2 years ago
Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
13 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    You mean the Russian government-owned propaganda machine? Sure, that's TOTALLY credible...

  • 2 years ago

    Comparing one news organization to a broad array of organizations with a vaguely defined label is a difficult comparison to agree with unqualified.

    When a government creates a news organization specifically to cater to a population in another country you should have some level of suspicion of the content. Especially when the champion of its government funding is the former head of the KGB and current head of state.

    That said, if you want the Russian state's view on an issue rather than a western-oriented one, it provides that. And I do think it is good to get different prespectives rather than limit yourself to one.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I would argue that the "Russian view" on a lot of key issues is, in general, more accurate than US corporate media narratives.

      "When a government creates a news organization specifically to cater to a population in another country you should have some level of suspicion of the content."

      I don't see a specific reason why state-funded media such as PBS or the BBC or RT would necessarily be less accurate than US corporate media. It's not clear to me that profit-driven media is inherently more accurate than government-driven media.

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Weren't you that guy who once said you can't believe anything the government tells you? I'm surprised you find state-owned and operated television to be without cause for special skepticism.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried "Weren't you that guy who once said you can't believe anything the government tells you?"

      I don't think so, but that's obviously hyperbole. I believe the government when they say the Earth is round for example.

      Now, when it comes to extraordinary claims based on unsupported assertions from secretive spy organizations with history of lying and simply getting things wrong, who themselves are run by known liars, yeah I'm more skeptical of those kinds of claims.

      " I'm surprised you find state-owned and operated television to be without cause for special skepticism."

      Not if we are comparing them to the corporate media though. You see I always make these distinctions but for some reason people hear whatever they want to hear. I can say something like "I am fast compared to a preschooler" but people only hear "so you think you're a fast runner?"

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui So if private owned media is super suspicious, and public owned media is super suspicious, what news do you think is most trustworthy?

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I would say those that are concerned with facts and not conforming to certain narratives. ConsortiumNews is a great source for everything Russiagate, as is TheIntercept. In general, investigative journalism tends to be more accurate than newstainment such as Foxnews, MSNBC, or CNN. Those who still honor the "old school" SPJ code of ethics like Seymour Hersch (My Lai massacre, Abu Graib prison) or Robert Parry (Iran-Contra Affair) or Glenn Greenwald (Edward Snowden revelations) and at least *TRY* to report information accurately without misleading readers and viewers for practical political purposes.

      Though ConsortiumNews and TheIntercept tend to have a left/progressive bias, they are also able to report on Trump in a way that is fair and could equally be applied to any president. In other words, they use an identical standard of evidence and logic and apply them consistently to all administrations. The New York Times clearly isn't capable of doing this. They couldn't hold Trump to an equal standard even if the editors and writers lives depended on it. The Washington Post has essentially turned itself into a newsletter for the CIA and foreign policy establishment, which is not surprising given that the oligarch who owns the Post has CIA contracts worth double what he paid for it (an obvious conflict of interest which is always conveniently left out in every major Russiagate story involving "anonymous officials"). This is amusing given that Hollywood is currently in a love affair with a false story about how it was the Post which exposed the Pentagon Papers (in reality it was mostly the NYT and some ballsy members of Congress and their staffers).

      So your question is really just obfuscating through the use of language, because a hidden premise is that all private media is equal and all government media is equal (because those are the simple words that we used, without further elaboration). When we get into the specifics, we see there is a vast difference between publications such as CNN vs Consortium News, or the New York Times and The Intercept.

      https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/02/u-s-medias-objectivity-questioned-abroad/

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui I ask questions when I'm trying to understand someone's position. It's not some trick or ploy.

      So you are telling me that you like some corporate media but not others. OK. Me too. And I like some non-for-profit private media. That's actually my favorite sort. The Intercept is a good example, so is NPR.

      And I rather like The Intercept from what I've seen. Seems like good work, kind of small-scale but that's fine. Consortium News seems to be not much more than a news blog, not an actual news organization that does reporting or investigation. They are mostly commenting on other news stories with their opinion and analysis. That's fine, but it's not news as such.

      Do you have some criteria by which you try to judge news organizations, how you separate the good from the bad?

      I hope it's not simply that if they support Russiagate they are bad and if they don't they are good.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried "Consortium News seems to be not much more than a news blog, not an actual news organization that does reporting or investigation."

      What gave you that impression? The journalists who you find to be credible, who are they, and how would they compare to someone like Robert Parry or Ray McGovern? It's hard to imagine how you came to the conclusion that NPR does better investigative work than either of these guys unless you just didn't think about it that much.

      As it happens, I recently made a video about an NPR article that I read which I will upload now.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVf-Zesgp3E&feature=youtu.be

      "Do you have some criteria by which you try to judge news organizations, how you separate the good from the bad?"

      As I previously said, adherence to old-school journalistic standards like the SPJ code of ethics for example, and using the opinions and views of old school journalists who have built their entire reputations on their credibility and ability to dig deeper find the truth (rather than looks, or conformity to the narrative, which seems to be the new journalistic standard) is another. I'm just wondering who exactly we are comparing people like Seymour Hersch or Robert Parry to. Is there anyone of similar caliber and credibility on the Russian narrative side? Because from my perspective this seems like no contest. The same guys who called BS on Iraq WMD are the same guys calling BS on this narrative. And the same people who promoted that WMD narrative are also promoting Russiagate. That is clear to me.

      "I hope it's not simply that if they support Russiagate they are bad and if they don't they are good."

      I'm serious when I ask who exactly we would be comparing journalists like Seymour Hersch and Robert Parry to. I don't think there is anyone on the Russiagate narrative side that is really comparable.

      But it actually goes much deeper than that. For example, the "17 intelligence agencies" claim was something that could have quickly and easily been debunked within minutes -- which is why I wrote an article about it back in December of 2016. Anyone who has read the January assessment can clearly see that there are only 3 agencies involved. Anyone doing cursory research on the "17 intelligence agencies" would be able to learn that if there were such a consensus, there would be a National Intelligence Estimate, which of course didn't exist, because 17 intelligence agencies didn't agree. Instead, they shamelessly promoted the narrative that claims made by the ODNI somehow constitute an assessment of "17 intelligence agencies" even when the report they are citing clearly shows otherwise.

      But they didn't bother to clarify, or add context, or report on any of that. Instead, they all shamelessly repeated the lie because it conformed to the general narrative. And it took Trump tweeting about something so stupid and idiotic that they finally decided to retract the claim (which Politifact still hilariously rates as true just as they did then).

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui "What gave you that impression? The journalists who you find to be credible, who are they, and how would they compare to someone like Robert Parry or Ray McGovern?"

      I got that impression by reading a number of articles on their site. Nearly all of them were commentary on other news stories and none of them were direct reporting. Most were what you would call "editorial or analysis" in the news trade rather than "reporting."

      I never said anything about credibility, only the form it takes. News is when someone reports to you what they have observed. Analysis is when someone takes those observations and tries to tell you what the facts mean. Opinion is when someone offers their own take on what is happening.

      Robert Parry is very respectable and a much-honored journalist.

      Ray McGovern is not a journalist so I don't know why you cite him. He's a political activist and ex CIA analyst.

      "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVf-Zesgp3E&feature=youtu.be"

      I stopped watching after about 10 minutes of you ranting rather than saying anything about the article. My take away is that you liked NPR until they reported stories you disagree with and then you determined they have no integrity due to that one issue that you are so passionate about.

      You also make the fatal mistake of assuming that the reporter agrees with the statements of those they are reporting on. I can report what Trump says without endorsing what he says. I can report what Obama says without endorsing that as well. To say what others said is not to say they are correct.

      I will agree that the journalist in that piece used some of their own inflating languages to make it colorful, but at no point did the article assert that anything claimed by anyone else is true or not true.

      Other great Journalists
      Robert Fisk, Christiane Amanpour, Hu Shuli, Bob Woodward, Glenn Greenwald
      I have no idea what their opinion on Russiagate is. And I don't much care because I don't judge someone based on what their opinion is, only on whether they conduct themselves well as journalists or not.

      "17 intelligence agencies"

      The mainstream media is full of stories about that, both the initial talking point, walking it back, and various discussions of whether it was accurate to say or not.

      Ultimately it's not of all that much significance. You can just read that report or yourself which is usually the best course of action on that kind of reporting.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried "I got that impression by reading a number of articles on their site. Nearly all of them were commentary on other news stories and none of them were direct reporting. Most were what you would call "editorial or analysis" in the news trade rather than "reporting."

      I never said anything about credibility, only the form it takes. News is when someone reports to you what they have observed. Analysis is when someone takes those observations and tries to tell you what the facts mean. Opinion is when someone offers their own take on what is happening."

      But if the thing they are reporting on is itself the media coverage, they are reporting on what they have observed. I guess they would be doing all 3 in this case. And in any case, their observations are highly accurate when compared to the legacy media which doesn't even seem to be aware that it is inside of an echo chamber.

      "I stopped watching after about 10 minutes of you ranting rather than saying anything about the article. My take away is that you liked NPR until they reported stories you disagree with and then you determined they have no integrity due to that one issue that you are so passionate about."

      Nope, you have to watch more than 10 minutes rather than make assumptions based on the first 10 minutes because those assumptions are simply wrong.

      "You also make the fatal mistake of assuming that the reporter agrees with the statements of those they are reporting on. I can report what Trump says without endorsing what he says. I can report what Obama says without endorsing that as well. To say what others said is not to say they are correct."

      That depends entirely on the manner in which the information is presented. NPR is now reporting unsubstantiated allegations as fact much like the media did with the Iraq WMD once the narrative had become mainstreamed. If they report everything Trump says in a manner which suggests it's false, and everything others say in a manner which suggests it's true, we can indeed determine what the reporter's view is on the issue. In any case, this is bad journalism.

      "I will agree that the journalist in that piece used some of their own inflating languages to make it colorful, but at no point did the article assert that anything claimed by anyone else is true or not true."

      What does this even mean? How would we determine that? For example:

      "Elections systems are also only part of the problem. In 2016, cyberattackers stole millions of emails from political organizations and individuals, including the Democratic National Committee, and then released them to cause embarrassment among the victims."

      These statements are being presented as though they are facts. They aren't being attributed to anyone besides, presumably, the author itself. It's one thing to say "X says Y." It's quite another to just say "Y." This is clearly a case of just saying "Y" rather than "X says Y." It's the difference between "Iraq has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" and not adding something like "according to several Bush Administration offficials." It gives the impression that this is somehow a fact rather than a claim being made by a specific person.

      By the way, about Bob Woodward, he's been one of the biggest critics of a lot of the hype regarding Russiagate:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnNOVZJ4Olw

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/08/bob_woodward_media_need_to_calm_down_trump_admin_is_not_at_watergate_level_yet.htm

      On Chistiane Amanpour, watch this RT reporter effortlessly crucify her toeing the State Department line for the last 15 years:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhOfwGN11oY

      "I have no idea what their opinion on Russiagate is. And I don't much care because I don't judge someone based on what their opinion is, only on whether they conduct themselves well as journalists or not."

      And how do you determine that, specifically?

      "The mainstream media is full of stories about that, both the initial talking point, walking it back, and various discussions of whether it was accurate to say or not."

      Funny how this only occurs AFTER Trump starts Tweeting about it and they are forced to retract it. It's a good thing we have Trump's Twitter feed because otherwise the fake news would never be retracted. It's a sad day in journalism when the people have to rely on Trump to give them a more accurate picture of what is going on in the world because the corporate media keeps lying about things.

      "Ultimately it's not of all that much significance. You can just read that report or yourself which is usually the best course of action on that kind of reporting."

      I agree that the legacy media isn't a very reliable soure on things related to Trump and Russiagate in particular. I agree that you have to dig deeper and have a good reason to doubt or be skeptical of anything they say. That is, in fact, my position.