You’re making an allegation that just because Sputnik reports something it should be automatically dismissed. Everything you accuse Sputnik of is regularly practised by western news agencies as well. Western media often creates biases and misrepresents the events in its reporting. There is no evidence that Sputnik is any worse in that regard. Unless you have concrete evidence that the reporting is incorrect then you’re just slinging mud.
Again, your bias seems to be based on western media claiming Sputnik is unreliable. Yet, western media itself is a biased source. There’s no actual diversity in western media either. Practically everything is owned by 6 megacorps. And here’s is what diversity in western media looks like in practice.
As I’ve said earlier, there is no evidence that Sputnik is any less reliable than a typical western outlet. The difference is in the bias.
As I’ve said earlier, there is no evidence that Sputnik is any less reliable than a typical western outlet.
Are you comparing it to the National Enquirer? Because otherwise, that claim is as far out as Sputnik’s namesake. Sputnik doesn’t even try to be accurate. It exists solely as a mouthpiece for the Russian government.
I’m comparing to outlets like CNN or WaPo that have been spreading wild disinformation about the war in Ukraine for the past 10 months. These outlets exist solely as mouthpieces for US oligarchs.
It has a piece on the front page with the headline “Whale or Loch Ness Monster? Mysterious Creature Caught on Video Near Atlantic Beach”. One of these things is not like the others.
At least nobody actually thinks that Loch Ness monster is real, while lots of seemingly intelligent people in the west believe that Russia is about lose the war any day now.
To the contrary, much discussion has been centered around how long Putin will push this war in Ukraine. But it’s been a reasonably balanced discussion that also points out how poor Russian logistics has been, how Russia’s army lacks many basic supplies, the determination of the Ukrainian people and the the heavy toll the Russian bombardment of civilian infrastructure has had on the country.
Sputnik also posts articles like January 6 Two Years On: What Dems Would Risk by Trying to Prosecute Trump After Nothingburger Probe. It falsely asserts that there is no evidence to support charges against Trump in connection to the January 6th insurrection. The probe and its 800 page report actually provides plenty of evidence. Is this the sort of blatantly biased right wing publication you want to lean on?
Again, you’re using a propaganda outlet as your reliability benchmark. For example, there is nothing reliable about Meduza, and the only reason it’s listed is such is because it has vehemently anti Russian bias. If we hold outlets like CNN to the same standard then there is nothing more reliable about them than Sputnik.
The flood of misinformation about the state of the war in Ukraine in pretty much every western media outlet for the past 10 months is a perfect example of just how unreliable these outlets are. Yet, you wouldn’t know that if you went by media bias ratings.
You appear to think that the word reliable means that it fits with your existing bias.
Every organization doing these sorts of reliability checks is politically motivated, and it’s going to have a strong bias.
Sputnik does indeed have a tabloidy bend to it, but sometimes it has actual reporting as well. This is why I keep saying that it’s best to evaluate the information on its own merit rather then perseverating over what rating some org comes up with.
This particular story is credible because it aligns with what we know from lots of other western sources.
deleted by creator
You’re making an allegation that just because Sputnik reports something it should be automatically dismissed. Everything you accuse Sputnik of is regularly practised by western news agencies as well. Western media often creates biases and misrepresents the events in its reporting. There is no evidence that Sputnik is any worse in that regard. Unless you have concrete evidence that the reporting is incorrect then you’re just slinging mud.
deleted by creator
Again, your bias seems to be based on western media claiming Sputnik is unreliable. Yet, western media itself is a biased source. There’s no actual diversity in western media either. Practically everything is owned by 6 megacorps. And here’s is what diversity in western media looks like in practice.
As I’ve said earlier, there is no evidence that Sputnik is any less reliable than a typical western outlet. The difference is in the bias.
Are you comparing it to the National Enquirer? Because otherwise, that claim is as far out as Sputnik’s namesake. Sputnik doesn’t even try to be accurate. It exists solely as a mouthpiece for the Russian government.
I’m comparing to outlets like CNN or WaPo that have been spreading wild disinformation about the war in Ukraine for the past 10 months. These outlets exist solely as mouthpieces for US oligarchs.
It has a piece on the front page with the headline “Whale or Loch Ness Monster? Mysterious Creature Caught on Video Near Atlantic Beach”. One of these things is not like the others.
At least nobody actually thinks that Loch Ness monster is real, while lots of seemingly intelligent people in the west believe that Russia is about lose the war any day now.
To the contrary, much discussion has been centered around how long Putin will push this war in Ukraine. But it’s been a reasonably balanced discussion that also points out how poor Russian logistics has been, how Russia’s army lacks many basic supplies, the determination of the Ukrainian people and the the heavy toll the Russian bombardment of civilian infrastructure has had on the country.
Sputnik also posts articles like January 6 Two Years On: What Dems Would Risk by Trying to Prosecute Trump After Nothingburger Probe. It falsely asserts that there is no evidence to support charges against Trump in connection to the January 6th insurrection. The probe and its 800 page report actually provides plenty of evidence. Is this the sort of blatantly biased right wing publication you want to lean on?
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
deleted by creator
Again, you’re using a propaganda outlet as your reliability benchmark. For example, there is nothing reliable about Meduza, and the only reason it’s listed is such is because it has vehemently anti Russian bias. If we hold outlets like CNN to the same standard then there is nothing more reliable about them than Sputnik.
The flood of misinformation about the state of the war in Ukraine in pretty much every western media outlet for the past 10 months is a perfect example of just how unreliable these outlets are. Yet, you wouldn’t know that if you went by media bias ratings.
You appear to think that the word reliable means that it fits with your existing bias.
deleted by creator
Every organization doing these sorts of reliability checks is politically motivated, and it’s going to have a strong bias.
Sputnik does indeed have a tabloidy bend to it, but sometimes it has actual reporting as well. This is why I keep saying that it’s best to evaluate the information on its own merit rather then perseverating over what rating some org comes up with.
This particular story is credible because it aligns with what we know from lots of other western sources.