KraneBerry
115469
2082
53
Sep 28, 2022 9:15 AM
KraneBerry
115469
2082
53
makeamericasmartagain9000
They probably just asked 2 people and came up with this number!
bleepbloop5
Wow 96%. They have allies that will swallow that spam? What a fuck up
grantbaines0
Reuters doesn't report opinion. The facts of this story is that Russia has claimed that turnout and why everyone discounts that claim.
Hogeron
in Soviet Russia the vote chooses you!
mrthewhitee
We also dont know how the question was worded either. Last time they did a survey it was "join Russia or be fully indipendant". Total bs
ToxicPersonality
Rip 4%ers
felsparicfinch
120% of people voted for Putin so I am not sure I can trust those numbers
Equinox13
reut.rs/3LQCzWC = https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moscows-proxies-occupied-ukraine-regions-report-big">LQCzWC">reut.rs/3LQCzWC = https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moscows-proxies-occupied-ukraine-regions-report-big-votes-join-russia-2022-09-27/
magundi
Russia’s been relocating Russians to Ukraine for years, to settle in and sway the eventual vote. They did the same thing in Crimea.
StinkyBlumbus
Yeah this is how bullshit starts like how all of azov & Ukraine are nazi. When the real nazis arrived with z on the vehicles and rape girls
GlenL
Where's that picture of the soldiers taking over a news broadcast to say there hasn't been a coup?
JunkFoodVanDame
I dont know why Reuters gets booed here when they suggest using your brains here. If you want processed news go to fox.
swedeonamoose
Or in many other countries, News for kids.
pumper
Take a look at some videos on reddit, fuckers were counting blank ballots as 'yes' votes.
isthisusernametakenquestionmark
It's Reuters, they're stating the absurdity
BishlamekGurpgork
They managed to say the vote was held on occupied territory without expressing bias against Russia. I may have anti-Russian bias at this
BishlamekGurpgork
Point, but that doesn't mean I want my news sources reinforcing my echo chambers. They told me everything I needed to understand.
Kdvdp
Even if it were legit... Russia has no say on the matter. It isn't up to them ?
BishlamekGurpgork
That's exactly what they said. With wording that is more tactful, but that is exactly what they're trying to express.
SpartaWolf117
96% after they ditched 80% of the votes
WarKittyKat
From the earlier reports: it's more like 96% of votes on non-secret ballots administered by armed forces.
Raizioo
voters*
Hogeron
as if they would care to count em, lol
SpartaWolf117
they have to know who to put on the front lines, or ship off to the gulag
Youhavinagiraffe
The actual headline article is "Moscow's proxies in occupied Ukraine regions report big votes to join Russia"
amergin
See https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1575077830890639364 for more info (2/2).
amergin
Actually Reuters just fell for Russian propaganda (again), and deleted their tweet when they were called out. 1/
Youhavinagiraffe
The article wording is the same and is very obvious they didn't "fall for Russian propaganda". Actually story is they people on Twitter...
Youhavinagiraffe
...who only ever read headlines and not articles got annoyed that the wording of their headline didn't spoon-feed enough of the...
Youhavinagiraffe
...information within the article directly to them without them having to click a link and read more than a sentence.
magila
Reuters spreading Russian propaganda because using common sense would be biased.
Equinox13
Spreading Russian propaganda with an article that starts with calling them "so-called referendums" that were denounced as a scam.
tumppu
The wording is deliberate, so as to NOT make anyone say they think this is legit. But you claim it as propaganda anyway...
Canadoug
No that's corporate clickbait. I don't dislike Reuters but clickbait is part of their game.
whiskinputwarbles
Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know what "said to ... from occupied regions" means.
magila
If enough people repeat a lie often enough people will accept it as truth. Repeating a Russian lie without saying it's a lie is propaganda.
Youhavinagiraffe
Also the actual headline of the article on their site is "Moscow's proxies in occupied Ukraine regions report big votes to join Russia"
GroumphLePreux
Almost the 109% expected !
profloyo
At least!
DarkMagic1516
Yes sir! Almost 115% supported!
HandoB4Javert
121% agreed
MK1Maniac
145%? That's down from last year...
svirr
We’ll, last year was only 161%
svirr
Fuck fuck fuckity fuck. Well!
backrideup9
In other news, 10% of Ukrainians in occupied territories leapt to their deaths yesterday.
swedeonamoose
It is kinda bad when even Reuters need a /s for people not to throw a hissy fit.
VaultGirl69
People are really worked up right now. Which, I get it, but at the same time it's hard to be objective in that state.
Overjay2
Writing an article like a dumbass and then acting like nothing happened and "oh they didn't mean that" isn't journalism.
upsidedownalarmclock
Spoken like a person who’s never read unbiased reporting
pvtsquirel
Did you read the article?
ICantThinkOfAU
See this is the problem. Reading comprehension. You’re calling people dumbasses without being able to read ONE fucking sentence correctly.
Youhavinagiraffe
The literal first line of the article is "Russian-installed officials in occupied regions of Ukraine reported huge majorities on Tuesday...
Youhavinagiraffe
...in favour of becoming part of Russia after five days of voting in so-called referendums that Kyiv and the West denounced as a sham."...
Youhavinagiraffe
...what exactly is the problem with the article? Even the headline is making no secret of the situation: "Moscow's proxies in occupied...
Youhavinagiraffe
...Ukraine regions report big votes to join Russia". This IS journalism... try reading it sometime
cbale2000
Has there *ever* been a legitimate election for anything that got a 96% yes vote? It's like they're not even trying to be believable.
Whatswrongwiththispicture
“vote” results
tarvuz
Having lived in Donetsk I can tell you most of them would choose Russia. That's the magic of propaganda.
V0rch4
Living in Ukraine RIGHT NOW I can assure you that it's not the case anymore
tarvuz
I'm talking three long occupied Donetsk city
MasunAttek
They put 97 percent in favour in fucking Zaporizhzhia. Quite literally the most active pro Ukrainian insurgency in all temporary occupied 1/
serenityfast
And the city itself isn't even in Russian control, so literally most of Zap couldn't vote lmao
MasunAttek
territory. Fucking 97 percent. It didn't even try to pretend it was fair.
Mmbear
96% of people held at gunpoint and told to check yes or else die decided to check yes.
ClosetGuitarPlayerYesItsThatBad
In other news, 4% of voters in new Russian territories have gone missing. -Reuters
HoldingAccount
Do you think the counted the votes?
OffendedSkeleton
Missing? Nyet. They all just accidentally fell out of a 6th floor window into a neat pile.
swedeonamoose
Apperently they just told people "you do you" if they didnt want to vote, the people of Gammalsvenskby all decided to refuse voting.
sharikov
While standing over them with guns, yea.
CoarseAndSalty
"How do you say.. he has window accident.. da?"
bogles
I think I'll give them credit for putting the word "said" in the title and expecting the reader to figure it out
Colopty
Would be better if they put the "by whom" in the title though.
Youhavinagiraffe
The actual article headline on their news site is "Moscow's proxies in occupied Ukraine regions report big votes to join Russia"
Equinox13
Article linked: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moscows-proxies-occupied-ukraine-regions-report-big-votes-join-russia-2022-09-27/
Equinox13
"Russian-installed officials in occupied regions of Ukraine reported huge majorities [...] that Kyiv and the West denounced as a sham."
mesogiria
Yeah, they don't put that in headlines about real elections.
BishlamekGurpgork
They key is that they indicated the vote was held in occupied territory.
ChainmailleAddict
Yeah, Reuters is typically very objective but I do wish they'd have a bit more of a backbone here
kojenk
They do. If you bother reading the article.
ChainmailleAddict
Way to accuse me of being lazy though!
HoldingAccount
Why shouldn't the tweet be clearer?
drbloodbathmc
Clickbait
ChainmailleAddict
Yeah no that doesn't fly. The headline is by far the most important place that needs to be worded properly to tell the story. They failed.
kojenk
The actual headline is "Moscow's proxies in occupied Ukraine regions report big votes to join Russia" and the first para mentions a scam.
ChainmailleAddict
Is the actual headline up there? No? Then you can see where I got that impression
BrdCdn
Better wording could have been something like Russian occupation forces claim.
BishlamekGurpgork
They managed to say the vote was held on occupied territory without an article that expressed bias against Russia.
BrdCdn
Being balanced doesn't mean avoiding being critical of Russia. It's lazy shitty journalism.
BishlamekGurpgork
One thing I should point out is that loaded language, like you'd prefer, is one metric by which news sources can be classified as biased.
kojenk
It is critical of russia. Did you even bother reading the article? The headline is fine. Reuters isnt a tabaloid to blatently word headlines
Equinox13
"Russian-installed officials in occupied regions of Ukraine reported huge majorities [...] that Kyiv and the West denounced as a sham." >
Equinox13
First paragraph. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moscows-proxies-occupied-ukraine-regions-report-big-votes-join-russia-2022-09-27/
BrdCdn
I get that. Still a shitty headline.
Equinox13
Maybe a few skeptics will click on it thinking, "Ahah! Proof!" and then they'll read and be convinced otherwise. Faint hope, but hope.
getadogupya
They're asking you to read between the lines, dipshit.
yrypics
"Russia claims 90% of occupied Ukraine supports annexation" then. Their chosen wording is dangerous.
dmo220
My, my. So aggressive.
IusallypoopwhileImonhere
They are the news it should be straight forward and direct.
ConstantBitRate
BETWEEN the lines? Maybe start with THE LINES!? smh
Ullur
Seriously. Reuters is too busy to be anything besides deadpan. Other fuckers can add bias, they just write down what they see.
mikeatike
So what they see is propaganda so they write it down thus validating it.
Justlurking869
The other version has more context not bias. Aka more accurate
plglbrth
Important to note also that the 'occupied' here doesn't mean that people were too busy running errands to 'vote'.
ILoveVioletThings
They took online votes from ones that fled to Russia,and also counted all blanks as "Yes"
factcheckmate
There are numerous accounts of ballot stuffing in Russian presidential elections, I am sure it very blatant and not complicated at all
BearableBear
Yeah that's a baaaad idea to assume people are this smart. We have to fight for science while everyone has a cell phone for Jebus's sake.
tumppu
It's unfortunately asking a bit much, it seems
Nexus159
Yes, with the state of the world and culture the way that it is, I'm sure this massive media entity likes to play hookie with authoritarian-
Nexus159
Ideals because they're trying to get the woke to read between lines. That's for sure what this is.
BishlamekGurpgork
I'd they wanted to pander to Russia they wouldn't have mentioned that it was taken in occupied territory. It's the simplest thing in the
BishlamekGurpgork
World to make this sound like people comfortable in their homes came out to vote.
SoraPonyBoyVersetti
Thank you! Reuters and Associated Press are my go to and they usually just report straight facts with all the context, let's see what the 1/
RPCd
Those two often used the Russian wording i the beginning of the war.
SoraPonyBoyVersetti
Article actually says before judging 2/2.
azarza
uh, no, "dipshit", reuters has been just awful the entire time. AFP too afaik
Equinox13
The linked article's title refers to "Moscow's proxies" and the first sentence calls the votes "so-called referendums denounced as a scam."
azarza
yes of course, need that spin to allow people like you to get sucked in. Next you will tell us amnesty international was misunderstood
Equinox13
Okay, full disclosure. I have no idea what you're going on about now.
azarza
the.. huge scandal of an article amnesty ran blaming the ukrainians for having military at hospitals and schools?
CaroleBaskingShark
Clickbaiting and "reading between the lines" in a time when 30% of America STILL supports a Russian puppet is dangerously stupid
ShadyEsperanto
Saying "this was not a legit election" when you have literally no evidence is even more dangerously stupid. Get some proof first.
ShadyEsperanto
Is this a sham election? of COURSE. but news reporting should always be fact-based, not speculative.
CaroleBaskingShark
Not... Not even an election. This is a poll... Conducted by occupying forces. Or more accurately propaganda released by occupying forces.
ShadyEsperanto
No fucking shit; I guess you didn't get the parallel. But once again, is there any evidence, at this point, that the results are fraudulent?
ShadyEsperanto
Also if we're going to focus on the wrong thing: it was a referendum, not...not even a poll.
BrdCdn
It's a dioshit thing to literally regurgitate Russian propaganda so the Russians can link the headline. There were better ways to word that.
ShadyEsperanto
Like what? And if you want them to say "this was a sham election," where's your proof? Good journalism is fact-based, not speculative.
BishlamekGurpgork
It says the vote was from an occupied territory. It's the calmest way to say Russia controls the vote, but that's exactly what it says.
BrdCdn
All I'm saying is there were far better ways to write that headline. That's lazy journalism.
BishlamekGurpgork
The whole story is in the headline, and it's absent of bias (even well deserved bias). I don't need journalistic echo chambers.
BishlamekGurpgork
Echoing my biases to make me feel better is what social media is for.