PM sent.
Just wanted to point out something here in case others also have an issue with my sources or otherwise. And I think this important in general.
I do not post rubbish sources, as a rule (or I state that the source is/may be rubbish). I believe, for example, Kommersant is a reliable enough source and I stated here so previously. I did reference TASS 3 or 4 times here previously. One was a page or two ago talking about the alleged Armenian delivery of missiles to Ukraine and I specifically indicated that I could not find a better source for the information cited (if I was verse in Armenian, I am sure I would not have such an issue, but we are all limited with the language barriers when dealing with such circumstances). In that situation, however, I also provided the reasoning (my own), with outside references supporting my reasoning and the numbers I provided, indicating why the information is likely valid. That reasoning was also a very brief analysis of the relationship Armenia has with Russia which supported the conclusion that the “leaked info” (Armenia supplying Ukraine with Tochka missiles) was likely false. In my personal opinion, that post, along with the reference to TASS, made this place more informed on the subject matter. If someone believes otherwise or has better information or something I am not aware of to present, that would be great and we can have a reasonable discussion.
The other few times I cited TASS was likely for direct quotes of Putin’s speech, or other Russian politicians. In those cases, it doesn’t matter if it was TASS or Reuters. In fact, TASS would likely be the preferred choice in that case because it would be quoting the exact words the man said, not some (often wild) interpretation of those words. This is the basics of any research and just common sense, really.
Having said above, I rarely quote Kommersant as well because I would very much rather have a western source (that I find reliable) myself and provide such a source presenting the very information I found scrolling through Kommersant.
I have been reading Russian news since they became available on the internet, so I know a thing or two regarding their reliability. I also quoted Lenta here a few times. That one used to be a good outlet, but for the past few years (way before the war, so I guess many years now) the quality declined greatly. However, I would have zero hesitation providing it as a source for what the Russian media is saying about any particular event because that is likely the exact intent of the entire post. Such was the case, for example, with the train derailment in the tunnel a few days ago, for which I also later provided a link to a Kommersant article once I saw it and stated that this is a better source. I also usually provide the Google translate of the articles I cite rather than my own interpretation for three reasons: simply for the convenience of the reader, not to feed the clicks to the outlet, and I provide Google translate vs my own interpretation for consistency and “repeatability” in case others desired to verify it; I also make a separate note if the translation by Google is bad enough that it changes the meaning or some other issue.
I do not believe I had ever posted any of the other sources Ngatimozart mentioned in his post, unless they are hiding in the “etc”, haha (but I very much doubt). However, if circumstances were such that I ran into information provided by those sources that I thought was honest and relevant, I would not hesitate to use any of them. Most obvious examples of such circumstances would be Putin giving an interview to RIA Novosti, Trump giving an interview to Fox or Biden to CNN, other worthy individuals being interviewed by the Sun and it can be a scholar or someone else whose opinion is worthy of reading. This is as opposed to providing the same sources for a few quoted sentences spoken by the same individuals that were specifically presented to the readers in order to promote a certain narrative. Again, this is just common sense and I do not believe there is much confusion about it if any at all.
Nowadays (though it was always the case), pretty much anything reported by any news organization, no matter how reputable, should be taken with caution and application of common sense and critical thinking is a prerequisite to reading. But if we want to label all news outlets of any particular nation as not trustworthy and unreliable, we can do that too, officially. Most, if not all of us, likely have those markers for various nations in our minds to begin with anyway. However, not all of us followed any specific set of news agencies to know the actual difference.
To conclude this post, if anyone has issues with the information presented in my posts, I encourage you to explain what those issues are. This is how we learn and grow. If you think my source is not reliable or there are other issues with it, please speak up. Because I would do the same. To provide an example for the latter, see my reply to Vivendi’s (I think it was) post a couple of pages ago talking about some alleged Russian war crimes in regards to starvation of Ukraine by stealing the grain and oilseeds or some such: I showed with supporting facts why the article was rubbish to begin with and, again with supporting facts, why the allegations by the whatever organization were likely nonsense as well.
news.gallup.com
meduza.io
www.reuters.com
