Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

You shouldn't disregard information or a story simply because the source is known to be biased. Rather, you should look to secondary sources and see if they confirm the original story.

It may well be the case that RT will report on incidents that portrays the Ukrainian government in a negative light (air strikes causing collateral damage, pro Kiev fascists burning separatist protesters to death, armed pro Kiev militant groups breaking a ceasefire by attacking a separatist checkpoint etc), whereas Western media sources will initially ignore such stories, and/or seek to downplay the incidents or bury them on page 40+, between other stories etc.

And vice versa, no doubt.

**Ketara**

loki old fart wrote:

If you think that something that was linked is incorrect say so. countering someones point of view with RT sucks so your point of view sucks. Is not a valid argument.
If you can find a site, that everyone agrees is truthful, then link it.

Sure, it's not the best counter-argument. But responding with, 'Well, news organisations in the country you happen to live in suck so so does your opinion!' isn't exactly going one better, y'know? Quite the opposite if anything. At least Kanluwen's point does have some truth/weight to it (namely in that most of what RT posts IS rubbish). Discounting his opinion because he lives in the same country as Fox News has no truth/weight to it whatsoever.

EDIT

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You shouldn't disregard information or a story simply because the source is known to be biased. Rather, you should look to secondary sources and see if they confirm the original story.

It may well be the case that RT will report on incidents that portrays the Ukrainian government in a negative light (air strikes causing collateral damage, pro Kiev fascists burning separatist protesters to death, armed pro Kiev militant groups breaking a ceasefire by attacking a separatist checkpoint etc), whereas Western media sources will initially ignore such stories, and/or seek to downplay the incidents or bury them on page 40+, between other stories etc.

And vice versa, no doubt.

I agree. I linked a story from RT earlier on in this thread that I couldn't find on a Western site. I agree that Kan's point could have been better expressed.

That still doesn't make your counter to his comment any less daft, which was why I pointed it out.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Well what do international sources like Reuters say? Have they picked up on the story and confirmed it?

Edit...my counter? Do you,mean when I said "nobody is claiming that RT is impartial?" I don't see what's daft about that. Kan was making a sarcastic remark about people complaining that western media is biased, then "taking RT's word as gospel". The latter part is what I was disputing - IIRC even Iron Captain has acknowledged that RT is a biased source and he's the most "pro Russian" poster here. But the difference between IC and Kan is that IC doesn't ignore RT outright, which is what Kan seems to be suggesting.

You've not confusing me with the guy who said "well Fox news and CNN are blatantly biased ergo glass houses" are you?

**-Shrike-**

Ketara wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:

Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.

Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.

If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?

User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'

Just to clear things up, I've never linked to RT in this thread, just the BBC. I just get annoyed when we have links to both RT and CNN (or equivalent), and people just dismiss one of them because they're biased.

The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.

Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.

Having checked his contributions to this thread, I hereby apologise for this comment. It was made in error, I had thought Kan had previously linked to CNN and Fox. Clearly, I had him confused with someone else.

**Ketara**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You've not confusing me with the guy who said "well Fox news and CNN are blatantly biased ergo glass houses" are you?

....I totally was there. My apologies.

Shrike wrote:Having checked his contributions to this thread, I hereby apologise for this comment. It was made in error, I had thought Kan had previously linked to CNN and Fox. Clearly, I had him confused with someone else.

It seems you're not alone in that act today!

**Bullockist**

loki old fart wrote:

Kiev does not care about civilians in eastern Ukraine, and people have to flee their homes amid daily bombings, Ukrainian refugees told RT at a temporary camp in Russia’s Rostov. It comes amid Kiev’s “lies” about humanitarian corridors, they said.

Thousands of eastern Ukrainians are flowing into Russia amid the ongoing Kiev military operation, in which the cities occupied by anti-government activists are being shelled and bombarded with heavy artillery and incendiary bombs. Even in large regional centers like Lugansk, people no longer feel safe, as cases of Ukrainian jets launching missiles at central city buildings in broad daylight have been reported.

While many men and elderly people of eastern Ukraine are unwilling to leave their native land, women with children are flocking to Russia’s cities and regions to stay with relatives or friends. Those who have neither are heading for refugee camps in Rostov.

The Russian Foreign Minister on Friday held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Deshchitsa, in which he reminded Kiev of its responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine.

I want to know how this woman managed to steal my cat

**Kanluwen**

-Shrike- wrote:
Ketara wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:

Anyway, given the quality of some of the American "news", you shouldn't throw stones. People in glass houses and all that.

Who said anything about American "news" outlets being good? The majority are awful.

If you're going to complain about RT, which is biased heavily towards Russia, why don't you complain about CNN or Fox, which are heavily biased towards America?

User 1: *Links to a news article*
User 2: 'That website is terrible and not impartial in the slightest'.
User 1: 'Yeah, Well your country has news websites that suck too!'
User 2: 'Yeah, and I think they suck as well. What does that have to do with anything?'
User 1: 'Well if you're gonna complain about the one I linked to, why aren't you complaining about those as well!?'

Just to clear things up, I've never linked to RT in this thread, just the BBC. I just get annoyed when we have links to both RT and CNN (or equivalent), and people just dismiss one of them because they're biased.

CNN and equivalents are trash--but guess what?

They're also not funded by the government. That is why I dismiss RT, which is a rebranded "Russia Today".

The answer is because nobody linked to them. If you link to a bad source, firing back that the other person's opinion is invalid because they live in a country with bad news networks that they are not currently criticising (despite them not having had any articles linked to) is terrible logic.

Note that I'm not of the opinion that RT is completely useless (just 98% of the time), but you're being a bit tangential there Shrike. In all fairness, Kanluwen could have taken the time to dismiss why he thought that article was bad, but discounting his opinion just because he lives in the same country as Fox News is a bit naff.

Having checked his contributions to this thread, I hereby apologise for this comment. It was made in error, I had thought Kan had previously linked to CNN and Fox. Clearly, I had him confused with someone else.

It's fine, but again bear in mind--there is a significant difference between crummy journalism (CNN and Fox) and being funded pretty heavily by a government that essentially uses you as PR.

**Jihadin**

Bullockist wrote:
loki old fart wrote:

Kiev does not care about civilians in eastern Ukraine, and people have to flee their homes amid daily bombings, Ukrainian refugees told RT at a temporary camp in Russia’s Rostov. It comes amid Kiev’s “lies” about humanitarian corridors, they said.

Thousands of eastern Ukrainians are flowing into Russia amid the ongoing Kiev military operation, in which the cities occupied by anti-government activists are being shelled and bombarded with heavy artillery and incendiary bombs. Even in large regional centers like Lugansk, people no longer feel safe, as cases of Ukrainian jets launching missiles at central city buildings in broad daylight have been reported.

While many men and elderly people of eastern Ukraine are unwilling to leave their native land, women with children are flocking to Russia’s cities and regions to stay with relatives or friends. Those who have neither are heading for refugee camps in Rostov.

The Russian Foreign Minister on Friday held a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Deshchitsa, in which he reminded Kiev of its responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine.

I want to know how this woman managed to steal my cat

What cat? I see nothing but emergency rations.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Emergency rations? Why do I get the feeling you speak from experience ?

**Jihadin**

Sierra
Echo
Romeo
Echo

Sierra
Hotel
Oscar
Oscar
Lima

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I now have a mental image of a bedraggled Jihadin on the run from enemy forces, barbecuing a feral cat he caught with his bare hands.

Are they tasty? What's your recommended method of cooking? Do they go well with chips?

**Jihadin**

Eat it fast. Very fast. Hind leg has three good bites of protein. Spitted out it looks like a rabbit but think of it as a RABBIT.

Your stomach will over ride the brain

**Seaward**

loki old fart wrote:
If you think that something that was linked is incorrect say so. countering someones point of view with RT sucks so your point of view sucks. Is not a valid argument.

How many of your own posts doing that exact thing with Fox News would you like me to link for you before you rethink that statement?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
What cat? I see nothing but emergency rations.

It looks juicy.

I wonder how hard that lady can punch?

Ah. Memories. Of the woods and the cold and having to eat small mammalian eyeballs.

**Iron_Captain**

Kanluwen wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.

Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.

No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.

Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".

So, does that mean that impartial news agencies are more than just a myth? Have you actually found one? If you did, please share this holy grail with me, as I have been searching all my life, yet found none

In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English. I could link to Komsomolskaya Pravda, which has a good news site, but it is all in Russian.
But if you'd really rather not see state-owned media, I would be happy to link to Pravda in the future. Like it or not, but Pravda does represent a very popular opinion in Russia.
Here is a fine example:

The "Orange Revolution" was a total flop and the first American attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine. Yushchenko was voted out, and Timoshenko ended up in prison, where she belongs. Never mind, that didn't discourage the Americans.

According to that slag, that dreg of humanity, Victoria Nuland, 5 billion dollars was poured into Ukraine in order to make a second attempt.

The second attempt was only successful because of the use of neo-Nazi fascist stormtroopers with no moral compass, no humanity, willing to kill man, woman, child, elderly. This violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government was clearly done by the US government. They are so smug and arrogant, they no longer try to hide their role.

Every time some trash from the US arrives in Kiev: McCain, Kerry, Nuland, etc. another mass killing incident happens. They are silent about these killings because not only do they approve of them, they are ordering them.

No one in Russia is fooled by what is happening. It is obvious the target of the Americans is Russia, not just Ukraine. They have committed an act of war against Russia. Having built up a fifth column in both Ukraine and Russia, they now feel confident that their plan of total global domination can be put into place.

I predicted back during the attack on Yugoslavia and the Serbs, that the ultimate target of the Americans and NATO is Russia. They want to effect regime change, like they have in countless other countries, steal the resources, break up the country into controllable little statelets and rule the entire continent of Eurasia.

It is time to put a halt to US imperialism. It is time to crack down on all fifth columnists. It is time to break through the information barrier where the west and the US are able to cover up their crimes and keep their victims silent. If decent people find out what they are up to, they have no choice but to raise their voices and demand the murders stop and demand the fascists in Kiev be punished as the war criminals they are.

The US, and especially President Obama and his henchmen, are living in another universe where up is down, white is black, war is peace. To hear them speak is to hear whispers from an insane asylum, as somehow they justify to themselves all of the innocent blood they have on their hands, as though they shall never be called to account.

**MrDwhitey**

When you say "Most impartial of state medias"

I just see a guy next to a line of dwarfs, pointing at one and saying "He is the tallest of the dwarfs".

Beating a dwarf in a height contest doesn't make you tall.

**Kanluwen**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
And yet, the people who think that this is a "Russia clearly is being provoked" situation keep quoting RT as though it is some kind of gospel.

Do you actually understand what RT is? Citing it as a media source is laughable.

No, it's a media source, unless you're using a different definition to me.

Yeah, I use the definition of "impartial and actually reporting upon events without censorship".

So, does that mean that impartial news agencies are more than just a myth? Have you actually found one? If you did, please share this holy grail with me, as I have been searching all my life, yet found none

BBC is pretty impartial when it comes to reporting the news. Do they likely have some biases when it comes to some stories?

Sure. But pretending that just because there are biases from the reporters/networks so widely prevalent that it makes state run media on the same freaking level takes mental gymnastics so impressive that you could win a gold medal at the Olympics.

In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English. I could link to Komsomolskaya Pravda, which has a good news site, but it is all in Russian.
But if you'd really rather not see state-owned media, I would be happy to link to Pravda in the future. Like it or not, but Pravda does represent a very popular opinion in Russia.

And it's well known to be a mouthpiece for the state, which is why RT exists. It's a trendy rebranding of "Russia Today" which was also a mouthpiece--but now that it's just called "RT" and has networks localized for certain regions(i.e. "RT America"," RT Actualidad", and "Rusiya Al-Yuam") there is an air of "impartiality" that gets floated for the network by people like yourself.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Iron_Captain wrote:

In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.

**-Shrike-**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.

And this is why we're not taking you seriously. Yes, I'm sure the BBC has flaws and all, but ranking RT above the BBC in journalistic integrity is a farce.

And when you can't seemingly realise he was talking about Russian state-owned media, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

**MrDwhitey**

Frankly, someone using RT as their main source is a greater sin than making that mistake.

**Jihadin**

Given Eastern Ukraine 120 more days to go full out Putin

**Iron_Captain**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.

And this is why we're not taking you seriously. Yes, I'm sure the BBC has flaws and all, but ranking RT above the BBC in journalistic integrity is a farce.

I was only talking about Russian media, and thus with the above statement I only took the Russian state medias in consideration. Please do not jump to conclusions that quickly.
However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frankly, someone using RT as their main source is a greater sin than making that mistake.

Please do not assume RT is my only source. It is not. I also watch the NOS (Dutch state media) and BBC, as well as a number of Dutch and Russian non-state media sites and newspapers.
I just happpen to link to RT because I have a snazzy little RT app for Firefox that allows very quick access to interesting articles and because RT is the most impartial Russian news site that does English articles.

**Co'tor Shas**

Iron_Captain wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

In regards to RT, it is the most impartial of the state-owned medias, and the Russian media that is not state-owned usually does not have articles in English.

And this is why we're not taking you seriously. Yes, I'm sure the BBC has flaws and all, but ranking RT above the BBC in journalistic integrity is a farce.

I was only talking about Russian media, and thus with the above statement I only took the Russian state medias in consideration. Please do not jump to conclusions that quickly.
However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.

State media=controlled by the state=/=gets public funding. Just look at NPR in the US, it gets public funidng in the form of grant, but it still gives critical journalism. You can also look at the CBC. The BBC is regarded world-wide as a valid news source.

**Ahtman**

I didn't realize Rotten Tomatoes covered this kind of thing.

**Co'tor Shas**

What?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Iron_Captain wrote:

However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.

Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.

Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?

Its typically been the other way round.

**MrDwhitey**

Iron_Captain wrote:

Please do not assume RT is my only source. It is not. I also watch the NOS (Dutch state media) and BBC, as well as a number of Dutch and Russian non-state media sites and newspapers.
I just happpen to link to RT because I have a snazzy little RT app for Firefox that allows very quick access to interesting articles and because RT is the most impartial Russian news site that does English articles.

Good thing I didn't do that then.

**loki old fart**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.

Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?

Yeah it's not like the BBC lies or covers up things, I mean they didn't cover up for jimmy saville did they . Oh wait.....

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

loki old fart wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.

Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?

Yeah it's not like the BBC lies or covers up things, I mean they didn't cover up for jimmy saville did they . Oh wait.....

Jimmy Saville and many others...

**Iron_Captain**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:

However, I am not quite sure why you'd rate the British state media above the Russian state media. Please explain to me why it is a farce. RT is no less a valid source than any other state media.

Because the BBC doesn't have a history of being a propaganda mouthpiece for the British government?

Neither has RT.
In fact, RT is much more critical of Russian leaders than most Russian-language media.
But really, both stations are used for propaganda. All media is used for propaganda, and state media even more so than others. Why would the British government have its own media station if not for propaganda? Sure, they will appear critical at times in order to maintain an air of impartiality and remain believable, but in the end they still broadcast the views of the British government. Just read the articles on the Ukraine crisis. They are far from impartial, constantly portraying the Ukrainian government in a positive light, while leaving out a lot of important information that would make the seperatists look better.