They've got a strict separation between ownership and editors, though. They regularly go against the grain and report deeper than merely repeating the convenient narrative.

Sure, capitalism and independent media don't go together well, but state control and i dependent media are an even worse combination, and on the scale of what's possible, NRC is doing quite well. Certainly much better than Tass.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

They’ve got a strict separation between ownership and editors, though.

No they don't. Ultimately ownership chooses who works there.

They regularly go against the grain and report deeper than merely repeating the convenient narrative.

How did you determine this?

Sure, capitalism and independent media don’t go together well, but state control and i dependent media are an even worse combination

Pure vibes based statement.

and on the scale of what’s possible, NRC is doing quite well.

How did you determine the this? Because it tells you narratives that agree with your world view?

[+] mcv@lemmy.zip -9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I read and compare. When Maccabi supporters were picking fights with Arab taxi drivers in Amsterdam, they didn't blindly repeat the government story about pogroms but told what really happened, a story that eventually won out. They've never shied away from stories inconvenient to any government or corporate interest, as long as it's based in facts.

They're highly regarded for their objectivity.

If you want to attack them, you've got to come up with more than vibes.

And the fact that you're baselessly attacking them while defending Tass, is outright ridiculous.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

but told what really happened

How did you determine what "really happened"?

They’ve never shied away from stories inconvenient to any government or corporate interest, as long as it’s based in facts.

How did you determine that? You don't know what stories they elect not to run.

They’re highly regarded for their objectivity.

By who? People who agree with their bias?

If you want to attack them, you’ve got to come up with more than vibes.

Mate, you're the one who's been making claims based on vibes. I'm not the one just asserting that they're objective and honest without evidence.

And the fact that you’re baselessly attacking them while defending Tass, is outright ridiculous.

Strawman

[+] mcv@lemmy.zip -9 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

How did you determine what "really happened"?

Finally a productive question. You listen to all the sides. You listen to independent media on the ground. You don't just cling to whatever story happens to fit your worldview, but you consider the different stories and watch what adds up and what doesn't. Who leaves out what details to better fit their narrative and who tells the whole thing.

And sure, that means you've got to do some work. Put in some actual critical thought. And yes, lots of people don't like that just stick to whatever narrative they prefer, or even whatever is fed to them. But looking critically at media is a vital survival skill these days.

Blindly accepting known partisan media on the very topic you know they can't be objective about, is not that.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 16 points 4 weeks ago

No, I asked how you did it. Because you clearly didn't listen to all sides, and you clearly did just cling to whatever story happens to fit your worldview. You were even at the point of lying to defend your worldview

Who leaves out what details to better fit their narrative and who tells the whole thing.

How do you determine what "the whole thing" is?

And sure, that means you’ve got to do some work. Put in some actual critical thought. And yes, lots of people don’t like that just stick to whatever narrative they prefer, or even whatever is fed to them. But looking critically at media is a vital survival skill these days.

Lol, maybe you should try it then.

Blindly accepting known partisan media on the very topic you know they can’t be objective about, is not that.

Then you should stop doing it.

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 13 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

you listen to all the sides.

Except sides published by state media in countries you don't like, or media that you personally have determined is false. So no you do not listen to all sides, you listen to all sides that fit your worldview. This isn't complicated for everyone else in this thread but it's apparently quite complicated for you