Why do you care? Sure, these events might kill us, but do you expect them to influence your decisions?
What do you mean by “deep”? In one comment you contrast it to propaganda, but in another you mention the possibility of slanted deep coverage. You asked for a chart of who’s who. BBC gives one. Is this shallow? But don’t you need to start shallow? Do you predict that Ilya will give a radically different one?
What is your assessment of what happened in Egypt?
Why do you care? Sure, these events might kill us, but do you expect them to influence your decisions?
Two years ago I sat in the audience of the Chaos Computer Congress when Julian Assange said that he got a leaked “North Pole”-confidental report with a list of persons who don’t get Christmas presents if they don’t do anything to advance politics in the right direction the common year. He handed out a bunch of codes so that everyone who got a code sort of new that he had to do something to get off the list.
I personally made a decision against actively working at Wikileaks or similar causes. I have more private information about myself in the public domain than would be wise if I would make those kinds of political moves myself. I still like to be one of the people who can hold a political conversation on the level that created a project like Wikileaks.
As a community of smart people I don’t think it’s useful to give up politics completely.
I didn’t mean to imply that you shouldn’t care about any politics, just that this topic sounds like gossip, not an attempt to “advance politics in the right direction.”
Isn’t this the worst argument in the world? I don’t think this topic is anywhere near the central element of the set “gossip”. Gossip is if we talk about the Kardashians.
Gossip has two meanings. One meaning is talking about people you know. That is real political coalition-building. The other is celebrity gossip, where you fool yourself into thinking that you are doing politics.
What the BBC writes could be classified as gossip. I don’t really disagree on that point.
Reading articles that are really intended to inform about the crisis in the Ukraine is however not gossip. To me it’s a major political event. I also live in Europe so it’s more important to me as it would be if I would live in the US.
I think that if you want to advance politics in the right direction you first have to understand the playing field. That means understanding major events.
I however won’t judge anybody who thinks that dealing with politics isn’t worth his time because he doesn’t see an effect on his actions.
You asked for a chart of who’s who. BBC gives one. Is this shallow?
The BBC one contains no single oligarch. That’s a significant decision.
Sergej Aksjonow who’s the premier of Crimea and who declared that he commands the fleet, police and the interior ministry that’s stationed on Crimea doesn’t make it into the BBC’s list of major players.
From a propaganda standpoint framing the major players that way makes sense. Western powers don’t want that the democratically elected premier of Crimea has power.
If you read the CFR reporting you find talk about how the US thinks Europe wasn’t investing enough effort into funding protestors of the old Ukranian regime. That’s useful information for understanding the who’s who. The CIA was more interested in getting rid of the old Ukranian regime than European actors.
It’s the kind of information that the audience of the Western foreign policy community who reads CFR to inform themselves of the conflict needs. The CFR wants to inform the Western foreign policy community to have them make decisions in the interests of the Western foreign policy community and that means that they actually have to communicate the who’s who more accurately.
What is your assessment of what happened in Egypt?
The military has the power in Egypt. In contrast to a country like the US the Egyptian military controls large parts of the Egyptian economy. Certain policies of opening up Egypt to international investors and making life for international investors easier go against the business interests of the Egyptian military. They see themselves as nationalists.
When the revolution came around they allowed Mubarak to fall and didn’t shoot and protesters because they didn’t like Mubarak.
When it turned out that the brotherhood government wasn’t what they wanted the military took power themselves and did shoot at protesters. That surprised people who believed the narrative that Western media told, but it shouldn’t have surprised anyone who paid attention.
Why do you care? Sure, these events might kill us, but do you expect them to influence your decisions?
What do you mean by “deep”? In one comment you contrast it to propaganda, but in another you mention the possibility of slanted deep coverage. You asked for a chart of who’s who. BBC gives one. Is this shallow? But don’t you need to start shallow? Do you predict that Ilya will give a radically different one?
What is your assessment of what happened in Egypt?
Two years ago I sat in the audience of the Chaos Computer Congress when Julian Assange said that he got a leaked “North Pole”-confidental report with a list of persons who don’t get Christmas presents if they don’t do anything to advance politics in the right direction the common year. He handed out a bunch of codes so that everyone who got a code sort of new that he had to do something to get off the list.
I personally made a decision against actively working at Wikileaks or similar causes. I have more private information about myself in the public domain than would be wise if I would make those kinds of political moves myself. I still like to be one of the people who can hold a political conversation on the level that created a project like Wikileaks.
As a community of smart people I don’t think it’s useful to give up politics completely.
I didn’t mean to imply that you shouldn’t care about any politics, just that this topic sounds like gossip, not an attempt to “advance politics in the right direction.”
Isn’t this the worst argument in the world? I don’t think this topic is anywhere near the central element of the set “gossip”. Gossip is if we talk about the Kardashians.
It’s politics, though.
Gossip has two meanings. One meaning is talking about people you know. That is real political coalition-building. The other is celebrity gossip, where you fool yourself into thinking that you are doing politics.
I am sorry, but world politics is just not the same as gossip.
What the BBC writes could be classified as gossip. I don’t really disagree on that point.
Reading articles that are really intended to inform about the crisis in the Ukraine is however not gossip. To me it’s a major political event. I also live in Europe so it’s more important to me as it would be if I would live in the US.
I think that if you want to advance politics in the right direction you first have to understand the playing field. That means understanding major events.
I however won’t judge anybody who thinks that dealing with politics isn’t worth his time because he doesn’t see an effect on his actions.
The BBC one contains no single oligarch. That’s a significant decision.
Sergej Aksjonow who’s the premier of Crimea and who declared that he commands the fleet, police and the interior ministry that’s stationed on Crimea doesn’t make it into the BBC’s list of major players.
From a propaganda standpoint framing the major players that way makes sense. Western powers don’t want that the democratically elected premier of Crimea has power.
If you read the CFR reporting you find talk about how the US thinks Europe wasn’t investing enough effort into funding protestors of the old Ukranian regime. That’s useful information for understanding the who’s who. The CIA was more interested in getting rid of the old Ukranian regime than European actors.
It’s the kind of information that the audience of the Western foreign policy community who reads CFR to inform themselves of the conflict needs. The CFR wants to inform the Western foreign policy community to have them make decisions in the interests of the Western foreign policy community and that means that they actually have to communicate the who’s who more accurately.
The military has the power in Egypt. In contrast to a country like the US the Egyptian military controls large parts of the Egyptian economy. Certain policies of opening up Egypt to international investors and making life for international investors easier go against the business interests of the Egyptian military. They see themselves as nationalists.
When the revolution came around they allowed Mubarak to fall and didn’t shoot and protesters because they didn’t like Mubarak.
When it turned out that the brotherhood government wasn’t what they wanted the military took power themselves and did shoot at protesters. That surprised people who believed the narrative that Western media told, but it shouldn’t have surprised anyone who paid attention.
Another story about how the BBC engages into propaganda that’s not about information the viewer:
http://stevecoast.com/2014/03/02/ukrainian-maps-and-the-lies-they-tell/