Hacker News Reader

Comment by ousta | Hacker News Reader

every newspaper on earth is a propaganda newspaper. every journalist working for an editorial line that is dicted to him is a propaganda agent. I can't wait for this piece of our society to die thanks to the Web.

She picked a one sided view of russian troll influencing people. why didnt she chose US trolls, or Arab trolls, or French trolls, ect. every nation on earth wants to control an manipulate information through any means. Russians do not need to pay anyone to do this, people are patriotic enough to do it by themselves. To attack a one sided kind of people in their own realm with their own tools (the internet and social networks) is a foolish thing to do and this woman journalist learned this the hard way.people need to understand that the internet is a battlefield and wars cant be won by journalists but by warriors.

View on HN

They indeed pay folks to do this.

One Professional Russian Troll Tells All: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269760

The rest of your comments is directing blame on the victim (the journalist).

western news saying russians pay trolls to spread pro-russian opinion on the web while russian news are saying exactly the same thing for western trolls.

It just depends on which side you see it. if you look at the big picture she is not a victim but someone fighting an information war

That's exactly what Kremlin propaganda wants you to believe: "everybody is lying, we are no different". No it's not. There are, of course, dishonest journalists, paid articles, power play, political pressure in western journalism, but it's by no means comparable to mass, state-run propaganda machine Russia's so-called "journalism" is. Snowden's story is a perfect example of that - the wast amount of resources by the most powerful western states were put into efforts trying to stop the leaks to no avail.

This is investigative journalism of a proven phenomenon (paid Russian troll factories), and claiming it to be part of "information war" frankly smacks of the very thing the journalist is investigating here.

In what alternate reality outside of a war zone is a journalist a victim?

Did you read the article? She has been personally harassed due to her profession. That by definition makes her a victim of harassment.

> She has been personally harassed due to her profession.

No, she has been personally harassed due to the area she is working in.

There is credence to having a general distrust in journalism. This has been the case since Yellow Journalism of the 1920s. You're playing the fool if you don't think journalists, even independent ones, aren't promoting an agenda, often one that isn't tangible at that moment of your consumption.

>In what alternate reality outside of a war zone is a journalist a victim?

>No, she has been personally harassed due to the area she is working in.

I'm glad you figured it out. The rest of your comment is a strawman.

> The rest of your comment is a strawman

Tell me the logical fallacy for misattributing a logical fallacy to dismiss a comment.

I'll create one: "reductio ad latinam." The rest of your comment is a reductio ad latinam. A reduction to a latin phrase.

From parent, whose context you've neglected in your dismissal:

>ousta 34 minutes ago

>every newspaper on earth is a propaganda newspaper.

Also, this "harassment" is to be expected from boots-on-the-ground paid Russian trolls. Complaining about it is poking a bear in the nose with a stick and not expecting it to react.

> Also, this "harassment" is to be expected from boots-on-the-ground paid Russian trolls. Complaining about it is poking a bear in the nose with a stick and not expecting it to react.

Therefore it's her fault? That's like saying "if you complain about sexual harrasment and get fired it's your fault, you shouldn't have poked the bear".

I hope you see how ignorant that is.

You're equating professional harassment regarding an external subject to sexual harassment within an internal workplace.

I don't think this is appropriate here, in the least bit. Not only is it distasteful, but it also was a poorly posited example that failed to even make the same connection to "bear poking"

> that failed to even make the same connection to "bear poking"

Office worker X wears an attractive dress to work one day. It's within her right to do so and is not breaking any rules. Officer worker Y comes over, drops his trousers and says "Want to poke my bear?".

Journalist X makes a statement about Russia. It's within her right to do so and not breaking any rules. Russian Shill Y comes over and says "Fuck you, here's a torrent of abuse for many months".

In both cases the bear got provoked by something the subject did, by making a statement with her clothes or her words. But you're saying in both cases it's her fault that the bear got provoked and she shouldn't do it?

So as long as harrassment isn't sexual or "internal" it's OK. Right.

well she personally harassed the poor russians internet trolls due to their profession as well. what makes it more moral? are you discriminating them because of their jobs? that is not really PC

Harassment is not acceptable, regardless of whatever cynical-sounding excuses you come up with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com