6 ms·

I have been starting to read TASS news in parallel to Reuters' feed. From only reading news, I don't know which side to trust anymore. Putin's gov denies almos

by antpls 8y ago

I have been starting to read TASS news in parallel to Reuters' feed. From only reading news, I don't know which side to trust anymore. Putin's gov denies almost all accusations (cyberattacks, chimical attacks, nerve agents, etc) from Western countries, and instead accuses the West govs of creating a "russo-phobia" amongst people opinion. Example of news you can read on TASS, but not relayed by Reuters : http://tass.com/politics/1021365 http://tass.com/politics/1021365 http://tass.com/politics/1021274 http://tass.com/politics/1021274 http://tass.com/defense/1021107 http://tass.com/defense/1021107 http://tass.com/world/1021091 http://tass.com/world/1021091 And it goes on and on... If you only read TASS, you would quickly think Western govs are not much "cleaner" than Russia

dragonwriter 8y ago
Reuters isn't a state-owned propaganda outlet; TASS has been since at least the early days of the Bolshevik regime (and maybe earlier; it was state-owned telegraph agency under the Tsarist regime, but I don't have any information of whether it acted as a state propaganda arm then; it's journalist came from a separate firm.)
- guilhas 8y ago
  That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. And commentators with different opinions being shutdown.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. A simple explanation for that is that facts exist and impact the coverage presented by media outlets that make some effort to do what their overt role is. I mean, alternatively, you could suspect,as you imply, that all non-fringe media that aren't state run propaganda arms of US rivals are, in fact, US state propaganda outlets pushing CIA/NSA scripted narratives. Well, except when Paul Manafort isn't planting propaganda for Russian client regimes in them, at any rate.
    - guilhas 8y ago
      I just agree we are better informed watching news from both countries when it involves them. Be it state owned or not. "Hillary is going to win the election!" Was certainly propaganda. I don't have any theory, but you can see they all somehow sing to the same tune, including UK and EU. They want to give their approved opinions instead of reporting reality. With the exception of the ocasional independent journalist.
      - krapp 8y ago
        >"Hillary is going to win the election!" Was certainly propaganda. An opinion that one of two candidates would win the election was "certainly propaganda?"
        guilhas 8y ago
        Ok. What I meat was: "All mainstream media claiming Hillary was certainly the election winner. And some pointing statistics like 95%." was propaganda.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        No, the predictors making that prediction weren't doing propaganda, and most mainstream outlets didn't make that (or any other prediction), though many reported the fact of the existence of one or more of the predictions that were made. Those making the 95% prediction were using statistical models established for that purpose before the identity of the candidates or what those models would show were known. They quite arguably are bad models as they assumed state level deviations from polling results are independent where history suggests that, in fact, they are strongly correlated (a fact pointed out by Nate Silver prior to the election, in explaining why 538 had a much lower projection of Clinton's probability of victory.) But choosing a bad model isn't propaganda.
        guilhas 8y ago
        Nice excuses. What I heard was the media, and the "experts", did a bad job. A poll, your favorite. Let's hope they used a good model. https://news.gallup.com/poll/197090/majority-voters-think-media-favors-clinton.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/197090/majority-voters-think-me...
megous 8y ago
Yeah, the difference is striking. I can understand why he'd like to believe that outsiders hate Russians rather than him, yet people often times say Putin or Kremlin, to differentiate between ordinary Russians and the actions of their government. Even more so, if they have experience living under an authoritarian regime.

by antpls 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

Reuters isn't a state-owned propaganda outlet; TASS has been since at least the early days of the Bolshevik regime (and maybe earlier; it was state-owned telegraph agency under the Tsarist regime, but I don't have any information of whether it acted as a state propaganda arm then; it's journalist came from a separate firm.)

guilhas 8y ago
That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. And commentators with different opinions being shutdown.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. A simple explanation for that is that facts exist and impact the coverage presented by media outlets that make some effort to do what their overt role is. I mean, alternatively, you could suspect,as you imply, that all non-fringe media that aren't state run propaganda arms of US rivals are, in fact, US state propaganda outlets pushing CIA/NSA scripted narratives. Well, except when Paul Manafort isn't planting propaganda for Russian client regimes in them, at any rate.
  - guilhas 8y ago
    I just agree we are better informed watching news from both countries when it involves them. Be it state owned or not. "Hillary is going to win the election!" Was certainly propaganda. I don't have any theory, but you can see they all somehow sing to the same tune, including UK and EU. They want to give their approved opinions instead of reporting reality. With the exception of the ocasional independent journalist.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >"Hillary is going to win the election!" Was certainly propaganda. An opinion that one of two candidates would win the election was "certainly propaganda?"
      - guilhas 8y ago
        Ok. What I meat was: "All mainstream media claiming Hillary was certainly the election winner. And some pointing statistics like 95%." was propaganda.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        No, the predictors making that prediction weren't doing propaganda, and most mainstream outlets didn't make that (or any other prediction), though many reported the fact of the existence of one or more of the predictions that were made. Those making the 95% prediction were using statistical models established for that purpose before the identity of the candidates or what those models would show were known. They quite arguably are bad models as they assumed state level deviations from polling results are independent where history suggests that, in fact, they are strongly correlated (a fact pointed out by Nate Silver prior to the election, in explaining why 538 had a much lower projection of Clinton's probability of victory.) But choosing a bad model isn't propaganda.
        guilhas 8y ago
        Nice excuses. What I heard was the media, and the "experts", did a bad job. A poll, your favorite. Let's hope they used a good model. https://news.gallup.com/poll/197090/majority-voters-think-media-favors-clinton.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/197090/majority-voters-think-me...

megous 8y ago

Yeah, the difference is striking. I can understand why he'd like to believe that outsiders hate Russians rather than him, yet people often times say Putin or Kremlin, to differentiate between ordinary Russians and the actions of their government. Even more so, if they have experience living under an authoritarian regime.