4 ms·

Note that the democratic world's media are very heterogeneous. It isn't often they agree on much (see the Viernam war, Israel, Iraq war, etc in European media).

Note that the democratic world's media are very heterogeneous. It isn't often they agree on much (see the Viernam war, Israel, Iraq war, etc in European media). On this subject, most everyone do agree. Again note -- that is unusual. Maybe unique. And you claim that is a conspiracy, based on that there are lots of spin used on every subject by everyone with a finger in a pie? That is exactly what Putin's media writes -- the whole [non dictatorial] world is in a conspiracy against Russia. Because they hate Russia! (I can tell you how unanimous this is in Sweden: Most of the left wing extremists don't support Putin re Ukraine. These people in Sweden are USA haters which have never supported a democracy in a conflict with a democracy...)

mike_hearn 12y ago
Both Iraq and Israel are absolutely notorious for being subjects where all major western news outlets toe or toed the political line. Whilst Israel is treated somewhat neutrally outside the USA, the puppy-like behaviour of American media is so extreme it is itself worthy of news articles: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/american-media-israel-bias-netanyahu http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/america... The runup to the war in Iraq is widely considered to be one of the western media's biggest and most damaging failures, including by those outlets themselves: http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/ http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/27/media.iraq http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/27/media.iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War With respect to your assertion that "most everyone do agree", did you read my comment? It's very much NOT the case that everyone agrees on this. Here's the Guardian's view: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/guardian-view-sanctions-against-russia http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/guardia... Hardly a ringing endorsement of sanctions. Now go look at the comments section. Pick comments pointing out western hypocrisy and take a look at the posting history of those accounts. For instance, check out TheGreatRonRafferty. Posting on the site for years, thousands of comments. Many other views like his expressed there. If you think this is all the work of the FSB you're delusional, I don't know how else to say it.
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  You can't say these things on HN. It's not nice. Putin is a villain, period. Who are you to spoil the bashing with your rational arguments?
  - VMG 12y ago
    For sarcasm to work it must mock something that does exist.
    - huhtenberg 12y ago
      Are you saying that strong anti-Russian bias doesn't exist on HN? You must be reading it in some filtered form.
      - dictum 12y ago
        Conflating "anti-Putin" with "anti-Russian" doesn't help your argument.
      - VMG 12y ago
        There probably is an anti-Putin sentiment, but there are good reasons for that. In any case, the post you replied to wasn't even pro-Putin and hasn't been punished by any anti-Putin bias on HN.
      - true_religion 12y ago
        Just because people don't like a particular person doesn't mean they are biased against them. Their dislike could be rooted strongly in the actions the person has committed. By the way, its very difficult to prove bias against a single person as opposed to a group. With a group, you can show bias easily by pointing out someones dislike for a member of the group who only shares superficial traits with the rest of the group (e.g. ethnicity/nationality/gender/etc.). But for a person? Even if you're suspicious of every seemingly innocuous action of them, it can be justified by saying they have lost your trust due to actions in the past.
  - 12y ago

mike_hearn 12y ago

Both Iraq and Israel are absolutely notorious for being subjects where all major western news outlets toe or toed the political line. Whilst Israel is treated somewhat neutrally outside the USA, the puppy-like behaviour of American media is so extreme it is itself worthy of news articles: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/american-media-israel-bias-netanyahu http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/america... The runup to the war in Iraq is widely considered to be one of the western media's biggest and most damaging failures, including by those outlets themselves: http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/ http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/27/media.iraq http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/27/media.iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War With respect to your assertion that "most everyone do agree", did you read my comment? It's very much NOT the case that everyone agrees on this. Here's the Guardian's view: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/guardian-view-sanctions-against-russia http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/guardia... Hardly a ringing endorsement of sanctions. Now go look at the comments section. Pick comments pointing out western hypocrisy and take a look at the posting history of those accounts. For instance, check out TheGreatRonRafferty. Posting on the site for years, thousands of comments. Many other views like his expressed there. If you think this is all the work of the FSB you're delusional, I don't know how else to say it.

huhtenberg 12y ago
You can't say these things on HN. It's not nice. Putin is a villain, period. Who are you to spoil the bashing with your rational arguments?
- VMG 12y ago
  For sarcasm to work it must mock something that does exist.
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    Are you saying that strong anti-Russian bias doesn't exist on HN? You must be reading it in some filtered form.
    - dictum 12y ago
      Conflating "anti-Putin" with "anti-Russian" doesn't help your argument.
    - VMG 12y ago
      There probably is an anti-Putin sentiment, but there are good reasons for that. In any case, the post you replied to wasn't even pro-Putin and hasn't been punished by any anti-Putin bias on HN.
    - true_religion 12y ago
      Just because people don't like a particular person doesn't mean they are biased against them. Their dislike could be rooted strongly in the actions the person has committed. By the way, its very difficult to prove bias against a single person as opposed to a group. With a group, you can show bias easily by pointing out someones dislike for a member of the group who only shares superficial traits with the rest of the group (e.g. ethnicity/nationality/gender/etc.). But for a person? Even if you're suspicious of every seemingly innocuous action of them, it can be justified by saying they have lost your trust due to actions in the past.
- 12y ago