5 ms·

Your information has depth. What articles have you been reading? I want to learn more.

by nashashmi 9y ago

psergeant 9y ago
I suspect RT and Sputnik both will be able to provide a wealth of similar viewpoints
- anticodon 9y ago
  So, how can be US propaganda from NYT any better? I understand that for people living in the US it's easier to believe in because it always says: "We bomb half of the world and spy on all the world just because we want to give everybody democracy and happy life". But that doesn't make it objective and true.
  - psergeant 9y ago
    It seems odd to conflate a freely owned news source that’s seen as public enemy number one by the executive branch with Russian state news sources. Looking forward to those RT and Sputnik op-eds criticising Putin!
    - anticodon 9y ago
      For the news source being freely owned might be a necessary condition to be objective but it is definitely not sufficient.
      - psergeant 9y ago
        Sure. That’s why a hundred years of vigorously criticising the government is important to take into account. Also: your comment history seems unusually political when it comes to Russia.
wilsonfiifi 9y ago
You can check out Globalresearch [0], they tend to have a different take on current affairs. It’s always interesting to read the “Other side’s” perspective (with a little heap of salt nearby) [0] https://www.globalresearch.ca
indubitable 9y ago
Seymour Hersh has written a phenomenal amount about Syria. Here are a couple of interesting articles: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-a... https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-mi... Stratfor, something like a private intelligence organization - well beyond a think tank, also has written a vast amount on Syria to the point that I think just googling for 'strator syria' would be more productive than me listing a slew of articles. In general I find news that's from first party analysts tends to be vastly more informative than the filtered drivel that you end up getting from most US news sites. As an aside, I am not suggesting that that the above directly support OP's hypothesis. What it does support is the fact that what's stated in most US mainstream outlets is a childlike misrepresentation of the war over there framing it as the 'good guys' (which is naturally us) are trying to take out a pure evil 'bad guy.' I'm not sure if that's propaganda or just something that gets clicks. In either case, it's false. The interactions are complex, motivations rarely benevolent, and the whole thing an entire mess in general. Ultimately the reason I stopped reading about Syria is because I think it's futile to try to 'truly' understand what's happening. We'll only be able to begin to actually dig into the truth 50 or so years from now when the documentation around the war is declassified.
- zapfranklin 9y ago
  Hersh's recent work has been pointedly criticized as that of a conspiracy theorist versus an investigative journalist. [1] Generalizing reporting in "most US mainstream outlets" as "childlike misrepresentation" is the kind of fake news doubt-sowing that is killing our (America's) relationship with facts. There has been some excellent reporting on the relatively complex Syrian Civil War from stalwarts such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. Even upstart Buzzfeed News has done some great stuff that was carefully sourced and thoroughly investigated - regardless of how bad it made the US look. My perspective is that of someone who has been professionally and personally following the Syrian Civil War since 2012. [1] - https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bin-laden https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...

Your information has depth. What articles have you been reading? I want to learn more.

psergeant 9y ago

I suspect RT and Sputnik both will be able to provide a wealth of similar viewpoints

anticodon 9y ago
So, how can be US propaganda from NYT any better? I understand that for people living in the US it's easier to believe in because it always says: "We bomb half of the world and spy on all the world just because we want to give everybody democracy and happy life". But that doesn't make it objective and true.
- psergeant 9y ago
  It seems odd to conflate a freely owned news source that’s seen as public enemy number one by the executive branch with Russian state news sources. Looking forward to those RT and Sputnik op-eds criticising Putin!
  - anticodon 9y ago
    For the news source being freely owned might be a necessary condition to be objective but it is definitely not sufficient.
    - psergeant 9y ago
      Sure. That’s why a hundred years of vigorously criticising the government is important to take into account. Also: your comment history seems unusually political when it comes to Russia.

wilsonfiifi 9y ago

You can check out Globalresearch [0], they tend to have a different take on current affairs. It’s always interesting to read the “Other side’s” perspective (with a little heap of salt nearby) [0] https://www.globalresearch.ca

indubitable 9y ago

Seymour Hersh has written a phenomenal amount about Syria. Here are a couple of interesting articles: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-a... https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-mi... Stratfor, something like a private intelligence organization - well beyond a think tank, also has written a vast amount on Syria to the point that I think just googling for 'strator syria' would be more productive than me listing a slew of articles. In general I find news that's from first party analysts tends to be vastly more informative than the filtered drivel that you end up getting from most US news sites. As an aside, I am not suggesting that that the above directly support OP's hypothesis. What it does support is the fact that what's stated in most US mainstream outlets is a childlike misrepresentation of the war over there framing it as the 'good guys' (which is naturally us) are trying to take out a pure evil 'bad guy.' I'm not sure if that's propaganda or just something that gets clicks. In either case, it's false. The interactions are complex, motivations rarely benevolent, and the whole thing an entire mess in general. Ultimately the reason I stopped reading about Syria is because I think it's futile to try to 'truly' understand what's happening. We'll only be able to begin to actually dig into the truth 50 or so years from now when the documentation around the war is declassified.

zapfranklin 9y ago
Hersh's recent work has been pointedly criticized as that of a conspiracy theorist versus an investigative journalist. [1] Generalizing reporting in "most US mainstream outlets" as "childlike misrepresentation" is the kind of fake news doubt-sowing that is killing our (America's) relationship with facts. There has been some excellent reporting on the relatively complex Syrian Civil War from stalwarts such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. Even upstart Buzzfeed News has done some great stuff that was carefully sourced and thoroughly investigated - regardless of how bad it made the US look. My perspective is that of someone who has been professionally and personally following the Syrian Civil War since 2012. [1] - https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bin-laden https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...