• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      -11 year ago

      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.

      • @pingveno
        link
        21 year ago

        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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          01 year ago

          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.

          • @pingveno
            link
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              11 year ago

              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.

              • @pingveno
                link
                -1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  21 year ago

                  That’s a flat out false statement. The discussion from the start has been centred on how Russian economy is going to collapse, how Russian army is dysfunctional, and how Russia is running out of weapons. None of these things have proven to be even remotely true, yet they’re still being repeated in mainstream western outlets today.

                  This is what propaganda looks like as opposed to balanced discussions. There is no credible evidence for claims that Russian logistics have been poor or that Russian army lacks basic supplies. I’m also not sure where you got this idea that there’s some determination from Ukrainian people given that millions of Ukrainians have fled the country, and Ukrainian military abducts people from the street to conscript them into this meat grinder. You’re literally spreading misinformation that you’ve internalized by consuming these propaganda outlets uncritically.

                  And wake me up once Trump is actually convicted. I’ve been hearing this story for literally years now, and to date Trump is still prancing around without any charges against him.

                  • @pingveno
                    link
                    -11 year ago

                    how Russian army is dysfunctional

                    There is no credible evidence for claims that Russian logistics have been poor or that Russian army lacks basic supplies.

                    That’s weird. Their own families beg to differ. That is not an isolated article. Many, many sources have reported the same problems. Then there are all those tanks that just plain ran out of fuel and were abandoned en masse by their crews. Or the super fancy bullet proof armor that turned out to just be a thin cheap steel plate that can be easily shot through. Or the incorrectly installed reactive armor (or no reactive armor at all).

                    And wake me up once Trump is actually convicted. I’ve been hearing this story for literally years now, and to date Trump is still prancing around without any charges against him.

                    Trump and associated organizations have been hit with successful legal action, just not criminal charges. For the four years of his presidency, he was protected by Congressional Republicans. Meanwhile, right wing outlets both Sputnik and in the US lie to cover up that he actually is guilty of crimes. The Jan 6 committee has laid out four charges that are well backed and the Biden administration is moving forward right now via a special prosecutor.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          -21 year ago

          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.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.