Neutral is a thing. Not always possible, but sometimes achievable.
Neutral in regards to Ukraine v Russia is not having an unquestioning lovefest for Ukrainian leadership.
Recently a major news outlet reported on the conditions Russian prisoners (in Ukrainian custody) were kept under.
It was very clear they did not have the ability to freely question prisoners, or freely move around the facility.
That’s normal. But it’s very important to point out. That’s responsible journalism.
Frankly fewer puff pieces of Zelenskyy, and a more critical look at his relationship with the tv production company that made him president would be nice.
There’s no need to maintain a false equivalence. But there are too many unquestioning puff pieces.
A war is about truth. Russia's truth is that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Ukraine's truth is that Ukraine belongs to Ukrainians.
The war's purpose is to determine who is wrong and who is left.
I do not think there is any way to be neutral at all in regards to Russia and Ukraine because any stance taken at all will support one sides victory or the others. Puff pieces about Zelensky are not meant to profess truth, they are meant to increase morale so troops fight better/more tenaciously, so battles can be won, so the war can be won.
Neutrality is not desired nor is it good.
Neutrality almost always supports the oppressors and neutrality is almost always implicit support for both the ideology of might makes right and the outcome of might makes right.
Fewer puff pieces on zelensky has the opportunity cost of fewer peices tearing down putins legitimacy. There can truly be no neutrality.
There is no neutrality to be found because both parties are not good faith actors attempting to reach consensus. If any parties are bad faith, there can be no neutrality because they don't have a desire to reach consensus, they have a desire to dominate.
I think time is finite and I think the act of spending time writing uncritical pieces on zelensky is a choice about how to spend the finite time. I think making that choice is an act of prioritization.
I think zelensky's puff pieces are propaganda, the same way I think putin as the head of a giant propaganda machine.
I think spending time un-puffing zelensky is a choice and I think that choice can be measured by its opportunity cost.
Zelensky puff pieces aren't even a tenth of the evil that putin's puff pieces are. Why is it a priority to spend time debunking Zelensky's puff?
There are a million stories that could be written. Choosing to write an anti-propaganda pieces is prioritizing the outcome of doing so over spending time writing about mistreatment of pows, and writing about the mistreatment of pows is at the cost of an infinite number of other potential stories. Each story has an outcome. Each story is a finger on the scale of public opinion.
So what does the way a news service prioritizes their stories say about the news service?
Neutral in regards to Ukraine v Russia is not having an unquestioning lovefest for Ukrainian leadership.
Recently a major news outlet reported on the conditions Russian prisoners (in Ukrainian custody) were kept under.
It was very clear they did not have the ability to freely question prisoners, or freely move around the facility.
That’s normal. But it’s very important to point out. That’s responsible journalism.
Frankly fewer puff pieces of Zelenskyy, and a more critical look at his relationship with the tv production company that made him president would be nice.
There’s no need to maintain a false equivalence. But there are too many unquestioning puff pieces.