War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

(Thread IKs: fatherboxx)

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

beer_war posted:

Fair point, just something to keep in mind if they say "The Western homonazis made me do it" into a camera sometime soon.

https://x.com/KevinRothrock/status/1771942832674128242?s=20

I like how the grey zone thinks hosed up torture and poo poo is cool and funny when guys they like do it.

ChubbyChecker posted:

yeah, i'm quite surprised that they caught any alive terrorists and that they didn't kill any civilians while catching them

i am honestly shocked they didnt just shoot them and then just "find" a ton of fake evidence. A dark part of me still thinks that the FSB let it happen to a degree.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 22:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 19:06

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

fatherboxx posted:

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1771883470811214309

ill be a dick and move the goalpost somewhat and say that the FSB knew about the cell, let it happen and or hosed up preventing it and then nabbed them and tortured them into blaming the Ukrainians.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 22:39

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Dapper_Swindler posted:

I like how the grey zone thinks hosed up torture and poo poo is cool and funny when guys they like do it.

i am honestly shocked they didnt just shoot them and then just "find" a ton of fake evidence. A dark part of me still thinks that the FSB let it happen to a degree.

That Grey Zone is a Russian telegram channel and not the Max Blumenthal rag.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 22:39

Neophyte: Apr 23, 2006; perennially; Taco Defender

MikeC posted:

https://x.com/rybar_force/status/1771557381266133252?s=20

It appears that Ivanivske, a minor settlement outside of Bakhmut has fallen. It was one of the cornerstones of the Ukrainian defence after the fall of Bakhmut last year and exposes Chasiv Yar, a major supply hub for the Ukrainians in the region during the winter defensive in Bakhmut and the summer counter-offensive that petered out near Klivchiivska. The pace of Ukrainian strongholds that have formed major bulwarks against Russian advances in multiple areas has fallen recently and quickly.

Is this Ryber Force someone worth taking seriously? I looked breifly at some of their earlier posts and they're pretty insistent on the idea that the terror attack was done by Ukr, repeating other bs like Germany wants Ukraine to "fight to the last Ukrainian" and other really inflammatory and slanted posting. IMO, getting info from "both sides" in a contentious debate is fine, so long as both sides are presenting their side in good faith. This person doesn't seem to be doing that.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 22:42

Popete: Oct 6, 2009; This will make sure you don't suggest to the KDz
That he should grow greens instead of crushing on MCs; Grimey Drawer

Neophyte posted:

Is this Ryber Force someone worth taking seriously? I looked breifly at some of their earlier posts and they're pretty insistent on the idea that the terror attack was done by Ukr, repeating other bs like Germany wants Ukraine to "fight to the last Ukrainian" and other really inflammatory and slanted posting. IMO, getting info from "both sides" in a contentious debate is fine, so long as both sides are presenting their side in good faith. This person doesn't seem to be doing that.

Considering they refer to Ukrainians as "the enemy" in that post I would take it with at the very least a pinch of salt.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 22:54

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

fatherboxx posted:

I don't think the handlers expected the perpetrators to get out alive because running to the Ukraine border is ridiculously stupid.

It's possible that they were headed to Belarus, but all in all if they really wanted to get out they should have split and gone different ways. And changed clothes. It really doesn't seem like the escape was planned, nor is it the ISIS method. When in 2017 Abderrahman Bouanane stabbed 10 people 2 of whom died but was then shot in the leg and taken alive by police, he claimed he was working for ISIS but ISIS didn't claim the attack. Well, ISIS-K has claimed this one, but I'm sure that they expected the men to martyr themselves then and there.

spankmeister posted:

They could have just as easily chosen to drive to Latvia.

Just want to point out that they probably didn't have the necessary paperwork to go to EU. At best they could have gotten to the border and claimed asylum, assuming that border guards don't just beat the poo poo out of them and push them back. But it would have been politically awkward if they got to EU, for sure!

# ? Mar 24, 2024 22:57

beer_war: Mar 10, 2005

Rybar are some of the less unhinged pro-Russian milbloggers. I wouldn't just take them at their word when they claim Russian successes unless it is accompanied by evidence or confirmed by the opposing side. That said, Ivanivske has been at the very least contested for some time now, so it is not an especially outlandish claim. We all know the Ukrainian side is lacking manpower and ammunition. Until that is resolved, Russia will, unfortunately, have significant advantages.

beer_war fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Mar 24, 2024

# ? Mar 24, 2024 22:59

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Nenonen posted:

But it would have been politically awkward if they got to EU, for sure!

Claims that they would be tortured would indeed be credible...

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:02

the holy poopacy: May 16, 2009; hey! check this out; Fun Shoe

Rybar is a pro-Russian outlet with some accuracy issues but despite their politics they seem to generally have some connection to reality, they're willing to admit to Russian defeats and their mistakes are more "the fog of war is hard to pierce" rather than "glorious Russian heroes wiped out NATO for the 5th time." Their reports on the front line are generally going to be roughly correct at least as far as the trend goes, if not the details.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:02

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

beer_war posted:

Rybar are some of the less unhinged pro-Russian milbloggers. I wouldn't just take them at their word when they claim Russian successes unless it is accompanied by evidence or confirmed by the opposing side. That said, Ivanivske has been at the very least contested for some time now, so it is not an especially outlandish claim. We all know the Ukrainian side is lacking manpower and ammunition. Until that is resolved, Russia will, unfortunately, have significant advantages.

Ivanivske falling is less the outlandish claim than basically everything past Ivanivske falling instantly.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:03

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

Neophyte posted:

Is this Ryber Force someone worth taking seriously? I looked breifly at some of their earlier posts and they're pretty insistent on the idea that the terror attack was done by Ukr, repeating other bs like Germany wants Ukraine to "fight to the last Ukrainian" and other really inflammatory and slanted posting. IMO, getting info from "both sides" in a contentious debate is fine, so long as both sides are presenting their side in good faith. This person doesn't seem to be doing that.

Rybar is a good source. Much better than most pro-Ukrainian outlets, many of which have grown increasingly silent on front-line reporting after their over-exuberance was exposed during the summer. It has a pro-Russian disposition, but the lack of pushback from Ukrainian sources marks this particular entry as fact.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:15

Dandywalken: Feb 11, 2014

MikeC posted:

Rybar is a good source.

quote:

How the US promotes the version of IS involvement in the terrorist attack in Moscow Region

After it became known that the terrorists who had shot people in the Crocus City Hall near Moscow had been detained near the border with Ukraine, the American media began to print articles about the involvement of IS-Khorasan in the terrorist attack in Russia. We have already spoken several times about the dubiousness of this version.

And after Vladimir Putin's speech, during which he stated that a window for terrorists to cross the state border had been prepared from the Ukrainian side, the American press urgently published additional materials - refuting Kyiv's involvement in the shooting of civilians.

🔻The talking points used by CNN, The New York Times, NBC News, The Washington Post, ABC News, etc. are virtually the same. For clarity, you can create a list of the arguments that appear in the articles of each of these publications:

▪️ terrorist attack was carried out by followers of IS-Khorasan. This group is well known in the United States, intelligence services are aware of its activities, IS-Khorasan operates mainly in Afghanistan, but it (suddenly) does not threaten the United States. The group's members carried out the attack in Russia because, according to IS-Khorasan, Russia allegedly oppresses Muslims.

▪️ The US has an "obligation to warn" other nations of impending terrorist attacks, which it did, and "Putin didn't listen, calling the warnings blackmail."

▪️ the U.S. shared the information, and "Putin, who has so much control over the situation in the country and gags the opposition and free media, was unable to prevent it." It is noteworthy that the U.S. media somehow suddenly forgot their recent rhetoric that "Putin's regime controls nothing."

▪️ accusations of Ukraine's involvement in the terrorist attack are "Russian speculations";

▪️ "a U.S. official who wished to remain anonymous" said the U.S. has no reason to doubt IS involvement.

🔻 It must be understood that for the American media the point of no return is passed. Even in case of publication of irrefutable facts of involvement of the West and Ukrainian special services in the terrorist attack, the press controlled by the US government will either not write about it or present everything as false evidence. The terrorists' confessions that they deliberately sought to enter Ukraine will not help either - the US media will say that the testimony was extracted under pressure from law enforcers.

Idk, Im not a big fan myself

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:23

Jethro: Jun 1, 2000; I was raised on the dairy, Bitch!

Volmarias posted:

Kadyrov once again stuck too far away to do anything, as Traffic takes its rightful place alongside General Winter.

Major Traffic

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:25

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

MikeC posted:

Rybar is a good source. Much better than most pro-Ukrainian outlets, many of which have grown increasingly silent on front-line reporting after their over-exuberance was exposed during the summer. It has a pro-Russian disposition, but the lack of pushback from Ukrainian sources marks this particular entry as fact.

Straight up pushing Russian propaganda and lies is more than a "pro-Russian disposition" and is the opposite of a good source unless you are curious as to what BS Russia is trying to push this week.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:27

beer_war: Mar 10, 2005

They are less lovely than other pro-Russian sources is about as far as one can reasonably go.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:30

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

socialsecurity posted:

Straight up pushing Russian propaganda and lies is more than a "pro-Russian disposition" and is the opposite of a good source unless you are curious as to what BS Russia is trying to push this week.

Review their coverage of the summer offensive. Better than anyone except ISW who takes at least a full day to verify everything before posting. Learn to separate the propaganda they are obligated to push from front-line reporting. Or not.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:30

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

socialsecurity posted:

Straight up pushing Russian propaganda and lies is more than a "pro-Russian disposition" and is the opposite of a good source unless you are curious as to what BS Russia is trying to push this week.

Look, you can't write off everything as too pro-Russian even if it turns out to be true, like even the Nazis were correct in saying they defeated the French when they were gloating over the fall of France.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:32

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

MikeC posted:

Review their coverage of the summer offensive. Better than anyone except ISW who takes at least a full day to verify everything before posting. Learn to separate the propaganda they are obligated to push from front-line reporting. Or not.

If you have to separate out the 'obligated propaganda' and the truth then they are not a good source.

khwarezm posted:

Look, you can't write off everything as too pro-Russian even if it turns out to be true, like even the Nazis were correct in saying they defeated the French when they were gloating over the fall of France.

You can still lie about things while telling the truth about something related. That's part and parcel of making believable propaganda.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:35

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

Kchama posted:

If you have to separate out the 'obligated propaganda' and the truth then they are not a good source.

I see, throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. Do what works for you.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:36

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Dapper_Swindler posted:

I like how the grey zone thinks hosed up torture and poo poo is cool and funny when guys they like do it.

i am honestly shocked they didnt just shoot them and then just "find" a ton of fake evidence. A dark part of me still thinks that the FSB let it happen to a degree.

In case you are confused: The Grey Zone Telegram is not The Gray Zone who sends reporters to the White House and State Dept press conferences.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:39

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

MikeC posted:

I see, throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. Do what works for you.

The point is that it's not trustworthy if they are obligated to lie to you about things, because then you have to, in fact, figure out where the lying is. Sources that must lie to you are not worth using as a result.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:41

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Kchama posted:

If you have to separate out the 'obligated propaganda' and the truth then they are not a good source.

What's left then? Cause that rules out big names like the New York Times and Washington Post. The AP too.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:41

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

mawarannahr posted:

What's left then? Cause that rules out big names like the New York Times and Washington Post. The AP too.

They aren't required by the government to push propaganda.

The NY Times definitely does it because they wanted to.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:44

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

mawarannahr posted:

What's left then? Cause that rules out big names like the New York Times and Washington Post. The AP too.

And who here is calling them good sources? I'm not sure how that is relevant to calling an obvious propaganda and lie factory a "good source"

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:51

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Kchama posted:

They aren't required by the government to push propaganda.

The NY Times definitely does it because they wanted to.

Why not both? In either case you have to sift through the bullshit.

The New York Times and the NSA's Illegal Spying

www.counterpunch.org - Fri, 05 Jul 2013 posted:

This article is excerpted from End Times: The Death of the Fourth Estate by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. (CounterPunch/AK Press: 2007).

quote:

The first duty of the press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation. The statesman collects his information secretly and by secret means; he keeps back even the current intelligence of the day with ludicrous precautions The Press lives by disclosures For us, with whom publicity and truth are the air and light of existence, there can be no greater disgrace than to recoil from the frank and accurate disclosure of facts as they are. We are bound to tell the truth as we find it, without fear of consequences�to lend no convenient shelter to acts of injustice or oppression, but to consign them at once to the judgment of the world.

Robert Lowe, editorial, London Times, 1851.

Robert Lowe�s magnificent editorial was written in response to the claim of a government minister that if the press hoped to share the influence of statesmen it �must also share in the responsibilities of statesmen�. It�s a long, sad decline from what Lowe wrote in 1851 to the disclosure by the New York Times on Friday that it sat for over a year on a story revealing that the Bush administration had sanctioned a program of secret, illegal spying on US citizens here in the Homeland, by the National Security Agency.

And when it comes to zeal in protecting the Bill of Rights, between December 22, 1974 and December 16, 2005 it�s been a steady run down hill for the New York Times. Thirty-one years ago, almost to the day, here�s how Seymour Hersh�s lead, on the front page of the NYT, began:

quote:

The Central Intelligence Agency, directly violating its charter, conducted a massive, illegal domestic intelligence operation during the Nixon Administration against the antiwar movement and other dissident groups in the United States, according to well-placed Government sources.

And here�s the lead paragraph of the NYT�s page one story on December 16, 2006 by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau:

quote:

Months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Government illegality is the sinew of Hersh�s first sentence. He says that that what the CIA did was illegal and that it violated the CIA�s charter. What the NSA has been doing is also illegal. Its warrantless domestic eavesdropping is in direct violation of the 1978 law which came about as a direct result of Hersh�s expose and the congressional hearings that followed. The eavesdropping it also violates the NSA�s charter, which gives the Agency no mandate to conduct domestic surveillance.

Yet in Friday�s story it wasn�t until the end of the third paragraph that Risen and Lichtblau wrote timidly that �Some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.�

In the eighth paragraph of Risen and Lichtblau�s story comes the shameful disclosure alluded to above:

quote:

The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be understand scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Hersh put the word �massive� in his first sentence, and drew undeserved fire for exaggerating the extent of surveillance, which a presidential panel finally admitted was �considerable large-scale substantial�. Risen and Lichtblau shirk any direct estimate of how big the NSA�s domestic spying has been, though one can deduce from the ninth paragraph of the story that probably many thousands of people had their phone conversations, and emails and faxes illegally spied upon by the NSA.

The Times suggests that it held up the story for a year partly to do �additional reporting�. This �additional reporting� seems to have yielded sparse results. Friday�s story was extremely long, but pretty thin, once the basic fact of NSA eavesdropping had been presented. The year�s work doesn�t seem taken the reporters beyond what was urgently leaked to them in 2004 by twelve different government officials concerned about the illegality of what the NSA was doing and the lack of congressional oversight.

Indeed, the Washington Post featured a much more compact story by Dan Eggan that not only stressed the illegality in its first paragraph but had material that Risen and Lichtblau missed, namely that the NSA had begun its illegal program right after 9/11, even before Bush signed the executive order okaying the surveillance, some time in 2002. It was Eggan who reported that faxes had also been spied upon by the NSA.

And again, it was Eggan in the Post who put the NSA story in a larger context, namely the fact that in the past week the Pentagon has been forced to admit that military intelligence agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency have also been illegally surveilling US citizens within the US.

In the TALON Program (Threat and Local Observation Notice) a Pentagon unit called Counter Intelligence Field Activity (CEFA) has been amassing thousands of files on potential threats to US http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.htmlmilitary installations. Many of the subjects of these files have turned out to be antiwar groups and anti-recruiting activists. For example, when CIA director George Tenet visited as campus and encountered protests, the CEFA unit would immediately open files on the protesters. The unit was supposed to purge its files of all names and organizations caught in its drift nets that failed to meet the test of being any form of threat. But of course no such purge took place.

Eggan also reported that �Teams of Defense Intelligence Agency personnel stationed in major US cities [have been] conducting the type of surveillance typically performed by the FBI: monitoring the movements and activities � through high tech equipment of individuals and vehicles.�

The impression one gets from the Washington Post story is that the Bush administration had given the green light to a truly massive program of warrantless domestic surveillance by the NSA and military agencies. The New York Times reporters suggested no such context, setting the spying activities in a more forgiving light, as part of the war on terror.

Who designed this policy? Deep in the Times� story hardy readers trudging through Risen and Lichtblau�s leaden prose would have tripped over vice president Cheney�s name in the twenty-fifth paragraph where he is described as bringing congressional leaders to his office to brief them on the program. Only at the very end of the story, in the forty-eighth paragraph do such readers as have survived the trek learn that the legal brief justifying this onslaught on the US Constitution was written by Professor John Yoo, at that time at the Department of Justice. Such readers would not have learned � as they did from the Washington Post � that Yoo had written the notorious memos justifying torture. The Times didn�t make it clear that Cheney and Yoo were key players in the Administration�s insistence that the Executive Branch has the inherent powers to sanction domestic spying without oversight from either of the other two branches of the government.

In fact members of Congress, aside from Senator Jay Rockefeller, raised no demur. It was the judiciary, in the form of the judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding over the secret intelligence court established by FISA, who reprimanded Justice Department lawyers for trying to get legal warrants from her, using as �probable cause� data from the illegal surveillance, although not admitting this.

In fact it�s something of a puzzle why the Times finally did publish the story, after sitting the information leaked to it by the NSA officials worried that they might get prosecuted for illegal surveillance. It is true that Friday�s publication came in the closing hours of the battle in the US Senate over reauthorization of the Patriot Act. And its probably true that the publication of the story pushed enough wavering senators into the ranks of those who on Friday successfully fought to get the bill shelved, in a major defeat for the White House.

It�s also true that all year Risen has been hard at work on a book about the conduct of US intelligence agencies in the �war on terror� after 9/11, slated for release next spring. The book�s launch will no doubt be accompanied by some new disclosure by Risen, designed to give the book lift up the charts. Perhaps that too will be a story he�s been keeping in the larder for months.

This lamentable synergy featured in Bob Woodward�s journalistic calculations and also in the promotional circumstances of the book written by Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad, Germs: Biological Weapons and America�s Secret War. The Times front-paged her stories in the paper in a manner designed to push the book up into Bestseller status. It was a clear conflict of interest that earned the paper plenty of money. This was when Miller was sent that envelope of white powder that turned out not to be anthrax spores, which gave the book yet another boost.

Risen, we should remind our readers, is one of the reporters who smeared the late Gary Webb with the charge that Webb had overhyped his 1996 San Jose Mercury News series on the CIA/contra/cocaine connections. Webb didn�t pace his disclosures to suit a book-writing schedule. He only wrote his book after he�d been forced out of his job.

Risen was also one of the New York Times reporters, along with Jeff Gerth, who raced into print with baseless smears that cost Wen Ho Lee almost a year of his life in solitary confinement, being threatened with the death penalty by FBI interrogators. On that occasion Risen and Gerth didn�t wait a year to do additional reporting and fact checking. They rushed to do the government�s bidding (relaying the smears of an Energy Department official who had it in for Wen Ho Lee) just as Risen and the New York Times clicked their heels in the NSA case, sitting on an explosive story through the 2004 election and for months thereafter, and even then agreeing to withhold certain facts.

Such submissiveness on the part of the Times harks back to self censorship by the paper in the early 1950s, covering up CIA plans for coups in Guatemala and Iran; also to the paper�s behavior in 1966 when it had information about IA shenanigans in Singapore and through south-east Asia. The editors submitted the story for review by CIA director John McCone, who made editorial deletions.

In its NSA story, the New York Times meekly agreed not to identify the �senior White House official� who successfully petitioned them to spike the story for a year. The fact that no one was specifically named allowed Bush to discount the entire story when he went the Lehrer News Hour on the next Friday evening.

# ? Mar 24, 2024 23:59

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

socialsecurity posted:

And who here is calling them good sources? I'm not sure how that is relevant to calling an obvious propaganda and lie factory a "good source"

According to this post, practically no source is worth using, so New York Times is not worth using by that measure:

Kchama posted:

The point is that it's not trustworthy if they are obligated to lie to you about things, because then you have to, in fact, figure out where the lying is. Sources that must lie to you are not worth using as a result.

I provided it as an example that is generally considered trustworthy, whose articles are often shared uncritically. In any case nobody is going to object as harshly to a NYT article being shared.

As MikeC said, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is basic media literacy, people.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 00:02

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

mawarannahr posted:

According to this post, practically no source is worth using, so New York Times is not worth using by that measure:

I provided it as an example that is generally considered trustworthy, whose articles are often shared uncritically. In any case nobody is going to object as harshly to a NYT article being shared.

As MikeC said, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is basic media literacy, people.

Yeah basic media literacy shows you cannot treat Russian propaganda as a good source I don't understand how you could possibly argue against that. Keep repeating "throw the baby out with the bathwater" shows you aren't understanding the basics of what's being discussed here. There might be valuable information in the source but the fact you have to dig through several layers of propaganda doesn't make it a good source. Calling something not a good source doesn't mean everything is puts out is 100% lies because in order for propaganda to work there has to be some kernel of truth in there to get people to go to bat for your lies.

What makes this source good beyond it publishes lies that line up with the narratives that support a authoritarian regime?

# ? Mar 25, 2024 00:10

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

socialsecurity posted:

Yeah basic media literacy shows you cannot treat Russian propaganda as a good source I don't understand how you could possibly argue against that. Keep repeating "throw the baby out with the bathwater" shows you aren't understanding the basics of what's being discussed here. There might be valuable information in the source but the fact you have to dig through several layers of propaganda doesn't make it a good source. Calling something not a good source doesn't mean everything is puts out is 100% lies because in order for propaganda to work there has to be some kernel of truth in there to get people to go to bat for your lies.

What makes this source good beyond it publishes lies that line up with the narratives that support a authoritarian regime?

Please quote more than one instance where I said throwing the baby out with the water -- you say I keep repeating it -- or where I have called the source good. Thank you.

It is a useful source. It is a critical skill to be able to read between the lines, ideally from multiple sources in especially combination with primary sources. This is why I read US government press release and transcripts of briefings directly, for example. Same in Turkey.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 00:13

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Like, I have to follow a huge range of Turkish media from marginal left-wing sources with no access to anything to mainstream AKP mouthpieces to Grey Wolf-level nationalist rags and literal G�lenists to get a full picture. It's worth reading widely and all the sources I follow are useful in some way. In the US the NYPost is often derided, and often rightly, but it still breaks useful and accurate stories.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 00:19

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

mawarannahr posted:

Please quote more than one instance where I said throwing the baby out with the water -- you say I keep repeating it -- or where I have called the source good. Thank you.

It is a useful source. It is a critical skill to be able to read between the lines, ideally from multiple sources in especially combination with primary sources. This is why I read US government press release and transcripts of briefings directly, for example. Same in Turkey.

The person you were agreeing with to 'not throw the baby out with the bathwater' said it was a good source with the implication that you agreed that it was good, and you asked "what would be left" when I called not a 'good source' due to its obligated propaganda that even MikeC admitted it had. You may not have used the exact words 'good source', but you argued against it being considered a non-'good source' and agreed with someone that it was, in their words, a 'good source'.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 01:10

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

mawarannahr posted:

Like, I have to follow a huge range of Turkish media from marginal left-wing sources with no access to anything to mainstream AKP mouthpieces to Grey Wolf-level nationalist rags and literal G�lenists to get a full picture. It's worth reading widely and all the sources I follow are useful in some way. In the US the NYPost is often derided, and often rightly, but it still breaks useful and accurate stories.

The NYPost is a terrible source because you can't believe anything they publish. You have to find a better, more credible source to confirm their stories, and those better sources are the ones you should cite.

There's a difference between sources you find personally useful and those you should cite for evidence to prove a point. Whatever use you have personally for the NY Post or similar sources, if you cite it here you'll get called out for it.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 01:27

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

MikeC posted:

I see, throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. Do what works for you.

mawarannahr posted:

What's left then? Cause that rules out big names like the New York Times and Washington Post. The AP too.

So I think on the one hand I think its dubious to suppose that just because "Pro-Ukraine" sources might be "silent" that the Pro-Russian source's view should be taken as "fact"; and on the other hand very clearly the source should've been clearly presented and contextualized when it was posted no? This wasn't "Pro-Russian sources are reporting that they've taken town X and possibly also Y and W" you basically just presented it as fact, went on to provide an analysis reliant on these supposed facts, and then went on to claim not only were they a good source, but better than pro-Ukrainian sources.

I'm not sure if its reasonable to expect other people to read through the lines, especially if they aren't being told that the lines exist in the first place.

Like sure there's probably utility in trying to figure out the full picture by looking at how both sides of the conflict are reporting things, but the outlet that is expected to lie that just happens to be accurate some of the time we can't know or trust that it's always going to be reliable when and where it matters; and that isn't enough in my opinion to present this as a reliable source at face value without context.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 02:31

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

At the end of the day, the credibility of a news outlet goes to the core of their reporting. It�s why the reputation of journalists is so important. If they aren�t credible then their reporting has zero value because it�s incredibly easy to mislead people with half-truths and conspiracies. Tabloids have been so successful in the Internet Era because of their ability to bestow worthless �insider knowledge� with the appearance of legitimacy. Some people understand this, and others don�t.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 02:48

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Starsfan posted:

At least one video I've watched raised that point as evidence that these people who were in some ways quite disorganized were likely instructed by someone who knew what they were doing

Do you have a link to this video?

# ? Mar 25, 2024 02:51

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Kaal posted:

At the end of the day, the credibility of a news outlet goes to the core of their reporting. It�s why the reputation of journalists is so important. If they aren�t credible then their reporting has zero value because it�s incredibly easy to mislead people with half-truths and conspiracies. Tabloids have been so successful in the Internet Era because of their ability to bestow worthless �insider knowledge� with the appearance of legitimacy. Some people understand this, and others don�t.

Again, this criterion rules out the number one news site in the US, nytimes.com, which has useful reporting by their journalists, but also launders conspiracy theories and disinformation through their journalists such as Anat Schwartz, who was under the wing of veteran Pulitzer-winning journalist Jeffrey Gettleman. When that is the case I think it's worth reevaluating your stance.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 02:58

Ardeem: Sep 16, 2010; There is no problem that cannot be solved through sufficient application of lasers and friendship.

Why are the only two stances �unquestionably trust my source.� And �Doubt all sources?� :confused:

# ? Mar 25, 2024 03:08

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

mawarannahr posted:

Again, this criterion rules out the number one news site in the US, nytimes.com, which has useful reporting by their journalists, but also launders conspiracy theories and disinformation through their journalists such as Anat Schwartz, who was under the wing of veteran Pulitzer-winning journalist Jeffrey Gettleman. When that is the case I think it's worth reevaluating your stance.

I have no idea who these people you're naming are; but in any case I think on some level that mainstream media news sources are more likely on the day to day to be reliable sources even if they have their own flaws on balance relative to a blogger, especially a blogger who operates under some level of implicit duress. It also isn't clear if you're drawing comparisons between the editorial section, whose quality tends to vary and is often opinion based, and more fact based reporting. At the end of the day, the New York Times is not a propaganda outlet, while the linked twitter account definitely is. To put it another way, you're equating between a single random russian blogger who obviously has a bias and a stake in the outcome, with an entire outlet which at worst has some journalists who have some blind spots; but otherwise for sure are generally expected to bide by certain ethical standards and procedures, at least on paper, which that blogger definitely doesn't.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 03:13

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Yeah again, this is a good example of why the importance of journalistic reputation is so important. The NYT isn�t defined by one controversial article, nor even one journalist. It has credibility because it has an extensive tradition of adhering to journalistic values, of seeking out evidence to support their claims, of trying to report facts and inform the public, of self-examining when their work is challenged, and ultimately acknowledging when they believe they haven�t met those standards.

Recognizing that ultimately they are trying to tell you the truth and being able to trust in that is important and valuable. Whereas trying to divine how much of some Twitter bot�s bullshit is �revealing� is just an exercise in self-deception.

# ? Mar 25, 2024 03:52

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

This is a pretty ironic thread to praise NYT's history in....(given they never really accounted for being Stalin's mouthpiece on Holodomor).

OddObserver fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Mar 25, 2024

# ? Mar 25, 2024 04:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 19:06

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

Completely off topic but I was shocked to find out that Excalibur guided shells cost north of a half million a pop.

What's a typical dumb shell? Couple thousand bucks?

# ? Mar 25, 2024 05:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

«‹›482 »