5 ms·

Pure propaganda/fluff piece to damage the company. The media has been going hard against Kaspersky in coordination with government agencies.

by x5n1 11y ago

XzetaU8 11y ago
The first and foremost "target" here is not only Kaspersky (i.e. Russian tech/security industry) but Russia itself. Notice again the title ;)
- zzzeek 11y ago
  so, the whole article is bunk because it is based on anonymous sources and did not get responses from all parties involved, but then because the headline has the word "Russia" in it, that's firm evidence of secret US government collusion with a major news outlet.
  - XzetaU8 11y ago
    No, it's a bunk because it provides zero evidence but plenty of innuendos and unfounded allegations/accusations, and yes it's infinity more plausible a secret plan between the us gov and a us based media corporation than a reputable antivirus vendor like Kaspersky sabotaging its rivals.
tptacek 11y ago
Does Reuters often write "pure propaganda/fluff pieces"? Or is this piece special?
- atmosx 11y ago
  No, it just reports. The agencies and the governments make the agenda (unfortunately). That said, Reuters IMHO is the top reporting authority worldwide along with AP.
  - lemevi 11y ago
    > The agencies and the governments make the agenda (unfortunately). Pretty hefty accusation on the integrity and journalistic ethics of the Associated Press. Do you have a reliable and credible source for this claim?
    - x5n1 11y ago
      > journalistic ethics no one takes this seriously.
- throwawayaway 11y ago
  Every day, nothing special about it: http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE6A840J20101109 http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE6A840J20101109
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    I don't see how an interview with Bush about his book has anything to do with propoganda.
    - throwawayaway 11y ago
      "pure propaganda/fluff pieces" if you don't see how this matches either description fair dues to you.
      - cpncrunch 11y ago
        The Bush story is fluff, but the grandparent comment was talking about "fluff AND propaganda", which obviously doesn't apply to the Bush article. (I assume it didn't mean "fluff OR propaganda" because obviously that wouldn't apply to the Kaspersky article).
        throwawayaway 11y ago
        > Asked by Winfrey whether he regretted the decision to invade Iraq based on unfounded intelligence that leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, Bush admitted feeling "terrible" and "sickened" about being wrong the weapons, but blamed Hussein. I consider this to be propaganda. First time I've seen reuters accidentally a word too. Down further in my estimation!
        cpncrunch 11y ago
        Reporting on his comments in a book interview with Oprah is hardly "propaganda"! Good on Oprah for bringing up the topic. Everyone knows he's responsible for the fiasco of the Iraq war and there were no WMDs. Oprah prodded him as much as was appropriate, then left it at that. Reuters was just repoting on the interview. I'm pretty certain if you bothered to look you'd probably find lots of Reuters stories where they probe Bush much deeper on this issue and give him a thrashing. (I haven't looked myself, but I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case). Anyway, if you think that is propaganda you should perhaps visit Russia to see what real propaganda looks like.
- evook 11y ago
  Reuters is pretty known for propaganda and deliberate disinformation of the public. e.g. http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-article-JABR.pdf http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-...
  - x5n1 11y ago
    The article is about how Reuters biases public perception in favor of Palestinians and it's written by Henry I. Silverman who may or may not have an agenda of his own. That's the thing, everyone has an agenda. Just because someone is calling someone out on something that does not mean that they themselves are not motivated by their own agenda.
    - evook 11y ago
      Meh, it was an "example given". How much do you want? Another famous one would be MH17 and Fedotov. Also you should read the definition of agenda, you clearly misused it. ("the things that must be done"[1]). The word you were looking for was motive. That Reuters isn't a reliable source of information isn't a matter of motive or "agenda", it is common sense within educated circles. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda
      - x5n1 11y ago
        "Political agenda, the set of goals of an ideological group. In this context it is often used in a negative sense..."
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    "Pretty known" according to one study (which in itself appears to be the opinion of one person).
- venomsnake 11y ago
  I tried to find their reporting to the build up to iraq war - if they did it would be there. But I found nothing - seems like everything has been scrubbed from google :( On reuters / iraq in range 2003-2004 google finds nothing hosted on their domain.

Pure propaganda/fluff piece to damage the company. The media has been going hard against Kaspersky in coordination with government agencies.

by x5n1 11y ago

Pure propaganda/fluff piece to damage the company. The media has been going hard against Kaspersky in coordination with government agencies.

XzetaU8 11y ago

The first and foremost "target" here is not only Kaspersky (i.e. Russian tech/security industry) but Russia itself. Notice again the title ;)

zzzeek 11y ago
so, the whole article is bunk because it is based on anonymous sources and did not get responses from all parties involved, but then because the headline has the word "Russia" in it, that's firm evidence of secret US government collusion with a major news outlet.
- XzetaU8 11y ago
  No, it's a bunk because it provides zero evidence but plenty of innuendos and unfounded allegations/accusations, and yes it's infinity more plausible a secret plan between the us gov and a us based media corporation than a reputable antivirus vendor like Kaspersky sabotaging its rivals.

tptacek 11y ago

Does Reuters often write "pure propaganda/fluff pieces"? Or is this piece special?

atmosx 11y ago
No, it just reports. The agencies and the governments make the agenda (unfortunately). That said, Reuters IMHO is the top reporting authority worldwide along with AP.
- lemevi 11y ago
  > The agencies and the governments make the agenda (unfortunately). Pretty hefty accusation on the integrity and journalistic ethics of the Associated Press. Do you have a reliable and credible source for this claim?
  - x5n1 11y ago
    > journalistic ethics no one takes this seriously.
throwawayaway 11y ago
Every day, nothing special about it: http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE6A840J20101109 http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE6A840J20101109
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  I don't see how an interview with Bush about his book has anything to do with propoganda.
  - throwawayaway 11y ago
    "pure propaganda/fluff pieces" if you don't see how this matches either description fair dues to you.
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      The Bush story is fluff, but the grandparent comment was talking about "fluff AND propaganda", which obviously doesn't apply to the Bush article. (I assume it didn't mean "fluff OR propaganda" because obviously that wouldn't apply to the Kaspersky article).
      - throwawayaway 11y ago
        > Asked by Winfrey whether he regretted the decision to invade Iraq based on unfounded intelligence that leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, Bush admitted feeling "terrible" and "sickened" about being wrong the weapons, but blamed Hussein. I consider this to be propaganda. First time I've seen reuters accidentally a word too. Down further in my estimation!
        cpncrunch 11y ago
        Reporting on his comments in a book interview with Oprah is hardly "propaganda"! Good on Oprah for bringing up the topic. Everyone knows he's responsible for the fiasco of the Iraq war and there were no WMDs. Oprah prodded him as much as was appropriate, then left it at that. Reuters was just repoting on the interview. I'm pretty certain if you bothered to look you'd probably find lots of Reuters stories where they probe Bush much deeper on this issue and give him a thrashing. (I haven't looked myself, but I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case). Anyway, if you think that is propaganda you should perhaps visit Russia to see what real propaganda looks like.
evook 11y ago
Reuters is pretty known for propaganda and deliberate disinformation of the public. e.g. http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-article-JABR.pdf http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-...
- x5n1 11y ago
  The article is about how Reuters biases public perception in favor of Palestinians and it's written by Henry I. Silverman who may or may not have an agenda of his own. That's the thing, everyone has an agenda. Just because someone is calling someone out on something that does not mean that they themselves are not motivated by their own agenda.
  - evook 11y ago
    Meh, it was an "example given". How much do you want? Another famous one would be MH17 and Fedotov. Also you should read the definition of agenda, you clearly misused it. ("the things that must be done"[1]). The word you were looking for was motive. That Reuters isn't a reliable source of information isn't a matter of motive or "agenda", it is common sense within educated circles. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda
    - x5n1 11y ago
      "Political agenda, the set of goals of an ideological group. In this context it is often used in a negative sense..."
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  "Pretty known" according to one study (which in itself appears to be the opinion of one person).
venomsnake 11y ago
I tried to find their reporting to the build up to iraq war - if they did it would be there. But I found nothing - seems like everything has been scrubbed from google :( On reuters / iraq in range 2003-2004 google finds nothing hosted on their domain.