@Jolly said in [The Ukraine war thread](/post/146947):
>
@Doctor-Phibes said in [The Ukraine war thread](/post/146931):
> >
@Horace said in [The Ukraine war thread](/post/146929):
> > > It appears difficult to discuss how the American media covers a story and its motivations for doing so, without being accused of thinking the subject of the story is America. That interpretation of the discussion is a simple misunderstanding, but one from which people for some reason refuse to dislodge.
> >
> > Well, if Jolly would make clear what he's actually trying to say, rather than just drop hints about some kind of conspiracy or 'deeper truths', it would be a lot easier to discuss this in a straightforward manner.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the motivation behind this war is very easy to understand. There's no need for talk of conspiracies or hidden forces at work.
> >
> > People should just come out and say what they mean. When people skirt around an issue and drop hints and all the rest of it, I'm left wondering if they're just covering their ass for later so they can say "I never said that!". This is TNCR, nobody important gives a shit what any of us say, after all.
>
> Jolly made it quite clear. It's Wag the Dog by proxy and in reverse. The media didn't create the war, but the amount of coverage and the type of coverage can do a couple of things:
>
> A. By selecting stories, the media can push narratives and create sentiment. A constant stream of human tragedy stories pushes the emotional buttons of good people and compels them to do something. Ever watch those 60 second ASPCA commercials of the emaciated dog starving in the snow, shivering from the bitter cold? They're effective. Imagine a barrage of like stories involving humans in a war zone. Air enough of them and you effect policy.
>
> B. With the war coverage, it leaves a lot less time on MSM coverage for other stories. The MSM will then pick and choose what stories it covers. A Presidential candidate lying in a Presidential debate, touting 50 expert opinions as concluding the Hunter Laptop was "disinformation" and a Russian plot and then the MSM's refusal to carry that story is huge. ..That means the MSM directly influenced a Presidential election, not through a sin of ommission, but a sin of commission.
>
> It also means by not covering the story now, the MSM is protecting their investment in a senile President who us doing whatever his handlers and party machine tell him to do. They are doubling down.
>
> Now, can you understand that or am I typing too fast for you?
To be honest, I get most of my news from the BBC rather than American sources. There is a great deal of coverage of Ukraine, there. Probably less about American domestic politics than you'd like. I rather doubt the Beeb don't cover all that stuff because they love Joe Biden.
Typically, you won't see people in Europe saying "Why should I care what happens in Ukraine?" as some Americans have apparently said.
