4 ms·

They definitely pick up a lot of Russian talking points (see their virulent skepticism over the Skripal attack), but they serve as a very useful counterbalance

They definitely pick up a lot of Russian talking points (see their virulent skepticism over the Skripal attack), but they serve as a very useful counterbalance to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, et al. I shudder at whatever Orwellian hellscape we've landed in when people celebrate the censorship of a differently minded news source instead of utilizing it: read both it and your mainstream sources with a filter, apply your own independent thought and judgment and arrive at your own conclusion.

darkpuma 8y ago
> "Russian talking points" Anti-Maduro rioters being responsible for the aid-truck fire was a "Russian talking point" until a few days ago when the New York Times, America's most venerable newspaper of record, finally admitted it was true. Credit to arcseco for drawing my attention to this: https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-... At least this time it didn't take the New York Times the better part of 60 years to admit they were wrong, as it did when they were publishing Russian talking points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
- cloakandswagger 8y ago
  I totally agree, and just because something is promoted strongly by Russia doesn't mean it's false, it just highlights the importance of reading a variety of different sources and applying your own critical thinking to find the truth. Two examples: The Venezuelan aid-truck stunt. Clearly orchestrated by the US to help nudge regime change. On the other hand, the MH17 crash: clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet and coming up with some outlandish claims against the evidence (ie that it was faked with CGI). Both are instances where the truth would've been lost on someone who exclusively reads and believes only one source of news.
  - rightbyte 8y ago
    "clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet" Why not: "probably a case of Russian or Ukrainian forces shooting down a passenger jet"? Why "clearly" US burning the truck instead of say a local false flag or truck malfunction? You make a lot of assumptions for saying something is clear.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right. I mean all of that is just common sense. The relative rate at which any of those scenarios unfolds is up in the air, but it's pretty clear all of those scenarios happen at least some of the time. When you see somebody claiming otherwise (e.g. "Russian media disagrees with American media, so the Russian media must be wrong." or "American media disagrees with the Russian media, so the American media must be wrong") you can be sure their opinion is invalid. They could legitimize their opinion by acknowledging a degree of uncertainty, by adding the word "probably" to either of those statements. Here is the key: recognizing the possibility that you could be wrong. Acknowledgement of uncertainty may run counter to ego, but it's important. Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
      - tivert 8y ago
        > What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right. Correct/incorrect is not the only axis on which to evaluate media. There's also trustworthiness. I think that Russian media is less trustworthy than American media because it's not independent [1] from a government controlled by people who's jobs included running disinformation campaigns like Operation Infektion [2] [3], which included cooperation from state-controlled media. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia#Government_ownership_and_control_of_media_outlets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia#Govern... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-disinformation-fake-news-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-d...
minikites 8y ago
>a differently minded news source What else falls in this category? Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccine advocates? Holocaust deniers? It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  >What else falls in this category? Another person who thinks they should be the arbiter of the truth for the world, attempting to make an argument for ideological limitations on speech. The entire basis for thinking democracy is even possible, much less a good idea, is that man is a rational being capable of applying logical and moral reasoning in pursuit of the truth, or least the best answer. You seem to disagree. The allowance of free expression on all topics and ideas along with rational debate ensures that better ideas are not suppressed and that the worst ideas get exposed and defeated. >Flat Earthers? Shouldn't be difficult to prove wrong. >Anti-vaccine advocates? Science should be able to put their fears to rest while disproving their arguments. No? >Holocaust deniers? Again, there is historical evidence that can be used to defeat their arguments and expose their true agenda. No? What part of suppressing those ideas, or silencing their advocates rather than debating them, proves that your argument is the correct one? Because you happen to think you have authority with whatever consensus you think exists? Do you think truth is based on consensus? Do you not see how it makes your position more suspicious (as in fraudulent) if you are not willing to address the challenges of skeptics or even devil's advocates? Also, given what we know about astroturfing and social media bots, how many of these people do you really think there are? >It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills Well, that would have been even more true when the concept of free speech was established, when literacy rates were truly abysmal, as in the vast majority of people in even the most advanced societies couldn't even read. You are saying the problem is either that people today can acquire the information and/or that they lack the capacity to apply reason and logic in order to separate truth from fiction? So is the problem that information which isn't necessarily "true" or "morally good" is available? Or is it that people lack the tools needed in order to separate truth from fiction, reality from theory, good from bad, etc? Is it an education/skill development thing, or a mental capacity/IQ thing? Where do ethics and morality come in to play, and what would that have to do with "information literacy" when speaking of anti-vax people? >and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019. Measles was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000. Did people have higher "information literacy" back in the 80s and 90s than they do now? Was there nobody who was against vaccinations in the 80s and 90s? And if it was eliminated from the US by the year 2000, and it is a re-emerging problem in 2019, then didn't it actually have to be imported? It couldn't have anything to do with the 10s of millions of illiterate and poorly educated, un-vaccinated illegal immigrants from the third world that have been flooding this country for the last several decades, could it? No, it must be the ${insert ideological opponent of the day} and their ${straw-man trait based on bigoted assumptions} who are wrong.

darkpuma 8y ago

> "Russian talking points" Anti-Maduro rioters being responsible for the aid-truck fire was a "Russian talking point" until a few days ago when the New York Times, America's most venerable newspaper of record, finally admitted it was true. Credit to arcseco for drawing my attention to this: https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-... At least this time it didn't take the New York Times the better part of 60 years to admit they were wrong, as it did when they were publishing Russian talking points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

cloakandswagger 8y ago
I totally agree, and just because something is promoted strongly by Russia doesn't mean it's false, it just highlights the importance of reading a variety of different sources and applying your own critical thinking to find the truth. Two examples: The Venezuelan aid-truck stunt. Clearly orchestrated by the US to help nudge regime change. On the other hand, the MH17 crash: clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet and coming up with some outlandish claims against the evidence (ie that it was faked with CGI). Both are instances where the truth would've been lost on someone who exclusively reads and believes only one source of news.
- rightbyte 8y ago
  "clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet" Why not: "probably a case of Russian or Ukrainian forces shooting down a passenger jet"? Why "clearly" US burning the truck instead of say a local false flag or truck malfunction? You make a lot of assumptions for saying something is clear.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right. I mean all of that is just common sense. The relative rate at which any of those scenarios unfolds is up in the air, but it's pretty clear all of those scenarios happen at least some of the time. When you see somebody claiming otherwise (e.g. "Russian media disagrees with American media, so the Russian media must be wrong." or "American media disagrees with the Russian media, so the American media must be wrong") you can be sure their opinion is invalid. They could legitimize their opinion by acknowledging a degree of uncertainty, by adding the word "probably" to either of those statements. Here is the key: recognizing the possibility that you could be wrong. Acknowledgement of uncertainty may run counter to ego, but it's important. Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
    - tivert 8y ago
      > What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right. Correct/incorrect is not the only axis on which to evaluate media. There's also trustworthiness. I think that Russian media is less trustworthy than American media because it's not independent [1] from a government controlled by people who's jobs included running disinformation campaigns like Operation Infektion [2] [3], which included cooperation from state-controlled media. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia#Government_ownership_and_control_of_media_outlets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia#Govern... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-disinformation-fake-news-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-d...

minikites 8y ago

>a differently minded news source What else falls in this category? Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccine advocates? Holocaust deniers? It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019.

a_tractor 8y ago
>What else falls in this category? Another person who thinks they should be the arbiter of the truth for the world, attempting to make an argument for ideological limitations on speech. The entire basis for thinking democracy is even possible, much less a good idea, is that man is a rational being capable of applying logical and moral reasoning in pursuit of the truth, or least the best answer. You seem to disagree. The allowance of free expression on all topics and ideas along with rational debate ensures that better ideas are not suppressed and that the worst ideas get exposed and defeated. >Flat Earthers? Shouldn't be difficult to prove wrong. >Anti-vaccine advocates? Science should be able to put their fears to rest while disproving their arguments. No? >Holocaust deniers? Again, there is historical evidence that can be used to defeat their arguments and expose their true agenda. No? What part of suppressing those ideas, or silencing their advocates rather than debating them, proves that your argument is the correct one? Because you happen to think you have authority with whatever consensus you think exists? Do you think truth is based on consensus? Do you not see how it makes your position more suspicious (as in fraudulent) if you are not willing to address the challenges of skeptics or even devil's advocates? Also, given what we know about astroturfing and social media bots, how many of these people do you really think there are? >It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills Well, that would have been even more true when the concept of free speech was established, when literacy rates were truly abysmal, as in the vast majority of people in even the most advanced societies couldn't even read. You are saying the problem is either that people today can acquire the information and/or that they lack the capacity to apply reason and logic in order to separate truth from fiction? So is the problem that information which isn't necessarily "true" or "morally good" is available? Or is it that people lack the tools needed in order to separate truth from fiction, reality from theory, good from bad, etc? Is it an education/skill development thing, or a mental capacity/IQ thing? Where do ethics and morality come in to play, and what would that have to do with "information literacy" when speaking of anti-vax people? >and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019. Measles was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000. Did people have higher "information literacy" back in the 80s and 90s than they do now? Was there nobody who was against vaccinations in the 80s and 90s? And if it was eliminated from the US by the year 2000, and it is a re-emerging problem in 2019, then didn't it actually have to be imported? It couldn't have anything to do with the 10s of millions of illiterate and poorly educated, un-vaccinated illegal immigrants from the third world that have been flooding this country for the last several decades, could it? No, it must be the ${insert ideological opponent of the day} and their ${straw-man trait based on bigoted assumptions} who are wrong.