+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Propaganda (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Brits in panic? (/thread-15027.html)
Brits in panic? - John Knoble - 19-10-2016
Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Do you really think that this strong connection between the propaganda against Russia, wikileaks and the US elections exist?
I don't know, but if there is something deeply embarrassing for the US Government or the Democratic Party in the hacked e-mails, I'm sure they're doing some advance thinking about which news outlets might be tempted to throw caution to the wind and publish it.
As far as the NatWest actions are concerned, there was probably some pressure, but it could have come from deep private pockets as easily as the US or the UK government. There is no shortage of top officials or wealthy people who want to avoid a Trump presidency, on both sides of the Atlantic. There is probably no shortage of private wealth blurred with covert government.
As far as Wikileaks is concerned, I'm not sure who secretly sponsors it, but if you are looking to head off a leak of something really important, it would be really handy to secretly control the site that gets the most publicity. If a site gets publicity in the mainstream media, there is usually a reason.
Brits in panic? - Magda Hassan - 19-10-2016
There is no evidence for Russia being behind any hacking of these emails. RT is reporting them and so are other outlets. I never noticed RT coverage to be particularly strident than any others. All media outlets should be carrying the contents and implications of the emails. But many of the media are part of the machine and do not do that. There definitely is a media propaganda war against Russia. Drum beats stronger every week.
When they pulled this on RT I did wonder how on earth they didn't think that the BBC and other media too would be vulnerable to such a retaliation.
Brits in panic? - Carsten Wiethoff - 19-10-2016
John Knoble Wrote:Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:Do you really think that this strong connection between the propaganda against Russia, wikileaks and the US elections exist?
As far as Wikileaks is concerned, I'm not sure who secretly sponsors it, but if you are looking to head off a leak of something really important, it would be really handy to secretly control the site that gets the most publicity. If a site gets publicity in the mainstream media, there is usually a reason.
As long as Wikileaks can publish the stuff and the site remains accessible, I think it is irrelevant, whether RT or any other news organisation reports about it. If the leaked information is making people furious it will create Twitter and Facebook storms and thousands of youtube channels and blog posts will rant about it. It might take a little longer than with a headline by RT, but it will come out.
Brits in panic? - Magda Hassan - 19-10-2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Brits in panic? - David Guyatt - 19-10-2016
Carsten Wiethoff Wrote:So now I hear that Natwest withdrew their threat to cancel all of RT's accounts.
The british Times, formerly a respected newspaper, has this to say about it:
Quote:A state-owned British bank caved in to the Kremlin last night after threatening to close the account of a television station accused of being a vehicle for President Putin's propaganda.The rest is behind a paywall, and I urge everyone not to pay for that garbage.
The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) withdrew its punitive action after Moscow claimed it would freeze the BBC's finances in Russia and report Britain to international watchdogs for breaching commitments to freedom of speech.
The climbdown came after an unusually strong reaction from Moscow in defence of RT, the television station formerly known as Russia Today, which is accused of peddling disinformation.
It was a notable victory for Russia
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/natwest-threatened-to-ban-kremlin-tv-station-09wkf5r2d
Excellent news.
This sly trick of NatWest demonstrate what clownish, disingenuous and cowardly pricks the management really are (which in fact I knew due to some inside information about board level incompetence).
It seems that zero forethought went into the probable consequences of this propaganda acts and it is right that NatWest has now to face the consequences of an embarrassing retreat after almost causing a major diplomatic row for what would've been a marginal act. I can imagine the FCO dumped on them from a great height for their meddling.
Brits in panic? - David Guyatt - 19-10-2016
John Knoble Wrote:As far as Wikileaks is concerned, I'm not sure who secretly sponsors it, but if you are looking to head off a leak of something really important, it would be really handy to secretly control the site that gets the most publicity. If a site gets publicity in the mainstream media, there is usually a reason.
There is zero evidence that anyone "secretly sponsors" Wikileaks. It is a not for profit media organization that receives donations from the public via the Wau Holland Foundation and has a total of 4 paid staff - so it's overheads are infinitesimal when compared to for profit media corporations. See HERE and HERE
Some years ago when it was hindered from doing its work for the public good, this forum financed the setting up of Wikileaks mirror site in Iceland to help ensure it remained in the game.
Personally, I would donate money again in a second if it required it, but it seems to do okay from the public donations it continues to receive.