Salisbury Poison Attacker Identified As Russian Colonel
49 replies, posted
I'm posting as a 'your sources are crap vs get better sources' guy.
Stated directly after you stated
Do you have any idea how much western propaganda gets posted on Facepunch?
If you can't take a step back and go 'OK, I can just use reputable sources that still source from the country that I'm wanting to get news from instead of posting state-sponsored bullcrap' then perhaps you should re-evaluate where your anger here is coming from.
So use Radio Free Europe unless you 'can't take a step back and read balanced and fair reporting from non-propaganda outlets without fear of having your worldview upended over night'.
Maybe just post the alternative article next time instead of masturbating your journalistic standards all over the thread.
There's nothing wrong with posting the state sponsored article if you want to know what the state said. Please leave your dick in your pants in the future.
It's not about an article. It's about a shit source versus a decent source.
There's everything wrong with encouraging people to consume news from a propaganda outlet which is known to peddle in conspiracy theory and whose funding directly depends on the Kremlin's approval -- versus any other independent and credible source which will re-report what those outlets state but without conspiracy theory bullshit.
I've already personally posted good sources in the OP. We have the good sources covered. Don't need anymore of those.
I'm not going to limit my points of discussion just because I don't have faith in people to pick out bullshit or encourage people to switch their news sources to foreign ones. Keep these arguments for your facebook feed when your mum is blaming your flu on chemtrails but let the rest of us discuss the responses of individual sources like adults.
So in other words 'I'm going to keep posting propaganda from propaganda outlets because I have no faith that people can tell the difference'?
What part about discussing an article as an article are you struggling to understand?
Why do we need to discuss an article from a propaganda outlet regarding state propaganda when we can discuss that same 'state opinion' from a non-propaganda outlet?
Well you seem completely incapable of doing so. Everyone knows RT is a shit untrustworthy source, it's why I posted it, so we can talk about it, because it's a forum.
A good response from you would have been posting your more favored source and comparing them, of which you would have been free to ridicule RT all the way, instead you had to pull your dick out and claim intellectual rights and jizz on the thread and post sources already in agreement with the OP, which isn't what the discussion would have been about.
You just couldn't resist taking the opportunity to post your media bias fact check pic regardless of context in the thread.
No, not everyone - and especially not everyone when you refuse to, time and time again, call out 'by the way, take a whole shaker of salt with this because it's from effectively the Kremlin, but--'
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/1a81b252-4b77-469f-8291-ff0b0cad9161/image.png
That's because that level of discourse is what's desired for Polidicks. If you post shit sources in Polidicks without expressly calling them out as shit sources:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/89f12065-7599-47eb-bb60-8e6ed71e5f9c/image.png
Your context was, and I can't believe I need to remind you of your own words:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/c65b2521-3743-4f06-a496-df30c592cffc/image.png
'A fairly sensible article'. You are posting something from RT as 'sensible' -- which would be fine on its own if you caveated that with 'a fairly sensible article from a propaganda outlet run by the Kremlin'.
Guys, get a room and rub sources over each other before consuming them, because this argument is not going to get us anywhere.
Personally, even though I'm a leftist, I am subscribed to Fox News due to it often providing useful context for what the other side is thinking - I don't have a problem with people adding supplementary articles from crap sources when the situation calls for it, as long as there's a solid source in the OP.
You should have a huge problem with people adding 'supplementary articles' while not calling them out as poor and/or shit sources.
Trying to just sneak into a thread about housing funding 'btw this is what Project Veritas thinks regarding housing funding (that they literally manufactured evidence for, but you specifically omit stating that)' and then later going 'oh my god I never intended anyone to think of Project Veritas as credible - nobody thinks of them as credible' when you have shown a pattern of doing that, over and over again, over months of time shows that you're not interested in presenting truth or propaganda -- you're interested in presenting propaganda as truth. Few people are familiar with news media organizations which are outside their country and I think it's pretty fair to say the vast majority of FP users are not Russian -- ergo it's very likely that people are unfamiliar as a whole with whether or not RT is a propaganda news source run by the Kremlin.
This is a pattern with Resonant. He posts RT without any callouts that 'by the way, this is effectively from a propaganda source'. Then someone calls out that he's using a propaganda source. Then he defends himself by stating 'Nobody takes RT seriously' and then later remarks 'if you get all of your information from western sources, you're foolish and don't know the real story because you're only getting info from western propaganda' -- effectively implying 'if you don't read Russian propaganda regarding events, you can't know the truth -- because the truth is buried in the middle between credible reports and reporters and literal state-run propaganda outlets'.
I use ad-block on most sites, so, if anything, I'm hurting their revenue.
You are increasing the value of their site by providing it views. That allows them to argue for better rates from advertisers, which nets them more profit. Your particular set of eyeballs is only one part of how they make money -- you visiting their site at all is a large justification for the price to buy ads on their site as people would only be willing to pay for the traffic they show they're having.
It wasn’t enough to say they shouldn’t post articles to talk about bad sources, now we shouldn’t even look at them.
:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=81DPN27zrF4
Actually, I don't! I am completely in the dark! And that's a problem, because propaganda is something I'm quite concerned about!
Would you consider a quick listing of these sources so as to provide additional insight? What their propaganda is? How they present it? Which sources are the primary vectors for it and show up most frequently on Facepunch? What are the most common topics pushed by Western propaganda?
I know it's something of a repeat of a question I've asked before, but it's a question that is still sorely in need of answers. I make a lot of big posts that are loaded to the gills with links, and the possibility that some of these links come from or link to compromised sources is deeply troubling, especially when I have no accurate idea of which sources I should be subjecting to additional vetting
If you don't want to give propaganda networks money, then yes - you shouldn't even look at them. What you can do instead, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is go to places like Radio Free Europe which reposts all of what those propaganda sources would say anyway -- except without the conspiracy theories and the rampant and ridiculous bias.
If you still argue that we need the 'raw, unfiltered' propaganda even while I've given a perfectly credible, legitimate, well-respected source alternative for you to pursue 'what the Russian state opinion is' on anything then I'd like to know what is special about that propaganda - and I don't mean the positions of the government, I mean literally the propaganda - that we 'need to digest or discuss'.
Will you next start bringing up Alex Jones' hot takes on what the Republican party should be doing directly from Alex Jones because 'any other source would present Alex Jones wrong'? Do we need to sit through and watch Project Veritas videos because we 'need to know what the disinformation campaigns are saying' despite having reports and reporters who do that for you and then report on the actual, objective, facts?
To me, it sounds like you don't want the freedom to present shit sources as legitimate ones for the sake of discussion - because you know you already have it - but rather you want to be able to post them without being called out for doing so. If that really is the case here then
https://youtu.be/egw_ZG0vMxA
@Sitkero
Since you seem genuinely interested on the topic I'm happy to discuss how most popular news channels censor information or just flat out not report on issues to promote narratives. I'm not going to accuse many or any of blatantly lying in articles but rather to give an edge on topics, like the RT article posted here previously, to seed doubt and give support for an opposing outcome. Forgive me if I don't go searching through Facepunch for propaganda articles posted directly, but I hope you find the fact that the SOURCES I present you are commonly used on Facepunch as an acceptable argument and can reasonably conclude these things get posted here.
I'll use the current war efforts in the Middle East and the European immigrant crisis as my case points. Here you will find these sources promoting the idea that Russia is to blame somewhat for the sudden surges, all the while neglecting to cover the major causes of the crisis which has been western intervention in the Middle East causing an incredibly unstable region.
Firstly, how it all began and the news agencies response to it. I recommend a brilliant book which was produced from a study regarding the UK's journalistic response in the upcoming and continuing invasion of Iraq in 2003. I learned about it from this excellent article bringing attention to the issue which goes over some of my general points. which was written back in 2016.
Russian news may be biased – but so is much western media | Pier..
I particularly like this little piece here
>Whatever the accuracy, or lack thereof, of RT and whatever its actual impact on western audiences, one of the problems with these kinds of arguments is that they fall straight into the trap of presenting media that are aligned with official adversaries as inherently propagandistic and deceitful, while the output of “our” media is presumed to be objective and truthful. Moreover, the impression given is that our governments engage in truthful “public relations”, “strategic communication” and “public diplomacy” while the Russians lie through “propaganda”.
Neither of these claims has significant academic support. A substantial body of research conducted over many decades highlights the proximity between western news media and their respective governments, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. For reasons that include overreliance on government officials as news sources, economic constraints, the imperatives of big business and good old-fashioned patriotism, mainstream western media frequently fail to meet democratic expectations regarding independence. In our own study of UK media coverage of the 2003 Iraq invasion, Manchester University found that most UK mainstream media performed to reinforce official views rather than to challenge them.
This is a paper in the report of the Manchester University study the prompted the article and book.
We can see the same behaviors today in justifying the war in Syria and even evidence of common media outlets focusing on the failures of foreign states without giving too much question on the legality of our own intervention.
I'm not going to give you a list of all sites that do this, as most do even by accident. Any news outlet that writes and promotes articles solely based off of the statements of Government officials, such as the recent strikes on Assad regarding his suspected use of chemical weapons, where you will be rarely prompted to question the legality of our retaliation which would need to be discussed through the UN security council. Same goes for the Iraq war.
It's nothing new, we've always had to sift through mountains of shit and false primary narratives to get to the truth of things. We only get fed the humanitarian side for issues that are primarily geopolitical and financial to promote public opinion. Every election time you see common news outlets start backing their favoring party and start smearing opponents. It's in our face all the time.
BBC travelled to the village where Anatoliy Chepiga grew up, showed villagers the photograph of the Skripal suspect and a woman was able to immediately identify him as Chepiga
"I know where his parents used to live, that he was a military man. An officer. He fought in war zones, then he was in Moscow," she told the BBC - the first foreign journalists to visit since the Bellingcat report.
Nervous about speaking, she asked to remain anonymous, but said she had seen Col Chepiga as an adult, with his child, and she was sure he and "Boshirov" were one and the same.
She added: "It's him in the photos, of course."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45694123
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
