• SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I do love that they all claim to hate Putin and the Russian state but only accept sources that paint it in a good light. The AP is apparently biased to them but substacks and Sputnik News are all legit.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s about understanding the bias; if a US news source admits to something that reflects negatively on the US, we can assume it’s at least that bad. Same with a Russian source about Russia.

      When an American source runs a story that makes Russia look bad, it’s not very credible. Same with Russian sources on America.

      In both cases, the actual narrative the article uses its facts to paint should typically be disregarded; the atomic unit of propaganda being emphasis and all.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Except that does not happen. Russian sources that make Russia look good and Ukraine look bad are accepted while the opposite is never the case.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          3 months ago

          Could it be a sampling bias?

          Most communists aren’t going to be too critical of Russia in a discussion with western liberals about Russia’s issues because those liberals only understand those criticisms as “russia bad, therefore imperialism good”. Same with discussing LGBT+ rights in Palestine or Iran without a bunch of context.