232

Putin appeared paralyzed and unable to act in first hours of rebellion (wapo.st)

submitted 1 year ago by Peaces@infosec.pub to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

201 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -33 points 1 year ago

Washington Post is an american propaganda outlet when it comes to foreign policy articles. You might as well be linking VOA or RT.
That whole mutiny is fishy AF. There were rumours Prigozhin was betrayed by his deputy and informed the Kremlin. The CIA said they knew a week in advance. There was only a minor skirmish between a jet and a convoy on the way to Moscow where 12 soldiers died.

I don't understand what happened there or how the guy who tried to overthrow the government is still walking free. I've never heard of this in history before. The whole thing smells.

[-] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 52 points 1 year ago

It is silly to compare Voice of America (an excellent journalistic institution with a great reputation), to the Washington Post (overall pretty good), to Russia Times (literal state propaganda). These are all very different sources and painting them with the same brush is just factually incorrect.

Here's some research for you:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/

As for your second point, Trump is still walking free and he tried to overthrow the government. These things apparently do happen.

[-] PorkrollPosadist@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

For the love of god, listen to some Citations Needed and stop self-congratilating your media literacy because some fucking dork with a website tells you the New York Times and Washington Post aren't biased.

[-] 14specks@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

I'd thought that even the most liberal people on nü-Lemmy had at least read some Chomsky (or even watched the documentaries based on his work), but I guess we aren't even there yet.

[-] Veraticus@lib.lgbt -2 points 1 year ago

I think it’s hilarious people are telling me I need some nuance and research, when I’m the one arguing there are differences between these sources and we need to evaluate them individually. And the person I responded to is arguing they’re all the same because, well, Journalism Bad I guess!

For the love of god read the comments before you reply.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

And the person I responded to is arguing they’re all the same because, well, Journalism Bad I guess!

If you only consider corporate media and western state-run and state-sponsored outlets to be purveyors of "Journalism," then let me emphatically say yes, Journalism Bad.

[-] Veraticus@lib.lgbt -2 points 1 year ago

I definitely didn't say that.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

And yet the examples discussed follow those bounds

[-] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

I think you're just doubling down on your bad arguments with straw man fallacies now. Move on.

[-] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 0 points 1 year ago

"Bad arguments" is a pretty rich take coming from you. You've done nothing but continually, in defiance of logic and facts, assert total nonsense... and then turn around and claim that I'm the one that has bad arguments.

Literally, at least I have something. All you've got is a mushy, unfactual "enlightened centricism" that says that actually all media and all fact checkers are liars. Which is an utterly moronic take, and as I have demonstrated all over this thread, totally unsupported by actual facts.