https://wapo.st/44WxjsL
Ahead of the mutiny, steps were taken to boost security at the Kremlin, but Putin was uncertain how to respond to a warlord critical to many global operations.
Many on the local level could not believe the Wagner rebellion could be happening without some degree of agreement with the Kremlin, the security officials said
The other side of ruling with an iron fist and micromanaging people. If you stop doing that, these people then just think this is all part of what is supposed happen and are unable to act on their own without explicit orders.
Word is they were also drunk off their asses, which probably correlates with 0 ideological buy-in.
I think there were a lot of players up and down the ranks waiting to see which way the wind blew before casting for any given side.
With so many concerns that the coup had backing from either Putin or other power blocs, a whole lot of side players would have wanted to back a winning pony and were waiting on early outcomes. Equally, with Putin not providing decisive action, I'm sure that invited meaningful concerns that this was some sort of double-dealing or the beginning of a Putin-backed purge.
Putin's aid: "Sir, the people... They are rebelling against you!"
Putin: "What? Why did they not just roll over and die like I thought they would? This is fucking up my plans! 😩"
The so called rebellion was planned. Now all of Wagner is in Bellarus, running drills close to the Polish border.
To what end? They were mercenary group operating under Moscow's auspices and Belarus is friendly and already being used as a staging post. If they wanted them there they'd just tell them to go there. This makes them look weak and drew troops out of Ukraine while they're actively trying to invade it.
Intel from sources within the Bellarus government suggests that they need at least all of the Wagner personel to invade your mothers butt. Poland as a staging area is convenient.
I don't understand what happened there or how the guy who tried to overthrow the government is still walking free. I've never heard of this in history before. The whole thing smells.
It is silly to compare Voice of America (an excellent journalistic institution with a great reputation), to the Washington Post (overall pretty good), to Russia Times (literal state propaganda). These are all very different sources and painting them with the same brush is just factually incorrect.
Here's some research for you:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/
As for your second point, Trump is still walking free and he tried to overthrow the government. These things apparently do happen.
For the love of god, listen to some Citations Needed and stop self-congratilating your media literacy because some fucking dork with a website tells you the New York Times and Washington Post aren't biased.
I'd thought that even the most liberal people on nü-Lemmy had at least read some Chomsky (or even watched the documentaries based on his work), but I guess we aren't even there yet.
I think it’s hilarious people are telling me I need some nuance and research, when I’m the one arguing there are differences between these sources and we need to evaluate them individually. And the person I responded to is arguing they’re all the same because, well, Journalism Bad I guess!
For the love of god read the comments before you reply.
And the person I responded to is arguing they’re all the same because, well, Journalism Bad I guess!
If you only consider corporate media and western state-run and state-sponsored outlets to be purveyors of "Journalism," then let me emphatically say yes, Journalism Bad.
I think you're just doubling down on your bad arguments with straw man fallacies now. Move on.
"Bad arguments" is a pretty rich take coming from you. You've done nothing but continually, in defiance of logic and facts, assert total nonsense... and then turn around and claim that I'm the one that has bad arguments.
Literally, at least I have something. All you've got is a mushy, unfactual "enlightened centricism" that says that actually all media and all fact checkers are liars. Which is an utterly moronic take, and as I have demonstrated all over this thread, totally unsupported by actual facts.
Voice of America was put under the command of the USIA (US Information Agency) whose job was literally propaganda.
The US archives state the following:
306.2 Records of the International Information Administration (Department of State) 1945-53
History: Office of the Coordinator of Information established as an independent agency by Presidential order, July 11, 1941, to collect and analyze information bearing upon national security. Foreign Information Service established within OCOI to oversee shortwave propaganda broadcasts (Voice of America, VOA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/306.html
I think that definitively proves you wrong.
Will this make you do one ounce of self-criticism or re-evaluate how you view the world? I sincerely doubt it.
Interesting find! There were also 48 states when that was written though, so we should probably take its current-day accuracy with a grain of salt.
Indeed, the nature of VOA has changed over time. During the Cold War it served to bring accurate news to countries behind the Iron Curtain and fight Soviet propaganda. (The Soviet government jammed it during this time.) Obviously this mission has changed since then as well since the Soviet Union no longer exists.
Ultimately its current reputation of journalistic objectivity does not depend on nearly century-old records but on what we can see today; dedicated journalists and accurate reporting.
Ah yes the propaganda outlet started for the purposes of propaganda and staffed with people all doing the job of propaganda has surely not continued to employ people ideologically aligned with performing propaganda ever since! Nooooooo. Somewhere along the line must have fired every single member of staff and built a reputable new outlet from the top down. Surely!
To quote a reagan fuckhead - "Personnel is policy".
Ultimately its current reputation of journalistic objectivity does not depend on nearly century-old records but on what we can see today; dedicated journalists and accurate reporting.
You are not immune to propaganda. And you should seriously take a moment to read the shit you are writing and ask yourself how much of it is you repeating propaganda. You sound like you're literally writing PR copy.
I mean, France was once ruled by an Emperor; does that mean it still secretly is? Or did, like, something change in the last two hundred years in that regard? Do you think Napoleon is still secretly in charge there too?
You’re right personnel is policy though. And if you did any research whatsoever instead of posting nonsense on the Internet, you’d see that the journalists who work at the VOA are actually journalists, not propagandists. It’s not hard, the facts are out there. Maybe you should pursue them instead of indulge in baseless conspiracy theories.
But I’m easy to convince! Feel free to link me evidence that the VOA is still American propaganda and not real journalism. Surely reputable sources and good evidence are easy to find? I mean, if this was written a hundred years ago, there must be something else between then and now?
And if you did any research whatsoever
Of the two of us I am the only one that has done any research at all. As I am the only one who bothered to see what language the US uses for its own media outlet.
Your research consists of looking up propaganda sites that suit you, and parroting whatever they say regardless of any critical thought that might suggest they're not reliable. You don't think for yourself. At all. All you do is defer all of your thinking to these ""sources"" when they're not primary sources and are literally obviously spouting easily falsifiable shit.
What research was that exactly? Watching a literal propaganda YouTube video and deciding it was the truth? You know that video was in English too, right? Doesn't that mean it's been compromised by the CIA?
Anyway... you clearly just have no idea what you're talking about and have no ability to discern fact from fiction. For crowing that I need to stop being propagandized, I'm the only one here that appears to have done anything even actual research and employing critical thought.
Stop getting your information from YouTube. Duh.
mediabiasfactcheck, the site that squashes two complex spectrums (left vs right, unbiased vs biased) into a one dimensional line, making no distinction between centrism and being unbiased.
Yet certainly this has more nuance than that idiot who sees literally no difference between VOA, WaPo, BBC, and RT?
Look up the concept of hyperbolic statements in conversation.
All they were saying was that they don't trust the Washington Post for foreign news. They weren't literally putting WP in line with RT.
Washington Post is an american propaganda outlet when it comes to foreign policy articles. You might as well be linking VOA or RT.
They are literally putting WP in line with RT. This statement is still wrong in exactly the way I've described numerous times here.
That quote is meant to be taken figuratively.
Propaganda in the loosest definition just means reporting in a biased manner to push a political agenda. You can be 100% accurate with what you say and it still can be considered propaganda due to the manner in which it is presented.
While WP or VoA, in contrast to RT, don't outright lie or deceptively create fake stories, they do have a pro-USA bias. That's why it's a hyperbolic statement. It was just meant to elaborate on the distrust for the article.
So no sources or evidence for your conspiracy theory, eh?
I honestly pity you. Why not crawl back to lemmygrad where you belong?
It's sad the only thing you have is insults. What would be even more impressive is facts. Oh well.
You don't think critically about mediabiasfactcheck?
Voice of America was created to promote American propaganda, it's literally the US propaganda outlet. You're a shill.
I apparently think about it more critically than you do. All journalism is not propaganda; some is good in fact, and we can determine which is good and which is bad. And I at least have sources, whereas you have, uh... brain damage I guess?
Also that's a laughable and total misunderstanding of Voice of America's history, mission, and goals. It has a reputation basically everywhere as being as close to objective and reliable reporting as you can get outside the BBC. I guess you're just assuming it's bad based on its name, which is not great on the critical thinking front!
and reliable reporting as you can get outside the BBC
"Russian state owned media bad. British state owned media good."
I guess you’re just assuming it’s bad based on its name
No, we know it's bad because it's literally run by the US government.
The BBC isn’t state-owned. I know facts and nuance are tough but I do mention this in another comment. Go read it, you might learn something!
Type: Statutory corporation with a royal charter
A statutory corporation is a government entity created as a statutory body by statute.
It doesn't matter what language you try to couch it in, "state funded", "editorial independence", whatever. It was founded by the state, is funded by the state, and is a government entity. If it quacks like a duck.
Suggesting I have Brain Damage and then doubling down on your argument that VOA is as good as another state-owned media outlet that promotes its own nation with a history of imperialism, colonialism, and a bunch of other atrocities. I'm not sure if you think you're convincing me or anyone beyond your echo chamber of anything or just like to read your own words as reaffirmation of your own beliefs. Either way it's useless.
Cite reliable sources proving it's "another state-owned media outlet that promotes its own nation" or at least give us a demostrable example.
Why would the government support one of its own appendages acting for decades against its own interest in public reporting? Can you show me a single case of it seemingly acting against the interest of the government to which it belongs? Because all I see on the front page right now is speculation on what Russia "Could Be Preparing", talking about how China's "Dismal Foreign Minister Reflects Turmoil", one about "Chinese Spy Ships" oh and the Chinese economy "Facing New Difficulties," along with a Russia/DPRK story. idk, it seems to toe the line pretty strictly.
I can give it the most marginal credit in terms of headlines for a few articles down the page
"As Taiwan Election Heats Up Young Voters Flock to Third-Party Candidate "
I'm surprised they aren't more defensive of DPP, but then reading the article I see that the angle is apparently attacking the KMT and taking the new third party, the TPP, as a viable alternative that is still generally following western interests and hilariously promises to promote a "color revolution" in Taiwan along with class third-positionist nonsense about "divisiveness" that liberals always seem to fall for. TPP seems most in line with the "de-risking" line favored by the Biden administration rather than the more extreme "delinking" or the left wing "actual diplomatic engagement".
"Cambodian Ream Naval Base Modernized by China Nears Completion: Defense Ministry "
I'm surprised this isn't framed in a more threatening manner, let's see how it opens:
PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA — Cambodian officials say renovation work on a naval base in the coastal city of Sihanoukville is nearly complete, but U.S. officials have voiced suspicions the facility, being upgraded by China, will be used exclusively by China's military.
Suspicions about China’s intentions for the Ream naval base were raised after satellite imagery showed that a major pier capable of anchoring aircraft carriers had been constructed on the site.
There we are. The rest is slightly softer but continues a tone of fearmongering.
Can you show me a single case of it seemingly acting against the interest of the government to which it belongs?
You're asking for a very tall order considering that, having listened to US news most morning for the past three years, I can't recall of a single mainstream US or foreign news outlet that has done that. Not even DW does that from Berlin. I don't think that's how the mainstream news operates, tbh.
But if you ask, "do they report critical news on the US"?
Then the answer is yes. It's largely criticizing Gov. Abbott's move as unethical and dangerous, which is true. I even checked other largely unbiased news sites like NPR and their reporting is on par. (Don't even try to pretend that NPR is another shill news outlet. Spare me the eye rolling.)
along with class third-positionist nonsense about “divisiveness” that liberals always seem to fall for
I honestly find your entire assessment more biased, nit-picky, and exaggerated than the article itself.
I’m surprised this isn’t framed in a more threatening manner,
It's the second time you act surprised that they didn't meet your expectations of an overt propaganda channel.
but continues a tone of fearmongering.
Does it, though? I'm not saying it can't be subtle, but let's browse Newsmax or any of the extremist, domestic news outlets for a second and draw a comparison for what it really could be, and then reassess if it really fits the shoe.
I don't disagree with you about VOA not being 100% propaganda, but I think the thing that RT and VOA do share in common is that they are state-funded. With that being said, WaPo (just like the BBC) isn't state funded so it's still a poor comparison.
The BBC is quasi-state funded; its relationship with the government is not entirely cut-and-dry, since it is funded through a government act (though not directly by the UK itself).
What matters is whether the state has controls that prevent it from interfering with its media sources, and whether the those sources have missions respecting journalistic integrity. For the VOA and BBC this is entirely true, both have charters specifically mandating them to do that and their respective governments have very clear "hands-off" laws and policies (or did until Trump, the story does get a little complicated for the VOA recently).
RT on the other hand just publishes Putin's marketing emails.
Is your goal to be wrong in as many places in this thread as possible? Cuz you are killing it if so.
Ok, fine. Let's operate under this assumption. Find me an article from the VoA that is critical of the current President.
I can find articles from the BBC that are extremely critical of Rishi Sunak (and Boris Johnson when he was still in office). I can find articles from the CBC that are extremely critical of Justin Trudeau (and old Stephen Harper). Any truly unbiased non-propaganda media outlet could surely find something to criticize about the ruling President, right?
Didn't you ask this in another thread? Just in case you're a different person, here's another article from the VoA that certainly doesn't look good for Biden.
I concede it's a stretched argument but WaPo is known for hiring ex-State Department/ex-CIA staff onto its editorial board. I'm too lazy to find source but say something that gets me riled up and I'll find the source out of spite.
I know it’s tough to believe, but government-funded things aren’t necessarily bad. To discover if they’re bad you have to do more research than seeing who funds them!
It’s shocking I know.
Yes; have you? If you have you’d know they have a reputation basically everywhere for journalistic integrity, high objectivity, and high factuality.
You're making this up. It's known around the world for being US propaganda. Next you'll be saying Stars and Stripes is highly objective.
I've never heard of this in history before. The whole thing smells.
You don't think critically about mediabiasfactcheck?
😂😅
His supporters forced their way into the Capitol Building in order to keep him in office by throwing out the election results.
If that ain't an attempted coup, then what is?
Can you point out where I said it wasn't? I'm just saying the severity of what happened in Russia is completely incomparable to what happened in the US. You're talking about a fully armed military with sophisticated mechanized weapons and armor versus some Facebook rednecks with Trump flags.
I mean... The proud boys aren't far off of from being Trump's private army. And he did give them the marching orders to head into the capital building. Sure they don't have tanks but I think the comparison still holds. In fact, I would argue they were closer to success than Wagner was.
While he didnt have a private army, he had hordes of angry armed people that he pointed toward the capital. He knew he lost the election and was trying to steal it with fake electors and the storming of the capital. While it's not the same situation, he definitely DID try to overthrow the government and he IS still walking free.
Was that the point of my comparison, or was it simply to illustrate that politics is weird and the hand of justice slow?
There are many explanations for why Prigozhin is still free that aren't "the entire thing was fiction." The OP contains one, in fact, which is that Putin is hedged in by his own system of cronyism.
I'm dying at everyone going "Um actually the Freedom Eagle Burger Institute for Freedom says that VoA is unbiased. Five Pinocchios."
This will sound catty, but it's not intended as such: do you have any news outlets you view as pretty close to reasonable/down-the-middle (if that's even possible)? I don't disagree about WaPo, I'm just curious what others read.
I'm not exactly with the other guy, but it's extremely important to realize that ALL sources are biased. The Washington post and the New York Times both function as propaganda. They often serve as the mouthpiece of the United States Department of State or Defense, and are happy to cultivate public support for military conflicts that are in the interest of the American ruling class.
This is well documented in the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. You can also listen to the podcast Citations Needed to gain a better understanding about how this works in the modern day.
An example you may be readily familiar with is the Iraq War, in which US government officials repeatedly lied to the public and started a meaningless war, without any real journalistic pushback. This lead to an atrocity affecting millions.
I read the CBC for international news and that has served me pretty well. Canada doesn't really have a strong international position to introduce bias in (other than being a Western country and all the biases inherent in that). In cases where Canada does have a stake (typically regarding trade with the US/China), I read something from Reuters/AP/Bloomberg because wire services tend to be less biased in general. Alternatively, BBC is decent for news that don't relate to ex-colonies. For a non-Western perspective, Al Jazeera is pretty alright. For a US-perspective, the NYT is alright too.
Every media outlet is biased. Typically, you get less bias as you stray further away from people who can directly or indirectly profit off of portraying an event in a certain way.
Wherever your privately-owned media source is domiciled will have a bias towards that country in international relations. For example, WaPo will have a strong bias towards the US in anything relating to a conflict between the US and Russia. So will the NYT. They will never report objectively on these events because reporting with bias will get more people to agree with their writing and (eventually) lead to greater profit. These companies are profit-oriented, so this is to be expected.
For example, compare [https://www.thestar.com/business/trump-threatens-20-per-cent-tariff-on-canadian-softwood-lumber/article_f0bfee67-83ce-5968-8135-4a5eca0c8fb4.html?] and [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/lumber-tariff-canada-trump.html]
This is, in general, different for government-owned media such as VoA, RT, and CCTV. These entities are controlled by the government (and, in fact, often allow for direct executive control by the President). Naturally, we expect these to be far more biased, particularly for countries that are on polar opposites of the geopolitical spectrum such as the US and Russia. These entities will generally avoid criticizing the ruling party.
Al Jazeera would fall into the above category, except Qatar isn't exactly relevant on the global stage... it doesn't matter if Al Jazeera never criticizes the Emir because nobody cares about the Emir.
In contrast, government-funded public broadcasters such as CBC and BBC are typically not controlled by the government and operate as entirely independent entities without direct executive control. They do often criticize the government and the country and are not driven by profit. These broadcasters still have bias towards the country they are domiciled in, but to a lesser degree than privately-owned media as they lack the profit incentive. They also have less bias than government-owned media, as can be shown by their willingness to talk shit about the government.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-we-charity-margaret-trudeau-alexandre-1.5645781] [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65961889]
However, they are still biased by the people who work there, leading to the CBC to have a slight Liberal-leaning bias while the BBC has a slight Conservative-leaning bias. Notably (and perhaps most amusingly), they are criticized as being biased from all parties, which may be the strongest argument for their impartiality.
All this is to say that all media is biased. However, you can avoid a decent amount of bias by selecting news entities that are not based in a country that would have a strong opinion either way. For example, while the US has many issues with Russia, Canada/the UK/Qatar do not (other than the basic Western/European/Middle Eastern biases). They are likely to have more moderate and fair reporting on the conflict which, while still biased, are likely to be closer to the facts.
Basically, I wouldn't trust any US reporting on Russia/China, nor would I trust any Russian nor Chinese reporting on the US. The reporters are always going to pander to their target demographic. Instead, I would look for international reporting from countries with strong freedom of speech protections that are not as strongly implicated in the issue.
No not really unfortunately, I think every media outlet is biased. Le Monde Diplomatique is my favourite media outlet and I still think it's biased. I'm critical of all media when I read it and I think that's the only way to be in the age of disinformation. It's really funny to me that people rely on websites to tell them if media outlet is biased or unbiased because it's apparent that those sites themselves are biased.
IMO It's better to read theories, different takes on history, and then approach new news under different mental frameworks when trying to assess the reality of situations. But generally a political economic framework (ie power structures) is how I approach news articles for international events.
It's really funny to me that people rely on websites to tell them if media outlet is biased or unbiased because it's apparent that those sites themselves are biased.
Are they, though? They can't all be biased and they can't all be lying at the same time, especially when they provide a transparent analysis of their findings that you can click on. And even then, you don't just blindly trust what a remotely credible website says because they could be mistaken, or things may have changed. Nobody's promoting that you blindly trust a website, but we know that the website has built a reputation through their verifiable work until proven otherwise. And even then, an inkling of your own criteria and discretion is always adviced which should go without saying.
I think it's weird to brand anything and everything as state-owned or irreparably biased to the point of not being able to trust anything or anyone. It's exactly the other side of the coin to the post-truth world you sneered at. We see with the alt medicine movement all the time. They trash postigious institutions out of ignorance and then mislead those who don't know which side is up. What you're saying could be just as dangerous.
That said, I also find it deeply cynical that pretending that the golden hammer to all this is an abstract personal "political economic framework" because a lot of us do work hard to rein in order and truth. For this I point to the crowd source that has built Wikipedia, the open source community, the so-called skeptic movement, and so many others that work in cooperation all the time for the good of humanity. Why is news and politics the exception? Good will is out there and it does exist.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't let any fool out there tell you that the only ground you can step on is the one you built for yourself. If you don't trust a source, so be it, but be specific why instead of trashing everything altogether indiscriminately.
To me, the only ground you step on is the one you build yourself is the only way to read the news. Maybe it's extra work and it's cynical but I'll read an article about something, say a riot in Haiti. Then a couple months later I'll read that it wasn't actually a riot, but it was a peaceful protest and mercenaries employed by the government started shooting at people to break it up. The media reported it as a riot and never followed up that it was a peaceful protest. Turns out the President of Haiti is allied with the west for exploitation of labour and resources of that country. So now most people think that Haiti is just disorganized and needs strong western leadership, meanwhile the opposition is being repressed and the media is supporting the western narrative by not following up on the "riot". That example is what I mean about not trusting anything I read until I've read different takes on a situation and considering my own skepticism. But it's a fair point that not all state owned media is bad, but I would just never trust a state owned media for any foreign/international issue for not having a slant in favour of the reporting state.
I don't understand what happened there or how the guy who tried to overthrow the government is still walking free.
You know you don't understand what happened there, but you still assume he tried to overthrow the government. That's highly implausible. A much simpler explanation is that he wanted to quit on his own terms before it's too late, but needed the other party to start listening and, ideally, enter the negotiations with a handicap. Judging by the reports that he got his audience (a claim too embarrassing to make up for no gain), that seemed to work.
That's a big pitfall with analysing Russia: rationalizing stuff happening there to fit a reasonable plan, or at least a coherent overarching narrative, while the plethora of actors constituting Russia couldn't care less about your narrative. They've been improvising with no clear plan for at least a year, on all levels, and it's a miracle we still occasionally see patterns in their collective actions.
Yeah those are fair points. I'm not an expert on Russia it's a really complex country.
I don't know how you can admit that you have zero understanding of the subject and attack the article in the same post. It's quite good and aligns well with many other sources of information and analysis.