Thread: Russian Media: Do Russians trust them - why/why not?

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think that British media is a little bit better than Russian media. All British mainstream media have more or less the same view albeit with variation about their views on the EU and immigration.

I think more or less the same view is a problem of all British media on all topics. It seems that the same view could be due to lack of actual journalism or because that "opinion" is not really an opinion but a government-controlled narrative. I've been reading British press for several years now, mostly Russia-related topics and what I see is kinda disgusting: any(or most) of positive things about Russia are not delivered to the media readers like they don't even exist and any negative things are always delivered and often exaggerated.
If I would read English-version of RT I would find positive and negative things about Russia but if you'd mention RT anywhere on British media you gonna get labeled as a Putinbot right away(BTW comments moderators on British media are very biased too).

When I read about Syria it's even funnier - many "facts" reported by British media are taken from "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" which is a British-based agency with very questionable credibility(I suspect that all information comes from the facebook or twitter), while Russia has at least seven news agencies in Syria at the moment. But Russian media would be immediately claimed as "propaganda" by British MSM, unless the information could be used to support "evil Russians and bad Putin" narrative.

Originally Posted by hddscan

I think more or less the same view is a problem of all British media on all topics. It seems that the same view could be due to lack of actual journalism or because that "opinion" is not really an opinion but a government-controlled narrative. I've been reading British press for several years now, mostly Russia-related topics and what I see is kinda disgusting: any(or most) of positive things about Russia are not delivered to the media readers like they don't even exist and any negative things are always delivered and often exaggerated.
If I would read English-version of RT I would find positive and negative things about Russia but if you'd mention RT anywhere on British media you gonna get labeled as a Putinbot right away(BTW comments moderators on British media are very biased too).

Yes - On the topic of Russia, all British paper have the same view. Where they differ is mainly on the EU, immigration and family values.

—The conservative papers don't like Russia because the USA says so, and because "Russia is a threat to national security" etc.
—The more liberal papers don't like Russia because "Putin is anti-gay", "there are human rights abuses in Russia" etc.

(and there is a certain overlap...)
They will never, ever publish any "normal" news about Russia, unless possibly if there has been an accident. But even then, they'll try to sneak in some negative accusation if they can.

It must be very frustrating to read untrue information about your own country like that. As for commenting in British paper - yes, they would think you were a "paid Putin troll" if you defended Russia.
So you can't win. If you defend it, you are a Putin troll, and it's part of a Russian propaganda offensive.
If you don't defend it, they will get away with the lies.

But RT is getting more viewers across Europe all the time. I've noticed Sputnik News is referenced a lot by alternative media in Sweden.
If people notice that what they are saying is more in tune with reality on certain issues - it doesn't matter where the info comes from.

I wanted to post a video of that funny RT clip which they run quite often that says "Turn off your TV, this is Russian propaganda", and with quotes from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. But I can't find it.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes - On the topic of Russia, all British paper have the same view. Where they differ is mainly on the EU, immigration and family values.
...
They will never, ever publish any "normal" news about Russia, unless possibly if there has been an accident. But even then, they'll try to sneak in some negative accusation if they can.

And the big question is: if you know that British media have no problem publishing biased information and withholding facts about Russia, how could you trust them about any other topic? How could you know they deliver real facts and all the facts?
Going back to what you said: "I think that British media is a little bit better than Russian media.", don't you think this statement is a personal belief which was formed by the media overtime, constantly saying that Russian media is "propaganda" and British media is not, while in reality it is clear that British media does not hesitate to bend the facts to support a certain narrative?

What I found - there is no way one can find a truthful source of information anywhere in the world, sometimes because such sources withhold some information, sometimes because they lie and sometimes because they publish some information that they believe to be truthful but in reality it was fabricated and planted by somebody else. Some sources try to be objective more than other but not all the time.

Media are also biased by the fact that they are economic agents, who earn money.
So, their content tends to be some "hot/extreme" things. Conflicts, problems, deaths, etc. They need attention, they get it.
It is understandable, but it can lead to the feeling that all world around consists from conflicts, problems and deaths only. And Kardashian's ass.
There is no true depiction of life in media by nature.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Y

Prokhorov is an oligarch! How can anybody trust an oligarch?!
According to Wiki, he got 7.5 percent of votes, coming in third in presidential elections in 2012.

Even worse, he promised Yo-mobile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-Mobile
but did not manage. Still, he can speak right things with a great confidence.
And being compared to Zuganov, I'd say he has all chances.

Originally Posted by hddscan

And the big question is: if you know that British media have no problem publishing biased information and withholding facts about Russia, how could you trust them about any other topic? How could you know they deliver real facts and all the facts?

That's exactly the problem! When it comes to areas of the world that I know very little about - I am completely at their mercy. If they talk about something that happens in Bangladesh, Somalia, Bolivia or Yemen - I simply can't say what the truthfulness is. I can't call a friend, I haven't been there and I don't have time to do research....

And that's the same problem most Europeans (and Americans) would have with news from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Going back to what you said: "I think that British media is a little bit better than Russian media.", don't you think this statement is a personal belief

The only reason I said that is for 1 simple reason:
Snowden's material could be published in the Guardian without any major consequences for the publisher. If there was a Russian Snowden, could Izvestiya or Novaya Gazeta publish the material?
My impression is that they couldn't. But I am not sure, just guessing!

Between RT and BBC for world news - my preference is actually for RT, at the moment. I think their credibility is higher in most areas, although I am aware that there is an agenda to some of their choices of what to report and what not to.

Originally Posted by hddscan

What I found - there is no way one can find a truthful source of information anywhere in the world, sometimes because such sources withhold some information, sometimes because they lie and sometimes because they publish some information that they believe to be truthful but in reality it was fabricated and planted by somebody else. Some sources try to be objective more than other but not all the time.

I agree. And it's got even worse now, with social media where anyone can start a rumour.

My approach to the news has always been to try to consider both sides of the story. I think journalists should too.
Right now, to get the other side of the story about Syria, Ukraine, the USA's wars, immigration and economics, it's necessary to turn to non-Western media.

And even if there is no such thing as the absolute truth or completely objective media, it's still the case that some reports are closer to the truth than others.

China's propaganda film "5 year plan is cool"


Imagine if Russia had made the same video to say "Putin's strategy is cool". Although China is much worse than Russia on everything the West claims to care about, there is still no info war against China!

In my opinion: The country that will take down the USA will not be Russia, but China. Using America's love for money and consumption against itself. That's who the Americans should worry about - not Russia.

Originally Posted by Alex80

Media are also biased by the fact that they are economic agents, who earn money.
So, their content tends to be some "hot/extreme" things. Conflicts, problems, deaths, etc. They need attention, they get it.
It is understandable, but it can lead to the feeling that all world around consists from conflicts, problems and deaths only. And Kardashian's ass.
There is no true depiction of life in media by nature.

Agree: The best press would exist somewhere where the government funds it, but lets it write exactly what it wants. Apparently that was happening for a while in Russia during early 1990s. But such a situation can't last...

I don't completely trust any media, but I think that Russian goverment media are much more objective when describing situation in Russia and Russia-related international affairs than Western media. Goverment media cetranly have their agenda but they at least rarely report total fakes and check their sources unlike "liberal" media. there is an information war ongoing currently and so-called Russian "liberal" media like "Novaya Gazeta", "Kommersant", RBK, Echo Moskvy etc are just enemy agents of influence and can't be trusted at all, especially "Novaya Gazeta" and "Echo Moskvy" who turned almost completely into "hate speech" mode. Here is an example how a "liberal" journalist deals with different opinion (it's Ukrainian radio but the guy is quite famous Moscow journalist):

Originally Posted by Basil77

I don't completely trust any media, but I think that Russian goverment media are much more objective when describing situation in Russia and Russia-related international affairs than Western media. Goverment media cetranly have their agenda but they at least rarely report total fakes and check their sources unlike "liberal" media. there is an information war ongoing currently and so-called Russian "liberal" media like "Novaya Gazeta", "Kommersant", RBK, Echo Moskvy etc are just enemy agents of influence and can't be trusted at all, especially "Novaya Gazeta" and "Echo Moskvy" who turned almost completely into "hate speech" mode. Here is an example how a "liberal" journalist deals with different opinion (it's Ukrainian radio but the guy is quite famous Moscow journalist):

Hey!! Good to see you too. Try to understand Lampada. I think it got very personal for her, and she was also worried that there were too many very patriotic Russians, arguing very passionately. From my standpoint: I already knew the Ukraine perspective, since that's also the Western perspective, so I wanted to hear the Russian perspective, from Russian. But from Lampada's perspective it all got too much. We are all just humans... I eventually reached a different perspective but I respect hers nevertheless. Got a bit irritated though, same as you, and took a break. Now a have a few days on my hands and couldn't stop myself from starting a few rants here! Ought to visit for the language studies though, not to write on politics.

Anyway: Nice to hear your perspective. I think you are the voice of conservative/patriotic Russians here at the moment. I can absolutely sympathise with your standpoint. I think I would feel the same, if I was Russian.

And I don't think it's true to say that "all Russian media is under the control of Putin" when there is media like this, and like Novaya Gazeta... Saying that, is part of a propaganda narrative to black-paint Russia.

Western media would have us believe that Russia today is like the USSR in the 1970s in terms of information - complete nonsense. I see more free and independent thinking among Russians than among most Brits I know.

Plus - when Russian media disses another country/region - they do it based mainly on FACTS.
Whereas Western media make up something that's not true, and repeat it until it becomes "truth". I.e. "gays are persecuted in Russia", "Putin kills journalists" etc.

There is 0.01% truth in it, but they create a whole new narrative based on their agenda.
Finally- even if therethere are/were problems with freedom of expression in Russia, so what?!
It seems to have been helpful for China to keep things wrapped up a bit - things could easily disintegrate into chaos there, which wouldn't help anyone.
And look at our ally Saudi Arabia, among others. Compared with them, Russia is a haven of political openness ...
But as it is, I think Russian media is free to expose pollution, corruption and scandals?!
Or if not, what are the big scandals that are covered up...?

As for RT: It's pretty clear from the "Newsteam" docu-soap about their reporters, that their international reporters are 100% genuine and committed - and definitely not any cynical propagandists.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Anyway: Nice to hear your perspective. I think you are the voice of conservative/patriotic Russians here at the moment. I can absolutely sympathise with your standpoint. I think I would feel the same, if I was Russian.

Thanks. Actually, before this Ukrainian crisis I was quite anti-Putin and anti-government and I still strongly oppose the current economic policy of our government. But I rather agree with current foreign policy of Russia. Also there are quite a few improvements in everyday life that happened here during the last years despite economic crisis caused by low oil prices mostly and by western sanctions (at much less extent).