228
https://t.me/c/1899284653/24171
There are new reports that he's in the hospital. I will undelete this post if his death is confirmed.
Z-war correspondent Poddubny is alive, Kursk regional hospital reported
His hospitalization in the Kursk Regional Hospital was confirmed to the Defense Ministry's Zvezda TV channel. Soon this information was confirmed by Poddubny's employer, the VGTRK television and radio company. The Z-war correspondent was wounded as a result of a UAV attack.
The video allegedly shows Poddubny being hospitalized.
So you think all war correspondents besides those in Russia are magically not part of the propaganda machine? Should American journalists be killed on the front lines as well if their content fail your litmus test for “propaganda”?
The rules governing how we treat the press and medics etc. exist for a reason. You cannot make exceptions or the rules don’t exist at all.
Should they be killed? No. Am I losing sleep over it? Also no.
That’s not how it works. You are saying it is morally permissible. This is one of those situations where it has to be a binary decision. It can’t be based on who they represent or the integrity of the publication.
Murder is wrong, always.
Murdering the people who are murdering you, a grey area that ought not exist.
That’s where the logic where we can be happy a foreign “journalist spreading propaganda” is killed exists, cognitive dissonance is a universal human trait.
Ooooh, binary. I love binary. It's so black and white. Really easy to define, too.
If someone on the ground is falsy reporting the war, then they have lost their journalistic integrity. They are no longer protected. Claiming to be a journalist and falsely reporting the war is like the kid who plays tag and claims that everything they touch is "safe" so they can't be tagged. I'm sorry, but that isn't what war journalism is. War journalism is reporting the horrific truths of what is happening. If you are going out there and telling lies, then you aren't a journalist, you are just that shitty kid that no one wants to play with because you make up your own rules.
Some decisions in life are yes/no questions. Surely I don’t need to explain this.
Is “losing your journalistic integrity” a crime so heinous one should be killed?
Goddamn. How someone with such low reading comprehension can be arguing about journalism is beyond me. Holy shit.
SHOULD. SHOULD. SHOULD.
I never said they should be killed. Fucking Christ. What I am saying is that they should not have the protections you think they should.
If I go out and start twerking on the front line for tiktok and claim I'm a journalist, should I be protected? Should the enemy adjust fire so as not to hit me? Cause if that's the case, I have a great post for c/noncredibledefense. Fucking hell. A propagandist is not a journalist. They do not get the same protections. Yes, if they are shot and killed while spreading lies, they brought it on themselves. They could have stayed in their studio and done the same. I do not mourn the liars on the front lines.
I can read, I’m sorry you need 50 words to say things that should only take 5 and are so egotistical you can’t fathom that someone disagrees with you, they can only have low reading comprehension.
If you think they “should not have the protections [I] think they should,” which is “they can’t be killed on purpose,” then that means you think members of the press should or can be killed on battlefields legitimately. Get bogged down in your pedantic nonsense I don’t give two flying fucks. We both know what I am saying and either you’re pretending you don’t understand or you’re too fucking dense to understand and should just trust the adults in the room.
Is that clear enough? Did I write enough letters and words to get it through your stubborn skull?
That isn't up for discussion. I concede. You can read. You just can't read well.
Nope, the fact that you keep putting words in my mouth and assuming they are what I really mean are why I think you have low reading comprehension. It could just be malicious trolling, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Again, with the reading comprehension (malicious trolling). PROPAGANDISTS are not members of the press, bucko. That's the binary of it all, if that's what you want. Are you publishing the facts of the conflict? Yes: Journalist. No: Propagandist. Boom. Binary. Happy now?
Says the guy who wants things in binary groupings. Welcome to binary, where column A and column B are all you get, and they are defined by pedants.
Hey, we agree on something! You are right, I do know exactly what you are saying. You are saying anyone with access to a laser jet and a PNG of a press pass gets godmode on the battlefield, isn't that true? Doesn't matter what you say, as long as you claim to be a journalist, you get carte blanche?
Tell me, who gets to say what a journalist is or isn't? Who sets the definition? If it's me, then we already know my answer: Propagandists aren't journalists. If it's you, though, you seem to give a much broader definition of what journalism is. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'd hate to put words in your mouth) but you believe that journalists are anyone.
That's it.
Did you expect more to that definition? Because you haven't given any more. You seem to believe that anyone can be a journalist, report whatever they decide is worth reporting regardless of fact, and they are protected.
Am I getting it right here? Again, I'd hate to put words in your mouth.
That isn't journalism. That is the death of journalism. That is why we have clickbait headlines and PPW articles. Please, just... fucking stop. You have proven time and time again that you are willing to argue from a poor position and do nothing to actually back up your statements with any worth. You are bad at what you are trying to do, whatever that may be, and everything you say is just going to be shoved back in your face because I get off on it. I love telling you how wrong you are. I wring the cum out of my cock with a fervor that few have ever known every time I tell you how completely empty your argument is. So, there you go. You can help me cum again by continuing your terrible arguments, or you can find something else to do, and I'll just go back to pictures of dead propagandists. Either way, I've got a long night ahead of me, it's just up to you how big a role you want to play in it, chief.
I’m not reading this essay. I’ll just do us both a favor and block you.
Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you. I won’t be reading it either way.
Why do people leave responses saying they didn't read something and/or are blocking someone. What's the point?
Because I was angry/frustrated with them.
Hold on, I'm cumming.
It has to be binary, no nuance? So you're against killing the press obviously, so let me ask you this: if he was providing information and physically helping the was effort by moving resources and planning, is it ok then? Does being in the press give you a pass to do anything and not be caught up in the war, or is there nuance and it isn't binary?
That’s acting as an actual part of the military and is beyond the scope of the press. Just like if a medic picks up a gun and starts shooting it’s fair to shoot back. It’s not blanket immunity, there are rules.
A member of the press acting in their capacity as a member of the press should never be targeted and we shouldn’t celebrate their deaths.
So what about taking pictures of troop movements for the press? That could aid the military. You can act as the press and get crucial information, even go behind enemy lines and get that info. Where do you draw the line? Could someone under label of press gather tons of intel then broadcast it as "news"?
I would like you to find a media outlet out in the field gathering enemy troop movement for military purposes, I’ll wait. Truly.
This is quite the theoretical. And yeah if they were caught doing that, they would likely be treated as enemy combatants and rightfully so.
https://www.lehigh.edu/~jl0d/J246-97/246war1.html
It's been done throughout history, mistakenly and on purpose.
Read. The. Thread.
This has been addressed several times.
Is it not obvious to you that not all governments are equal? Ukraine was invaded for no reason except for Putin's longing for the Soviet Union or the idea of an empire that can compete with the West.
The propagandists cheer for every bombing of Ukraine and say "we must do more". Tatarsky, who was killed in Saint Petersburg, even had fought in the Donbas, and there's a more recent video of him saying "let's kill and rob".
There are laws in many countries that can get you locked up for advocating for killing people or making serious threats. In war, arresting may not always be an option.
I’m sorry, I would like you to point out where I said anything like “Ukraine isn’t a legitimate/equal government” or “Ukraine was invaded for good reason” or any of the shit you just accused me of saying. This is irrelevant strawman bullshit.