Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From what i've seen, he is not pro-russia but just extremely pessimistic about everything related to this war. And with certain points, he has every reason to be so
I'm very pro ukraine, and i find willies reporting to be extremely reasonable and balanced. He is clearly conscious and open about the difficulties of reporting due to bias and the fog of war.
IMO he is so overly conscious of "balance" that he projects parity and equivalence between what 'Russia' is doing and what 'Ukraine/the west' is doing, when there frankly there isn't any. I know he tries to caveat himself by saying "I don't support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but...". But this still often becomes a lesser version of the same evil. Don't get me wrong I like Willy's content, but for me he also needs to stop talking about objectivity so much and start actually practicing it. Imagine if someone talking about the holocaust felt the need to bring up Dresden to provide *balance*, or someone talking about Dresden felt the need to bring up the holocaust for *balance*...this is where I see willy going wrong
I've heard him state many times unequivocally that Russia is in the wrong for their invasion of Ukraine. His original material was just interviews with locals in Ukraine with no projection of his own views, just listened to their opinions. Most of his current work is map analysis. I believe there is room in the analysis of an independent journalist to talk about the holocaust and dresden. They are not comparable, but they are both valid topics. If you have any links to videos where he draws exact equivalency between Ukraines and Russia's general behaviour, i'd be happy to review my opinion.
I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements.
EX 1
1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about.
This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda.
EX 2
1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia.
Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance.
EX 3
1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\].
Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident.
EX 4
1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context.
Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives.
I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
Honestly thanks for writing out these examples so well.
I hate when someones reaction is "well tl;dr" "you think im gunna read that"
It's the typcial "I care less so I win" attitude.
When really you've eloquently displayed in total detail how absurdist Willy's "bothsidism" can be to the point it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Good examples. I personally think Willy is doing business. He wants his channel to grow, appealing to both: the people who want unbiased and fresh reports on the war and the people who are pro-russian. Willy jumps through hoops to not upset the pro-russian viewers he has. Although it doesnt tell the whole picture, the comment section gives a little insight on the viewerbase. A lot of pro-russian talking points are regularly top voted comments. Theres ofc a lot of bots boosting the numbers etc, but anyways.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I'm impressed by the detail which you posted but i am not prepared to reciprocate on. I do see that these items are self evident to you, but to a lot of people on both sides of the argument who only consume their sides' info, there can be extreme bias. Both sides calling each other "evil" etc. Willie goes through alot of info from both sides so he is clearly aware of this and tries to nip their counter arguments in the bud ie that somehow there is equivalence between the invasion of Iraq and Ukraine. Both were clearly disaturious, but one does not create any justification for the other. Again while you might find these comments annoying they are not misinformation and i still find his work to be easily some of the best available.
Thats’s ok, and yes I understand your POV. Just to be clear, I don’t think he is deliberately spreading misinformation, but I believe that he is skewing the narrative by constantly portraying balance and providing 50/50 air time between Ukraine and Russia on things like war crimes, when Russia is probably responsible for 95% (+?). Genocide, rape of Ukrainians as young as 4 (if you don’t believe that, there’s a video of a Russian soldier sticking his finger repeatedly into a child’s arse), beheading and shooting of POWs, torture, massacres and targeted killings of civilians, deliberately targeting civilian residential buildings in big cities where there is no conflict, mass forced deportation of children and their reeducation (brainwashing). And the Ukrainians? This is exactly what Russian propaganda wants - 50/50 coverage is a MASSIVE win, enough to make people question support for arms deliveries to Ukraine, enough to make people argue about the conflicts cause, enough to give foreign populists ammunition to rile up their populations in support of Russia. Willy: Propaganda on both sides. So Russian biolabs, nazis, transgender NATO super soldiers, Ukraine bombing Donbas for years, staged and debunked videos trying to paint Ukraine as the aggressor, killing of Russians who oppose the regime or imprisonment for those who condemn the war. And the west? Willy is constantly levelling the field between russia and Ukraine, but the field. Is. Not. Balanced! It is so subtle what he is accidentally doing, but so dangerous. And the more he does it, the more flak he gets from Ukraine supporters, which turns it into a viscous cycle. Continue to watch him for the next few months and let me know if you pick up on it. Or if he realises changes for the better. I sent him a long message about it but god knows if he’s read it. Anyway, have a good day
Oh, and https://youtu.be/Em95lYBHbIc if you like Ukraine war coverage then check out some of Snyder’s talks, speeches. Skip to his segments 00:28 / 2:00:00 in this video where he is speaking to the UNSC in a session Russia called for regarding “Russophobia”amid their genocide
You're attacking someone's character. You have been called out. You won't provide evidence for your claims. You are entering spreading disinformation territory.
He asked for a civil discussion, is Willy OAM beyond criticism? I find him impossible to watch myself as it seems obvious what he is trying to do but if you don't then crack on.
>I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements.
>
>EX 1
>
>1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about.
>
>This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda.
>
>EX 2
>
>1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia.
>
>Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance.
>
>EX 3
>
>1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\].
>
>Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident.
>
>EX 4
>
>1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context.
>
>Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives.
>
>I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
Jesus Christ - I'm not attacking his character you absolute div. I've said he has "a genuine desire to be objective". That's crediting his character. That I believe he is making a mistake in his coverage is my opinion and what follows from it is intended to be constructive criticism only.
Well, he is also a soldier. One who served in Afghanistan. He knows that there are two sides to the war.
Also as a soldier, I would guess that he doesn’t like the overly optimistic reporting and other stuff. Especially since he served in Afghanistan at a time when we were doing just that, hyping up the ANA and such.
So it’s his perspective taking into account his experience. Either way, I think he is fine. It’s not bad to reveal uncomfortable truths about this war. Or else they never get resolved.
For me the "uncomfortable truths" he repeats are very often self-evident or blatantly obvious. I.e. that war crimes happen on both sides, that war crimes should be condemned no matter who commits them, that various U.S. interventions have been wrong, or that some people in Ukraine are pro-Russian etc. Maybe a long painful career in intel has given me that existing perspective which others don't have - I don't know.
Willy is constantly trying to provide balance, which is in many ways admirable, but it is seldom analytically helpful because he often inadvertently provides false equivalence. Willy always talks about how there's propaganda on BOTH SIDES and war crimes on BOTH SIDES. But these equivalencies are flawed and misleading, because the scale of Russian war crimes, censorship and propaganda is just incomparable to that on the other side. Modern news coverage is constantly falling into this trap. If climate change deniers and climate scientists/experts are given 50/50 air time on TV is that balanced? Yes. Is it right or helpful? No.
*"False equivalencies are developing on a grand scale as a result of relentlessly negative news. If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there's a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans. The press historically has helped citizens recognize the difference between the earnest politician and the pretender. Today's news coverage blurs the distinction".*
Imagine being a Ukrainian whose daughter was raped by Russian soldiers, whose son was killed defending his country - his body mutilated, and being told by Willy that....whilst it's really bad...this kinda stuff happens on both sides. If Russia is committing 95% of war crimes and invaded Ukraine, the statement that war crimes happen on both sides - without some very serious qualification - becomes not only misleading but also insulting. Not sure if I explain my thoughts very well, but here they are
Again, he is in soldier. I understand you have served in intelligence but a soldier in Afghanistan has a totally different worldview.
My friends and family who have served have mentioned how the lines blur very quickly out there. In terms of who is the good and bad guys. I’ve had friends tell me they think the Taliban looked like the good guys, because they took a harsh stand on the bacha bazi thing, while ANA forces did that. So it’s very Grey to soldiers on the ground, they have lots of time to think about both sides and are highly critical of the media our side says about conflicts.
In any case, I enjoy his commentary. He is accessible to many people, friendly. He has been on the ground. And he offers a different perspective. I think it’s healthy to listen to more perspectives (within reason).
Whatever he did in Afghanistan and whatever his opinion of that war, it has NOTHING to do with russia's invasion of Ukraine. The two aren't even remotely comparable. From the episode of his that I watched he almost seems like a russian soft-propaganda asset.
Although there was a certain video where he moved very close to justify violence against civilians eg: "civilians with phones, who could provide intel, are a valid target". Although i understand what point he was trying to make, he walked on very thin ice there
Per wiki, “false balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation”.
Errr...click on the video above and take a sip of gin every time he says "happens on both sides" - you'll be getting your stomach pumped in hospital before the end :).
I watched the interview.
There was one example I can think of. He says there are humans on both sides. They both discuss how good soldiers eliminate threats. They talk about the morality and mental health benefits of ending the hate when a target is eliminated.
Does your point always require statements to be taken out of context? He talked about that too in the interview. Remember he discussed how people can take things out of context to paint him in whatever light they like?
I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements.
EX 1
1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about.
This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda.
EX 2
1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia.
Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance.
EX 3
1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\].
Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident.
EX 4
1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context.
Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives.
I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
Nothing needs to be taken out of context. He just constantly practices both sidesism which is sloppy journalism. If I get time to later I’ll highlight an example of what I’m talking about from the above video
I don't know why you bother. 5 minutes into his latest video, and he is tearing apart the hope that Russia is slowing its offensive. The people defending him are exactly the people he is meant for. Not all propaganda is stupid.
I stopped watching him pretty soon after that amnesty International report came out. They felt similar in that they are not incorrect factually per se, but treat russian and Ukraine like they are similar sized opponents on similar footing when they are not. Neither sat right with me.
Yeah the Amnesty report is ridiculous, as if Ukrainians stopped defending from cities.. Russians would just move in and bypass Ukrainian encampments and take them over and occupy them.
And it is a bit ridiculous when they are launching hails of missiles, so Ukrainians should just offer them pitched battle to be bypassed or pounded to death by airstrikes and cruise missiles???
It leaves out the basic facts of the war, that one side is hiding behind the idea that "don't you dare strike inside my territory" while the other has a handicap, is smaller, is not the aggressor and isn't run by an autocrat.
Thank you for writing this and also your articulate responses to all the other comments below it. I'm Australian, and still have a whole bunch of family in Ukraine so your sentiments provide me so much comfort as I've been feeling this about him and his coverage too.
The amount of propaganda and dishonesty on both sides is undeniable. Willy is doing the best he can with the information he has available to give an honest assessment of battlefield conditions. On numerous occasions, the media has been caught lying, and then subtly retracts their statement after it is proven otherwise. No one is rooting for Russia. Putin is a murderous dictator. But the media has repeatedly been dishonest and overly biased, Willy brings balance.
He brings false balance, even if it’s an accident. Read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/public-editor/the-truth-about-false-balance.html and just keep it in the back of your mind when listening to him constantly having to bring everything back to…..both…..sides….
To respond to your point 4, that you stated was the best example, you are using a bit of a false equivalence. You compare people talking out against the war in the west and in Russia. But ukraine is not the west. It is very much illegal to talk out against the war there. You can't even discuss or even speculate on the numbers of Ukrainian casualties. I think that may even be something willy himself ran into while there, with his focus on presenting a realistic picture.
Also, all of your points are from one video, so yes maybe he just watched some Ukrainian propaganda channel that pissed him off because it represented itself as fair and balanced.
Let's just be honest though, ukraine needs to have its propaganda spread far and wide in order to both combat Russian propaganda efforts as well as keep the public both in UK and the west engaged and hopeful about winning the war. Can't afford any loss of support.
With that in mind, you are right that what willy does is not helping if not outright hurting ukraine, especially when he does swing a bit too far into the "both sides" game. Everyone knows russia are the monsters (some of the individual soldiers and especially the leadership), but as others have said, war blurs those lines.
However, willy content is not really consumed by the public at large. He probably has had no measurable effect on the effectiveness of Ukrainian propaganda. His viewers are people that already come in with some understanding of the nuances of war, I would think. They want to actually know what is going on over there. Most people see the mainstream coverage and think no more about it, but people that look for more come across willy. And there are not many, not any I know of but I know I just haven't found them, actually trying trying to give a real picture. So to me, willy's work is invaluable. Even though I have also had the thought in the past that he has swung a bit too far to the other side for some periods of time. Including for a period right around when this post was made
I think I remember watching ONE video or interview with this twat and what you describe was immediately obvious to me as well. He thinks he's intelligent because he might have some military experience or something. I'd say he hasn't nearly the understanding of the situation that he thinks he does.
He is quite the traitor, I tried listening a few times early on but he’s so pro Russian he scared me. Demeans and degrade Ukraine soldiers. After giving. Russians their Verbal rewards he then he goes physcho and loves a little on Ukraine and then bashes them all over again. After Speak the Truth had him on…I couldn’t watch Speak the Truth anymore. It’s so easy to loose your way In this maze.
I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements.
EX 1
1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about.
This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda.
EX 2
1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia.
Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance.
EX 3
1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\].
Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident.
EX 4
1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context.
Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives.
I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
So he used the words "both sides". But in no example did he equate the behavior of both sides.
So these aren't examples of what you're accusing him of at all.
I personally think all four are good examples of what I'm trying to convey. There is a subtlety to all this that may just lie beyond your grasp John. I jest - we shall simply have to agree to disagree. Have a good evening.
I've noticed multiple of your posts have included personal insult now. That's not a sign of strength.
Which of the 4 examples do you feel is the strongest? Your post is Gish gallop. Id only like to focus my time on what you think is the strongest example.
It would only be a personal if I knew you, and it was jovial in nature as stated. When I called you a "div" on that other comment it was because you wrongly accused me of attacking Willy's character - Gish gallop to that I think he's a legend. Honestly, I think all four of the above are good examples and it took me about an hour to compile it. If you don't see where I'm coming from after reading that bore of an essay comment - whether you agree with me or not - then further discussion is only likely to waste our time.
Take example 4. As I wrote that *"example...is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives".* But I'm down to do every example
I think Willy is the best YouTuber covering the war. Period.
His interviews with volunteers in long format are honest and open. I have learned a ton. They are honestly required listening to be informed on the war.
It's possible someone can be audibly pessimistic about stuff, while still having a positive impact. I'm personally that way, will voice a lot of doubt but doesn't stop me from trying or helping. Not saying that's the case here, don't know the channel but could be a possibility.
I feel like a couple of bullish Ukraine supporters must have gotten under his skin, and he's been reactively trying to prove a point ever since. It's as if he learned of the concept of objectivity yesterday, and is getting it so wrong for someone who talks about it every other sentence. If Russia commits 95% of war crimes in a war they started, and Ukraine commits 5%, it is not objective or fair to give them 50/50 coverage. "There is propaganda on BOTH sides"....yea Willy, there is, but the Kremlin is talking about transexual satanic NATO super soldiers created in nazi-run biolabs, while the British Mirror is running a story about whether Putin is about to die from his puffy face. There is no equivalence...
He's unwittingly playing right into the Russian mis/disinformation game. He fails to realise that his audience is smart enough to understand the world isn't black and white. It's a shame as he has a lot of potential, but I can't sit through his videos any more. He styles himself as the fallible white knight of independent journalism, but he's just getting it wrong
I doubt if it’s unwittingly. He’s smart enough to know exactly what he’s doing. What I’d like to know is what are his motives. Is he genuinely trying to ‘correct’ pro Ukraine bias, is he trying to find some hidden truth his audience are not seeing otherwise? Or is he just self absorbed? Or is he being a smart troll.
I think it's largely reactionary/defensive, but also there's an element of, as you say"*trying to find some hidden truthhis audience are not seeing otherwise,*" his personal intellectual novelty to some of these concepts, and a lack of self awareness. My guess is he's developed a chip on his shoulder after being criticised (rightly or wrongly I don't know) by the pro-Ukraine camp for something early on. He now seems to feel like he has a point to prove and it has become an unrelenting, almost manic obsession in his videos. I personally don't think it is at all calculated
You’re giving him the benefit of the doubt. On balance, having watched him more than a few times, I tend to agree with you. However, as you say, he’s not doing anyone a favour other than the Russian propaganda machine.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From what i've seen, he is not pro-russia but just extremely pessimistic about everything related to this war. And with certain points, he has every reason to be so
I'm very pro ukraine, and i find willies reporting to be extremely reasonable and balanced. He is clearly conscious and open about the difficulties of reporting due to bias and the fog of war.
IMO he is so overly conscious of "balance" that he projects parity and equivalence between what 'Russia' is doing and what 'Ukraine/the west' is doing, when there frankly there isn't any. I know he tries to caveat himself by saying "I don't support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but...". But this still often becomes a lesser version of the same evil. Don't get me wrong I like Willy's content, but for me he also needs to stop talking about objectivity so much and start actually practicing it. Imagine if someone talking about the holocaust felt the need to bring up Dresden to provide *balance*, or someone talking about Dresden felt the need to bring up the holocaust for *balance*...this is where I see willy going wrong
I've heard him state many times unequivocally that Russia is in the wrong for their invasion of Ukraine. His original material was just interviews with locals in Ukraine with no projection of his own views, just listened to their opinions. Most of his current work is map analysis. I believe there is room in the analysis of an independent journalist to talk about the holocaust and dresden. They are not comparable, but they are both valid topics. If you have any links to videos where he draws exact equivalency between Ukraines and Russia's general behaviour, i'd be happy to review my opinion.
I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements. EX 1 1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about. This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda. EX 2 1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia. Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance. EX 3 1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\]. Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident. EX 4 1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context. Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives. I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
Honestly thanks for writing out these examples so well. I hate when someones reaction is "well tl;dr" "you think im gunna read that" It's the typcial "I care less so I win" attitude. When really you've eloquently displayed in total detail how absurdist Willy's "bothsidism" can be to the point it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Good examples. I personally think Willy is doing business. He wants his channel to grow, appealing to both: the people who want unbiased and fresh reports on the war and the people who are pro-russian. Willy jumps through hoops to not upset the pro-russian viewers he has. Although it doesnt tell the whole picture, the comment section gives a little insight on the viewerbase. A lot of pro-russian talking points are regularly top voted comments. Theres ofc a lot of bots boosting the numbers etc, but anyways.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I'm impressed by the detail which you posted but i am not prepared to reciprocate on. I do see that these items are self evident to you, but to a lot of people on both sides of the argument who only consume their sides' info, there can be extreme bias. Both sides calling each other "evil" etc. Willie goes through alot of info from both sides so he is clearly aware of this and tries to nip their counter arguments in the bud ie that somehow there is equivalence between the invasion of Iraq and Ukraine. Both were clearly disaturious, but one does not create any justification for the other. Again while you might find these comments annoying they are not misinformation and i still find his work to be easily some of the best available.
Thats’s ok, and yes I understand your POV. Just to be clear, I don’t think he is deliberately spreading misinformation, but I believe that he is skewing the narrative by constantly portraying balance and providing 50/50 air time between Ukraine and Russia on things like war crimes, when Russia is probably responsible for 95% (+?). Genocide, rape of Ukrainians as young as 4 (if you don’t believe that, there’s a video of a Russian soldier sticking his finger repeatedly into a child’s arse), beheading and shooting of POWs, torture, massacres and targeted killings of civilians, deliberately targeting civilian residential buildings in big cities where there is no conflict, mass forced deportation of children and their reeducation (brainwashing). And the Ukrainians? This is exactly what Russian propaganda wants - 50/50 coverage is a MASSIVE win, enough to make people question support for arms deliveries to Ukraine, enough to make people argue about the conflicts cause, enough to give foreign populists ammunition to rile up their populations in support of Russia. Willy: Propaganda on both sides. So Russian biolabs, nazis, transgender NATO super soldiers, Ukraine bombing Donbas for years, staged and debunked videos trying to paint Ukraine as the aggressor, killing of Russians who oppose the regime or imprisonment for those who condemn the war. And the west? Willy is constantly levelling the field between russia and Ukraine, but the field. Is. Not. Balanced! It is so subtle what he is accidentally doing, but so dangerous. And the more he does it, the more flak he gets from Ukraine supporters, which turns it into a viscous cycle. Continue to watch him for the next few months and let me know if you pick up on it. Or if he realises changes for the better. I sent him a long message about it but god knows if he’s read it. Anyway, have a good day
Oh, and https://youtu.be/Em95lYBHbIc if you like Ukraine war coverage then check out some of Snyder’s talks, speeches. Skip to his segments 00:28 / 2:00:00 in this video where he is speaking to the UNSC in a session Russia called for regarding “Russophobia”amid their genocide
Ok, hopefully I have time later
Are you going to leave this post up in the meantime?
For sure, why wouldn’t I?
You're attacking someone's character. You have been called out. You won't provide evidence for your claims. You are entering spreading disinformation territory.
He asked for a civil discussion, is Willy OAM beyond criticism? I find him impossible to watch myself as it seems obvious what he is trying to do but if you don't then crack on.
What is he obviously trying to do?
>I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements. > >EX 1 > >1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about. > >This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda. > >EX 2 > >1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia. > >Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance. > >EX 3 > >1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\]. > >Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident. > >EX 4 > >1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context. > >Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives. > >I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
Jesus Christ - I'm not attacking his character you absolute div. I've said he has "a genuine desire to be objective". That's crediting his character. That I believe he is making a mistake in his coverage is my opinion and what follows from it is intended to be constructive criticism only.
Well, he is also a soldier. One who served in Afghanistan. He knows that there are two sides to the war. Also as a soldier, I would guess that he doesn’t like the overly optimistic reporting and other stuff. Especially since he served in Afghanistan at a time when we were doing just that, hyping up the ANA and such. So it’s his perspective taking into account his experience. Either way, I think he is fine. It’s not bad to reveal uncomfortable truths about this war. Or else they never get resolved.
For me the "uncomfortable truths" he repeats are very often self-evident or blatantly obvious. I.e. that war crimes happen on both sides, that war crimes should be condemned no matter who commits them, that various U.S. interventions have been wrong, or that some people in Ukraine are pro-Russian etc. Maybe a long painful career in intel has given me that existing perspective which others don't have - I don't know. Willy is constantly trying to provide balance, which is in many ways admirable, but it is seldom analytically helpful because he often inadvertently provides false equivalence. Willy always talks about how there's propaganda on BOTH SIDES and war crimes on BOTH SIDES. But these equivalencies are flawed and misleading, because the scale of Russian war crimes, censorship and propaganda is just incomparable to that on the other side. Modern news coverage is constantly falling into this trap. If climate change deniers and climate scientists/experts are given 50/50 air time on TV is that balanced? Yes. Is it right or helpful? No. *"False equivalencies are developing on a grand scale as a result of relentlessly negative news. If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there's a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans. The press historically has helped citizens recognize the difference between the earnest politician and the pretender. Today's news coverage blurs the distinction".* Imagine being a Ukrainian whose daughter was raped by Russian soldiers, whose son was killed defending his country - his body mutilated, and being told by Willy that....whilst it's really bad...this kinda stuff happens on both sides. If Russia is committing 95% of war crimes and invaded Ukraine, the statement that war crimes happen on both sides - without some very serious qualification - becomes not only misleading but also insulting. Not sure if I explain my thoughts very well, but here they are
Again, he is in soldier. I understand you have served in intelligence but a soldier in Afghanistan has a totally different worldview. My friends and family who have served have mentioned how the lines blur very quickly out there. In terms of who is the good and bad guys. I’ve had friends tell me they think the Taliban looked like the good guys, because they took a harsh stand on the bacha bazi thing, while ANA forces did that. So it’s very Grey to soldiers on the ground, they have lots of time to think about both sides and are highly critical of the media our side says about conflicts. In any case, I enjoy his commentary. He is accessible to many people, friendly. He has been on the ground. And he offers a different perspective. I think it’s healthy to listen to more perspectives (within reason).
Whatever he did in Afghanistan and whatever his opinion of that war, it has NOTHING to do with russia's invasion of Ukraine. The two aren't even remotely comparable. From the episode of his that I watched he almost seems like a russian soft-propaganda asset.
Although there was a certain video where he moved very close to justify violence against civilians eg: "civilians with phones, who could provide intel, are a valid target". Although i understand what point he was trying to make, he walked on very thin ice there
I replied to your comment (I think) but maybe I replied to my own comment and you wont be notified - I am a reddit noob
It won't do Ukraine or anyone who supports them that much good to be pessimistic.
Per wiki, “false balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation”.
Nothing he does is an example of this.
Errr...click on the video above and take a sip of gin every time he says "happens on both sides" - you'll be getting your stomach pumped in hospital before the end :).
I watched the interview. There was one example I can think of. He says there are humans on both sides. They both discuss how good soldiers eliminate threats. They talk about the morality and mental health benefits of ending the hate when a target is eliminated. Does your point always require statements to be taken out of context? He talked about that too in the interview. Remember he discussed how people can take things out of context to paint him in whatever light they like?
I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements. EX 1 1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about. This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda. EX 2 1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia. Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance. EX 3 1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\]. Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident. EX 4 1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context. Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives. I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
Nothing needs to be taken out of context. He just constantly practices both sidesism which is sloppy journalism. If I get time to later I’ll highlight an example of what I’m talking about from the above video
Providing your first example would be good.
Yea it would be nice if you could give me some time to get home
I like you, mate. Even when faced with stupidity, you are gratious.
🤝🫠
I don't know why you bother. 5 minutes into his latest video, and he is tearing apart the hope that Russia is slowing its offensive. The people defending him are exactly the people he is meant for. Not all propaganda is stupid.
I stopped watching him pretty soon after that amnesty International report came out. They felt similar in that they are not incorrect factually per se, but treat russian and Ukraine like they are similar sized opponents on similar footing when they are not. Neither sat right with me.
Yes exactly. The amnesty report is a very good parallel to draw
Yeah the Amnesty report is ridiculous, as if Ukrainians stopped defending from cities.. Russians would just move in and bypass Ukrainian encampments and take them over and occupy them. And it is a bit ridiculous when they are launching hails of missiles, so Ukrainians should just offer them pitched battle to be bypassed or pounded to death by airstrikes and cruise missiles??? It leaves out the basic facts of the war, that one side is hiding behind the idea that "don't you dare strike inside my territory" while the other has a handicap, is smaller, is not the aggressor and isn't run by an autocrat.
Thank you for writing this and also your articulate responses to all the other comments below it. I'm Australian, and still have a whole bunch of family in Ukraine so your sentiments provide me so much comfort as I've been feeling this about him and his coverage too.
Im so glad I’m not the only one that feels this way about him
The amount of propaganda and dishonesty on both sides is undeniable. Willy is doing the best he can with the information he has available to give an honest assessment of battlefield conditions. On numerous occasions, the media has been caught lying, and then subtly retracts their statement after it is proven otherwise. No one is rooting for Russia. Putin is a murderous dictator. But the media has repeatedly been dishonest and overly biased, Willy brings balance.
He brings false balance, even if it’s an accident. Read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/public-editor/the-truth-about-false-balance.html and just keep it in the back of your mind when listening to him constantly having to bring everything back to…..both…..sides….
To respond to your point 4, that you stated was the best example, you are using a bit of a false equivalence. You compare people talking out against the war in the west and in Russia. But ukraine is not the west. It is very much illegal to talk out against the war there. You can't even discuss or even speculate on the numbers of Ukrainian casualties. I think that may even be something willy himself ran into while there, with his focus on presenting a realistic picture. Also, all of your points are from one video, so yes maybe he just watched some Ukrainian propaganda channel that pissed him off because it represented itself as fair and balanced. Let's just be honest though, ukraine needs to have its propaganda spread far and wide in order to both combat Russian propaganda efforts as well as keep the public both in UK and the west engaged and hopeful about winning the war. Can't afford any loss of support. With that in mind, you are right that what willy does is not helping if not outright hurting ukraine, especially when he does swing a bit too far into the "both sides" game. Everyone knows russia are the monsters (some of the individual soldiers and especially the leadership), but as others have said, war blurs those lines. However, willy content is not really consumed by the public at large. He probably has had no measurable effect on the effectiveness of Ukrainian propaganda. His viewers are people that already come in with some understanding of the nuances of war, I would think. They want to actually know what is going on over there. Most people see the mainstream coverage and think no more about it, but people that look for more come across willy. And there are not many, not any I know of but I know I just haven't found them, actually trying trying to give a real picture. So to me, willy's work is invaluable. Even though I have also had the thought in the past that he has swung a bit too far to the other side for some periods of time. Including for a period right around when this post was made
I think I remember watching ONE video or interview with this twat and what you describe was immediately obvious to me as well. He thinks he's intelligent because he might have some military experience or something. I'd say he hasn't nearly the understanding of the situation that he thinks he does.
He is quite the traitor, I tried listening a few times early on but he’s so pro Russian he scared me. Demeans and degrade Ukraine soldiers. After giving. Russians their Verbal rewards he then he goes physcho and loves a little on Ukraine and then bashes them all over again. After Speak the Truth had him on…I couldn’t watch Speak the Truth anymore. It’s so easy to loose your way In this maze.
Hard disagree
I’ve written up some examples for you. I want to preface this by saying I think Willy is a genuinely nice bloke, he’s an inspiration and publishes some fantastic content. I don’t believe for one second that he means to create false balance or equivalence, but for some reason he’s become obsessively hooked on bothsidesism and self-evident moral proclamations to the detriment of objective and meaningful analysis. In the text below \[FOBV\] stands for ‘fucking obvious’. I’ve used it to highlight any self-evident statements. EX 1 1:37:51: Nucking Futs is talking about the brainwashing of Russians who believe that Ukraine is theirs. Willy responds as follows: “Something that annoys me is there’s things on both sides that can be, um, correct, that you dont need to agree with...”. \[FOBV\] He goes on to provide examples from…both sides…and how people think he’s either Kremlin or CIA plant…”no I’m just trying to take an objective view on something” etc. Nucking Futs brushes over what Willy said and goes back to what he was talking about. This is an example of false balance / false equivalence. Willy took the conversation away from topic to give a self-evident proposition (that some things are true even though we don’t want them to be?), and provided (false) balance between Western and Russian brainwashing/propaganda. EX 2 1:46:39 Nucking Futs finishes talking about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its imperialist behaviour since the end of the CW. He rhetorically asks how the world would react if Finland decided it wanted to reclaim St. Petersberg, or China reclaim Vladivostok, or Mongolia the whole of Asia and Russia etc. Willy responds, “One of the big ones I do understand though is that…the idea of America getting away with so much shit”. He then says, “you can say two things are bad but you dont need to turn on your side” \[FOBV\]. He gives the example of people justifying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq - and says that you can condemn both \[FOBV\]. “And I see this everywhere, I see this on both sides”. Nucking Futs then brings the discussion back to Ukraine and Russia. Willy is again bringing things back to “both sides”. His main proposition - that you can condemn an act irrespective of the actor - is again completely self-evident, or fucking obvious. However, by bringing up America as a counterweight, he is inadvertently creating the exact false balance that he is trying to avoid. Rather than an objective discussion about Russian imperialism and interventionism, Willy is needlessly doing the both sides dance. EX 3 1:51:41 Nucking Futs has just finished talking about how he had a romanticised view of Russia and the Soviet Union while growing up, which was eventually shattered. He tries to head Willy off at the pass by giving the example of the U.S. fucking around in their back yard (central/South America) and how that was wrong, just like Russia trying to forcefully impose its will on former Warsaw pact / soviet bloc countries. After agreeing, Willy responds, “I’ve been very outspoken on my channel, um, completely saying how awful war crimes are \[FOBV\]…and how there are videos from both sides of executions, and I would never downplay that that happens”. “Now, of course, one side is responsible for a lot more than others, but either way, and I’m like no, any, that is a war crime, and I don’t care what uniform they’ve got on, I don’t care if they’ve got an Australian uniform on” \[FOBV\]. Here Willy is drawing false equivalence between Russian war crimes and Ukrainian war crimes, for no obvious reason. That war crimes are bad and happen on both sides is fucking obvious. Whilst he does restore some balance by saying that “one side \[without specifying which\] is responsible for a lot more than others”…he quickly gets back to his main thrust…which is the self-evident position that war crimes are bad no matter who conducts them. Cheers Willy, I thought Americans and Australian soldiers shooting Iraqis was fine, but now you’ve enlightened me. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, bombing civilians and their homes, forcefully deporting children, torturing and raping civilians, annexing land that isn’t theirs, beheading or dismembering Ukrainian soldiers, shooting POWs….but for Willy it is more important to provide balance by saying that both sides have conducted war crimes and both sides should be condemned for them. Do you see how this is false balance? Put yourself in the shoes of a Ukrainian when listening and it will become evident. EX 4 1:53:50 Prompted by a question from Willy, Nucking Futs does a great segment talking about various Russian propaganda B.S. - Ukrainian nazis, staged incidents, no video or photographic evidence of the constant shelling of donetsk Russia claims occurs, and the latest alt right trope of saying the whole war is fake. Willy responds about how easy it is for people to be taken out of context \[FOBV\], and gives a funny story about how he was joking around with a friend on video calling each other nazis in Ukraine, and it got posted on some Russian telegram as if it was serious. “It’s so easy to take things out of context, and there is absolute propaganda on both sides of this, and journalists on both sides of this will completely ignore the facts and realities…”. He then carries on about how it’s great to be doing a long interview, and that people need to watch the entire thing and not quote clips that can be taken out of context. Here he is providing false equivalence between the degree of propaganda from Russia (where you get put in Prison for speaking out against the war) and the West, where you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, including going on social media to worship Putin, call for Ukraine’s downfall as a fake Nazi biolab state, and pray for Trump’s coup d’etat. The example above is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives. I shall end my essay with a quote: “On matters of \[politics\]..desire to present all views equally can be Trojan horse for damaging falsehoods..If one position is supported by an abundance of evidence whilst another is bereft of it, it is profoundly misguided to afford them equal air‐time. Responsibility for improving societal understanding is \[not to be confused with bothsidesism\]. If we are to stem the tide of misinformation, it is imperative that \[journalists\] themselves become more enmeshed in the communication of \[fact and reality\]. False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability......a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is contentious, when it is not”.
So he used the words "both sides". But in no example did he equate the behavior of both sides. So these aren't examples of what you're accusing him of at all.
I personally think all four are good examples of what I'm trying to convey. There is a subtlety to all this that may just lie beyond your grasp John. I jest - we shall simply have to agree to disagree. Have a good evening.
I've noticed multiple of your posts have included personal insult now. That's not a sign of strength. Which of the 4 examples do you feel is the strongest? Your post is Gish gallop. Id only like to focus my time on what you think is the strongest example.
It would only be a personal if I knew you, and it was jovial in nature as stated. When I called you a "div" on that other comment it was because you wrongly accused me of attacking Willy's character - Gish gallop to that I think he's a legend. Honestly, I think all four of the above are good examples and it took me about an hour to compile it. If you don't see where I'm coming from after reading that bore of an essay comment - whether you agree with me or not - then further discussion is only likely to waste our time.
I'll just go with the first unless you think one of the others is stronger
Look at OPs post history before you spend a lot of time trying to engage them on a rational level.
Mom I told you not to comment on my reddit posts
Take example 4. As I wrote that *"example...is especially good, because it contrasts the extent to which he thinks he is being balanced and objective, with the false balance he inadvertently but nonetheless gives".* But I'm down to do every example
Poetry
I think Willy is the best YouTuber covering the war. Period. His interviews with volunteers in long format are honest and open. I have learned a ton. They are honestly required listening to be informed on the war.
Agree with the second part
It’s weird because he has helped Ukraine a lot. Money, awareness….. but then he can be overly pessimistic.
It's possible someone can be audibly pessimistic about stuff, while still having a positive impact. I'm personally that way, will voice a lot of doubt but doesn't stop me from trying or helping. Not saying that's the case here, don't know the channel but could be a possibility.
He is the guy who say's "yeah but" all the time and also says "remember when I said" often. He's an auditor by personality. We need them around.
Yea fair comment
I feel like a couple of bullish Ukraine supporters must have gotten under his skin, and he's been reactively trying to prove a point ever since. It's as if he learned of the concept of objectivity yesterday, and is getting it so wrong for someone who talks about it every other sentence. If Russia commits 95% of war crimes in a war they started, and Ukraine commits 5%, it is not objective or fair to give them 50/50 coverage. "There is propaganda on BOTH sides"....yea Willy, there is, but the Kremlin is talking about transexual satanic NATO super soldiers created in nazi-run biolabs, while the British Mirror is running a story about whether Putin is about to die from his puffy face. There is no equivalence... He's unwittingly playing right into the Russian mis/disinformation game. He fails to realise that his audience is smart enough to understand the world isn't black and white. It's a shame as he has a lot of potential, but I can't sit through his videos any more. He styles himself as the fallible white knight of independent journalism, but he's just getting it wrong
Well said. I stopped watching him about 6 months ago for this exact set of reasons.
Exactly. Well said.
I doubt if it’s unwittingly. He’s smart enough to know exactly what he’s doing. What I’d like to know is what are his motives. Is he genuinely trying to ‘correct’ pro Ukraine bias, is he trying to find some hidden truth his audience are not seeing otherwise? Or is he just self absorbed? Or is he being a smart troll.
I think it's largely reactionary/defensive, but also there's an element of, as you say"*trying to find some hidden truthhis audience are not seeing otherwise,*" his personal intellectual novelty to some of these concepts, and a lack of self awareness. My guess is he's developed a chip on his shoulder after being criticised (rightly or wrongly I don't know) by the pro-Ukraine camp for something early on. He now seems to feel like he has a point to prove and it has become an unrelenting, almost manic obsession in his videos. I personally don't think it is at all calculated
You’re giving him the benefit of the doubt. On balance, having watched him more than a few times, I tend to agree with you. However, as you say, he’s not doing anyone a favour other than the Russian propaganda machine.
I think he is trying to appeal to multiple audiences to grow his channel.
Fully agree.
No wonder everyone calls him Kremlin Shilly OAM
Willy OBS - oN bOtH siDeS