13 ms·

Does it matter? I'd think behaviour like this should be condemned every time and wherever it is exposed even if it is not unique to one country (and it isn't).

Does it matter? I'd think behaviour like this should be condemned every time and wherever it is exposed even if it is not unique to one country (and it isn't). "Everyone does it" is a piss poor excuse for pretty much anything. But to also answer few of your questions...No, it is not new. It is not limited only to US. Russia is not the only one doing it, but it seems to be more aggressive than most. And not all of them do it the same way (I think there's an ethical difference between pushing a favourable view of your country or trying to destabilise one).

cat199 8y ago
> Does it matter? it does if selective coverage reinforces a specific foreign policy at the expense of another one without making the actual differences between these policies explicit.
sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
>"Everyone does it" is a piss poor excuse for pretty much anything. It's really not. If doing "it" gives you some advantage, and not doing "it" means you're going to get outcompeted by someone else who is doing "it", then it's in your interest to do "it", which is a perfectly fine reason for doing things. If you can manage to get everyone not to do "it", or make doing "it" disadvantageous, then by all means. But that is not always a viable option. It's probably not a viable option in this case. You can try to make it less advantageous by attempting to punish other countries that engage in it, while downplaying it when you do it, but it's still going to be worth it for countries to try.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Don't hate the player, hate the game" is a pretty garbage excuse for behavior, and ends up leading to a pretty low bottom.
  - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
    You're just re-iterating what I replied to, without addressing what I said. Sometimes, not playing the game is suicide.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      No. That is not at all true. That is an excuse made up to justify crappy things.
      - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
        "Ogg, we shouldn't have weapons that can hurt people. Hurting people is bad." "Good idea, let's get rid of them all. We wouldn't want to justify crappy things by appealing to our own personal interest." ... "Oh no we're all dead now. Someone else decided to have weapons even though they're bad and they hurt people. Looks like our shitty ideas are dying with us...wait I think I hear something coming from HN..."
        dang 8y ago
        It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's a violation of the site guidelines and we ban accounts that do it. We have to, because it destroys what this site exists for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended—for intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies—we'd appreciate it.
- samastur 8y ago
  Even if everyone did it (they don't; most countries have nowhere near the necessary capabilities), it does not follow that all can or do do it to the same extent. And this is not a situation in which all sides doing it makes any less likely to continue. It is more akin everyone polluting because everyone else does. Not all polluters are equal, but they should all be condemned and if possible stopped.
  - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
    >Even if everyone did it (they don't; most countries have nowhere near the necessary capabilities), it does not follow that all can or do do it to the same extent. My comment does not assume that everyone does it or that everyone does it to the same extent. >And this is not a situation in which all sides doing it makes any less likely to continue. It is more akin everyone polluting because everyone else does. You've lost me completely. What did I say to suggest that everyone doing it makes it less likely to continue? >Not all polluters are equal, but they should all be condemned and if possible stopped. It's a bit easier to pin blame for pollution on someone than it is to pin blame for meddling in another country's politics, which is almost necessarily clandestine. That's why it's reasonable to expect that countries will be able to make and keep agreements to limit pollution, even if they don't have a great relationship, but not particularly reasonable to expect that they will be able to make and keep agreements to not interfere in each others' internal affairs.

cat199 8y ago

> Does it matter? it does if selective coverage reinforces a specific foreign policy at the expense of another one without making the actual differences between these policies explicit.

sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago

>"Everyone does it" is a piss poor excuse for pretty much anything. It's really not. If doing "it" gives you some advantage, and not doing "it" means you're going to get outcompeted by someone else who is doing "it", then it's in your interest to do "it", which is a perfectly fine reason for doing things. If you can manage to get everyone not to do "it", or make doing "it" disadvantageous, then by all means. But that is not always a viable option. It's probably not a viable option in this case. You can try to make it less advantageous by attempting to punish other countries that engage in it, while downplaying it when you do it, but it's still going to be worth it for countries to try.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Don't hate the player, hate the game" is a pretty garbage excuse for behavior, and ends up leading to a pretty low bottom.
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  You're just re-iterating what I replied to, without addressing what I said. Sometimes, not playing the game is suicide.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No. That is not at all true. That is an excuse made up to justify crappy things.
    - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
      "Ogg, we shouldn't have weapons that can hurt people. Hurting people is bad." "Good idea, let's get rid of them all. We wouldn't want to justify crappy things by appealing to our own personal interest." ... "Oh no we're all dead now. Someone else decided to have weapons even though they're bad and they hurt people. Looks like our shitty ideas are dying with us...wait I think I hear something coming from HN..."
      - dang 8y ago
        It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's a violation of the site guidelines and we ban accounts that do it. We have to, because it destroys what this site exists for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended—for intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies—we'd appreciate it.
samastur 8y ago
Even if everyone did it (they don't; most countries have nowhere near the necessary capabilities), it does not follow that all can or do do it to the same extent. And this is not a situation in which all sides doing it makes any less likely to continue. It is more akin everyone polluting because everyone else does. Not all polluters are equal, but they should all be condemned and if possible stopped.
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  >Even if everyone did it (they don't; most countries have nowhere near the necessary capabilities), it does not follow that all can or do do it to the same extent. My comment does not assume that everyone does it or that everyone does it to the same extent. >And this is not a situation in which all sides doing it makes any less likely to continue. It is more akin everyone polluting because everyone else does. You've lost me completely. What did I say to suggest that everyone doing it makes it less likely to continue? >Not all polluters are equal, but they should all be condemned and if possible stopped. It's a bit easier to pin blame for pollution on someone than it is to pin blame for meddling in another country's politics, which is almost necessarily clandestine. That's why it's reasonable to expect that countries will be able to make and keep agreements to limit pollution, even if they don't have a great relationship, but not particularly reasonable to expect that they will be able to make and keep agreements to not interfere in each others' internal affairs.