by who, be specific?

Oh come on! there is so much one sided bias (that can work both ways) with mainstream media. It feels like every newspaper has an agenda that pushes their own political interests/beliefs. The only daily paper that calls out the lies… be it tactfully, is the Independent but even with this paper there isn't anything like enough critical thinking necessary to stop people being brain washed. People honestly do become the regular paper they read!
Mainstream media are full of opinions without facts. Nothings transparent and when its not transparent, its readers aren't able to make choices. I could sit and read the Daily Mails political section and quickly point out its superficial inaccuracies and I can do the same with The Guardian but what's the point?

You are not seriously comparing our media to that of Russia?

You're not seriously saying you believe everything you are told?

not only is that a rather silly question, it does not answer mine?

If you choose to align yourself with the popular story. If you choose to believe it and adopt it as truth, then you make yourself very safe in the context of society and tribal living. Its like religion. If you want to be able to put reason to everything then religion supplies you with that, whereas science doesn't.

Scientists, tell you that..you were brainwashed from school.

Yours was a silly question because I don't speak or read Russian and therefore can only answer your question on the British angle.

So where do you get your absolute facts from if you can tell all the papers report lies/inaccuracies and not their own opinions of facts (which will obviously be biased to a lesser or greater degree, and which anyone of average intelligence can ascertain by reading between the lines).
The BBC? Sky News? :hee: Where? As you seem to know they are lies, inaccuracies, and just opinions, spill your 100% factual sources as I'd like to be in the know as well.

The Indy has not been a serious news source since it went out of print

When it comes to fiscal spending, most of the reporters in the national press simply don't understand how it works and so parrot the lies of the politicians. That's just lazy journalism but its lazy journalism that controls public thinking. If you want to understand about how tax works (and most people don't) and if you want to understand how and why we have austerity or if you want to understand the difference between household spending and government spending, start studying and stop reading blurry reporting because only then can you separate fact from fiction.

Also stop reading the paper that just suits your agenda and polarizes your views. Just because the paper says what you want it to say, doesn't make it truth. Stop reading what sells because its bulked out with exaggeration and sensationalizing. Most national papers treat us like idiots with their alarmist rhetoric.

In these modern times we have both neutral and factual information at our finger tips. Its easy enough to fact check.

I don't like Putin. I believe he's a thug and I believe his propaganda machine is worse than ours. But since Cameron took the throne we've been treating Russia (Putin) as the enemy. What happened in Ukraine was a reaction to EU expansion and although I still somewhat sit on the side of the EU and Washington, I fully understand why, when we encroached onto Russians Black Sea, there was a strong reaction from the Putin. Would the EU allow the UK to fall into Russian hands? Did Washington allow Cuba to align itself with Russia?!? What we were doing was weakening Russian borders. We now have NATO patrolling the Black Sea. Thats like Russia patrolling the English Channel!

As for Syria and the attempt to topple Assad. We aligned ourselves with Islamic jihadists and attempted to hand Syria over to Islamic State and we tried to do that, not because Assad is an evil dictator (which he possibly is) but because Syria aligns itself with Iran and Russia and had apposed a pipeline from the Gulf States to Europe.

If there's one thing I would praise Trump for, it was his initial attempt to reduce tension between Putin and the West. Perhaps he naively believed he could stop this drive on a new Cold War with Russia.

correct it is mere clickbait now in order to survive

notice how it continuously triggers Kizzy, for example

I read a variety of papers and have a mind of my own, thanks.

Honestly Jet - could DRs posts get any more patronising and belittling.

If we don’t support Corbyn or mass migration we are allegedly all a bunch of uneducated drones. Getting really tiresome - but most of all, especially from her
Point of few, it is unlikely to convert others to her way of thinking.

Oh what's wrong Brillo, you took it all personally and therefore have nothing to debate :hehe:

Just DR being patronising and belittling again brillo.

Nope. Personally I would say the same about your increasingly patronising posts.

Such a tone often stems from desperation - or alternatively is exactly how it comes across - as put-down, condescending garbage from those who see their views as more knowledgable. It is pompous nonsense in my opinion.

To be honest.. I can understand the comparison, but as Foreign Secretary, surely Boris could use a more diplomatic tone