This is a category error: you're comparing US propaganda (a think the US government did and still does) with an article from a UK-based magazine that's mostly known for economics analysis.
The US (and the UK) both have ample motivation (and source material) to cast Russia in a negative light. But there's a significant different in kind between "Destroy This Mad Brute"[1] and even directed journalism.
> This is a category error: you're comparing US propaganda (a think the US government did and still does) with an article from a UK-based magazine that's mostly known for economics analysis.
When you say "comparing", are you saying that an assertion of equality has been made? No such assertion exists in the text you are responding to.
And if one is simply comparing and contrasting similar things but making no claim of equality, what is the error?
Perhaps...but this does not answer my questions, but rather dodges them.
Are you willing to answer the questions I have posed to you regarding your claim of a category error?
It is perhaps also worth explicitly acknowledging the fact that the US government (via its various agencies and employees, stationed around the globe) is a rather influential organization.
I picked the most sensationalist propaganda on account for rhetorical purposes. I imagine I could find much more modern, subtle and pertinent examples of propaganda from the Vietnam war era if I spent enough time looking.
Are you suggesting that I start blindly taking the mainstream media's reporting about war at good faith? Aren't there enough historic examples of how the American media establishment have been used to further American foreign policy objectives?
I've always thought of myself as left-wing. I came of age in the 'War on Terror', and recall the collective skepticism of the American establishment. I remember the attitude of left-wing intellectuals like Chomsky, and the public reaction to what many other young people like myself thought was a war fought not for justice, but for American foreign policy interests. I don't see this kind of skepticism anymore.
Everyone able to make a rational decision can see Russia are are the sole cause of this war. If Russia decided to leave Ukrainian territory tomorrow, the war would end tomorrow, and Ukrainians could get on with their lives in peace, and the stolen children hopefully get to go home.
This is the same as rational people being able to see that the United States was wrong to invade Iraq in the second Gulf War. Fake weapons of mass destruction. David Kelly the British scientist forced to lie by Tony Blair who goes on to commit suicide, it was a dark time.
The information I got about the Iraq war at the time was from the "mainstream media", by the way.
Just because the US (and the UK) was making bad decisions in Iraq 20 years ago doesn't mean they are making bad decisions in support of Ukraine now. The Russians would love you to think they are however.
Maybe not forced, but the west gave him a good reason to. The Mexico analogy is a good one, and the US has invaded other countries for less, so I'm not sure why that's such a controversial take.
> Are you suggesting that I start blindly taking the mainstream media's reporting about war at good faith?
Skepticism is good, but has to be grounded in something plausible otherwise it isn't as much evidence of critical thinking, but rather of something else.
> Aren't there enough historic examples of how the American media establishment have been used to further American foreign policy objectives?
>Are you suggesting that I start blindly taking the mainstream media's reporting about war at good faith?
No, you're being asked to at least attempt to find out the truth rather than dismiss all reporting as western propaganda. What would you accept as the truth? Would you accept Ukrainian reporting?
Here's a Ukrainian documentary about two children who were essentially kidnapped and managed to escape with the help of an aid group in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPyWA9ZK4Qs
TL;DR they were in occupied territory and their school principle set up a "2 week study trip" to Crimea. After the 2 weeks were up they were not released and were instead forcibly enrolled in new boarding schools.
True and healthy skepticism requires evidence and pointing skepticism at things that deserves skepticism. Questioning whether plants produce food by photosynthesis from the light of the sun because "science" has been wrong before isn't skepticism in any meaningful sense.
Russia's roulette wheel of dishonest justifications for the war and countless other documented war crimes would lend one to directing skepticism toward questioning any legitimate humanitarian basis for this invasion. There have been a litany of other documented war crimes by Russia -- why would imprisoning dissidents trip your "skepticism" red flags?
what are you talking about? The economist has nothing to do with american administration. It is an independent, british publication. Also, for example the "Throwing babies out of incubators" was, as I understood it, not ordered by the american government but by the kuwait government and later disputed by the independent journalists of ABC.
Your comment is just baseless and easily leads to "alternative" facts and other senseless claims. It is actively harmful.
Statements by governments need to be checked, but that's what independent journalists are there for. The same venue you criticise.
> I find it surprising that so few are the least bit skeptical of contemporary reporting about Russia.
Please enlighten me. Where can I find independent Russian journalism and news (preferably in English). From what I understand, they've all been forced out of Russia or jailed.
It is correct, the Ruzzians do not deny it, they say it is a fair punishment.
They also do not deny they kidnaped children from Ukraine, they just say they had no choice and could not let the children there so the Ruzzian artillery kill them.
The article where a criminal liberated from Wagner killing someone back in his village is also true, there are Russian social media accounts that confirm it.
The latest fake video from FSB (ex KGB) in which Ruzzians pretend to be evil Ukrainian soldiers, is also confirmed by Ruzzians as false, they joke that FSB did a bad job this time and should do better next time.
There are teens imprisoned because the blew up an FSB building in Minecraft, Ruzzians admit this is correct but they claim the kids were planing in Minecraft terrorists attacks/
So if you are lazy a very good rule is , if is something from Ruzzia then assume is false, it is from West assume is true. In this way you will be less wrong then doing the reverse. If your life is on the line do not be lazy and do mroe research or wait a few days for more information to surface. The case in this article is weeks old.
