Don’t see this on Firefox (with ublock Origin) on desktop Lemmy web UI.
Don’t see this on Firefox (with ublock Origin) on desktop Lemmy web UI.
Agreed. For some reason, I don’t like their US coverage. It’s not biased per se, but like you mentioned it often doesn’t click (not American, but I lived in North America for a decade).
It’s as if they can’t figure out whether they want to report as outsiders looking in or as if they are reporting from within the US. Better to stick to one framing. I actually prefer an “outsider looking in” perspective as some of the US-based internal-focused reporting is not for me.
As weird as it sounds, I do like NYT for US coverage (from the US) and I tend to avoid their coverage on Europe.
While I generally agree with the points raised in the article, I have to say there is a certain level of irony seeing this particular text in Al Jazeera (with them being funded by Qatar).
I do like their coverage of Africa, it seems informative and relatively balanced (perhaps I just don’t know any better English language sources).
I lean towards agreeing with their coverage of India, but the Qatari connection makes me cautious.
They are pretty bad on Ukraine. Giving coverage to faux-opposition russian imperialists and having a somewhat cavalier attitude that they do not demonstrate for example with Gaza.
That being said, for all their faults they can do good work, just got to remember their Qatari connection.
The state more broadly and the executive specifically is a reflection of society (with some exceptions); if society does not value freedom (in the true sense, not the polemical sense), you are going to get leaders who oppose democracy.
What does neoliberal have to do with this? If anything, non-liberal administrations are much more likely to service a small group of insiders and generally engage in brutal excesses.
In most cases the state is a reflection of society at large (examples such occupation governments or North Korea notwithstanding).
A new era in Europe’s relations with Russia “regrettably” began following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, says Mrs Merkel.
What is this even supposed to mean? I am assuming this is a direct quote.
Whenever I hear anything from Merkel these days, for some reason I get that image from Dr. Strangelove in the war room.
Some of this is likely to be grandstanding, no?
Either way, even if he goes through with this, it’s not like this will have any noticeable impact on his support.
I am looking at it from a more abstract, generic perspective.
When you lose the right to freely travel, work, live in your country. There is going to be a lot of animosity around this. I don’t think it is fair to purely attribute this to a discriminatory attitude.
Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have condemned ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for warrants as disgraceful and antisemitic.
Antisemitism does manifest itself in both casual and systematic forms. The region-specific component is also important.
However, claims regarding antisemitism from the Israeli government are increasingly becoming a “reverse confirmation” of sorts. One could almost argue that if they call something antisemitic, chances are it’s actually not and may even be the correct course of action (clear cut cases notwithstanding).
The Senate is due to vote later on Wednesday on a motion of disapproval of loan forgiveness for Ukraine put forward by Republican Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of U.S. support for Ukraine.
Rand Paul? Is this the fellow who advocated for taking horse medication against COVID?
This is not unique to Arab Americans.
There is a decent amount of Ukrainian Americans who support independent Ukraine, but also think Trump would stop the war and be a better choice for Ukraine. Although it seems that this is somewhat less common than in the Arab American community (I could be wrong).
This is of course complete bullshit. Trump is a corrupt American oligarch with degenerate tendencies. Oligarchs protect their gangs, expand their territory and give kickbacks to partner gangs (e.g. allowing unsafe “full self driving” rules for Elmo’s organization). This is not even a Trump or American thing, this is universal.
With respect to Gaza, the Israeli oligarch gangs have far more money and influence on Trump’s crew. Then there is also kinship ties.
But this was a shrewd move by Trump’s crew. I think some proportion of the Arab American community will become life-long supporters irrespective of what happens in Gaza (I think their concern for Gaza is a bit more nuanced than what one may think at first glance).
Agreed. I am Ukrainian. Family had to leave Donbas in 2014.
Yes, arming Ukraine in 2014 with ballistic missiles (among other things) and authorizing strikes deep into russian territory would have been not only the right thing to do, but also a key requirement of the Budapest memorandum.
My comment was more in the context of real weapon deliveries only starting since the full scale invasion.
I remember how the Germans put a big stink when Ukraine started using the Bayraktar drones in the line of contact in Donbas before the full scale invasion. What a bunch of spineless cowards.
Good news, but why did it take nearly three years?
The ATACMS, Patriots, F16, modern tanks should have been delivered in the first 12 months to strike russia when they were less organized.
Can you elaborate on this?
I am not American (although I have lived there). I am just curious.
Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.
That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.
South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.
Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.
That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.
South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.
This is not about a “moral high ground” or some deep commitment to utilitarianism (which you somehow turned into a bizarre rant about electing Hitler).
I am talking about a practical, real life evaluation. Of course many people vote based on emotional reasons, but that doesn’t mean tactical voting is not extremely common (perhaps even a majority of voters).
And the fact remains that even people who have a strong emotional motivation can still be willing to make tactical choices. It’s not all black and white like you describe.
I did say “mere propaganda”. I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.
It feels like we are arguing about things. 😜
What made you think I don’t know this?
I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.
And I wouldn’t discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.
And the incumbent doesn’t need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.
It’s all in your [their] hands.
Whether we will or not is a matter of what America is like.
I am not making a judgment call here, just an observation.