Return to Answer

In a normally functioning society, independent press sells the information. Correct information is vital for the modern human.

You can find in every newspapers, what is the current a day of the week and the weather forecast. If they write it Sunday and it is Monday, this may cost me a job. If I go for a hike prepared for the completely wrong weather because of the bogus weather forecast, this may just kill me. Most important, I would really like both Sunday and sunny warm weather daily but I still pay for this information to be correct. Same goes for the rest of the newspaper. It cannot be any democracy without independent press. How would you vote without knowing what is going on? No objective media, no "westerns values" then ... well this is exactly that Russian PR is talking about.

The Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that the fundamental right of freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This right exists for the reason. The truth is essential.

Another answer writes, readers pay for publishers for "what they think should be produced". Nope, I do not think to pay the publisher for always printing it's Sunday today. Journalists need analysis even for calendar, and for weather forecast they already need sources of information. This is that they need for every article that is worth reading.

Independent journalism builds the reputation over many years. These newspapers are normally trusted because they have not been lying at least very obviously ten, twenty and more years ago, about the things that are now clear for everyone.

Here is the article on how The New York Times fact-checks in an age of misinformation and this is how The Guardian does. And here is the code conduct of Meduza.

Due that, I think, sources that I consider independent I also consider reliable, especially that they give quite a comparable picture of the Ukraine events. It is not beneficial to take a position "all media lies" as this just removes the ranking: then nothing can be trusted, all sources should be equally trusted. The rank matters, it protects from the sea of bullshit you cannot otherwise verify personally even working on that full time.

In a normally functioning society, independent press sells the information. Correct information is vital for the modern human.

You can find in every newspapers, what is the current a day of the week and the weather forecast. If I read it's Sunday and it is Monday, this may cost me my job. If I go for a hike prepared for the completely wrong weather because of the bogus weather forecast, this may just kill me. Most important, I would really like both Sunday and sunny warm weather daily but I still pay for this information to be correct. Same goes for the rest of the newspaper. It cannot be any democracy without independent press. How would you vote without knowing what is going on? No objective media, no "westerns values" then ... well this is exactly that Russian PR is talking about.

The Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that the fundamental right of freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This right exists for the reason. The truth is essential.

Another answer writes, readers pay for publishers for "what they think should be produced". Nope, I do not think to pay the publisher for always printing it's Sunday today. Journalists need to do some analysis even for calendar, and for weather forecast they already need sources of information, while not yet WikiLeaks. This is that they need for every article that is worth reading.

Independent journalism builds the reputation over many years. These newspapers are normally trusted because they have not been lying at least very obviously ten, twenty and more years ago, about the things that are now clear for everyone.

Here is the article on how The New York Times fact-checks in an age of misinformation and this is how The Guardian does. And here is the code conduct of Meduza.

Due that, I think, sources that I consider independent I also consider reliable, especially that they give quite a comparable picture of the Ukraine events. It is not beneficial to take a position "I trust no one" as this just removes the ranking: then nothing can be trusted, all sources should be equally reliable and then PR of all kinds readily fills in your head with bullshit up to ears, you will never be able to verify one tenth of it while working on this full time. You need to decide whom you trust. I still believe in independent press.

In a normally functioning society, independent press sells the information. This is that they readers pay for, as this information is vital for survival in the modern world. Information that is worth buying reflects the reality, because otherwise it will not be buyers for it, same as for the rotten fish in the market. Something may be "sweetened" at little bit to please the reader, but anyway this reader would not forgive any major lies, and some journals worked over decades to establish they trust. It cannot be any democracy without independent press. How would you vote without knowing what is going on? No objective media, no "westerns values" then ... well this is exactly that Russian PR is talking about.

The Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that the fundamental right of freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This right exists for the reason. The truth is essential. Other answer writes about information warfare. Independent press even publishes military secrets, if the military mismanages them badly enough to leak.

While it is often possible to write anything you see fit about the recent events, the truth usually surfaces pretty obviously in twenty years or about. The media that published something more or less along the truth the gains the reputation. This is why recently established publisher will never be as trustworthy as something that has existed for decades.

Another answer writes, readers pay for publishers for "what they think should be produced". When I need a weather forecast, I need it correct. If some service predicts sunny weather for me and then rains, this absolutely does not make them more attractive. And I am really happy when it is Sunday today, but still read the calendar where some days are marked Monday to Saturday as they are.

Here is the article on how The New York Times fact-checks in an age of misinformation and this is how The Guardian does. And here is the code conduct of Meduza.

Due that, I think, sources that I consider independent I also consider reliable, especially that they give quite a comparable picture of the Ukraine events. It is not beneficial to take a position "all media lies" as this just removes the ranking: then nothing can be trusted, all sources should be equally trusted. The rank matters, it protects from the sea of bullshit you cannot otherwise verify personally even working on that full time.

In a normally functioning society, independent press sells the information. Correct information is vital for the modern human.

You can find in every newspapers, what is the current a day of the week and the weather forecast. If they write it Sunday and it is Monday, this may cost me a job. If I go for a hike prepared for the completely wrong weather because of the bogus weather forecast, this may just kill me. Most important, I would really like both Sunday and sunny warm weather daily but I still pay for this information to be correct. Same goes for the rest of the newspaper. It cannot be any democracy without independent press. How would you vote without knowing what is going on? No objective media, no "westerns values" then ... well this is exactly that Russian PR is talking about.

The Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that the fundamental right of freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This right exists for the reason. The truth is essential.

Another answer writes, readers pay for publishers for "what they think should be produced". Nope, I do not think to pay the publisher for always printing it's Sunday today. Journalists need analysis even for calendar, and for weather forecast they already need sources of information. This is that they need for every article that is worth reading.

Independent journalism builds the reputation over many years. These newspapers are normally trusted because they have not been lying at least very obviously ten, twenty and more years ago, about the things that are now clear for everyone.

Here is the article on how The New York Times fact-checks in an age of misinformation and this is how The Guardian does. And here is the code conduct of Meduza.

Due that, I think, sources that I consider independent I also consider reliable, especially that they give quite a comparable picture of the Ukraine events. It is not beneficial to take a position "all media lies" as this just removes the ranking: then nothing can be trusted, all sources should be equally trusted. The rank matters, it protects from the sea of bullshit you cannot otherwise verify personally even working on that full time.

In a normally functioning society, independent press sells the information. This is that they readers pay for, as this information as vital for survival in the modern world. Information that is worth buying reflects the reality, because otherwise it will not be buyers for it, same as for the rotten fish in the market. Something may be "sweetened" at little bit to please the reader, but anyway this reader would not forgive any major lies, and some journals worked over decades to establish they trust. It cannot be any democracy without independent press. How would you vote without knowing what is going on? No objective media, no "westerns values" then ... well this is exactly that Russian PR is talking about.

There are many things sad enough that independent press wrote about, from Fukushima disaster till Boeing 737 MAX, from Turkey not letting Sweden into Nato till Iran selling drones to Russia for bombing power stations in Ukraine and Ukraine's Defense Ministry purchasing food for the military at triple price. I do not need to look into Russian PR to know these things.

While it is often possible to write anything you see fit about the recent events, the truth usually surfaces pretty obviously in twenty years or about. The media that published something more or less along the truth the gains the reputation. This is why recently established publisher will never be as trustworthy as something that has existed for decades.

Another answer writes, readers pay for publishers for "what they think should be produced". When I need a weather forecast, I need it correct. If some service predicts sunny weather for me and then rains, this absolutely does not make them more attractive. And I am really happy when it is Sunday today, but still read the calendar where some days are marked Monday to Saturday as they are.

Here is the article on how The New York Times fact-checks in an age of misinformation and this is how The Guardian does. And here is the code conduct of Meduza.

Due that, I think, sources that I consider independent I also consider reliable, especially that they give quite a comparable picture of the Ukraine events. It is not beneficial to take a position "all media lies" as this just removes the ranking: then nothing can be trusted, all sources should be equally trusted. The rank matters, it protects from the sea of bullshit you cannot otherwise verify personally even working on that full time.

In a normally functioning society, independent press sells the information. This is that they readers pay for, as this information is vital for survival in the modern world. Information that is worth buying reflects the reality, because otherwise it will not be buyers for it, same as for the rotten fish in the market. Something may be "sweetened" at little bit to please the reader, but anyway this reader would not forgive any major lies, and some journals worked over decades to establish they trust. It cannot be any democracy without independent press. How would you vote without knowing what is going on? No objective media, no "westerns values" then ... well this is exactly that Russian PR is talking about.

The Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that the fundamental right of freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This right exists for the reason. The truth is essential. Other answer writes about information warfare. Independent press even publishes military secrets, if the military mismanages them badly enough to leak.

While it is often possible to write anything you see fit about the recent events, the truth usually surfaces pretty obviously in twenty years or about. The media that published something more or less along the truth the gains the reputation. This is why recently established publisher will never be as trustworthy as something that has existed for decades.

Another answer writes, readers pay for publishers for "what they think should be produced". When I need a weather forecast, I need it correct. If some service predicts sunny weather for me and then rains, this absolutely does not make them more attractive. And I am really happy when it is Sunday today, but still read the calendar where some days are marked Monday to Saturday as they are.

Here is the article on how The New York Times fact-checks in an age of misinformation and this is how The Guardian does. And here is the code conduct of Meduza.

Due that, I think, sources that I consider independent I also consider reliable, especially that they give quite a comparable picture of the Ukraine events. It is not beneficial to take a position "all media lies" as this just removes the ranking: then nothing can be trusted, all sources should be equally trusted. The rank matters, it protects from the sea of bullshit you cannot otherwise verify personally even working on that full time.