MiG-35 unveiled, will have lasers

[MoFo]

10 hours ago, Mfezi said:

I honestly think people on this forum are overreacting a little about the article.

 

It's not an opinion.  Russia Today and SputnikNews were established to be propaganda vehicles for the Putin regime.  It has nothing to do with the articles.  It is entirely about the source.

[11bee]

1 hour ago, MoFo said:

 

It's not an opinion.  Russia Today and SputnikNews were established to be propaganda vehicles for the Putin regime.  It has nothing to do with the articles.  It is entirely about the source.

That being said, they can still provide useful info.   Just have to separate the chaff from the wheat.          Besides, some would say the same thing about certain news organizations in the US.   Just need to evaluate all media with an open mind.  

[TaiidanTomcat]

On 1/31/2017 at 7:07 AM, Berkut said:

 

And btw, laser weaponry is being developed for sixth gen fighters in US and soviet Union had plenty of experience with lasers.

 

 

 

Lasers are the weapons of the future, always have been

 

 

[Berkut]

5 hours ago, MoFo said:

It's not an opinion.  Russia Today and SputnikNews were established to be propaganda vehicles for the Putin regime.  It has nothing to do with the articles.  It is entirely about the source.

And yet you havent been able to demonstrate where exactly the propaganda is in the MiG-35 article. They were wrong on the radar part, but being wrong is hardly propaganda.

 

You wont find may people that doesnt agree RT/Sputnik News are biased and geared towards making Russia look as good as possible. But why is that relevant to this thread when that particular article is completely fine? It is one thing to not be a fan of RT/Sputnik, another to have an allergic reaction to every article from them, right or wrong.

[Mfezi]

11 hours ago, MoFo said:

 

It's not an opinion.  Russia Today and SputnikNews were established to be propaganda vehicles for the Putin regime.  It has nothing to do with the articles.  It is entirely about the source.

 

It is an article about the unveiling of an aircraft developed in Russia by a Russian company, to be used by the Russian military. Development was paid for by the Russian regime and they will also pay for those production aircraft ordered by the Russian Air Force. The article reports on statements made by officials from the United Aircraft Corporation and the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces. If you watch the videos covering this events, you will see interviews with more Russian officials, and statements by the Russian president himself. And you are concerned that the media houses reporting on this event are sponsored by the Russian regime and may be spinning it in a pro-Russian way to live up to their propaganda agenda?

 

I guess if there was a good, unbiased, balanced, non-aligned, professionally written article on this event written by a neutral journalist who is also an expert on military equipment and published by a completely neutral news agency, that would have been my preferred source - but in the meantime, since I am interested in what is happening around the world especially in aerospace and defence, I guess I will have to expose my soul to possible propaganda and run the risk of inadvertently accidentally turning into a Russian spy in my quest to find out what is happening out there. I'll spend some time on BBC and CNN this morning to cleanse myself...

 

As I said, I watched the various videos. I happen to be fairly fluent in Russian and the Sputnik article is pretty accurate, except for a few minor issues pointed out already in this thread and that is typical of the way journalists spin these things regardless of who they report for (see my other post). Until an article appears in one of the magazines that I often read, such as the RAeS "Aerospace" magazine, Air Forces Monthly or Aerospace America (yes, I'm a RAeS and AIAA member) - I think I'll take the risk.

[ChernayaAkula]

14 hours ago, Berkut said:

And yet you havent been able to demonstrate where exactly the propaganda is in the MiG-35 article.

 

<...> It is one thing to not be a fan of RT/Sputnik, another to have an allergic reaction to every article from them, right or wrong.

 

Well, that kinda was MoFo's point. The article itself is irrelevant. It's the source that's problematic here.

He doesn't have to prove any propaganda. The burden's not on him. The source is a propaganda outlet. They basically run "decent" articles to make the other bullsh*t more palatable. They'd be useless if the simply ran bullsh*t only like some of these conspiracy theorist nut-job sites. They've got to appear legitimate. That's how you sow doubt.

So being allergic to them is the right way to go about it. And putting the burden on the reader is normalizing their behaviour. "Well, it's not ALL bullsh*t , is it?" Well, no, but forgive me for not wanting to sift through a pile of crap to find that one golden nugget. It's simply not worth it. The signal-to-noise ratio is too damn low.

 

To pick up 11bee's point: it's not exactly separating chaff from wheat here. That would go for a tabloid like The Sun. It's not about sloppy reporting, it's about - more or less concerted - misinformation. Meaning it's more like separating wheat from poison actually.

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by ChernayaAkula

[Berkut]

I dont necessarily disagree with what you said Moritz, but in this particular case the laser claim basically boiled down to "It must be propaganda!". Which it might be still i guess to a certain extent - just not from the article itself as it correctly reflected the statements.

 

With that being said, i never ever read anything from them outside of military news. (ie politics etc) And their articles on military matters tend to be relatively accurate.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Berkut

[ChernayaAkula]

Okay, I didn't connect the laser claim to the propaganda. I thought the propaganda thing was more a general comment with regards to RT/Sputnik.

 

As for accurate reporting on military matters, I suppose you're well-versed enough in Russian defence matters to easily differentiate between accurate reporting, sloppy reporting and outright lies, but I'm afraid for a lot of people these distinctions may not be as readily apparent and they might think of RT/Sputnik as realisable news sources.