Coup Possibly Happening in Venezuela

[[DHT]Osiris]

"Reporting news accurately is not their primary goal" is a childish, reductive way to evaluate a news source. NYT has corporate interests and is subject to biases just like the RT is.

It's a fact, sorry that it runs counter to your narrative. RT is funded wholley by the Russian Government. NYT may have corporate interests (and thus one should keep that in mind when reading it) but RT is literally a mouthpiece of the Russian Government.

How you can conflate the two boggles the mind.

RT (TV network) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The creation of RT was a part of a larger public relations effort by the Russian Government in 2005 that was intended to improve the image of Russia abroad.[32] RT was conceived by former media minister Mikhail Lesin,[33] and Russian president Vladimir Putin's press spokesperson Aleksei Gromov.[34] At the time of RT's founding, RIA Novosti director Svetlana Mironyuk stated: "Unfortunately, at the level of mass consciousness in the West, Russia is associated with three words: communism, snow and poverty," and added "we would like to present a more complete picture of life in our country."[33] It is registered as an autonomous nonprofit organization[3][35] funded by the federal budget of Russia through the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation.[36]

 

[fskimospy]

And I'm challenging your evaluation. This isn't difficult to follow.

This is a non-sequitur. You said I was deflecting when I challenged the credibility of your source, which is nonsense. Challenging the credibility of a source should be one of the #1 things people do when evaluating information or choose to discuss it with anyone else.

"Reporting news accurately is not their primary goal" is a childish, reductive way to evaluate a news source. NYT has corporate interests and is subject to biases just like the RT is.

No, it's a simple rubric that's easily applied. It also leaves in the largest number of news sources possible, which is a good thing.

I mean, you're welcome to support your contention. I don't pretend to be a regular reader of either publication, but I rarely see their stories cited or linked in stories about American interference in, say, Latin America. I imagine both are more focused on European concerns.

So in other words you made statements about their coverage without knowing anything about it. I figured as much.

 

[Blackjack200]

Ironic considering that Fox News was the one that interviewed her. NYT and CNN quoted her words. Is it on them for failing to fully identify someone they quoted? Or on Fox News for not divulging the information in the first place? Shall we start railing against all news organizations who don't fully investigate the backgrounds of every single person they quote, regardless if they were the one that interviewed them or not?

For the record, Fox News is widely considered to be as bad as RT wrt ties to a political party.

EDIT: Further reading, she did show up on some CNN talking head show:

That was a fail on that interviewer, or CNN if she was told to not mention it. It hardly makes CNN a mouthpiece of the US govt though. Fox had her for what, 3 or 4 interviews and didn't bring it up? That sounds like more than an oversight.

Yeah, real oopsie there. Multiple US news sources laundering the words of a US government contractor.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a fact, sorry that it runs counter to your narrative. RT is funded wholley by the Russian Government. NYT may have corporate interests (and thus one should keep that in mind when reading it) but RT is literally a mouthpiece of the Russian Government.

How you can conflate the two boggles the mind.

RT (TV network) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't forget this part:

RT's editor-in-chief compared it with the Russian Army and Defence Ministry, and talked about it "waging the information war against the entire Western world."

Sounds super credible to me.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yeah, real oopsie there. Multiple US news sources laundering the words of a US government contractor.

And if some news source quoted me, would you call them a mouthpiece because they didn't reveal that I was a US government contractor?

You cannot digest information properly, your brain is too broken. You should stop watching television and go garden or something.

 

[Blackjack200]

US State propaganda.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1214575565849681920

 

[ElFenix]

I think you'll need more than an opinion columnist failing to look up the Wikipedia page of a voice of America reporter to equate RT and the NYT.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think you'll need more than an opinion columnist failing to look up the Wikipedia page of a voice of America reporter to equate RT and the NYT.

And how about his fact checker and his editor? Guess they missed it too.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And how about his fact checker and his editor? Guess they missed it too.

I assume you're this thorough and critical when it comes to RT sources, yes?

 

[Blackjack200]

I assume you're this thorough and critical when it comes to RT sources, yes?

Thanks for admitting that this is indefensible.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Thanks for admitting that this is indefensible.

That's not what acquiescing looks like. Your brain is still broken, try turning it off and on again.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

When your main source of news is random Twatter Tweets...

You aren't a part of some ultra super duper secret club of insider news sources. You're reading propaganda.Pure and simple. You're a tool and a pawn. Don't be that....



...Or keep doing it - just know you're at the same level as moron Trumpers that tweet out such stupid shit.

 

[Blackjack200]

You cannot digest information properly, your brain is too broken. You should stop watching television and go garden or something.

That's not what acquiescing looks like. Your brain is still broken, try turning it off and on again.

When your main source of news is random Twatter Tweets...

You aren't a part of some ultra super duper secret club of insider news sources. You're reading propaganda.Pure and simple. You're a tool and a pawn. Don't be that....

...Or keep doing it - just know you're at the same level as moron Trumpers that tweet out such stupid shit.

Great arguments, very persuasive.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Great arguments, very persuasive.

You do not accept arguments, so there's little point in presenting them. Any argument presented to you will be deflected, straw-man'd, or minimized, or more likely, you'll just ghost the conversation so you don't have to accept that you were wrong.

You are a wasteful person. Wasteful to yourself, and to others.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Great arguments, very persuasive.

It's like were talking with a flat-earther....

"It's UP TO YOU to convince me that I am wrong!"

 

[Blackjack200]

This is a non-sequitur. You said I was deflecting when I challenged the credibility of your source, which is nonsense. Challenging the credibility of a source should be one of the #1 things people do when evaluating information or choose to discuss it with anyone else.

RT wasn't my source. You can't even process the argument itself. Sad.

No, it's a simple rubric that's easily applied. It also leaves in the largest number of news sources possible, which is a good thing.

Of course it's easily applied, it doesn't require any critical thinking, and it cannot be disproven. It's totally circular. NYT is credible because their goal is reporting news accurately. Baby brain stuff.

So in other words you made statements about their coverage without knowing anything about it. I figured as much.

Look it's the guy that reads Der Spiegel every day.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

NYT is credible because their goal is reporting news accurately.

Hey, you said it, not me.

 

[Blackjack200]

You do not accept arguments, so there's little point in presenting them. Any argument presented to you will be deflected, straw-man'd, or minimized, or more likely, you'll just ghost the conversation so you don't have to accept that you were wrong.

You are a wasteful person. Wasteful to yourself, and to others.

"You won't accept my shitty arguments so I guess I'll just insult you"

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

"You won't accept my shitty arguments so I guess I'll just insult you"

Sorry, you consider my arguments to be shit but stating that RT and NYT are comparable is perfectly cromulent?

 

[Blackjack200]

Hey, you said it, not me.

I guess we've reached the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of the debate.

 

[fskimospy]

RT wasn't my source. You can't even process the argument itself. Sad.

More deflection.

Of course it's easily applied, it doesn't require any critical thinking, and it cannot be disproven. It's totally circular. NYT is credible because their goal is reporting news accurately. Baby brain stuff.

Of course it can be disproven. For example if a news source’s editor in chief describes it as an information war source on behalf of its government funder.

Look it's the guy that reads Der Spiegel every day.

I don’t read it every day, but over the years I have read many, many articles from it. In college while studying German I read it quite a bit for both practice and because it had an English language website with substantially similar reporting on a lot of topics that would let me compare. You criticized it as being insufficiently critical without knowing much of anything about it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I guess we've reached the "I know you are but what am I?" stage of the debate.

You were never debating honestly, so why even get upset about it?

 

[Blackjack200]

More deflection.

You like that word, don't you?

Of course it can be disproven. For example if a news source’s editor in chief describes it as an information war source on behalf of its government funder.

Yes, you mentioned that statement before. Unfortunately you are utterly unequipped to understand a statement like that because you do not have any appreciation of the power, influence, and consequence of American corporate media. That's why I'm not interested in discussing it with you.

I don’t read it every day, but over the years I have read many, many articles from it. In college while studying German I read it quite a bit for both practice and because it had an English language website with substantially similar reporting on a lot of topics that would let me compare. You criticized it as being insufficiently critical without knowing much of anything about it.

I searched your posts for the words "Der Spiegel" and apparently your posts have included the term three times since your account began in 2006, each of those posts is in this thread.

 

[fskimospy]

You like that word, don't you?

I don't like it or dislike it, it's just what you're doing.

Yes, you mentioned that statement before. Unfortunately you are utterly unequipped to understand a statement like that because you do not have any appreciation of the power, influence, and consequence of American corporate media. That's why I'm not interested in discussing it with you.

Ah yes, we all lack your incredible knowledge and genius, otherwise we would agree with you.

I searched your posts for the words "Der Spiegel" and apparently your posts have included the term three times since your account began in 2006, each of those posts is in this thread.

Lol, this is getting pathetic. You're just trying to (yet again!) deflect from the fact that you already admitted you had no idea what their coverage was like but said they were insufficiently critical anyway. You were bullshitting and you got busted.

 

[Blackjack200]

Lol, this is getting pathetic.

Disagree, it's been completely pathetic the entire time.