5 ms·

So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose?

by ailef 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago
Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, so a statement painting the “special military operation” as a successful war of territorial aggrandizement, when the public position of the regime has been that that is not the goal, is more reliable than ones in line with public regime propaganda.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, Is this supposed to be a comprehensible sentence fragment?
- ailef 3y ago
  The problem with all of this is you have to correctly assess their "expected bias". And this assessment is, in turn, affected by your own bias which you have not considered in your analysis. Given this, it seems easy to fall into the trap of just accepting whatever already fits your narrative and discarding the rest.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose? When Putin is telling us Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine. I would say they are reliable yes. Just like when Russian media says they should destroy more dams in Ukraine I believe them. No amount of evidence would satisfy you, you literally have a primary source (the government) telling you their intentions and you are trying to reject it.
- ailef 3y ago
  I tried to read the article using Google Translate but I found no evidence of this statement (capturing all of Ukraine). Could you point me to the relevant passage? Please note that this is different from statements like "bring Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence" or similar things. Unless you wanna conflate military objectives with geopolitical ones.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > I tried to read the article using Google Translate but I found no evidence of this statement (capturing all of Ukraine). Could you point me to the relevant passage? >> Ukraine gained independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union dissolved (this is just for reference). >> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land. >> Now there is no problem - Ukraine has returned to Russia. This does not mean that its statehood will be eliminated, but it will be rebuilt, re-esturbished and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world. Did you even read it?.
    - ailef 3y ago
      All I see is very vague wording and metaphors which are very far from a very specific *military* objective that is conquering the entirety of Ukraine. They might mean that or might not, but it's not explicitly stated. You are choosing one possible interpretation and sticking to it like it's the only one.
      - chrysler 3y ago
        In Eastern Europe, those metaphors sound like "the final solution to the Jewish problem" sounds to western audiences. I mean, just look at it: >> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Adjusted for the sensitivities of western audiences: >> Germany is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1918, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. The subtext is abundantly clear.

So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose?

by ailef 3y ago

So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose?

Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, so a statement painting the “special military operation” as a successful war of territorial aggrandizement, when the public position of the regime has been that that is not the goal, is more reliable than ones in line with public regime propaganda.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, Is this supposed to be a comprehensible sentence fragment?
ailef 3y ago
The problem with all of this is you have to correctly assess their "expected bias". And this assessment is, in turn, affected by your own bias which you have not considered in your analysis. Given this, it seems easy to fall into the trap of just accepting whatever already fits your narrative and discarding the rest.

_kbh_ 3y ago

> So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose? When Putin is telling us Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine. I would say they are reliable yes. Just like when Russian media says they should destroy more dams in Ukraine I believe them. No amount of evidence would satisfy you, you literally have a primary source (the government) telling you their intentions and you are trying to reject it.

ailef 3y ago
I tried to read the article using Google Translate but I found no evidence of this statement (capturing all of Ukraine). Could you point me to the relevant passage? Please note that this is different from statements like "bring Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence" or similar things. Unless you wanna conflate military objectives with geopolitical ones.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > I tried to read the article using Google Translate but I found no evidence of this statement (capturing all of Ukraine). Could you point me to the relevant passage? >> Ukraine gained independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union dissolved (this is just for reference). >> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land. >> Now there is no problem - Ukraine has returned to Russia. This does not mean that its statehood will be eliminated, but it will be rebuilt, re-esturbished and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world. Did you even read it?.
  - ailef 3y ago
    All I see is very vague wording and metaphors which are very far from a very specific *military* objective that is conquering the entirety of Ukraine. They might mean that or might not, but it's not explicitly stated. You are choosing one possible interpretation and sticking to it like it's the only one.
    - chrysler 3y ago
      In Eastern Europe, those metaphors sound like "the final solution to the Jewish problem" sounds to western audiences. I mean, just look at it: >> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Adjusted for the sensitivities of western audiences: >> Germany is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1918, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. The subtext is abundantly clear.