40 ms·

> The Irrawaddy does detailed and ethical journalism about Burma/Myanmar, a part of the world ruled by an authoritarian regime. Why does it feel like every tim

> The Irrawaddy does detailed and ethical journalism about Burma/Myanmar, a part of the world ruled by an authoritarian regime. Why does it feel like every time someone promotes 'ethical journalism' here, it's always state backed propaganda? Not only that, people use propaganda terms like 'authoritarian regime'. > There's no Irrawaddy for Venezuela, Afghanistan, or North Korea. No. There are many british, american, etc funded propaganda outlets ( fringe and major ) targeting these countries. > But because of the hard work of The Irrawaddy, Burma/Myanmar is much more visible to English-speaking audiences Could it be because britain, the former colonial master of myanmar, is trying to overthrow the regime? > especially when they are such an amazing group. Are they 'amazing' though?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pyuser583 2y ago
My comment included a lot of stock phrases and low-thought words. “Authoritarian regime,” etc. Sorry. That was poor style on my part. I also made some sweeping statements about media coverage in other countries. Sorry. Low thought on my part. I was trying to give credit to some folks who deserve it, but instead I made what looks like a State Department press release. Sorry. I’ve been trying to spend less time writing these comments out. You can spend a day on a couple paragraphs. Not a good use of time. I’ll be more careful in the future.
- linearrust 2y ago
  What a bizarre response. But not unexpected.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
racional 2y ago
Why does it feel like every time someone promotes 'ethical journalism' here, it's always state backed propaganda? A quick keyword search on the phrase easily refutes the supposition you're making here. Not only that, people use propaganda terms like 'authoritarian regime'. Probably because it would seem to be a reasonable enough description of the system of government in that country since 1962. Meanwhile the weirdly exaggerated language you're using here seems to be in itself quite propagandistic.
- linearrust 2y ago
  > A quick keyword search on the phrase easily refutes the supposition you're making here. You don't have to do a quick keyword search. The 'ethical journalism' the guy referred to in this comment thread is a US government funded propaganda outlet. > Probably because it would seem to be a reasonable enough description of the system of government in that country since 1962. But not the colonial british government before 1962? Can you show me on reuters article calling the colonial british government 'authoritarian'? Funny how the democractic russian government and indian governments are called authoritarian, but not the saudi government? Strange. Lets hope myanmar stays authoritarian long enough to maintains its independence. So many people with political agendas.
  - racional 2y ago
    But you didn't reference just that one comment. You specifically took the trouble to make it look like this was something that keeps happening all the time, via the carefully chosen phrasing: every time someone promotes 'ethical journalism' here, That's where things started to get weird in this thread. The democractic russian government ... Before they got weirder still.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    You really are deluded if you think the Russian government is "democratic". >But not the colonial british government before 1962? Can you show me on reuters article calling the colonial british government 'authoritarian'? And even if the British government before that was authoritarian, does that remove the details around the current government being extremely repressive? How about addressing that before going directly to whatabout ism with what might have been the case over 50 years ago? Finally and generally, just because a given website receives financial support from some U.S. organization doesn't automatically make it propaganda or free of ethical journalists. The details of what they report and how do matter, so does it's factual accuracy, regardless of funding.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pyuser583 2y ago

My comment included a lot of stock phrases and low-thought words. “Authoritarian regime,” etc. Sorry. That was poor style on my part. I also made some sweeping statements about media coverage in other countries. Sorry. Low thought on my part. I was trying to give credit to some folks who deserve it, but instead I made what looks like a State Department press release. Sorry. I’ve been trying to spend less time writing these comments out. You can spend a day on a couple paragraphs. Not a good use of time. I’ll be more careful in the future.

linearrust 2y ago
What a bizarre response. But not unexpected.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

racional 2y ago

Why does it feel like every time someone promotes 'ethical journalism' here, it's always state backed propaganda? A quick keyword search on the phrase easily refutes the supposition you're making here. Not only that, people use propaganda terms like 'authoritarian regime'. Probably because it would seem to be a reasonable enough description of the system of government in that country since 1962. Meanwhile the weirdly exaggerated language you're using here seems to be in itself quite propagandistic.

linearrust 2y ago
> A quick keyword search on the phrase easily refutes the supposition you're making here. You don't have to do a quick keyword search. The 'ethical journalism' the guy referred to in this comment thread is a US government funded propaganda outlet. > Probably because it would seem to be a reasonable enough description of the system of government in that country since 1962. But not the colonial british government before 1962? Can you show me on reuters article calling the colonial british government 'authoritarian'? Funny how the democractic russian government and indian governments are called authoritarian, but not the saudi government? Strange. Lets hope myanmar stays authoritarian long enough to maintains its independence. So many people with political agendas.
- racional 2y ago
  But you didn't reference just that one comment. You specifically took the trouble to make it look like this was something that keeps happening all the time, via the carefully chosen phrasing: every time someone promotes 'ethical journalism' here, That's where things started to get weird in this thread. The democractic russian government ... Before they got weirder still.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  You really are deluded if you think the Russian government is "democratic". >But not the colonial british government before 1962? Can you show me on reuters article calling the colonial british government 'authoritarian'? And even if the British government before that was authoritarian, does that remove the details around the current government being extremely repressive? How about addressing that before going directly to whatabout ism with what might have been the case over 50 years ago? Finally and generally, just because a given website receives financial support from some U.S. organization doesn't automatically make it propaganda or free of ethical journalists. The details of what they report and how do matter, so does it's factual accuracy, regardless of funding.