34 ms·

> multiple news agencies In the case of the US, you cannot make your selection wide enough. For optimal security, get it to both local news organizations and s

> multiple news agencies In the case of the US, you cannot make your selection wide enough. For optimal security, get it to both local news organizations and serious European press agencies. The US news media do not have independent editorial boards. Several titles are actually from the same house. Corporate ownership, and professionals going to the dark side via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_capture are just some other risks. Even if it gets published, your story can be suppressed by the way the media house deals with it. Also, there are many ways to silence news that is inconvenient or doesn't fit belief schemes, good example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387549

bubaumba 2y ago
> European press agencies It's very naive to believe in 'European press'. To get the idea check Ukrainian war coverage. What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This cannot be a coincidence. It can be only a result of total control. I respected 'The Guardians' before, but after eyes opening it appears to be the most brainwashing and manipulative there. Very professionally done, must admit. The problem isn't just that war, it's likely everything and I have no easy way to check for example what really happened in Afghan war. Did US really won like Biden said?
- consumer451 2y ago
  > It's very naive to believe in 'European press'. To get the idea check Ukrainian war coverage. What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This is such a wild take from my POV, a person in the EU. Have you considered the possibility that the nearest imperialist power beginning to violently invade Europe again is likely to trigger a common reaction? This is one of those rare cases in modern history where there is a clear right vs. wrong. What exactly do you expect the news to talk about that is less “single sided?”
  - bubaumba 2y ago
    I can explain a bit. Russians living in Empire of Evil can see all internet including US and EU news. At the same time 'Putin propaganda' channels are blocked in EU. In EU only one side is available. This creates an information bubble, as intended. Which is a basic crowd control technique used to drive public opinion. In this case to support the war. The result is obvious, EU polls show much stronger support than the rest of the world. Even though media claims most of the world is against Putin, if you look at the map it's only minority, NATO and a few allies. In some EU countries it's even a crime look through the bubble's wall. Most don't realize it even exists. They accept the arguments from their politicians. Like it's a business opportunity, or it's a cheap way to harm Putin. The price for that is hundreds of thousands of human lives on both sides. Which is generally considered as ok, as those are Russians and Ukrainians, not us. Actually media doesn't talk much about it.
    - dullcrisp 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - mylidlpony 2y ago
      Hahahaha, what? Most of western news sources are blocked in russia after they published Bucha reports. They are literally jailing people for mentioning it on personal vk pages and such.
    - usea 2y ago
      Europeans having stronger opinions than others about Russia invading Europe is not evidence of a conspiracy.
    - OfficeChad 2y ago
      Fuck off.
    - kristiandupont 2y ago
      >In this case to support the war. while all of you Putin supporters are such a peace loving people, right?
    - 2y ago
- devjab 2y ago
  > What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This cannot be a coincidence. It’s not a coincidence. Russia invaded a European country and for the first time since WW2 we are in what is essentially war time. You may not know this, but Russia has long been a bully. Every year we have a democratic meeting called Folkemødet here in Denmark. It’s where the political top and our media meets the public for several days. When I went there Russian bombers violated our Airspace during a practice run of nuclear bombing the event. Now they are in an active war with a European country and they are threatening the rest of us with total war basically every other day. Of course it’s one sided. Russia has chosen to become an enemy of Europe and we will be lucky if we can avoid a direct conflict with them. We are already seeing attacks on our infrastructure both digital and physical around in the EU. We’ve seen assassinations carried out inside our countries, and things aren’t looking to improve any time soon. What “sides” is it you think there are? If Russia didn’t want to be an enemy of Europe they could withdraw their forces and stop being at war with our neighbours.
pyuser583 2y ago
American press is much more independent than European press. When WSJ broke the Elizabeth Holmes story, much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support. Looking at Europe, governments first instinct is to protect national favorites. European whistleblowers are likely to face defamation suits, something thankfully difficult in America.
- TowerTall 2y ago
  Idenpendent from what or whom. Most American media is owned by a tiny handfull of people.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > European whistleblowers are likely to face defamation suits, something thankfully difficult in America. In US they will always find a "minor" who was "raped" 20 years ago. Or the whistleblower will suddenly commit suicide.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    The Boeing whistleblower comes to mind.
- esperent 2y ago
  > much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support Could you provide some examples of this? I know it's possible in the UK to get a court order to prevent media coverage, but I didn't know that was the case in other European countries.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    I was thinking of the Wirecard scandal in Germany. The regulators responded to concerns by silencing silencing critics of the company. I read either "defamation" or "libel" somewhere, but this article says: [German regulators] banned investors from betting against Wirecard shares for two months, the first such restriction on an individual company in German stock market history. That was quickly followed by a criminal complaint against two Financial Times journalists who had reported the whistleblower allegations about the payments company. https://www.ft.com/content/f62f7f56-3d45-492c-ae88-172948d21eb8 https://www.ft.com/content/f62f7f56-3d45-492c-ae88-172948d21...
hulitu 2y ago
> serious European press agencies. There are almost none left. > The US news media do not have independent editorial boards. The EU also don't. They are all penetrated by NGOs
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
This is what was done with WikiLeaks - a few major European journals worked on the information together
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Depending on which release, Wikileaks normally chose an international group of media partners, including US, British, European, and Russian ones.
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    Yes, I know that in France Le Monde did that, and they were in close cooperation with I think The Guardian and El Mundo

bubaumba 2y ago

> European press agencies It's very naive to believe in 'European press'. To get the idea check Ukrainian war coverage. What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This cannot be a coincidence. It can be only a result of total control. I respected 'The Guardians' before, but after eyes opening it appears to be the most brainwashing and manipulative there. Very professionally done, must admit. The problem isn't just that war, it's likely everything and I have no easy way to check for example what really happened in Afghan war. Did US really won like Biden said?

consumer451 2y ago
> It's very naive to believe in 'European press'. To get the idea check Ukrainian war coverage. What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This is such a wild take from my POV, a person in the EU. Have you considered the possibility that the nearest imperialist power beginning to violently invade Europe again is likely to trigger a common reaction? This is one of those rare cases in modern history where there is a clear right vs. wrong. What exactly do you expect the news to talk about that is less “single sided?”
- bubaumba 2y ago
  I can explain a bit. Russians living in Empire of Evil can see all internet including US and EU news. At the same time 'Putin propaganda' channels are blocked in EU. In EU only one side is available. This creates an information bubble, as intended. Which is a basic crowd control technique used to drive public opinion. In this case to support the war. The result is obvious, EU polls show much stronger support than the rest of the world. Even though media claims most of the world is against Putin, if you look at the map it's only minority, NATO and a few allies. In some EU countries it's even a crime look through the bubble's wall. Most don't realize it even exists. They accept the arguments from their politicians. Like it's a business opportunity, or it's a cheap way to harm Putin. The price for that is hundreds of thousands of human lives on both sides. Which is generally considered as ok, as those are Russians and Ukrainians, not us. Actually media doesn't talk much about it.
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - mylidlpony 2y ago
    Hahahaha, what? Most of western news sources are blocked in russia after they published Bucha reports. They are literally jailing people for mentioning it on personal vk pages and such.
  - usea 2y ago
    Europeans having stronger opinions than others about Russia invading Europe is not evidence of a conspiracy.
  - OfficeChad 2y ago
    Fuck off.
  - kristiandupont 2y ago
    >In this case to support the war. while all of you Putin supporters are such a peace loving people, right?
  - 2y ago
devjab 2y ago
> What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This cannot be a coincidence. It’s not a coincidence. Russia invaded a European country and for the first time since WW2 we are in what is essentially war time. You may not know this, but Russia has long been a bully. Every year we have a democratic meeting called Folkemødet here in Denmark. It’s where the political top and our media meets the public for several days. When I went there Russian bombers violated our Airspace during a practice run of nuclear bombing the event. Now they are in an active war with a European country and they are threatening the rest of us with total war basically every other day. Of course it’s one sided. Russia has chosen to become an enemy of Europe and we will be lucky if we can avoid a direct conflict with them. We are already seeing attacks on our infrastructure both digital and physical around in the EU. We’ve seen assassinations carried out inside our countries, and things aren’t looking to improve any time soon. What “sides” is it you think there are? If Russia didn’t want to be an enemy of Europe they could withdraw their forces and stop being at war with our neighbours.

pyuser583 2y ago

American press is much more independent than European press. When WSJ broke the Elizabeth Holmes story, much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support. Looking at Europe, governments first instinct is to protect national favorites. European whistleblowers are likely to face defamation suits, something thankfully difficult in America.

TowerTall 2y ago
Idenpendent from what or whom. Most American media is owned by a tiny handfull of people.
hulitu 2y ago
> European whistleblowers are likely to face defamation suits, something thankfully difficult in America. In US they will always find a "minor" who was "raped" 20 years ago. Or the whistleblower will suddenly commit suicide.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  The Boeing whistleblower comes to mind.
esperent 2y ago
> much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support Could you provide some examples of this? I know it's possible in the UK to get a court order to prevent media coverage, but I didn't know that was the case in other European countries.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  I was thinking of the Wirecard scandal in Germany. The regulators responded to concerns by silencing silencing critics of the company. I read either "defamation" or "libel" somewhere, but this article says: [German regulators] banned investors from betting against Wirecard shares for two months, the first such restriction on an individual company in German stock market history. That was quickly followed by a criminal complaint against two Financial Times journalists who had reported the whistleblower allegations about the payments company. https://www.ft.com/content/f62f7f56-3d45-492c-ae88-172948d21eb8 https://www.ft.com/content/f62f7f56-3d45-492c-ae88-172948d21...

hulitu 2y ago

> serious European press agencies. There are almost none left. > The US news media do not have independent editorial boards. The EU also don't. They are all penetrated by NGOs

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

This is what was done with WikiLeaks - a few major European journals worked on the information together

ethbr1 2y ago
Depending on which release, Wikileaks normally chose an international group of media partners, including US, British, European, and Russian ones.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  Yes, I know that in France Le Monde did that, and they were in close cooperation with I think The Guardian and El Mundo