Let me be Captain Obvious for a moment - It is all about the money. It is not about giving you the true unbiased information about events foreign and domestic. It is about how profitable each minute of airtime can be for the parent corporation.
It doesn't surprise me anymore, but the manner in which the mainstream media conducts its news broadcasts and disseminates irresponsibly bias information is anything but newsworthy. It is, in fact, more commerce-oriented rather than being genuinely informative. The way CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and countless others stay on the air is by keeping their commercial time slots full and profitable. In order to do so, these corporations need to attract advertising interest through high viewer ratings. Since market research shows that the attention span of an average American has dipped to an all time low, the broadcasting companies need to find ways to "spice up" their news and make them more entertaining. As a result, what the average viewer receives on a nightly basis from these so-called news sources is a regurgitated version of the truth that has been skewed, dramatized, and fragmented enough between commercials to keep you on the edge of your seat to prop up the networks' viewer ratings. In effect, it becomes this entertainment with the pretense of being the news.
In this example, we will use the current events in Ukraine to reveal the mainstream media's malfeasance. Due to this perversion of the news broadcast, it has become an inadvertent instigator of heightened tensions worldwide through misinformation and horrific omissions of the general public. In order to get viewer ratings, a broadcasting corporation will use inflammatory titles and edgy rhetoric like 'Invasion' and 'Cold War', instead of reality-bearing labels like 'Unrest', 'A New Day in Ukraine', 'Tensions on the Rise', and 'Russian Response'. Why would a broadcasting company use the fear-inducing and instigating labels? In order to raise its viewer ratings, of course. An average American viewer will dismiss a basic newsworthy label, because it's simply not sexy enough. However, pitch them a conflict-inducing story line on a world scale, and you have a viewer for the next half hour. What these labels do, however, is form a predisposition in the viewers' minds that sets them up for a news story that is anything but objective.
Outside of rephrasing and omitting facts, these news corporations fail to do basic fact-checking that is the staple of a good news reporter. One fact that almost every news corporation have gotten woefully wrong is stating that the current Ukrainian government is legitimate. While it is certainly true that the protesters overthrew the previous Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, the protests themselves were all peaceful through December until the radical factions arrived at the scene. The radical far right-wing parties that brought violence with them, and subsequently instigated a response after over a month of burning and killing security forces. It is these radical factions that "inspired" the Ukrainian Parliament to abandon Viktor Yanukovych and vote him out, just after the president's February 21st agreement with Western representatives to transition to a new unity government that would provide equal representation for all Ukrainians. The reason being, is that a unity government that represents all Ukrainians would be completely against the far right wing parties Right Sector and Svoboda (Freedom), who brought violence to the protests. These parties want an "ethnically clean" Ukraine and regard the Holocaust as a "bright period" in history. Many in these parties are proud descendants of the militant Ukrainian freedom fighters who volunteered into the Nazi Wehrmacht during World War II and committed bloody atrocities for eight years after the end of the war. Therefore, the presidential agreement of February 21st was completely against their stated interest.
Even before the change of government, the United States and European Union were at a tug of war as to who gets to control the spoils of an imminent government change in Ukraine. In a leaked phone call between a US diplomat Victoria Nuland and a US ambassador in Ukraine, they were clearly discussing how the United States is working to "assist" a government change, cherry-picking Yanukovych's successor, and saying f**k the European Union with respect to the Ukraine's future. Yet this segment got only a brief mention in the Western mainstream media, as it would not bring the desired volume of viewers and might actually turn viewers away with disgust at politicians altogether. http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-diplomat-victoria-nuland-phonecall-leaked-video
The current interim government of Ukraine has initially made two promises after an armed takeover - Russian language would no longer play a prominent role in Ukraine (changing the existing law that dictated both Ukrainian and Russian would be supported equally) and that the people responsible for the Independence Square sniper fire (that killed nearly a hundred protesters and security forces combined) will be brought to justice. Neither of these promises came to fruition. The interim government backed off the Russian language reform and is no longer interested in investigating the culprits behind sniper fire.
Here is where the Russian media churned up its propaganda machine - going as far as saying that the Russian language will be banned in Ukraine and anyone speaking Russian will be subjected to criminal persecution. Completely false, but reported by the Russian media. Which makes Russian media... just like any other bias mainstream media.
The Western media, beating the drum of doing the right thing and spreading democracy, just stepped over the initiative to bring those responsible for the Independence Square massacre to justice. But, surprise surprise, in the age of information we are able to obtain evidence that suggests the Ukrainian right-wing factions are responsible for the sniper fire that killed the security forces and protesters alike. This, of course, would explain why the interim government is no longer interested in the investigation which would bring the guilty parties to justice. In a phone call between EU Foreign Affairs Chief and Estonian Foreign Minister, it was disclosed that there is a growing understanding that the people responsible for the Independence Square sniper fire (which killed nearly a hundred protesters and security forces) were the leading right-wing parties that sought armed escalation and confrontation - and that these are the same parties that stand behind the current interim government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhY02at4v4U Once again, the Western media stepped over this information, and never reported it again - because it's not good ratings.
Here is a video of the shootings http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5dc_1393953567
If I was still in Ukraine, I would be very fearful of far right wing parties like the Right Sector and Svoboda(Freedom). They represent the extremists who brought the violence to Independence Square and may have been the direct culprits behind the sniper fire that caused the massacre of February 20th. Their representatives Dmytro Yarosh (Right Sector) and Oleh Tyahnybok (Svoboda) are sure to run in the upcoming Ukrainian elections. And they should be feared, as their extremist views could easily divide Ukraine without any external intervention if these individuals gain any significant elected posts.
Now for the the leading political figures in Russia, EU and US. And this is the kind of analysis you will never get from the mainstream media. Let me state it again - it is all about the money. Neither Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, nor Vladimir Putin can give a damn about the people of Ukraine. When they see Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective, this is what they see -
United States and European Union's perspective:
1) Another nation to conform to the Euro currency and prevent European Union's disintegration.
1) Another nation to conform to the Euro currency and prevent European Union's disintegration.
2) Increased Defense Budget for European Union and the United States due to fear.
3) Access to natural resources available within the Ukraine,
4) Access to Ukrainian territory for the purpose of stationing NATO forces at the Russian border.
Russian perspective:
1) Secure Ukrainian Natural Gas and Oil fields, as well as the supporting pipelines.
2) Keep Russia's only warm water sea port and the home of the Black Sea Fleet (Crimea).
3) Increased Russian Defense Budget to protect Russian interests in the area.
4) Have a neutral government in Ukraine that is cooperative with Russia.
5) Keep the NATO forces at the edge of the Ukrainian border, not the Russian border.
Vladimir Putin is not interested in invading Ukraine, but he does want to create the fear of invasion, to create enough instability in Ukraine that will influence the upcoming election. The threat of Crimea's secession, is only designed to create instability - he won't actually go through with it because the plan is not economically feasible from a Russian fiscal perspective.
Despite denials by all Russian officials, and legal correctness, for all intents and purposes the troops on the ground in Crimea are of Russian origin. Let me explain, these are forces that were trained an equipped by the Russian Federation, and subsequently disavowed so that Russia may legally deny that they are Russian forces.
United States and European Union are largely incapacitated, because of their dependence on Russian natural gas and oil. Therefore, any punitive measures, would hurt both parties.
In order to resolve this conflict, Ukraine must be united as a whole and defend its own interests, independent of all foreign influence. But that is not going to happen, until countries to the East and West of it stop regarding it as a juicy steak on their plate.
