6 ms·

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 watchin

by 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.
        Etherlord87 5y ago
        I don't think the separation to the time of peace and time of war is even needed. Ideally, any limitation of freedom is there to actually guarantee freedom, e.g. your freedom is limited in the form of an obligation to come to a police station to submit an explanation, but thanks to that the police can protect people from those that would otherwise limit their freedoms. In similar vein, freedom of speech has to be limited, when some propaganda could lead to the decrease of the freedom. It is tricky of course to judge what limitations are justified, but I find the sanctions against russian news sources on the quite safe side.
        sdb0 5y ago
        Freedom of speech is not a vulnerability. The war did not start because too many westerners were able to watch RT. Ukraine is not in danger because of any conflict between jews and nazis.
      - TMWNN 5y ago
        I am reading Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia (<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/>). Right after hearing about YouTube shutting down Russian state media channels, I was surprised to learn in the book of the extent of the freedom of the press in late 18th-century Prussia. A British visitor wrote that people were as free to speak as back home, citing a work that was very critical of the king in the context of Poland. During the Napoleonic wars, despite the existential threat to Prussia from France, at least four newspapers that celebrated Revolutionary France as the next step in human freedom were allowed to publish. It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech. Even liars deserve the opportunity to speak. This is especially true when there is no formally declared war between the US and Russia.
        feurio 5y ago
        How did it work out for Prussia?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Russian propaganda. Russia doesn't have any functional media at the moment.
    - ArnoVW 5y ago
      Agree with you on the fact that it was a questionable move. But there is a big difference between excluding one source (which is directly and formally controlled by the Russian state).. and putting 15 year sentences on "publishing things that are not coming from the state news agency" (TAS) BTW, and just FYI, if you want you can still read rt.com using 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8
- 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.

by nuccy 5y ago

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.
        Etherlord87 5y ago
        I don't think the separation to the time of peace and time of war is even needed. Ideally, any limitation of freedom is there to actually guarantee freedom, e.g. your freedom is limited in the form of an obligation to come to a police station to submit an explanation, but thanks to that the police can protect people from those that would otherwise limit their freedoms. In similar vein, freedom of speech has to be limited, when some propaganda could lead to the decrease of the freedom. It is tricky of course to judge what limitations are justified, but I find the sanctions against russian news sources on the quite safe side.
        sdb0 5y ago
        Freedom of speech is not a vulnerability. The war did not start because too many westerners were able to watch RT. Ukraine is not in danger because of any conflict between jews and nazis.
    - TMWNN 5y ago
      I am reading Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia (<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/>). Right after hearing about YouTube shutting down Russian state media channels, I was surprised to learn in the book of the extent of the freedom of the press in late 18th-century Prussia. A British visitor wrote that people were as free to speak as back home, citing a work that was very critical of the king in the context of Poland. During the Napoleonic wars, despite the existential threat to Prussia from France, at least four newspapers that celebrated Revolutionary France as the next step in human freedom were allowed to publish. It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech. Even liars deserve the opportunity to speak. This is especially true when there is no formally declared war between the US and Russia.
      - feurio 5y ago
        How did it work out for Prussia?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Russian propaganda. Russia doesn't have any functional media at the moment.
  - ArnoVW 5y ago
    Agree with you on the fact that it was a questionable move. But there is a big difference between excluding one source (which is directly and formally controlled by the Russian state).. and putting 15 year sentences on "publishing things that are not coming from the state news agency" (TAS) BTW, and just FYI, if you want you can still read rt.com using 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8
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.