3 ms·

Is the author implying that all of Russia is like this? I did find that to be the implication, yes. e.g. At the edges of Russia’s two great cities, another Rus

Is the author implying that all of Russia is like this? I did find that to be the implication, yes. e.g. At the edges of Russia’s two great cities, another Russia begins. - this implies that only the two largest cities in Russia are first world, and another decaying world begins beyond the pale. Perhaps that's an accurate description, but given the treatment of stories like the NSA surveillance in the NYT (severely lacking, and often just parroting the government line without question), Iraq wars (again, severely lacking), and the lack of similar treatments of similar US problems with decaying infrastructure, I'm inclined to think that there are plenty of other stories about Russia to be told which don't paint it as a third world country in decline, and that this is a somewhat biased, limited portrait. I cancelled my subscription recently because of the limited coverage of world events - it's just too one-sided, but perhaps that's inevitable when you're reporting from within a superpower. Which of these are reality? Which are propaganda? Well, quite. We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth. That means we need journalists to step outside the view of the world that their country, culture and government gives them and try to see it afresh, without preconceptions. So we have to trust them to some extent, and when that trust is abused to present things through a distorted prism, it is disheartening. Still, this is quality journalism (particularly the mix of map/graphics/text), and perhaps to say it is propaganda is a bit harsh, I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I do find the lack of balance and parochial worldview of the NYT and US press disturbing at times. The temptation is to see the world through a US prism without taking into account other viewpoints. Sometimes the NYT get it right though - for example this article on healthcare comparing systems around the world: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-expla...

r0h1n 13y ago
I'm a neutral party, neither American nor Russian. To me it was very clearly a very well produced and written story about life along a 12-hour train ride between two cities. I concede that my views might have been different had I been Russian. It is the second part of your comment that I disagree with more strongly. > We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth. That means we need journalists to step outside the view of the world that their country, culture and government gives them and try to see it afresh, without preconceptions. I'm afraid this is a dated and soon to be extinct definition of journalism. Instead of an artificially inserted "balance" (which too is subjective), its better to look for truth, transparency & engaging storytelling. As a reader I'd prefer Glenn Greenwald's biased but fierce, well-researched & take-no-prisoners style stories than, say, the BBC's articles. As readers we have our own biases, and so do journalists (and their publications). > I do find the lack of balance and parochial worldview of the NYT and US press disturbing at times. The temptation is to see the world through a US prism without taking into account other viewpoints. This one is easy. The NYT's key market is the USA. Most of its journalists are from the US. Naturally, their writing will tend to have that bias. As readers we just need to be aware of that and calibrate their versions of the truth accordingly.
- grey-area 13y ago
  "balance" (which too is subjective), its better to look for truth, transparency & engaging storytelling. That's what I mean by balance, we probably substantially agree there, but perhaps the misuse of the word 'balance' in US media to mean presentation of false dichotomies has distorted the term in this context. I don't think allowing opinions means you disclaim all responsibility to objectivity. Just because you can't achieve objectivity doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. A search for truth involves striving to rise above parochial and partial concerns, particularly in reporting on wars or nations in conflict. Naturally, their writing will tend to have that bias. As editors and journalists, they should strive to rise above it, that's their job, not the readers'. That's not to say they shouldn't have an opinion, but that it should be informed, clearly stated and not an attempt to distort the truth as they see it or insert their own narrative. Personally I think it's time for a new global journalism, without attempts to filter the truth and pick a side amongst often unpalatable narratives presented by national governments.
PeterisP 13y ago
Well, life outside Russia's big cities really is completely different than the Moscow megapolis, I've seen that and the article illustrates that point quite well. And read the article - it's not anti-Russian in any way, it simply shows how economic inequality looks like.
lowmagnet 13y ago
> We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth. We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us the truth, period. I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy.
- nickik 13y ago
  Truth is not objective when you tell a story. Are drug users destroying themself, or are they live there live to the fullest. This is a question of values, not truth. Just listing facts is not journalism.
- kamjam 13y ago
  Actually, I think anyone who reads a single article and takes it for truth is a fool. If something peaks your interest then you need to research more, there are different truths based on your perspective (exactly as you have pointed out). Newspapers are too much of a propaganda machine, with the ease of the internet research is only a click away and you can make up your own mind.
- grey-area 13y ago
  I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy. Apologies, I shouldn't have used the word 'balanced' as apparently it has been debased so much by its use in a Fox News slogan that the original meaning has been lost. I didn't mean a sort of false balance which parrots two opposing sides of a political debate, no matter how insane both sides are, I meant the sort of balanced reporting which tries to verify facts, reports not just what was said but what was done, reports and verifies the claims of all parties involved in a dispute, and most importantly tries to see past and acknowledge the very real bias and blind spots of journalists themselves.
knowaveragejoe 13y ago
> given the treatment of stories like the NSA surveillance in the NYT (severely lacking, and often just parroting the government line without question), Iraq wars (again, severely lacking) We must be reading different versions of the NYT, as they've been severely critical of the US government in both situations.

r0h1n 13y ago

I'm a neutral party, neither American nor Russian. To me it was very clearly a very well produced and written story about life along a 12-hour train ride between two cities. I concede that my views might have been different had I been Russian. It is the second part of your comment that I disagree with more strongly. > We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth. That means we need journalists to step outside the view of the world that their country, culture and government gives them and try to see it afresh, without preconceptions. I'm afraid this is a dated and soon to be extinct definition of journalism. Instead of an artificially inserted "balance" (which too is subjective), its better to look for truth, transparency & engaging storytelling. As a reader I'd prefer Glenn Greenwald's biased but fierce, well-researched & take-no-prisoners style stories than, say, the BBC's articles. As readers we have our own biases, and so do journalists (and their publications). > I do find the lack of balance and parochial worldview of the NYT and US press disturbing at times. The temptation is to see the world through a US prism without taking into account other viewpoints. This one is easy. The NYT's key market is the USA. Most of its journalists are from the US. Naturally, their writing will tend to have that bias. As readers we just need to be aware of that and calibrate their versions of the truth accordingly.

grey-area 13y ago
"balance" (which too is subjective), its better to look for truth, transparency & engaging storytelling. That's what I mean by balance, we probably substantially agree there, but perhaps the misuse of the word 'balance' in US media to mean presentation of false dichotomies has distorted the term in this context. I don't think allowing opinions means you disclaim all responsibility to objectivity. Just because you can't achieve objectivity doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it. A search for truth involves striving to rise above parochial and partial concerns, particularly in reporting on wars or nations in conflict. Naturally, their writing will tend to have that bias. As editors and journalists, they should strive to rise above it, that's their job, not the readers'. That's not to say they shouldn't have an opinion, but that it should be informed, clearly stated and not an attempt to distort the truth as they see it or insert their own narrative. Personally I think it's time for a new global journalism, without attempts to filter the truth and pick a side amongst often unpalatable narratives presented by national governments.

PeterisP 13y ago

Well, life outside Russia's big cities really is completely different than the Moscow megapolis, I've seen that and the article illustrates that point quite well. And read the article - it's not anti-Russian in any way, it simply shows how economic inequality looks like.

lowmagnet 13y ago

> We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us a balanced story based on their perception of the truth. We rely on journalists to sift through information and give us the truth, period. I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy.

nickik 13y ago
Truth is not objective when you tell a story. Are drug users destroying themself, or are they live there live to the fullest. This is a question of values, not truth. Just listing facts is not journalism.
kamjam 13y ago
Actually, I think anyone who reads a single article and takes it for truth is a fool. If something peaks your interest then you need to research more, there are different truths based on your perspective (exactly as you have pointed out). Newspapers are too much of a propaganda machine, with the ease of the internet research is only a click away and you can make up your own mind.
grey-area 13y ago
I don't want a balanced story, and such 'balance' tends to be struck between reality and what appears to be lunacy. Apologies, I shouldn't have used the word 'balanced' as apparently it has been debased so much by its use in a Fox News slogan that the original meaning has been lost. I didn't mean a sort of false balance which parrots two opposing sides of a political debate, no matter how insane both sides are, I meant the sort of balanced reporting which tries to verify facts, reports not just what was said but what was done, reports and verifies the claims of all parties involved in a dispute, and most importantly tries to see past and acknowledge the very real bias and blind spots of journalists themselves.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago

> given the treatment of stories like the NSA surveillance in the NYT (severely lacking, and often just parroting the government line without question), Iraq wars (again, severely lacking) We must be reading different versions of the NYT, as they've been severely critical of the US government in both situations.