Hacker News Reader

Comment by frob | Hacker News Reader

You're watching a known liar interview a known liar. What are you going to do, learn their new lies?

Hearing the narrative being woven, true or false, directly from the source seems more useful than relying solely on another news outlet, which will add yet another layer of spin, on top of it.

The interview will undoubtedly color a lot of things going forward. To miss it is to lack context when reading any news that comes after it that relates to the conflict.

Don't you want to know what the public position of a country is that we are so involved with? In what way is any politician not a liar in some respect? If you care about future geopolitical events then it's useful to know public positions.

About as useful as believing that North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic.

We already know and further lies don't illuminate that.

> You're watching a known liar interview a known liar.

You make it sound more intriguing if you put it that way.

So you won't watch the interview? It doesn't interest you whatsoever (even though you know he'll lie - politicians, amirite?)?

I don't use X, but I will be watching the interview. I'm just interested, it has my attention. Plain and simple

You just described every single sit-down interview between a reporter and a politician.

Like a presidential debate?

Yep! It’s entertainment.

Yes, it’s either their lies or US government’s lies, or the industries and other billionaires that own the governments.

Congratulations, the Russian propaganda reached its end goal with you: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/02/05/destroying-the-concept...

Ok, but then again what do we earn from normalising the talking points of the other side ? You're adding shit to the shit pile, but it brings nothing to the table for "your" side

Not the person you replied to, but vilifying the other side is just adding fuel to the fire. Let's say your country and my country are at war. What has a better chance of achieving peace, 1) me saying that you're an evil dictator who does evil things because you're evil and probably insane, or 2) me saying that even though I disagree with you, things are not black and white and my side did some bad things to you too and looking for some reasonable compromise.

To me 1) only makes sense if I think I can defeat you militarily, which doesn't seem probable here. I guess 1) also makes sense if I don't want peace at all and don't care about how many people die, but I'm sure that's not the case.

Which one is the truth? That is what matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com