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


Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
TPreston
Just now, FunkyMike said:

This is why its called the Lügenpresse.

Where have I heard that before

Oh yeah

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K
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... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+Frank B.
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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..."

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.
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?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

speigel+SS.jpg

 

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.
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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

IbenThranholm.jpg

 

 

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 by FunkyMike
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By eRajesh
      WhatsApp working on Expiring Media feature that deletes media files once viewed
      by Rajesh Pandey



      A recent report had indicated that WhatsApp was working on allowing users to link their account to multiple devices. A new beta of WhatsApp for Android now reveals that the company is working on bringing a lot more features to the platform.

      WhatsApp is currently working on a feature that will allow users to send media messages that expire after a set time. Dubbed Expiring Media, the media sent by a user will automatically disappear from the recipient's phone once it is viewed.



      WhatsApp already allows users to revoke sent messages, but this feature is different as it will completely disappear from the chat with their being no indication whatsoever that a media file was sent in the chat. As of now, it does not look like WhatsApp will prevent users from taking screenshots of expiring media files, though this can change in a future build. There's also no timer functionality so that sent media files expire after a certain time but they should be presumably coming in the future.

      As of now, the Expiring Media feature is only found in testing in the Android version of WhatsApp, though it should make its way to the beta version of the iOS app as well before its public release.

      Source: WABetaInfo

    • By zikalify
      Alleged anti-5G USB stick that sells for £339 costs just £5 to make
      by Paul Hill



      An investigation by BBC News and Pen Test Partners has revealed that a £339 “anti-5G USB stick” is actually just a £5 USB device with a cheap sticker affixed. The report came after a member of Glastonbury Town Council’s 5G Advisory Committee, Toby Hall, suggested that the 5GBioShield could be used to tackle the alleged negative side effects of 5G.

      The 5GBioShield retails for £339.60 including VAT and you can even get a discount if you buy three. According to the retailer, the device uses “proprietary holographic nano-layer technology” to ward off 5G’s “non-natural magneto-electric waves”. The town’s council committee member, Toby Hall, said in a report by the 5G Advisory Committee that “We use this device and find it helpful.”

      In order to learn more about the device, Pen Test Partners got hold of the product and performed a tear down after plugging it into their computer. It found that the device comes with 128MB of storage and that the device properties were set to default values, which it said, is an indication of a cheap, unbranded device.

      In terms of the hardware, Pen Test Partners found nothing unique about the hardware, explaining that the crystal holder housed an LED and that the circle near the front of the USB stick was just a regular sticker. Pen Test Partners came to the conclusion that the device was nothing more than a £5 USB key that you can find online and said that it believes a trading standards body should investigate the product.

      Following the product's tear down, Toby Hall said that his remarks should not be taken as a recommendation by the council to buy the product. What he did say, however, was that since plugging it in he felt calmer, had better sleep, and noticed "a 'calmer' feel to the home."

    • By zikalify
      Report suggests UK should set up digital news regulator
      by Paul Hill



      A new report - dubbed The Cairncross Review - has been published in the UK today and has called for a new regulator that monitors digital news platforms such as Google News and Apple News. The body would be tasked with amplifying “existing and future efforts to ensure the sustainability for public-interest news” by working with news platforms, publishers, and other bodies, such as Ofcom (communications regulator) and the BBC.

      The report says that the way people find their news has changed from print to digital media and that with that shift, we’ve seen the ad market transformed. It said that with ad revenue moving from publishers to online platforms, the finances of the publishers have been undermined and that this particularly hits smaller publishers. In response to a lack of financial resources, publishers end up cutting back their reporting, which this review believes is bad for the “effective working” of democracy.

      Explaining how platforms such as social media have detrimentally impacted publisher revenues, the report says:

      The large report comes to 157 pages in total but the author’s helpfully highlighted nine recommendations in the form of bullet points. Some suggestions include having an obligation to provide quality news, having the BBC help provide expertise to local publishers, having a fund to help improve the supply of public-interest news, and giving tax reliefs to improve how the online news market works and to ensure an adequate supply of public-interest journalism.

      Another item discussed in the report is fake news, a topic that has cropped up a lot ever since it became a focal point in the 2016 U.S. elections. The authors of the report suggest more needs to be done to tackle the dissemination of fake news, with the report saying:

      It’ll be interesting to see what the government does with the feedback from the report. Prime Minister Theresa May ordered the review a little over a year ago so she will be likely to try and implement at least some of the measures outlined in the report. According to the conclusion of the report, it is not looking to preserve the status quo, or turn back the clocks on the media landscape so it’ll be interesting to see how existing organisations cope under the new suggestions from the report.

    • By boydo
      Update for Plex on Xbox One stamps out glitches, adds interface refinements
      by Boyd Chan

      While Plex for Xbox One initially required an active Plex Pass in order to be able to use the app, that changed towards the end of 2015 when the company removed that restriction from all of its console apps, making it a more accessible choice for the masses. In the interim, the app has received a number of updates one of which included a facelift late last year as well as Plex News, which initially appeared on other platforms last year but eventually appeared on Xbox One this March.

      Now, a new update for the Xbox One app has been released that adds some interface refinements as well as a number of bug fixes:

      If not already triggered, you can manually update the app via the Microsoft Store on Xbox One by visiting the store listing directly. Otherwise, if you've not already checked it out, you can grab it for free as well as the corresponding Plex Media Server software that will enable you to start streaming content from a designated computer.

      Via: OnMSFT

    • By boydo
      Plex brings its virtual reality experience to Samsung Gear VR
      by Boyd Chan

      Back in January of this year, Plex made its first foray into the world of VR after having gained some inspiration from a community project, Plevr. This resulted in the release of Plex VR for Google Daydream compatible devices which enabled people to watch media together in real-time in a virtual theater. However, those who bought VR hardware outside of Google's ecosystem were left empty-handed.

      Addressing this situation, Plex has announced that it is rolling out its VR app to the Gear VR. If the app follows the lead taken by its Daydream app, specific functions, such as "Watch together" will require a Plex Pass, however, everybody should get the chance to try it out for the first seven days of their Plex VR experience at no charge. Plex Pass holders should also gain access to a unique drive-in movie theater scene.

      Plex VR for Gear VR has the following hardware and software requirements:

      Unfortunately, for Galaxy S6 owners, Plex decided not to make its VR app available on this handset due to poor performance.

      At present, the app is not fully featured, but Plex has advised that "Watch together, including Voice Chat on Plex VR will be available on Gear VR within a few weeks." The company also took the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to continue delivering improvements to its app for Daydream devices.