4 ms·
Okay. I looked at Russia. They have different biases, motives, and perspectives than you do. They understand events through a different prism than you do. Jo
by wikitopian 4y ago
Okay.
I looked at Russia.
They have different biases, motives, and perspectives than you do. They understand events through a different prism than you do.
Journalism isn't a hard science. All kinds of seemingly obvious stuff isn't actually obvious.
Go watch 12 Angry Men.
- implements 4y agoTo be honest, I think it’s usually obvious when a ‘news’ source is deliberately telling falsehoods to a less than well-informed audience in order to further a political and / or ideological agenda. The issue seems the belief that attempting to run an objectively true and reasonably balanced news service is itself ideologically biased, in that it interferes with the desire to conduct ‘the politics of narrow interests’ - something that often requires one group to discount the interests of the others using dishonest speech.
- dandanua 4y agoOkay, just a single fact. Russia claims it targets only military buildings, fortifications and troops. Ukraine counted that Russia attacked civilian objects 20 times more than military. Is it just a different "perspective" to you? What kind of "prism" is that, can you describe?
- wikitopian 4y agoIf you believe either the Russian or Ukrainian estimates of casualties in the active conflict, then you've failed the basic critical thinking skills challenge. Humans are not all scientists. Heck, even scientists who specialize in the hard sciences very often find a way to inject their biases, motives, and perspectives into their work.