Talk:Media portrayal of the Russo-Ukrainian War

US Cluster Weapons a Clear Danger to Civilians
With the supply of Cluster Bombs to the Ukraine, the US has not only put the lives of civilians at risk, but has upset a number of key NATO governments. Given this, and the concerns of groups such as Human Rights Watch, should not this article avoid putting most of the blame for the deaths of civilians on the Russians?


 * I'm not sure where exactly this article puts the blame for the death of civilians on the Russians, but given that the majority of civilian casualties are as a result of Russian aggression, and indeed because Russia themselves use cluster bombs on civilian areas, then I don't see an issue with us stating that. — Czello (music) 18:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

With all the media coverage of the conflict, where are the reports that the Russians are using cluster weapons against civilians? Then again, with US cluster bombs that do not self-destruct, are not civilians likely to be harmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is apparently heavily biased against Russia
Sure Russia is the one who attacks and invades parts of Ukraine, and invaders are always in the wrong. I completely agree with that.

However, just look at this article. Half of the opening part is dedicated to "calling out Russia propaganda", while not saying anything about the "other side" (Ukraine and the West). Is Western press that innocent and unbiased?

All news by the so-called "reliable" Western papers have made it seem like Ukraine will easily win very soon, and Russia has achieved nothing but failure after failure in the battle. They also ignore the fact that the Azov battalion that the Ukraine has been relying on is openly a Neo-nazis group, who has committed many atrocities against the Russian soldiers they captured. They were also surprisingly quiet about Seymour Hersh's article which claimed the US attacked Nord Stream (if they were so "unbiased", they could have at least published articles criticizing that claim), but so eager to blame Russia for it, and showed less hesitation to discuss the possibility of Ukraine being the culprit.

Western media also makes it looks like Russia is completely irrational and attacks Ukraine out of nowhere, for absolutely no reasons other than "Putin being a maniac dictator". They completely ignore all of the reasons behind it, such as the fact that EU and NATO keep expanding East-ward and bring their weapon closer and closer to Russian border. Remember how the US threw a massive tantrum when they learnt Russia was sending weapons to Cuba.

All criticisms towards the West is the "racist coverage", which is not directly related to the war itself. It subtly implies that the West doesn't have any propaganda at all towards Russia, that everything they talk about the war itself is so objective anf impartial, that only Russia plays the propaganda game 14.182.172.55 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * So…I agree that the layout is an issue. The lead should definitely be expanded, as well as the body.
 * Expansion is needed because in general, reliably cited content can’t just be removed. It can, however, be summarized.
 * One issue is the relative lack of easily accessible, reliable English-language sources covering instances and/or patterns of pro-Ukrainian media biases.
 * I think plenty of such sources exist in countries outside the central Anglosphere, but I’m hesitant to stir up the intense controversy that would probably result, as I try to limit my involvement in the frequent scuffles at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and elsewhere.
 * The issue here is a serious one, but I’m skeptical that an objective view is possible without the hindsight of history.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article should describe media portrayal focusing on their bias and how they implicitly or explicitly convey government propaganda. This is done for Russian media but not for Western ones. Instead, the article is just one more biased piece. --Hispalois (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The comment above is a good example of actual Russian propaganda in action: it's a loaded question, with the accusations of bias being based on an assumption that 1) "Ukraine relies on neo-Nazis", 2) "EU and NATO kept expanding", and expects us to respond that in good will. Both arguments are false in the first place: neither NATO nor EU "expand" - countries apply to be accepted, and they are accepted or not. To join an economic or military alliance of its choice is the fundamental right of any sovereign country, including Ukraine - right that Russia is denying not only to Ukraine, but also other Eastern European countries, based on self-assumed status of "super empire", against any international agreements Russia signed. Cloud200 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023
wining = winning 2603:8000:D300:D0F:3461:88EA:8A46:E80A (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As far as I can see only instance of this misspelling is in the title of a citation, but it's verbatim. We don't correct spelling errors in the names of citations when they're made by the source itself. — Czello (music) 08:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2024
Please remove the errant first  tag in the following reference:

Thanks 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)