This isn't a peace deal, this is a Russian victory. (Paraphrased)
tuff_wizard - 3w
I don’t want to sound like a crusty old man but why on gods green earth are you posting a link to a Spotify podcast episode on a news forum? Are there truly no better sources?
13
ikt - 3w
bruh this forum gets 1 post every 2 weeks, if you're unhappy with the source either ignore it or downvote and move on
You can have specific requirements on what type of type of post you want when you've actually got posts
5
njm1314 @lemmy.world - 3w
At the very absolute least, bottom of the barrel, the name of the podcast should be in the title at that.
1
Gorgritch_Umie_Killa - 3w
Fair play.
1
Gorgritch_Umie_Killa - 3w
I've had 2 responses since reading this:
This is a ridiculous gripe to have. Its a news forum, as far as i know theres no specification as to what form that news takes. Also I have a life, its way easier for me to listen to stuff than read everything, it takes full attention to stop and read before posting, while i can get to choring while I listen to something.
Also, why don't you help me out instead of the lazy critique, go and find an article that says the same or similar to the post and make the post even more valuable as a 'bin' of information. Or find the article and post it separately on the community, then post a link in this post's thread making both posts far more useful for everyone.
I have actually been toying with the idea of a specific Podcast review/discussion community. As a high consumption podcast listener, i could probably put a reasonably varied base of podcasts down with not too much extra effort per week. I's still thinking about rules, because i think theres a lot that could go wrong with an odea like this, like tbh fuck the manosphere podcasts, and conservative/right wing influencers can go choke. So i'd want to exclude certain types of podcasts like that. I don't know, something i'm casually thinking about, be interested in other people's views on it.
Edit: fixed formatting
0
tuff_wizard - 3w
It’s perfectly reasonable gripe. Where are the sources? Who the fuck is pod save America? Why should I trust them?
At least with an article it’s easy to confirm their claims by skimming a few articles on the same topic from different sources.
If you’ve just dumped 90 mins into listening to someone’s version of events, are you really going to spend 90 minutes more listening to another podcast to see if they telling the truth? Even if they are being honest, they’ll have their own bias’. Just as bad as religiously listening to any other media source.
But we do share some common ground; a special community where you can post podcast links with impunity sounds like a good idea.
4
Gorgritch_Umie_Killa - 3w
If you're so great at this lead by example. POST MORE!! Show me how its done, my upvote button is ready. In fact theres a great community that you should love, seeing as you like reading and only reading so much, c/rtfa, great little community project thats all but abandoned. Probably because people like me don't have the time to always be reading everything, alla i posted a podcast today.
If you want the rule changed disallowing podcasts on this community talk to the mods, until then suck it up. Besides that, its a legitimate form of information dissemination, no matter what you think of the medium.
There are more news organisations out there than Guardian and ABC, you don't need to implicitly trust an outlet, remain skeptical but open. If you think a piece, (be it article, podcast, video, or even an opera) hasn't got correct information, make a comment calling attention to that content. But you can't do that because you haven't listened to it, and you're just randomly hating on the medium in general, which is an absurdity.
The sources are, US gov, Russian gov, Ukrainian gov, and translator the podcasters used, i'm sure theres more. They're reacting to a plan that should be quite easy for you to find. Google it mate.
I would block you, but i want to see if you actually start posting more. Shit be a partner mod with me on the podcast community idea, seems like there'd fireworks in the comment sections!
1
Alexstarfire @lemmy.world - 3w
I've never had the full details of any of his supposed plans but AFAIK, they've basically all been Russian victories. What is different about this one? Is he still wanting to give Russia Donbas?
7
Gorgritch_Umie_Killa - 3w
Basically yep, plus limit size Ukraine can build its military to; no chance of NATO membership; side order of value extraction for US of the Ukrainian State.
Its a Russian wet dream licked up and presented as a peace plan as usual with this US administration. Basically demanding Ukraine give itself over to a precarious future with constant fear of renewed attack.
3
IphtashuFitz @lemmy.world - 3w
Rant: I really hate the overuse of “breaking” in titles like this. Its use here (and on podcasts in general) is a clear indication that the writer/blogger has no idea what it means and why one should use it.
“Breaking” news is time sensitive news where significant details are likely to change in the near term. Ongoing attempts to rescue trapped miners is breaking news. An opinion piece about a proposed peace deal (where one of the participants isn’t even included) is not.
Think back to the pre-internet days when US news came largely from one of 3 major TV networks. They would break into regular programming to report on things like the shooting of a president, the death of the Pope, etc. If the news didn’t rise to that sort of incident then they’d gladly wait until their regularly evening news.
6
ikt - 3w
breaking is absolutely dead as a term, just like strongly worded letters are now recognised as meaningless
Gorgritch_umie_killa in worldnews
BREAKING: Trump's New Ukraine Peace Plan is a DISASTER - Breaking News from Pod Save America
https://open.spotify.com/episode/05kLvkLnd5NbUaEADtv0n7?pi=lIqcUi7TRxu3BI don’t want to sound like a crusty old man but why on gods green earth are you posting a link to a Spotify podcast episode on a news forum? Are there truly no better sources?
bruh this forum gets 1 post every 2 weeks, if you're unhappy with the source either ignore it or downvote and move on
You can have specific requirements on what type of type of post you want when you've actually got posts
At the very absolute least, bottom of the barrel, the name of the podcast should be in the title at that.
Fair play.
I've had 2 responses since reading this:
This is a ridiculous gripe to have. Its a news forum, as far as i know theres no specification as to what form that news takes. Also I have a life, its way easier for me to listen to stuff than read everything, it takes full attention to stop and read before posting, while i can get to choring while I listen to something. Also, why don't you help me out instead of the lazy critique, go and find an article that says the same or similar to the post and make the post even more valuable as a 'bin' of information. Or find the article and post it separately on the community, then post a link in this post's thread making both posts far more useful for everyone.
I have actually been toying with the idea of a specific Podcast review/discussion community. As a high consumption podcast listener, i could probably put a reasonably varied base of podcasts down with not too much extra effort per week. I's still thinking about rules, because i think theres a lot that could go wrong with an odea like this, like tbh fuck the manosphere podcasts, and conservative/right wing influencers can go choke. So i'd want to exclude certain types of podcasts like that. I don't know, something i'm casually thinking about, be interested in other people's views on it.
Edit: fixed formatting
It’s perfectly reasonable gripe. Where are the sources? Who the fuck is pod save America? Why should I trust them?
At least with an article it’s easy to confirm their claims by skimming a few articles on the same topic from different sources.
If you’ve just dumped 90 mins into listening to someone’s version of events, are you really going to spend 90 minutes more listening to another podcast to see if they telling the truth? Even if they are being honest, they’ll have their own bias’. Just as bad as religiously listening to any other media source.
But we do share some common ground; a special community where you can post podcast links with impunity sounds like a good idea.
If you're so great at this lead by example. POST MORE!! Show me how its done, my upvote button is ready. In fact theres a great community that you should love, seeing as you like reading and only reading so much, c/rtfa, great little community project thats all but abandoned. Probably because people like me don't have the time to always be reading everything, alla i posted a podcast today.
If you want the rule changed disallowing podcasts on this community talk to the mods, until then suck it up. Besides that, its a legitimate form of information dissemination, no matter what you think of the medium.
There are more news organisations out there than Guardian and ABC, you don't need to implicitly trust an outlet, remain skeptical but open. If you think a piece, (be it article, podcast, video, or even an opera) hasn't got correct information, make a comment calling attention to that content. But you can't do that because you haven't listened to it, and you're just randomly hating on the medium in general, which is an absurdity.
The sources are, US gov, Russian gov, Ukrainian gov, and translator the podcasters used, i'm sure theres more. They're reacting to a plan that should be quite easy for you to find. Google it mate.
I would block you, but i want to see if you actually start posting more. Shit be a partner mod with me on the podcast community idea, seems like there'd fireworks in the comment sections!
I've never had the full details of any of his supposed plans but AFAIK, they've basically all been Russian victories. What is different about this one? Is he still wanting to give Russia Donbas?
Basically yep, plus limit size Ukraine can build its military to; no chance of NATO membership; side order of value extraction for US of the Ukrainian State.
Its a Russian wet dream licked up and presented as a peace plan as usual with this US administration. Basically demanding Ukraine give itself over to a precarious future with constant fear of renewed attack.
Rant: I really hate the overuse of “breaking” in titles like this. Its use here (and on podcasts in general) is a clear indication that the writer/blogger has no idea what it means and why one should use it.
“Breaking” news is time sensitive news where significant details are likely to change in the near term. Ongoing attempts to rescue trapped miners is breaking news. An opinion piece about a proposed peace deal (where one of the participants isn’t even included) is not.
Think back to the pre-internet days when US news came largely from one of 3 major TV networks. They would break into regular programming to report on things like the shooting of a president, the death of the Pope, etc. If the news didn’t rise to that sort of incident then they’d gladly wait until their regularly evening news.
breaking is absolutely dead as a term, just like strongly worded letters are now recognised as meaningless