- cross-posted to:
- news
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- news
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
https://archive.ph/zoQ0F
You must log in or register to comment.
incredible admission here
Mr. Putin is already planning for victory. His latest so-called peace proposal — in which Russia keeps occupied territory and Ukraine is banned from joining NATO — was dismissed as propaganda by many Western leaders. But it is, in fact, the most realistic scenario for how this war will pan out.
I can't help but read this as an attempt to whip up support for more direct intervention in Ukraine. They claim Russia is on the cusp of victory because the West lacks "the will" to defeat its rival. That sounds like they want their readers in the West to start pressuring governments to send more support, maybe even direct intervention, as an expression of that "will to win."
I do see how the narrative in the headline could be a call to action, but the article doesn’t propose a solution behind which the audience can rally. At most, the article describes how Americans can interpret the inevitable defeat. Of course, this text doesn’t exist in isolation; other texts would have to do the heavy lifting so that Americans rally behind a war effort.
That was my read as well, and the conclusion is basically an admissions of defeat
Time will tell just how severe the security and economic consequences will be, but one thing is already clear. A small war far away from America’s borders has reshaped our world — and made America’s place in it smaller.
I think that when critically thinking about an article, it’s worth considering if an article is an opinion piece.
In this case the article is an opinion guest essay, the stated goal for which is to “offer readers a robust range of ideas on newsworthy events or issues of broad public concern from people outside The New York Times.”
I think it is a mistake to assume this article reflects the position of the New York Times because they chose to run it.
I think it is a mistake to assume this article reflects the position of the New York Times because they chose to run it.
It may not reflect the position of the NYT, but does reflect their views in some regard. You don't think they'd publish a guest essay portraying Stalin in any light other then a negative one?
What I'm saying is that while this is an opinion piece, it had to pass an editorial board. Since this piece obv got publish, it means that it reflects the views of the board in some regard
No, I understood that.
I'm just saying that I didn't even realize that those absolutely trash opinion articles are getting approved despite how fucking garbage they are. I never really thought about it before. I just thought people just kinda wrote whatever within some guidelines.
You may as well be right. Thinking about how it's a privately run business, It's definitely within the realm of possibility and how it's done in practice. It requires less time/ressources to have your journalists follow guidelines and punish them if they are not within guidlines. Reading the damn thing and haveing a lengthy approval process costs money after all..
