4 ms·

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

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.
    - MockObject 3y ago
      >> I try to correct for their biases by reading Kremlin propaganda (and US, and Chinese, and some others) and comparing what they are saying. > Yes, you are living in a tiny bubble. How is that a tiny bubble?
      - PawgerZ 3y ago
        I think you misread their comment. If you didn't realize, you also misquoted their comment (unless it was edited). > 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. I believe they mean "the mainstream way" puts you into a tiny bubble, but they go on to say: > 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. Thus, I believe they were advocating for a tiny bubble -- not accusing the previous commenter of being in a tiny bubble.
        MockObject 3y ago
        Yes, the comment had been edited, and makes much more sense now.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    The amount of junk isn't boolean, it matters how much you have to filter. If you can find news with less junk, you can filter them with less effort. And big news are reported by everyone so you can't miss them.
- asveikau 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland objectively happened, and was not undone until the very end of Nazi regime. Not everybody wants to read how mr. Hanz from "Der Jellyfisch" thinks that that the annexation of Sudetenland is wrong, day after day for a decade. We've got that already from you being in Switzerland, mr. Hanz.
    - inopinatus 3y ago
      On the contrary, it must be repeated, when an authoritarian regime conducting a murderous war of conquest of their neighbours promulgates their twisted justifications very loudly, and have entire state bodies devoted to manipulating the press, promoting a message that if left unopposed will become the prevailing narrative, as it has in their home nation. Head-in-the-sand bullshit neutrality is why Switzerland is a moral toilet. Demanding that journalists be "neutral" is a sliproad to manipulation. These are nothing more than an abandonment of principles. The public in functioning democracies is most definitely interested in reading opinionated editorial. Representing otherwise is downright obnoxious.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        People will stop listening real soon. You will keep the audience who already agree with you, and often bet on that agreement (for example, by fleeing the country). You will, however, lose the rest of your potential audience by repeating your opinion over and over again. Since they know your position, they do not share it, and they no longer need that information. Especially as you cannot answer any hard questions about your position, and you could not answer even if you didn't. As a journalist, you cannot really suggest any solutions, since you are not a politician. You can only whine. That gets old pretty fast.
        inopinatus 3y ago
- inopinatus 3y ago
  These sentiments are insidious: they are what repressive regimes want the populace to believe. -> restricting what journalists may write -> claiming the public has no interest in editorial opinion -> labeling dissent as propaganda The remark above is all three.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  In many (most?) developed countries, major media sources like newspapers and TV channels are each aligned with a specific political party or a specific political wing. So, their reportage is done through that political lens, and people have historically bought that newspaper because they want issues reported through that lens. It is mainly in American fora where people have this belief that news sources should be neutral.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    >It is mainly in American fora where people have this belief that news sources should be neutral. Which is kind of hilarious as US news sources are far less neutral than most of those politically colored newspapers!
- Dah00n 3y ago
  Not a single news source in the history of mankind lives up to your description.

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.
  - MockObject 3y ago
    >> I try to correct for their biases by reading Kremlin propaganda (and US, and Chinese, and some others) and comparing what they are saying. > Yes, you are living in a tiny bubble. How is that a tiny bubble?
    - PawgerZ 3y ago
      I think you misread their comment. If you didn't realize, you also misquoted their comment (unless it was edited). > 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. I believe they mean "the mainstream way" puts you into a tiny bubble, but they go on to say: > 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. Thus, I believe they were advocating for a tiny bubble -- not accusing the previous commenter of being in a tiny bubble.
      - MockObject 3y ago
        Yes, the comment had been edited, and makes much more sense now.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  The amount of junk isn't boolean, it matters how much you have to filter. If you can find news with less junk, you can filter them with less effort. And big news are reported by everyone so you can't miss them.
asveikau 3y ago
[flagged]
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland objectively happened, and was not undone until the very end of Nazi regime. Not everybody wants to read how mr. Hanz from "Der Jellyfisch" thinks that that the annexation of Sudetenland is wrong, day after day for a decade. We've got that already from you being in Switzerland, mr. Hanz.
  - inopinatus 3y ago
    On the contrary, it must be repeated, when an authoritarian regime conducting a murderous war of conquest of their neighbours promulgates their twisted justifications very loudly, and have entire state bodies devoted to manipulating the press, promoting a message that if left unopposed will become the prevailing narrative, as it has in their home nation. Head-in-the-sand bullshit neutrality is why Switzerland is a moral toilet. Demanding that journalists be "neutral" is a sliproad to manipulation. These are nothing more than an abandonment of principles. The public in functioning democracies is most definitely interested in reading opinionated editorial. Representing otherwise is downright obnoxious.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      People will stop listening real soon. You will keep the audience who already agree with you, and often bet on that agreement (for example, by fleeing the country). You will, however, lose the rest of your potential audience by repeating your opinion over and over again. Since they know your position, they do not share it, and they no longer need that information. Especially as you cannot answer any hard questions about your position, and you could not answer even if you didn't. As a journalist, you cannot really suggest any solutions, since you are not a politician. You can only whine. That gets old pretty fast.
      - inopinatus 3y ago
inopinatus 3y ago
These sentiments are insidious: they are what repressive regimes want the populace to believe. -> restricting what journalists may write -> claiming the public has no interest in editorial opinion -> labeling dissent as propaganda The remark above is all three.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
In many (most?) developed countries, major media sources like newspapers and TV channels are each aligned with a specific political party or a specific political wing. So, their reportage is done through that political lens, and people have historically bought that newspaper because they want issues reported through that lens. It is mainly in American fora where people have this belief that news sources should be neutral.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  >It is mainly in American fora where people have this belief that news sources should be neutral. Which is kind of hilarious as US news sources are far less neutral than most of those politically colored newspapers!
Dah00n 3y ago
Not a single news source in the history of mankind lives up to your description.