[cardcrimson]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

Brilliant post rogpodge. Unfiltered news, not narrative. Of course, the propagandists think otherwise. . . .

[cardcrimson]

The problem is nowhere on the page is there any disclaimer warning people they are reading propaganda that should not be taken as truth. Nor does it point out Putin is a war criminal. It doesn't say "just so you are aware, this is the nonsense Putin is peddling this week."

It's reported at face value with no caveats. Not acceptable, IMO.

Did Brian Stelter write this?  A speech by a world leader is news.  A news article should be able to report the facts, that is, the words the leader spoke, and attribute the words to "Russian President Vladimir Putin" because that is all accurate.  Injecting disclaimers, warnings, propaganda labels, a label that Putin is a war criminal, etc. does not help convey the facts.  It just converts an article into... propaganda... propaganda that you like.  It's stuff like this that has resulted in journalists and the news becoming one of the least trusted institutions in America.  Read your sign off phrase again.  "It's reported at face value with no caveats.  Not acceptable."  Are you kidding me?  Reporting things at face value is (used to be?) news.  The caveats, disclaimers, labeling, etc. is what made something an op-ed, not news.  But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. 

In my opinion, all the "context" you would require insults the intelligence of the reader.  I can form an opinion that this speech is not truthful, that Putin has ulterior motives, etc. on my own without being spoon-fed opinions or being told to start the two minutes of hate every time I see Putin made a speech.  I find it useful to read facts so I can develop some insight into Putin's thinking, or noticing a trend on how he's trying to manipulate world opinion without feeling like I'm reading counter-propaganda.  Here's the crazy thing... I can hold those same opinions of the speaker, and still appreciate objective reporting, without ascribing bad motives to the writer of an article (or the publication, or the parent company) for simply reporting the facts.

Brilliant post rogpodge. Unfiltered news, not narrative. Of course, the propagandists think otherwise. . . .