The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
personaldesas
Active Member
@KipPotapych So would it be fair to say we land here: headlines oversell, substance holds more or less up, though we might disagree with the interpretation made. His statements were made in a public-facing forum within a private club, he likely got fired over them, and nobody in this thread I think is disputing his read is directionally reasonable, though I might weight it a bit heavier than you do. Is that a fair summary so far?
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
- Headlines (in this case) do not oversell, they sell what is not there (eg, no dissent)
- Substance does not hold up, in spite of words being directly quoted (eg, inequality improved, not worsened, 180-opposite, not “more or less”);
- There was no interpretation made by the media because information was selected and presented in this particular manner for a reason (eg, you cannot quote partial sentences and interpret those parts);
- Sure, public setting, but not in the sense of how it is reported (I will settle on “oversell” here though);
- Probably got fired because of it (will settle on “oversell” here again - eg, this is not a “crackdown”);
- I think his read is very reasonable (as opposed to what is being reported);
- Weight? I think we devoted way more time to it than it is worth; yet, the discussion is likely helpful.
Is that a fair(er) summary? Haha.
I will provide another, though different, example of headlines and reports selling what is not there:
Note how Google attached a note “highly cited”. It has been spreading like a forrest fire. Scroll down the list and there are numerous media outlets, reddit, X, facebook, other social media, you name it, with the exact or somewhat modified headline. The pattern is one and the same, always is.
The “highly cited” WP article via the archive: https://archive.is/xf6Ho
I should note that I (still) see Prokopenko as a very reasonable analyst. This article is strike one though, laughing. Seriously though, it may be two strikes in one go.
Here is a real, data-driven analysis of the subject at hand:
So is the report “more or less” in the ballpark? Substance? The answer is no, it is not in the ballpark and the substance is simply wrong. It ignores (purposefully avoids?) numerous (and obvious) factors. The data in the future may show that they have something there (highly unlikely, in my opinion), but today the article is complete horseshit. Does it really matter though? Not really. Yet, at the same time, it does a lot for public perception. One thing is to think that Russia, while, very realistically, under a lot of stress (from all angles), still doing relatively fine; it is another to think that it is going to collapse, Putin will be overthrown or drop dead from some disease he most certainly has, their banking system is about to evaporate, if not due to the WB strikes, then this bank run that is happening for sure, oh, and look, there is this guy publicly dissenting and proving it all right, the crackdown of the elite, and then there is September mobilization coming and… all the signs are there, etc. It is what it is, what are you gonna do.
personaldesas
Active Member
@KipPotapych I don't agree with all of it, but as you said, we've spent a lot of time on this, and I'm not keen to relitigate media analysis. I also don't think where we differ matters much for the bigger picture.
What I'd actually be curious about: is there reporting on this you think did a good job? Or do you reckon secondary sources are a lost cause here altogether?
What I'd actually be curious about: is there reporting on this you think did a good job? Or do you reckon secondary sources are a lost cause here altogether?
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Lol. They would. Though they should really address their concerns to Apple and the interpretation the company made of what I was actually trying to say, haha.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Good job? Probably not, but I did not read everything that is out there. Of the very few I read, I think the Moscow Times did the best job, even the headline was semi-decent (in Russian):
В главном госбанке Кремля спрогнозировали поражение России в экономической «войне на истощение» с Западом - Русская служба The Moscow Times
Россия не сможет выиграть конкуренцию в «войне на истощение», когда Украину поддерживает западный мир.
ru.themoscowtimes.com
Also, how many outlets that wrote on the subject cited the original as the primary source for their articles? That tells you how many (potentially) read the text.
Overall, no, secondary sources are not a lost cause, though I always want to see the original if the message is of any importance and I actually see no value to reading secondary if the primary source is readily available. Many outlets often do simply outstanding job reporting (I cited dozens of articles here, if not (and likely) hundreds) and credit is due where it is. Sometimes, these same outlets post trash, whether they are a primary or secondary source.
What I don’t like is these “fishing expeditions” that are very counterproductive. In this case, it is clear that some read the Moscow Times article (or the Bell?) and reported “doom” fragments from there, without doing more research (into the original source) or even understanding the MT article to begin with (imagine taking excerpts from excerpts); the rest copied each other and we got what we got.
Sometimes, journalists go looking for a story and they certainly find one and often exactly what they were looking for (I am referring to bias here). For example, I am not sure how that bank-run story came to life. I mean it is complete trash. Yet, a respectable outlet, talking to supposedly respectable people, who for whatever reason do not correct the authors… especially disappointed in Prokopenko. She really knows better. Some of the others likely have no expertise on the subject matter to comment at all, but, hey, when has it ever stopped these people (this is a big problem in genral). If you look at the author though, things become pretty clear. Her past printed history clearly shows that it is not just bias, but a state of mind, a delusion. She most certainly has an agenda and is not shy about it. Note that this is the primary source breaking the news though. What would one expect from secondary sources?
More from Kluge on the subject (I didn’t see these comments when I posted yesterday, even though they were already there):
From the comment section for completeness:
And from another post:
I love how a lemming, who describes himself as an economist, asking in comments if the “charts are adjusted for inflation”. Not that it has anything to do with anything, but it sure is cute.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
While this belongs in the Middle East thread, posting it here and quoting myself because of the enormous vibes of the early 2022 and what I talked about in the quoted post:
About the only difference between now and 2022 is that now is run by clowns.
Edit: I guess it should also be noted that the clowns are treating the “allies” and the foes alike, without differentiation, which is also different.
Last edited: