State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, who worked as a spokesperson for John Kerry’s failed 2004 Presidential bid is a person, who exemplified and important and dangerious trend. Complete vacation from truth, complete bullshiting required to justify State Department policies.
I think that Jennifer Psaki name should be included in modern textbooks on public relations. "Psaki Effect", when press corps no longer even expect anything but ullship during the breifings can also can be named after her. In other words the current press-Secretary of the U.S. Department of state is a vivid example of an important modern trends in the field of public relations -- bulshtting the truth to death.
Essentially, the press Secretary is an employee who is send to lie to the press on behave of State Department. The person appointed as the press secretary is the official voice of the institution
As such if an institution considers someone state to be the enemy of the USA, the Press Secretary
must hate this state. And if the institution loves some stateman, and the press Secretary should generate
love vibrations in the right direction. In other words, Mr. or Mrs. "official mouthpiece" must be the
slave of the institution interests and destroy their will and their feelings.
Actually, press secretaries, like Jen Psaki are deeply unhappy people, who must submit his face, his
lips, vocal apparatus, and all the body limbs in the interests of the institution.
To some extent this act may be compared with prostitution.
I think that in terms of the contract before hiring should be specified that the employer has the
right to make the Press Secretary to play a complete idiot, if required by the interests of the institution.
And sometimes can redirect the storm of critisism at the person, instead of the institution.
In this regard, I think we should forgive press secretaries... they are just dolls in a puppet theater.
They play as prescribed in the script. The main thing is to unravel the plans of their puppeteers.
In one of her briefing she tries to put forward a notion that that Obama is being too modest in regards
to taking credit for supposed foreign policy “successes,” like
Ukraine and Iran.
Ukraine and Iran?
It’s laughable and even the mainstream media chuckles with disbelief at the outrageous assertion (WATCH
BELOW) and mocks Psaki:
Q: Jen, you would argue the president doesn’t give himself enough credit? How much credit would
you give him?
PSAKI: Well, I think what I’m — I would give him more than he has given himself. That’s what I just
said.
Q: What, like, 200 percent credit?
PSAKI: So would the secretary.
Q: So — and for — and for –
Q: Credit for what? I’m sorry, credit for what?
Q: For what, yes, exactly? That’s the point.
Q: No, I mean, I don’t — I don’t mean, like, he doesn’t deserve credit.
Q: For the Iran negotiations?
Q. I mean — I mean — I’m talking, what specifically are you talking he doesn’t get enough credit
for — (inaudible)?
PSAKI: For engagement initiatives like Iran, what we’ve done on Ukraine, efforts to dive in and engage
around the world.
(Crosstalk.)
Q: I mean, Russia has still annexed Crimea. I mean, Iran — there’s ongoing negotiations, but is
that the success here that you’re talking?
PSAKI: We’re talking about engagement in the world and taking on tough issues that present themselves.
And the United States continues to play a prominent role doing that.
Do you think that Obama’s foreign policy has been a success?
Take the Official Tea Party Poll. Click HERE!
One thing’s for sure: if you live in the US or Western Europe, and haven’t spent the last three days locked in a wardrobe, you’re probably well aware that protests against the Ukrainian government have been taking place in Kiev.
That’s because western news networks and media outlets are making sure that you know about them. ‘Tens of thousands rally in Kiev for closer EU ties’ the Washington Post posts this AP article . ‘Thousands protest Ukraine’s rejection of trade ties’ says the New York Times.
Leading western media outlets have not only have deemed the protests to be a major story, but their reporting makes it quite clear whose side they are on. Here‘s the New York Times talking about two of the protestors.
“For young people, the future is brighter with Europe,” said Maria Lyskenko, 20, a student, who stood with her friend, Alyona Zorina, also 20, holding a sign that said, “Europe = Future Ukraine. Ms. Zorina said that President Viktor F. Yanukovich was acting out of selfishness and self-interest in deciding not to sign an agreement with the European Union.
In its report on the protests, CNN quotes a Mr David Kramer of ‘Freedom House’, described as ‘a US-based nongovernmental organization‘. "He (Yanukovych) has left his country vulnerable to Vladimir Putin's threats and pressure‘, Kramer told CNN. That will be Yanukovych's legacy if he doesn't reverse course."
It’s revealing to compare the highly sympathetic, high profile western coverage of the Ukrainian protests with the way other protests have been covered in recent years.
Last summer I was in Spain, at a time when there were massive nightly demonstrations in Madrid against the government’s austerity program. I sent a text message to a friend in England to ask if he had been following events in Spain and how they had been reported back home. He said that he hadn’t seen or heard anything on British television about the protests.
It’s not just the Spanish protests of 2012 which failed to receive the coverage they warranted. There have been widespread anti-austerity protests across Europe in recent years, but none of them have gained as much attention as the current protests in Ukraine. Everyone has a right to protest, but it seems that some protestors are more equal than others.
Protesters clash with riot police during a rally to support EU integration in central Kiev November 25, 2013. (Reuters/Konstantin Chernichkin)
Generally speaking, we can say that if the protests are against a government the western elites don't like or it’s a cause they support, e.g. Ukraine becoming a part of the western bloc and moving away from Russia, then they will receive extensive coverage. Not only that, but the protest will be reported in a very positive way, even if violence is used by the protesters. We saw a classic example of that in the way that US-funded demonstrations in Yugoslavia were reported in October 2000.
The first round of the presidential elections led to no candidate achieving 50%, meaning that a second round had to be scheduled. But some people couldn't wait for that. A bulldozer was used to break into the Parliament and the building was smashed up and parts of it set on fire. The studios of the state television station were also set on fire and the head of state television badly beaten up. Yet these actions, aimed to forcibly remove from power a democratically-elected president before a second poll could be held in accordance with constitutional requirements, were portrayed as being 'pro-democracy' actions in the west.
Imagine if such protests had taken place in a capital of a western European country, or in a country which was a western ally? The demonstrators who used violence and burnt the Parliament would have been condemned as ‘thugs’ and ‘criminals’, and we would have had the American President and the British Prime Minister coming out to call for order to be restored. If it happened in Saudi Arabia, not only would there be fierce condemnation, but it’s also very likely NATO forces would be on their way to forcibly put down the uprising. But it happened in Yugoslavia, a country where western elites were hell-bent on regime change, so the west’s leaders and news channels could happily pose as being on the side of ‘the people’.
The current protests in Ukraine, like those in Yugoslavia in 2000, are ‘Officially Approved’, but protests in other eastern European countries which are in NATO and the EU or are US allies are not ‘Officially Approved’, and consequently we don‘t hear too much about them.
2012 saw massive anti-government rallies in Romania but like the ones in Spain, they didn't get Ukraine-style coverage. Neither did the 2013 protests in Romania against the Rosia Montana gold mining project. There have been protests against successive governments in Bulgaria for most of 2013 too, but again they've not made the impact that the Ukraine protests have.
People warm themselves at fires made in steel drums after a meeting to support EU integration at European Square in Kiev, November 26, 2013. (Reuters/Vasily Fedosenko)
It was a similar story with the anti-government protests in Albania in 2011, and the huge protests in 2006 against the neo-liberal foreign investor-friendly Hungarian government of Ferenc Gyurcsany, which took place after an audio recording was broadcast in which the Hungarian Prime Minister admitted the government had lied ‘morning, noon and night’ to the electorate. Gyurcsany was one of the west’s ‘good guys’ and the elites most certainly did not want him toppled.
Unlike the protestors in Belgrade in 2000, the Hungarian protestors in 2006 were portrayed negatively. ‘Several cars near the TV building were set on fire, their flames scorching the building. The rioters appeared to control some areas on the ground floor of the block-square television building,’ recorded the Washington Post.
The use of the word ‘rioters’ is interesting; start a fire at Serbian television during protests in 2000 and you’re hailed as an ‘opposition supporter’, but start one outside Hungarian state television in 2006 and you’re a ‘rioter’. This shows us that it’s not the act itself that determines the label, it’s where you carry it out.
On 5 November this year we saw the ‘Million Mask March’ protests in more than 400 cities across the world, including London, but the best coverage of the UK demonstration was provided by RT and not UK networks. RT did cover extensively anti-government demonstrations in Moscow, interviewing protest leaders- but western news channels, alas, don't do the same when the protests are in their countries.
It’s not hard to understand why. The last thing western elites want is for people to be watching, night after night, scenes of people protesting about austerity, government corruption and corporate abuse in other western countries. That would only encourage people to take to the streets themselves. British people, watching scenes of Spanish protestors in the streets in Madrid in 2012, would have been inspired to do likewise in London. And Britons who watched masked people march through London on 5 November and saw banners declaring: ‘The Corrupt fear us. The Honest support us. The Heroic join us,’ might decide to check up on the ‘Anonymous’ movement and do the ‘heroic’ thing and join it.
When there is coverage of domestic protests which challenge elite interests, it is nearly always negative.
The Occupy London movement’s camp at St Paul’s Cathedral, which was cleared following a court battle in 2012, was widely attacked by elite commentators. Far from welcoming the protest, Conservative MP Mark Field declared, ‘The Corporation of London needs to work with other landowners in the City of London to see that we don't see any repeat of this sort of protest in the Square Mile.’
For the western elites, anti-government street protests and demonstrations are wonderful things when they happen in Kiev, Minsk or Tehran. However, they‘re not quite so wonderful when they happen in Madrid, Bucharest or London. Then it’s a case of: ‘There’s nothing to see here. Please disperse! And keep your eyes glued on Kiev! ’
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Comments (9)
Ekaterina Kovalyova 01.12.2013 22:45
Vince Smili has a great point in numbers. Less than 1% of Ukraine's population really strikes out for EU association. Others just see what situation is. Those who protest - are high school kids and freshmen students, which have not been educated regarding Ukraine's economy and politics accurately. Every average, somewhat interested n reality of Ukraine's economy person knows, that conditions for association should be very different from current ones. My notice: only those of my friends who don't have economic education think pro-EU. Others realize it would be a mistake for us at the moment.Freesaxon 27.11.2013 10:08
Neil Clarks article sums it all up accurately.
There are over a million young British unemployed, why can’t they find work ?
Immigrants, often living in squalid conditions, price them out of a job. The British press YESTERDAY reported a comment by a BRITISH minister “ Romanian immigrants are a good thing for the British economy “
Its all about usury nothing more or less, does the British minister think BRITISH youth have the right to a future ? Simple fact he doesn’t care £££ $$brandyfornofsky 26.11.2013 23:42
Those people are instrumentalized by some US backed NGO . The interest of Ukraine between 2 giants is obviously Russia ....Vince Smili 26.11.2013 20:52
Iteresting to see how things have developed in Ukraine for the past 25 years. There is always been a group of people, mainly from the western ukr, who are easily manipulated by the west into pushing west's interests in the country. Its been reported that few thousand people were protesting, Few thousand people is nothing compared to 45 million (population of ukr). If its true that 30.000 people were protesting, that's less than 0.07% of the population which gets 99% of all coverage. It's easy to see that same scenario was being used in 1991 as well as in other eastern european countries. i can goon,reachd comntlimit
Johnyshmit 26.11.2013 18:09
Paid posters have to describe themselves in their nicknames, like KremlinPropogandaBus ter.
Otherwise no one will understand what are they trying to say.
Other type (volunteers ) have to use their nicknames to compensate for what is missing in their posts:
Logical American.
Just my plain American opinion.harry krishna 26.11.2013 16:45
the issue isn't press coverage; it's whether ukraine will align with europe. ukraine and russia share one trait: organized crime runs both countries. that won't change if they stay linked. do like the usa - let another set of crooks feed at the trough.
Samuel von Staunton 26.11.2013 16:07
KremlinPropoga ndaBuster 26.11.2013 15:25
Why don't you go back to your conspiracy theory hidey hole and contact someone completely inappropriate for an interview like a UKIP member or something. It's the sort of thing you think is "journalism&quo t;.
When, as in the United States, but five corporations with similar interests own the overwhelming majority of the media, there is much to give credence to such theories.
It is also Interesting that you regard it inappropriate for a journalist to consider all voices.KremlinPropogandaBuster 26.11.2013 15:25
Ah, but having you budget paid for by the Kremlin, you would say that wouldn't you.
The Spain protests have been covered in detail before, this is new. It also is not getting as much attention as you think.
Why don't you go back to your conspiracy theory hidey hole and contact someone completely inappropriate for an interview like a UKIP member or something. It's the sort of thing you think is "journalism&quo t;.Mike Littlefield 26.11.2013 15:18
Fifty years ago, the west countered Soviet propaganda with Voice of america. Thank you RT for returning the favor and giving us an alternative to american propaganda.
February 24, 2015 at 12:05 am
Psaki’s daily briefing from today: http://state.gov/md237795.htm
UESTION: So with the Ukrainians now saying that they cannot withdraw their heavy arms, which would apparently be a violation of the Minsk agreements – well, first, would you consider that a violation of Minsk agreements? They’re saying that it’s because they continue to receive fire.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we need to remember the context here, Elliot. Obviously, in terms of withdrawal of arms and moving back and de-escalating, a large percentage of that and the needs are from the Russian-backed separatist side. They’re in a country that is not their own that is a sovereign country. And so that is where we have the greatest concern.
I would also remind everybody that exactly a year ago on Sunday, the people of Ukraine cast off an authoritarian regime and chose a future based on democracy, free trade, and rule of law. For these actions, Russia occupied and attempted to annex a sovereign country’s territory, and that since then, that’s left more than 5,000 people dead and displaced several hundred thousand times more. There are many times over the course of the last several months where Ukraine has even put in place ceasefires where they’ve abided by it, and the Russian side has not, the Russian-backed separatists have not. And they need to protect themselves. I think their preference certainly is to see both sides abiding by the ceasefire.
QUESTION: I understand all the context that you just raised, but I guess – so you would say that the decision by the Ukrainian Government is justified to maintain the presence of their —
MS. PSAKI: They’re defending their own sovereign country. They have not shown an unwillingness to abide by the ceasefires in the past.
QUESTION: Jen, did you say it overthrew an authoritarian regime? The former regime was authoritarian and not elected?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I think you know the history here.
QUESTION: I understand. I have – no, I mean —
MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Ukraine? We’re moving on, thank you. Go ahead, Pam.
QUESTION: I have one on —
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry in his weekend comments talked about – raised the possibility of more sanctions against Russia. In light of these latest developments and the fact that it does not appear there has been a satisfactory pullback by pro-Russian forces, is there a stepped-up timeline on when these possible sanctions may come through?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you mentioned, the Secretary did talk about this a bit this weekend. As we’ve also talked about, Russia and the separatists are only complying in a few areas selectively – not in Debaltseve, not outside of Mariupol, not in other key strategic areas. This is clearly unacceptable. We have a range of options that remain on the table. If this failure continues there will be further consequences, but I’m not going to put a timeline or a date on that.
QUESTION: Jen, you said the separatists are not in their own country. What did you mean?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve seen Russian-backed separatists backed by the country of Russia with equipment, with support, coming in and victimizing people around eastern Ukraine. That’s what I was referring to.
Any more on Ukraine?
QUESTION: The people —
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. PSAKI: Libya? Okay, whoa. We have a lot.
QUESTION: Wait, wait. I —
QUESTION: The people there are Ukrainians.
QUESTION: Just – I just want to —
MS. PSAKI: And there are Russians who are supporting them.
QUESTION: It’s your position that the ceasefire, although it is – remains – it is still being violated, can still pave the way for a political resolution to this?
MS. PSAKI: Our focus remains on pursuing a durable solution through diplomatic means. As you know, there’s going to be a meeting – a discussion – a dialogue, I should say, happening tomorrow between France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia in Paris.
QUESTION: But based on this agreement —
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: — and the original Minsk agreement?
MS. PSAKI: Yes, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So it’s not a lost cause, (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: Correct.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Let’s go in the back.
QUESTION: Libya.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
(source: mp.net)
February 24, 2015 at 3:36 am
Mrs. Psaki is soon to vacate her position as she is going to have a baby. I hope she brings up her child to be truthful at all times.
Some bloody hope!
State Department’s Jen Psaki Is Pregnant, Leaving Russians Both Sad and Elated
She married a certain Mr. Mecher in 2010, but decided to keep her maiden name. That’s why I call her Mrs. Psaki and not Mrs.Mecher and bollocks to PC crap!
Mecher is another Washington Capitol Hill animal.
February 24, 2015 at 12:10 am
Russia Today, Ukraine Tomorrow
Ukraine next month will launch a television channel called Ukrainian Tomorrow, partially funded by U.S. sources, in an effort to counterbalance the Kremlin-funded network RT, Ukraine’s information policy minister told reporters in Lviv.
“They have only today, but we have tomorrow,” Minister Yury Stets said last week at a conference in an apparent play on RT’s former name, Russia Today, the Interfax-Ukraina news agency reported.
The Ukrainian national bank’s television channel BTB will be transferred to the Information Policy Ministry within two weeks and then transformed into Ukrainian Tomorrow, the minister said.
“Financial support will be provided by our partners from Europe and the United States. The channel should be high-quality and broadcast all over the world,” he said in comments carried by Kiev-based news agency UNIAN.
The channel will also be funded by the Ukrainian government as well as local businesspeople, the minister said in comments carried by Interfax. It was not immediately clear in what language the channel would broadcast.
The minister said that he had recently met with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, who “confirmed” that U.S. sources would provide financing for the project, Interfax reported.
The Information Policy Ministry was established in Ukraine in December in part to counteract Russian media’s portrayal of the Ukraine crisis.
Viktoria Syumar, the deputy head of Ukraine’s National Security Defense Council, said last year that the government was considering making an English-language channel that would have “no lies and staged videos like RT.”
Ukraine earlier this month moved to deny accreditation to more than 100 Russian media outlets as threats to national security.
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last week that Russia will not reciprocate with a similar ban.
Russia will not “limit the right of people to receive information from various media sources,” Peskov said in comments carried by state news agency TASS.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ukraine-to-counterbalance-rt-with-new-channel-ukrainian-tomorrow/516375.html
February 24, 2015 at 12:54 am
1. Do they think they’re losing because the western world isn’t hearing their view?
2. What a big fuck you to Benya after he spent millions of his own (or somebody’s) money setting up Ukraine Today.