The bot THAT caught the edit...
Kiselyov once boasted on television that Russia remains “the only country in the world capable of turning the USA into radioactive dust.”
That one's easy to catch, but folks seem to have dropped the ball on correcting 'people that'...
I heard it on ABC Radio today... for shame, dammit.
Soon it will be the Internet of Things who are whos, if not whoms, and the rest of us who are thats.
This story is shocking. How could a benign government distort the truth?
Did you ever see a benign government?
How about a benign Russian one?
Perhaps while they're all asleep...?
Actually, the article is objective enough to mention that both participants from Kiev and from Russia tried to put unproven bits on who shot down the plane in the article. But the anti-Russian bias of the author was obviously so great that he thought only the Russian edits were headline-worthy news, and so was the anti-Russian bias of Cory Doctorow.
true enough, but as it appears to be turning out that the likely culprits are pro-russian forces using Russian supplied military tech...
One could potentially argue that, while both sides are biased, and are trying to get "their version" of the story in wikipedia, the author is riding hard on the Russian govt. edits as they're likely to be the ones telling a somewhat fanciful tale.
I have seen no evidence of mendacity in any discussions of this topic.
Certainly not all from one side, either.
I'm not afraid of being a THAT. "The guy that fucked the shit out of Skynet." I'd trade my whoness for that.
What Putin did in Gerogia was the last straw. The guy needs a bullet to the forehead stat.
PS: If one of my family members was on that plane, killing Putin would be my sole life mission. I can only hope he is let into the G20 meeting and that one of the bereaved family members makes it happen.
The guy needs a bullet to the forehead stat.
If you want to give the cliche dumb American, CNN parrot and NATO stooge here, that's fine with me. But do yourself a favour and stop making a laughing stock out of your self by insisting your erratic rantings are even remotely related to an attempt in objective reasoning.
How can you even mention the word bias
Of course I have a bias. I know it and can admit it freely, hoping this will ease discussion by making my point of view more transparent. That, of course, works only as long until some ranting lunatic comes along who doesn't only have very strong views and a limited POV, but doesn't even know it.
@unshaved_weirdo and @teapot Before this becomes a discussion that means I have to have seconds, stop.
That was a bit harsh, perhaps. But over the last few weeks I got the impression that BoingBoing authors will question only the Russian view, while taking most of what the Ukrainian government says at face value.
Mostly folks are ignoring the Ukrainian PR releases. A few don't, but check your rage before you dishonestly label these few as "BoingBoing authors". There's plenty of other evidence by various media sources going back several months that directly contradicts the unending stream of horseshit coming from the separatists and Russian media. And maybe some of the Ukrainian PR will check out, whereas the Russian bullshit doesn't even survive cursory checks.
yeah, like this:
thank god NBC was quick to debunk it, right?
where Xeni Jardin recaps western media all wound up about bodies being "shipped to an unknown site" instead of being left out in the open and the black box being "seized" only to be handed over to Malaysia a day later
where the peace-loving president of Ukraine had the airport of Donetsk bombarded as early as May with all the western liberals giving a fuck.
People could read this stuff, it's all wide out in the open, but it's more comfortable just tagging along with some old fashioned blaming the Russians.
And doesn't Putin and his populist politics make a good hate figure. Of course he is an asshole, but so were Yelzin, the drunk, and Gorbatchev who sold out half the country, and boy did the West love those guys.
Harsh? who cares. Inflammatory? absolutely.
next page →