Bias Assignment

I made a research and through yellow press, editorials, official statisctics and found some interesting examples.

I. Не надо злобы. Не надо насилия. Где насилие, там и кровь. она родит демонов мщения и новые ручьи крови.

Translation:
Anger is not needed. Violence is not needed as well. Blood is there violence is and gives birth to the demons of revenge and new streams of blood.

Thats a personal opinion of one author and it really shows how violence works. If you always keep replying on violence from others and so do they, there will be an infinite sequence, which will never end. And as a result we get people dying, people suffering, people crying, but not that stage of utophia which seemed to be perfect for Marks.

II. призывы "навести порядок" в Москве, избавиться от иммигрантов и — читай — добиться того, чтобы русских девушек в России насиловали и убивали исключительно русские по национальности преступники, а не заезжие гастролеры.

Translation:
Calls to “clean up” Moscow, get rid of emigrants and to make Russian women to be raped and killed only by Russian criminals, not arriving once.
In this quote was taken from editorial and “clean up” Moscow is a perfect detection of bias. So, author is kind of racist, and thinks that all the emigrants are like this. I know that many of them are. You can’ think of people migrating and moving to Moscow as of nice Canadian emigrants, which are ready to help you at any time. Many of this emigrants have nothing behind, and they are just trying to survive. That’s why it’s easy for them to kill someone. News, on the other side of the story are just saying about new parts of emigrants being sent home everyday or so. Not violence.

III. Как будто мне будет приятнее, если меня "перестреляет" беззаконная шпана или законная милиция. Прослужив 40 лет в армии, я заслужил право на личное оружие (которое, кстати, на глазах многомиллионной аудитории ТВ разные начальники дарят Якубовичу, депутатам и др. "публичным людям"). Разрешение на пугач-"резинострел" -- отвратительное лицемерие, которое может дорого обойтись его владельцу: он вытащит свой пугач, а в ответ получит полновесную пулю из боевого ствола. Почему наши власти так боятся своего народа, что если и разрешат ему что-нибудь, то непременно слабее милицейского ствола вчетверо-впятеро.
Translation:
It’s like would be more pleasant for me, If I’m getting shot by street teens, than police. I spent 40 years in army, and deserved to carry my own weapon (by the way they are given to people like Yakubovich, politicians and other “public people”).
Agreement for scare-“rubber bullet shooting” – that’s a thing, with each owner will have to pay a lot: he takes out his “rubber” gun and gets a shot from real fighting weapon as a result. Our government is scared of it’s people and even if they create the law of usage of a private weapon, it would be 4-5 weaker than normal gun.

Here is authors opinion again. First he say, that he doesn’t trust Russian police and equalizes them to street crime. Because sometimes you really can’t trust Russian police. They don’t care about things just do their job... sometimes. And after he says, that weapons are giving away to people, who didn’t deserve them and is it really how it’s supposed to be? Author of this article shows his own opinion and I’m finding it correct. Like if you can robe the bank with a playgun (I didn’t do that) why can’t you be killed for showing it to real gun holder? “Oh my God, he took his 12 mm magnum and pointed on me, I’ve got so scared and shot him with my AK-47 I’ve got in the supermarket after new law was introduced. I didn’t notice his gun was plastic by the way…” – I think that will happen. Russian people are to strong and they have a different way of thinking. And if gun in future will not just be for self protection, but the solvent of any conflict, this winter break I’ll kill like 4 people.