[OutsiderFan]

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.

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

I argue journalism is not trusted because just reporting what people in power say, not fact-checking them, or providing context about what they say with a goal to promote truth, leads to people being misinformed and believing things that are objectively not true. And it has real world impact on how society makes decisions.

The entire Russian country is ruled by lies that propagate in media with absolutely zero pushback. It's simply not credible to say taking extra steps to promote truth isn't needed, because history demonstrates what happens when lies go unchecked and liars are normalized. People die. Wars are fought. Our environment is ruined, and it ends up costing us treasure.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source before believing what is reportedly said.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

In your perfect world, I would agree 100%. The problem is we don't live in a perfect world. Many people are not able to think critically, are unable to see through bullshit, and are easily influenced. Platforming proven liars without demonstrating why they might not be trustworthy normalizes and legitimizes them and what they say. I guarantee you there are Russian propaganda pushers using that Barron's article to legitimize Putin's absurd position, winning people over, and creating political power that enables Putin. I mean the German Chancellor is on record just this week saying he has reticence about giving missiles to Ukraine that can hit Russia for fear of war escalation. That fear is just him afraid of losing political support. If he had his druthers, he'd arm Ukraine to the teeth to defeat Russia. But Russia does a great job using propaganda for political influence in all countries - including Germany - that Barron's is dutifully helping to spread.

I argue journalism is not trusted because just reporting what people in power say, not fact-checking them, or providing context about what they say with a goal to promote truth, leads to people being misinformed and believing things that are objectively not true. And it has real world impact on how society makes decisions.

The entire Russian country is ruled by lies that propagate in media with absolutely zero pushback. It's simply not credible to say taking extra steps to promote truth isn't needed, because history demonstrates what happens when lies go unchecked and liars are normalized. People die. Wars are fought. Our environment is ruined, and it ends up costing us treasure.

Would you take issue with Barrons pointing out something like "Vladimir Putin is the undemocratically elected leader of Russia who has consolidated his power by eliminating the free press and fair elections." ? It doesn't require fact-checking his points (though that would be preferred), just a reminder that the guy is not credible, to remind readers they should consider the source before believing what is reportedly said.