Ukraine Conflict - continuing

[Malcador]

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-ukraine-war/

Sort of a strange article.  Hopefully either side whacks this guy at some point.

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

A tiny bit of pointing out the obvious there, in that the relevant technology has either been non-existent or not in use in nearly all previous conflicts. You can expect there to be even more coverage of that kind in future wars.

(This reminds me of how the sculpting of the finish line photo of the 100 meters dash in the 40BC Olympics was only finished in 37BC, so the two fastest guys really had to wait to find out who won.)

True  but this war there seems to be excessive  amount of  interest  in  battlefield  updates  and gore  pictures  from people  on both sides  and  SM is the medium  for that 

For example we not  seeing the same  amount  of SM  attention from Gaza, there  is some but not at the same level of distribution?

 

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

For example we not  seeing the same  amount  of SM  attention from Gaza, there  is some but not at the same level of distribution?

Israel really, really, really does not want the world to become any more aware of its horrendous brutality than it already is. I am not all that well aware of the history of Hamas, in terms of its publicity policies, but I would assume that it does not agree with the idea that any publicity is good publicity, quite the contrary.

Edited April 4 by xzar_monty

[Malcador]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

ut its a war and you cant avoid these types of videos if you want to understand how it unfolds on the battlefield, its about the nature of war

You probably could.  Not much insight in knowing some FPV drone blew a guy apart somewhere.  Equipment losses can give you a sense of priorities or potential pushes I guess.  While people are dying there not that gory.   Some people really seem to want to watch snuff films and truck out some excuse that they don't want to flinch from reality or some other edgy nonsense. 

Good test of that is how they react to their team getting killed, heh.

[Gfted1]

Ukraine's Devastating Thermobaric Drone Wipes Out Russian Target (newsweek.com)

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

You probably could.  Not much insight in knowing some FPV drone blew a guy apart somewhere.  Equipment losses can give you a sense of priorities or potential pushes I guess.  While people are dying there not that gory.   Some people really seem to want to watch snuff films and truck out some excuse that they don't want to flinch from reality or some other edgy nonsense. 

Good test of that is how they react to their team getting killed, heh.

But dont you follow lots  of Reddit and Twitter  sources about the  war?

[Malcador]

55 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But dont you follow lots  of Reddit and Twitter  sources about the  war?

Yes. But they're not showing me combat footage, or if they do I only watch it if its not going to be some gory stuff. These days I don't even bother, although watching ERA work is always interesting to see so I look for that.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, I actively avoid fps/ drone stuff too though I will generally watch non drone stuff if I think it will be interesting. I don't really care about gore/ death, personally, since it's obviously happening but... there are way, way too many people getting their jollies from fps or dropped drone footage and I really don't like associating with them even tacitly.

3 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Israel really, really, really does not want the world to become any more aware of its horrendous brutality than it already is. I am not all that well aware of the history of Hamas, in terms of its publicity policies, but I would assume that it does not agree with the idea that any publicity is good publicity, quite the contrary.

Quite apart from Israel's policy of destroying all infrastructure so that civilians cannot take cell phone footage and cannot upload it there has also been a systematic policy from media to either actively or passively suppress Palestinians SM. Any combat footage --> 'terrorist' source, and passive footage 'cannot be verified'. Indeed, just about all the evidence of summary executions, torture and the like come from idiotic Israeli soldiers who are proud of themselves. That too is largely suppressed by media.

3 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Ukraine's Devastating Thermobaric Drone Wipes Out Russian Target (newsweek.com)

Eh, I'd go out on a limb and say that article is of, hmm, limited accuracy.

The only limitation either side has had for thermobarics on fps is weight and the munition generally being too heavy for a fps drone, eg the generic RPG-7 frag payload is 1/10 the weight of a RPG-7 thermobaric warhead. But there are some fps drones that will manage 2kg and there's at least one (43mm, for GM94 launcher) grenade that has a thermobaric variant in use by both sides that weighs 250g, only 60g more than a rpg-7 frag does. One suspects both sides have been using that fairly extensively but it simply hasn't been publicised.

Edited April 4 by Zoraptor

[xzar_monty]

26 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Quite apart from Israel's policy of destroying all infrastructure so that civilians cannot take cell phone footage and cannot upload it there has also been a systematic policy from media to either actively or passively suppress Palestinians SM. Any combat footage --> 'terrorist' source, and passive footage 'cannot be verified'. Indeed, just about all the evidence of summary executions, torture and the like come from idiotic Israeli soldiers who are proud of themselves. That too is largely suppressed by media.

You're not wrong as such, but I would qualify that last sentence by adding "English-speaking" right before the word "media". Or, possibly, "international" -- although the word international is somewhat nebulous in this context. But anyway, not all media, not in all countries. Israel's atrocities do get plenty of coverage around here, for instance.

[BruceVC]

13 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Israel really, really, really does not want the world to become any more aware of its horrendous brutality than it already is. I am not all that well aware of the history of Hamas, in terms of its publicity policies, but I would assume that it does not agree with the idea that any publicity is good publicity, quite the contrary.

Maybe you answer a different question for me? We have had over 2 years of the war in Ukraine and there is view from some, like @Zoraptor and even commentary from people in South Africa,  that we cant trust what the Western media reports on and we must question Russian atrocities and killing of civilians. And this is despite the fact there are many  different media houses and embedded journalists in Ukraine reporting live on many things and often the same things like the massacre in Bucha which is still denied by Russia 

But there is limited media access in  Gaza for reasons you mentioned and reported deaths of Palestinians that even the UN uses come from the Gaza Health Ministry which is controlled by Hamas

I accept that the media can get things wrong both intentionally and unintentionally but my question is why do you think most people will believe what comes from Hamas but question what we hear from Ukraine?

I realize you cant comment on why others have this stance but I want to know why you think this occurs. In South Africa there is a  constant view from some  that " you cant trust the Western media " but those same  people will believe and repeat everything that Hamas or Palestinian spokespeople say 

And Im not denying that Palestinian civilians havent been killed or the IDF has been heavy handed, they have 

Im interested in why people will spend years questioning global media on one war and yet immediately believe everything about another war with limited and often unverified reporting?

Is it as simple as confirmation bias in your opinion?

[xzar_monty]

25 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I accept that the media can get things wrong both intentionally and unintentionally but my question is why do you think most people will believe what comes from Hamas but question what we hear from Ukraine?

Your question is unanswerable because it relies on the premise that "most people will believe what comes from Hamas but question what we hear from Ukraine" which is completely unproven. You will have to demonstrate the veracity of that premise first, until then the question itself makes no sense.

What is "most people"? Most people where? In the world? Most, by definition, is over 50%, so do you mean it has been demonstrated that over 4 billion people believe and question things according to what you just typed there? I don't mean to deliberately punch holes in what you're doing, but you really do have to ask better questions.

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Your question is unanswerable because it relies on the premise that "most people will believe what comes from Hamas but question what we hear from Ukraine" which is completely unproven. You will have to demonstrate the veracity of that premise first, until then the question itself makes no sense.

What is "most people"? Most people where? In the world? Most, by definition, is over 50%, so do you mean it has been demonstrated that over 4 billion people believe and question things according to what you just typed there? I don't mean to deliberately punch holes in what you're doing, but you really do have to ask better questions.

I assume this is legitimate response but you not answering my good faith question  because I used the wrong word, yes its the  wrong word. I should have said "some " or " certain " 

Can you answer now and again this your opinion. I know you dont speak on behalf of billions of people 

And the question is simple " why do you think some\certain\ a few people believe the media reporting in one war but dismiss the same media reporting on another war " 

 

 

 

[Gorth]

8 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

And the question is simple " why do you think some\certain\ a few people believe the media reporting in one war but dismiss the same media reporting on another war "

I suspect you know the answer to your own question, if you have to be honest about it. Not sure why you need other people to bring up "confirmation bias"?

Personally, I don't trust governments much, but I'll take the Australian governments words for it when they tell that Australian citizens were killed in Gaza when IDF airstrikes deliberately targeted international aid workers to chase them out...

Those same attacks on aid convoys has led to a political **** storm in the UK and the US as their citizens were also killed by the IDF

It was so bad Biden got on the phone with Netanyahu and made ultimatums...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68737846

 

 

[xzar_monty]

29 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

And the question is simple " why do you think some\certain\ a few people believe the media reporting in one war but dismiss the same media reporting on another war "

There can be a whole lot of reasons, and you have one good answer to your question right above this post.

Your question implies that "one war" and "another war" are comparable, but it isn't necessarily so: there is a potential fault in the comparison you are making. Untrustworthy sources aren't always untrustworthy, either. I would not trust, say, the Daily Mail, but if I happened to walk past a newsstand and Daily Mail was reporting that the Pope is dead, I would believe it. You can't really overstate the importance of context.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Gorth said:

I suspect you know the answer to your own question, if you have to be honest about it. Not sure why you need other people to bring up "confirmation bias"?

Personally, I don't trust governments much, but I'll take the Australian governments words for it when they tell thatvrhteAustralian citizens were killed in Gaza when IDF airstrikes deliberately targeted international aid workers to chase them out...

Those same attacks on aid convoys has led to a political **** storm in the UK and the US as their citizens were also killed by the IDF

It was so bad Biden got on the phone with Netanyahu and made ultimatums...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68737846

 

 

Yes I do think its confirmation bias but I cant assume that is what  everyone thinks, thats why I am asking the question.

In the context of South Africa and how some commentators dismiss the media reporting on Ukraine but believe the same media in Gaza is inconsistent and strange to me 

I do believe the international  media is generally reporting correctly, like this link, in both Ukraine and Gaza and the IDF has killed many civilians and the stories about the kitchen  being bombed is true and egregious. I just dont  think it was done on purpose because of the obvious negative media coverage this creates but that doesnt change how the IDF military approach is heavy handed and unacceptable 

But the point I was trying to make is if the war in Gaza hadnt happened there will still be some people dismissing the media reporting coming out of Ukraine yet many of those same people dont question the media reporting from Gaza

And I was looking for an opinion on that so thank you for responding 

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

There can be a whole lot of reasons, and you have one good answer to your question right above this post.

Your question implies that "one war" and "another war" are comparable, but it isn't necessarily so: there is a potential fault in the comparison you are making. Untrustworthy sources aren't always untrustworthy, either. I would not trust, say, the Daily Mail, but if I happened to walk past a newsstand and Daily Mail was reporting that the Pope is dead, I would believe it. You can't really overstate the importance of context.

Fair enough, do you consider the likes of CNN and BBC as generally trustworthy on its reporting?

I do but they sometimes get things wrong or misrepresent events. But my question is more about what media  sources do you personally consider to be generally trustworthy?

 

[xzar_monty]

46 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I do but they sometimes get things wrong or misrepresent events. But my question is more about what media  sources do you personally consider to be generally trustworthy?

Our equivalent of the BBC is decent enough most of the time, and our biggest newspaper isn't too bad. I have worked in the printed press, starting from the 1980s, and have, in my view, a decent combination of trust in and scepticism of it.

[majestic]

I have an anecdote to share here, although it is, of course, only directly applicable to the media in Austria, and it was over a decade ago. Back then, the company I worked at, was robbed. Goods worth five million Euro were stolen in a matter of hours.

The robbers brutalized the workers of the night shift, bound them with gaffer tape and threatened to shoot them if they made any sudden moves. They grabbed their access badges to unlock the fenced off section of the warehouse where the exact goods they were looking for were stored, loaded the pallets they wanted onto their truck, and left. Perfectly orchestrated, it was fairly evident that it was an inside job, particularily since they took nothing else.

The media reporting was fraught with errors. All of it. Not a single one that I read, and I checked a lot, seem to have put in the effort to do some fact checking. The most egregiously wrong accounts came, as expected, from the yellow press, but our public broadcasting company (ORF) made massive mistake in their reporting: they filmed a camera overlooking the entrance of the warehouse and wondered why nobody checked who rang at the door late at night. The cameras at the warehouse were part of the CCTV surveillance system in place, and labour law clearly states that the captured footage is only to be accessed by specially designated people and only in case of initial suspicion. It would be downright illegal to check the CCTV surveillance footage with no good reason, and they should really know that.

One yellow press article wondered how the truck managed to move past the security checkpoint at the entrance to the warehouse. Why and how was the gate opened for the truck? Indeed, how? Oh, right, that was because that particular warehouse had no security checkpoint and they simply looked at a different branch of the company. How utterly detestable can you be to not even go to the right address for your footage to generate more buzz/clicks? It is really hard to believe that this was a simple mistake, the two locations are not even in the same vicinity (entirely different cities, even).

Articles from outlets with better reputation got most of it right, but still openly wondered how and why the night shift workers could be overwhelmed and how nobody noticed it for hours, and why they even opened the door when someone rang at 02:00.

Yes, why indeed. They could have just asked, you know. The entire night shift consisted of only two workers, both of which were beaten up and bound. They opened the door because of regular nighttime deliveries for a special project of one of our largest customers, who, at the time, due to irregular shipping schedules, could not properly advise of inbound shipments ahead of their arrival. It was the perfect moment for the robbery, and the robbers, who were later actually caught, turned out to actually be the very same people who made the deliveries.

Conlcusion: for at least this one instance, it was shown that our public broadcaster does not know or does not care to check labor laws, the yellow press outright lies for effect and even quality media outlets rush to get their headlines out without due diligence. Ah, sign of the times, I suppose.

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Conlcusion: for at least this one instance, it was shown that our public broadcaster does not know or does not care to check labor laws, the yellow press outright lies for effect and even quality media outlets rush to get their headlines out without due diligence. Ah, sign of the times, I suppose.

Lamentable, yes, but I would argue that it was not a sign of the times. The history of the press is not a particularly edifying subject to study.

Oh and @BruceVC: I rarely visit the CNN website and never watch it, so I can't comment on that at all. The BBC I am not especially suspicious about, but it does have its share of even fairly recent crises, so it's not as if it's a paragon of journalism. (And I never watch the BBC, either.)

Edited April 5 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

I have an anecdote to share here, although it is, of course, only directly applicable to the media in Austria, and it was over a decade ago. Back then, the company I worked at, was robbed. Goods worth five million Euro were stolen in a matter of hours.

The robbers brutalized the workers of the night shift, bound them with gaffer tape and threatened to shoot them if they made any sudden moves. They grabbed their access badges to unlock the fenced off section of the warehouse where the exact goods they were looking for were stored, loaded the pallets they wanted onto their truck, and left. Perfectly orchestrated, it was fairly evident that it was an inside job, particularily since they took nothing else.

The media reporting was fraught with errors. All of it. Not a single one that I read, and I checked a lot, seem to have put in the effort to do some fact checking. The most egregiously wrong accounts came, as expected, from the yellow press, but our public broadcasting company (ORF) made massive mistake in their reporting: they filmed a camera overlooking the entrance of the warehouse and wondered why nobody checked who rang at the door late at night. The cameras at the warehouse were part of the CCTV surveillance system in place, and labour law clearly states that the captured footage is only to be accessed by specially designated people and only in case of initial suspicion. It would be downright illegal to check the CCTV surveillance footage with no good reason, and they should really know that.

One yellow press article wondered how the truck managed to move past the security checkpoint at the entrance to the warehouse. Why and how was the gate opened for the truck? Indeed, how? Oh, right, that was because that particular warehouse had no security checkpoint and they simply looked at a different branch of the company. How utterly detestable can you be to not even go to the right address for your footage to generate more buzz/clicks? It is really hard to believe that this was a simple mistake, the two locations are not even in the same vicinity (entirely different cities, even).

Articles from outlets with better reputation got most of it right, but still openly wondered how and why the night shift workers could be overwhelmed and how nobody noticed it for hours, and why they even opened the door when someone rang at 02:00.

Yes, why indeed. They could have just asked, you know. The entire night shift consisted of only two workers, both of which were beaten up and bound. They opened the door because of regular nighttime deliveries for a special project of one of our largest customers, who, at the time, due to irregular shipping schedules, could not properly advise of inbound shipments ahead of their arrival. It was the perfect moment for the robbery, and the robbers, who were later actually caught, turned out to actually be the very same people who made the deliveries.

Conlcusion: for at least this one instance, it was shown that our public broadcaster does not know or does not care to check labor laws, the yellow press outright lies for effect and even quality media outlets rush to get their headlines out without due diligence. Ah, sign of the times, I suppose.

Yes and I can believe this  is true but this type of misreporting exists  in most countries.  On DSTV  we have 2  private sector news  channels  and 1  public sector  national broadcaster  and  I  alternate between them

And they sometimes  get things wrong  or have very strange or inaccurate framings of stories  but they get things mostly right and Im  sure thats the same in most countries

I like  to  believe that most journalists in any non-autocratic  country do  believe in the truth and the integrity of what the media  stands  for 

But that doesnt apply to opinion pieces  and whole  ideological bias you find from  the   likes  of FOX or MSNBC.    But even  these news  channels report on things accurately, it  just depends on what they reporting on and its the culture wars  garbage that I seldom  take seriously 

 

[Mamoulian War]

On 4/5/2024 at 8:13 AM, xzar_monty said:

Your question is unanswerable because it relies on the premise that "most people will believe what comes from Hamas but question what we hear from Ukraine" which is completely unproven. You will have to demonstrate the veracity of that premise first, until then the question itself makes no sense.

What is "most people"? Most people where? In the world? Most, by definition, is over 50%, so do you mean it has been demonstrated that over 4 billion people believe and question things according to what you just typed there? I don't mean to deliberately punch holes in what you're doing, but you really do have to ask better questions.

Well, this is anecdotal, but from my experience almost everyone, who supports nationalist parties in our country does not believe that Russia commits atrocities, and on the other hand, they believe that Israel commits them. So the answer to @BruceVC question from the Slovakian PoV is simple. It is mix of Russophilia and antisemitism which is dear to these people. These people always believe what they want to believe, and even if they provide then 100% factual proof about the opposite, they immediately deny it

[BruceVC]

18 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well, this is anecdotal, but from my experience almost everyone, who supports nationalist parties in our country does not believe that Russia commits atrocities, and on the other hand, they believe that Israel commits them. So the answer to @BruceVC question from the Slovakian PoV is simple. It is mix of Russophilia and antisemitism which is dear to these people. These people always believe what they want to believe, and even if they provide then 100% factual proof about the opposite, they immediately deny it

Yes and Im glad  you mentioned this because what is more  interesting than confirmation bias is why do people have confirmation bias because  why  they have it differs  from  person  to person  and the severity of  it 

And  anti-semitism  IMO is definitely part  of the confirmation  bias around how many  people reflect  on the media reporting in Gaza but its not the normal  historical Nazi anti-semitism or part of  what  Netanyahu keeps saying where  any criticism  towards Israel   is " anti-semitism " and this is cringe because you  can  have legitimate  criticism   of the IDF and its  not because  of  anti-semitism  

What Im  seeing   is its more about a general mistrust  and  immediate rejection about anything Israel reports  on and  people who typically wouldnt have an issue with Jews suddenly reaffirming previously held  biases and  now generalizing  and repeating Jewish conspiracy theories about domination of the world and the media 

So  for example in South Africa   after taking Israel to the ICJ our president and several  senior ANC  members  suggested that "we  could face regime change and interference in our election because we  took Israel to the ICJ  "  

But its  like WTF    They cant produce any  evidence of how this may happen and we have always  had free and fair  elections since  1994 with no evidence of vote rigging or any real  "foreign powers somehow implementing regime  change " and  yet  suddenly the Jews  are   going to use there  Jedi mind tricks to undermine our election because of the ICJ ruling 

And then of course the conspiracy theories get more  ridiculous and it evolves to  "  the US is going to implement regime change in South Africa  because  of the ICJ " and this is  some politicians suggesting this.  Its  not random citizens who would have wide ranging opinions.  You would  assume politicians would be more   responsible and informed  

But end  of the day anti-semitism  is a nuanced  type of bigotry and how people demonstrate it,  its often not like other forms of bigotry like homophobia which is much easier  to see  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[xzar_monty]

On 4/6/2024 at 7:02 PM, Mamoulian War said:

These people always believe what they want to believe, and even if they provide then 100% factual proof about the opposite, they immediately deny it

Incidentally, this is not a new phenomenon. Medically / psychologically, it is profoundly disturbing. For a historical example, read Don Quixote, the first part of which was published in 1605. It is a brilliant study of a person who is neither stupid nor uneducated but who happens to possess a black spot in his thinking that no amount of fact or logical reasoning can cure. And yes, of course I know Don Quixote is a fictional character -- but the phenomenon is very real, and Cervantes treats it magnificently well.

[Mamoulian War]

A poll conducted in France, before Macron’s remarks about French troops in UA says that 51% of French youth are ready to defend French interests in Ukraine, if needs emerge. 62% of them are in favour to reintroduce the compulsory military service.

Study was published in Le Parisien.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/14/7451168/

For the french speaking, link in the article above.

[Sarex]

Until they start conscripting, or calling people to service.