Nope. Rarely paying attention about the mainstream media.
The reason are my own, first hand experiences. What the MSM is publishing is never offering backgrounds and context. Foremost: it is…
Nope. Rarely paying attention about the mainstream media.
The reason are my own, first hand experiences. What the MSM is publishing is never offering backgrounds and context. Foremost: it is published because somebody in the 'chain of command' has an agenda: be that the journo in question ('must have XY stories a month, and every by the deadline'), the editor ('this is clickbait/selling'), or the owner ('this is infuencing in desired direction').
I also find it pointless to discuss 'losses in ongoing operations'. It's not only that every armed conflict is an entirely senseless tragedy, and every single life lost is one too much; but, we do not have facts necessary to enable a serious discussion.
Relaying on personal recollections for such affairs is always misleading: from interviewing hundreds of participants of different wars, I know that personal impressions of every single soldier/sailor/pilot are entirely different, even if they've served 'shoulder-to-shoulder' (or shared the same cockpit, just for example).
That's why there are then such 'controversies' like you've pointed out.
Overall: discussing losses in ongoing operations is like discussing propaganda. Sure, 99% of the MSM and the social media is doing nothing else, but that's no reason why I 'must' do the same.