[akjj]

Why is this ironic? I'm struggling to find a reasonable interpretation for this claim other than "The NY Times has been wrong about issues of spying and propaganda before, therefore it's not worth my time to consider the claims in this article, and I dismiss it completely." Which is a reasonable thing to believe. A little harsh in my opinion, but reasonable can disagree. However, it's definitely not ironic.

Even if you believe that the NY Times is nothing more than an appendage of the US security establishment, then it's completely straightforward that the establishment would be trying to counteract the propaganda. It's certainly not ironic for the CIA to try to identify and stop foreign spies even as it itself uses spies, or that the military builds armor even as it also uses guns, is it?

If you believe that the NY Times has an institutional position that propaganda is always and forever a legitimate tool of the government, then there's no contradiction if they also call out propaganda for the purpose of neutralizing it.

If you believe that the NY Times is more or less a legitimate news organization that maybe has made mistakes in the past, then I think the article is newsworthy and relevant.

I keep seeing discussion of Russian involvement in other countries' politics dismissed as ironic, which seems to just be a rhetorical trick to make it sound like there's a more sophisticated argument than just "I don't believe that source".

[dleslie]

I did not dismiss the notion that Russia produces propaganda; Russia produces propaganda.

Generally, I expect that those alleging wrong doing are not engaging in the same; and so it appears ironic when an exposed agent of state propaganda alleges that a state is engaging in propaganda. It's a, "well yes, and you would know" sort of humour.

Let those without sin cast the first stones, and all that.

[akjj]

The root of the disagreement seems to be that you read the article as condemnation and I read it as a news story. In any case, I stand by my reading that this a piece of news and any heavy moralizing is a gloss you've imposed.

> so it appears ironic when an exposed agent of state propaganda alleges that a state is engaging in propaganda. It's a, "well yes, and you would know" sort of humour.

I'd say it's more of a "rain on your wedding day" sort of irony.

If the article were planted by the CIA, that would be ironic. If the article were planted by the FSB, that would be even more ironic. But "NY Times reports on foreign propaganda" is not ironic.

[berntb]

1. I am sorry, but you will have to settle for very light gray and very dark gray. Not black and white.

2. It is not just the media of US and Sweden -- most of the democratic world say the same thing. For most subjects, the democratic countries disagree.

[dleslie]

I am attempting to argue for shades of grey; the American and Russian media narratives evoke a polarized situation.

In that manner of thinking, I think it's fair to question the messenger who brings accusations of wrongdoing during a politically sensitive time. That is to say, this reporting came at a serendipitously good time for certain politicians.

That everyone does it doesn't mean that everyone does it to the same extent, or with the same impact, or that doing it is at all justifiable.

[berntb]

>> the American and Russian media narratives evoke a polarized situation.

As it said in what you comment on: Not only "American" -- most every Western democracy.

I think you are very much aware of that you didn't touch my second point above.

[dleslie]

How does that effect the legitimacy of the media engaging in cooperation with state actors for messaging, regardless of which state it is?

It seems to me it doesn't matter who agrees with the Americans regarding the Russians; hell, I agree with the Americans regarding Russian propaganda.

[berntb]

This was not relevant to my point. 4 comments (in 2 places) without touching my point... :-( You are not serious, bye.

You argue also in the other comments that there are small differences between USA and Russia -- my repeated point is that the whole Western democratic world don't agree with your assessments here.

(In Sweden, a good part of the ex communists do agree with you -- at most 5-10% of the population-- but those guys have never supported a democracy in military conflict with a non democracy...)