Today's teachable moment in terms of 'gaslighting failure' comes courtesy of Norwegian state broadcaster NRK… (it's almost too stupid to comment on this one--congrats, NRK, I suppose…)
They've become overconfident and lazy. The Covidian fear porn was lapped up enthusiastically by credulous, lamentably self-important consumers. They think that's a successful, universal model for perception management. No need to exert themselves.
It's normal for journalism, and has always been, to use pictures that are close enough for their purpose: no sinister motive is necessary. Unfortunately, that also means that it is hard to know when a conscious effort is being made to mislead. The "palestinian ambulance" comes to mind.
You wouldn't believe the number of times journalists get things wrong, things even a quick web search would fix - addresses, locations, names of things and so on. "Assault rifles" for example, something which only exists in media. "Tanks" for any kind of armoured vehicle.
When they cannot or will not get things like that correct, what are the odds they could report anything remotely correct?
Having debated and talked with journalists more times than is healthy, I can testify that their arrogance is boundless. They tell the truth, and what they tell is true is how they think: if they tell it, it is true because they tell it.
Upon Trump's election, the then-correspondent for swedish state TV in the US, Bergfeldt, wrote a hit-piece about his atrocious rethoric, claiming to have scientific proof that his linguistic and therefore cognitive ability was on par with an eleven year old child. So I wrote her and asked about that scientific proof. The link she repsonded with was to a much longer piece in the WaPo, which in turn referred to an essay by a first-year colleg student, who had used a program for measuring reading ability, comparing several different presidents' speeches of about equal length. Coming in at the top was Lincoln, the FDR and Reagan, then Bill Clinton and Bush in the middle, and then Trump, and at the very bottom Hillary Clinton (at the level of a seven-year old).
When I wrote back to Bergfeldt about this, and that is hardly qualifies as "scientific proof" and asking why she omitted that Hillay Clinton placed even worse, she immediately responded with slurs, passive-aggressive ad hominem, and the rest of the behaviour typical of women with Cluster B-type personality disorders.
This is just one example, and there's zero reason to believe norwegian jounalists are any different. Arrogance, hubris, fanatical zeal and righteousness and passive-aggressive vindictiveness and revanchism pretty much sums up nordic journalism for the present time as well as the last three decades.
In this particular instance, however, we can clearly see the "editorial hand": for anyone who (also) checks out Russian media on this one, he or she may clearly see that only one side of these points of view can be true.
In this regard, since the above was also accompanied across Norwegian media (state and private) by claims, for instance, by the Royal Military Academy who stated the Russian side was "close to collapse".
Time *will* tell--and then there will be quite a different spectacle to observe: all these people will struggle to "explain" as to why they were so wrong…
Swedish experts, including active military, have claimed that russian forces will collapse any day now, since mid-April.
However, in internal communication, that is not the conclusion of swedish military analysts. (This is no secret material I'm leaning on, it's just that you have to dig and be versed in the swedish dialect of Kremlology to read between the lines.)
Their analysis is more to the tune of Russia aims to wreck Europe, in concert with Turkey (witness Erdogan opening the gates for more moslem invaders to pour into Europe). And as Irean sums it up very adroitly, EUrope is being picked apart by its own stupidity and corruption, and by the cumulative effect of the actions of the US, Russia and China - the Big Three do not want competition from the old masters of the game.
I hope for their sake african leaders and peoples are watching closely, since any sign of any kind of functioning African Union would immediately be targeted the same way, but with even harsher measures.
The problem for Europe is that, as far as I can tell, economic destruction of Europe and the collapse of the EU is perfectly acceptable both to the Americans and to the Russians. If the EU leadership had a brain (just imagine that!), it would seek a way to remain strictly neutral in this conflict, and look after its own interests (it's not like anyone else is looking after those interests). Alas, brains are in short supply, and so here we are.
You think they'll scramble to explain why they were wrong? I kinda doubt it. My guess is that this conflict will drag on for years, and by the time it's over, people will largely have forgotten what they wrote (let alone read) back in the early days.
Speaking of the Russian media (I'm not Russian, but I do speak Russian): a quick glance tells me they're silent about the recent losses. Also no mention of Russian attacks on the civilian infrastructure in the recently lost territory. But what I think is coming is that we'll see more and more of this, i.e. attacks on civilian infrastructure. (I remember Mearsheimer saying that if Russians started to lose, they'd go after the power grid and/or drop some nukes. Well, they're going after the power grid now.) And it's all likely to drag on and on and on.
Correct, no one journalist will ask anyone expert (or vice versa) who was wrong, how they could have been so wrong, let alone call out obvious faulty or simply erroneous statements.
To quote Gerge Carlin, "It's a club, and you're not in it!" - you or I would ask the pointed, embarassing questions but we're on the outside, so the club closes ranks and form a schiltrom to keep outsiders out.
And to any audience, we just look like annoying Besserwissers who can't let go of some old hobbyhorse in favour of the New Thing.
Also, I think this conflict will be the catalyst of major changes in the world. Of course it's impossible to know the details in advance, but it seems very likely that Europe will be massively impoverished (and that the EU will cease to exist, at least de facto). Beyond that? I think Russia will win the war, but with heavy losses. Ukraine will be destroyed, possibly with nukes. The US will (eventually) cut its losses, but not before bleeding Russia in Ukraine, and so in a way, it may be a win for the US, too. The US will leave Europe to fend for itself. And European prosperity is likely to be over, more or less permanently. By the time all this plays out, few people will care much about what feckless journalists wrote back in 2022.
They've become overconfident and lazy. The Covidian fear porn was lapped up enthusiastically by credulous, lamentably self-important consumers. They think that's a successful, universal model for perception management. No need to exert themselves.
It's normal for journalism, and has always been, to use pictures that are close enough for their purpose: no sinister motive is necessary. Unfortunately, that also means that it is hard to know when a conscious effort is being made to mislead. The "palestinian ambulance" comes to mind.
You wouldn't believe the number of times journalists get things wrong, things even a quick web search would fix - addresses, locations, names of things and so on. "Assault rifles" for example, something which only exists in media. "Tanks" for any kind of armoured vehicle.
When they cannot or will not get things like that correct, what are the odds they could report anything remotely correct?
Having debated and talked with journalists more times than is healthy, I can testify that their arrogance is boundless. They tell the truth, and what they tell is true is how they think: if they tell it, it is true because they tell it.
Upon Trump's election, the then-correspondent for swedish state TV in the US, Bergfeldt, wrote a hit-piece about his atrocious rethoric, claiming to have scientific proof that his linguistic and therefore cognitive ability was on par with an eleven year old child. So I wrote her and asked about that scientific proof. The link she repsonded with was to a much longer piece in the WaPo, which in turn referred to an essay by a first-year colleg student, who had used a program for measuring reading ability, comparing several different presidents' speeches of about equal length. Coming in at the top was Lincoln, the FDR and Reagan, then Bill Clinton and Bush in the middle, and then Trump, and at the very bottom Hillary Clinton (at the level of a seven-year old).
When I wrote back to Bergfeldt about this, and that is hardly qualifies as "scientific proof" and asking why she omitted that Hillay Clinton placed even worse, she immediately responded with slurs, passive-aggressive ad hominem, and the rest of the behaviour typical of women with Cluster B-type personality disorders.
This is just one example, and there's zero reason to believe norwegian jounalists are any different. Arrogance, hubris, fanatical zeal and righteousness and passive-aggressive vindictiveness and revanchism pretty much sums up nordic journalism for the present time as well as the last three decades.
Oh, sure--all you said is correct.
In this particular instance, however, we can clearly see the "editorial hand": for anyone who (also) checks out Russian media on this one, he or she may clearly see that only one side of these points of view can be true.
In this regard, since the above was also accompanied across Norwegian media (state and private) by claims, for instance, by the Royal Military Academy who stated the Russian side was "close to collapse".
Time *will* tell--and then there will be quite a different spectacle to observe: all these people will struggle to "explain" as to why they were so wrong…
Swedish experts, including active military, have claimed that russian forces will collapse any day now, since mid-April.
However, in internal communication, that is not the conclusion of swedish military analysts. (This is no secret material I'm leaning on, it's just that you have to dig and be versed in the swedish dialect of Kremlology to read between the lines.)
Their analysis is more to the tune of Russia aims to wreck Europe, in concert with Turkey (witness Erdogan opening the gates for more moslem invaders to pour into Europe). And as Irean sums it up very adroitly, EUrope is being picked apart by its own stupidity and corruption, and by the cumulative effect of the actions of the US, Russia and China - the Big Three do not want competition from the old masters of the game.
I hope for their sake african leaders and peoples are watching closely, since any sign of any kind of functioning African Union would immediately be targeted the same way, but with even harsher measures.
The problem for Europe is that, as far as I can tell, economic destruction of Europe and the collapse of the EU is perfectly acceptable both to the Americans and to the Russians. If the EU leadership had a brain (just imagine that!), it would seek a way to remain strictly neutral in this conflict, and look after its own interests (it's not like anyone else is looking after those interests). Alas, brains are in short supply, and so here we are.
It is by far cheaper to climb to the top of the heap if you spend resources to make sure others slide downwards, than to only try and climb faster.
The european leadership, all sectors, are too blinkered to understand that.
It's like the old joke about how to outrun a bear: kneecap someone else and run for it.
You think they'll scramble to explain why they were wrong? I kinda doubt it. My guess is that this conflict will drag on for years, and by the time it's over, people will largely have forgotten what they wrote (let alone read) back in the early days.
Speaking of the Russian media (I'm not Russian, but I do speak Russian): a quick glance tells me they're silent about the recent losses. Also no mention of Russian attacks on the civilian infrastructure in the recently lost territory. But what I think is coming is that we'll see more and more of this, i.e. attacks on civilian infrastructure. (I remember Mearsheimer saying that if Russians started to lose, they'd go after the power grid and/or drop some nukes. Well, they're going after the power grid now.) And it's all likely to drag on and on and on.
Correct, no one journalist will ask anyone expert (or vice versa) who was wrong, how they could have been so wrong, let alone call out obvious faulty or simply erroneous statements.
To quote Gerge Carlin, "It's a club, and you're not in it!" - you or I would ask the pointed, embarassing questions but we're on the outside, so the club closes ranks and form a schiltrom to keep outsiders out.
And to any audience, we just look like annoying Besserwissers who can't let go of some old hobbyhorse in favour of the New Thing.
Also, I think this conflict will be the catalyst of major changes in the world. Of course it's impossible to know the details in advance, but it seems very likely that Europe will be massively impoverished (and that the EU will cease to exist, at least de facto). Beyond that? I think Russia will win the war, but with heavy losses. Ukraine will be destroyed, possibly with nukes. The US will (eventually) cut its losses, but not before bleeding Russia in Ukraine, and so in a way, it may be a win for the US, too. The US will leave Europe to fend for itself. And European prosperity is likely to be over, more or less permanently. By the time all this plays out, few people will care much about what feckless journalists wrote back in 2022.
Of course Stoltenberg is norwegian, so... Nato TV
And he was rewarded for being so active in Ukraina and east europe since 2014 https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1564289927633932289