5 ms·

There is also a subtle but noteworthy difference between highly opinionated think pieces trying to present their views as being unbiased reporting and credible

by 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.

by GSimon 9y ago

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.