5 ms·

Any argument relying on RT is suspicious; if you can't find an anti-government piece anywhere but there, it probably didn't happen.

askyourmother 11y ago
All news sites carry a bias - all of them. Often main stream media in the home country wants/has to tow the line and omit details or not carry stories that might upset local authority. So, to say a story is bunk because it appears in RT as a source demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté. I trust/distrust all media sources in equal measure, but the fun thing is that by reading a lot of them at the same time across the globe, you can more easily see the biases, and get to the root of the stories.
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  So, to say "I trust/distrust all media sources in equal measure" demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > to say a story is bunk because it appears in RT as a > source demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible > naiveté I didn't. I said an argument that relies upon RT due to the story not being carried elswhere is "bunk". > All news sites carry a bias But few are sanctioned by Ofcom for regularly broadcasting "materially misleading" content, called out by all manner of former employees for being propaganda machines, or widely derided by virtually every other serious media outlet. Attempting to cover that with a general statement of all media bias - having substantially misrepresented (or just not properly read) the comment you're replying to - "demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté".
- hamstergene 11y ago
  All news sites carry a bias - all of them. A little off-topic, is there a name for this kind of rhetoric? I've seen it used a lot, for example: - When pointed to government corruption they would reply "all the other governments have corruption too", implying there's no difference. - When asked about low level of life, they would reply something like "15% of your own people are living below the poverty line", implying nothing out of normal is going on. It's like, one guy has his boot covered in shit and the second is covered in it fully, the first says "you have problem of being in shit" and the second responds "you have that problem too (pointing to his boot) so it's ok". This argument basically implies something like "we must not discriminate on the grounds of this problem because it is normal for everyone to have it", avoiding the possibly disadvantageous discussion of what is level of the problem and whether this level is normal.
  - pionar 11y ago
    It's called "Tu quoque"[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
  - halter73 11y ago
    When applied directly to the Soviet Union or Russia it's sometimes called whataboutism [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  The phrase you're looking for is "toe the line", having the sense of standing with your toes behind a line on the ground.
sklivvz1971 11y ago
You might want to look up the difference between reliability and truthfulness. While there, take a look at [Circumstantial ad-hominem](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-h...) :-)
- peteretep 11y ago
  Because something is printed in RT doesn't make it untrue. That something - critical of Russia's enemies - is only reported in RT and not in any other major new source - is a strong contender for being untrue. For something to an example of the ad-hominem fallacy, it has to be discarded purely on the basis of the claimant. If something is being rejected on the basis that the claimant is unreliable and contradicts generally reliable sources, that is something quite different. Should I start discounting RTs weather report for NYC based on their political reporting feel free to call me out on fallacious thinking.
  - sklivvz1971 11y ago
    > something ... is only reported in RT and not in any other major new source And this is an appeal to numbers (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularit...)... You may be right, but your logic is fallacious. If there's only one news source and that news source is biased, then it doesn't follow that anything they say is untrue. You are calling something false based on the source. This is simply illogical: a broken clock is right twice a day. Following your reasoning it would be wrong even when right. Either the news is true or it isn't. Judge it based on its own merits, not from its source.
    - fghrthtb 11y ago
      Objective truth, lol, good one.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

askyourmother 11y ago

All news sites carry a bias - all of them. Often main stream media in the home country wants/has to tow the line and omit details or not carry stories that might upset local authority. So, to say a story is bunk because it appears in RT as a source demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté. I trust/distrust all media sources in equal measure, but the fun thing is that by reading a lot of them at the same time across the globe, you can more easily see the biases, and get to the root of the stories.

vdaniuk 11y ago
So, to say "I trust/distrust all media sources in equal measure" demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté.
peteretep 11y ago
> to say a story is bunk because it appears in RT as a > source demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible > naiveté I didn't. I said an argument that relies upon RT due to the story not being carried elswhere is "bunk". > All news sites carry a bias But few are sanctioned by Ofcom for regularly broadcasting "materially misleading" content, called out by all manner of former employees for being propaganda machines, or widely derided by virtually every other serious media outlet. Attempting to cover that with a general statement of all media bias - having substantially misrepresented (or just not properly read) the comment you're replying to - "demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté".
hamstergene 11y ago
All news sites carry a bias - all of them. A little off-topic, is there a name for this kind of rhetoric? I've seen it used a lot, for example: - When pointed to government corruption they would reply "all the other governments have corruption too", implying there's no difference. - When asked about low level of life, they would reply something like "15% of your own people are living below the poverty line", implying nothing out of normal is going on. It's like, one guy has his boot covered in shit and the second is covered in it fully, the first says "you have problem of being in shit" and the second responds "you have that problem too (pointing to his boot) so it's ok". This argument basically implies something like "we must not discriminate on the grounds of this problem because it is normal for everyone to have it", avoiding the possibly disadvantageous discussion of what is level of the problem and whether this level is normal.
- pionar 11y ago
  It's called "Tu quoque"[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- halter73 11y ago
  When applied directly to the Soviet Union or Russia it's sometimes called whataboutism [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Pyxl101 11y ago
The phrase you're looking for is "toe the line", having the sense of standing with your toes behind a line on the ground.

sklivvz1971 11y ago

You might want to look up the difference between reliability and truthfulness. While there, take a look at [Circumstantial ad-hominem](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-h...) :-)

peteretep 11y ago
Because something is printed in RT doesn't make it untrue. That something - critical of Russia's enemies - is only reported in RT and not in any other major new source - is a strong contender for being untrue. For something to an example of the ad-hominem fallacy, it has to be discarded purely on the basis of the claimant. If something is being rejected on the basis that the claimant is unreliable and contradicts generally reliable sources, that is something quite different. Should I start discounting RTs weather report for NYC based on their political reporting feel free to call me out on fallacious thinking.
- sklivvz1971 11y ago
  > something ... is only reported in RT and not in any other major new source And this is an appeal to numbers (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularit...)... You may be right, but your logic is fallacious. If there's only one news source and that news source is biased, then it doesn't follow that anything they say is untrue. You are calling something false based on the source. This is simply illogical: a broken clock is right twice a day. Following your reasoning it would be wrong even when right. Either the news is true or it isn't. Judge it based on its own merits, not from its source.
  - fghrthtb 11y ago
    Objective truth, lol, good one.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]