True, but this post is just an image drawn in a silly style. Hard to take it seriously.
I have no reason to doubt the validity, but as of writing this I also have no reason to believe it. It would be nice to see something from AP, NPR, or something like that.
I often see people express this comment, then shy away when I ask to sit down with them and have them go through the site and point out their inconsistencies. I suspect because you are parroting something you heard from elsewhere, and not because you possess the details yourself. However, like it or not, these are some of the publications that adhere to the highest level of journalistic ethics that we have on this planet. Do they have a tilt, YES, because there is no such thing as a completely unbiased publication because they are generated by humans. Does that harm their credibility? No. Because they are open and forthcoming with any conflict that may exist, and because there exist rigorous journalistic standards created over the past few hundred years of reporting. My sources adhere to those standards, what other benchmark should I look for?
Could you elaborate on which journalistic standards do you find them lacking? Feel free to reply and share them.
So here are the key points:
Name a publication with less bias.
Name a publication with a longer history of breaking stories.
Name a publication with a longer history of protecting story sources.
I’ll wait. We have all the time in the world here. You can reply at any time.
To summarize your stance, you are letting perfect get in the way of good.
Share your better sources, we are all curious.
I would be happy to add the sources that you prefer next time, assuming they have as robust of a history, story correction, admitting when they are wrong, issuing corrections, openly disclosing their funding, etc.
So, which publications are better? I notice you left that out of your reply, please edit your post with your preferred sources, or reply here.
Throwing stones is easy, can you back it up? Please enlighten us.
TLDR : Criticism is easy when you don’t follow through, follow through and tell us which sources we should trust more than AP and NPR.
The criticism is that the AP and NPR even more platently are not Journalism but blatant propaganda. They do not care about the Crtique as they just shout at it and hope it hides
Can you show me an example of a propaganda article? I haven’t heard anyone share this type of opinion about either source before so I’m definitely curious what I have been missing. I usually browse either website for updates on what’s going on in the world.
But I’d definitely change my view if you can show me a few examples of propaganda articles. I feel like I’m missing something but open to learning.
Every piece of news that comes out of the West is propaganda. Propaganda so you keep believing that capitalism is good, the West is good, to the point you can’t even tell what is or isn’t propaganda.
The fact of the matter is, they are gonna want you to maintain these thoughts about Russia being bad, they just “invaded unprovoked”, because if people discover that they’ve been lied to this entire time they’d be pissed off and never believe anything they had to say again.
I guess I’m not getting it, but I am sincerely trying.
To your elaborarion, I think that the cracks have been forming in unregulated capitalism for a long time, and I agree that there is a neoliberal tilt in even the most well-meaning of journalism. It took me a very long time to see it because it (capitalism) was the background to everything. Only when I started exploring philosophy and economics did I understand that there were alternative ways of life.
I appreciate your replies because I agree with you more than I realized. The good news is that I also believe the upcoming generation sees the flaws in capitalism as well, and they’re as sick of it as we are.
I don’t follow your meaning on the Russia stuff, but appreciate your time and effort. I’ll give your words more thought.
I don’t need to provide an alternative to point out that something is bad. I don’t need to follow the hyper-liberal norms and practices that you’re so fond of on sites like reddit, it simply is not a requirement.
It’s a strange twist of logic you have that no one can have an viewpoint counter to yours without providing you an alternative to your liking. Grow the fuck up and learn how to be critical of news sources, or at least how to find sources critical of them. If you’re so good at reading and research and understanding it really should not be an obstacle for you.
You come into this thread high and mighty about your (self-perceived) knowledge and wisdom only to spout ignorant nonesense in reply after reply and then cry when people call you out on it. Intellectually, you are a coward; emotionally, you are a child.
Here’s my counter tl;dr for your reddit-brain: Get fucked.
Lol you have no reason to believe it because the very news sources you want have done nothing but toe the US government’s line of supporting Ukraine, everything is fine in Ukraine, Russia bad (Russia has been bad since the goddamn 90s after the USSR fell), everything Russia says is a lie and should never be believed.
True, but this post is just an image drawn in a silly style. Hard to take it seriously.
I have no reason to doubt the validity, but as of writing this I also have no reason to believe it. It would be nice to see something from AP, NPR, or something like that.
I admit I have not looked.
Ah yes, the famously non-ideological and trustworthy AP and NPR.
I often see people express this comment, then shy away when I ask to sit down with them and have them go through the site and point out their inconsistencies. I suspect because you are parroting something you heard from elsewhere, and not because you possess the details yourself. However, like it or not, these are some of the publications that adhere to the highest level of journalistic ethics that we have on this planet. Do they have a tilt, YES, because there is no such thing as a completely unbiased publication because they are generated by humans. Does that harm their credibility? No. Because they are open and forthcoming with any conflict that may exist, and because there exist rigorous journalistic standards created over the past few hundred years of reporting. My sources adhere to those standards, what other benchmark should I look for?
Could you elaborate on which journalistic standards do you find them lacking? Feel free to reply and share them.
So here are the key points:
Name a publication with less bias.
Name a publication with a longer history of breaking stories.
Name a publication with a longer history of protecting story sources.
I’ll wait. We have all the time in the world here. You can reply at any time.
To summarize your stance, you are letting perfect get in the way of good.
Share your better sources, we are all curious.
I would be happy to add the sources that you prefer next time, assuming they have as robust of a history, story correction, admitting when they are wrong, issuing corrections, openly disclosing their funding, etc.
So, which publications are better? I notice you left that out of your reply, please edit your post with your preferred sources, or reply here.
Throwing stones is easy, can you back it up? Please enlighten us.
TLDR : Criticism is easy when you don’t follow through, follow through and tell us which sources we should trust more than AP and NPR.
The criticism is that the AP and NPR even more platently are not Journalism but blatant propaganda. They do not care about the Crtique as they just shout at it and hope it hides
Can you show me an example of a propaganda article? I haven’t heard anyone share this type of opinion about either source before so I’m definitely curious what I have been missing. I usually browse either website for updates on what’s going on in the world.
But I’d definitely change my view if you can show me a few examples of propaganda articles. I feel like I’m missing something but open to learning.
You’re not getting it are you?
Every piece of news that comes out of the West is propaganda. Propaganda so you keep believing that capitalism is good, the West is good, to the point you can’t even tell what is or isn’t propaganda.
The fact of the matter is, they are gonna want you to maintain these thoughts about Russia being bad, they just “invaded unprovoked”, because if people discover that they’ve been lied to this entire time they’d be pissed off and never believe anything they had to say again.
Well. The sensible ones.
I guess I’m not getting it, but I am sincerely trying.
To your elaborarion, I think that the cracks have been forming in unregulated capitalism for a long time, and I agree that there is a neoliberal tilt in even the most well-meaning of journalism. It took me a very long time to see it because it (capitalism) was the background to everything. Only when I started exploring philosophy and economics did I understand that there were alternative ways of life.
I appreciate your replies because I agree with you more than I realized. The good news is that I also believe the upcoming generation sees the flaws in capitalism as well, and they’re as sick of it as we are.
I don’t follow your meaning on the Russia stuff, but appreciate your time and effort. I’ll give your words more thought.
I don’t need to provide an alternative to point out that something is bad. I don’t need to follow the hyper-liberal norms and practices that you’re so fond of on sites like reddit, it simply is not a requirement.
It’s a strange twist of logic you have that no one can have an viewpoint counter to yours without providing you an alternative to your liking. Grow the fuck up and learn how to be critical of news sources, or at least how to find sources critical of them. If you’re so good at reading and research and understanding it really should not be an obstacle for you.
You come into this thread high and mighty about your (self-perceived) knowledge and wisdom only to spout ignorant nonesense in reply after reply and then cry when people call you out on it. Intellectually, you are a coward; emotionally, you are a child.
Here’s my counter tl;dr for your reddit-brain: Get fucked.
Lol you have no reason to believe it because the very news sources you want have done nothing but toe the US government’s line of supporting Ukraine, everything is fine in Ukraine, Russia bad (Russia has been bad since the goddamn 90s after the USSR fell), everything Russia says is a lie and should never be believed.