5 ms·

> and high quality Nope. There were enough articles with outright lies to never believe anything from them until proven by numerous other, independent sources

> 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 ago
CNN and Fox also publish proven lies or reframe things. Do we not believe anything they say as well?
- hkpack 3y ago
  Of course. Why you would read any source which was caught lying?
- edgyquant 3y ago
  I assume this is a joke? These are two news companies famous for people not believing anything they say.
  - berdario 3y ago
    I 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 ago
      Non-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 ago
      They'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 ago
  Pointing the finger at another is often not a very compelling argument.
  - mc32 3y ago
    what 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 ago
  Yes, that's exactly how I treat them.
throwaway290 3y ago
Examples of lies they published that were known lies before they published them?
5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
This 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
      It 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 ago
  That doesn't say much about the quality of Meduza's journalism. Most Kremlinology ends up being wrong.
- avrionov 3y ago
  Thank 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.

> 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 ago

CNN and Fox also publish proven lies or reframe things. Do we not believe anything they say as well?

hkpack 3y ago
Of course. Why you would read any source which was caught lying?
edgyquant 3y ago
I assume this is a joke? These are two news companies famous for people not believing anything they say.
- berdario 3y ago
  I 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 ago
    Non-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 ago
    They'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 ago
Pointing the finger at another is often not a very compelling argument.
- mc32 3y ago
  what 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 ago
Yes, that's exactly how I treat them.

throwaway290 3y ago

Examples of lies they published that were known lies before they published them?

5e92cb50239222b 3y ago

This 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 ago
This 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago
    It 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 ago
That doesn't say much about the quality of Meduza's journalism. Most Kremlinology ends up being wrong.
avrionov 3y ago
Thank 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.