255
China supporting Russia in massive military expansion, US says
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
255 points (96.0% liked)
World News
38583 readers
2062 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
… what difference would having a name make here…
Accountability. If there was a name they would have to provide some kind of evidence or justification for the claims. As it is we just have to take their word for it.
I want to argue, but you’re absolutely right - I cannot for the life of me find any source information whatsoever besides that it was from 2 senior Biden administration people.
I’m wondering if this something they do to prevent foreign adversaries from identifying which information complex (cia, fbi, nsa, dhs, etc) actually figured out what was going on.
It would make sense in this specific case but they kinda lose credibility when hiding behind anonymity and it certainly raises red flags with the people regarding propaganda.
Won’t let another Afghanistan happen with my vote
Read your news carefully. Western news media almost never give a name unless there is real evidence. You will frequently see things like "according to experts familiar with the matter", or "speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to talk to the press", or any number of other permutations.
And yet, when quoting Putin, Xi or any of their other favourite pantomime villains they always qualify their statements with "without citing any evidence."
They could very well get evidence without wanting to name someone. Protecting sources is pretty normal in journalism
That does not and should not extend to US government officials or their press releases. Ask a credible journalist. This story was sent to Agence France Press who redistribute it, without without verifying anything, to hundreds of news outlets worldwide in the knowledge that many will just print it as is because they don't have the resources to follow any of it up.
You should probably educate yourself on how the news industry works, although you wont like it.
Sure, any sources should be checked. That said, do you have any particular reason to doubt the figure?
The two countries have declared a "no limits" partnership, have they not?
The Intel seems to be about CNC machine tool exports from China to Russia, and FT has also reported (here) on the increase, citing Russian customs data.
Are there any Russian or Chinese sources you know of that are reporting contradictory information?
Were you born yesterday? Protecting sources in journalism has been standard practice since the dawn of time. Media literacy is in the gutter here smh
If you truly think this is a problem that could only ever be on the “western side”, you’re a fool and a hipocrit.
I get you might not like western practices, but if you truly care about truth honesty and respect for your fellow people, and aren’t a racist POS, you’d choose your words more carefully next time friend. You ruined the entire conversation we just had because you had to make a shallow point like this.
Just a thought.