Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

rt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#51

Post by thinkingemote »

beeboop wrote: post #49
a0-prw wrote: post #34

I regularly read RT and occasionally Sputnik. I also read the opposing views held by Western media like Economist, FT, Independent, etc. RT are always careful to acknowledge opposing viewpoints. For example, in all articles on the war, so far, they say "Moscow claims ..." and "Kiev claims ..." Censorship happens when the authorities are afraid of the viewpoints of their opponents. So the EU is afraid of allowing Russ…

During all this mess, RT has always pushed the view that Putin was liberating regions of Ukraine that had lawfully and democratically seceded from Ukraine and welcomed Russian troops. I don't call that very neutral

You can acknowledge opposite viewpoints and be biased at the same time.

I don't think anyone is claiming any state media anywhere as neutral. It's clear they are biased, but they might also show opposite viewpoints.

I think these are very biased propaganda outlets but they shouldn't be censored on our behalf by our leaders.

They will, though, and we all understand why. Because we cannot handle working out the truth ourselves.

misinformation spectre.

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#52

Post by tablespoon »

tsol wrote: post #32
tablespoon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is crossing a line. In free societies we shoild be able to hear different sides. RT and Sputnik aren't "sides" in a democratic debate. They are propaganda outlets participating in bad faith with a goal to undermine those societies that have those debates.

So who decides what a propaganda outlet is? Some was fox news is one. Some say MSNBC is propaganda. And some say all major news channels allow the narrative to be shifted by outside powers, and therefore qualify as propaganda

> So who decides what a propaganda outlet is?

I do.

If you find it tough to figure out, consider more context and your place in it.

Honestly, one of the things these propaganda outlets are pretty good at is flummoxing people who make judgements based on too little information. Either they get locked up in some "it's all the same, can't decide" trap [1], or they react exclusively to some misleading cherry-picking the outlet put in front of them.

[1] e.g. "RT is financed by a government and the BBC is financed by a government, SO THAT MEANS THEY"RE THE SAME AND SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME!1!!"

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#53

Post by CodeGlitch »

robbedpeter wrote: post #23
yrgulation wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent - I use moscowtimes.ru for news from within russia. Not sure how reliable it is, but i've read an article which if google translate works fine, it would appear there is dissent among their forces. Also the russian ministry of defense has openly spoke, in russia, about russian losses: more than 3200 dead. That's half the losses Russian had in 8 years of the Second Chechen War. Looks like Ukraine is winning a…

Ukraine is losing 1 for every 20 Russians killed so far. Putin's strategical prowess is surprisingly terrible.

This is what I don't get about the Russian invasion. Russia is a technologically advanced country (look at their space programme), they've had all this time to develop drones, missiles, satellites, etc - yet they send in tanks and troops like it's WW2. They've spent years developing assassination techniques, and have used them in the past to remove opposition leaders, and yet they have resorted to a ground invasion to remove the Ukraine government.

None of it makes sense, unless Putin is trying to get the West to start a hot war?

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#54

Post by hurflmurfl »

I'll risk posting a reply on this thread, without having a big point to prove but more with the goal of getting an answer to a question, which some readers may find interesting and others may find sacrilegious.

I'm living in Russia at present, and the dilemma I face is related to sources of news and information about the ongoing "conflict"/war/invasion.

I could read Russian news, of course, but anyone and their grandmother knows that you get a nice good blob of biased propaganda on those.

I could read European / US news, where the take is quite lopsided as well.

What I actually read is HN, I read some opinions and discussions, looking for ones that are actually interesting and discuss fundamental questions rather than resort to simplifications, logical fallacies, "common sense" (quotes because it tends to be rather private and subjective, but not so common) and then try not to get too much unverified information into my head.

I do not support the war effort, and I sympathize greatly with the many people affected in one way or another by the situation.

Having said all this, is there a good source of [as unbiased as possible] information on the reasons behind the current situation and the sequence of events leading to it? Both sides just sing their tune, vilify the other side and generally try to appeal to subjective morals or feelings or just build a strawman and go from there. Now that's, of course, par for the course, we're talking about media. I, however, would like to know BOTH sides of the conflict deeper before trying to form an opinion that I can count as my own.

Thus, my first question: where do I find some sort of a compilation of arguments from both sides, where everything is not reduced ad absurdum and the opinion is left for the reader to form?

Naturally, I also have a related second question: where would one find a stream of information that's related to the ongoing events (not the history) and portrays the situation from multiple points of view?

As a habit, I try not to hold strong opinions that I don't understand completely, and I most commonly choose not to hold any opinion at all, as I do not find the time investment to sift through all the sources reasonable. Do you have any suggestions, fellow HNers? Or do you just zen out of this and file it away as "life happens, as usual"?

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#55

Post by _-david-_ »

drran wrote: post #39
_-david-_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is China, but we aren't seeing a ban of their news. If there was a more consistent ban of countries engaging in an information war I wouldn't have as much of an issue. When people call for a restriction or ban of Chinese news they are accused of being racist censors.

> Russia is not at war with the EU though? > RF is at information war with the West for about a decade. I just answered your question. > So is China So, you know the answer already. There are countries, which cannot attack West directly, so they attack indirectly, using propaganda. Some countries are better at that than others. However, one mad country directly attacks another country now, which tries to join the Wes…

Ukraine is not the west so Russia is not attacking the west. Joining NATO doesn't make a country a western country (I assume that is what you mean by joining the Western block). Do you think Turkey is a western country? Being in the west and taking your culture from Judeo-Christian / Greek philosophy means you are a part of the west.

China took over Hong Kong which was a colony of the UK. You could argue an attack against Hong Kong is more of an attack on the west than Ukraine.

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#56

Post by rsynnott »

beeboop wrote: post #50
rsynnott wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Fox and MSNBC aren't owned by a hostile foreign government, so there's that.

From Russia's perspective they are.

I don't think anyone in Russia thinks that Fox News or MSNBC are owned by the American government. Like, RT and Sputnik are government-funded foreign propaganda organs; a better comparison might be Radio Free Europe.

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#57

Post by gutitout »

coenhyde wrote: post #42
a0-prw wrote: post #34

I regularly read RT and occasionally Sputnik. I also read the opposing views held by Western media like Economist, FT, Independent, etc. RT are always careful to acknowledge opposing viewpoints. For example, in all articles on the war, so far, they say "Moscow claims ..." and "Kiev claims ..." Censorship happens when the authorities are afraid of the viewpoints of their opponents. So the EU is afraid of allowing Russ…

This isn't about censorship. It's about an economic embargo.

Sadly, you’re wrong. It’s about censorship. If they wanted economic embargo they would pull the plug or Nord Stream.

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#58

Post by coenhyde »

gutitout wrote: post #57
coenhyde wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about censorship. It's about an economic embargo.

Sadly, you’re wrong. It’s about censorship. If they wanted economic embargo they would pull the plug or Nord Stream.

Ideally they would pull the plug on Nord Stream, but people would freeze. That's a hard ask. They're going as far as they can without hurting themselves too much. Cutting Russian banks off from SWIFT was a tough call.

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#59

Post by _-david-_ »

hourislate wrote: post #14
sfjailbird wrote: post #9

That is crossing a line. In free societies we should be able to hear different sides.

Are you serious to suggesting we should hear from Putin's personal media outlets for a source on unbiased news coverage? A sincere question, How do you feel about Hitler and the 3rd Reich, did they deserve more outlets also? Both sources are controlled by Putin's Government and have been instructed to restrict Invasion/War and hinder coverage of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

The person you are replying to never said RT is unbiased. They only said that free societies should allow people to hear it. Part of living in a liberal society is allowing things you disagree with.

Re: EU to Ban RT and Sputnik

#60

Post by _-david-_ »

pqb wrote: post #26
sfjailbird wrote: post #9

That is crossing a line. In free societies we should be able to hear different sides.

This is not the type of "side". It spreads misinformation on huge scale. Those sites can be compared to some fantasy book not real news.

Free speech is only free speech if it is "real news"?
Post reply on HN