Hacker News Reader

Comment by x5n1 | Hacker News Reader

Pure propaganda/fluff piece to damage the company. The media has been going hard against Kaspersky in coordination with government agencies.

View on HN

Does Reuters often write "pure propaganda/fluff pieces"? Or is this piece special?

Reuters is pretty known for propaganda and deliberate disinformation of the public.

e.g. http://blogs.roosevelt.edu/hsilverman/files/2011/11/Reuters-...

The article is about how Reuters biases public perception in favor of Palestinians and it's written by Henry I. Silverman who may or may not have an agenda of his own. That's the thing, everyone has an agenda. Just because someone is calling someone out on something that does not mean that they themselves are not motivated by their own agenda.

Meh, it was an "example given". How much do you want? Another famous one would be MH17 and Fedotov. Also you should read the definition of agenda, you clearly misused it. ("the things that must be done"[1]). The word you were looking for was motive.

That Reuters isn't a reliable source of information isn't a matter of motive or "agenda", it is common sense within educated circles.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda

"Political agenda, the set of goals of an ideological group. In this context it is often used in a negative sense..."

"Pretty known" according to one study (which in itself appears to be the opinion of one person).

No, it just reports. The agencies and the governments make the agenda (unfortunately).

That said, Reuters IMHO is the top reporting authority worldwide along with AP.

> The agencies and the governments make the agenda (unfortunately).

Pretty hefty accusation on the integrity and journalistic ethics of the Associated Press. Do you have a reliable and credible source for this claim?

> journalistic ethics

no one takes this seriously.

I tried to find their reporting to the build up to iraq war - if they did it would be there. But I found nothing - seems like everything has been scrubbed from google :( On reuters / iraq in range 2003-2004 google finds nothing hosted on their domain.

Every day, nothing special about it:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE6A840J20101109

I don't see how an interview with Bush about his book has anything to do with propoganda.

"pure propaganda/fluff pieces"

if you don't see how this matches either description fair dues to you.

The Bush story is fluff, but the grandparent comment was talking about "fluff AND propaganda", which obviously doesn't apply to the Bush article. (I assume it didn't mean "fluff OR propaganda" because obviously that wouldn't apply to the Kaspersky article).

> Asked by Winfrey whether he regretted the decision to invade Iraq based on unfounded intelligence that leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, Bush admitted feeling "terrible" and "sickened" about being wrong the weapons, but blamed Hussein.

I consider this to be propaganda. First time I've seen reuters accidentally a word too. Down further in my estimation!

Reporting on his comments in a book interview with Oprah is hardly "propaganda"! Good on Oprah for bringing up the topic. Everyone knows he's responsible for the fiasco of the Iraq war and there were no WMDs. Oprah prodded him as much as was appropriate, then left it at that. Reuters was just repoting on the interview. I'm pretty certain if you bothered to look you'd probably find lots of Reuters stories where they probe Bush much deeper on this issue and give him a thrashing. (I haven't looked myself, but I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case).

Anyway, if you think that is propaganda you should perhaps visit Russia to see what real propaganda looks like.

No true scotsman eh? There's no doubt that both military industrial complexes engage in propaganda.

Plenty here for you to peruse, enough to satisfy the 'often' condition, while simultaneously not always being 'on message'.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/tag/george-w-bush/

The first and foremost "target" here is not only Kaspersky (i.e. Russian tech/security industry) but Russia itself.

Notice again the title ;)

so, the whole article is bunk because it is based on anonymous sources and did not get responses from all parties involved, but then because the headline has the word "Russia" in it, that's firm evidence of secret US government collusion with a major news outlet.

No, it's a bunk because it provides zero evidence but plenty of innuendos and unfounded allegations/accusations, and yes it's infinity more plausible a secret plan between the us gov and a us based media corporation than a reputable antivirus vendor like Kaspersky sabotaging its rivals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com