Russia Today partially banned from Reddit - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42024691]I'm wondering what the point of publishing the other would serve in that case.[/QUOTE] To add reputation to the first one. Or to add reputation to the second one. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Hammerz;42024698]Why not have just one reputable one?[/QUOTE] I just don't like the idea of banning sources. Even though a media source can be incredibly twisted, I still think it's interesting to see how the other side of the world view events. So why not just have a minimum of two sources.

I'm usually first on the Russia hate wagon or even driving it but is there any evidence that RT has a heavier bias than any other news outlet? Sure, they're state run, but so are BBC and CBC. Reddit banned them for vote manipulation, something that changes what content appears on the site. That can't happen here. Even if RT hired someone to rate everyone who posts a non-RT source dumb, nothing would change.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;42024626]How about instead of banning sources, we add a requirement that you need at least two sources?[/QUOTE] One big reason is reddit doesn't allow this as a function. You have one link and that's it. If you post it in the comments it's ignored. You could theoretically make it a text post, but those get ignored so it's likely a submitter is going to go for a link.

save the children logic.

[QUOTE=bubbagamer;42024133]Then you can proceed in banning CNN aswell and stick with Reuters / AFP, I can't think of many websites not being biased. Even if it's on a tiny scale, they pretty much all do. Oh yeah, BBC. That's it.[/QUOTE] Yeah because fuck discretionary reasoning, massive differences between two totally different things don't matter if they are even slightly similar [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swebonny;42024626]How about instead of banning sources, we add a requirement that you need at least two sources?[/QUOTE] OK, I'll start referring to both fox news and russia today articles for any future posts

[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;42023493]Can we also get Fox and the Daily Mail banned then? Both establishments make a point of spewing out vitriolic bile.[/QUOTE] Fox at least can do real news occasionally. Anyone remember the thread I posted where Fox has more statistically factual reporting than MSNBC according to Pew? I've even used Fox as a news source before. As long as you stray away from any editorials and ignore the leading headlines, then Fox can be ok. It's honestly no worse or better than MSNBC.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;42024747] I just don't like the idea of banning sources. Even though a media source can be incredibly twisted, I still think it's interesting to see how the other side of the world view events. So why not just have a minimum of two sources.[/QUOTE] What if it's something like the marijuana arrow story I posted a few days back, where a second source isn't quite as easy since it was in my local news?

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42025082] OK, I'll start referring to both fox news and russia today articles for any future posts[/QUOTE] yeah you go do that [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lavacano;42025388]What if it's something like the marijuana arrow story I posted a few days back, where a second source isn't quite as easy since it was in my local news?[/QUOTE] Then I'd say it's fine for you to post it. The mods haven't talked about banning certain sources or how to get around biased sources without banning them. It's just my personal ideas I'm throwing out.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42024791]I'm usually first on the Russia hate wagon or even driving it but is there any evidence that RT has a heavier bias than any other news outlet? Sure, they're state run, but so are BBC and CBC. Reddit banned them for vote manipulation, something that changes what content appears on the site. That can't happen here. Even if RT hired someone to rate everyone who posts a non-RT source dumb, nothing would change.[/QUOTE] The BBC isn't state run, thank you very much. It's allowed to collect money via the TV licensing fee, but Westminster has no financial control over it (although it probably has wished it did on many a occasion).

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42024791]I'm usually first on the Russia hate wagon or even driving it but is there any evidence that RT has a heavier bias than any other news outlet? Sure, they're state run, but so are BBC and CBC. [/QUOTE] Just read the front page for awhile and compare it to the BBC, its not hard to see why. You also won't see much material criticizing their own government if not any. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] Wikipedia provides some good insight also [quote]Andrey Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin, has labeled the channel as "the best Russian propaganda machine targeted at the outside world. On the other hand, prominent Russian officials such as Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov are strong advocates of RT.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29#Objectivity_and_bias[/url]

[QUOTE=a203xi;42024610]We all get that RT tries to make the US look bad, and make Russia look like a superhero country. All state-sponsored propaganda in the international community does this. That said, most people don't seem to like it only because it says things that are (intentionally) unpleasant. Does anyone have one example of them simply making up a story or spreading factual inaccuracies? It's like the GMO and Monsanto shit again, you guys just don't want to be associated with conspiracy theorists because in your mind the world is a perfect place filled with bubblegum sunshine clouds and no conspiracies ever actually happen. You guys would rather associate with actual conspirators than be associated with anyone who dares accuse our glorious leaders of being greedy or corrupt or murdering Michael Hasting, you guys prove that to me time and time again. Yeah guys, being vain douchebags is way better than actual critical thinking.[/QUOTE]I swear to god, it seems every dumb motherfucker like yourself who uses RT is so dreadfully arrogant. You wouldn't know critical thinking if it kicked you in the bollocks. Oh, we don't like a terrible source, therefore it must be because we want to live in a fantasy fairytale land, not that RT articles are so skewed that, in combination with FPers tendencies to only read the title and perhaps the OP snippet, it contributes as much to discussion as shitting on the table. If you cannot come up with a thought-out dissenting opinion without it being spoon-fed to you by a state propaganda agency, then you're truly hopeless.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;42024626]How about instead of banning sources, we add a requirement that you need at least two sources?[/QUOTE] **Unless it is a citation from a published journal (Regarding science)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42022562]We should ban it here as well. Can we get a mod to do that in fact?[/QUOTE] Ditto to Kotaku. Don't feed the clickbaiters.

[QUOTE=The golden;42025977]Then link to those sources when you make a thread rather than use Gawker as a middle-man. They don't deserve the clicks and more often than not 3/4 of the thread goes off-topic laughing at how terrible the article is.[/QUOTE] I see plenty of Kotaku threads (90% of which are from Gimme20dollaz :v:) where the thread stays on topic about the news at hand.

ok, imma watch RT for a half a hour gonna check if its really shit shit, i can't find propaganda, and where the hell they're getting brits to work there

[QUOTE=Swebonny;42024747]I just don't like the idea of banning sources. Even though a media source can be incredibly twisted, I still think it's interesting to see how the other side of the world view events. So why not just have a minimum of two sources.[/QUOTE] as long as one doesn't use the other as the source, I think that would be a good rule

[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;42023493]Can we also get Fox and the Daily Mail banned then? Both establishments make a point of spewing out vitriolic bile.[/QUOTE] Fox news isn't really awful unless it comes to matters of politics or foreign affairs. There's plenty of news articles on Fox that are perfectly fine [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swebonny;42024747]To add reputation to the first one. Or to add reputation to the second one. [editline]30th August 2013[/editline] I just don't like the idea of banning sources. Even though a media source can be incredibly twisted, I still think it's interesting to see how the other side of the world view events. So why not just have a minimum of two sources.[/QUOTE] How about instead we just ban-or-lock threads if the article posted is clearly complete shit instead of blanket-banning certain news sources There's still plenty of legitimate news even in the bad sources, especially if they pick up a breaking story first. i.e. posting from RT is likely to get you banned or thread locked because they often post complete bullshit same with kotaku, but another article from kotaku/RT might be totally fine if they are just reporting straight news or something

I thought Reddit was hyper pro-freedom of speech?

[QUOTE=J!NX;42032483]I thought Reddit was hyper pro-freedom of speech?[/QUOTE] It was a moderator that enforced the ban. Most of Reddit are crying "censorship" and how "it's so convenient" that RT got banned in a time like this.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;42032589]It was a moderator that enforced the ban. Most of Reddit are crying "censorship" and how "it's so convenient" that RT got banned in a time like this.[/QUOTE] I never really read anything from RT but if my assumptions are correct it's as fucked up as the actual country also, creepshots and pedopics is why I'll never take reddit serious.

[url]http://rt.com/on-air/[/url] Fill your heads with propaganda. It's kind of funny though, I get this channel by default on every channel package here.

[QUOTE=bubbagamer;42023949]No matter how shitty RT or Fox News may be, banning it is censorship and is bad. We should spend more time and effort convincing people they're shit news sources rather than blocking it. I didn't care that much for Dailymail, found it average, until Facepunch pointed out the major bias and stupidity in some very specific articles.[/QUOTE] If people browse reddit for news they're gonna have a bad time

I don't know why you guys care so much about sources. Most threads I see people don't read them anyway and we get 5 pages of useless shit that is taken completely out of context.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42033917]I don't know why you guys care so much about sources. Most threads I see people don't read them anyway and we get 5 pages of useless shit that is taken completely out of context.[/QUOTE] RT is usually pushing a state agenda and selectively reports on the news and so when it gets to Facepunch it influences people because they don't look at the source information for themselves.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;42033975]RT is usually pushing a state agenda and selectively reports on the news and so when it gets to Facepunch it influences people because they don't look at the source information for themselves.[/QUOTE] The problem here are the idiots who don't read sources, not the source itself. If everyone read the source before posting these types of things would get called out in the first post. Biased reporting can SOMETIMES be a great thing for society because they bring things to light that a normal source might not focus on, but only for a critical reader who checks facts.

All reporting is more or less biased. Just because you don't like the spin on a story doesn't mean you can censor the story. You should read the same story from as many sources as possible and try to notice what's being emphasisesd and what kind of discourse is being used which can be more revealing than the story itself. it's not like fp and other news sources don't spin shit like fuck. just look at all the trayvon martin threads.

I'm sorry but saying RT is simply biased is like saying the Pope is biased to Catholicism.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;42022664]RT is a russian government funded fox news. it's fucking terrible.[/QUOTE] better then listening to the nsa-funded and obama-funded left wing kgb fox news

So it's as shitty (the Russian news source) as MSNBC and Fox? Neato.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;42024626]How about instead of banning sources, we add a requirement that you need at least two sources?[/QUOTE] I support this, especially if it would result in the death of opinion articles.