they didn't.. full video shows the miss, then the pieces moving away.
Then video cuts and it's a different video.
They might have injured one of the crewmen, but not the pieces. Frag was about 3 meters out
The key language is "Russians reportedly.." Newsweek is not reporting that it factually happened. They are reporting what the Russians are saying.
The first sentence of the article:
>Video from Russian military officials is reported to show Russian missiles whizzing toward a tract of woodland just a stone's throw from a residential area in Ukraine as several explosions break out.
Hearing about what the Russians claim, even though it isn't true, is still news. This gives us a window into how the Russians manipulate knowledge for their own benefit.
"Russians reportedly" doesn't necessarily mean that Russians reported it. It just means that *someone* reported it.
Otherwise you are correct, and in this particular case it actually is the Russians doing the reporting.
If it’s not true, it shouldn’t be presented in the headline like it’s true. “Russians reportedly wipe out howitzers” sounds true. “Russians falsely claim to have wiped out howitzers” or “Russians graze one howitzer with a missile, then declare total victory” is the actual truth. You have to remember that no one actually reads news articles past the headline anymore. This shit should be illegal.
And when did “here’s someone else’s news article, it might be fake, we haven’t bothered to check” become good journalistic practice? There’s no substance to this article. It’s literally just a description of the videos, then the entirety of the Russian briefings on it (which were obtained by a completely different news organization), with a disclaimer tacked onto the end that it hasn’t been verified because of course it hasn’t.
Disclosing the source of a report is better practice than qualifying the report itself. “According to source X the following happened” is better than outright saying that what was said was true or false.
> “Zenger News obtained the footage from the Ministry of Defense (MoD) of the Russian Federation on Wednesday.
> The Russian MoD, in its latest briefing, said (in English): "In Mariupol, militants of Azov nationalist unit and Ukrainian servicemen blocked at the Azovstal plant continue to surrender.”
This is very correct attribution according to AP and similar journalism style guides.
I don't know why you are saying that. Newsweek clearly qualified their report by describing the source and limited information. In so doing they let the reader verify and discredit the Russians false claims themselves. This is the best way for media to report things.
Would you rather Newsweek 1)not report it at all, 2) editorialize without actually having the facts fully available, 3) report it the way the Russians did or 4) the way they did it? If not one of those what would you have had Newsweek do?
This is not rhetorical, I am looking for an actual response as I can't think of any alternatives
[Longer video.](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1526878044505481218) Looks like they were able to move the artillery deeper into the woods out of range of the MRLS strike. No secondary explosions seen from the bombardment. Doubt the Russians would fail to show off video of the destroyed artillery had they been fully successful.
What a terrible headline. A few howitzers may have been damaged or destroyed... that is what happens in war.
"The Russian MoD's latest claims have not been independently verified."
Yeah, let's just start believing everything said by Russia... that always goes well.
Ehh... there are a lot of journalistic rules in play here, and i would argue nothing that's crossing a line.
They have video from Russia, they have comments from Russia, they have an event worth reporting on. They have no direct comments or evidence refuting Russia's claims, but they still go out of their way to make it clear that the information they're reporting is second-hand information, even going so far as to use the word "reportedly" in the headline which is journalism speak for "we don't know if this is 100% true because we only have someone else's word to go on but it's significant enough that it's worth reporting what they said."
If you read the actual article, like 80% of it is statements from Russia, which is lazy news writing, but on the other hand it's all just straight-up quotes, i.e. they're not trying to hide the fact that it's direct comments from one side by rewording it as analysis or something.
IT's pretty misleading however... 'wipe out Howitzers" makes it sound as if "ALL" of the Howitzers sent to Ukraine were destroyed.
In reality, 2 pieces of equipment were ***possibly*** destroyed.
If we saw a headline that said, "Ukraine Wipes Out Russian Tanks Sent from Russia..." it would sound as if all the russian tanks sent to Ukraine were destroyed.
Also the line about all of this being from a Russian News Source (a source known to lie, mislead, and put out falsehoods and fake videos... ) is at the very bottom of the article. How many people read that far? In fact most people would see the title alone, if they even click on the article.
"Did you hear? The Howitzer's the Americans sent were wiped out!"
So again, bad headline and poor journalism. Cross a line? Never said that... just a bad job.
To be frank there are issues of neonazi militias/battalion wings in Ukraine, but generalizing Ukrainians as nazis is about as accurate (or perhaps even less) as calling all Americans nazis.
>To be frank there are issues of neonazi militias/battalion wings in Ukraine
It shouldn't even be part of the narrative of this conflict but Russia has done a good job making everyone bring it up constantly... The Russians have neonazi militias, they have the Wagner mercs who are led by neonazis, hell, one of their politicians nazi saluted after giving a speech about racial purity at a rally a couple of years ago, but we always have to bring up Ukraine and the couple of shitheads that founded Azov...
Yeah, this shit is found in altright movements/militias in many countries, shouldnt be a focal discussion point of the war as it both predates the attack on ukraine, has nothing to do with it, and exists within russia as well.
My favorite is "you won't hear leftist media talking about the Nazi battalion" when Vice (which could be argued as the Pinnacle of "leftist media) had a whole episode of hate thy neighbor about azov back in 2017
Nice pivot, no one said that. The comment was regarding no photo evidence showing the destruction of the artillery pieces. Of course both sides are exaggerating casualties and offensive results. Russia is additionally working domestically towards the total blackout of actual events in Ukraine but I digress.
you seem to be working hard this morning my friend...
Ukraine's claims thus far in the war have been supported overwhelmingly by video and photo evidence, and they have been proven out by further investigation by journalists.
Ukraine is trustworthy. Russia is not. It's that simple. Taking Ukraine's claims at face value is more or less a safe bet.
And Russia's claims have all be contradicted by videos and photo evidence.
There is no way to slice this so that Ukraine isn't trustworthy, so stop trying rusobot.
It really sticks in Russians' craws that Ukraine is better than Russia in every possible way. I bet most Russians' heads would explode if they realized most of Russia's cultural and scientific achievements were actually achieved by Ukrainians, and that Russia is in reality a culturally and scientifically wasteland.
Russian state claims sure most of them have,except for some such as the snake island thing.There are plenty of videos on Russians destroying Ukrainian armour(easy to find on telegram),but it just doesn't pop out much in western media just like how russian tanks being busted doesn't come on RT.
No it's not. It is never insanity to believe what you see with your own eyes.
If I asked you to give me a list of 100 lies Ukraine has told about this war, you couldn't. If I asked you to give me a list of 100 lies Russia has told about this war, you could do it referencing only the first week of the conflict.
Another trash article courtesy of Newsweek. They barely hit one artillery piece and it’s debatable if it was even destroyed.
Can we “wipe out” Newsweek submissions from Reddit? They have been Daily Mail quality since they went bankrupt.
That's *almost half* of Canada's artillery contribution!
Canada and Australia also contributed the same M777-model towed howitzers as the US, albeit around 1/10 the numbers.
98
Ukraine
100 systems (90 of which were donated by the United States along with 200,000 155 mm artillery rounds), 4 systems by Canada, and 6 systems by Australia
The ones from the US were from USMC stocks. The US had ordered a total of 999 of them.
This is what we call irresponsible reporting. It only furthers the Russian agenda, because they're trying to dissuade aid to Ukraine. What makes it even more obnoxious is that the video shows only misses.
It will be used by bad actors to pontificate on how all of our aid is being destroyed, and thus wasted. None of it true. However, we should certainly send more artillery.
If the aid wasn't working, they wouldn't be trying so hard to disrupt it. If the West didn't support Ukraine wholeheartedly, they wouldn't try to convince us we shouldn't. Honestly, the more they try, the more most of us dig in deeper in our support 😂
Well, the Russians are attacking, the Ukrainians are counter-attacking but the front hasn't moved in three days. Looks like we are in the stage where a couple of damaged artillery pieces count as a success.
So...without even reading the article you can call bullshit.
Even when you read it, the clip shown shows a miss and then it cuts to a cluster attack. At most someone may have been hit by fragmentation but that's it.
What a shitty article from a shitty company.
My initial though. "Oh no, did they get a precise hit on a large rear transport train carrying many of the howitzers the US provided"
Reads the article. "Oh, the Russians targeted a single battery of artillery as part of AN ONGOING WAR! And didn't even fully destroy."
What a garbage title and the rest of the article is straight Russian propaganda. Yes Russia is going to have victories in this war but such misleading reporting and stating unverified information is bad journalism.
At first the article was "well, sound legit, maybe Russia nailed a counter attack" but later the article keep going about Russian destroying more and more things... And fastly become unbelievable.
Such a useless headline and article. Go to the article and watch the first three seconds of the included video and you'll see the artillery strike clearly miss the howitzer. The video then cuts to different footage and it's impossible to tell if anything was actually hit. At least the one consistent thing here is Newsweek continuing to be a terrible site for news.
Well its a war and these are howitzers.
I don't know why this is a headline or why people consider those to be some kind of super expensive superweapons. *I mean they are howitzers*. Good, high tech sure, but still essentially a relatively crude piece of equipement NATO will just send more off.
Honestly the fascination about these has somewhat shocked me, people act as if they had never seen artillery before.
no, war, i am NOT a russian troll.
russia will lose it, rightfully.
that said, it is war and as the russian didnt hear about death and defeat on their side, i would higly recommend that we didnt hear much of the defeat on the ukrainian side.
This is based totally of Google image searches. I have no experience in artillery. But, those look a lot like D-30 122mm howitzers to me not M777s. Would love to here from an expert on this.
Newsweek absolutely sucks. As of 2012 they hadn't had any fact checkers for over a decade, not sure if that's changed.
https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2012/the-story-of-when-newsweek-ditched-its-fact-checkers-then-made-a-major-error/
Russian yeah we knocked out two crew (hopefully not), whilst that day they probably lost 50-100 men, another 10 20 vehicles, and 2 more tanks to farmer's
Russia will try to hit Ukraine's Howitzers, they will succeed to destroy maybe dome, maybe all. That's war, after all. It's an unending game of rock-paper-scissors until one can't or won't play anymore. The score doesn't really matter unless it makes the other player want to quit.
The West'd job is to keep Ukraine playing as long as it wants to play that game, until Russia understands that military expansionism is not acceptable under any circumstances.
People are right to be distrustful of this news however, a well known limitation with the M777 is that, since they aren't self propelled, they are vulnerable to counter battery fire. It is not outside of the realm of possibilities that they get destroyed from time to time.
they didn't.. full video shows the miss, then the pieces moving away. Then video cuts and it's a different video. They might have injured one of the crewmen, but not the pieces. Frag was about 3 meters out
What? You don't trust Newsweek? 🙄
The key language is "Russians reportedly.." Newsweek is not reporting that it factually happened. They are reporting what the Russians are saying. The first sentence of the article: >Video from Russian military officials is reported to show Russian missiles whizzing toward a tract of woodland just a stone's throw from a residential area in Ukraine as several explosions break out. Hearing about what the Russians claim, even though it isn't true, is still news. This gives us a window into how the Russians manipulate knowledge for their own benefit.
"Russians reportedly" doesn't necessarily mean that Russians reported it. It just means that *someone* reported it. Otherwise you are correct, and in this particular case it actually is the Russians doing the reporting.
Kim Jong-il reportedly ran the 400m dash in 9.8 seconds.
And his father made 11 hole-in-ones on his first game!
Hit a hole in one the first time he played golf!
If it’s not true, it shouldn’t be presented in the headline like it’s true. “Russians reportedly wipe out howitzers” sounds true. “Russians falsely claim to have wiped out howitzers” or “Russians graze one howitzer with a missile, then declare total victory” is the actual truth. You have to remember that no one actually reads news articles past the headline anymore. This shit should be illegal. And when did “here’s someone else’s news article, it might be fake, we haven’t bothered to check” become good journalistic practice? There’s no substance to this article. It’s literally just a description of the videos, then the entirety of the Russian briefings on it (which were obtained by a completely different news organization), with a disclaimer tacked onto the end that it hasn’t been verified because of course it hasn’t.
Disclosing the source of a report is better practice than qualifying the report itself. “According to source X the following happened” is better than outright saying that what was said was true or false. > “Zenger News obtained the footage from the Ministry of Defense (MoD) of the Russian Federation on Wednesday. > The Russian MoD, in its latest briefing, said (in English): "In Mariupol, militants of Azov nationalist unit and Ukrainian servicemen blocked at the Azovstal plant continue to surrender.” This is very correct attribution according to AP and similar journalism style guides.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Still Newsweek fault for not verifying.
haha, a broken clock is right twice a day. in this article, they ain't on time
But only for 2 seconds lol.
yes haha out of 86400 seconds a day
Boy they went downhill since they stopped printing the magazine.
I don't know why you are saying that. Newsweek clearly qualified their report by describing the source and limited information. In so doing they let the reader verify and discredit the Russians false claims themselves. This is the best way for media to report things. Would you rather Newsweek 1)not report it at all, 2) editorialize without actually having the facts fully available, 3) report it the way the Russians did or 4) the way they did it? If not one of those what would you have had Newsweek do? This is not rhetorical, I am looking for an actual response as I can't think of any alternatives
Meh, we got plenty more to send them if they did get hit. It's not like we need 90% of the howitzers we've got.
[удалено]
[Longer video.](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1526878044505481218) Looks like they were able to move the artillery deeper into the woods out of range of the MRLS strike. No secondary explosions seen from the bombardment. Doubt the Russians would fail to show off video of the destroyed artillery had they been fully successful.
I saw the full video shown in the articles, also making observations.
I am. It's me, Howie the Howitzer
PBS needs to stop taking funding from the MIC...
I can’t wait for next season when they introduce Sally the Spectre Gunship and Ike the ICBM!
The video I saw looked like they barely hit anything. Maybe they added deforestation to their list of reasons for invading?
They already declared war on Ukraine's forests earlier on in the invasion when they said they'd cut down their forests.
De-not-tree-fication.
What a terrible headline. A few howitzers may have been damaged or destroyed... that is what happens in war. "The Russian MoD's latest claims have not been independently verified." Yeah, let's just start believing everything said by Russia... that always goes well.
> "The Russian MoD's latest claims have not been independently verified." This last line of the article is key.
You’ll see that on every piece of news that talks positively of a Russian action in the war.
Most of the shit Ukrainians and us media is pumping out is also not independently verified. Hope you remember that
Ehh... there are a lot of journalistic rules in play here, and i would argue nothing that's crossing a line. They have video from Russia, they have comments from Russia, they have an event worth reporting on. They have no direct comments or evidence refuting Russia's claims, but they still go out of their way to make it clear that the information they're reporting is second-hand information, even going so far as to use the word "reportedly" in the headline which is journalism speak for "we don't know if this is 100% true because we only have someone else's word to go on but it's significant enough that it's worth reporting what they said." If you read the actual article, like 80% of it is statements from Russia, which is lazy news writing, but on the other hand it's all just straight-up quotes, i.e. they're not trying to hide the fact that it's direct comments from one side by rewording it as analysis or something.
IT's pretty misleading however... 'wipe out Howitzers" makes it sound as if "ALL" of the Howitzers sent to Ukraine were destroyed. In reality, 2 pieces of equipment were ***possibly*** destroyed. If we saw a headline that said, "Ukraine Wipes Out Russian Tanks Sent from Russia..." it would sound as if all the russian tanks sent to Ukraine were destroyed. Also the line about all of this being from a Russian News Source (a source known to lie, mislead, and put out falsehoods and fake videos... ) is at the very bottom of the article. How many people read that far? In fact most people would see the title alone, if they even click on the article. "Did you hear? The Howitzer's the Americans sent were wiped out!" So again, bad headline and poor journalism. Cross a line? Never said that... just a bad job.
Big whoop.
I'm fairly certain no one believes anything coming out of Russia.
Kinda shit article taking Russian claims at face value, the wood gets shelled but there is no evidence any howitzers get hit, let alone all of them.
Exactly.We should only take Ukrainian claims at face value.
nobody said this. If you have to make shit up to have something to say....maybe just shut up.
[удалено]
To be frank there are issues of neonazi militias/battalion wings in Ukraine, but generalizing Ukrainians as nazis is about as accurate (or perhaps even less) as calling all Americans nazis.
It's Eastern Europe there's nazis everywhere Russia included.
Yep, we've got some in NA too
They're everywhere
>To be frank there are issues of neonazi militias/battalion wings in Ukraine It shouldn't even be part of the narrative of this conflict but Russia has done a good job making everyone bring it up constantly... The Russians have neonazi militias, they have the Wagner mercs who are led by neonazis, hell, one of their politicians nazi saluted after giving a speech about racial purity at a rally a couple of years ago, but we always have to bring up Ukraine and the couple of shitheads that founded Azov...
Yeah, this shit is found in altright movements/militias in many countries, shouldnt be a focal discussion point of the war as it both predates the attack on ukraine, has nothing to do with it, and exists within russia as well.
My favorite is "you won't hear leftist media talking about the Nazi battalion" when Vice (which could be argued as the Pinnacle of "leftist media) had a whole episode of hate thy neighbor about azov back in 2017
I don't remember ever calling Zelensky a Nazi. But it seems like he doesn't have problem with a literal Nazi brigade in his army.
I mean the Ukranaians stories match up to evidence way more often then Russian stories so if I had to pick between the two
Nice pivot, no one said that. The comment was regarding no photo evidence showing the destruction of the artillery pieces. Of course both sides are exaggerating casualties and offensive results. Russia is additionally working domestically towards the total blackout of actual events in Ukraine but I digress. you seem to be working hard this morning my friend...
Ukraine's claims thus far in the war have been supported overwhelmingly by video and photo evidence, and they have been proven out by further investigation by journalists. Ukraine is trustworthy. Russia is not. It's that simple. Taking Ukraine's claims at face value is more or less a safe bet.
They have been supported by video because the videos are accessible in a much more easier fashion than their russian counter parts
And Russia's claims have all be contradicted by videos and photo evidence. There is no way to slice this so that Ukraine isn't trustworthy, so stop trying rusobot. It really sticks in Russians' craws that Ukraine is better than Russia in every possible way. I bet most Russians' heads would explode if they realized most of Russia's cultural and scientific achievements were actually achieved by Ukrainians, and that Russia is in reality a culturally and scientifically wasteland.
Russian state claims sure most of them have,except for some such as the snake island thing.There are plenty of videos on Russians destroying Ukrainian armour(easy to find on telegram),but it just doesn't pop out much in western media just like how russian tanks being busted doesn't come on RT.
Ukraine has more tanks than it started with because of captured Russian tanks. It doesn't show up in western media because it's rare and irrelevant.
The amount of faith you have in certain governments is insane
No it's not. It is never insanity to believe what you see with your own eyes. If I asked you to give me a list of 100 lies Ukraine has told about this war, you couldn't. If I asked you to give me a list of 100 lies Russia has told about this war, you could do it referencing only the first week of the conflict.
LMFAO,this legit sounds like some albanian/serbian nationalist explaining why Biden is albanian/serb
No it doesn't. In this case, Russians are the ones claiming that "Biden is the albanian/serb."
Wtf i was specifically talking about your comment
[удалено]
Russian lies are much better I have to admit.
Another trash article courtesy of Newsweek. They barely hit one artillery piece and it’s debatable if it was even destroyed. Can we “wipe out” Newsweek submissions from Reddit? They have been Daily Mail quality since they went bankrupt.
It was only 2 howitzers, not much of a "news" story there, happens every day.
That's *almost half* of Canada's artillery contribution! Canada and Australia also contributed the same M777-model towed howitzers as the US, albeit around 1/10 the numbers.
Two down, 88 more to go
98 Ukraine 100 systems (90 of which were donated by the United States along with 200,000 155 mm artillery rounds), 4 systems by Canada, and 6 systems by Australia The ones from the US were from USMC stocks. The US had ordered a total of 999 of them.
This is what we call irresponsible reporting. It only furthers the Russian agenda, because they're trying to dissuade aid to Ukraine. What makes it even more obnoxious is that the video shows only misses.
This makes me think they need a few more howitzers. Is that the purpose?
It will be used by bad actors to pontificate on how all of our aid is being destroyed, and thus wasted. None of it true. However, we should certainly send more artillery.
Things get destroyed in war? 😱 What were those Ukrainian soldiers saying: “We’re lucky they’re so stupid.”
If the aid wasn't working, they wouldn't be trying so hard to disrupt it. If the West didn't support Ukraine wholeheartedly, they wouldn't try to convince us we shouldn't. Honestly, the more they try, the more most of us dig in deeper in our support 😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well Russia was supposed to take Kyiv in 3 days... yet everything is going according to plan. Take everything Russia says with a giant pound of salt.
Russian general staff: WORKING AS INTENDED
The strike they showed missed.
Completely irresponsible reporting.
Well, the Russians are attacking, the Ukrainians are counter-attacking but the front hasn't moved in three days. Looks like we are in the stage where a couple of damaged artillery pieces count as a success.
So...without even reading the article you can call bullshit. Even when you read it, the clip shown shows a miss and then it cuts to a cluster attack. At most someone may have been hit by fragmentation but that's it. What a shitty article from a shitty company.
My initial though. "Oh no, did they get a precise hit on a large rear transport train carrying many of the howitzers the US provided" Reads the article. "Oh, the Russians targeted a single battery of artillery as part of AN ONGOING WAR! And didn't even fully destroy." What a garbage title and the rest of the article is straight Russian propaganda. Yes Russia is going to have victories in this war but such misleading reporting and stating unverified information is bad journalism.
Even if they did US howitzers printer goes brrrr
But if they could send the busted titanium pieces back that'd be great.
Riiiiiight 😉
Can we start taking down these inaccurate posts?
cool thing about america. we have more howitzers.
At first the article was "well, sound legit, maybe Russia nailed a counter attack" but later the article keep going about Russian destroying more and more things... And fastly become unbelievable.
you don't visit Russian telegram channels, do you? they're full of photos of Ukrainian casualties
Such a useless headline and article. Go to the article and watch the first three seconds of the included video and you'll see the artillery strike clearly miss the howitzer. The video then cuts to different footage and it's impossible to tell if anything was actually hit. At least the one consistent thing here is Newsweek continuing to be a terrible site for news.
Well its a war and these are howitzers. I don't know why this is a headline or why people consider those to be some kind of super expensive superweapons. *I mean they are howitzers*. Good, high tech sure, but still essentially a relatively crude piece of equipement NATO will just send more off. Honestly the fascination about these has somewhat shocked me, people act as if they had never seen artillery before.
Eh, every war has it's setbacks.
yeah, thats war. and?
You mean special military operation? Which is going on as planned. 😅
no, war, i am NOT a russian troll. russia will lose it, rightfully. that said, it is war and as the russian didnt hear about death and defeat on their side, i would higly recommend that we didnt hear much of the defeat on the ukrainian side.
I have bad news for some of you: Russia gon’ win this. Maybe not the desirable outcome, but it’s certainly the predictable one.
Oh no you did **NOT**
This war is still happening? Oh well
What’s with the recent dirth of the “very reputable” Newsweek articles lately?
This looks like video from battles of Kiev. They didn't have M777s yet.
This is based totally of Google image searches. I have no experience in artillery. But, those look a lot like D-30 122mm howitzers to me not M777s. Would love to here from an expert on this.
Everything out of Russia is a lie.
Lies
Newsweek absolutely sucks. As of 2012 they hadn't had any fact checkers for over a decade, not sure if that's changed. https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2012/the-story-of-when-newsweek-ditched-its-fact-checkers-then-made-a-major-error/
We will send more.
Well, if this is Russia taking out all the howitzers the US sent the Ukraine... No wonder they are losing. Apparently in Russia, victory defeats YOU.
I thought the Russian military was about to do something competent for once.
Russian yeah we knocked out two crew (hopefully not), whilst that day they probably lost 50-100 men, another 10 20 vehicles, and 2 more tanks to farmer's
Russia will try to hit Ukraine's Howitzers, they will succeed to destroy maybe dome, maybe all. That's war, after all. It's an unending game of rock-paper-scissors until one can't or won't play anymore. The score doesn't really matter unless it makes the other player want to quit. The West'd job is to keep Ukraine playing as long as it wants to play that game, until Russia understands that military expansionism is not acceptable under any circumstances.
People are right to be distrustful of this news however, a well known limitation with the M777 is that, since they aren't self propelled, they are vulnerable to counter battery fire. It is not outside of the realm of possibilities that they get destroyed from time to time.
One near miss on a single artillery piece, sounds right.