Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Bryan MacDonald — 3 reasons why Navalny probably won’t defeat Putin


On Russian politics but more about US fake news about it.
This means that across the western world the mainstream media is hoodwinking the general public into believing that Navalny is a genuine threat to Putin. For some context, it’s akin to Russian and Chinese media informing their readers how the American Green Party leader, Jill Stein, is a realistic candidate to defeat the Republican or Democratic nominee to be the next occupant of the White House. This would, naturally, be baloney....
Russia Beyond the Headlines
3 reasons why Navalny probably won’t defeat Putin
Bryan MacDonald


7 comments:

Kaivey said...

Good article. I've been battling it out with the Guardian readers online. They call me Putinbot and Dear Comrade. But I'm keeping this article as ammo.

Bob said...

If you want to learn about America, do not read American news sources.
If you want to learn about Russia, do not read Russian news sources.

Penguin pop said...

State-run media is state-run media. Whether's it RT or whatever. Bob is correct.

Tom Hickey said...

Like state-sponsored is necessarily any more biased than corporate media, especially when it is well-known that intel services regularly plant stories or even own reporters.

RT and Sputnik are state-sponsored but not state-run, similar to public media in the US (PBS, NPR) and UK (BBC). Al Jazeera is also state-sponsored (Qatar).

In China, People's Daily is state-run and Global Times is state-sponsored but not state-run.

The Voice of America, which includes Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcast Networks, was switched from state-run to state-sponsored so it could legally operate in the US. The CEO is appointed by POTUS.

Penguin pop said...

Yes, I'm aware of Operation Mockingbird and other operations involving intel and the media. All I'm saying is that I even take those state sponsored sources with an extreme grain of salt. To be fair, RT sometimes has good content but that's because they have people like Thom Hartmann on. It's a mixed bag of truth and absolute gold pumping Alex Jones bootlicking nonsense, and I never thought of someone like Putin as a saint, though all this Russiagate stuff is getting pretty tiresome to follow. With a scumbag like Trump, you don't need any of that Russia stuff to clearly see he's pulled a lot of BS in the past 50 years, not unlike HC or take your pick of idiot politician.

Penguin pop said...

What bothers me about those intelligence agencies is they spent ALL that money on these reports on this Russia stuff and mainly concluded what any 10-year could have concluded with regards to Russia Today "influencing" things (you could observe their YouTube channel for the past year or so and look at all the pro-Trump stuff they constantly had), but I looked at that in the same way that FOX News tries to influence elections, CNN, etc. Yes, they were really pumping up tons of pro-Trump stories, but the whole thing about hacking into the voting machines still sounds far-fetched to me. I completely agree in a sane world, all these questionable agencies would be gutted and we would need to roll back the empire if it meant it would dramatically scale back the power of these intelligence agencies.

Bob said...

I wouldn't watch RT for reliable news on Russia, is all I'm saying. It's just common sense. Same for Al Jazeera when it comes to news on Syria.