This can be applied to literally anybody. I've been reading them for many years (since their editor and most of their journalists were at lenta.ru — which they were thrown out of in ~2015 for daring to criticize the annexation of Crimea). They are not angels, but they have always at least tried to remain impartial and use relatively reliable sources of information. Many (most?) news outlets don't even try.
This is the actual reason why people treat Meduza as parent poster does.
The job of a news source it not to criticize, or not criticize, the annexation of Crimea. They're not a political party. Nobody but their mom really wants to know their private opinion.
The job of a news source is to provide news. All the news and articles Meduza produces follows the same pattern, where they would arrive at a predetermined conclusion regardless of the facts they are discussing, and the train of thought would go from A to B in a reasonably short route. If it's hard to derive the conclusion from some facts, they will be skipping reporting these where possible. If it's very convenient to derive the conclusion for unproven facts, they will be using these eagerly.
Propaganda is annoying to read, especially if you know you will disagree with their conclusion, which you obviously know in advance.
Yes, and I should write bug-free code, and doctors should never make mistakes. If you have any examples of a completely neutral news outlet that never made any blunders, I'd be very interested to know about and follow them. Until then, I see no point in comparing anyone against an unattainable ideal which can only exist in one's imagination. I try to correct for their biases by reading Kremlin propaganda (and US, and Chinese, and some others) and comparing what they are saying. Know of any better ways?
The amount of junk isn't boolean, it matters how much you have to filter. If you can find news with less junk, you can filter them with less effort. And big news are reported by everyone so you can't miss them.
It is the century XXI, and the mainstream way seems to be subscribing to Telegram channels whose vibe resonates with you.
Yes, you will be living in a tiny bubble. But at least you do not get to read propaganda pieces trying to derive prefabricated conclusions out of irrelevant small events. If anything large happens, you are going to hear of it earlier or later.
If you really want balanced coverage, choose a source from the other side which is so blatantly propagandist that you can have good laughs instead of grinding your teeth.
I am reading The Guardian for that purpose.
Perhaps there are better ways to consume your news, but I don't know these.
I think you misread their comment. If you didn't realize, you also misquoted their comment (unless it was edited).
> It is the century XXI, and the mainstream way seems to be subscribing to Telegram channels whose vibe resonates with you.
Yes, you will be living in a tiny bubble.
I believe they mean "the mainstream way" puts you into a tiny bubble, but they go on to say:
> But at least you do not get to read propaganda pieces trying to derive prefabricated conclusions out of irrelevant small events. If anything large happens, you are going to hear of it earlier or later.
Thus, I believe they were advocating for a tiny bubble -- not accusing the previous commenter of being in a tiny bubble.
In many (most?) developed countries, major media sources like newspapers and TV channels are each aligned with a specific political party or a specific political wing. So, their reportage is done through that political lens, and people have historically bought that newspaper because they want issues reported through that lens. It is mainly in American fora where people have this belief that news sources should be neutral.
What I said has nothing to do with the US. Do you think that if the US is wrong in a bunch of unrelated matters, it makes Russia's actions ok?
But even given this... Would you say "Nobody cares what you think about Iraq, except your mother, so don't bother telling me about ..." Yeah it doesn't hold.
> Would you be visiting an news site where every piece gravitates towards the many failings of USA in Iraq?
In the mid 2000s, I pretty much did this, and I don't regret it. It would have been better for the world if the New York Times and Washington Post had leaned a bit more that way.
There are Russians who do just that, and not an insignificant number, but certainly not enough to affect things. They also do not have any plan even if they wanted to try.
Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland objectively happened, and was not undone until the very end of Nazi regime.
Not everybody wants to read how mr. Hanz from "Der Jellyfisch" thinks that that the annexation of Sudetenland is wrong, day after day for a decade. We've got that already from you being in Switzerland, mr. Hanz.
On the contrary, it must be repeated, when an authoritarian regime conducting a murderous war of conquest of their neighbours promulgates their twisted justifications very loudly, and have entire state bodies devoted to manipulating the press, promoting a message that if left unopposed will become the prevailing narrative, as it has in their home nation.
Head-in-the-sand bullshit neutrality is why Switzerland is a moral toilet. Demanding that journalists be "neutral" is a sliproad to manipulation. These are nothing more than an abandonment of principles.
The public in functioning democracies is most definitely interested in reading opinionated editorial. Representing otherwise is downright obnoxious.
Why more so than when the US destroy Afghanistan or some other place? What makes it worse and more worthy of being repeated because of authoritarianism?
The structural distinction is in domestic accountability to moral standards that limits the scope of action. This highlights the false equivalence (the US did not annex Afghanistan, nor has it attempted a genocide there) that imbues the whataboutism inherent to such questions.
A better comparison would be to the imperialist colonialism of the the 17th-19th centuries, as characterised by massacre, dictatorship, annexation, rape, child abduction, and the systematic and intentional destruction of entire cultures. This corresponds much more directly to the multiple Russian invasions of its neighbours in recent decades.
It doesn't matter what word you use: Genocide of X people is not worse than killing X+n in another country while calling it "victims from war on terror". This is not a competition of killing the most (if it were, the US would be in the lead).
The question is why does it matter what kind of government is causing the deaths? Why is it worse if X people are killed by an authoritarian regime than X people killed by a liberal democracy? If your Mother is killed by an authoritarian regime, is it worse than if your mother and child are killed by a democracy?
Instead of throwing whataboutism around, why not answer the question?
You are very obviously avoiding the question and trying to paint something that isn't there. It seems you have some very sore point about the US in Afghanistan? Swap US with France in Afghanistan then. It makes no difference to the question. Why is it worse? Or is it actually not different but the point was from the start to attack between the lines? It reads like someone using weasel words or whataboutism: Writing one thing but clearly trying to convey something completely different.
What's the difference with regards to annexing or not annexing?
You storm into a country, you kill a lot of people, repeatedly, you do not care about these people in the slightest, you bomb weddings for a decade, you put up whatever government that you want there. But at least you did not annex the country, i.e. did not take responsibility for it and its citizens.
You will keep the audience who already agree with you, and often bet on that agreement (for example, by fleeing the country). You will, however, lose the rest of your potential audience by repeating your opinion over and over again. Since they know your position, they do not share it, and they no longer need that information.
Especially as you cannot answer any hard questions about your position, and you could not answer even if you didn't. As a journalist, you cannot really suggest any solutions, since you are not a politician. You can only whine. That gets old pretty fast.
- promote the idea of a ruling class separate from the people
- journalists that publish uncomfortable truths are "whining"
- just give up because no-one is listening
These are neo-Tsarist civics. As before, they form conditions for decay and conflict.
In reality, people have never stopped listening, and never will. They may stop hearing - when voices are intentionally silenced. It follows that a critical and editorial press is the hallmark of democracy.
Russia is an authoritarian state. "Hallmarks of democracy" do not work here and likely never did.
Meduza and their ilk publishes the same uncomfortable truth tailored at comparatively small demographics. They fail to deliver their message to a wider audience because they don't understand it, have no message for it and perhaps don't really want to talk to it. That's what I was explaining. The only thing I'm seriously criticizing Meduza here is for their failure as journalists to get better coverage of their ideas. Part of which, their ideas aren't great.
