Hacker News Reader

Comment by thriftwy | Hacker News Reader

This is the actual reason why people treat Meduza as parent poster does.

The job of a news source it not to criticize, or not criticize, the annexation of Crimea. They're not a political party. Nobody but their mom really wants to know their private opinion.

The job of a news source is to provide news. All the news and articles Meduza produces follows the same pattern, where they would arrive at a predetermined conclusion regardless of the facts they are discussing, and the train of thought would go from A to B in a reasonably short route. If it's hard to derive the conclusion from some facts, they will be skipping reporting these where possible. If it's very convenient to derive the conclusion for unproven facts, they will be using these eagerly.

Propaganda is annoying to read, especially if you know you will disagree with their conclusion, which you obviously know in advance.

View on HN

Yes, and I should write bug-free code, and doctors should never make mistakes. If you have any examples of a completely neutral news outlet that never made any blunders, I'd be very interested to know about and follow them. Until then, I see no point in comparing anyone against an unattainable ideal which can only exist in one's imagination. I try to correct for their biases by reading Kremlin propaganda (and US, and Chinese, and some others) and comparing what they are saying. Know of any better ways?

It is the century XXI, and the mainstream way seems to be subscribing to Telegram channels whose vibe resonates with you.

Yes, you will be living in a tiny bubble. But at least you do not get to read propaganda pieces trying to derive prefabricated conclusions out of irrelevant small events. If anything large happens, you are going to hear of it earlier or later.

If you really want balanced coverage, choose a source from the other side which is so blatantly propagandist that you can have good laughs instead of grinding your teeth. I am reading The Guardian for that purpose.

Perhaps there are better ways to consume your news, but I don't know these.

>> I try to correct for their biases by reading Kremlin propaganda (and US, and Chinese, and some others) and comparing what they are saying.

> Yes, you are living in a tiny bubble.

How is that a tiny bubble?

I think you misread their comment. If you didn't realize, you also misquoted their comment (unless it was edited).

> It is the century XXI, and the mainstream way seems to be subscribing to Telegram channels whose vibe resonates with you. Yes, you will be living in a tiny bubble.

I believe they mean "the mainstream way" puts you into a tiny bubble, but they go on to say:

> But at least you do not get to read propaganda pieces trying to derive prefabricated conclusions out of irrelevant small events. If anything large happens, you are going to hear of it earlier or later.

Thus, I believe they were advocating for a tiny bubble -- not accusing the previous commenter of being in a tiny bubble.

Yes, the comment had been edited, and makes much more sense now.

The amount of junk isn't boolean, it matters how much you have to filter. If you can find news with less junk, you can filter them with less effort. And big news are reported by everyone so you can't miss them.

These sentiments are insidious: they are what repressive regimes want the populace to believe.

-> restricting what journalists may write

-> claiming the public has no interest in editorial opinion

-> labeling dissent as propaganda

The remark above is all three.

In many (most?) developed countries, major media sources like newspapers and TV channels are each aligned with a specific political party or a specific political wing. So, their reportage is done through that political lens, and people have historically bought that newspaper because they want issues reported through that lens. It is mainly in American fora where people have this belief that news sources should be neutral.

>It is mainly in American fora where people have this belief that news sources should be neutral.

Which is kind of hilarious as US news sources are far less neutral than most of those politically colored newspapers!

Not a single news source in the history of mankind lives up to your description.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com