The same shit is happening here. Massive distortion of reality and epic-level propaganda on US media. We need to always be skeptical of the pushed narrative.

I can't judge that by myself, but my external impression that if there is such thing as Western propaganda, it must be incredibly subtle and seamless, omnipotent and omnipresent to be real. Russian propaganda is not a thing you are not aware of as a Russian, it's just that it gets you emotional and grows a self-protection from external believes.

Many Russian medias start to claim "look at the others, they are not better" when confronted with a clear evidence of their lie. Even more, it grows a kind of double-speak: I have an impression that the majority of Russians understood who the Crimean "polite green men" were, but they were still supporting the official narrative in public.

I strongly advise against believing in "all these media are sides of the same coin", it's a well-known instrument of propaganda.

Sometimes the seams are obvious:

https://pics.onsizzle.com/headlines-think-the-media-got-the-...

The idea that the media in the US is pure government propaganda. There is vigorous debate on innumerable issues. Think for instance of the climate change debate, or Middle East policy. In Russia you don't have that at all.

One of the basic tactics of pro-Russian propagandists is to not deny that the media in Russia is all propaganda, but try to persuade people that the same is true everywhere else.

The idea is that people won't know what ideas to trust, and will become cynical and apathetic. Once that happens Russia can simply expand unopposed.

Oops, the first line should read: The idea that the media in the US is pure government propaganda is nonsense.

I think the US has a slightly different problem, and it's much scarier than an external opponent alone.

http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-and-the-walter-winc...

Absolute nonsense. There are occasional biases in the media and some level of circular information flow, but that is not even remotely comparable to the Russian shill factories and the absurd and abstruse stories created and pushed by Russian government and linked media. If you don't believe in the shill factories (which are indeed real), think of that: the Russian foreign minister going on TV to criticise a supposed rape of a young girl in Germany, days after it has been forcefully debunked and state media reporting it as a fact still. All with the intention to get people angry/scared of refugees, rile up the Russian community in Germany and overall sow distrust and conflict.

There's media manipulation, but it's more by private companies than the state. Which is definitely also troubling, but at least we get three or four different pushed narratives to choose from, instead of the true Russian reality distortion field.

Do you think it is any different in the USA or any other country for that matter?

I don't know the answer but it stands to reason that if it works for the Russians it will work for the US aswell

Yes, it's different.

Ask former classmates or relatives who went into journalism. You may hear they are reluctant to pursue some stories because they don't have enough proof to protect themselves against powerful people the stories could be construed to be slandering, but it's almost unheard of for western journalists to be worried about being assassinated at the rate journalists are assassinated in Russia and the territories it dominates.

Watch talks given by Russian journalists before they were assassinated or after they fled. Even compare them to American journalists who died in uncertain circumstances, or whistle blowers like Edward Snowden.

It's an entirely different ballgame.

I wish there was some way to get objective data on this subject.

Maybe Russian journalists are indeed assassinated and western ones (mostly) aren't.

But there are a lot of effective means of coercion that don't involve killing someone, and can actually turn them into an asset rather than a liability..

It absolutely is not some abstract subject that can be summarily dismissed by saying its impossible to measure intimidation of journalists or that no one has perspective on the issue. Take a look at the exhaustive treatment by the Committee to Protect Journalists [1] of the different ways journalists are targeted and controlled around the world. For example, some like Saudi Arabia and China tend more towards censoring and jailing journalists.

Compare the numbers to see the different types of attacks on journalists in different places around the world. Then read some of the short articles, or in depth reports.

[1] https://www.cpj.org/

It only works when media have been monopolized. All media in Russia that have not enjoyed full government editorial control have debunked these stories quite spectacularly, but now they're almost non-existent.

This would never work in a media world with a Daily Show, for once.

Besides Russia, I see the same on Venezuelan and Brazilian media, at different levels of intensity.

What these countries have in common?

It's hard for me to guess, maybe centralization of media makes it so attractive for governments to distort information. When there are at least two sides loudly confronting each other, the general picture gets much better.

A curious example: Ukrainian media channels are mostly funded by local oligarchs, but each of them has different agenda and interests, so they often fight each other, and that produces an external assessment of "partly-free" for Ukrainian media space.

> the general picture gets much better.

Not really. You can just be sure one side is lying and, if one is, both can be. When that happens, the mainstream narratives get discredited and marginal ones gain traction.

But neo-nazis like Andriy Parubiy did play a significant role.

The guy founded Social-National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok. There's nothing "nazi" about them, they are nazi and they're not trying to hide it at all. Look at the logo of the party they founded, look at the Azov Battalion insignia.

Parubiy first became the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council mostly managing paramilitary units and now he is the chairman of the Ukrainian parliament. Tyahnybok made it to the top list of antisemites, published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Journalist in Kiev are being killed on a regular basis. Alexander Shchetinin was found shot dead in his apartment today. A month ago car bomb killed Pavel Sheremet.

Russian trolls are the least of your problems.

That's actually a nice example of the very propaganda we are speaking about. It's hard to find someone farther removed from being a "nazi" than Parubiy. And yet, here this comment is, coming from a freshly registered account.

And the Azov insignia is just a stylized state emblem of Ukraine. Seeing swastikas everywhere is an important part of the approach, I guess.

It's hardly only Russian media has pointed out a connection between the Azov Battalion and neo-Nazism. Even the United States Congress, usually no friend of Russia, cut off funding in 2015 due to these connections. There's a bit of a summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Neo-Nazi_ideolo...

The leader of the battalion, Biletsky, is also involved in this nice organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Assembly

Azov are kind of right-wing (although not outright "nazi"), but this judgement is not (and should not be) based on how their insignia looks. And also, Azov has no connection to Parubiy at all (Azov just reused that unlucky old logo out of the blue).

There is a cultural difference in what Ukrainians and Russians mean when they say "nation". In Ukraine, when you say "nation" you mean basically the same as what a USA president would mean under this word. But in Russia, the word "nation" is considered to be synonymous with "nazi", and is generally avoided.

The funny thing is that Tyahnybok is the one that tried to tone down the Parubiy's nazi-like styling. Parubiy was involved in pretty much all neo-nazi and ultra right groups. Social-National Party of Ukraine, Patriot of Ukraine, Svoboda, various paramilitary units, etc.

> Seeing swastikas everywhere is an important part of the approach, I guess.

That's a nice way to dismiss it, but it doesn't help the fact that they went to a great length to emulate the nazi branding. The name of the party, lovely evening torchlight parades [1], and even the decorations at speaking events [2].

1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/30/article-2616531-1D...

2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Congress_of_the_Pa...

EDIT: some formatting issues