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.
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.