4 ms·

> You can use trusted sources What is a trusted source? How can I find one? I think this is close to impossible. Of course, everyone reads what one consider "t

> You can use trusted sources What is a trusted source? How can I find one? I think this is close to impossible. Of course, everyone reads what one consider "trusted" source, but I have doubt any of them is. > So, for example I followed a Ukrainian youtuber who said he was leaving because of the invasion, that added considerably to my confidence. Also, meeting refugees arrive in the UK displaced from the Russian invasion made for near 100% confidence that it was actually happening (a video of a couple of tanks on a highway just looks like propaganda however, but the tanks were probably there, something happened [it wasn't impressive enough to be AI generated!]). But does this prove anything at all? E.g. half of my family lives in Ukraine. You wouldn't believe and it's never mentioned in Western media, but large percent of Ukraine population is Russian. Actually, it's almost impossible to distinguish who's Russian and who's Ukrainian. What is the difference? My family is originally from Ukraine, but I consider myself Russian. So, my relatives from Ukraine were always telling me completely different stories from official Western stories. E.g. about neo-nazi movement in Ukraine which became very active since 1991 according to my relatives. > What is an example of a large lie that you see in Western media today, that you confirm to be untrue from direct personal experience? I do not collect such stories (what would be the point?), but meanwhile I'm looking for some examples, I'll tell you that for several years I've browsed Western media and specifically searched for news from Russia on CNN, Washington Post, Bloomberg, and other prominent Western media websites. One thing that is impossible to ignore is that all news from Russia are strictly negative. Even if they're true, this is clearly one sided presentation of situation to demonstrate to Western readers that "Everything is bad in Russia". I couldn't read anything positive about Russia in English for many years. It's always the same bingo bullshit composed out of "dictatorship", "bad Putin", "bad Russians", "Russian hackers", yadda, yadda. I've just did a search `russia site:https://www.washingtonpost.com/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/`. While I cannot pinpoint an outright lie, because there're tons of results and I don't have much time now, you can easily see that there's a common theme in all the news articles: "Russia is bad", "Situation in Russia is awful", "Some unnamed source confirms that Putin is bad/afraid/eats babies for breakfast". Whatever year you put in the search: 2023, 2022, 2020, 2018, etc.

lisasays 3y ago
First, thanks for your participation here. It's very helpful and important to have voices from the people who actually live in these countries present in the discussion (especially yours). Your English is fantastic, BTW. You wouldn't believe and it's never mentioned in Western media, but large percent of Ukraine population is Russian. Actually it's mentioned all the time. As is the neo-Nazi stuff. That said, there are all kind of people in Western countries, and many (especially in the U.S.) are quite ignorant and couldn't even find Ukraine on the map. And certainly don't read anything that doesn't pop up whatever news feed they have on their phone. So even though these details about Ukraine/Russian a certainly mentioned in the media often enough, not surprisingly they just won't stick with many people. To try to get to the main content of what you're saying - it seems to come down to this (which I am editing down slightly, but only to keep it short): It is impossible or next to impossible to investigate most of the facts... I think this is close to impossible [to find trusted sources]. I agree that it can easily seem so from the outside, if one reads these sources only occasionally. But over time ... a long time, especially when one grows up hearing and reading these news outlets all the time ... a certain pattern emerges. Specifically some sources are, at least one it comes to the basic factual narrative -- much more reliable than others. That is, basically true to fact, basically professional. They do screw up sometimes, and are sometimes fooled. It isn't easy to tell just be reading only a few sources, or reading them occasionally. But over time -- one sees that their reporting (again, of basic facts) largely overlaps with the others are saying. Also, some of them have highly professional journalists who have lived in these countries (including yours), and know what they're talking about. And also, what they report (again as to facts) aligns closely with what one can gather from friends or relatives. And of course from visiting these countries directly, and talking to people there. Basically one can put WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Bloomberg and a few others in this box. CNN and BBC to some extent also (though they are frankly somewhat "dumber" than the first 4 and have much less original reporting). I could mention other sources (in other languages even) because of course not everything revolves around U.S. media sources, but I'm trying to keep things simple here. That said -- they do have strong biases as to opinion. But in the above group -- while sometimes irritating (and in my view basically wrong) -- still not obnoxiously or fanatically so. Some people call them "propaganda" outlets, but I disagree (and find those do say that to usually have extreme political views themselves, on one end of the spectrum or the other). Bottom line -- yes one can learn to "navigate" the news, find (reasonably) trusted sources, enough to "tell up from down", that is, which ones are basicaly reliable, and which ones not. Finally - to address one more thing you were saying - about bias and views about what's going on in Russia. I think what you're saying is partially valid, partially not. (Again, as applies to what Western media say about Russia -- not what is going on there yourself, which of course you know infinitely better than I). For example, here are things Western media does say about Russia, often enough: "dictatorship", "bad/afraid Putin, "Russian hackers", "situation in Russia is bad". What they don't say (and where I think you may be misreading here) are things like "Russia is bad", "bad Russians" (as a people), or "Putin eats babies for breakfast". I hope you recognize the distinction between these two categories. Statements in the first category are either a matter of simple opinion... e.g. "Putin is bad" -- which is an opinion anyone can have about the leader of any country. Or at most a very "charged" statement, but I'm assuming you will acknowledge with a strong basis in fact -- e.g. "Russia is currently governed by a dictatorship". However, stuff in the last category -- e.g. "Russians (as a people) are bad", "Russia is a bad country" -- these are of course very ugly things to say. But we just don't hear them said to any significant degree, in either society or the media (except from Ukrainians of course, but that's a completely different topic). Nor does one hear absurd factual exaggerations about Putin (e.g. "eats babies"). They do say all kinds of things about what he has said and done, which I'm sure you also know about. But absurd exaggerations like this -- one just doesn't hear or read those, in mainstream outlets.

lisasays 3y ago

First, thanks for your participation here. It's very helpful and important to have voices from the people who actually live in these countries present in the discussion (especially yours). Your English is fantastic, BTW. You wouldn't believe and it's never mentioned in Western media, but large percent of Ukraine population is Russian. Actually it's mentioned all the time. As is the neo-Nazi stuff. That said, there are all kind of people in Western countries, and many (especially in the U.S.) are quite ignorant and couldn't even find Ukraine on the map. And certainly don't read anything that doesn't pop up whatever news feed they have on their phone. So even though these details about Ukraine/Russian a certainly mentioned in the media often enough, not surprisingly they just won't stick with many people. To try to get to the main content of what you're saying - it seems to come down to this (which I am editing down slightly, but only to keep it short): It is impossible or next to impossible to investigate most of the facts... I think this is close to impossible [to find trusted sources]. I agree that it can easily seem so from the outside, if one reads these sources only occasionally. But over time ... a long time, especially when one grows up hearing and reading these news outlets all the time ... a certain pattern emerges. Specifically some sources are, at least one it comes to the basic factual narrative -- much more reliable than others. That is, basically true to fact, basically professional. They do screw up sometimes, and are sometimes fooled. It isn't easy to tell just be reading only a few sources, or reading them occasionally. But over time -- one sees that their reporting (again, of basic facts) largely overlaps with the others are saying. Also, some of them have highly professional journalists who have lived in these countries (including yours), and know what they're talking about. And also, what they report (again as to facts) aligns closely with what one can gather from friends or relatives. And of course from visiting these countries directly, and talking to people there. Basically one can put WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Bloomberg and a few others in this box. CNN and BBC to some extent also (though they are frankly somewhat "dumber" than the first 4 and have much less original reporting). I could mention other sources (in other languages even) because of course not everything revolves around U.S. media sources, but I'm trying to keep things simple here. That said -- they do have strong biases as to opinion. But in the above group -- while sometimes irritating (and in my view basically wrong) -- still not obnoxiously or fanatically so. Some people call them "propaganda" outlets, but I disagree (and find those do say that to usually have extreme political views themselves, on one end of the spectrum or the other). Bottom line -- yes one can learn to "navigate" the news, find (reasonably) trusted sources, enough to "tell up from down", that is, which ones are basicaly reliable, and which ones not. Finally - to address one more thing you were saying - about bias and views about what's going on in Russia. I think what you're saying is partially valid, partially not. (Again, as applies to what Western media say about Russia -- not what is going on there yourself, which of course you know infinitely better than I). For example, here are things Western media does say about Russia, often enough: "dictatorship", "bad/afraid Putin, "Russian hackers", "situation in Russia is bad". What they don't say (and where I think you may be misreading here) are things like "Russia is bad", "bad Russians" (as a people), or "Putin eats babies for breakfast". I hope you recognize the distinction between these two categories. Statements in the first category are either a matter of simple opinion... e.g. "Putin is bad" -- which is an opinion anyone can have about the leader of any country. Or at most a very "charged" statement, but I'm assuming you will acknowledge with a strong basis in fact -- e.g. "Russia is currently governed by a dictatorship". However, stuff in the last category -- e.g. "Russians (as a people) are bad", "Russia is a bad country" -- these are of course very ugly things to say. But we just don't hear them said to any significant degree, in either society or the media (except from Ukrainians of course, but that's a completely different topic). Nor does one hear absurd factual exaggerations about Putin (e.g. "eats babies"). They do say all kinds of things about what he has said and done, which I'm sure you also know about. But absurd exaggerations like this -- one just doesn't hear or read those, in mainstream outlets.