I’m anticipating strife and reporting from additional sources. This could get ugly and people should be aware of it.
Note that al-jazeera itself reported this in the article you linked:
“Everything we have seen so far indicates the results of the government are just produced,” Phil Gunson, International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Venezuela, told Al Jazeera. He claimed the tallies announced by the government-controlled electoral authority did not correspond to the votes cast.
“The result that the opposition claims is the correct one … corresponds very closely to what opinion polls have been saying for the last several months,” Gunson said. “All the partial results we have seen so far indicate the opposition got something like three-fifths of the vote.”
Looking at this International Crisis Group’s list of donors:
BP
Chevron
ENI
Open Society Foundation
Rockerfeller Brothers Trust
As well as various Western European & gulf state governments, billionaires and billionaire-founded NGOs. Of course they’re coping: their backers were hoping to get a piece of PDVSA.
Al-Jazeera also posts bullshit. They’re useful for specific issues in the Middle East because they aren’t totally bought off against Palestine or Iran. They still suffer from the core fallacies of corporate journalism.
Ask certain NGOs and governments for takes, reoeat them uncritically or have some criticise others. Easy way to create or support a nonsense narrative.
A ton of countries send delegations to Venezuela to monitor elections and they always report boring results or are vague (from oppositional countries).
So if I have read correctly both links talk about the same (the main source for the Cato article is the report from Carl Bernstein) and they state that some reporters that worked at some point in their lives at the Associated Press were tied to the CIA like 50 years ago.
I mean, sure the CIA and other goverment agencies from different countries sure have an interest in deposing Maduro; but claiming that this coverage from AP is propagand (which stance is very much the same as other non-westie sources) is blissful in itself.
Let’s see. CIA activities historically are not revealed for 30 - 50 years, many are never revealed. The CIA has used the AP for propaganda before. The USA has exhibited an incredibly focused desire to delegitimize Venezuela even against evidence from former president Carter’s foundation on democratic elections.
Yeah, the fact that they used to be infiltrated and are currently pushing state department narratives is the evidence we need to see them as a compromised mouth piece for North Atlantic hegemony
I just love when someone doesn’t understand that APnews regularly spreads propaganda. Amazing to me that westies think that propaganda is only something that happens in outside the west. 😂
I really appreciate all the work you do surfacing fresh takes on important global news. It’s a really valuable service to the community, and for that you have my thanks.
I’m also getting tired of the hard propaganda spin you add to the comments, presumably to counter the western propaganda you see responding to your posts.
I’d prefer to see the news without the verbal combat and assumptions that others are deluded or have an agenda.
But it’s your choice. I just may end up spending more time fact checking your statements in the future; it’s a shame to have to do so.
In general, I would encourage you not to take things at face value and actually spend some time learning about topics like this. You shouldn’t take my word for things, but this is obvious to you because what I say often goes against your existing beliefs. It’s even more important to fact check things that align with your biases. The kind of misinformation that’s the most effective is the kind that feeds on what you’re already primed to believe.
edit: quite telling how people start downvoting comments that encourage them to question their conditioning 🤡
It’s something to do with the us/them culture. People responded to both of us not based on what we said, but based on where they thought we were coming from related to their own sense of identity.
Your edit is likely to draw more downvotes though, because it’s potentially implying things about the readers that have nothing to do with your original valid argument.
These 30 year old books describe the mechanics of western media, which last I checked, haven’t substantially changed today. If anything, propaganda has ramped up as a result of a proxy war with Russia.
Decades ago, before the internet, when your local radio stations and newspapers paid for service to a special machine that constantly churned out stories from stringers and main branches, there was a saying that I no longer remember but went something like, “Associated Press gets the story first; United Press gets it right.”
We never doubted that AP/UP/Reu/(etc.) were feeding most the news. The sources were right there in print.
It is good to remind people that while there are an endless number of websites, most news still comes from a handful of sources. I will even agree that our sources are all biased.
That said there are some stories where bias should be expected; where there aren’t really two sides. Example: “Locals outraged by villian’s kicking puppies!” Good reporting might include the reasoning, but the public is not going to side with the puppy-kicker. Surely there was a better way to handle the situation before it got to that.
The public does not side with Hitler, either. Personally, I am thankful that the larger public has been ‘brainwashed’ into thinking Hitler was ‘bad’. It saddens me that there are Nazis (or neo-Nazis) in countries that fought to end that vile cause. The citizenry should know better. More than that, the citizenry should know that all autocrats are bad. Any benevolent dictator is still mortal and will cede the position to someone else, and it won’t be long before the ‘someone else’ is not benevolent.
So: thank you for posting the link reminding everyone to be critical of all news sources, but also remember that some things are fairly reported. Sometimes a point of view is valid. Sometimes there is an actual solid truth that is being told. Yes, sometimes that truth is getting sensationalized, but that doesn’t it make it less true.
For this particular case, I will re-iterate that I am worried about potential strife. If my family was living in Venezuela, I would want a stable and well funded government without corruption and without dictatorship. I don’t think the people had that as a ballot option, and I don’t trust any of the players. I do miss Chavez, though. The U.S. gave him a raw deal.
Western propagandists once again disputing an election in Venezuela?!
I’m anticipating strife and reporting from additional sources. This could get ugly and people should be aware of it.
Note that al-jazeera itself reported this in the article you linked:
Looking at this International Crisis Group’s list of donors:
As well as various Western European & gulf state governments, billionaires and billionaire-founded NGOs. Of course they’re coping: their backers were hoping to get a piece of PDVSA.
Al-Jazeera also posts bullshit. They’re useful for specific issues in the Middle East because they aren’t totally bought off against Palestine or Iran. They still suffer from the core fallacies of corporate journalism.
Ask certain NGOs and governments for takes, reoeat them uncritically or have some criticise others. Easy way to create or support a nonsense narrative.
A ton of countries send delegations to Venezuela to monitor elections and they always report boring results or are vague (from oppositional countries).
I just love when someone claims APnews is propagand
What do you think the AP is?
Here’s Cato, not exactly a bastion of truth about the West, listing AP as one of the institutions with deep ties to the CIA
https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media#
And here’s a summary/editorial of the findings around CIA and journalism which also directly fingers AP
https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977
So if I have read correctly both links talk about the same (the main source for the Cato article is the report from Carl Bernstein) and they state that some reporters that worked at some point in their lives at the Associated Press were tied to the CIA like 50 years ago.
I mean, sure the CIA and other goverment agencies from different countries sure have an interest in deposing Maduro; but claiming that this coverage from AP is propagand (which stance is very much the same as other non-westie sources) is blissful in itself.
goal posts be moving
Let’s see. CIA activities historically are not revealed for 30 - 50 years, many are never revealed. The CIA has used the AP for propaganda before. The USA has exhibited an incredibly focused desire to delegitimize Venezuela even against evidence from former president Carter’s foundation on democratic elections.
Yeah, the fact that they used to be infiltrated and are currently pushing state department narratives is the evidence we need to see them as a compromised mouth piece for North Atlantic hegemony
I just love when someone doesn’t understand that APnews regularly spreads propaganda. Amazing to me that westies think that propaganda is only something that happens in outside the west. 😂
I just love it when someone posts propaganda and then goes into their own thread attempting to discredit everyone else as propaganda.
PosTinG NeWs abOut ThE ResUltS oF aN EleCtiOn Is PropaGnadA! 🤡
I really appreciate all the work you do surfacing fresh takes on important global news. It’s a really valuable service to the community, and for that you have my thanks.
I’m also getting tired of the hard propaganda spin you add to the comments, presumably to counter the western propaganda you see responding to your posts.
I’d prefer to see the news without the verbal combat and assumptions that others are deluded or have an agenda.
But it’s your choice. I just may end up spending more time fact checking your statements in the future; it’s a shame to have to do so.
In general, I would encourage you not to take things at face value and actually spend some time learning about topics like this. You shouldn’t take my word for things, but this is obvious to you because what I say often goes against your existing beliefs. It’s even more important to fact check things that align with your biases. The kind of misinformation that’s the most effective is the kind that feeds on what you’re already primed to believe.
edit: quite telling how people start downvoting comments that encourage them to question their conditioning 🤡
It’s something to do with the us/them culture. People responded to both of us not based on what we said, but based on where they thought we were coming from related to their own sense of identity.
Your edit is likely to draw more downvotes though, because it’s potentially implying things about the readers that have nothing to do with your original valid argument.
Do you have a source for that claim?
literal books have been written on the subject
So 30 year old books that talk about press during wartime being propagandist in some cases, with bias in others and heavily politiced in most, sure.
Do you have a source for stating AP spreads propagand routinely nowadays?
These 30 year old books describe the mechanics of western media, which last I checked, haven’t substantially changed today. If anything, propaganda has ramped up as a result of a proxy war with Russia.
another comment in this very thread has the sources regarding AP specifically https://lemmy.ml/post/18538110/12620401
please point to the years where the U.S. has not been at war.
Lol like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
deleted by creator
https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/
Decades ago, before the internet, when your local radio stations and newspapers paid for service to a special machine that constantly churned out stories from stringers and main branches, there was a saying that I no longer remember but went something like, “Associated Press gets the story first; United Press gets it right.”
We never doubted that AP/UP/Reu/(etc.) were feeding most the news. The sources were right there in print.
It is good to remind people that while there are an endless number of websites, most news still comes from a handful of sources. I will even agree that our sources are all biased.
That said there are some stories where bias should be expected; where there aren’t really two sides. Example: “Locals outraged by villian’s kicking puppies!” Good reporting might include the reasoning, but the public is not going to side with the puppy-kicker. Surely there was a better way to handle the situation before it got to that.
The public does not side with Hitler, either. Personally, I am thankful that the larger public has been ‘brainwashed’ into thinking Hitler was ‘bad’. It saddens me that there are Nazis (or neo-Nazis) in countries that fought to end that vile cause. The citizenry should know better. More than that, the citizenry should know that all autocrats are bad. Any benevolent dictator is still mortal and will cede the position to someone else, and it won’t be long before the ‘someone else’ is not benevolent.
So: thank you for posting the link reminding everyone to be critical of all news sources, but also remember that some things are fairly reported. Sometimes a point of view is valid. Sometimes there is an actual solid truth that is being told. Yes, sometimes that truth is getting sensationalized, but that doesn’t it make it less true.
For this particular case, I will re-iterate that I am worried about potential strife. If my family was living in Venezuela, I would want a stable and well funded government without corruption and without dictatorship. I don’t think the people had that as a ballot option, and I don’t trust any of the players. I do miss Chavez, though. The U.S. gave him a raw deal.
The AP is happy to reprint nonsense, especially if it is coming from a government or NGO.
Yeah, the news I trust is always reliable and is produced for my benefit so I can be reliably informed.
It is