4 ms·

So I assume you found the worst article you could remember, and even in this article you can at least see traces of journalistic integrity that is completely ab

by fpig 10y ago

So I assume you found the worst article you could remember, and even in this article you can at least see traces of journalistic integrity that is completely absent in RT: > But it is a jump from that to suggesting Gaddafi is supplying troops with it to encourage mass rape. > US ambassador Susan Rice has also said, without offering evidence, that Iran was helping Syria to suppress dissent That's some serious mental gymnastics just to argue the old "everyone is the same" line when RT is literally a 100% propaganda paper of the Russian government. The Guardian specifically was one of the main drivers of both Manning and Snowden leaks. They have earned the right to be called a serious paper.

dagenleg 10y ago
And Russia was the one who shielded Snowden after his leaks went public. It does not make Putin a valiant defender of the freedom of the press, does it now? I have seen bending of the truth happening in all major media outlets ever since I started following them, and I honestly don't want to get drawn into the measuring contest of "which newspaper lies the worst" right now. Especially since due to the absence of good metrics we'd have to do what, find and nitpick articles over the last N years? And then we'll have to argue if there are or there are not traces of "journalistic integrity"? Nah, screw that.
- fpig 10y ago
  It's not nitpicking at all. Even in the worst example you could cherry-pick for the Guardian, the journalist just reported on something a US official said and explicitly distanced themselves from the more ridiculous claims. This makes them as bad as RT? Ridiculous. The Guardian constantly heavily criticizes their own government, the US government, etc. They are clearly not tools of the people in power. RT on the other hand just does whatever is in the interest of the Russian government. The only reason it even exists is to try to push narratives favorable for the Russian government to a western audience. They're just a tool. It requires some serious personal bias in order to see the two papers as the same. Snowden/Putin is irrelevant as Snowden leaking that stuff was favorable for Putin. At the same time, the Guardian publishing it was not favorable for their government.

by fpig 10y ago

dagenleg 10y ago

And Russia was the one who shielded Snowden after his leaks went public. It does not make Putin a valiant defender of the freedom of the press, does it now? I have seen bending of the truth happening in all major media outlets ever since I started following them, and I honestly don't want to get drawn into the measuring contest of "which newspaper lies the worst" right now. Especially since due to the absence of good metrics we'd have to do what, find and nitpick articles over the last N years? And then we'll have to argue if there are or there are not traces of "journalistic integrity"? Nah, screw that.

fpig 10y ago
It's not nitpicking at all. Even in the worst example you could cherry-pick for the Guardian, the journalist just reported on something a US official said and explicitly distanced themselves from the more ridiculous claims. This makes them as bad as RT? Ridiculous. The Guardian constantly heavily criticizes their own government, the US government, etc. They are clearly not tools of the people in power. RT on the other hand just does whatever is in the interest of the Russian government. The only reason it even exists is to try to push narratives favorable for the Russian government to a western audience. They're just a tool. It requires some serious personal bias in order to see the two papers as the same. Snowden/Putin is irrelevant as Snowden leaking that stuff was favorable for Putin. At the same time, the Guardian publishing it was not favorable for their government.