3 ms·

For sure, but it's also the other way around, I read RTV for some time (everybody should), same news, very different angle. The fear and contempt of the west (t

For sure, but it's also the other way around, I read RTV for some time (everybody should), same news, very different angle. The fear and contempt of the west (the NATO) is palpable. I imagine it is the same the other way around, but I am just used to it. Edit: A nice example: EU: https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-what-is-the-controversy-about/a-44677741 https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-what-is-the... RT: https://www.rt.com/business/476844-eu-russia-us-sanctions/ https://www.rt.com/business/476844-eu-russia-us-sanctions/

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
Yes, I absolutely recognise that. I've spent enough time in both Sweden and Russia (and Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, etc, etc, etc) to recognise the same stories and military expeditions being told from different angles. It is absolutely true that each nation tells their citizens their own stories. The point I took issue with was in the excerpt I pulled, which describes the Western perspective as the "conventional" one, which seems a rather Americentric thing to write.
teddyh 5y ago
This is literal whataboutism.
- markenqualitaet 5y ago
  It is not, I think, if it's the _exact same relation in reverse.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    It is still whataboutism. Do two wrongs make a right? Does an accusation of hypocrisy nullify any original criticism, no matter how true?
    - markenqualitaet 5y ago
      No, I get what you mean, but I still think it's a different argument in nature. It's not two wrongs, it's one and the same. For me typical fallacy would be something like "You did A. A is bad." "So what? You did B. B is bad." This tries to dismiss A , while "Both did A." tells us something about A.