E.g., I saw a post yesterday on Medium that Ukraine is discriminating against black refugees (https://medium.com/alternative-perspectives/why-are-black-pe...). If you're only listening to the Ukraine friendly media, you'll miss that (IMO important fact).
They also seem to put the greatest emphasis on human suffering, which is a bias im in favor of.
There is value to reading propaganda to have wider visibility though, especially since most propaganda selectively presents the truth rather than outright lying and both sides will often simply choose to present similar events in a different context.
No society or people on Earth are perfect. Don't let them convince you that this means you should never take a stand.
What's coming out of Ukraine/Zelensky are optimistic numbers and morale boosting statements mostly based on real events
What's coming out of Putin and RT is pure fantasy and has virtually no basis on real world events: Ukranian government are Nazis, Ukrain population is mostly pro Russia, Ukraine is mostly welcoming Russian troops, it's a liberation operation, &c.
> I saw a post yesterday on Medium that Ukraine is discriminating against black refugee
Is Medium being censored ? Is medium a Russian source ?
See, you can still get informations of all kind without RT. And calling that "the russian" side is a stretch. It is used by russian propaganda to pretend ukranians are monster though (which is ironic considering Russian stance but whatever)
It’s also useful to see what overdone propaganda is like to have a solid reference point for when our own countries try to do the same.
I'm going to be thát guy; do you have sources to support that claim? I've been hearing about that sentiment but haven't seen any data about it.
RT cut down their tabloid tone a notch too.
RTs main problem is that it is called Russia Today. That is a worthless name to do foreign psyops ... learn from al-Jazeera.
Yesterday they published a story on chemical weapons WMD laboratories they supposedly found. Western media has ignored the story so far.
It's almost as if it's designed specifically to be awkward to denounce.
On the other hand, I dare you to find an RT story critical of Putin, without any sugarcoating. Beyond the war, on literally any topic.
So no, it's not western media from a Russian POV.
Both sides are, generally speaking, enforcing a narrative and rejecting objectivity in favor of the narrative ergo it's propaganda
Freedom of press for me but not for thee.
Any war the US started had significant opposition in local media. Saying that it's the same is disingenuous at best, Russian propaganda at worst.
(In this case I agree that RT is likely propaganda, but knowing an argument you disagree with makes it easier to argue against people that make it.)
What is certain on the other hand is that it is Russia which invaded Ukraine, a free country, at first place. What is also certain is that any news organization in Russia that doesn't follow the Kremlin's narrative is deemed criminal by Russian authorities.
In the case of CNN, we see the collective bias of those who run the company optimizing coverage for engagement based on their assessment of the bias of those watching. In the case of RT, we literally know that guests or anchors who do not work to legitimize propaganda are at risk of physical retribution.
It's not just like at all.
Look at this: https://www.rt.com/russia/551384-russia-ukraine-nuclear-fals...
>“The SBU and the militants of the Azov Battalion are planning to blow up the reactor and accuse the Russian Armed Forces of allegedly launching a missile attack on the experimental nuclear facility,”
This isn't a discussion in which people are arguing different opinions in good faith, it's straight up manipulation to excuse killing more people.
But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example. They’ve invaded Georgia and Ukraine before using the same exact lies. Putin’s history in Chechnya is also horrific. So you should trust Russia saying they’re coming to liberate someone as much as you should trust a certain other country coming to liberate someone: you shouldn’t.
Any source to it that doesn't try to stretch the meaning of pseudo-term "right-wing" to mean "neonazis"? Are there knows instances of Russia openly incorporating entities publicly identifying with neonazi rhetorics and symbolics into their government structures?
> But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example.
Could you refer us to this documentation? Should be an interesting read.
> They’ve invaded Georgia before using the same exact lies
Are you denying the fact that Saakashvili had invaded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Osetia, trying to solve a century old ethnic conflict[1] by force, which was last time put on cold under Russia's military guarantees[2]? What lies are you referring to exactly?
1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian–Ossetian_conflict
There’s the fact 90% of Ukraine was completely peaceful just a month ago other than Russian funded “separatists” in the east constantly stirring things up. [2]
Russia claimed the whole Crimea operation was soldiers on vacation until they started blowing the place up and seized it. [3]
And Russia’s detraction from its own issues is so well known it has a wiki article. [4]
You’re more transparent than you think you are.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/2...
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Easily my favourite George R. R. Martin quote. We discovered why free speech is important during the 17th century in the Enlightenment period. The scientific method itself owes its existence to free speech, and the ability for any person to disagree with any other person, regardless of their class, race, age, nationality, religion, or beliefs. The same goes for democracy. Take away the fundamental principle of free speech and you undermine science and democracy.
Are evil people going to attempt to convince the suggestible that they're not evil? Of course! Contrary to common sentiment, free speech has a cost. We pay this cost gladly so that we can live in relative prosperity.
this still applies. RT readers arent shooting you.
funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.
I mean, we obviously can't. Who's going to make them provide balanced news ? no one since they're literally part of the Russian government. You can't "counter them by rational argument" if these arguments never reach the target
What about islamist news ? Why don't we broadcast that freely ? Can't you provide rational arguments against that ? What about nazis, why are they banned in Germany ? Are you afraid of not having rational arguments ?
> funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.
Well, I can say the same about freedom of speech...
I caution you to so casually frame RT as an example of the paradox of tolerance. The byline makes it clear that this paradox was created and applied to situations where the tolerated eventually seized authoritarian power to silence the tolerant. RT, and as you rightly describe, Russia, has no hope of invading the U.S. and seizing this power. It's just Russia spouting Russian propaganda. Either you trust your citizens to freely exchange ideas - even those you really, really really, don't like - or you don't. I'm getting the feeling that you don't.
Funny that you say that knowing the role of Russian propaganda during your elections but ok
I'm not certain writing off whole swathes of people based on personal perspective is a good plan.
Reach out to those you disagree with, be it antivax, flat earth, whatever.
They are human, and want the best for themselves, and their family.
Try not to "other", if you can help it.
Maybe you like to consider yourself superior to the people who would lead credence to what RT writes, but in my opinion there's nobody immune to some kind of propaganda machine. Maybe something more insidious is required for you or me, but in the end it's hubris to consider yourself invulnerable.
For instance, RT claims to be a news source, but knowingly lies about atrocities committed by the Russian government.
Most people don't have the resources (time, knowledge, smarts) to see what is not true by themselves.
Alternative viewpoints need to be shown for actually controversial topics, of course.
For the last eight years, they've been riling up the Russian population with portraying Ukrainians as Nazis, barbarians, etc. It's gotten to the point now where they would make up fake stories (e.g. crucified boy). Right now, during the war - you literally can't call it a "war" or you might face being sentenced. If you share anything opposing the official view - you could get 15 years behind bars. Russian government has also forced all "opposition" media to shutdown in the last couple of days. Soon, they will annex themselves from the internet and the population will only have one source for news - the propaganda channels.
No, RT should be banned and every person working for it should be jailed for life.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred.
Edit: here, educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy
Remember the story about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait? Told by a “nurse” in from of the UN, so that the US would get permission to invade Iraq?
People need to be able to see these stories to learn to recognize them as the bullshit they are. Hiding them will do more harm that good in the long to.
Second, we can learn about russian propaganda stories without allowing enemy propaganda to poison gullible part of population uncontested.
With all due respect but this paternalistic approach to what people should and shouldn't be allowed in knowing is a despicable point of view. Why do you think that you personally, or anyone can be sufficiently impartial to decide what's allowed?
I can understand if the Ukrainian government wants their "airwaves" clear of russian propaganda, but asking the whole world to censor them brings no benefit in my opinion. More so, Ukrainians probably can tell from their own experiences how much bullshit there's on RT, so it serves no actual purpose to do so even for them.
the sooner you realize that putin is at war with you - the better.
i will argue for censoring that shit during war. i understand your position, but i disagree.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2310098-what-are-thermo... https://au.news.yahoo.com/what-is-a-thermobaric-bomb-and-why...
The worst offenders don't even mention the US' extensive use of them, such as the CBU-72 in Vietnam.
There's a huge amount of propaganda going on right now, I don't trust any outlets to be telling me the truth.
Im reminded of Chomsky's quote here (it's surprising how often it is relevant):
>Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.
most people here are not supportive of banning cnn etc
how is that not whataboutism exactly?
You answered clearly and in the affirmative.
I dont agree with your answer and I dont find it to be consistent with a belief in free speech but it is consistent with what you previously said.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh, oh boy.
Depends on how much stock you put in Operation Mockingbird.[1] Many journalists in mainstream media absolutely carry water for the government. And it's not just CNN either, it's Fox News, NY Times, Washington Post etc.
This is unfortunately something that can't be simply banned out of existence.
Zelensky lied about a Russian shell hitting a nuclear plant and called for retaliation, which is exactly inciting violence. There's a lot of misinformation spread by both sides (Russia and the West) but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair.
unfair to whom exactly? Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the massacre of its citizen is certainly a bigger injustice.
You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response and getting separatists to start fighting?
That's exactly what you should, though. Especially if you're in his position, where the smallest wimp is taken as fact.
> And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community
What exactly would you think the "response" would be if the nuclear plant was actually bombed? You don't have to be a geopolitical expert to know it is violence.
> You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response
Have you been following the news? Western media is doing exactly that with recent events like the snake island "heroes"?
> I would very much like international community to get involved and vaporize putin and entire russian army with entire government and elites.
You're a living contradiction, man.
Given Putin's ties with Israel and the enormous Nazi problem in Ukraine, it seems that describing the invasion as "fascist" is really skirting the line of absurdity.
russian invasion can't be called anything other than fascist - military glorious leader annexing a chunk of neighbour's territory under justification that people there are compatriots that need saving. you can't make that shit up.