine's regions. The Center will maintain its popular news website, OstriV (www.ostro.org). NED support will cover the costs of three correspondents, including two in the Donetsk region and one in Kyiv, who will produce more than 100 analytical and 5,000 informational items for the website. Assistance will also be used to cover a portion of the Center's basic operating costs.
Center for Society ResearchHuman Rights $24,850
Promoting Freedom of AssemblyTo promote greater awareness of the freedom of assembly. As part of a larger, national advocacy campaign, the Center will monitor freedom of assembly throughout the country, including the reaction of the authorities, and disseminate the results of its monitoring via a website. Center UAAccountability $22,600
Promoting the Accountability of Public OfficialsTo increase the accountability of public figures in Ukraine. The Center UA will continue to operate its unique interactive website, Vladometr.org (Powermeter), which monitors, documents and assesses promises made by politicians, officials and prominent public figures. <snip>
(plenty more- see link)
Generally, NGOs and programs like the ones funded by NED are designed to promote democratic institutions so that citizens feel empowered to work within the system rather than feel the need to revolt.
Having worked for an NGO (partially funded by the State dept) that did similar work in Russia - promoting entrepreneurial-ism and small business growth- I find claims like RT laughable at best.
I think the better question is 'Who is the most believable?' or 'Who's version of events is more congruent with the facts?' and as far as I can see RT's wins hands down.
What they didnt tell you is that $5 Billion is money spent since 1991 and was used to promote democratic institutions and good governance and given through the auspices of NGO's - like the National Endowment for Democracy- who summarizes their actions in Ukraine as such:
Who gives a damn how long it has taken the U.S to succeed in financing their overthrow of an elected government. It just shows they were in there at the first opportunity like a rat up a drainpipe fomenting unrest and civil war as per usual. The fact is the U.S should keep its 5billion and use it at home not promoting regime changes because it wants to stick its stupid missiles on Russia's border and go against the agreement that NATO would not expand its sphere of influence and encroach on former USSR teritories.
Anyone who has a brain knows EXACTLY what these NGO's are all about. That is promoting dissent and unrest and regime change ALL OVER THE WORLD. They should be BANNED IMO. CIA fronts is what they are and it is no secret.
Hitler had all sorts of organisations to promote this and that and look what happened there. Further that list amounts to around $2.5 million, nothing like the $5 billion that Nuland brags about.
I do not find it in the least surprising that you have worked for a U.S NGO in Russia given your past form in twisting and turning in defense of the U.S governments actions ALL OVER THE WORLD and DOMESTICALLY such that YOU WILL NOT HAVE A WORD SAID AGAINST THEM without launching to their defense on any subject. If anyone is guilty of propaganda.....
So let's have a look at this tip of the iceberg 'wonderful philanthropic work the lovely kind benevolent USA government is doing' and which you so patriotically post as your 'proof'.
$19,507
Strengthening the Capacity of Youth NGOsTo strengthen youth activism. The organization will support a network of youth organizations and initiative groups through a series of trainings to increase members' capacity and professionalism. It will provide informational and technical support for the youth organizations’ events and activities. The organization will promote the network by holding a press conference and disseminating a booklet highlighting the organizations' activities to local government offices, media, schools, and other NGOs.
Alternatively described as 'brainwashing and indoctrinating the youth' Hitler did that with the Hitler Youth Movement.
$19,920
Promoting Community Activism in Southern UkraineTo stimulate civic activism in southern Ukraine
Very appropriate.
NGO Strengthening$29,469
Fostering Intersectoral Cooperation in Central UkraineTo inform, educate and activate civil society.
In what exactly... how to make petrol bombs and burn people alive?
$21,790
Promoting Human Rights To promote human rights. The organization will conduct a training for regional activists to improve human rights monitoring. Following the training, the organization will organize volunteer groups of training participants, lawyers, elected officials and other activists to monitor human rights abuses. These groups will track reported cases and utilize the information for broader advocacy campaigns.
What's this? More of 'we don't like the way you treat your women and so we will use it as a well worn excuse to invade you, destroy your infrastructure, kill millions and set you at each others throats to ensure that women have 'equal rights' the way WE SAY IT MUST BE.?
Seems like a complete waste of a piffling $22k to me because they certainly don't give a damn about 'human rights' like NOT BEING BURNED TO DEATH and NOT HAVING TANKS AND THE ARMY SENT AGAINST THE ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO WANT A SAY IN WHATS HAPPENING.
This is an example of RT's propaganda....they take the comment from undersecretary Nuland that the US spent $5 billion in Ukraine and turn it into the headline.
"US foreign aid agencies paid for Kiev street violence"
This is the comment in question- see at ~ 7 minute mark:
What they didnt tell you is that $5 Billion is money spent since 1991 and was used to promote democratic institutions and good governance and given through the auspices of NGO's - like the National Endowment for Democracy- who summarizes their actions in Ukraine as such:
Since its 2010 election, the Yanukovych government has rolled back the gains of the Orange Revolution (see Spotlight). In response, NED boosted support to analytical centers that monitor officials and track the country’s backsliding. With pressure mounting against civil society, NED strengthened regional NGOs engaging in grassroots campaigns to foster local civic activism. Support also went to traditional and new media outlets fostering freedom of the press, defending journalists, and informing citizens about the country’s direction.
This is exactly where they spent their money (only copied part- see link for full list of projects)
AHALAR Center for Humane Technologies
NGO Strengthening $35,230
Furthering Ukraine's Democratic TransitionTo increase civil society’s influence on Ukraine’s democratic transition by facilitating cooperation between NGOs and the media. AHALAR will organize three training seminars for 60 representatives from the media and civil society, a four-day study trip to Warsaw for 12 participants focusing on successful examples and best practices of cooperation between civil society and the media in the Polish context, a small grants competition and an online networking platform at www.activarte.org.ua.
Alliance Center
Accountability $24,758
Promoting Accountability in Eastern Ukraine To increase the accountability of local governments in eastern Ukraine. The Donetsk-based Alliance will conduct four workshops and convene eight working groups to strengthen the capacity of newly formed local civic councils. The events will focus on using tools and strategies for networking, monitoring and advocacy campaigns to help the councils be more effective in engaging and influencing local government activities. Alliance will also develop and maintain a resource library to disseminate information and best practices and hold a three-day final conference for 30 council members.
Association of Ukrainian Law Enforcement Monitors
Human Rights $38,334
Monitoring Human Rights Compliance by Law Enforcement AgenciesTo promote Ukraine’s adherence to international human rights standards. The Association will conduct three trainings in Ukraine’s regions for a total of 60 NGO activists, monitor human rights violations by the police, and publish the results in its annual report, as well as develop recommendations to prevent future abuses. The Association will also print and distribute 300 copies of the report in Ukrainian and English.
Center for International Private Enterprise Developing Market Economy $357,707
Building Advocacy MomentumTo build the capacity of Ukrainian business associations and improve the entrepreneurial climate through coalition-based advocacy. CIPE will build the skills of reform-minded business leaders through training seminars, workshops and small grants designed to stimulate advocacy on targeted issues. CIPE will also support partner business associations to advocate for improvements in the entrepreneurial environment with a focus on reducing corruption and improving public-private dialogue. Center for Research on Social Perspectives in the Donbas
Freedom of Information $34,995
Supporting Independent Regional MediaTo continue disseminating independent information about and for Ukraine's regions. The Center will maintain its popular news website, OstriV (www.ostro.org). NED support will cover the costs of three correspondents, including two in the Donetsk region and one in Kyiv, who will produce more than 100 analytical and 5,000 informational items for the website. Assistance will also be used to cover a portion of the Center's basic operating costs.
Center for Society ResearchHuman Rights $24,850
Promoting Freedom of AssemblyTo promote greater awareness of the freedom of assembly. As part of a larger, national advocacy campaign, the Center will monitor freedom of assembly throughout the country, including the reaction of the authorities, and disseminate the results of its monitoring via a website. Center UAAccountability $22,600
Promoting the Accountability of Public OfficialsTo increase the accountability of public figures in Ukraine. The Center UA will continue to operate its unique interactive website, Vladometr.org (Powermeter), which monitors, documents and assesses promises made by politicians, officials and prominent public figures. <snip>
(plenty more- see link)
Generally, NGOs and programs like the ones funded by NED are designed to promote democratic institutions so that citizens feel empowered to work within the system rather than feel the need to revolt.
Having worked for an NGO (partially funded by the State dept) that did similar work in Russia - promoting entrepreneurial-ism and small business growth- I find claims like RT laughable at best.
You believe that CFR bullcrap ? We caused the problems in Ukraine . We started With the Orange revolution funded by Soros . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution more blood on our hands
Clearly, you are just whinging irrationally without regard to the facts or understanding. The monies were designed to foster democracy not supersede it.
Anyone who has a brain knows EXACTLY what these NGO's are all about. That is promoting dissent and unrest and regime change ALL OVER THE WORLD. They should be BANNED IMO. CIA fronts is what they are and it is no secret.
Yes, Oxy- all NGOs are just CIA fronts- thats logical.
Again, it is just bitter hyperbole not based on a genuine understanding or experience of the NGO sector.
The one I worked for was started by a woman who likely has many views similar to you, Oxymoron. She was(is) a pacifist. She put her faith in the citizens of both the US and Russia to foster civic involvement based on the growth of small businesses and democratic institutions. She saw her "Org" as a way around the politics and use direct citizen interaction to foster understanding and peace. Literally, 1000s of Russians came to the US to spend a month exploring their particular industry. They were hosted (for free) by US citizens in their homes.
I know for fact that it wasn't a CIA front. It was staffed with extremely hard working (and under paid) people who believed that their efforts toward Citizen Diplomacy would be a positive contribution to the World.
I also know for a fact that the 1000s of NGOs around the World are similarly staffed and are resentful enough of the Big Gov politics to try and take matters into their own hands.
That you try to equate these people's efforts with Hitler is as telling about You as it is appalling.
What have you done to foster World peace- other than ranting on the internet, Oxymoron?
I do not find it in the least surprising that you have worked for a U.S NGO in Russia given your past form in twisting and turning in defense of the U.S governments actions ALL OVER THE WORLD and DOMESTICALLY such that YOU WILL NOT HAVE A WORD SAID AGAINST THEM without launching to their defense on any subject. If anyone is guilty of propaganda.....
So let's have a look at this tip of the iceberg 'wonderful philanthropic work the lovely kind benevolent USA government is doing' and which you so patriotically post as your 'proof'.
$19,507
Strengthening the Capacity of Youth NGOsTo strengthen youth activism. The organization will support a network of youth organizations and initiative groups through a series of trainings to increase members' capacity and professionalism. It will provide informational and technical support for the youth organizations’ events and activities. The organization will promote the network by holding a press conference and disseminating a booklet highlighting the organizations' activities to local government offices, media, schools, and other NGOs.
Alternatively described as 'brainwashing and indoctrinating the youth' Hitler did that with the Hitler Youth Movement.
again- this comment is abhorrent and truly beyond the pale. helping youth organizations- whatever they may be- build capacity is not brain washing. Its encouraging young people to explore their interests and not be so reliant on outsiders. Its a well understood model of youth empowerment.
You simply expose your ignorance with such nonsense. Seriously. Do you even know what Civil Society is? God forbid people want their own voice as opposed to the government or big business.
$21,790
Promoting Human Rights To promote human rights. The organization will conduct a training for regional activists to improve human rights monitoring. Following the training, the organization will organize volunteer groups of training participants, lawyers, elected officials and other activists to monitor human rights abuses. These groups will track reported cases and utilize the information for broader advocacy campaigns.
What's this? More of 'we don't like the way you treat your women and so we will use it as a well worn excuse to invade you, destroy your infrastructure, kill millions and set you at each others throats to ensure that women have 'equal rights' the way WE SAY IT MUST BE.?
The one I worked for was started by a woman who likely has many views similar to you, Oxymoron. She was(is) a pacifist. She put her faith in the citizens of both the US and Russia to foster civic involvement based on the growth of small businesses and democratic institutions. She saw her "Org" as a way around the politics and use direct citizen interaction to foster understanding and peace. Literally, 1000s of Russians came to the US to spend a month exploring their particular industry. They were hosted (for free) by US citizens in their homes.
I know for fact that it wasn't a CIA front. It was staffed with extremely hard working (and under paid) people who believed that their efforts toward Citizen Diplomacy would be a positive contribution to the World.
I find your entire reply to be of truly questionable merit- lack of content, outlandish claims backed by bitter ranting.
Right - because your vision is so clear and unbiased? Seriously, what color are your glasses?
Clearly, you are just whinging irrationally without regard to the facts or understanding. The monies were designed to foster democracy not supersede it.
Yes, Oxy- all NGOs are just CIA fronts- thats logical.
Again, it is just bitter hyperbole not based on a genuine understanding or experience of the NGO sector.
The one I worked for was started by a woman who likely has many views similar to you, Oxymoron. She was(is) a pacifist. She put her faith in the citizens of both the US and Russia to foster civic involvement based on the growth of small businesses and democratic institutions. She saw her "Org" as a way around the politics and use direct citizen interaction to foster understanding and peace. Literally, 1000s of Russians came to the US to spend a month exploring their particular industry. They were hosted (for free) by US citizens in their homes.
I know for fact that it wasn't a CIA front. It was staffed with extremely hard working (and under paid) people who believed that their efforts toward Citizen Diplomacy would be a positive contribution to the World.
I also know for a fact that the 1000s of NGOs around the World are similarly staffed and are resentful enough of the Big Gov politics to try and take matters into their own hands.
That you try to equate these people's efforts with Hitler is as telling about You as it is appalling.
What have you done to foster World peace- other than ranting on the internet, Oxymoron?
This is simply a bitter personal attack not representative of the facts. Its defeat borne anger. Nothing more.
Deflect all you want, the facts speak for themselves.
helping youth organizations- whatever they may be- build capacity is not brain washing. Its encouraging young people to explore their interests and not be so reliant on outsiders. Its a well understood model of youth empowerment.
Depends what you are 'helping' them to do. Nice oxymoron, U.S funding (that's the key point) foreign people to 'be less reliant on outsiders'. And the result is a country on the verge of collapse and civil war. The proof is in the pudding.
Not only is the U.S funding it, senior politicians and CIA were actually out there on the front line inciting and cheering it on as well as selecting the 'new government' and orchestrating the whole thing. But no you won't accept that will you, you will deny deny deny until hell freezes over. I wonder why.
Well that worked out well then didn't it. Another Iraq/Kosovo/Libya in the making and not a single U.S depleted uranium shell yet fired. Get them at each others throats and murdering each other. Oust the elected government and install an unelected, unwanted and radical 'government'.... that's U.S 'democracy in action' and anyone who doesn't like it will be branded as a terrorist and can eat tank.
Indeed- because encouraging citizens to participate in their own communities is a bad thing.
Yeah, I think Iran, Russia, China, Syria and Palestine should fund a load of NGO's to 'educate Americans' to participate in their communities and attack the White House with trebuchets and petrol bombs and the leaders of other nations leading the mob and see how the U.S Government react to that.
You simply expose your ignorance with such nonsense. Seriously. Do you even know what Civil Society is? God forbid people want their own voice as opposed to the government or big business.
You really have the nerve to talk about democracy and peoples voices being heard when anyone who dares speak out against the illegal, unelected government installed by the U.S is threatened, beaten, dragged off the street or their homes and imprisoned or murdered. You have some nerve when these people are labelled terrorist and the full might of the Ukrainian military is sent to crush and silence them and the U.S Government not only backs it but instigates it.
This is not a politics forum. And one topic per thread please.
If you can't arrive at an objective measurement of trust, then it's simply stating your subjective opinion. The topic was probably doomed from the start.
