At any given moment, there is a separate narrative on literally everything being broadcast on Russian state-run networks. Good examples of this are “Zelensky is a dictator” (he objectively is not), the Ukrainian government is filled with Nazis” (it is not), “Russia was forced into this conflict by the West” (it absolutely was not). When you hear people talk about “Russian Talking Points” they are generally referring to narratives that exist on Russian state media, and almost nowhere else.
So you’ll have one narrative coming from NYT, Reuters, BBC, AP, WSJ, CBC, etc. Then you’ll have another, opposite narrative which plays on RT, local Russian news stations, and maybe a few niche publications in countries like Hungary and India.
When the collective media of almost all liberal democracies are reporting the same thing, and Russian state media is reporting the opposite, I trust the former. If I hear someone parroting the Russian narrative, I just roll my eyes and write them off.
When I hear people talking about Ukraine starting the current conflict I realize that way of thinking comes from Russian propaganda and I also regard it as utter tripe
It’s possible some other Russian “talking points” have a kernel of truth
Things like: “Eastern Ukraine is historically culturally Russian . . .” in defense of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is using Russian Talking Points to promote Russian interests.
Someone saying the phrase “Russian Talking Points” could be calling that out or trying to discredit someone who is calling that out. It could go either way until you actually see how they’re using the phrase.
I usually find their arguments are in bad faith, and it just so “happens” to benefit other countries.
One thing I know about US foreign policies, especially as it pertains to military action. We are typically honest and good, while other countries operate in self serving and often evil ways.
There are plenty of disinformation actors all over the place online, including Reddit. It’s much more subtle and pernicious than just talking points. They manipulate the conversation to sow division and drive people in the wrong direction for our country.
I am rather sure that I encounter some of them around here more frequently than I’d like, although I almost never see it being as obvious as with this guy to whom I’m replying: https://www.reddit.com/r/neuro/s/CKMJFSSNtz
“Ukraine has lost a lot of people and should accept the land losses and accept a cease fire” has a kernel of truth. Ukraine HAS lost a lot of people.
“Ukraine has lost so many men that they risk the collapse of their country!” is BS. Ukraine has lost a tenth of a tenth of a percent of their population in this war. It sucks, but their economy is nowhere near collapse because of their war losses. The BS borrows the legitimacy of the small truth.
“Ukraine is full of Nazis, and they started the war with Russia” is utter and complete BS.
All three of those are Russian Talking Points. That doesn’t automatically make them untrue. Russia is well known for using the firehose of falsehood to destroy the very idea of actual objective truth.
>When leaders employ a firehose of falsehoods, citizens retreat into cynicism and the belief that the truth is fundamentally unknowable. If the truth is unknowable, reasoned debate is pointless because there are no agreed-upon facts. … When reasoned democratic discourse is not possible because there are no agreed upon facts, all that is left is the political exercise of raw power.
Tim Pool and Laura Southern among many others were caught taking their marching orders from a Russian front company called Tenet Media, who paid them to spread Russian talking points across American Media. It was used to deliberately spread misinformation to sow-up mistrust against the US government and institutions.
Anyone can say anything or describe things any way they like, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I’m aware enough to recognize information that is either coming from the Russian state or that sounds like it could be coming from the Russian state, and I do assume that information is likely false or at least highly misleading.
Interesting that you only see ‘misinformation’ in sources that are the opposite political views. The sources you list would include NATO and EU propaganda. The points in which they agree are talking points, part of propaganda. Not necessarily dishonest, but formulated to bias perspective and support their narrative. I would give the example that Israel allies will consistently refer to Palestinian prisoners, even active military, as ‘hostages’ whereas those that Israel ‘arrests’ without any evidence/legal protections and holds indefinitely in prisons notable for torture and rape ( from their captures ) are never referred to as hostages.
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
When you hear the phrase ‘Russian Talking Points’ do assume that the information being described is false?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I have never heard that phrase.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1jtsna0/can_you_steelman_the_the_russia_propaganda/
If I read that phrase, I wouldn’t assume anything. I would look at the argument and make my decision based on that.
That depends whether the information actually is a) Russian talking points and b) false.
Yes.
At any given moment, there is a separate narrative on literally everything being broadcast on Russian state-run networks. Good examples of this are “Zelensky is a dictator” (he objectively is not), the Ukrainian government is filled with Nazis” (it is not), “Russia was forced into this conflict by the West” (it absolutely was not). When you hear people talk about “Russian Talking Points” they are generally referring to narratives that exist on Russian state media, and almost nowhere else.
So you’ll have one narrative coming from NYT, Reuters, BBC, AP, WSJ, CBC, etc. Then you’ll have another, opposite narrative which plays on RT, local Russian news stations, and maybe a few niche publications in countries like Hungary and India.
When the collective media of almost all liberal democracies are reporting the same thing, and Russian state media is reporting the opposite, I trust the former. If I hear someone parroting the Russian narrative, I just roll my eyes and write them off.
Depends
When I hear people talking about Ukraine starting the current conflict I realize that way of thinking comes from Russian propaganda and I also regard it as utter tripe
It’s possible some other Russian “talking points” have a kernel of truth
Things like: “Eastern Ukraine is historically culturally Russian . . .” in defense of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is using Russian Talking Points to promote Russian interests.
Someone saying the phrase “Russian Talking Points” could be calling that out or trying to discredit someone who is calling that out. It could go either way until you actually see how they’re using the phrase.
If I call something Russian propaganda, I typically mean it’s severely misleading if not outright false and in service of Putin’s agenda.
I’ve seen the phrase used widely online in situations where I dont think it applies.
I usually find their arguments are in bad faith, and it just so “happens” to benefit other countries.
One thing I know about US foreign policies, especially as it pertains to military action. We are typically honest and good, while other countries operate in self serving and often evil ways.
You have to be careful beyond just this.
There are plenty of disinformation actors all over the place online, including Reddit. It’s much more subtle and pernicious than just talking points. They manipulate the conversation to sow division and drive people in the wrong direction for our country.
I am rather sure that I encounter some of them around here more frequently than I’d like, although I almost never see it being as obvious as with this guy to whom I’m replying: https://www.reddit.com/r/neuro/s/CKMJFSSNtz
Of course! Russia Russia Russia is behind everything wrong in the world and if you think otherwise you’re literally a hardcore kremlin propagandist.
The best BS has a kernel of truth.
“Ukraine has lost a lot of people and should accept the land losses and accept a cease fire” has a kernel of truth. Ukraine HAS lost a lot of people.
“Ukraine has lost so many men that they risk the collapse of their country!” is BS. Ukraine has lost a tenth of a tenth of a percent of their population in this war. It sucks, but their economy is nowhere near collapse because of their war losses. The BS borrows the legitimacy of the small truth.
“Ukraine is full of Nazis, and they started the war with Russia” is utter and complete BS.
All three of those are Russian Talking Points. That doesn’t automatically make them untrue. Russia is well known for using the firehose of falsehood to destroy the very idea of actual objective truth.
>When leaders employ a firehose of falsehoods, citizens retreat into cynicism and the belief that the truth is fundamentally unknowable. If the truth is unknowable, reasoned debate is pointless because there are no agreed-upon facts. … When reasoned democratic discourse is not possible because there are no agreed upon facts, all that is left is the political exercise of raw power.
Tim Pool and Laura Southern among many others were caught taking their marching orders from a Russian front company called Tenet Media, who paid them to spread Russian talking points across American Media. It was used to deliberately spread misinformation to sow-up mistrust against the US government and institutions.
Anyone can say anything or describe things any way they like, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I’m aware enough to recognize information that is either coming from the Russian state or that sounds like it could be coming from the Russian state, and I do assume that information is likely false or at least highly misleading.
>When you hear the phrase ‘Russian Talking Points’ do assume that the information being described is false?
Sounds like a thought terminating cliche.
Interesting that you only see ‘misinformation’ in sources that are the opposite political views. The sources you list would include NATO and EU propaganda. The points in which they agree are talking points, part of propaganda. Not necessarily dishonest, but formulated to bias perspective and support their narrative. I would give the example that Israel allies will consistently refer to Palestinian prisoners, even active military, as ‘hostages’ whereas those that Israel ‘arrests’ without any evidence/legal protections and holds indefinitely in prisons notable for torture and rape ( from their captures ) are never referred to as hostages.
Generally, yes
I don’t think of Trump as a reliable narrator, but there were active discussions about avoiding invasion that Zelinsky walked away from.