What really bothers is the total lack of information we have

>>132892
>sputniknews
Stop posting this propaganda shit.

>>132894
>https://sputniknews.com/europe/201704171052699801-nato-drills-start-latvia/

Sputnik are no more corrupt and no more different than any other news organisation. Like every other news organisation they have they're loyalties.

The situation in Poland in the grand scheme of things is very worrying and has been a story that other outlets have reported on,
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38592448), the only difference is western outlets natural defend these said NATO drills.

>>132905
>Sputnik are no more corrupt and no more different than any other news organization.
Oh yes they are. They are much more corrupt than 95% of all other news organizations. They are Putin's mouthpiece worse than RT.

>>132907
Thats true but lets also talk about some of the other "impartial" and "balanced news outlets" shall we?

BBC: British state funded broadcaster, protected by law (see the royal charter), the monarchy and the british government past, present and future. Controversy? See: Jimmy Saville scandal/multiple paedophile rings, EU referendum coverage (overtly pro EU), 2010 and 2015 general election coverage, Iraq War coverage, Israel/Palestine (pro israel), Kyrgyz 2010 revolution.... TO NAME A FEW

AlJazeera: Middle Eastern multinational multimedia conglomerate. Controversy? Relationship with Qatari government, its pro-sunni anti shia coverage, its past support for the muslim brotherhood, case upon case of controversy amongst much of the middle east, europe and the US.

I could sit here all day and list controversies and corruption relating to every media outlet. When it comes to analysing current affairs and international news you need to take every bit of information with a pinch of salt and run it back against opposing views.

I use sputnik and RT as well as the BBC and Aljazeera as well as countless other sources. Theres always going to be bias in reporting and journalism but its to easy to simply paint Sputnik and RT as being the only corrupt and news outlets out there.

I'm not russian/or pro russian. What i'm trying to say is you simply can't take sides and favour one agenda over the other.

>>132909
>these other news outlets are government propaganda also so it excuses how much of a Putin mouthpiece Sputnik is.
Sorry but it doesn't work that way, Tovarisch. You don't get to try and excuse Sputnik's bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior on the part of other outlets. It doesn't justify the way Sputnik reports any more it does for the others.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)
>Sputnik (pronounced spʊtnJk, formerly The Voice of Russia) is a news agency, news websites and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya.[2] Headquartered in Moscow, Sputnik has regional editorial offices in Washington, Cairo, Beijing, London and Edinburgh. It focuses on global politics and economics and is geared towards a non-Russian audience.[3] Sputnik has been widely accused of bias, disinformation[4] and being a Russian propaganda outlet.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sputnik-news/
>Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Russian news media company out of Moscow. Is pro-Russian government and favors Republicans in the USA. Has been known to publish conspiracies. Take them with a grain of salt.

You won't hear that said about the BBC west of the dnieper river.

>>132915
>You don't get to try and excuse Sputnik's bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior on the part of other outlets.

When and where have I excused them? If you read my very first post, I actually AGREED with you, support your claim that they are biased.

>You won't hear that said about the BBC west of the dnieper river

Clearly you've never been to Scotland, where the BBC gave rather supportive coverage to Thatcher Poll Tax and demonised legitimate protest or more recently during the IndyRef.

I assume you've never been to Liverpool either where the BBC supported (initially) and followed the same lies the Sun printed with regards to the Hillsborough tragedy?

I'm guessing you're American? I don't blame you at all, you're media coverage is even worse than ours. I guess thats why its so lucrative for the BBC to export news and other media to your country.

>>132905
Go to hell Russian Shill. If you felt you were being honest you would have put your Link in the OP like a /news/ thread is supposed to. If you want a Russian perspective there's other news sources to get that other than RT & Sputnik that are just Putin mouth pieces. Not all Russians like Putin. Fuck off and die you Shill Astroturf trash. Back to /pol/ where people are retarded enough to fall for your tricks.
One day you'll feel the Freedom, Ivan. And it'll hurt.

>>132920
lol i'm not OP friend. You seem hurt? Is this a cry for help?

>>132917
>you're media coverage is even worse than ours
No, it really isn't. You'd have to go to the third world to find fake journalism of the same caliber that exists in Russia. Your two instances of demerit for the BBC, one of which is over 30 years old, doesn't come close to representing the totality of their coverage. Meanwhile Sputnik has been caught lying something like 30 times in the last few months alone. It simply isn't reputable as a source, and is recognized as such by most people who read news outside of Russia.

>Forbes reported that Sputnik International reported fake news and fabricated statements by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest during the 2016 US presidential election.[34] Sputnik falsely reported on 7 December 2016 that Earnest stated sanctions for Russia were on the table related to Syria, falsely quoting Earnest as saying: "There are a number of things that are to be considered, including some of the financial sanctions that the United States can administer in coordination with our allies. I would definitely not rule that out."[34] Forbes analyzed Earnest's White House press briefing from that week, and found the word "sanctions" was never used by the Press Secretary.[34] Russia was discussed in eight instances during the press conference, but never about sanctions.[34] The press conference focused solely on Russian air raids in Syria towards rebels fighting President of Syria Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo.

>>132892
>bbbbut dey gots NATO soldiers stationed in Poland
Makes no sense. I can't imagine why, Vladislav.

>>132922
>Your two instances of demerit for the BBC, one of which is over 30 years old, doesn't come close to representing the totality of their coverage.

Ok how about a more recent one then...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour

>The BBC’s cheif political editor inaccurately reported Jeremy Corbyn’s views about shoot-to-kill policies in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Paris, according to the BBC Trust.

>The broadcaster’s regulator concluded that a Laura Kuenssberg report for the News at Six in November 2015 breached the broadcaster’s impartiality and accuracy guidelines, in a ruling that triggered an angry response from the corporation’s director of news.

I'm not even Russian mate, i'm from England. You don't have to go far and talk to many people to learn that the BBC is not this brilliant bastion of impartiality.

This is an inherent problem with state owner media organisations. Whether it be Sputnik/RT, the BBC, AlJazeera etc. its all the same. As consumers and analysts we need to decide when and where to draw the line on what is real and what isn't for example RT and the rapefugees headline was very poor taste.

I've never once said one is better and more reputable than the other, if anything that has been you.

>>132925
>1 misreporting which the BBC's governing body called out and was duly reported on news
>vs scores upon scores of lies with zero apologies or retractions

False equivalence doesn't even begin to cover it. Don't think for a moment that your intellectual dishonesty can masquerade as 'impartiality', especially when the difference in honesty is this fucking clear.

>>132940
>False equivalence doesn't even begin to cover it. Don't think for a moment that your intellectual dishonesty can masquerade as 'impartiality', especially when the difference in honesty is this fucking clear.

Hahaha this statement is more fitting to your argument. You don't happen to work for the BBC do you? You sound awfully defensive creating excuses for them.

>1 misreporting which the BBC's governing body called out and was duly reported on news

I've given 3 examples and could give you a lot more spanning the company's creation. As for being duly reported, it was, but only by other media outlets. Even the BBC Trust, their 'independent' regulatory body realised the severity of not properly reporting the facts, but instead of a suspension (this wasn't a one time incident) they did nothing.

>vs scores upon scores of lies with zero apologies or retractions

Give it a rest pal, just because you can't properly evaluate and analyse multiple foreign sources to truly get a clear picture doesn't everyone can't as well.

>intellectual dishonesty

I'm not the one supporting a broadcasting house the split communities across scotland, wales and northern england in half. A company that failed to inform the public of paedophile scandals and sexual abuse that happened over 40 years in their own offices. And finally a company that continues to spinelessly support a government that aims to oppress english minorities, the disabled and other groups within the UK.

Come back when you've stopped being so ignorant and blind. Wanker.

Poland is situated side by side with battlefield and rejects military help. I don't understand. Think about Ukraine.

>>132892
Гдe дoкaзaтeльcтвa?

>>132940
Maybe you should just admit that the BBC being shit doesn't mean that sputniknews isn't fake news.

>>132892
Paying for Americans to occupy foreign nations is the civilised world's burden. We simply have to accept that the jewburgers are gonna be jewburgers.

>>132995
because hes fucking cuck with no world media understanding

>>133000
>Cheap military presence is a burden
Have you had any world wars break out since NATO became a thing? You're welcome

>>132892
iirc us lithuanians will be receiving germany, so hopefully no niggers and/or shitskins

>>133087
Only turks in your future, Nojus.

>>132892
Where are proofs, comrade.