"Parents of some of them were killed by occupation authorities, others were simply issued Russian identification documents to legitimize their abduction," said Mykola Kuleba, head of the Save Ukraine organization.
This kind of snarky dismissal is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. It’s rejecting an argument or claim solely because of its source, rather than engaging with the content, the evidence, or the reasoning behind it.
Yes, The Kyiv Independent is Ukrainian, and yes, it likely carries national bias. Just like literally every national outlet does during wartime. That doesn’t automatically invalidate every fact it reports, especially when those facts are supported by third-party evidence and international bodies.
In this article, for example, the claim about the child adoption “catalog” is backed by:
Screenshots from Russian occupation websites, figures from Save Ukraine ( a long-standing NGO) and references to internationally verified abductions; numbers confirmed by Ukraine’s ombudsman, the ICC’s arrest warrants, and other human rights organizations)
So even if you don’t like the outlet, you’re still responsible for engaging with the facts, not just rolling your eyes and calling it propaganda.
Dismissing credible, corroborated claims with a one-liner is lazy and cowardly. If you’re going to talk about war crimes and mass abductions, do better than a meme-level deflection and actually engage the facts. This isn’t some Internet drama without consequences; it’s the systematic erasure of children.
"its contributing editor, Liliane Bivings, used to work and write for the NATO think tank The Atlantic Council, specifically covering Ukraine. Producer Elina-Alem Kent worked for the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv in 2017; not exactly the background one would associate with grassroots, independent media. Chief financial officer Jakub Parusinski was previously employed by the International Center for Policy Studies, a Ukraine-focused think tank sponsored by numerous Western governments. In 2020, culture reporter Artur Korniienko was awarded a fellowship to work for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an organization that The New York Times once described as a “worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA.” Meanwhile, contributor to The Kyiv Independent Lucy Minicozzi-Wheeland previously worked for the Council on Foreign Relations, was given a scholarship by the State Department to study Ukraine, and also worked at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, an organization directly funded by the U.S. government.
The unquestioned star of The Kyiv Independent, however, is defense reporter Illia Ponomarenko, who, in a short time, has built up a following of over 1.1 million people on Twitter. From the front lines, his tweets and videos go viral daily and provide the basis for much of the Western media’s reporting on the conflict. Yet Ponomarenko is far from a neutral actor, and spends an inordinate amount of his time embedded with the Azov Battalion, the Neo-Nazi group whom he describes as his “good friend[s]” and his “brothers in arms.”
There is no such thing as “neutral” in a war, but facts are facts, and lies are lies. If the position people take means people say lies, you disprove the lies.
From all this word-soup I see that you have effectively not a good example of false reporting from the Kyiv Independent, and you cast a wide net to the whole “western media”.
What is an example of neutral media in your opinion that you consider factual and trustworthy?
What a sad, almost patethic, way to drop the towel and abandon the conversation.
I can’t say I am entirely surprised, when someone calls a newspaper a rag, accuses it of false reporting on two topics and then backpedals on “no, not that specifically, the whole western media is not neutral” (great discovery, newspapers are not neutral).
Ah, so now we’re on to classic whataboutism fallacy. Pointing out that Russian media gets dismissed (often for good reason) doesn’t make it logically valid to dismiss any report just because of its origin.
If you think The Kyiv Independent is questionable, that’s fine! Interrogate the claims. Ask:
What are the sources?
Are they independent?
Can they be verified elsewhere?
The same rules apply to Russian media and every other claim.
But using other fallacies doesn’t justify your response. Saying “Well, people dismiss Russian media too” isn’t a defense. It’s just avoiding the argument again.
This kind of snarky dismissal is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. It’s rejecting an argument or claim solely because of its source, rather than engaging with the content, the evidence, or the reasoning behind it.
Yes, The Kyiv Independent is Ukrainian, and yes, it likely carries national bias. Just like literally every national outlet does during wartime. That doesn’t automatically invalidate every fact it reports, especially when those facts are supported by third-party evidence and international bodies.
In this article, for example, the claim about the child adoption “catalog” is backed by:
Screenshots from Russian occupation websites, figures from Save Ukraine ( a long-standing NGO) and references to internationally verified abductions; numbers confirmed by Ukraine’s ombudsman, the ICC’s arrest warrants, and other human rights organizations)
So even if you don’t like the outlet, you’re still responsible for engaging with the facts, not just rolling your eyes and calling it propaganda.
Dismissing credible, corroborated claims with a one-liner is lazy and cowardly. If you’re going to talk about war crimes and mass abductions, do better than a meme-level deflection and actually engage the facts. This isn’t some Internet drama without consequences; it’s the systematic erasure of children.
Definitely impartial:
"its contributing editor, Liliane Bivings, used to work and write for the NATO think tank The Atlantic Council, specifically covering Ukraine. Producer Elina-Alem Kent worked for the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv in 2017; not exactly the background one would associate with grassroots, independent media. Chief financial officer Jakub Parusinski was previously employed by the International Center for Policy Studies, a Ukraine-focused think tank sponsored by numerous Western governments. In 2020, culture reporter Artur Korniienko was awarded a fellowship to work for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an organization that The New York Times once described as a “worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA.” Meanwhile, contributor to The Kyiv Independent Lucy Minicozzi-Wheeland previously worked for the Council on Foreign Relations, was given a scholarship by the State Department to study Ukraine, and also worked at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, an organization directly funded by the U.S. government.
The unquestioned star of The Kyiv Independent, however, is defense reporter Illia Ponomarenko, who, in a short time, has built up a following of over 1.1 million people on Twitter. From the front lines, his tweets and videos go viral daily and provide the basis for much of the Western media’s reporting on the conflict. Yet Ponomarenko is far from a neutral actor, and spends an inordinate amount of his time embedded with the Azov Battalion, the Neo-Nazi group whom he describes as his “good friend[s]” and his “brothers in arms.”
Dismissing Russian media reports occurs way more commonly but no one says anything then.
Russian media rarely if ever cites their sources, and when they do they are dubious at best
and mostly because putin control what russian media puts out as well.
These ones certainly aren’t.
From the people who gave us the Ghost of Kiev and the Snake Island fantasy
Did they report on those at all?
I searched their websites and I got 0 hits on the Ghost of Kyiv, and 1 hit on Snake Island (this).
Removed by mod
There is no such thing as “neutral” in a war, but facts are facts, and lies are lies. If the position people take means people say lies, you disprove the lies.
From all this word-soup I see that you have effectively not a good example of false reporting from the Kyiv Independent, and you cast a wide net to the whole “western media”.
What is an example of neutral media in your opinion that you consider factual and trustworthy?
I guess nothing since they ran away
thanks chat GPT
not intersted inyour wordsoup, bye
What a sad, almost patethic, way to drop the towel and abandon the conversation.
I can’t say I am entirely surprised, when someone calls a newspaper a rag, accuses it of false reporting on two topics and then backpedals on “no, not that specifically, the whole western media is not neutral” (great discovery, newspapers are not neutral).
Have a good one!
“Removed by mod”
No reason given since it’s pure censorship of facts they don’t like.
pathetic cowards.
Worse than Reddit.
Perhaps something to do with you being Russian troll?
Ah, so now we’re on to classic whataboutism fallacy. Pointing out that Russian media gets dismissed (often for good reason) doesn’t make it logically valid to dismiss any report just because of its origin.
If you think The Kyiv Independent is questionable, that’s fine! Interrogate the claims. Ask:
What are the sources?
Are they independent?
Can they be verified elsewhere?
The same rules apply to Russian media and every other claim.
But using other fallacies doesn’t justify your response. Saying “Well, people dismiss Russian media too” isn’t a defense. It’s just avoiding the argument again.
What-aboutism. I love how generic and useless you’re being.
Russian sources arnt legitimate, and are filled with propaganda, so its generally ignored. it would be deleted on reddit as it would here as well.
Your point is?