Hacker News Reader

Comment by irixusr | Hacker News Reader

More speculation that confirms our theory without any evidence. *

The theory is "we're good. Anyone we don't like is bad"

The evidence collection goes "confirms our theory, it's true." Or " Contradicts it, we either ignore it our dismiss it"

Case in point, the unaoil scandal is much more serious than anything in these Panama papers, it involves "the good guys" and it's largely forgotten a week after it release.

* ironically enough RT is (was?) pushing the theory that the CIA is behind it because there are no notable American on the list. So it's a KGB/CIA plot because Putin/Americans come out relatively unscathed

View on HN

RT is propaganda/psyops on a level that doesn't quite have a Western equivalent. This is not a statement in support of Western journalistic independence and objectivity, so much as it is how carefully packaged/constructed RT is.

edit: Hah! Downvotes. I read RT. I read WSJ (even OpEds sometimes, but I don't enjoy it). I read AJ. I read NYT. I read from many sources and high degree of skepticism of all of them. But if you read RT regularly, I doubt you're the one downvoting.

I up voted you. I read RT, but their juicier bits I always look up to cross check.[1]

But I don't live in Russia so Putin can't harm me. Therefore, I'm not scared of them.

However, it is an invaluable source to know what we're doing. RT wants to discredit the West, and there is too much truthful material for them to work with for to have to fudge too much.

[1] although is disagree with you there is no western equivalent. I used to be a big fan of the WSJ, NYT and The Economist, after Syria and the Snowden leaks, they have become unreadable. Only The Intercept is left (npr gets a pass because I have a 40 minute drive to work)

I upvoted you, too! That's usually why I read it.

I think as bad as the mainstream US media source you mentioned can be, they're still not equivalent on the whole. Wish they weren't so actively trying to close the gap, though...

edit: there are sources as bad, and there are source as prominent, but I don't think any are in the intersection. Honestly, it's more of hand-waving/gut feel on my part, though.

Interestingly the Unaoil scandal wasn't even reported by the BBC (except a brief mention on their World Service). I'm interested to know exactly why this scandal on the other hand is being covered so heavily by them and other outlets.

I'm sure if you google it there'll be blurb on their website. But Chomsky points out that appearing impartial is part of the media manipulation.

They'll print the juicier bits, but buried deep were few except geeks and junkies like me will read it.

Another two techniques that infuriate me:

1. Editing published articles after they are published and making the original unavailable. (Editing should look like word's auto-track feature: in bright red)

2. Not following up on a story after you launched salvos into a person/ideas truth worthiness and they are vindicated

Clearly it was a collaboration between the CIA and Putin.

A bit much, even for me.

But Orwell wouldn't be surprised a bit of quid pro quo. Both are power structures, in competition, ultimately trying to preserve their own controll.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com