General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmericans Overwhelmingly Want Russian Propaganda Banned
BY JASON EASLEY
Americans Overwhelmingly Want Russian Propaganda Banned
https://www.politicususa.com/2022/03/16/americans-overwhelmingly-want-russian-social-media-banned.html
Americans Want Russian State Media Banned
"SNIP......
Here are the findings from the latest Morning Consult/Politico survey.
*Fewer than 1 in 5 voters said they opposed government and social media bans on Russian state media, while 15 percent said they didnt know or had no opinion on either ban.
*Seventy-eight percent of Democrats backed a government ban, and 77 percent supported a social media ban. Meanwhile, 61 percent of independents and 66 percent of Republicans supported a government ban, while 60 percent of independents and 62 percent of Republicans backed a social media ban.
*Outlets including RT and Sputnik have already been banned in the European Union for allegedly spreading disinformation about Russias war in Ukraine. RT has had its apps removed from Microsoft Corp.s and Apple Inc.s app stores, while Google has limited the visibility of RTs content in its search results.
A Ban Of Russia State Media Would Deal A Blow To Putins US Propaganda
A social media and government ban on Russian-sponsored media would not only help Ukraine, but it would boost American democracy. If Russias propaganda could only be spread through the likes of Tucker Carlson and the conservative media bubble, the Russians would find it more difficult to interfere in US elections.
.....SNIP"
Initech
(99,915 posts)applegrove
(118,022 posts)pandr32
(11,447 posts)RocRizzo55
(980 posts)Decide what propaganda I want to see. Personally, i wouldnt ban any propaganda. I would rather make my own conclusions from researching both sides lies.
Response to RocRizzo55 (Reply #4)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
If you can't read or hear what *they* say, all your media gets filtered through other sources.
Did that side really say that?
Did the "approved" sources actually cite everything that matters?
What's said that a reader picks up by reading between the lines? My usual example is when a student in the 4th-year-Russian class I was taking gave a presentation. (Early in the year we were expected to read some news story, jot down a few notes on an index card, with new words--presentation consisted of putting new vocab on the board, then speaking for 5-10 minutes, summarizing and explaining the news story, just given your index card.)
Student got up and talked about how the tractor output for the USSR met the 5-year plan. Said how many tractors had been produced, and recited, rather dully, the praise from the various dignitaries for the tractor industry.
The instructor shook his head and look sad, and somebody asked him why it wasn't good news. "They produced fewer than 10k tractors for a huge country. More break and can't be fixed each year than they produced. In some areas they still use horses to plow and they harvest by hand. This means lower grain productivity, and means higher prices and emptier store shelves." The article didn't say that. But his response was that any intelligent Russian--by which he excluded the censors--would know this. In the following years, Russia had a food shortage and imported even more grain each year, as its population declined slightly.
Often propaganda says one thing for the naive readers, and another thing for those who've been around it and immersed in it long enough to have a good idea what is and isn't true. It's easier when there's access to a second source, as well.
I started reading Izvestiya in '76. Copies arrived in the mail, anybody could see what they were--they were folded to be maybe 8" or 9" long, flat, and there was a kind of dull light-green 4" wide paper wrapper with the address on them. For all the reaction of the time, getting them in the mail or pretty much anything else I wanted at the Russian bookstore in Rockville, MD, was not a problem. I want a book of Lenin's speeches? No problem. Introduction to the Philosophy of Scientific Marxism? Sure. Why the imperialist war of aggression against the enlightened and peace-loving North Vietnamese should be crushed by the proletariat? Yeah, there was that shelf. In other words, no censorship under Nixon. Or Carter. Or, oddly, Reagan. And the bookstore opened when Eisenhower was in charge.
It's a tough call--do you fight totalitarian propaganda with censorship? Or do you try to make the populace informed, so its ridiculousness is evident? Do you trust the citizenry in a democracy, or do you assume guardianship over them? Is it okay for a few percentage to disagree, as long as they're not violent? Yeah, it's a tough call.
Response to Igel (Reply #11)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
RocRizzo55
(980 posts)That you dont want them to see, calling it propaganda. If some of us have a better understanding of things, I believe that this censorship is not good for us. It prohibits us from seeing opposing views, and allowing us to sort things out for ourselves.
Response to RocRizzo55 (Reply #16)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
kcr
(15,300 posts)that you can choose to do your own research while democracy crumbles around you.
Bucky
(53,804 posts)You defeat propaganda and lies with truth. Truth must be held up in the face of political disinformation in order for a democracy to thrive.
The cure for Fox News isn't censorship. I don't think anyone supports that. But it is a strong implementation of the fairness doctrine. Politically spun info must be held up to the light of challenge. And yes, that means that MSNBC would also become a venue for Republican disinformation. But I ain't scared of an argument because I ain't scared of the truth.
RocRizzo55
(980 posts)We need what my late great good friend and congressman, Maurice Hinchey proposed 16 years ago. The Media Ownership and Reform Act.
Find a summary here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/3302/cosponsors?r=44&s=1
Off topic, but whenever I am reminded of Maurices accomplishments it brings a little tear to my eye. It makes me feel a bit sad that people think that his views were so radical, by todays standards.
Lovie777
(11,992 posts)all of them.
Silent3
(15,020 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)2naSalit
(86,071 posts)chowder66
(9,011 posts)Response to chowder66 (Reply #10)
RocRizzo55 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ffr
(22,649 posts)Clear as fucking day. The traitors to America go by the name Republican.
ffr
(22,649 posts)Then we might see some normalcy return.
Fuck Putler! Fuck Russian propaganda! And fuck anti-Democratic anti-American traitors!
Phoenix61
(16,954 posts)on the internet. However, it wont be just a mouth cable channel that people wrongly assume is legit.
Cha
(295,929 posts)The Treason Caucus.
💙💛