It's the first time I see such a complete garbage Putin-propaganda comment at the top on HN (I won't repeat the reasons here - just read the other top answers). I find it very, very worrying.
This breaks the HN guideline against name-calling in arguments. Just because the rest of the internet is full of this does not make it ok to do here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
I linked it because I keep a close eye on Putin's propaganda war on democracy and, specifically, on the EU (me being in the EU). But just re-read your comment and the connection is pretty obvious...
> The goal was to create a new pipeline from Qatar to Europe so Europe don’t have to buy gas from Russia
> Russia won the war in both Ukraine and Syria, at same time
> Qatar and Turkey are now enemies on the Russian side. The western alliance tried hard to take down their presidents by organizing coups but it failed.
Either you follow Russian media agencies closely so you can categorize information by national news agencies, or you're just labeling me for telling facts that you don't like to hear. Neither behavior is not smart.
If you're interested, I regularly read what some of Putin's supporter I know post on Reddit (mostly coming from RT and Sputnik). This way, I keep up on that kind of propaganda without having to read all the Russian media agencies directly.
To anticipate your next point: is there propaganda in the West? Yes, absolutely. Is it the same level BS as Putin's propaganda? No way - in the West there are just so many more independent sources of information, that finding out most BS is easy enough if you try. In Russia, things are very tightly controlled by Putin and his system.
I'm Russian. And while I agree that we have a propaganda, I can't say that the situation is any better in the West.
When I was living in UK for a while, I was amazed by how some really smart people have 100% level of trust to national media, so that they can't even perceive another point of view. All arguments were based on the fact that their media is historically old and never lies because it can't risk its reputation. And all Russian media is propaganda and controlled by Putin. It was 2014 and I can't say how much I was asked what I think about Putin. Honestly I didn't know what to answer because I don't like to talk about politics.
But since that time I know that if you look around the world you will notice the same BS but in different boxing. And people are equally vulnerable to buy it.
I agree with you that there are many people in the West who have (almost) 100% trust in national media, and that that level of trust is misplaced, but I don't agree at all that the situation is the same as in Russia (where I've been and where I know some people).
The difference is that here in the West there are lots of agendas being pushed, but there are also lots of competing ones, lots of different points of view, and much more freedom to express them. The end result is - or at least was, the situation isn't improving lately - that the government can't get away with lies as big as the ones Putin pushes (eg: "we have no soldiers in Ukraine" "we're never going to annex Crimea" etc. etc.)
I cannot disagree with your point. But we still have a lot of people who refuse to get information from propaganda sources. And this is a good sign. I hope we will get even better in this in the future and there will be more freedom in media.
Absolutely, I didn't mean that all Russians buy the propaganda - I also know how distrustful of the government you are on average. But it's a fact that it's very difficult to get good news sources for those who only understand Russian.
Yes we have lots of agendas, but in my lifetime only one agenda has been constant through all the surface changes: spend more money fighting more wars. At least when the Russians fight a war, they win, sometimes. The lie about USA military/LEO effectiveness is so big you can't even see it as a proposition that could be true or false. It's like water to a fish.
When it comes to big issues (eg the UKs EU referendum or national elections in either the US or UK) I don't believe there are a lot of agendas being pushed. If anything, the majority of the mainstream press tend to rally behind the same interests and that position is usually the one that the owners of said news outlet stand to gain the most. (eg leaving the EU, supporting a corporation friendly government such as Trump / Tories, even denying climate change so they have fewer restrictions et al running their business).
Just because there is more choice in "independent" news outlets, it doesn't mean there is more independent opinions being voiced.
Obviously there are going to be exceptions to the rule, hence why the language I used didn't say "all" or other exclusive terms. However the ratio would seem to be in the favour of right wing politics Vs left wing - and particularly so if you also factor in copies sold of each specific publication into your analysis.
Most people in the west don't try and find impartial information or counter arguments as generally people don't like having their opinion challenged. Worse still, many of the most popular news networks are also the the worst for political bias (Fox News, News UK (Sun), The Daily Mail, etc.)
Let's also not forget just how many people get their news from untrusted sources posted on social media and other similar communication mediums.
So I think it's a stretch to say things are significantly better in the west. If anything, people are just as badly misled here but with the added misconception that the free market and freedom of press means their news is automatically also free of political bias (or sometimes they do know but simply don't care because they had that bias to begin with)
Re people how downvoted me. I appreciate this is an opinion so others will differ but it would be nice to have a counterargument so I can understand why you disagree
