The key question is whether Tuesday's encounter was an attempt by Russia to disrupt the US drone and its work, or whether it was a deliberate attempt to bring it down. [...] The US will now have to evaluate its response. — James Landale, Henri Astier · BCC · Mar 15, 2023
That's a ridiculously low standard for what qualifies as a lack of suppression "if you're not banned of in jail, you're fine" — Isaac
If visibility in the mainstream dictates credibility, what happens if the mainstream become corrupt? Who points that out and to whom? Who holds mainstream media to account? Or are they Gods? — Isaac
the Western news platform credibility — neomac
...oh, turns out they are gods. Well, that answers that question. — Isaac
Do you think the mainstream press doesn't have a politics? Over 90% of Washington Post readers are Democrats. You're suggesting that's a coincidence? They're reporting the news unbiasedly and just happen to be liked overwhelmingly by one side? — Isaac
the Nord Stream 2 blasts are object of a wide investigation involving several countries, related governments, intelligence services, news outlets — neomac
You've given a list which involves only two independant agents - governments and news agencies. You've dismissed results of half of the news agencies, and governments are not going to incriminate themselves, so you're basically saying the mainstream media are inviolable and we need never concern ourselves with the possibility that they may be biased. — Isaac
"Lack of suppression" doesn't mean "being fine" — neomac
Hersh made his point in a substack article but anybody in the West could learn of its existence — neomac
If there is a relevant delta of credibility between BBC and TASS in favor of the former, and Hersh gets mentioned only by the latter, this is not a boost of Hersh's credibility. I guess. Unless one assumes that Hersh is the relevant meter by which one can assess BBC vs TASS credibility. — neomac
No idea how you can possibly infer such conclusions from the claim of mine you quoted. — neomac
(Reuters) - A Russian local politician was fined nearly $2,000 on Thursday for "discrediting the armed forces" by dangling spaghetti from his ears while listening to a speech by President Vladimir Putin, a human rights monitoring group said.
Mikhail Abdalkin was convicted for a stunt, which he filmed and posted on social media, based on a Russian saying that someone who has been strung along or deceived has had noodles hung on their ears.
The implication was that he did not believe the content of the state of the nation speech that Putin delivered on Feb. 21, just before the first anniversary of his invasion of Ukraine.
The monitoring group OVD-Info quoted Abdalkin, a Communist from the Samara region, as saying it had been an ironic gesture to express his dissatisfaction with "the president's silence about internal political problems". He was fined 150,000 roubles ($1,950).
Russia's parliament this month tightened laws passed shortly after the invasion that now stipulate fines or jail terms of up to 15 years for discrediting or spreading false news about the armed forces or others, such as the Wagner mercenary group, who are taking part in the war in Ukraine. ($1 = 76.8455 roubles)
As we mark the 20th anniversary of the devastating Iraq invasion, let us join with Global South leaders and the majority of our neighbors around the world, not only in calling for immediate peace negotiations to end the brutal Ukraine war, but also in building a genuine rules-based international order, where the same rules – and the same consequences and punishments for breaking those rules – apply to all nations, including our own.
"Lack of suppression" doesn't mean "being fine" — neomac
So you're not fine with how Sy Hersh's story has been treated. Good. We agree on that. — Isaac
I didn't ask you where one can read about Sy Hersh's story. If you don't want to answer my questions just don't. There's no need to answer a different one. — Isaac
If there is a relevant delta of credibility between BBC and TASS in favor of the former, and Hersh gets mentioned only by the latter, this is not a boost of Hersh's credibility. I guess. Unless one assumes that Hersh is the relevant meter by which one can assess BBC vs TASS credibility. — neomac
This is either deliberately obtuse or childishly naive. A broadcaster like TASS will give its eye teeth to publish a story which reflects badly on the US. Their doing so, therefore, has no bearing whatsoever on its credibility. Do you think they'd avoid anti-US stories because they're true. I mean its just dumbfoundingly stupid. A non-credible news agency like TASS doesn't actively seek out fake news. They publish news which promotes their agenda, true or not. So a news article appearing in TASS doesn't indicate it's false. It indicates that it's good for Russia. I hate to blow your tiny mind, but some things are both true and good for Russia, and Russian propaganda will publish those thing with no less enthusiasm than they publish flashhoods. — Isaac
The agencies whose investigations you claim are relevant fall into two camps; governments and journalists. Governments will not report honestly their own collusion so you cannot trust a government to report on its own behaviour. You yourself pointed to the untrustworthiness of TASS.
So you're left with journalists. But you've said that independent journalists lack sufficient credibility to be taken seriously. So who's left? Mainstream media. You're saying that if the mainstream media don't report it, it doesn't deserve any credibility. So I asked, if the.mainstream media have a problem, how do we hear about it? — Isaac
I wasn’t talking about not being fine with how Sy Hersh's story has been treated.
I’m not fine with you talking about "suppression" in reference to Hersh's article.
It’s a rhetoric exaggeration, a caricature, due to your militant mindset. — neomac
Mainstream media didn’t suppress Hersh’s article. — neomac
I’m simply questioning the idea that Hersh’s story would earn greater credibility by being sponsored by Russian propaganda outlets like TASS relative to alternatives like the BBC. — neomac
I just don’t feel pressed to question a Western government’s deeds when there are so many powerful agents readily doing so — neomac
the Russian government is... far from being vocally challenged by competitors internal or external to the government — neomac
If an independent journalist wants to be read by many, he could sell his articles denouncing a government’s misdeeds to a mainstream outlets. If he doesn’t trust any mainstream outlets, he could still publish in some well reputed independent platform like https://www.icij.org/about/ — neomac
I can keep my doubts in either case and suspend my judgement. — neomac
I have known for a long while that you don't want an actual conversation. I think others have noticed it too with you.Let's not pretend we're now having an actual conversation. — Isaac
Again an example of your curious worship of experts. Haven't you gone to the university or why do you have such an inferiority complex? This is international politics we are talking about.You know full well that many experts far more qualified to judge than you or I — Isaac
Again this expert-worship. Look, why is it so hard to understand that you can agree or disagree about the opinions and conclusions that people make? Scott Ritter as an weapons inspector gave a thorough analysis of the Iraqi weapons inspection process and I believed and agreed with his conclusion that there was no Iraqi WMD program anymore when Iraq was attacked. And that was before the Iraqi invasion, which later was shown to be the truth. He doesn't have similar insight into the war in Ukraine and his opinions are his opinions. It's you who is making this absurd classification of experts and not simply look at what they are saying. It's you who disregards certain information just from the source...not even bothering to say just what is wrong in what they are stating. Besides, it's totally normal to agree partly with a commentator and disagree with other opinions or conclusions he or she makes.why you believe your experts. Why you choose the ones you choose. — Isaac
And then comes the perfect example of the Putin apologist of the forum.demanding a full Russian retreat is a non-starter. — Isaac
why is it so hard to understand that you can agree or disagree about the opinions and conclusions that people make? — ssu
If you are critical about the US when it does something bad, you ought to be critical when some other country does something bad. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.