Hacker News Reader

Comment by davesque | Hacker News Reader

True, there's nothing stopping any random person from doing the same thing. However, no random person has the same incentives as a foreign government to pollute dialog on political matters. The personal gain or sense of satisfaction that an individual might get from launching a disinformation campaign pales in comparison to the economic and ideological pressure that motivates heads of state to do the same thing. So it seems far less likely that we're under threat from random individuals than from foreign governments.

Also, how are you going to "fix" people being dumb? We've been trying to figure that one out for a long time and it's going to take a while to make progress on that front.

View on HN

> to pollute dialog on political matters.

Please explain where the "pollution" occurred. Over the past few years I have read RT from time to time and most of the stories were simply about negative aspects of American life that do not get much exposure/focus from American news organizations because they are not flattering. Things like the Flint Michigan water crisis, other areas of failed infrastructure, etc.

For many Americans, reading RT would be likely to create valuable awareness of important issues and make that person more likely to vote in his/her own best interest in the next election.

To say that RT has "polluted" the marketplace of ideas you really have to back that statement up with what you think "pure" ideas are that Americans should be exposed to before casting their vote.

Russia Today are well known as a fake news org.

Are you reading the Russian language articles they put out?

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en...

https://euvsdisinfo.eu

I am reluctant to use a buzzword like "fake news" when I have been reading Chomsky's detailed critiques of American newspapers for a long time and have been (for a long time) well aware of the significant political and corporate motivations behind news organizations (print and television).

What are the "memes" (per Dawkins' definition) that RT intends to publicize? Which of those are false, which are true but misleading, and which are actually true?

Does publishing stories that might make some voters angry with the status quo constitute being "fake news"?

Is RT "fake news" simply because of its origin? Or because of its content? Or because of the timing of its content? Specific examples please.

Under whatever definition you would use to classify RT as fake news, are any American news orgs (NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, etc.) also fake news? How do you draw the line? Is it based on content that is false, true but misleading, or true?

Do you believe that certain ideas are dangerous for Americans to believe? Should reading the writings of some of history's dictators be banned? Should violent music lyrics be banned?

> Specific examples please.

All their articles related to Ukraine: Donbass, Crimea, MH-17.

They're repeating same lies designed by Kremlin hosts.

Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters.

I'm not looking to RT for useful coverage of issues in the Ukraine, but when it writes about the Flint Water crisis or police brutality, it might actually have a less biased view than the American press. I hope this isn't actually the case but I fear it may be.

Are you saying that RT has less biased and better coverage of the Flint water crisis than Rachel Maddow?

Specific examples, please: Exactly what have they gotten right that she got wrong? What have they covered that she missed? When have they brought attention to it when she ignored it? Who have they interviewed who she wouldn't invite to her show?

RT covers many other issues that, like the Flint water crisis are deeply embarrassing to the US but are actually legitimate concerning issues to the poorest and most disempowered Americans.

You didn't answer my question, and you failed to provide any specific examples.

You yourself just insisted on specific examples, so I would expect you to provide the same courtesy and evidence to back up your own claims that you demand of other people. Why didn't you?

If you don't have any evidence for your claim, just say so, and don't try to deflect instead. Better yet, don't make claims you're not willing to provide any evidence to support, in the same breath that you demand other people to provide specific examples!

I do not watch any cable news, so I can't comment on the quality of Rachel Maddow's coverage.

I used the example of the Flint Water crisis not to compare RT's coverage to the coverage offered by US media, but to use an example of a very embarrassing thing about the US that is the sort of thing that RT is inclined to publish.

Most people consider it quite reasonable that Maddow covered the Flint water crisis. But there are many other similar issues that do not get any press coverage by the US "news and entertainment" media.

One thing I will say about the US media's coverage of the Flint Water crisis is that a great effort was made to focus only on the problem in Flint, and a small number of officials who acted irresponsibly in the matter.

In reality, many elected officials make similar judgments all the time across all areas of government. It's just rare that we have something as reliable as a simple water pollution test to observe the harm that was caused.

So the real issue with the Flint water crisis is how did incentives come to exist that led Flint's infrastructure to fail so horribly? Where else in the US are similar incentives causing the decline of other important infrastructure? What can we as citizens do to help fix the incentives so that our leaders take it upon themselves to fight for proper upkeep of key infrastructure?

And, even more pragmatically, how many city water supplies are tainted by lead and other chemicals? Have all tests been administered and interpreted properly, etc. I recently learned (for example) that lead level testing in many cities has been highly inaccurate and has led to artificially low readings. This stuff has a tremendous public health impact.

It would be great to have a news organization (RT or other) whose goal it was to publish embarrassing things about the US, its failing infrastructure, and its corrupt politicians. For some reason we are told (by the charlatans) that in order to be patriotic we must defend those things against any foreign assault.

In reality, we in the US would benefit tremendously from increased scrutiny of our nation, its leaders, and its infrastructure. Why is Paul Ryan worth $8M after earning a paltry public servant's salary for his entire career? I'd like to know, and I think chances are if the truth were discovered he'd be run out of office with pitchforks.

If you don't know anything about cable news, then please don't make inaccurate blanket statements about things you don't know anything about. Especially when you're so reluctant to answer questions and provide evidence when asked, right after you yourself demanded the same level of evidence and specific examples.

Were you aware that Rachel Maddow got an Emmy for her coverage of the Flint water crisis? Or is that a big surprise to you?

Since you apparently were not aware of Rachel Maddow's coverage of the Flynt water crisis or the award she won for it, why don't you watch her Emmy-award-winning reporting for the answers to those questions you asked me to deflect from answering the questions I asked you first, to see if she's already answered some of your questions?

MSNBC’s complete coverage of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan – the health threat to residents, and the response from Governor Rick Snyder and others: http://www.msnbc.com/flint-michigan-water-crisis

Rachel Maddow wins Emmy for Flint water crisis coverage: http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2017/10/rachel_mad...

"Maddow persistently reported on the city's lead-in-water crisis in December 2015, weeks before Gov. Rick Snyder declared Genesee County in a state of emergency."

"A month later, the cable news host visited Flint, holding a live town hall broadcast at the Brownell/Holmes STEM Academy on the city's north side to speak with residents, educators, researchers and politicians, including Mayor Karen Weaver, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha and Virginia Tech Professor Dr. Marc Edwards."

"Maddow also spent time speaking with Flint residents, including master plumber Harold Harrington and activist-turned-mayoral candidate Arthur Woodson."

Since you presume to know so much about RT's "less biased" coverage of the Flint water crisis, then please tell me exactly when RT started to cover the Flynt water crisis, how many minutes of coverage they gave it, and what awards they won for their coverage, if any.

How does their coverage compare to Rachel Maddow's, and how is it "less biased" as you claim without proof? Give me SPECIFIC examples of how they were better and less biased. Links to evidence please, not diversions.

To quote your own words: "you really have to back that statement up". I will. Won't you?

Some more specific examples and links to evidence for you:

This article shows when other media outlets like MSNBC started covering it, but it doesn't mention anything about RT. You seem to think you know what the facts are in regard to that, so will you please share them with us? Again: Post evidence for your claims, don't just make more claims without evidence again!

ANALYSIS: How Michigan And National Reporters Covered The Flint Water Crisis: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/02/analysis-ho...

"Among national media figures, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow stood out for her extensive coverage in December 2015, when she devoted far more time to the situation in Flint than every other major television network combined."

"More Than 68 Minutes devoted to the crisis on MSNBC's primetime programming in December and the first four days of January -- all of which took place on Rachel Maddow's show. That was far more than all the other broadcast and cable networks' primetime coverage of Flint, combined."

The evidence is overwhelming:

https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/20...

I don't watch cable news because the few times I have watched it lately it has been of very poor quality. Notably, Rachel Maddow has been caught embellishing the Russia story to the point where I think it's clear she has a strongly partisan view of the issue which interferes with her ability to do unbiased reporting.

I think I had heard about Maddow's Emmy but forgotten about it. Please note that I did not claim that RT's coverage was superior to any other specific coverage, just that RT tends to cover many more of that kind of embarrassing, unflattering story that generally is not part of the major media/entertainment companies' coverage.

My point was not about the Flint crisis specifically, it was about the importance of those unflattering kinds of stories to the democratic process.

So no specific examples, huh?

How many times do I have to ask you for evidence? You're the one who first demanded specific examples, then reneged multiple times when asked to provide the same thing yourself.

You want to have it both ways: in your mind, RT's extremely biased and politically motivated reporting of the Kremlin's official position on Ukraine doesn't disqualify their non-award-winning coverage of Flynt that you can't even produce examples of, but the bias you perceive when Rachel Maddow dares to criticize Trump by reporting his own words and deeds in her coverage of the Russian scandal totally disqualifies all of her award-winning reporting on the Flynt water crisis. Bullshit, comrade.

That's totally dishonest and hypocritical of you. You asked for specific examples, and now that I gave you some you don't want to discuss them, and still refuse to prove any specific examples of your own. I gave you those specific examples that you asked for. So I wish you would provide the same when asked again and again. I'll give you another try, now.

Please give me links to those RT articles about the Flynt water crisis that you claim are unbiased and better than Rachel Maddow's coverage, and give me links to Rachel Maddow's reporting on the Flynt water crisis that show she's biased.

Otherwise admit you don't have any evidence, even though you demand it from other people. Your stonewalling and deflecting and false equivalencies means it's true you have no evidence, and you're ignoring the evidence I gave you, but you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

At least you've admitted that you're guilty of whataboutism, even though you don't understand what the term actually means.

Your own words:

"OK I'm guilty."

"Specific examples please."

"Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters."

You're really trying to have it both ways, aren't you, comrade?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com