Could you elaborate? You can do that in PM if you want.

the way you framed your previous response is open to misunderstanding noting there are multiple scenario's where you would not look for a countries media / people to opine on an event in their own country (as it is unconscious bias)

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 11 2024 11:16am

What ferdia said + :
To understand political info you need to look at the inside and outside sources, the best ones possible, of course, then you can compare where they align or differ. Then you look at the info from parties which hold little interest in the matter. In case of Russia vs Ukraine, you compare the propaganda lies of both sides to get a little bit of truth in between then read reports from Turkey and Israel (they report on the matter but aren't as biased) to form an opinion. Looking at inside sources only is the best way to be mislead.

This post was edited by babun1024 on Feb 11 2024 11:25am

Thanks. I understand your argument and agree with it. By trying to expose yourself to various opinions you usually find out what credible truth could be, which is usually somewhere in the middle.

Having said that - in my personal experience - the best judges of various events that are transpiring - are the people with skin in the game and that know the historical context of what is happening. After all it is nigh impossible to be an expert judge in all possible matters around the globe.

the absolute state of western media;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/10/the-ukrainian-garrison-in-avdiivka-fought-hard-and-fought-smart-but-it-didnt-count-on-republicans-cutting-off-ammo-supplies/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeosullivan/2024/02/10/tucker-carlson-duped-by-putin-in-bid-to-weaken-support-for-ukraine/

That's my other problem with the current state of MSM. In any literature class, they ask you to cite the lines you're interpreting to prove your claims. An opinion piece has to be marked as an opinion and not as report.


Propaganda => one sided reporting
Russia forbid most if not all foreign media to keep their inland narrative. The west does the same, that's why it's called propaganda. They're both afraid their lies is gonna be exposed and they'll lose support in inland. So again, just looking at the inside sources or weighing them up more is a bad idea.

This post was edited by babun1024 on Feb 11 2024 11:57am

well said.

I've pointed out from the beginning of the conflict that every country / government want their citizens to support their cause therefor every country uses propaganda in various forms, not only Russia or North Korea.

The thing is that the West always used to fully support independent journalism but in Ukraine journalists / reporters cannot even get close to the front or they risk being arrested. Ukrainians civilians get arrested when they merely film damage caused by Russian missile attacks and post on their social media.

Meanwhile Western media wants us to believe that Russia blew up their own critical infrastructure, they shelled their own forces at the nuclear power plant and so on.

You don't want to provide target confirmation for Russians for them to adjust their shelling target or see whether they hit the target at all, damage assessment. Leaking info from the front line is treason because people could die.

I have to say I was really irritated. I couldn't give a fuck about both of them but shelling the biggest nuclear plant in Europe was lunacy .

This post was edited by babun1024 on Feb 11 2024 12:52pm

There are other nuclear power plants in Ukraine that are operational. Russia was going after Ukraine's power plants last winter, they could easily have targeted those nuclear plants like they did ordinary power plants but of course they never did.

The Zaporizhia nuclear plant was shelled while Russian troops were inside. Do you think it's credible that Russia would 1) shell the nuclear power plant and 2) while their own forces occupied the plant.

I mentioned this because it's a prime example of trash propaganda