That and the Russian propaganda machine might at any moment decide to have you killed.
How convincing do you think these epigrams actually are? The reality is that the US media market provides a vastly more credible stream of current events information than Russia's ever has. Does that make the US media credible? It's hard to say. Russia is a very, very low bar to clear.
The idea that the media in the US is pure government propaganda. There is vigorous debate on innumerable issues. Think for instance of the climate change debate, or Middle East policy. In Russia you don't have that at all.
One of the basic tactics of pro-Russian propagandists is to not deny that the media in Russia is all propaganda, but try to persuade people that the same is true everywhere else.
The idea is that people won't know what ideas to trust, and will become cynical and apathetic. Once that happens Russia can simply expand unopposed.
I'm Russian. And while I agree that we have a propaganda, I can't say that the situation is any better in the West.
When I was living in UK for a while, I was amazed by how some really smart people have 100% level of trust to national media, so that they can't even perceive another point of view. All arguments were based on the fact that their media is historically old and never lies because it can't risk its reputation. And all Russian media is propaganda and controlled by Putin. It was 2014 and I can't say how much I was asked what I think about Putin. Honestly I didn't know what to answer because I don't like to talk about politics.
But since that time I know that if you look around the world you will notice the same BS but in different boxing. And people are equally vulnerable to buy it.
There is a downside to this too: Russian propaganda is aimed abroad as well, and it is surprisingly effective in spite of us having access to alternative news sources. Their talking points and quotes show up all over the internet, including on HN, with alarming regularity.
I've watched US propaganda from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. I don't trust the US government or their news agencies anymore than any other propaganda. They'll pick the facts that support their side and mix in lies without a second thought.
There are three truths in war: My side, their side, and the truth.
If they feel compelled to do something, poison the well by marking sites as suspected Russian propaganda. Otherwise, let me read what I want and make up my own mind.
If I wanted my search engine to play politics, I'd just use Google.
That’s quite the presumptions. Anyway Are you suggesting it’s wise to take what the Russian media and government says at face value? While I do enjoy learning and reading different perspectives, I don’t appreciate recommendations with large red flags about integrity of the logic. Nor do I appreciate being negged. So thank you sir and good day to you.
I'm South American so I have first handedly seen how American propaganda works. It may be different from Russian propaganda, but your plea that people stop sharing RussiaToday, in absence of equal pleas against The New York Times, comes off as ignorant. You may be scared about Russian military aggression, but I beg you to compare how much military aggression the US and Russia are both engaged in right now.
By the way, I decided to share the well-argued, well-cited article about the issues with pro-Clinton New York Times reporting on HackerNews, it got three upvotes, and then it got flagged to death.
Consider that we may both be between a rock and a hard place.
I do believe that the influence of Russian propaganda is vastly overestimated by you and others. I believe that they are paying and trying to influence and/or harm Western societies, but it's working because those are obvious break-lines that have been created over the past few decades.
I see it more like a glacier that is going to calve any minute, and Russia is a guy with a 2x4, using it as a lever to help widen a crack: in the grand scheme of things, it's insignificant.
RE "banning it in their own countries": of course, that's what authoritarian states do. It's always been my belief that if you want to uphold your standards as a country with a free and independent press, you need to accept that this can make things difficult. And your press must always, even if they think it hurts, be critical and vigilant.
The US media all falling in line for the Iraq wars multiple times in a row and essentially becoming propaganda outlets did immense damage. That they admitted as much afterwards and promised to do better is noble (and is a major difference, that wouldn't happen in the state-controlled media of Russia, China or Turkey), but ultimately useless.
I understand that they feel they have a responsibility to not harm their governments, but imho they are harming their societies much more by abandoning their role as an independent fourth power in democracy. If media companies discredit themselves, they're doing the enemy's work. If you know I'm out to get you and you keep lying for whatever reason, you're really making my job too easy, because all I need to do is point it out.
It seems naive to imply the US has a less effective propaganda apparatus than Russia within its own direct sphere of influence. The idea that a country with 1/10th the GDP of the US outcompetes the US in propaganda delivery on its own pay-to-play media platforms doesn't make a lot of sense to me personally. Seeing any kind of anti-war dissent as influenced by pro-Russian agents seems like low-effort thinking. Being weary of an escalating proxy war with a high-manufacturing capacity, energy-rich superpower that historically has sacrificed large percentages of its population in total war is not inherently a pro-Russian stance; it's a common-sense stance that values life.
How convincing do you think these epigrams actually are? The reality is that the US media market provides a vastly more credible stream of current events information than Russia's ever has. Does that make the US media credible? It's hard to say. Russia is a very, very low bar to clear.
reply