Reliable media

If they wanted to crush Azov, they could have done so in a day. They want the war in Ukraine to fester on, sending enough arms and soldiers to keep their proxy from being defeated while refusing to give them the support that would allow them victory.
Who are you trying to pander here, since when do tankies give one cahoot about elections, much less the legitimacy of the ruling class they are designed to affirm?

Maoist Rebel News

It is literally the only reliable source for information out there!

Attached: 02cd86ad2ee2daa96fee4133585d06d40c9955fd4bb74009a55bc587ea56efa9.jpg (246x255, 17.03K)

leave jason

I'm not saying don't watch them, but RT and Sputnik are psywar mindfuck operations and will break your brain.

Attached: sophie.png (860x651, 436.82K)

I get quite a bit of my daily news from The Real News Network these days. They have quite a focus on Maryland at times though.

This is a fair assessment actually.

I tend to read The Hill for US political news. The Guardian is not objective but I keep up with it anyway because they tend to have the best coverage of Animal Rights and the Environment.

Yeah so generally I prefer to read what the Russian government is reading as opposed to what the Russian government is broadcasting like a laser to its market of disillusioned dudes in the West that post on the chans (i.e. everyone here).

I don't read Russian though which is a problem. But I like Steve Rosenberg's Twitter feed: twitter.com/BBCSteveR

He's a BBC guy who is overall objective and posts a short video every morning going through the big topics in the Russian papers: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Kommersant, Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda (the military paper) and so on. He's old fashioned and has print copies marked over with a pen.

Attached: russian_papers.png (1000x540, 1.01M)

Eh, they don't mind being lied to and are being lied to. They just care about different things.

I'd agree they're way saner on average than the opinionated socio-political papers like NYT, WaPo or Guardian that sell their readers a worldview instead of economic certainty. That's in part because economic dogmas are smaller in scope than political and ideological ones, and in part because worldview-agnosticism actually improves your perception of facts, whereas economic agnosticism still mostly leaves you with the same old unquestioned mainstream liberal bullshit.

That's a really good observation.

FUCKING FIRST WORLDIST

Attached: enough.jpg (1280x720, 73.09K)

It's only wrong when the Russians do it.

There is no such thing as an "objective news source". All news providers operate with some degree of bias based on their locations and the beliefs and conditions of the people who work there.

Honestly I mostly just rely on the daily news threads, but..

Porky's papers are the way to go, the ideology is more tolerable when they don't try to hide it. My favorite source to get right into U.S. imperialism's thoughts and agenda is Foreign Affairs, most articles are written by people directly serving or have served in the foreign policy establishment. The average net worth of a subscriber is literally $1.2 million dollars: foreignaffairs.com/influence.

For left wing commentary I follow WSWS, FAIR.org and Counterpunch, along with a bunch of leftist economics blogs: (Michael Roberts, Tony Norfield, and Redline). ISJ.org.uk and ISReview.org are also great for leftist thinkpieces on the major events of the month.

It's obvious that the only reason it exists is as propaganda for Russian imperialism, but I don't think it's inherently worse than what we see in the porky's western media. They have the funding to do first hand reporting that doesn't shy away from criticizing western allies like Saudi Arabia, although on the inverse, treat anything they say on Russian allies like Syria, etc. with a grain of salt.

that's brutally honest lol