I totally agree, and just because something is promoted strongly by Russia doesn't mean it's false, it just highlights the importance of reading a variety of different sources and applying your own critical thinking to find the truth.
Two examples: The Venezuelan aid-truck stunt. Clearly orchestrated by the US to help nudge regime change. On the other hand, the MH17 crash: clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet and coming up with some outlandish claims against the evidence (ie that it was faked with CGI).
Both are instances where the truth would've been lost on someone who exclusively reads and believes only one source of news.
"clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet"
Why not:
"probably a case of Russian or Ukrainian forces shooting down a passenger jet"?
Why "clearly" US burning the truck instead of say a local false flag or truck malfunction? You make a lot of assumptions for saying something is clear.
What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right.
I mean all of that is just common sense. The relative rate at which any of those scenarios unfolds is up in the air, but it's pretty clear all of those scenarios happen at least some of the time. When you see somebody claiming otherwise (e.g. "Russian media disagrees with American media, so the Russian media must be wrong." or "American media disagrees with the Russian media, so the American media must be wrong") you can be sure their opinion is invalid. They could legitimize their opinion by acknowledging a degree of uncertainty, by adding the word "probably" to either of those statements.
Here is the key: recognizing the possibility that you could be wrong. Acknowledgement of uncertainty may run counter to ego, but it's important. Or maybe I'm wrong about that.
> What should be clear is that neither the American nor Russian media will always be right, and neither the American nor the Russian media will always be wrong, and sometimes one will be right while the other is wrong, while other times both will be wrong or both will be right.
Correct/incorrect is not the only axis on which to evaluate media. There's also trustworthiness. I think that Russian media is less trustworthy than American media because it's not independent [1] from a government controlled by people who's jobs included running disinformation campaigns like Operation Infektion [2] [3], which included cooperation from state-controlled media.
No. Something can be entirely factually correct, but untrustworthy, as demonstrated by the concept of lying by omission. Something can also be factually correct, but untrustworthy, by asking a bunch of spurious questions that are calculated to mislead. For instance:
> Did Sweden shoot down MH17? Why are they denying that they shot it down, is there a coverup? Our defense experts have shown that the attack occurred within the range of the Swedish JAS-39 fighter, so they could have done it. What do the Swedes have to hide?
That's why you should read multiple sources, not one. If one source is omitting details but not otherwise lying, you'll get those details from other sources. To reiterate my earlier example, when western media were omitting evidence that Anti-Maduro rioters had started the fire, you could still become aware of this information by paying attention to what some in the western press were calling "Russian talking points".
Regardless, you've not refuted the essential truism here, that no western source is always right and that Russian sources are not always wrong.
> Regardless, you've not refuted the essential truism here, that no western source is always right and that Russian sources are not always wrong.
That's not what I was trying to refute. I'm sorry if you were confused.
The point I was making, is that if you want a diversity of sources, it's smart to select high-quality ones whose real goal is to be accurate and trustworthy. Most Russian media doesn't fit that bill, and certainly not the government-sponsored English language stuff.
To be a little hyperbolic and blunt about it: including propaganda in your diverse set of news sources is expert mode, and it requires an orders of magnitude more effort, skill, and knowledge. Most people who think they're experts aren't, and they can't handle it. Propaganda is created by experts and it's really a specialist job to suss out any novel truths that might be in it.
> when western media were omitting evidence that Anti-Maduro rioters had started the fire, you could still become aware of this information by paying attention to what some in the western press were calling "Russian talking points".
Or just wait a few days for proper reporting to happen rather than inhaling breaking news reports. None of those events have any immediate relevance on my life (and probably yours too), so we can afford to take our time.
Also: Trump's twitter account isn't "western media." I first heard about the aid convoy fire in an NYT story that was refuting the idea that the fire was caused by Maduro's forces, and their original story about the event doesn't assign anyone responsibility for the fire:
Two examples: The Venezuelan aid-truck stunt. Clearly orchestrated by the US to help nudge regime change. On the other hand, the MH17 crash: clearly a case of Russian forces mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet and coming up with some outlandish claims against the evidence (ie that it was faked with CGI).
Both are instances where the truth would've been lost on someone who exclusively reads and believes only one source of news.