Voice of Russia's continue the conversation - why do leading media companies prefer to stay away from though-provoking content and instead feed easily-digestible information which may or may not be the whole story, but definitely presented in an appealing manner.
Here’s feedback we have already received from our readers and listeners:
Jose Allen wrote:
"That is why thinking people watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck et al...they are really, really hated by the powers that be...that should tell you all you want to know. Fox News is excluded from every WH event. And if they go no one will talk to them. The WH denigrates them every opportunity ..in public... but these media channels all have the largest audiences...so SOMEONE 'thinks ' in America."
Andrea Kobayashi wrote:
"I don't think we are doomed to be Homo Videns at mercy of mass media infotainment in perpetuity. I am interested to see children nowadays preferring books over TV and internet. As a child I never turned the TV off. These days my kids and their friends never turn in on."
Isobel Jardine suggested: that they're "dumbing down, perhaps. They don't want a well-informed electorate, US Government constantly lies to the public, I follow what they're saying on foreign issues Syria and Ukraine, for example, and they just don't stop lying. They want dim, happy Americans who don't realise they're being duped. What they've got is quite a few bright, unhappy Americans who aren't being fooled. Some are but many aren't. Last week Michael B Rhodes, of US Defence, managed to give a speech for nearly 10 minutes about extremism in Syria, referring only to ISIS and didn't mention the al Qaeda group al Nusra once. By a strange coincidence it's rebel groups allied with al Nusra that the US supports. Possibly they don't want to remind US citizens about that! This is the most alarming Gov they've ever had I think."
Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. Rregardless of what the outcome of the elections is going to be, Afghanistan looks like it's heading towards a civil war, or rather has already entered the stage – at least that's what Abdulkader Sinno, Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University says in his interview with radio VR.
However, the other of VR’s experts on the subject, David Gibbs, Professor of History and Government at the University of Arizona, is sure that whatever the outcome of the election, Afghanistan stands all the chances of repeating Iraq’s fate in that it has also demonstrated "peroculism and poor leadership". "Afghanistan has a tradition of ethnic and religious separation and differences and being able to manage these multicultures together would require extremely delicate political maneuvering, which in all probability won’t be shown by whichever government wins in the election."
