💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~oxymoronist › media14.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:32:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-09-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Recent developments seem to have accelerated an ongoing repression of free speech, as well as what looks like a largely successful effort to manipulate perceived reality; enough so to merit a dedicated post.
In these days of dramatic news from Ukraine, the information war is directed at everyone. Propaganda is carried out by both sides. Sabotage actions such as blowing up bridges and dams are too flagrant to deny they happened, but who-dunnit is your Rorschach test. Images of fights, provocations, and resistance may be borrowed from any other conflict if they can be made to fit the narrative; each side exaggerates its military power and their troops' willingness to fight.
But such falsifications and self-aggrandisements are trivial compared to the years long propaganda campaign directed against a Western audience by Western powers themselves, channeled through mainstream media with good help from social media, to demonise Russia, make all their actions seem irrational and their president appear as a madman and dictator, long before the invasion began. The extent to which the population already shared such views before the invasion is indicative of the efficacy of Western propaganda, which greatly intensified with Russia Gate in 2016 (see the section on PropOrNot in Part 2).
Yet, there are interesting nuances if we consider a wider perspective than our corporate media offer, such as the US meddling in Ukraine in 2014, NATO expansion eastwards (although NATO spokespersons will tell us that each nation asks for membership on their own accord and that the alliance is purely defensive), the presence of the nazi Azov batallion, or Ukraine's bid to join NATO, which are some of the real or perceived threats that Russia has long sought a guarantee against through diplomacy. The invasion is regrettable and illegal under those international laws Lavrov and Putin themselves previously held so high; however, to properly understand why it happened (which is not to defend it), one has to take NATO's arrogantly expansionist policy into account.
There is no lack of prominent scholars, peace activists, and independent journalists who are able to explain the complexity of this predicament in ways that put mainstream media's simplistic cardboard cutout versions to shame. Unfortunately, those who dare offer a more nuanced view are smeared with the usual puppet accusations, then banned from Youtube and Twitter, forced to independent channels and finally have their funding cut. If nothing else stops them they might suffer character assasination by rape allegations, or they end up on the Myrotvorets kill list.
Expression of anti-war sentiment is actively oppressed in the "collective West" (a term which should be avoided, according to a document from an organisation called Open Intelligence Partnership, because "pro-Russian sources" are fond of it). The repression against war protestors is severe both in Russia and in Ukraine. Here in the West criticism of NATO, or simply not being upbeat enough about achievements on the battle field, can now be labeled as disinformation.
https://jackpoulson.substack.com/p/exclusive-british-government-funded
This seems to be a point of no return, splitting the world into two blocs and a new unstable cold war situation which could all too easily slip into World War III. Michael Hudson has a good analysis of the global economic situation and the inefficiency of economic sanctions that backfire. A few indispensable voices such as John Mearsheimer, Douglas McGregor, Scott Ritter, and Jeffrey Sachs offer a contrasting analysis of the situation that is missing from mainstream media. It isn't necessary to agree with them on everything, but their accuracy and insights should be valued by anyone interested in the situation on the ground as well as long term goals and strategies.
Russian media such as RT and Sputnik were shut down on the major Western platforms in the spring of 2022, and Russia shut down BBC and other Western media, as well as their own independent media. As Joe Lauria points out, the Western audience (especially those who have restricted their news diet to corporate media) have been given a deceptive view of Ukraine by the omission of some crucial facts from recent years: News media leave out the US role in the 2014 coup, the eight years of civil war in the Donbass region against russian speakers, and the role played by (neo-)nazis in the coup, and ever after.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/18/information-warfare-from-pre-history-to-ukraine/
The current conflict in Ukraine is the first major war in the era of social media. Apart from bots and troll farms (including NAFO), regular social media users become, as Lauria puts it, "individual propagandists" furthering the official deceptions:
Social media has allow[ed] citizens to enter the fray, many of whom have been turned into individual propagandists regurgitating official deceptions from either side of a war.
But since social media are Silicon Valley enterprises with ties to US intelligence agencies and government, we should expect only one side's grass roots propaganda, while proponents of the other side and peace activists are rapidly kicked out. And that is exactly what is happening. Again, I must agree with Lauria:
It has become very difficult to understand how Russia is conducting its information warfare because the English language RT television network and Sputnik radio have been banned in the West.
Still, it may be possible to find some true Russia apologists online who haven't yet been banned in the West. They may give their skewed version of what is going on, precisely like Western media but with the opposite sign. An authoritarian mindset has fallen upon us, where regulators of the public sphere fear the consequences if people are exposed to more than one opinion.
Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent was written in the late 1980's, and they have found no reason to update it since then. Their model is still valid and their examples easily recognisable, just change the names of the journalists and the countries involved. American press (and in geopolitical matters, by extention, all Western mainstream media) is still as loyal as ever to government and corporations, applying completely different standards in reporting on events depending on whether they occur in client states or in hostile states. Some victims are worthy, others are not. Worthy victims fall under enemy fire, their suffering is exposed in graphic detail, their fate is properly mourned. Unworthy victims are collateral damage, the unlucky visitors at a wedding targeted for a drone strike, those kinds of things which are swept in silence. Inconvenient facts are not reported. If a convenient fact fails to materialise it can be cooked up. The information flow is choked by this homogenisation of media, by shutting out foreign perspectives and domestic dissidents. Formerly democratic societies taka a step closer to totalitarianism.
The current shutting down of other nations' voices is as regrettable as it is dangerous. It leaves the general population ignorant and, even worse, also appears to limit the understanding of the political class of what motivates other nations. In the best case scenario the conflict is soon over, sanctions lifted, and media access restored everywhere, but that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.
Part eleven (internet censorship)
Part twelve (conspiratorial thinking)
Part thirteen (psychology of propaganda)
Part fourteen (above)
The Oxymoronist Media Guide is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
This part first published on March 5, 2022. Updated: September 27, 2023.