5 ms·

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 migh

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.

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.