Do you think our media is giving an accurate portrayal of the war in Ukraine?

[bluewater]

By media, I mean both "main stream" commercial sources and social media.

I am truly curious to hear my fellow DUers' opinions on this.

Thanks for any and all responses.

[brooklynite]

1. What do you feel is being inadequately covered?

[WarGamer]

4. Probably not referring to "adequate" but "accurate"

[brooklynite]

11. Same question.

[bluewater]

15. It's my OP, I get to ask the question. lol

I am interested in other people's opinions on this and do not want to bias responses or push a narrative, so pardon my silence.

[Torchlight]

18. I don't believe that was implied in any way.

Asking the standard question, e.g., "is X the best it can be?", does not carry the implicit value in and of itself that X is or is not the best it can be.

[WarGamer]

2. define accurate.

Social media is rubbish.

Anything of interest online must be checked 3x before believing it.

The MSM, cable shows... they're selling commercial air time.

You have to pick and choose your news. If something sounds absurd, it probably is.

[bluewater]

9. Accurate as in "faithfully or fairly representing the truth about someone or something"

Also, as being "correct and complete in reporting the details"

Those are pretty much the standard dictionary definitions that would relate to news reporting.

[dchill]

3. I feel like I get the best overall picture by reading DU.

Seriously, not joking.

[WarGamer]

6. If a big news story flashes in my radar...

First thing I do is check DU.

Tons of people here with their radar up almost 24/7.

After I read a quick headline about the 737-800 crash in China this morning... sure enough there was a link in LBN.

[dchill]

7. What I'm sayin'.

[brooklynite]

14. I would not jump to the conclusion that DU-curated stories are more "accurate".

I would assume their selection is skewed by a mindset that is close to my own, which is not necessarily a good thing.

[Takket]

5. well that all depends on who you watch

anyone can say anything on social media, but commercial media seems to be doing a good job of it, as long as you aren't watching the pro-putin right wing networks.

[Lovie777]

8. Corporate media - no......

[KentuckyWoman]

10. No.

I don't believe even our "serious" media gives an accurate portrayal of anything. They are ratings driven. If it bleeds it leads - unless it might upset a GOPer. Then we have to sugar coat it or ignore it altogether.

I realize the half hour national news has difficulty trying to jam complicated situations within the half hour but they don't even try. Of course neither do the "unbiased" (cough) 24 hr news outlets. They spend most of the day pushing an agenda instead of just getting us accurate information. To the point most people have just tuned out and decided Facebook and Twitter are "news" outlets.

[ZZenith]

12. No war could ever be accurately portrayed while it is occurring.

It’s not a fucking football game.

[Bobstandard]

16. Exactly right. n/t

[msongs]

13. media seem to be rooting for the underdog and downplaying russia chances nt

[ZZenith]

19. Who do you feel is the "underdog" in this scenario?

Who would you say was the aggressor?

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Our friend (still attempting to get train out of Kyiv) says it's worse than what's

being shown on TV.

[ZZenith]

20. TV cannot show you what it feels like to wonder if the next bomb is going to fall on your family.

[ZZenith]

21. I hope your friend gets out.

[Alsteen]

22. I don't know about you

But watching NHK news is to me like watching Walter Cronkite. Such a revelation.

[marybourg]

23. The stories in NYT and WaPo seem more negative than most of

what I read on DU. (I don’t use any news-supplying social media other than DU). So probably, yeah.

[Caliman73]

24. The simple answer is "No". A more complex answer can take paragraphs upon paragraphs.

As one poster said, you can't really accurately portray a war while it it happening.

Then you have the bias of the news organizations, the countries covering the conflict, the reporters, etc... are all covering what feels important to them, or what they are being told is important by their news room or by polling or ratings.

You have straight up propaganda, you have conscientious journalists who can only cover so much.

War is a very complicated thing to cover accurately.

[moondust]

25. Do the pictures lie?

[jalan48]

26. I'd feel better about the corporate media coverage if they weren't breaking so-often for

commercials. Feels more like war porn for a profit to me.

[uponit7771]

27. +1,

[Strelnikov_]

28. +2 n/t

[milestogo]

29. I think its worse than what we are seeing.

But I really don't want western journalists to risk their lives for this story. We know enough to know its really bad.

[Swede]

30. I am hoping the Ukrainians hold out til Russia collapses.

But the reporting is skewing anti-Russian. But fuck 'em.

[SoonerPride]

31. More or less yes.

Not graphic enough.
A little too much cheerleading.

But overall a pretty fair assessment of the actual dynamics on the ground and state of Russian advances and setbacks.

[IcyPeas]

32. I've been wondering why CNN sends Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon over there...

don't they already have war correspondents?

[sciencescience]

33. Yes, although very simplified and highlighting America's interests first

[David__77]

34. What's on the news is not dispassionate reporting and analysis.

It is highly editorialized. A government brief of the situation probably has a significantly different tone and probably content as well. This reminds me of the coverage of the Syrian civil war. There was such a sense of certainty that Assad was a goner.