BBC Made A Must-Watch NSFW Documentary On Trump’s Relationship With Putin (VIDEO)

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
BBC Made A Must-Watch NSFW Documentary On Trump’s Relationship With Putin (VIDEO)

By Grownmangrumbles on January 20, 2017
Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? BBC Panorama 16/01/2017


Published on Jan 17, 2017
Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?
In the week of the new President's inauguration, Panorama reports on Russia's role in Donald Trump's election victory and asks what's behind the relationship between Vladimir Putin and Trump. Reporter John Sweeney - who has met and challenged both men - travels to Moscow and the United States to find out how sure we can be that Russian cyber-warriors influenced the US election and if there's any truth to claims that Russian intelligence has compromising material about the President elect. And from Lithuania and the battlefields of Ukraine, he investigates what this will mean for security in Europe and the rest of the world.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
No copyright infringement intended, if you require this video to be removed, please contact me and it will be done ASAP

America Under Siege: Civil War 2017


There are few media outlets that command universal respect.

Scratch that, there aren’t any.

We have entered the disinformation age. A time where the right screams fake news at anything that doesn’t fit their narrow world view. Where anything that contradicts their self-conceit is smothered in Schadenfreude and lobbed back at its progenitors via profanity-laden tweets.

There is no neutral ground, no place of refuge where ideas can be disseminated and debated. There is no give, and there is no take. We live in a world of bespoke reality where far too many people have coddled ourselves in veils of willful ignorance.

Most are proud of it.

We’re better than that of course, we have to be. We still possess the ability to listen, to fine tune our attitude as the tides of evidence wash our way. We like views that match our own, sure, but we’re not afraid to dip our toes in waters less familiar.

We’re not afraid of balance; we can take the dissonance.

That’s just one reason that the BBC’s light has shined so brightly for so many years.

Do they have universal respect? No.

But being in possession of the next best thing is no small achievement.

The Siberian Candidate
So when they produce a major investigation into the connection between president-elect Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, you kind of have to sit up and take notice.

The documentary, led by veteran investigative journalist John Sweeny, aired on British television earlier this week and began with the observation that the alleged collusion between the two leaders represented:

“The most serious blow to our democracy since Watergate.”

What followed was a systematic rundown of the events followed by revelations that culminated in some truly shocking footage.

Confirmation that the DNC was indeed hacked by Russian intelligence appears early in the film hinting that the worst was yet to come. The sight of Trump rage quitting an interview when questioned about his mafia ties will be a chilling sight to most Americans.

“Maybe you’re thick?” he asked Sweeny before storming off.

Top Putin adviser Alexander Dugan fared no better. When questioned about the murder of Putin critic Boris Nemtsov who was gunned down just 100 yards from Kremlin, he too stormed off in a huff.

Later he took to his blog to describe Sweeny as a “repulsive bastard, utter cretin, and globalist swine.”

Such is the language of the New World Order.

Get used to it y’all.

Reality Bites Back
Despite a running time of fewer than 30 minutes, the film manages to encapsulate the narrative that is unfolding before our very eyes. It provides insight into what a Trump presidency might mean. It shows us a world dominated by Russian intrigue, blackmail, shady dealings and worse, it reveals the concerted, global attack on democracy for what it really is.




It’s no swivel-eyed conspiracy theory cooked up in the dark corners of the internet. Nobody has felt compelled to grasp at straws or leave ethics and integrity at the door in order to grab headlines. Far from it.

This is the kind of film that every American should watch, the kind that should be shared to all and sundry.

Because this is the BBC doing what it does best. Good old-fashioned journalism.

And all the more frightening for it.

You can watch the full documentary here.
 

MCP

International
International Member
Do not be fooled. Even the BBC are known for it's fake new as well.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Do not be fooled. Even the BBC are known for it's fake new as well.

Of course, inaccurate and/or misleading stories, whether negligently or intentionally done, get published or aired.
And, I believe it goes without saying that everything should be subject to question.
But, how do we go about discerning the difference ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCP

MCP

International
International Member
Of course, inaccurate and/or misleading stories, whether negligently or intentionally done, get published or aired.
And, I believe it goes without saying that everything should be subject to question.
But, how do we go about discerning the difference ?

For me personally I would go and look at alternative media. Not all of them I do trust. Investigative Journalism on mainstream tv has died a death.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Investigative Journalism on mainstream tv has died a death.

Interesting MCP. Interesting.

There has been lots of criticism of so-called "mainstream media" -- but I note that many times which particular media outlet or talking head is deemed to be biased, misleading, out-right wrong, etc., appears to have a lot to do with the perspective of the person/group making the claim that a particular view, outlet, etc., is biased, misleading, wrong, etc. AND, I also note that what might be called "alternative media" appears to suffer from the same criticism, again, depending upon the perspective of who's making the criticism. LOL

Facts, truth, etc., cannot simply be left to the eyes of the beholder, can it :confused:

.
 

MCP

International
International Member
Interesting MCP. Interesting.

There has been lots of criticism of so-called "mainstream media" -- but I note that many times which particular media outlet or talking head is deemed to be biased, misleading, out-right wrong, etc., appears to have a lot to do with the perspective of the person/group making the claim that a particular view, outlet, etc., is biased, misleading, wrong, etc. AND, I also note that what might be called "alternative media" appears to suffer from the same criticism, again, depending upon the perspective of who's making the criticism. LOL

Facts, truth, etc., cannot simply be left to the eyes of the beholder, can it :confused:

.

Nowadays, on mainstream TV we will have presenters and not journalists. People reading from a script with no substance behind it. How many times have you seen a interview on TV where you're screaming at the presenter to ask the questions that really matter?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Nowadays, on mainstream TV we will have presenters and not journalists. People reading from a script with no substance behind it. How many times have you seen a interview on TV where you're screaming at the presenter to ask the questions that really matter?

Surely, that happens often -- but as different as we all are, there are probably that many "Questions that Really Matter" screaming to be asked! Hopefully somebody's "Burning Question" is getting asked. My concern is with the answer. Is that response fact-checked, cross examined or challenged to test its reliability, truth and veracity. And, if "reasonably so" -- does that response still get dismissed because, it doesn't fit the views of the hearer :confused:
 
Top