Come on. It's what the propaganda branch of CPSU Central Committee thought worth publishing. Which has about zero bearing on what actual Russians thought.
(Not to mention there wasn't much to think of, since obviously the movies were never run in the USSR back then).
So what the average Russian thought was along the lines 'okay, another front page full of usual bullshit, another front page useful as toilet paper'.
It's just more of the same nowadays, but worldwide.
If only we could go back to such simpler times.
What people learned in between 1963-ish to 1985-ish there is that mass media shovels shit wholesale, and so cannot be taken at face value under any circuimstances and that if you style yourself as a connoseiur of shit, you're free to join the field of kremlinology.
This approach is sorely lacking nowadays.
What is one example of something the NYTs reported, that has since been proven false but hasn't been retracted? (Not Iraq was examples, that was reporting on false intelligence not NYT providing the false info).
That’s a pretty amazing get out of jail free card.
There are many more related articles… The NYT has, to my knowledge, never avoided correcting fact-based inaccuracies or misreporting.
My attempt to get out in front of that common but misguided response failed, apparently.
I guess i'll ask again, has the NYT ever published something false they have refused to correct once proven wrong?
To their credit, they did report UN investigator Hans Blix's well-supported conclusion that there were no WMDs. On page 18.
The NYT's preference for GWB in both elections was always front and center, and shameless. That the right wing imagined NYT was against them tells a lot about them.
No, the stuff Judith Miller was actively involved in manufacturing (and whose publication was controversial inside the paper even at the time) and laundering sources for (e.g., claiming propaganda she received from the Iraqi National Congress was intelligence gained by the military unit she was embedded in) was not merely “reporting on false intelligence”, though that's how Miller repeatedly tried to spin it after it destroyed her career as a credible journalist.
Maybe, but that's not what I said (the only group I said anything about her cooperating with non-overtly is the I.N.C.)
She was definitely manufacturing and laundering pro-war propaganda, and she was fired when that became clear. And it certainly served the Bush Administration’s purposes. And the I.N.C. certainly was working hand-in-hand with the Administration on some things. But was Miller working with the Administration, or just on her own agenda that happened to align with theirs? Not for me to say.
- Common joke across the former Warsaw Pact countries after the fall of the wall and the reopening of information access.
Soviet Propaganda didn't need to lie about the west - they reported the truth, just the subset of the truth that presents the desired impact. Good Propaganda does this even to this day. When the Russians hack both the RNC and the DNC, but only leak the Democratic National Convention secret files to WikiLeaks, it's the same thing.
> they reported the truth, just the subset of the truth that presents the desired impact.
https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/54002/how-to-eff...
However, examples abound of international news agencies presenting cherry-picked facts to disparage Israel in international news.
Contrast with the constant barrage against Israel, I was just recently berated by an American for the USS Liberty incident - from 1967 I believe. They echo each other these sins to paint my nation in a poor light constantly.
our nation
All the propaganda in the world, both that directed towards Israelis and that directed to the international community (I read the news in three to five languages daily), won't change what I've personally seen.
PCP: The only drug that everything the government tells you about it is true.
Cocaine: It makes me feel like a new man. And he wants some, too!
Q: What did the Dead Head say when he ran out of marijuana?
A: Hey, this music sucks!
Q: Why did the Hippie go to Santa Cruz?
A: He heard there weren't any jobs there.
- "Russia took a good second place while the Americans came second last!" (i.e. Americans won)
- "In America there are huge differences between people, in Russia everyone is equally poor!"
Can't say if this is Western propaganda or not but this is what was joked about across the border.
That said I have Finnish friends and I like Finnish people and their attitude.
Student: "Capitalism is exploitation of man by man."
Teacher: "... and socialism?"
Student: "Socialism is exactly the opposite."
Substitute "America" for "now" and "Russia" for "USSR", and you'll still hear this sentiment to this day. At least I do.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMr2VrhmFI
[1] https://www.filmsforaction.org/news/so-what-happens-when-you...
[2] https://www.nknews.org/2013/02/truth-lies-and-propaganda-the...
This is simply false. Soviet news was an official and pure propaganda. For example, Cuban missile crisis was totally ignored by the Soviet media. While the world was balancing at the brink of nuclear war the Soviet population was blissfully ignorant. Another good examples of how Soviet propaganda lied were coverage of Prague Spring in 1968 and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979--1988.
Source: lived there, remember those lies.
>(Not to mention there wasn't much to think of, since obviously the movies were never run in the USSR back then).
In USSR that phenomenon was known as "I haven't read it, but i condemn it" ("Не читал, но осуждаю") as a good Soviet citizen would of course never want to read/watch <insert whatever decadent/rotten product of the "West pop-culture" or USSR dissidents/etc.> (thus making the actual availability a moot issue) while of course a good Soviet citizen can't feel anything but condemnation to such a product. While it originates as used seriously by total Party suckers, it was used by most people with a double meaning of a satirical sum-it-all-up of the USSR ideological approach to culture, and in many cases the satire was going beyond culture as like Bond movies a lot of things weren't available in USSR - like "i haven't experienced the rotten luxury of the West cars/etc., but i condemn that luxury".
The concept of "toilet paper" didn't exist back than in the USSR. First toilet paper factory was built seven years later.
The whole circus of "Supreme Soviet" was itself a propaganda item ran from Старая площадь.