5 ms·

There is a subtle but noteworthy difference between first amendment-protected opinionated reporting and foreign state sponsored propaganda.

GSimon 9y ago
There is also a subtle but noteworthy difference between highly opinionated think pieces trying to present their views as being unbiased reporting and credible state-sponsored media outlets that don't force feed propaganda. But I guess you'd consider your view to be the objectively sound way to look at things without realizing the irony in the way you're portraying media outlets you favour over others you don't seem to like.
- meowface 9y ago
  "Highly opinionated think pieces trying to present their views as being unbiased reporting" are a major problem in the US and around the world, but let's at least consider why RT is a special case here. RT is not only owned by a foreign state but is specifically owned by a state which attempted to deceptively influence Google's home country's elections, partially with the help of RT. RT is undoubtedly Russian propaganda and can't be anything else; anyone at RT who genuinely wants to provide a view that isn't uniformly pro-Russian risks retaliation from the government. If the scenarios were flipped and Voice of America were peddling propaganda to influence Russia's next election (which they probably actually are doing), Yandex would have a pretty valid reason to lower the rankings of Voice of America stories.
  - GSimon 9y ago
    I don't largely disagree with some of the concerns I question the motives and timeliness of the decision to de-rank a media outlet like RT. It's not something that is done for the reasons presented and the whole Russian influence on the election has so many holes to be a proven credible threat. People are ignorant of media outlets and think stations like Al Jazeera are Al Quaida driven so I am highly skeptical that any party is doing any censoring for legitimate reasons or valid concerns. They aren't looking out for your best interests when it comes to presenting the news.
    - meowface 9y ago
      >and the whole Russian influence on the election has so many holes to be a proven credible threat I'm not sure the impact so much matters as the intent. Even if it wasn't really a big threat, and even if Trump would've won without any sort of interference (which probably is the case, but it is and will be impossible to truly know), the fact that they did it at all shows they're trying to game the system, partly by gaming Google. Google is now going to make it harder to game. It is a bad precedent to de-rank results in this way, but I think this is a special circumstance. I agree that a better approach would be to provide warnings and context rather than merely trying to push things down.
      - wybiral 9y ago
        > I'm not sure the impact so much matters as the intent. I think some of the election-related stuff is mostly politicization. If you follow some of the hearings on the subject of Russian propaganda (cspan has some) it seemed more that they were targeting and prodding cultural divisions. Organizing anti-immigration rallies at the same time and location as Muslim rallies and pushing racial and cultural divides. It seems like their focus is to polarize people and try to promote extremism.
        meowface 9y ago
        Yes, this was undoubtedly one of the Russian government's goals, but the US IC also came to the definitive conclusion that their goal was not only this but also to get Donald Trump elected. It was an open question for some time: were they merely trying to cause chaos and increase the divide, or did they specifically want one candidate in office? The answer, at least according to 17 US intelligence agencies, is both. And this isn't a huge shock considering Putin's well-known long-standing grudge against Clinton and Trump being considerably more pro-Russian than she was during the election cycle.
  - knowThySelfx 9y ago
    What exactly did Russia do to influence US elections?
- wybiral 9y ago
  I don't know why you're making assumptions about me personally or my preference towards news (Vice isn't one of my usual news sources fwiw) rather than keeping it to the subject. But I don't believe that Vice has quite the divisive and disruptive agenda that these state sponsored propaganda bullhorns have.
  - GSimon 9y ago
    You were more dismissive of one source over another so I brought it into question. I am very familiar with Vice's reporting for the past few years and while they cover a wide range of topics and have an appealing style of presenting their documented footage they politically lean very left. I find their reporting on average to be less credible in many instances than state-reported media because state-reported media is often bland and less opinionated and there's less of attempt to blatantly sway my opinion through a click-bait title and with skewed information and a moralizing tone.
    - wybiral 9y ago
      I've found RT to be incredibly right leaning and pro-Russian.
jessaustin 9y ago
No, there isn't. Journalism in USA is totalitarian. There may be two points of view, but they differ so little as to be indistinguishable to anyone whose intellect isn't constantly gaslighted by the overwhelming ideological conformity. The journalism to which we are subjected is still propaganda, because after all a journalist has to stay in the club in order to work, and he does that by parroting the bullshit the insiders tell him. Nobody steps outside the lines and stays on the air. A great place to get reporting without the approved USA right-thinking is foreign state media. I actually prefer Al Jazeera to RT, but I'm under no illusions: after they shut down RT, AJ is next, soon to be followed by BBC.
- meowface 9y ago
  It's good to get a wide range of views, but RT, Al Jazeera, and even BBC all provide their own skewed viewpoints. An informed person would be wise to read their stories and compare them to stories from American journalism outfits, but the idea that Al Jazeera or RT is inherently more credible than American journalists is pretty ridiculous. They suffer from overwhelming ideological conformity as well; it's just a different ideology.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Haha "balance". Don't worry that's impossible to avoid in USA. In this country one can never escape the constant messaging: that War is good, that we ever actually win Wars, that we should fear minorities and the poor, that we should express that fear by locking them up and otherwise making their lives miserable... Thanks very much I'm still getting my recommended daily dose of that bullshit! Have you ever taken a week to mostly watch Al Jazeera or BBC or France 24 or CGTN or even RT? If you did, you might reconsider the blind certainty you evince here. This is one reason it's good to live overseas for a time: the corporate-state-approved media can't get you there, mostly.
bobcallme 9y ago
There is zero difference between "opinionated" reporting and state-sponsored propaganda since both are pushing an opinion from a point of view. When you start injecting opinions it is no longer reporting. I'd say that Google is more of a propaganda engine than RT since Google has an order of magnitude more money and power than RT does. Propaganda both foreign and domestic should be treated the same if we are going to start censoring or injecting opinions on top of what other people say.
- speedplane 9y ago
  > There is zero difference between "opinionated" reporting and state-sponsored propaganda Some differences: - Governments have far more power and resources to skew the narrative. - Governments are less accountable than any private individual or organization. Organizations are at least accountable to shareholders, the rule of law, and the government they operate under. - Domestic organizations are at least ostensibly committed to maintaining the system, many foreign governments literally want to tear the system down. - Governments have a historical track-record of tyranny, and have generally caused more harm than private organizations.
  - bobcallme 9y ago
    > - Governments have far more power and resources to skew the narrative. s/Government have/Google has/g > Governments are less accountable than any private individual or organization. Organizations are at least accountable to shareholders, the rule of law, and the government they operate under. Again s/Governments/Organizations/g > - Domestic organizations are at least ostensibly committed to maintaining the system, many foreign governments literally want to tear the system down. Based upon what? Is that any justification for propaganda? Both Facebook and Google are both domestic entities and look at all of the polarization and discord that they have caused this election cycle. > - Governments have a historical track-record of tyranny, and have generally caused more harm than private organizations. In this era, the source of tyranny is private corporations that grant themselves monopolies with red tape and further regulations that make competition impossible. I guess based upon your arguments, we should grant private corporations a monopoly on speech.

GSimon 9y ago

There is also a subtle but noteworthy difference between highly opinionated think pieces trying to present their views as being unbiased reporting and credible state-sponsored media outlets that don't force feed propaganda. But I guess you'd consider your view to be the objectively sound way to look at things without realizing the irony in the way you're portraying media outlets you favour over others you don't seem to like.

meowface 9y ago
"Highly opinionated think pieces trying to present their views as being unbiased reporting" are a major problem in the US and around the world, but let's at least consider why RT is a special case here. RT is not only owned by a foreign state but is specifically owned by a state which attempted to deceptively influence Google's home country's elections, partially with the help of RT. RT is undoubtedly Russian propaganda and can't be anything else; anyone at RT who genuinely wants to provide a view that isn't uniformly pro-Russian risks retaliation from the government. If the scenarios were flipped and Voice of America were peddling propaganda to influence Russia's next election (which they probably actually are doing), Yandex would have a pretty valid reason to lower the rankings of Voice of America stories.
- GSimon 9y ago
  I don't largely disagree with some of the concerns I question the motives and timeliness of the decision to de-rank a media outlet like RT. It's not something that is done for the reasons presented and the whole Russian influence on the election has so many holes to be a proven credible threat. People are ignorant of media outlets and think stations like Al Jazeera are Al Quaida driven so I am highly skeptical that any party is doing any censoring for legitimate reasons or valid concerns. They aren't looking out for your best interests when it comes to presenting the news.
  - meowface 9y ago
    >and the whole Russian influence on the election has so many holes to be a proven credible threat I'm not sure the impact so much matters as the intent. Even if it wasn't really a big threat, and even if Trump would've won without any sort of interference (which probably is the case, but it is and will be impossible to truly know), the fact that they did it at all shows they're trying to game the system, partly by gaming Google. Google is now going to make it harder to game. It is a bad precedent to de-rank results in this way, but I think this is a special circumstance. I agree that a better approach would be to provide warnings and context rather than merely trying to push things down.
    - wybiral 9y ago
      > I'm not sure the impact so much matters as the intent. I think some of the election-related stuff is mostly politicization. If you follow some of the hearings on the subject of Russian propaganda (cspan has some) it seemed more that they were targeting and prodding cultural divisions. Organizing anti-immigration rallies at the same time and location as Muslim rallies and pushing racial and cultural divides. It seems like their focus is to polarize people and try to promote extremism.
      - meowface 9y ago
        Yes, this was undoubtedly one of the Russian government's goals, but the US IC also came to the definitive conclusion that their goal was not only this but also to get Donald Trump elected. It was an open question for some time: were they merely trying to cause chaos and increase the divide, or did they specifically want one candidate in office? The answer, at least according to 17 US intelligence agencies, is both. And this isn't a huge shock considering Putin's well-known long-standing grudge against Clinton and Trump being considerably more pro-Russian than she was during the election cycle.
- knowThySelfx 9y ago
  What exactly did Russia do to influence US elections?
wybiral 9y ago
I don't know why you're making assumptions about me personally or my preference towards news (Vice isn't one of my usual news sources fwiw) rather than keeping it to the subject. But I don't believe that Vice has quite the divisive and disruptive agenda that these state sponsored propaganda bullhorns have.
- GSimon 9y ago
  You were more dismissive of one source over another so I brought it into question. I am very familiar with Vice's reporting for the past few years and while they cover a wide range of topics and have an appealing style of presenting their documented footage they politically lean very left. I find their reporting on average to be less credible in many instances than state-reported media because state-reported media is often bland and less opinionated and there's less of attempt to blatantly sway my opinion through a click-bait title and with skewed information and a moralizing tone.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    I've found RT to be incredibly right leaning and pro-Russian.

jessaustin 9y ago

No, there isn't. Journalism in USA is totalitarian. There may be two points of view, but they differ so little as to be indistinguishable to anyone whose intellect isn't constantly gaslighted by the overwhelming ideological conformity. The journalism to which we are subjected is still propaganda, because after all a journalist has to stay in the club in order to work, and he does that by parroting the bullshit the insiders tell him. Nobody steps outside the lines and stays on the air. A great place to get reporting without the approved USA right-thinking is foreign state media. I actually prefer Al Jazeera to RT, but I'm under no illusions: after they shut down RT, AJ is next, soon to be followed by BBC.

meowface 9y ago
It's good to get a wide range of views, but RT, Al Jazeera, and even BBC all provide their own skewed viewpoints. An informed person would be wise to read their stories and compare them to stories from American journalism outfits, but the idea that Al Jazeera or RT is inherently more credible than American journalists is pretty ridiculous. They suffer from overwhelming ideological conformity as well; it's just a different ideology.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Haha "balance". Don't worry that's impossible to avoid in USA. In this country one can never escape the constant messaging: that War is good, that we ever actually win Wars, that we should fear minorities and the poor, that we should express that fear by locking them up and otherwise making their lives miserable... Thanks very much I'm still getting my recommended daily dose of that bullshit! Have you ever taken a week to mostly watch Al Jazeera or BBC or France 24 or CGTN or even RT? If you did, you might reconsider the blind certainty you evince here. This is one reason it's good to live overseas for a time: the corporate-state-approved media can't get you there, mostly.

bobcallme 9y ago

There is zero difference between "opinionated" reporting and state-sponsored propaganda since both are pushing an opinion from a point of view. When you start injecting opinions it is no longer reporting. I'd say that Google is more of a propaganda engine than RT since Google has an order of magnitude more money and power than RT does. Propaganda both foreign and domestic should be treated the same if we are going to start censoring or injecting opinions on top of what other people say.

speedplane 9y ago
> There is zero difference between "opinionated" reporting and state-sponsored propaganda Some differences: - Governments have far more power and resources to skew the narrative. - Governments are less accountable than any private individual or organization. Organizations are at least accountable to shareholders, the rule of law, and the government they operate under. - Domestic organizations are at least ostensibly committed to maintaining the system, many foreign governments literally want to tear the system down. - Governments have a historical track-record of tyranny, and have generally caused more harm than private organizations.
- bobcallme 9y ago
  > - Governments have far more power and resources to skew the narrative. s/Government have/Google has/g > Governments are less accountable than any private individual or organization. Organizations are at least accountable to shareholders, the rule of law, and the government they operate under. Again s/Governments/Organizations/g > - Domestic organizations are at least ostensibly committed to maintaining the system, many foreign governments literally want to tear the system down. Based upon what? Is that any justification for propaganda? Both Facebook and Google are both domestic entities and look at all of the polarization and discord that they have caused this election cycle. > - Governments have a historical track-record of tyranny, and have generally caused more harm than private organizations. In this era, the source of tyranny is private corporations that grant themselves monopolies with red tape and further regulations that make competition impossible. I guess based upon your arguments, we should grant private corporations a monopoly on speech.