8 ms·

I was also surprised by this. I find it absolutely crazy. The reason is that just few days ago the parliament of Russia introduced a law on "fakes about Russian

by nuccy 5y ago

I was also surprised by this. I find it absolutely crazy. The reason is that just few days ago the parliament of Russia introduced a law on "fakes about Russian army" with 15 years in prison penalty. What is "fake" is not defined so anyone for any statement about the war could be put in prison. Ah yes, people are also forbidden to call this a war, an agression or an invasion. You may say that there are other outlets of information, but no, all critical to Russian government newspapers, radio stations, tv channels were recently closed. Facebook, BBC, DW, YouTube blocked. The best analogy to what is going on there would be: a frog slowly boiling in a pan.

nuccy 5y ago
People from the west may say: well yes, our media is biased also. And that is true, but direction of this bias is different for each media outlet, so by watching something else you can find discrepancies and inconsistencies. While in Russia all tv, radio, newspapers are government controlled, so they put the same fake and propaganda which due to lack of anything else (all blocked) yields brain washing on a whole country scale.
- irrational 5y ago
  Yes, I’ll just watch something else. https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    You don't get it. In the US you can watch something else, despite the oversized influence of media conglomerates.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      Not so much... Russian media is getting blocked in some places in the west too. RT was blocked from YouTube and TV in the UK for example.
      - bergie 5y ago
        Which totally makes sense. Russia is a dictatorship waging a war of aggression a democratic neighbour. Why should we give their state propaganda outlets any amplification?
        raffraffraff 5y ago
        I work with Russians. I want to know what lies they're being told. Right now it's tough to ask them for daily updates because frankly a lot of them hate this situation very much and are saddened and embarrassed by what their country is doing. I would also find it difficult to ask.
        sdb0 5y ago
        Because you believe in freedom of speech?
        twaw 5y ago
        Typical liberal democracy has 2 modes of work: peace time and war time. In time of peace, value of human life is infinite, thus fredom of someone ends where freedom of somewhere else starts. Nobody can cut basic freedoms of someone else without court decision. In time of war, this freedom creates vulnerability, so modern democraties have utalitarian laws designed to maximise survivability of nation as whole instead. It's not so important for behemoths, but it's essential for smaller countries. However, even in large and powerful democraties there are loopholes around basic freedoms for desperate times, such as natural disaster, or assault, or war, etc. For example, it's not allowed to shut somebody else, except when defending or to save life of someone else. It's not allowed to force somebody else to keep silence, except when it puts lifes of others in danger, such as hate speech, or division by race, color of skin, nationality, religion, income, etc. Russian outlets are doing just that. They are trying to portrait other nations as evils. They are telling to Ukrainians that Jews are rulling our country (half truth, many politics in Ukraine are Jews), then they tell to Jews that Ukrainians are Nazi, to induce fighting between nationalities, to start civil war. This creates danger for everybody, so we cried for years to shut down Russian propaganda. Nobody listened to us until today.
  - ArnoVW 5y ago
    While it is true that journalism has suffered recently, this is a false equivalent. It is true that in the US, if you want to live in a bubble, you can. However, that's a choice. There are many, many other information channels. And they are free to say whatever they want. The real issue in the US, is the fact that so many people choose to live in a bubble. I bumped into this Vox piece the other day, "How American conservatives turned against the vaccine", that illustrates quite well how it really is destroying the US https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0dQfRRrEQ
- jl6 5y ago
  Western media bias works by using selective reporting and omission, plus artful mixing of fact and opinion. It doesn’t too often make up outright bare-faced lies like we see coming from the Russian government.
  - ngcc_hk 5y ago
    You just do not have media h many cases. You can go to the Poland station and send a YouTube. Can you go to a Russian … All these rubbish on freedom of speech ignore the key difference. Individual still matters.
  - pydry 5y ago
    On this topic I can think of two that I'm seeing on a regular basis. 1. NATO is solely a defensive organization. Libya is the clearest counterexample but there others. 2. NATO never gave assurances it wouldnt move east. There are a number of recently released diplomatic caches that prove this to be false https://larouchepub.com/other/2021/4824-chatham_house_lies_about_aggre.html https://larouchepub.com/other/2021/4824-chatham_house_lies_a... https://news.antiwar.com/2022/02/21/uncovered-document-reveals-soviet-union-was-promised-no-nato-expansion-at-end-of-cold-war/ https://news.antiwar.com/2022/02/21/uncovered-document-revea... 2 is sometimes done selectively (by saying NATO never gave legal guarantees) but sometimes not.
    - mopsi 5y ago
      1. Lots of things get discussed. This was such a minor topic that Gorbachev didn't even recall it ever having been on agenda. Ultimately discussions lead to a formal agreement with a text approved by all sides and that's what counts. There is no formal agreement, only tiny snippets that mention it ever having been discussed. 2. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Even if such assurances had been made, a number (most by now?) of former parts of the Soviet Union have stepped away from it and applied for NATO. Why should Lithuania be eternally bound to an assurance made to the Soviet delegation, which at the time represented Lithuania? Even if all former members of the USSR applied for NATO, should they be denied because of the alleged assurance in the past to an entity that no longer exists?
- satellite2 5y ago
  It depends on the subject. Try to find a western media that defend the point of view of the Talibans for instance. Or their history and significance to the population for instance. Even in the most niche papers you won't find that. There will always be a line on their barbarian and anti democratic aspect. And that's why western medias didn't get that the US lost the war because the Talibans always had the backing of the majority of the population.
  - mijamo 5y ago
    It is not about defending but presenting the point of view. It is easy to find articles explaining the Taliban point of view and why they had support in Afghanistan (I even saw a very interesting 5 hours documentary on the national french television not long ago with interviews of prominent talibans). It is not easy to find articles explaining the Ukrainian point of view in current Russian media.
    - satellite2 5y ago
      > It is not easy to find articles explaining the Ukrainian point of view Is it? Or is it just like the documentary you mention, somehow factual but leaving you only with contempt and outrage?
      - ithkuil 5y ago
        If I had access to true Taliban information, produced by Talibans honestly explaining their positions , what they do, what they want their world to be like, etc, do you think it's likely I would just say "oh sure, it makes sense, I've been brainwashed into thinking you were something completely different"?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - everfrustrated 5y ago
    Sure but representing the biases of their own reporters/population is very different than representing a censorship board run by a government.
- yk 5y ago
  There are also a lot of systematic biases in western media, first of all they all write that the west is really, really great. If they don't write that, and only write that the west is really great, then their readers will look for a publication that uses an appropriate number of "really" when telling their readers that the west, and by extension the presumably western reader, is great.
  - Etherlord87 5y ago
    Can you point to some examples of that? Sorry but your revelations sound like utter bs...
    - yk 5y ago
      Iran's nuclear program, that looks actually a lot like Germany's in the 60ies. Both are most likely some kind of nuclear threshold strategy, that is one tries to exploit dual use technology and push the actual decision wether it is a civilian or military nuclear program as far out as possible. Now, it is possible to interpret that as a military program, however the qualifier that that is an interpretation, and that it wasn't actually shown is always lost. And that is precisely how these kinds of biases work, it is not that newspapers outright lie, they just use their wiggling room in a consistent manner. Actually best to observe is at the Olympics, there is across competitions and therefore across commentators, a very consistent national hierarchy for which athletes the moderator will make excuses or for which athletes the moderator seeks to qualify the performance. (Think of doping for example.)
  - watwut 5y ago
    This is ... just not true. I mean, it is not true about media in EU. It is not true about right wing media in America. It is not true about centrist media in America. And not true about their leftist ones.
Aeolun 5y ago
“The recent unpleasantness in Ukraine”
EugeneOZ 5y ago
You wrote everything correct, I just want to explain a little bit for the western audience: “fake” here doesn't mean that facts will be checked. It means: “if you are posting something we don't like - chief editor and some journalists will be jailed”. And chief editor of this newspaper has this prize: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2021/muratov/facts/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2021/muratov/facts/
topper-123 5y ago
This is actually easy to know: Did you say something positive (judged by the state)? It is not fake news. Did you say something negative (judged by the state)? It is fake news. It is a simple erosion of citizen rights, giving the state vastly more power over its citizens than previously.

by nuccy 5y ago

nuccy 5y ago

People from the west may say: well yes, our media is biased also. And that is true, but direction of this bias is different for each media outlet, so by watching something else you can find discrepancies and inconsistencies. While in Russia all tv, radio, newspapers are government controlled, so they put the same fake and propaganda which due to lack of anything else (all blocked) yields brain washing on a whole country scale.

irrational 5y ago
Yes, I’ll just watch something else. https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo
- clusterfish 5y ago
  You don't get it. In the US you can watch something else, despite the oversized influence of media conglomerates.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    Not so much... Russian media is getting blocked in some places in the west too. RT was blocked from YouTube and TV in the UK for example.
    - bergie 5y ago
      Which totally makes sense. Russia is a dictatorship waging a war of aggression a democratic neighbour. Why should we give their state propaganda outlets any amplification?
      - raffraffraff 5y ago
        I work with Russians. I want to know what lies they're being told. Right now it's tough to ask them for daily updates because frankly a lot of them hate this situation very much and are saddened and embarrassed by what their country is doing. I would also find it difficult to ask.
      - sdb0 5y ago
        Because you believe in freedom of speech?
        twaw 5y ago
        Typical liberal democracy has 2 modes of work: peace time and war time. In time of peace, value of human life is infinite, thus fredom of someone ends where freedom of somewhere else starts. Nobody can cut basic freedoms of someone else without court decision. In time of war, this freedom creates vulnerability, so modern democraties have utalitarian laws designed to maximise survivability of nation as whole instead. It's not so important for behemoths, but it's essential for smaller countries. However, even in large and powerful democraties there are loopholes around basic freedoms for desperate times, such as natural disaster, or assault, or war, etc. For example, it's not allowed to shut somebody else, except when defending or to save life of someone else. It's not allowed to force somebody else to keep silence, except when it puts lifes of others in danger, such as hate speech, or division by race, color of skin, nationality, religion, income, etc. Russian outlets are doing just that. They are trying to portrait other nations as evils. They are telling to Ukrainians that Jews are rulling our country (half truth, many politics in Ukraine are Jews), then they tell to Jews that Ukrainians are Nazi, to induce fighting between nationalities, to start civil war. This creates danger for everybody, so we cried for years to shut down Russian propaganda. Nobody listened to us until today.
- ArnoVW 5y ago
  While it is true that journalism has suffered recently, this is a false equivalent. It is true that in the US, if you want to live in a bubble, you can. However, that's a choice. There are many, many other information channels. And they are free to say whatever they want. The real issue in the US, is the fact that so many people choose to live in a bubble. I bumped into this Vox piece the other day, "How American conservatives turned against the vaccine", that illustrates quite well how it really is destroying the US https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0dQfRRrEQ
jl6 5y ago
Western media bias works by using selective reporting and omission, plus artful mixing of fact and opinion. It doesn’t too often make up outright bare-faced lies like we see coming from the Russian government.
- ngcc_hk 5y ago
  You just do not have media h many cases. You can go to the Poland station and send a YouTube. Can you go to a Russian … All these rubbish on freedom of speech ignore the key difference. Individual still matters.
- pydry 5y ago
  On this topic I can think of two that I'm seeing on a regular basis. 1. NATO is solely a defensive organization. Libya is the clearest counterexample but there others. 2. NATO never gave assurances it wouldnt move east. There are a number of recently released diplomatic caches that prove this to be false https://larouchepub.com/other/2021/4824-chatham_house_lies_about_aggre.html https://larouchepub.com/other/2021/4824-chatham_house_lies_a... https://news.antiwar.com/2022/02/21/uncovered-document-reveals-soviet-union-was-promised-no-nato-expansion-at-end-of-cold-war/ https://news.antiwar.com/2022/02/21/uncovered-document-revea... 2 is sometimes done selectively (by saying NATO never gave legal guarantees) but sometimes not.
  - mopsi 5y ago
    1. Lots of things get discussed. This was such a minor topic that Gorbachev didn't even recall it ever having been on agenda. Ultimately discussions lead to a formal agreement with a text approved by all sides and that's what counts. There is no formal agreement, only tiny snippets that mention it ever having been discussed. 2. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Even if such assurances had been made, a number (most by now?) of former parts of the Soviet Union have stepped away from it and applied for NATO. Why should Lithuania be eternally bound to an assurance made to the Soviet delegation, which at the time represented Lithuania? Even if all former members of the USSR applied for NATO, should they be denied because of the alleged assurance in the past to an entity that no longer exists?
satellite2 5y ago
It depends on the subject. Try to find a western media that defend the point of view of the Talibans for instance. Or their history and significance to the population for instance. Even in the most niche papers you won't find that. There will always be a line on their barbarian and anti democratic aspect. And that's why western medias didn't get that the US lost the war because the Talibans always had the backing of the majority of the population.
- mijamo 5y ago
  It is not about defending but presenting the point of view. It is easy to find articles explaining the Taliban point of view and why they had support in Afghanistan (I even saw a very interesting 5 hours documentary on the national french television not long ago with interviews of prominent talibans). It is not easy to find articles explaining the Ukrainian point of view in current Russian media.
  - satellite2 5y ago
    > It is not easy to find articles explaining the Ukrainian point of view Is it? Or is it just like the documentary you mention, somehow factual but leaving you only with contempt and outrage?
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      If I had access to true Taliban information, produced by Talibans honestly explaining their positions , what they do, what they want their world to be like, etc, do you think it's likely I would just say "oh sure, it makes sense, I've been brainwashed into thinking you were something completely different"?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- everfrustrated 5y ago
  Sure but representing the biases of their own reporters/population is very different than representing a censorship board run by a government.
yk 5y ago
There are also a lot of systematic biases in western media, first of all they all write that the west is really, really great. If they don't write that, and only write that the west is really great, then their readers will look for a publication that uses an appropriate number of "really" when telling their readers that the west, and by extension the presumably western reader, is great.
- Etherlord87 5y ago
  Can you point to some examples of that? Sorry but your revelations sound like utter bs...
  - yk 5y ago
    Iran's nuclear program, that looks actually a lot like Germany's in the 60ies. Both are most likely some kind of nuclear threshold strategy, that is one tries to exploit dual use technology and push the actual decision wether it is a civilian or military nuclear program as far out as possible. Now, it is possible to interpret that as a military program, however the qualifier that that is an interpretation, and that it wasn't actually shown is always lost. And that is precisely how these kinds of biases work, it is not that newspapers outright lie, they just use their wiggling room in a consistent manner. Actually best to observe is at the Olympics, there is across competitions and therefore across commentators, a very consistent national hierarchy for which athletes the moderator will make excuses or for which athletes the moderator seeks to qualify the performance. (Think of doping for example.)
- watwut 5y ago
  This is ... just not true. I mean, it is not true about media in EU. It is not true about right wing media in America. It is not true about centrist media in America. And not true about their leftist ones.

Aeolun 5y ago

“The recent unpleasantness in Ukraine”

EugeneOZ 5y ago

You wrote everything correct, I just want to explain a little bit for the western audience: “fake” here doesn't mean that facts will be checked. It means: “if you are posting something we don't like - chief editor and some journalists will be jailed”. And chief editor of this newspaper has this prize: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2021/muratov/facts/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2021/muratov/facts/

topper-123 5y ago

This is actually easy to know: Did you say something positive (judged by the state)? It is not fake news. Did you say something negative (judged by the state)? It is fake news. It is a simple erosion of citizen rights, giving the state vastly more power over its citizens than previously.