[maybelsyrup]

Assuming this is what they meant by "biased", it doesn't actually say anything.

> a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.

This is true of anyone, anywhere, ever.

> South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.

So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?

Also, your issue is that ... a South Korean newspaper exists, and publishes things?

> korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.

First, why should they? You've just given plenty of reason for each side to be biased. Second, the hidden expectation that people ought to act "unbiased", whatever that means, is trying (and failing) to do a lot of heavy lifting here. It says "I want more ____ before I believe the claim", but you don't say what that is, and I get the impression that nothing would be enough.

All you need to do here is look at the photo.

[viridian]

Should I trust the Russian press on the topic of Ukraine or NATO?

i.e.

"So Russia has reasons for being not too keen on Ukraine and NATO, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?"

In my view, no, I would not trust or give much positive weight to Russia's opinions on Ukraine and NATO.

[watwut]

The reason Russian press should not be treated is that it lies awful lot and that journalis who don't lie end up being closed or imprisoned.

Should you trust what Jews write about Nazi? Should you trust what Ukrainians say about Russians soldiers in Bucha or their analysis of Russia?

The rule was never that you can't trust anything a country writes about another country.

[numpad0]

I think the expression he opted not to use is that SK-Japan relationship is toxic. There is a misunderstanding that SK and Japan are in good terms as strategic partners with similarly developed societies, more like a divorced couple after couple 911 calls and court visits.

[least]

> So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?

Trust in the matter that they’ve grievances with? Not really. It’s already a chore trying to discern biases in media and cross check facts across multiple sources. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to spend time giving much credence to a source that you know is biased. It’s like getting all my news about Joe Biden from Fox News and the Daily Caller. Why waste my time?

[watwut]

> Trust in the matter that they’ve grievances with? Not really.

Does this automatox mistrust applies to all victims of aggression/imperialism/genocide like Yazidi, Jews, etc?

As in, this logic means that you are determined not to trust victims of something, purely because they are victims and talk about it.

[least]

Trust is earned; it should not be given freely. As I’ve already said, it’s already a gigantic burden to try to corroborate claims and distill biases from all media, so there’s little reason to spend time doing so from sources I already know are biased, especially if there are other sources available.

> Does this automatox mistrust applies to all victims of aggression/imperialism/genocide like Yazidi, Jews, etc?

It applies to any party that is making assertions about something where there’s a clear conflict of interest. It is not saying what is being said is false, just that it is not automatically true and requires more scrutiny because it’s from a biased source. I think Ukrainians are victims of a Russian invasion but that does not mean that I think that Ukrainian news sources are particularly reliable with regards to reports on the war. That isn’t asserting that they are lying either, just that those claims require more verification.

> As in, this logic means that you are determined not to trust victims of something, purely because they are victims and talk about it.

Determined to not trust implies that I’m actively going out of my way to think that anything coming out of a victim’s mouth is a lie or deceitful. I’m not saying that at all.

[pessimizer]

No, it's more like getting all of your news about Joe Biden from any US source, not just the ones that you don't like.