Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: "We All Lie For The CIA"

[FunkyMike]

1 minute ago, Frank B. said:

Regarding Ulfkotte and his bogus claims: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-132212276.html

So where is this proof that his claims were bogus?

I have read the article before as I have noted. It is nothing but the usual Spiegel junk that tries to break down Udo Ulfkotte as nothing but a crazy cancer ill hermit, with light and sound sensitivity that lives secluded in a forest near a lake.

 

No mention of police protection or why he isn't listen in an address book.

No mention of threats against his life.

No mention of the work he has conducted as a journalist whilst at FAZ / the honorary titles he carries from that period / the books he has released/ the topics covered/ the subsequent work after FAZ.

No mention what exactly it is he was covering in the Middle East.  (Yes he was in the middle east - yet Spiegel Online tries to make it look like that he was busy building a house with his bear hands at home so how could he have the time to travel to the Middle east - typical junk)

No mention of who spouted rumors that he broke his skull when tripping over a cat / secret iranian agents etc.

 

It portraits the FAZ as a serious paper that for some reason had some room left for a crazy nutter who managed to stay with the paper for 17 years.

 

Honestly I am surprised that they didn't fit Putin into this somehow.

 

This is why its called the Lügenpresse. 

[TPreston]

Just now, FunkyMike said:

This is why its called the Lügenpresse.

Where have I heard that before

Oh yeah

[Jim K Global Moderator]

10 minutes ago, SpyCatcher said:

Please list your experience, job titles, and education that asserts your statement is factual.

Please tell... what part was false and why to that 10 month old post ?

 

You know full well asking for someone over the internet for their "experience" will not yield you a beyond-the-doubt answer.  I could say whatever... 

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

3 minutes ago, FunkyMike said:

So where is this proof that his claims were bogus?

I have read the article before as I have noted. It is nothing but the usual Spiegel junk that tries to break down Udo Ulfkotte as nothing but a crazy cancer ill hermit, with light and sound sensitivity that lives secluded in a forest near a lake.

 

No mention of police protection or why he isn't listen in an address book.

No mention of threats against his life.

No mention of the work he has conducted as a journalist whilst at FAZ / the honorary titles he carries from that period / the books he has released/ the topics covered/ the subsequent work after FAZ.

No mention what exactly it is he was covering in the Middle East.  (Yes he was in the middle east - yet Spiegel Online tries to make it look like that he was busy building a house with his bear hands at home so how could he have the time to travel to the Middle east - typical junk)

No mention of who spouted rumors that he broke his skull when tripping over a cat / secret iranian agents etc.

 

It portraits the FAZ as a serious paper that for some reason had some room left for a crazy nutter who managed to stay with the paper for 17 years.

 

Honestly I am surprised that they didn't fit Putin into this somehow.

 

This is why its called the Lügenpresse. 

I'd trust Der Spiegel over the various outlets Ulfkotte has been writing for during his last years.

[FloatingFatMan]

4 hours ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

You say that, but there's a number of members here who perceive that you did.  I recall the post absolutely.  This is what infuriates - you made such a black and white statement, and then acted like the rest of the world acting in shades of grey was wrong.  Now you retract or (benefit of the doubt) came across wrong - can you not see why this "Russia is holier than thou" attitude is nothing more than the same thing some people level at countries such as America?

He did indeed make such a claim, I remember it fairly well, though not the title of the thread.  In fact, IIRC, he's said as much in several threads over the past year or so.  "Russia has no propaganda, it's all the west, blah blah blah..."

 

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

39 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Propaganda doesn't have to be lies. It can simply be misleading or biased information. 

youre right - so how is RT any different than the US national news? wouldnt CNN be a "propaganda" network for their misleading and biased info against Trump? Wouldnt Fox News be spreading propaganda about their pro-republican jargon?

[adrynalyne]

1 minute ago, Jason S. said:

youre right - so how is RT any different than the US national news? wouldnt CNN be a "propaganda" network for their misleading and biased info against Trump? Wouldnt Fox News be spreading propaganda about their pro-republican jargon?

I'm not sure it is different; I think a bigger argument is listening to any propaganda. You can't legitimize RT by pointing out that other sources are propaganda as well.

[FunkyMike]

11 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Where have I heard that before

Quote

The term Lügenpresse has been used intermittently since the 19th century in political polemics in Germany, by a wide range of groups and movements in a variety of debates and conflicts.[1] Isolated uses can be traced back as far as the Vormärz period.[2] The term gained traction in the March 1848 Revolution when Catholic circles employed it to attack the rising, hostile liberal press. In the Franco-German War (1870–71) and particularly World War I (1914–18) German intellectuals and journalists used the term to denounce what they believed was enemy war propaganda. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_press

 

Has part 2 of the Project Veritas video detailing the crazy extremists that plan on gassing people at the Trump inaguartion been released yet?

 

 

12 minutes ago, Frank B. said:

I'd trust Der Spiegel over the various outlets Ulfkotte has been writing for during his last years.

 

 

Yes let us trust The Spiegel that releases ISIS propaganda as trustworthy information and blames it all on Putin.

 

I wouldn't wipe my arse with that paper.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

I'm not sure it is different; I think a bigger argument is listening to any propaganda. You can't legitimize RT by pointing out that other sources are propaganda as well.

fair enough - i just dont understand how so many want to call RT a "propaganda network" when our news does the same thing. again, i dont follow RT or anything so im not sure how radical they are

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

38 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

He did indeed make such a claim, I remember it fairly well, though not the title of the thread.  In fact, IIRC, he's said as much in several threads over the past year or so.  "Russia has no propaganda, it's all the west, blah blah blah..."

Russia and the West have switched places.

 

Russia isn't afraid of the plurality of opinions and the free speech while the EU is frightened of these concepts. In the EU, thinking and writing is only allowed in politically correct forms.

 

The EU Parliament tries to legislate bizarre resolutions targeted against RT and the Russian propaganda. The very notion of trying to limit the exposure of the Western MSM's in Russia would be very strange at least.

 

Russia is for the free trade. The West is for sanctions, quotas, and closed trade unions.

 

Russia is for the freedom of travel. The West is for visas and again, sanctions.

 

These days, it's Russia that's against the export of revolutions and organizations of coups. The EU was an accomplice of the Ukrainian coup to give just one example.

 

Russia is against fanatics and ultras. The West supports Jabhat Al-Nusrah among other groups.

 

Nowadays, it's Russia that respects the church and traditional religions. The EU is carrying out another immoral experiment.

 

Russia keeps a moderate defense budget. NATO has been trying to jump start another arms' race.

 

Russia is ideologically free. Any state ideology is prohibited in the Russian Constitution. RT invites speakers from all the corners of the political spectrum. The Western MSM's, on the other hand, draw a narrow ideologically-based picture of the world. And when their picture starts to show cracks because everyone has had enough of their lies, they blame RT/Kremlin/Putin. Truthful and honest debates are rarely seen on the Western TV channels.

 

Cheers!

[FloatingFatMan]

1 minute ago, Mirumir said:

Truthful and honest debates are rarely seen on the Western TV channels.

I can watch several every single weekday if I want to...

 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

11 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I can watch several every single weekday if I want to...

Good for you.

 

Let me guess, they bash Russia on each and every one of them, don't they?

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, Mirumir said:

Let me guess, they bash Russia on each and every one of them, don't they?

Why would they? 99% of the debates on BBC Parliament channel are to do with internal matters only.

[300z]

1 hour ago, Jason S. said:

let me preface this comment by saying that i dont really know anything about RT. from what i've read, the news outlet is Govt-sponsored. my question is, what qualifies them as a "propaganda" news outlet? are there examples out there that shows blatant lies?

 

just last week i heard the NBC Nightly News refer to RT as a "russian propaganda network." that struck me as a funny comment b/c that comment, itself, is propaganda. The social meme of "Russia did it" is propaganda. When everything that happens in the US is someone else's fault, that's propaganda.

 

so, my questions are sincere. i dont know anything about RT, but what makes them a "state sponsored propaganda network"?

I'm wondering about that too. What differentiates them from like say the BBC?

 

Oh and this journalist is dead now, apparently from a supposedly heart attack.

Link.

[MightyJordan]

2 minutes ago, 300z said:

Oh and this journalist is dead now, apparently from a supposedly heart attack.

Link.

Yeah, that was why the thread got revived in the first place, several pages back.

 

[wakjak]

38 minutes ago, Jason S. said:

fair enough - i just dont understand how so many want to call RT a "propaganda network" when our news does the same thing. again, i dont follow RT or anything so im not sure how radical they are

It's state run media. They show you only what they want you to see. Nothing or very rarely do they ever criticize Putin.

[300z]

2 minutes ago, MightyJordan said:

Yeah, that was why the thread got revived in the first place, several pages back.

 

My bad, I missed that.

[wakjak]

4 minutes ago, 300z said:

What differentiates them from like say the BBC?

The BBC is a quasi-autonomous corporation authorised by Royal Charter, making it operationally independent of the government, who have no power to appoint or dismiss its director-general, and required to report impartially. As with all major media outlets, though, it has been accused of political bias from across the political spectrum, both within the UK and abroad.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News

[MightyJordan]

13 minutes ago, wakjak said:

The BBC is a quasi-autonomous corporation authorised by Royal Charter, making it operationally independent of the government, who have no power to appoint or dismiss its director-general, and required to report impartially. As with all major media outlets, though, it has been accused of political bias from across the political spectrum, both within the UK and abroad.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News

And despite its obligation to be impartial, it usually ends up being the mouthpiece of the government in charge at the time, just like RT, only more subtle. As it stands, with the Conservatives in charge for over six years now, despite the right-wing voices being much louder claiming the BBC's biased to the left, "The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda."

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

15 minutes ago, wakjak said:

The BBC is a quasi-autonomous corporation authorised by Royal Charter, making it operationally independent of the government, who have no power to appoint or dismiss its director-general, and required to report impartially. As with all major media outlets, though, it has been accused of political bias from across the political spectrum, both within the UK and abroad.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News

Good job.

 

Now that BBC is covered, what about BBG (VOA, Radio Liberty Europe), PBS, CPB, CBC, DW, RAI, etc..? I could list the whole alphabet really. But hey, only Russia isn't allowed to have a state-run TV channel and broadcast its worldview, am I right?

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

You need more work on your English comprehension. The BBC is not a state run TV channel.

 

[FunkyMike]

 

59 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

Russia and the West have switched places.

 

The EU Parliament tries to legislate bizarre resolutions targeted against RT and the Russian propaganda. The very notion of trying to limit the exposure of the Western MSM's in Russia would be very strange at least.

 

Russia is for the free trade. The West is for sanctions, quotas, and closed trade unions.

 

Russia is for the freedom of travel. The West is for visas and again, sanctions.

 

These days, it's Russia that's against the export of revolutions and organizations of coups. The EU was an accomplice of the Ukrainian coup to give just one example.

 

Russia is against fanatics and ultras. The West supports Jabhat Al-Nusrah among other groups.

 

Nowadays, it's Russia that respects the church and traditional religions. The EU is carrying out another immoral experiment.

 

Russia keeps a moderate defense budget. NATO has been trying to jump start another arms' race.

 

Russia is ideologically free. Any state ideology is prohibited in the Russian Constitution. RT invites speakers from all the corners of the political spectrum. The Western MSM's, on the other hand, draw a narrow ideologically-based picture of the world. And when their picture starts to show cracks because everyone has had enough of their lies, they blame RT/Kremlin/Putin. Truthful and honest debates are rarely seen on the Western TV channels.

 

Cheers!

 

Whilst some statements in this are fairly blunt they do reflect the current climate in some way. It is all about the different lenses / and different interest groups that you can use to look upon all of this.

 

Many people in the EU still have traditional values but there is a large push to overwrite these values and label anyone in their way as a Putin apologist or Russian spy/hacker.

 

Take this Danish journo that speaks out against the feminisation of European men. She has been labeled an arm of the Kremlin.

 

 

 

Quote

‘EU’s new tool against political opponents is to link them to Russia’ – targeted Danish journalist

Danish Journalist Iben Thranholm, who was branded as a Russian propagandist and included on an EU blacklist for comments she made on migrant policy, tells RT that such character assassinations have become the new go-to tactic of Western governments.

https://www.rt.com/news/373697-danish-journalist-eu-russia/

It is no wonder that RT can give their voice some prominence since the toxic EU atmosphere is labeling anyone that doesn't agree with their stance an outsider and yet worse .. resorts to destroying peoples careers.

 

This is why RT has such a huge traction in the West being the number one news channel on YouTube. It simply banks on the alternative viewpoint that gets enabled through the draconian and toxic western atmosphere. You can argue all you want if Western news are as fake as RT or vice versa but the truth is .. the west is responsible for this huge cluster####. 

 

All RT had to do was to step in and allow a voice to people that were being marginalised by the "mainstream". It is stupidly simple.

 

That is not to say that they do not have their own slant on their own news. 

When Russia and the Syrian Arab Army took Aleppo they subsequently got overrun in Palmyra that they captured a while before hand. You can probably recall the concert that they held.

However when this happened RT only made a brief mention of the defeat and didn't release any other integral news on that matter since they were still celebrating the Aleppo victory. 

This is the type of slant you see at times but admittedly in a rarer fashion than in the west.

German channels went full retard on the Ukraine crisis. Showing Ukrainian ultra fascists with SS helmets whilst at the same time mentioning that there are no extreme right elements in the Ukraine. 

 

As such when talking about RT as a propaganda news outlet .. many people interpret the western standard of propaganda.

 

In Germany there will be heavy penalties for anyone that posts news that do not go with the general mainstream view. 50k Euros I believe.

There will also be groups scouting social networks, enforcing censorship and fines on people.

 

Indeed the Industrial germans want good relations with the East / Russia / China since those are its natural markets which it can directly link to via land. But it has heavy opposition from across the pond. Hence the demonisation of Russia in the western news. Yet companies such as Daimler are still building new plants with the east. Industrialist care about trade and the expansion of markets. There is a divide in Europe on people that want to trade with the East directly and others that still cling onto more expensive walls for conducting business with the east since it goes against their prime interest.

 

In my opinion Trump is doing the right thing in wanting to enforce taxation on imports into the states. The EU does exactly the same thing already! If you have a product that you want to export into germany that directly competes with a german product ... good luck to you sir.

 

57 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I can watch several every single weekday if I want to...

 

Indeed there are still many good reports that get shown on normal television .. as long as they do not have any heavy interest groups behind them that try to skew the message. 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by FunkyMike

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

8 minutes ago, FunkyMike said:

You can argue all you want if Western news are as fake as RT or vice versa but the truth is .. the west is responsible for this huge cluster####. 

 

All RT had to do was to step in and allow a voice to people that were being marginalised by the "mainstream". It is stupidly simple.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

Quote

As for the Kremlin propaganda today, I assure you, their "truth department" at RT is very slim. Why waste millions if their job is already done for them by somebody else. All they have to do is expose the lies of the western media, who despite their supposed variety and objectivity, in 99% of the cases tell the same Russia story.

The whole argument boils down to "my grass is greener" type of thing. Everyone is doing it, but RT is the bad guy.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

You need more work on your English comprehension. The BBC is not a state run TV channel.

I'm not going to argue some semantic differences between the terms "state-run", "state-funded", and "publicly-funded".

 

If a state calls the shots when it comes to the station's budget allowances or appoints/removes its CEO - it makes no difference to me.

[FloatingFatMan]

1 hour ago, Mirumir said:

I'm not going to argue some semantic differences between the terms "state-run", "state-funded", and "publicly-funded".

 

If a state calls the shots when it comes to the station's budget allowances or appoints/removes its CEO - it makes no difference to me.

The state does not call the shots with regard to the BBC's funding, nor does it appoint the CEO.