It is hypocrisy to criticize Russia for arresting Evan Gershkovich on espionage charges while prosecution Julian Assange with the Espionage Act?

[Adaeva]

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/05/04/multiple-us-officials-confronted-about-us-assange-hypocrisy-on-world-press-freedom-day/

Wednesday was World Press Freedom Day, and it saw US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and Deputy State Department Spokesman Vedant Patel confronted about the glaring hypocrisy of the Biden administration’s persecution of Julian Assange for the crime of good journalism.

[Lliam]

Yes. The U. S. is nothing if not hypocritical when it comes to freedom if speech, independent journalism, human rights, liberty in general, support for totalitarian governments, and especially aggression around the world.

[Lliam]

Thanks for the MHO, Adaeva.

I read your comments in the rest of this thread. You're views are highly informed. I send you a follow request and would be honored is you accept. I'd like to read more of what you have to say.

[Wise4myage]

I agree with you 100%.

[abc3643]

Not at all.

First, Julian Assange allegedly violated US law. Doing our due diligence, here are his charges.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1037-julian-assange-espionage-act-indictment/426b4e534ab60553ba6c/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Whatever the story is with WSJ journalist Evan Gershkovich, it's irrelevant to US law and Julian Assange's case. Russia is a different jurisdiction not subject to the US Constitution or the laws of the United States.

>>> You need to stop reading RT and associated propaganda / whacked-out sources like Caitline Johnstone who doesn't even have a job as a journalist. If anything, she's a self-righteous extreme left-wing opinionator.

https://www.facebook.com/RTnews/posts/and-then-they-came-for-a-bogan-socialist-who-dared-criticize-john-mccain/10157021611944411/

[Adaeva]

RT. com tells the truth That is why the USA tried to eliminate them. Mainstream media is propaganda and more than 50% lies. Julian Assange did nothing wrong. He did the world a service by publishing the USA crimes and atrocities reported to him by others. In other words, outstanding journalism.

[CALIGVLA]

Oh, wow! Asker needs to stop reading RT and associated propaganda / whacked-out sources like Caitline Johnstone.

She must read your favorite shitty neocon associated propaganda / whacked-out sources like Bill Kristol and Anne Applebaum!

Stupid old "man," your world is dying with you!

Get used to it.

[abc3643]

@CALIGVLA I'm not a Republican.

And. yes, RT is a Russian propaganda machine. It's owned by the Russian government and thus reports in ways that only benefit the Russian government - which is not exactly an above-board democracy.

[Adaeva]

@CALIGVLA In any event, I doubt that rulers of the USA believe Americans should be subject to and prosecuted for violating laws of Iran and China if they have never been in either of those countries.

[abc3643]

Media Bias Fact Check is a reputable organization that evaluates news sources.
Here is their report on RT News:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/

Overall, we rate RT Questionable based on promoting pro-Russian propaganda, conspiracy theories, numerous failed fact checks, and a lack of author transparency.

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Russian Propaganda, Conspiracy, Lack of Transparency, Some Fake News
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: Russia
Press Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
======
And this is the Columbia Journalism Review's report on RT when it first came out as Russia Today:
archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php
TITLE: What Is Russia Today?
SUBTITLE: The Kremlin's propaganda outlet has an identity crisis

[CALIGVLA]

@abc3643 Don't be cute with me, I didn't call you a Republican, I called you a neocon. You're a neocon. You have a prejudiced, neocon view of the world. You peddle neocon propaganda. You believe in Western supremacism like every neocon.

And, unfortunately for you, your world is dying with you.

[CALIGVLA]

@abc3643 Ahem, ahem. Russia media is purely propaganda and ours is purely the truth.

We have no shady interest in attacking Russia's or China's media but sharing the truth!

Media Bias Fact Check isn't a branch of CIA!

Our government isn't waging a 5th gen war against both Russia and China, it's just telling the truth and spreading the virtues of democracy and freedom!

The US government isn't invested in global hegemony, it's just protecting "fweedom" and "democwacy"!

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Adaeva]

By what standard are they reputable?

[abc3643]

@adaeva
"By what standard are they [Media Bias Fact Check] reputable?"

That is an excellent question and I was going to craft a MyTake on this, but never finished.

A good quick way to get a sense of this is to see how they rate many major sources with these questions in mind and do some logic:

1. For sources that conservatives say have a liberal bias, does MBFC report that bias?
2. For sources that liberals say have a conservative bias, does MBFC report that bias?

Here's the logic...

If MBFC itself was biased for liberals, then it would report many liberal sources as unbiased despite conservative claims of bias.

Similarly, if MBFC itself was biased for conservatives, then it would report many conservative sources as unbiased despite conservative claims of bias.

BUT, if MBFC reports bias against any conservative organizations AND reports bias against any liberal organizations, then MBFC itself, then it wouldn't be biased because its actions are not supportive of any particular side.

Let's look at this in detail...

(more)

[abc3643]

TYPO:
Similarly, if MBFC itself was biased for conservatives, then it would report many conservative sources as unbiased despite *LIBERAL claims of bias.

[abc3643]

OK, let's take a look at the abridged MBFC summary reports for 6 organizations - 3 which are claimed to have a liberal bias and 3 which are claimed to have a conservative bias.

ALLEGED AS LIBERAL BIASED:

L1. The New York Times
L2. The Washington Post
L3. Mother Jones

ALLEGED AS CONSERVATIVE BIASED:

C1. The Wall Street Journal
C2. Fox News
C3. The National Review

==========

L1. The New York Times
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on wording and story selection that moderately favors the left. They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

L2. The Washington Post
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/
Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that moderately favor the left. Due to a few failed fact checks, they earn a Mostly Factual rating.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

(more)

[abc3643]

L3. Mother Jones
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mother-jones/
Overall, we rate Mother Jones as strongly Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and a clean fact check record.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

C1. The Wall Street Journal
mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low-biased news reporting combined with a strong right-biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to anti-climate, anti-science views, and occasional misleading editorials.
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

C2. Fox News
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
Overall, we rate Fox News right biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, which earns them a Mixed factual rating.
Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Poor Sources, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

C3. The National Review
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources, and one failed fact check.
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

(more)

[abc3643]

So, MBFC calls out these organizations for their biases as expected by both liberal and conservative claims. Had MBFC been biased for one side, they would have suppressed reports of bias from sources from the side they are on. But, they did not do that. Thus, MBFC establishes itself as neutral.

Furthermore, a few important things:

0. In the interests of transparency, I have subscriptions to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. I do so because I respect their reporting and they are considered the 3 major "newspapers of record" for the United States. A "newspaper of record" is one which is considered in high-enough regard that their articles would be considered source material for future historians.

1. MBFC separates out reporting from opinion. That's important for all of us to do and to recognize whether someone is an actual journalist or some opinionator. I subscribe to the 3 US newspapers of record because I am primarily interested in the news reports from these sources and much less so in the opinionators.

2. MBFC is transparent in their methodology. You can read about it here:

Methodology
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources
mediabiasfactcheck.com/.../

Now, let's take a look at few more MBFC reports of various sources.

(more)

[abc3643]

Reuters - the UK-based news agency
(This is a good source if you don't trust US media.)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

The Hill - the Washington DC Internet newspaper dedicated to stories involving the US Federal Government
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/
Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on balanced editorial positions and news reporting that is low-biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

SCOTUSblog - the premier source for US Supreme Court news and opinion.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scotusblog/
Overall, we rate SCOTUSblog Least Biased based on minimal editorializing of content. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Snopes - the fact-checking site.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/
We rate Snopes Left-Center biased based on news story selection that slightly favors a liberal perspective. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to an investigation that indicates a co-founding editor engaged in plagiarism. The plagiarism was not related to Fact-Checks, and they remain credible for fact-checking.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

(more)

[abc3643]

I wanted to include one more important source and give more detail.

Pew Research - a subsidiary of the Pew Charitable Trusts. It is the polling group that reports on trends in society.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pew-research/
Overall, we rate Pew Research Least Biased and Very High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: VERY-HIGH
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History
Founded in 2004, Pew Research is a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D. C. It provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. It also conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis, and other empirical social science research.

According to their about page, their mission is “We generate a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and supports sound decision-making. We are nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonadvocacy. We value independence, objectivity, accuracy, rigor, humility, transparency, and innovation.”

Analysis / Bias
In review, Pew Research primarily is a polling and survey outlet that utilizes and publishes its methodology. Unlike many other polling companies that exclusively cover politics and elections, Pew covers a wide range of topics such as Science, Technology, and Religion. Pew never uses loaded language in their headlines, and articles like this: Eastern and Western Europeans Differ on Importance of Religion, Views of Minorities, and Key Social Issues. Further, all information is sourced in detail, with the methodology explained for each survey. Editorially, there is little to no bias.

Failed Fact Checks
Pew Research has never failed a fact check. In fact, Pew information is used by fact-checkers to verify data.

[abc3643]

=========================

SO, I hope you can see by the transparency and balance in its reports that Media Bias Fact Check is, itself, unbiased. Furthermore, it should be used as a way to evaluate a source of information to know if the source is trustworthy (or not) and why they rate it so.

[abc3643]

By the way, here is MBFC's interim report on Caitline Johnstone.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/caitlinjohnstone/

CaitlinJohnstone. com is currently pending or under review. When deciding to evaluate a source we do a preliminary investigation to determine if the source qualifies for review. Qualifications include high traffic, popularity, controversy, strong bias, and the potential for false or misleading information.

About: I am an avowed socialist and always have been. I believe if human behavior remains driven by competition and profit we will compete ourselves into extinction by chasing after whatever world-traumatizing endeavor is profitable from day to day.

Media Type: Website/blog
Assessment Type: Traffic overview, Headlines, Background research
Preliminary Assessment: High Credibility
Bias: Left
Confidence of Initial Assessment: Medium
Failed Fact Checks: None Found
Source: CaitlinJohnstone. com

[Lliam]

MBFC is a sole proprietor limited liability company (LLC) held by Dave Van Zandt in North Carolina. Dave Van Zandt who is a member of (operative for) the Council on Foreign Relations. So he's one of the Globalists. That's about all I have to know about his agenda.

MBFC is also referenced by [such "reputable" LMAO] sources such as USA Today, Reuters Fact Check, Science Feedback, Washington Post, and NPR.

I've seen my share of the use of "independent fact checkers" on Facebook. They are used to censor 100% factual information that doesn't suit the desired government and globalist narrative. It is used to keep people from accessing information and thinking for themselves.

Giving credibility to fact checkers and mainstream media is like claiming that Wikipedia is a source for unbiased information.

Anyone who can't see that mainstream media is a coordinated propaganda echo chamber is hopeless.

[abc3643]

@Lliam Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and assaulting the Capitol.

[Lliam]

@abc3643. You just proved that you're a moron. What do you know about me? Jeeez. You're completed uninformed and mind controlled.

[abc3643]

@Lliam I know enough to know you are fool.

[CALIGVLA]

@abc3643 Dude, you can't fool a 14 yo girl. She outsmarts you at pretty much everything.

You can't fool her. You can't fool me. You can't fool anyone.

And Lliam is right about you.

[Effably]

No idea if that's the case. I stopped paying attention to any U. S news a good while ago. If it is true I hope they are all outraged and do something. If it is not, I hope they fact-check properly.

As for me, and I imagine much of Europe, began to disregard American politics when scandals and criminal acts by people in office went from asking who did what to trying to figure out if you're talking about the same scandal from last week or if there is an even newer one. I pray, even though I haven't prayed a day in my life, that if my country is every so horribly mismanaged we'll actually kick people out of office long before the whole world grows tired of even gossiping about us.

[Adaeva]

How is it possible to kick people out of office when the elite own and control the media that attacks 24/7 anyone they disapprove of and laws have been passed that makes it almost impossible to elect anyone other then an approved democrat and an approved republican both of who will do as they are told?

[Effably]

Oh I agree that is part of the corruption. Doesn't mean change is less needed. We should all learn from the French.

They can't talk normal. They can't win a war. Eat too many baguettes and drink too much wine.

But they are phenomenal at being angry. For that alone I trust France. I know that if they mess up royally we'll have a new french revolution. We could have an American one. Adopting democracy would be a solid start.

[RealMarek]

Hypocrisy can be a display of power. So can installing into the presidency a dementia ridden man who feels up women and girls and admitted on tape to a quid-pro-quo agreement with a foreign power to protect his son’s business interests. These displays of power retain loyalty of the non-ruling elites to the ruling elites.

[Anonymous]

Assange sought and published classified military and state department documents, which is obviously a criminal act. While it’s possible Gershkovich isn’t clean, Russia has a history of fabricating charges against journalists. The case against Assange has not been manufactured. Let’s wait and see on Gershkovich.

[Anonymous]

Hypocrisy that there's an international arrest warrant out for Putin yet George Bush remains at large

[berisky23]

100% agree