this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
816 points (95.5% liked)

News

30803 readers
3361 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The New York Times instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by internally displaced Palestinians, who fled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

While the document is presented as an outline for maintaining objective journalistic principles in reporting on the Gaza war, several Times staffers told The Intercept that some of its contents show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives.

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel’s scorched-earth war against Gaza, tensions began to boil within the newsroom over the Times coverage. Some staffers said they believed the paper was going out of its way to defer to Israel’s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And since that stable Russia only became unstable in the direction of Ukraine, I’d say it really was a win for Europe.

I haven't seen anything - agg worker riots stretching from Spain to Poland, fascist party membership spikes in the face of Ukrainian refugees, sharp contractions in the German economy over energy shortages - that would define this as a win for any European proles. Maybe a few big arms manufacturers - Rolls-Royce and Lockheed Martin - come out ahead. But the lay European is eating shit right now.

And of course the sudden surrender of Artsakh has nothing to do with the rumors of a wholesale massacre of a few villages near Drmbon, which were surrounded by Azeris and I don’t remember any news about new arrivals of refugees from there. By pure coincidence that’s also where a few Russian PK’s were killed “by mistake”, including some officers. Anyway, who can search for those people now when there are like a thousand people still unaccounted for.

The brutality of war never ceases to shock the conscience and terrify the soul.

But Europeans want this war to drag on because they think its going to "bleed Russia". Its the old Bushism "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here".

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But the lay European is eating shit right now.

Well, I meant, a win compared to things getting unstable sooner in Russia.

But then would they? Most people to support RSFSR's transformation into modern Russia and democratization were communist after all. In 1996 CPRF represented basically all democratic opposition to Yeltsin. If they won (and it's a common theory, a bit forgotten in 2024, that they would if not for falsifications), how different would it be? Maybe the Chechen wars wouldn't be as bloody. Maybe the financial crisis of 1999 could be averted. Maybe their foreign policy inside former USSR would be more directed at preserving ties and not asserting dominance.

And oil prices hiking up in early 00s were not Putin's doing, so Russia still would have that period of growth. Maybe it would have a bit more Soviet-style laws and political mechanisms, like Ukraine still does. Doesn't seem too scary.

The brutality of war never ceases to shock the conscience and terrify the soul.

It's not what Azeris are capable of, it's rather trust into certain states on the globe.

Pogroms in Indian countryside may be something unexpected for them, but Artsakh - how many satellite images with sufficiently high resolution and how many reports do, say, US or French intelligence services have on every hour of its existence for a month before 19.09.23? And they didn't prevent it nor warn about it, not protest\condemn after. This means a greenlight and also implicit statement that Azeri understanding of territorial integrity is above ICJ rulings, above UN charter, above Kosovo as an example, above their own statements, above even agreements signed and in general above any civilized principle.

It's a bit harder to process, because a hegemon (or a group of such) is still a main guarantor of rules in any system. Which means there are no rules except for "might makes right". As we can see from Israel's actions now.

But Europeans want this war to drag on because they think its going to “bleed Russia”. Its the old Bushism “Fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here”.

The issue with this is that it won't bleed Russia dry, while its military will become more competent.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they won (and it’s a common theory, a bit forgotten in 2024, that they would if not for falsifications), how different would it be?

Presumably, we wouldn't have seen the wholesale nationalization and subsequent fire sale of Russian state assets. It can't be overstated how badly Russia was basically looted, after they deregulated their export markets and had large parts of their economy liquidated by foreign investors.

And oil prices hiking up in early 00s were not Putin’s doing, so Russia still would have that period of growth.

The "Russia is an oversized gas station" line wasn't exactly untrue back in the mid-00s.

But the oil price jump was the direct result of our Iraq invasion. And the Iraq invasion was largely possible only after the US no longer had a USSR operating on a global scale as a counterweight. Also, Russian energy exports were a bandaid on a bleeding gut wound.

Its very possible that a CPRF-run Russia wouldn't be a net energy exporter but a manufacturing hub attempting to rival Germany and Japan. Far easier to believe a Russia that maintained its universities and laboratories and manufacturing hubs followed China's lead into the 21st century as a consumer production giant, rather than simply sending out big hoses full of fossil fuels.

Which means there are no rules except for “might makes right”. As we can see from Israel’s actions now.

It was harder to see when might was something western states projected outward to make things our flavor of right. Much more apparent when we're on the back foot and other countries are using their own boutique domestic medias to justify a war to their people.

The issue with this is that it won’t bleed Russia dry, while its military will become more competent.

That's something Europeans simply don't want to believe, because they still assume Russians are inferior and incompetent.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

Presumably, we wouldn’t have seen the wholesale nationalization and subsequent fire sale of Russian state assets. It can’t be overstated how badly Russia was basically looted, after they deregulated their export markets and had large parts of their economy liquidated by foreign investors.

Much of that had already happened by then, one of the reasons for 1996 election dynamics. And I don't think there was possibility to make many of Soviet industries profitable or even functional. It was a complete collapse due to administrative rot.

However, that would be a couple fewer years of looting properties which could still be put to some use. Some Soviet plants died later in 90s or even in 00s, which means that they did successfully adjust to market economy.

But the oil price jump was the direct result of our Iraq invasion. And the Iraq invasion was largely possible only after the US no longer had a USSR operating on a global scale as a counterweight. Also, Russian energy exports were a bandaid on a bleeding gut wound.

While that is true, most of that oil wealth was misused, so in just a bit more transparent and democratic system it would be used more efficiently.

And Russia wouldn't be capable of acting as any kind of counterweight for like a decade in any case. So, if that's the main reason, it would still happen.

Its very possible that a CPRF-run Russia wouldn’t be a net energy exporter but a manufacturing hub attempting to rival Germany and Japan.

To rival is a strong word, but Russian manufacturing would still exist, and with it a different culture in the society. Which can't be overstated.

It was harder to see when might was something western states projected outward to make things our flavor of right.

Rather it was harder to see not living somewhere in the ME or Latin America, or Indochina, reading a bit of history.

Now it's easier for me to see being part Armenian. The whole situation with "the West" pressuring Armenia for the same illegal concessions that T*rks do, including the ethnic cleansing part, just "graciously" throwing a few cents to accommodate refugees and not demanding outright surrender of Syunik, is eye-opening.

That’s something Europeans simply don’t want to believe, because they still assume Russians are inferior and incompetent.

Well, the transition from 00s Web to today's Web looks like it just becoming clumsy, crappy and not cool. It doesn't seem like a well-planned operation or a result of consistent policy, but I think it is exactly that.

It may be very inefficient, but it adds centralization and vertical control to powerful governments which they lacked before. They now have ability to efficiently suppress any news or viewpoints or discourses they couldn't in paper media, without accepting responsibility for censorship, and without even spawning discussions of censorship, because of centralized social media where everything can be controlled.

As of Russia, it is simply very hard to believe that a state would spend 200+k lives and a lot of money just thrown out in broken hardware to teach its military to conduct warfare.

But that's exactly what happened. Instead of doing reforms and making things more efficiently, they preserved their power over Russia, their way of doing things, their culture as a kind of elites etc, while still achieving that goal with expenses they consider acceptable. Ukraine may start losing the war soon.

My point is - it was hard to believe for anyone, not just Europeans.