[rogpodge]

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.

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

No. This whole idea of "platforming" and curating sources you don't like is what authoritarians and totalitarians do. It's propagandistic, no matter what side you're on. I also don't believe that this labeling or context has your desired effect in all cases. 

Let's look at your example of the German chancellor. While he may personally want to neutralize the Russian threat by any means necessary, do you honestly think that if Barron's labeled their report on what Putin said, he would be suddenly emboldened to risk nuclear war? Or he may be doing what generations of risk adverse politicians who don't want to live with the consequences of a nuclear strike in Europe? Plus his country until recently, was dependent on Russia for energy and is still going to be located very close to Russia.

Let's look at a current example. Whatever your view of the Palestinian conflict, in this situation, Hamas launched an unprovoked strike targeting civilians (mostly kidnapping elderly people and children). But first, let's label Israel and Netanyahu, before relaying what Israel is doing about it. 

Just because a news agency is called Pravda doesn't mean it is telling the truth.  The whole fact-checking industry on both sides has discredited itself.  So no. I don't believe that only certain people should be "platformed."  I believe that relaying facts, including what terrible people say, is proper.  I'm open to looking at counter-evidence if presented with sources so I can weigh the evidence myself. But I don't like pre-labeling everything and presenting opinions as "context."

[rogpodge]

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.

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

No. This whole idea of "platforming" and curating sources you don't like is what authoritarians and totalitarians do. It's propagandistic, no matter what side you're on. I also don't believe that this labeling or context has your desired effect in all cases. 

Let's look at your example of the German chancellor. While he may personally want to neutralize the Russian threat by any means necessary, do you honestly think that if Barron's labeled their report on what Putin said, he would be suddenly emboldened to risk nuclear war? Or he may be doing what generations of risk adverse politicians who don't want to live with the consequences of a nuclear strike in Europe? Plus his country until recently, was dependent on Russia for energy and is still going to be located very close to Russia.

Let's look at a current example. Whatever your view of the Palestinian conflict, in this situation, Hamas launched an unprovoked strike targeting civilians (mostly kidnapping elderly people and children). But first, let's label Israel and Netanyahu, before relaying what Israel is doing about it. 

Just because a news agency is called Pravda doesn't mean it is telling the truth.  The whole fact-checking industry on both sides has discredited itself.  So no. I don't believe that only certain people should be "platformed."  I believe that relaying facts, including what terrible people say, is proper.  I'm open to looking at counter-evidence if presented with sources so I can weigh the evidence myself. But I don't like pre-labeling everything and presenting opinions as "context."