undefined | Better HN

0 pointstivert7y ago0 comments

No. Something can be entirely factually correct, but untrustworthy, as demonstrated by the concept of lying by omission. Something can also be factually correct, but untrustworthy, by asking a bunch of spurious questions that are calculated to mislead. For instance:

> Did Sweden shoot down MH17? Why are they denying that they shot it down, is there a coverup? Our defense experts have shown that the attack occurred within the range of the Swedish JAS-39 fighter, so they could have done it. What do the Swedes have to hide?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

darkpuma7y ago· 1 in thread

> "lying by omission."

That's why you should read multiple sources, not one. If one source is omitting details but not otherwise lying, you'll get those details from other sources. To reiterate my earlier example, when western media were omitting evidence that Anti-Maduro rioters had started the fire, you could still become aware of this information by paying attention to what some in the western press were calling "Russian talking points".

Regardless, you've not refuted the essential truism here, that no western source is always right and that Russian sources are not always wrong.

tivertOP7y ago

> Regardless, you've not refuted the essential truism here, that no western source is always right and that Russian sources are not always wrong.

That's not what I was trying to refute. I'm sorry if you were confused.

The point I was making, is that if you want a diversity of sources, it's smart to select high-quality ones whose real goal is to be accurate and trustworthy. Most Russian media doesn't fit that bill, and certainly not the government-sponsored English language stuff.

To be a little hyperbolic and blunt about it: including propaganda in your diverse set of news sources is expert mode, and it requires an orders of magnitude more effort, skill, and knowledge. Most people who think they're experts aren't, and they can't handle it. Propaganda is created by experts and it's really a specialist job to suss out any novel truths that might be in it.

> when western media were omitting evidence that Anti-Maduro rioters had started the fire, you could still become aware of this information by paying attention to what some in the western press were calling "Russian talking points".

Or just wait a few days for proper reporting to happen rather than inhaling breaking news reports. None of those events have any immediate relevance on my life (and probably yours too), so we can afford to take our time.

Also: Trump's twitter account isn't "western media." I first heard about the aid convoy fire in an NYT story that was refuting the idea that the fire was caused by Maduro's forces, and their original story about the event doesn't assign anyone responsibility for the fire:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/world/americas/venezuela-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse