11 ms·
Daily reader of Meduza here. They publish consistent and high quality coverage both about headline events in the war as well as odd ramifications of it in Russi
by vonnik 3y ago
Daily reader of Meduza here. They publish consistent and high quality coverage both about headline events in the war as well as odd ramifications of it in Russia and Ukraine. And it doesn’t have the annoying US-centrism of Ukraine coverage that you get elsewhere.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago> and high quality Nope. There were enough articles with outright lies to never believe anything from them until proven by numerous other, independent sources.
- mc32 3y agoCNN and Fox also publish proven lies or reframe things. Do we not believe anything they say as well?
- hkpack 3y agoOf course. Why you would read any source which was caught lying?
- edgyquant 3y agoI assume this is a joke? These are two news companies famous for people not believing anything they say.
- berdario 3y agoI believe they are famous for not being believed by the other side's partisans. I.e. US republicans most often won't believe CNN and US democrats most often won't believe Fox. The point here is, there are plenty of topics on which CNN and Fox coverage is very very similar: off the top of my head events in Israel and Taiwan And on those topics, plenty of people just "trust the consensus" (or what appears to be the consensus, in western media) https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/out-of-bounds-how-media-monopolies-keep-radical-ideas-off-the-agenda/ https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/out-of-bounds-how-media...
- rhamzeh 3y agoNon-Americans should not, and usually do not believe either. It's funny when Republicans/Democrats treat either as reputable. They're politicking 101 made into 24/7 news media panic. They're both charlatans and peddlers of lies and cheap tricks; they engage in propaganda and employ journalists who seem to believe that they're anything other than foot soldiers to stir up the masses against XYZ. Everyone knows Fox News is trash, it's laughable when some continue to argue that CNN isn't. Where XYZ can be anything, depending on which way the wind is blowing, sometimes it's each other, sometimes it's internal to the US, sometimes it's external
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoThey're both plain ragebait. I wouldn't even take their world news seriously, mainly cause it's low quality. We have better options for mainstream news here, even though it's also under control.
- hot_gril 3y ago> I assume this is a joke? There's no need to be condescending.
- blackmesaind 3y agoPointing the finger at another is often not a very compelling argument.
- mc32 3y agowhat I'm saying is that there are very few sources that don't publish lies or have bents, so we have to do with what we have. Use many sources and triangulate. Some sources are more believable in some areas, less believable in other areas. Some contributors are more believable/truthful than others. It's not all on or off.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoYes, that's exactly how I treat them.
- throwaway290 3y agoExamples of lies they published that were known lies before they published them?
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y agoThis can be applied to literally anybody. I've been reading them for many years (since their editor and most of their journalists were at lenta.ru — which they were thrown out of in ~2015 for daring to criticize the annexation of Crimea). They are not angels, but they have always at least tried to remain impartial and use relatively reliable sources of information. Many (most?) news outlets don't even try.
- thriftwy 3y agoThis is the actual reason why people treat Meduza as parent poster does. The job of a news source it not to criticize, or not criticize, the annexation of Crimea. They're not a political party. Nobody but their mom really wants to know their private opinion. The job of a news source is to provide news. All the news and articles Meduza produces follows the same pattern, where they would arrive at a predetermined conclusion regardless of the facts they are discussing, and the train of thought would go from A to B in a reasonably short route. If it's hard to derive the conclusion from some facts, they will be skipping reporting these where possible. If it's very convenient to derive the conclusion for unproven facts, they will be using these eagerly. Propaganda is annoying to read, especially if you know you will disagree with their conclusion, which you obviously know in advance.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y agoYes, and I should write bug-free code, and doctors should never make mistakes. If you have any examples of a completely neutral news outlet that never made any blunders, I'd be very interested to know about and follow them. Until then, I see no point in comparing anyone against an unattainable ideal which can only exist in one's imagination. I try to correct for their biases by reading Kremlin propaganda (and US, and Chinese, and some others) and comparing what they are saying. Know of any better ways?
- thriftwy 3y agoIt is the century XXI, and the mainstream way seems to be subscribing to Telegram channels whose vibe resonates with you. Yes, you will be living in a tiny bubble. But at least you do not get to read propaganda pieces trying to derive prefabricated conclusions out of irrelevant small events. If anything large happens, you are going to hear of it earlier or later. If you really want balanced coverage, choose a source from the other side which is so blatantly propagandist that you can have good laughs instead of grinding your teeth. I am reading The Guardian for that purpose. Perhaps there are better ways to consume your news, but I don't know these.
- ponkipo 3y ago"90% of Meduza's sources' predictions didn't come true". Source: https://www.proekt.media/guide/kremlin-telegram-meduza https://www.proekt.media/guide/kremlin-telegram-meduza (it's in Russian, info is at the end of the article).
- pvg 3y agoThat doesn't say much about the quality of Meduza's journalism. Most Kremlinology ends up being wrong.
- avrionov 3y agoThank you for the link. It is interesting read, but it didn't say what you are implying. The article in the link states that 90% of the predictions of 1 Medusa corespondent were wrong. This is very different than the entire publication being 90% wrong.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MichaelMoser123 3y agoi wonder how they manage to get funding, they are calling for donations, but i am not sure that incoming donations are enough to keep going. also they got completely outlawed by the Russian regime, so they can't possibly get any advertising from Russian firms.
- postsantum 3y agoIt's almost as if the 'sponsored by foreign agents' mark imposed by the Russian government was somewhat justifiable
- ponkipo 3y agoWell, yes and no, even people who are strongly anti-Russian-regime-oriented told me that they stopped reading Meduza because it's giving info which is extremely one sided and not objective, like it's propaganda but opposite to a Russian-state one
- jononomo 3y agoThe entire situation is extremely one sided -- I would be highly skeptical of any source that does not paint Russia and Putin in a terrible light.
- The_Colonel 3y agoIn terms of guilt sure, but you still want to read unbiased journalism about events etc.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoThere is no free press in Russia: https://www.pbs.org/video/putin-vs-the-press-aiw7f0/ https://www.pbs.org/video/putin-vs-the-press-aiw7f0/
- The_Colonel 3y agoMeduza is based in Riga, Latvia.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoMy point was it's tough to get objective news from a Russian source.
- jononomo 3y agoMy point is that unbiased journalism regarding the Ukraine war is going to look extremely one-sided.
- esqbuckmulligan 3y ago[flagged]