3 ms·

I think it's understandable. It's very hard to believe whatever either side is reporting. And before you say that's what Russian bots want you to believe, I'll

by Ygg2 5y ago

I think it's understandable. It's very hard to believe whatever either side is reporting. And before you say that's what Russian bots want you to believe, I'll add I lost my trust after Iraq war reporting (like who in their right mind confuses plot of The Rock (film) and WMD in real life), and then after Trump's victory in 2016 (media I was following at the time were making it out to be a sure fire thing for Hillary which is opposite of what happened). I remain a skeptic and will wait for 5+ years to see what actually happened.

sumedh 5y ago
> out to be a sure fire thing for Hillary which is opposite of what happened She could have probably won but Comey decided at the very end to open the email investigation again. That generated negative publicity for her.
simion314 5y ago
>It's very hard to believe whatever either side is reporting. You have more then Russian and Ukrainian news, there are reporters from other countries present on the ground, probably mostly English sources are link but I assure you for example there are Romanian reporters there and filming stuff, there are reporters filing refuges and asking questions. There were some Russian free press reports too you could have read/watched until recently too(maybe dig in archives) There are trolls posting fake images but if you ignore the hot new posts from social media you can get a good enough picture of reality.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
codeflo 5y ago
It seems so easy to fall into a false balance trap. But while Western media is certainly flawed, there’s a fundamental difference between honest mistakes and intentional lies. The truth is very unlikely to be half-way between the two. Compare: The 2016 election mispredictions were one of the most discussed topics for months in the aftermath. The Bush administration’s WMD claims are still regularly discussed, at least outside of Fox News. Journalists have in general become more skeptical of US government claims as a result ever since. That’s widely considered a good thing. On the other hand: Russian media, as should be obvious for anyone with better memory than a proverbial goldfish, doesn’t even care how today’s message contradicts yesterday’s. The sanctions are ineffective and a grave act of war and must be stopped immediately and actually don’t work. Ukraine will never be attacked, and is actually Russian, and commits an anti-Russian genocide, and isn’t a nation, and will no longer be a nation if it doesn’t surrender immediately, and isn’t actually being attacked. It’s so inconsistent with itself that you don’t even need a second source to spot the lies. I might feel nice and wise and balanced, but I don’t think these are circumstances where believing “both sides” is intellectually defensible.

by Ygg2 5y ago

sumedh 5y ago

> out to be a sure fire thing for Hillary which is opposite of what happened She could have probably won but Comey decided at the very end to open the email investigation again. That generated negative publicity for her.

simion314 5y ago

>It's very hard to believe whatever either side is reporting. You have more then Russian and Ukrainian news, there are reporters from other countries present on the ground, probably mostly English sources are link but I assure you for example there are Romanian reporters there and filming stuff, there are reporters filing refuges and asking questions. There were some Russian free press reports too you could have read/watched until recently too(maybe dig in archives) There are trolls posting fake images but if you ignore the hot new posts from social media you can get a good enough picture of reality.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

codeflo 5y ago

It seems so easy to fall into a false balance trap. But while Western media is certainly flawed, there’s a fundamental difference between honest mistakes and intentional lies. The truth is very unlikely to be half-way between the two. Compare: The 2016 election mispredictions were one of the most discussed topics for months in the aftermath. The Bush administration’s WMD claims are still regularly discussed, at least outside of Fox News. Journalists have in general become more skeptical of US government claims as a result ever since. That’s widely considered a good thing. On the other hand: Russian media, as should be obvious for anyone with better memory than a proverbial goldfish, doesn’t even care how today’s message contradicts yesterday’s. The sanctions are ineffective and a grave act of war and must be stopped immediately and actually don’t work. Ukraine will never be attacked, and is actually Russian, and commits an anti-Russian genocide, and isn’t a nation, and will no longer be a nation if it doesn’t surrender immediately, and isn’t actually being attacked. It’s so inconsistent with itself that you don’t even need a second source to spot the lies. I might feel nice and wise and balanced, but I don’t think these are circumstances where believing “both sides” is intellectually defensible.