We need to know what is going on in Russia. Having access to the unfiltered Moscow line is vital when trying to understand Putin’s next steps. A prematurely published article celebrating Russia’s ‘victory’ over Ukraine was available on state-owned RIA-Novosti news agency and Sputnik’s site before being removed — a piece of journalism that revealed the extent of the Russian state’s disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. By labelling this as dangerous ‘misinformation’, Dorries, von der Leyen and Clegg are preventing European citizens from getting the full picture on the political machinations coming out of the Kremlin.
Perhaps more importantly, the precedent set by such bold action as banning foreign news sites should make us worried. Press freedom has taken a bashing recently; during the pandemic, YouTube and other sites censored TalkRadio?for alleged Covid ‘misinformation’, while a recent BBC Stephen Nolan podcast revealed the extent to which Ofcom was willing to silence gender-critical views labelled ‘hate speech’. When it comes to interpreting foreign conflicts, the British government has proved itself to be similarly light?on principle. While British citizens who left to fight against ISIS with the Kurds were labelled terrorists and prosecuted on return, the foreign secretary Liz Truss announced her support for British citizens to fight with the Ukrainians against Russia during a broadcast round this weekend.???
For a long time I’ve been very interested in alternative perspectives not available on the mainstream media. I often think that sources like NPR are very one sided, too quick to dismiss other perspectives by calling them fake news and propaganda. But often alternative sources have good facts about what is happening on the ground, even if they have a different take on events based on alternative values.
People are quick to dismiss things that they disagree with as fake news. But when people and organizations are trying to censor things like Russia Today, then it’s all the more important to read up about them and learn their perspective and what parts of the conflict their highlighting. Russia Today is particularly good at highlighting the hypocrisy of the United States and the west when it comes to ideals of justice and fairness, even if they rarely look inwards to the problems of Russia. Just because they turn a blind eye to their country’s own problems or evils doesn’t mean they are fake.
By the same token, I also read the NY Post and Fox News not because I embrace all their pro police propaganda or sensationalist crime stories but because I like to be informed of the issues that concern conservative minded politicians. Not because I’m a right winger but because I like to hear the full spectrum of news and pick out stories and perspectives that make sense based on the evidence. Previously, I would read Inspire, the English translation of the recruiting magazine of Al Queda to be informed on how the Taliban saw the world.
Reading the perspectives of the Russian government won’t brain wash you but will make you an informed citizen who is more understanding of the Russian society and culture. Understanding other cultures can help make you a voice for peace and an more informed person.
The United States may be a land of freedom and opportunity, but it is also a place with some seriously dumb laws. Take Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 for example, which legally prevents high-beam and low-beam headlight elements from operating at the same time. That may have seemed like an issue in 1967 when the rule arrived, but it has somehow managed to keep adaptive headlights out of the U.S. for nearly two decades. Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has finally come to terms with industry pressures. A new rule signed on February 1 will finally allow automakers to install adaptive headlights in the U.S.
Been hearing a lot about ERIC on NPR lately. While they have been reporting a lot about conservative push back about ERIC, there hasn't been a lot of reporting on conservative concerns about it.
Not sure if they are legitimate concerns - seems like encouraging potential voters to register is a good thing, but their views are worth hearing. Plus it seems like they should be checking for duplicate voter registrations when people move out of state and if people are voting in multiple states.
But I also could see why conservatives might not like the system - a lot of emphasis is encouraging people to register to vote, with other purposes worthwhile but secondary. And it's been strongly pushed by liberal funders. But it seems like it's not a bad idea to keep voter rolls tidy and have a tool to investigate fraud the rare times it happens.