4 ms·

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 di

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...
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Trustworthiness is (or should be) a matter of the rate at which they're correct.
      - tivert 8y ago
        No. Something can be entirely factually correct, but untrustworthy, as demonstrated by the concept of lying by omission. Something can also be factually correct, but untrustworthy, by asking a bunch of spurious questions that are calculated to mislead. For instance: > Did Sweden shoot down MH17? Why are they denying that they shot it down, is there a coverup? Our defense experts have shown that the attack occurred within the range of the Swedish JAS-39 fighter, so they could have done it. What do the Swedes have to hide?
        darkpuma 8y ago
        > "lying by omission." That's why you should read multiple sources, not one. If one source is omitting details but not otherwise lying, you'll get those details from other sources. To reiterate my earlier example, when western media were omitting evidence that Anti-Maduro rioters had started the fire, you could still become aware of this information by paying attention to what some in the western press were calling "Russian talking points". Regardless, you've not refuted the essential truism here, that no western source is always right and that Russian sources are not always wrong.

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...
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Trustworthiness is (or should be) a matter of the rate at which they're correct.
    - tivert 8y ago
      No. Something can be entirely factually correct, but untrustworthy, as demonstrated by the concept of lying by omission. Something can also be factually correct, but untrustworthy, by asking a bunch of spurious questions that are calculated to mislead. For instance: > Did Sweden shoot down MH17? Why are they denying that they shot it down, is there a coverup? Our defense experts have shown that the attack occurred within the range of the Swedish JAS-39 fighter, so they could have done it. What do the Swedes have to hide?
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        > "lying by omission." That's why you should read multiple sources, not one. If one source is omitting details but not otherwise lying, you'll get those details from other sources. To reiterate my earlier example, when western media were omitting evidence that Anti-Maduro rioters had started the fire, you could still become aware of this information by paying attention to what some in the western press were calling "Russian talking points". Regardless, you've not refuted the essential truism here, that no western source is always right and that Russian sources are not always wrong.