4 ms·

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 lie

by 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?
  - pydry 5y ago
    >Lots of things get discussed. Yes, and the contents of those discussions have been released under FOIA. >This was such a minor topic that Gorbachev didn't even recall it ever having been on agenda. I have no idea why Gorbachev's memory failed but it's clearly there in the minutes. In many discussions. Pretending that it never happened is a lie. >The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore Russia is the successor state.
mushbino 5y ago
Exactly. The news doesn't lie to me about the wealthy dodging taxes, but they sure don't report on it. There are also lots of technical truths, but heavily spun.
- maigret 5y ago
  Huh? I read almost everywhere about it. Never heard about the Panama Papers?
  - Tepix 5y ago
    Look at every single article discussing new taxes for the rich. You will find people (sometimes the article itself) arguing that the rich shouldn't be taxed because their money will "trickle down", despite this myth having been refuted decades ago.
    - maigret 5y ago
      I know at least as many articles saying the opposite. I consume news from at least 4 countries, and I see some countries are more leaning toward one direction. I suggest you widen your news intake then.
      - Tepix 5y ago
        But how many countries have introduced new taxes for the rich in the last decades?
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  Actually it's worse, there are lots of media publishing opinions, factoids, and things interesting to their audience. But depending on which media you read you are going to end up with a very different understanding of what is going on. Russia has used this polarization to its advantage in recent years by adding its own targeted misinformation to the mix designed to further increase polarization (as opposed as to merely convincing people of their notion of the truth). Weaponized propaganda basically. Divisions in society erode the strength of alliances like NATO, it causes people to vote for outlier politicians, etc. Zelenski is a good example of such a politician where this actually backfired: he really stepped up. But the strategy was perhaps successful in the sense that Ukrainian governance has probably not been that great in recent years. The usual mix of populism, inept politicians, corruption, and mismanagement. The Russians are world leading experts when it comes to mass delusion, propaganda, and misinformation and they completely control domestic media and information distribution. As far as many Russians are concerned this is a peace mission that is being frustrated by armies of neo-nazis sponsored by evil westerners. That's the official narrative right now. It's bat shit crazy of course but it follows many years of misinformation, indoctrination, and propaganda in a country that hasn't had a free press for a long time to correct any of these believes. Also a note of caution: The Russians are extremely clued in and all over public fora like this. So, beware that what you read might be written by them. It might look and sound reasonable to you but that doesn't mean it isn't carefully designed to manipulate you into disagreeing with others. It would be preying on your confirmation bias. It doesn't matter what that bias is, they'll feed it. It's a divide and conquer strategy. They'll happily feed inflammatory opinions to both sides of a debate just to make them hate each other some more. If you hadn't noticed, politics were kind of intense lately.

by jl6 5y ago

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?
- pydry 5y ago
  >Lots of things get discussed. Yes, and the contents of those discussions have been released under FOIA. >This was such a minor topic that Gorbachev didn't even recall it ever having been on agenda. I have no idea why Gorbachev's memory failed but it's clearly there in the minutes. In many discussions. Pretending that it never happened is a lie. >The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore Russia is the successor state.

mushbino 5y ago

Exactly. The news doesn't lie to me about the wealthy dodging taxes, but they sure don't report on it. There are also lots of technical truths, but heavily spun.

maigret 5y ago
Huh? I read almost everywhere about it. Never heard about the Panama Papers?
- Tepix 5y ago
  Look at every single article discussing new taxes for the rich. You will find people (sometimes the article itself) arguing that the rich shouldn't be taxed because their money will "trickle down", despite this myth having been refuted decades ago.
  - maigret 5y ago
    I know at least as many articles saying the opposite. I consume news from at least 4 countries, and I see some countries are more leaning toward one direction. I suggest you widen your news intake then.
    - Tepix 5y ago
      But how many countries have introduced new taxes for the rich in the last decades?
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Actually it's worse, there are lots of media publishing opinions, factoids, and things interesting to their audience. But depending on which media you read you are going to end up with a very different understanding of what is going on. Russia has used this polarization to its advantage in recent years by adding its own targeted misinformation to the mix designed to further increase polarization (as opposed as to merely convincing people of their notion of the truth). Weaponized propaganda basically. Divisions in society erode the strength of alliances like NATO, it causes people to vote for outlier politicians, etc. Zelenski is a good example of such a politician where this actually backfired: he really stepped up. But the strategy was perhaps successful in the sense that Ukrainian governance has probably not been that great in recent years. The usual mix of populism, inept politicians, corruption, and mismanagement. The Russians are world leading experts when it comes to mass delusion, propaganda, and misinformation and they completely control domestic media and information distribution. As far as many Russians are concerned this is a peace mission that is being frustrated by armies of neo-nazis sponsored by evil westerners. That's the official narrative right now. It's bat shit crazy of course but it follows many years of misinformation, indoctrination, and propaganda in a country that hasn't had a free press for a long time to correct any of these believes. Also a note of caution: The Russians are extremely clued in and all over public fora like this. So, beware that what you read might be written by them. It might look and sound reasonable to you but that doesn't mean it isn't carefully designed to manipulate you into disagreeing with others. It would be preying on your confirmation bias. It doesn't matter what that bias is, they'll feed it. It's a divide and conquer strategy. They'll happily feed inflammatory opinions to both sides of a debate just to make them hate each other some more. If you hadn't noticed, politics were kind of intense lately.