Definitely something lost in translation in the news, particularly in the "we will bury you" story.  Either lost or intentionally lazily translated.  Graeme, now I am curious: what did Kruschev actually SAY? 

From Wikipedia (yeah, I know... but its a good place to start):

"Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev famously used an expression generally translated into English as "We will bury you!" ("Мы вас похороним!", transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956.^[1][2][3] In fact, it was somewhat distorted. The actual quote reads: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in" (Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас закопаем).

On August 24, 1963, Khrushchev himself remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you," ^[4] a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism", based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable"."

Christ's peace - r

Richardbott may well have it right. I was told it was communism will bury capitalism - and that's roughly the same.

 Thanks guys! Inquiring minds wanted to know.   While I enjoy a bit of Capitalism as much as the next person the communist system does have certain advantages. That is, it WOULD if it were run in a non-corrupt manner.

well, a lot of systems would make more sense run in a non corrupt manner. But it's a weakness us people have.

 yes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What a coincidence! two items today were propaganda disguised as news. And in The Globe.

1. The AK 47 (russian assault rifle) was described as the choice of gangsters and dictators. Well, yes, gangsters do use it. that's because it's such a superb design. Well heeled gangsters will also shop at Holt Renfrew, but you'll never see a news item referring to Holt Renfrew as the choice of gangsters.

As to dictators, it simply is not true. Dictators backed by Russia and China will use it, of course, because that is what is given to them. But dictators in, say, latin America, backed by the US - like the ones who murdered 200,000 Maya in Guatemala - choose the US AR rifle. But no newspaper would ever refer to any US army weapon as the choice of dictators.

2. The Globe also referred to Kruxchev's "infamous" threat to bury us. IN fact, that is not what he said. This was made known as soon as it happened some fifty years ago. Every journalist must know that. But the globe wtill referred to it as infamous in a news story.

By contrast, a USAF general (Curtis LeMay) about the same time vowed to bomb southeast asia back into the stone age. And he did, killing uncounted hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of civilians. But I have never seen any reference to it since the day he said it, and I have certainly never seen a news report that said it was "infamous".

One I heard the other day on CBC news involved the case of the baby injured while his parents wee fighting.  There was an obvious 'dig' saying that the event happened in the same housing project as some other event.  Like.......people who live in housing projects are the only ones who hurt there kids??

There are all kinds of ways of propagandizing (slanting a story) -- on one trip through the Vancouver airports years ago and before the fall of the Soviet Union, I noticed a magazine for women in a magazine shop. It was similar to those homemaker-type magazines like Women's Weekly but appeared to be an English translation of a publication from the Soviet Union.

On the cover was a picture of a pretty, blond, smiling woman with the famous buildings of Moscow and a bright blue sky in the background. I wish I had bought the magazine but what stood out for me was that I had never seen a photo of anyone from the Soviet Union (or any country behind the Iron Curtain) with a blue sky in the background. Now, undoubtedly, it was its own little piece of counter-propaganda however, that made me think about how I was seeing people featured, which was miserable with dark and horrible scenery in the background.

The penny dropped then -- meaning that, regardless of what we valued in society that they didn't have (at that time, I believed the mantra about "democracy" that's being promulgated), I realized that surely they did have nice weather sometimes and there were places in that vast part of the world (unknown to many of us then) that were beautiful.

I began to examine the stories we're being told by the media much more closely after that. Pictures and the supporting words can tell a story that indicates the personal bias of the writer, the collective bias of the readers and the deliberate bias of those in whose interests it is that the story be told in a certain manner. In the age of the internet, it is somewhat easier to get to the truth but I have no doubt that it (and its supporting tools) are also being manipulated.