• GarbageShootAlt2
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Actually being state-run is okay when our guys do it”

    Before you whine, let me add that RT is a rag, though every now and then it has a good article and sometimes covering things western outlets refuse to is a good thing (like the recent-ish stuff with Seymour Hersh), but to say that VoA isn’t notoriously propaganda or that BBC articles aren’t mostly rightwing drivel is unhinged neoliberal bullshit.

    (BBC does have some good TV programs, but those are fiction and documentaries, the news is awful)

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Actually being state-run is okay if those journalistic institutions can be independently verified to offer high-quality, objective reporting, based on nothing more than an analysis of that reporting – especially with regards to that institution’s stances of its government’s actions.”

      Not sure why this is so hard for you all. Like, actually, in order to determine if a news source is good, we have to – shockingly! – examine the output of that news source. By this metric, the VOA and BBC are pretty good… uh, single Tweets notwithstanding.

      • GarbageShootAlt2
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think people find it pointless because you’re surely going to dismiss counterexamples as edge cases and remembering all the various horseshit we’ve seen over the years to compile it and then be told we’re cherry-picking is not how anyone wants to spend their free time, so it’s much more efficient to work from first principles. I’m sure I couldn’t quote some old Soviet news article to you, could I?

      • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Comparing VoA to the BBC or CBC is… silly.

        The BBC and CBC are public service broadcasters with a primarily domestic market, while VoA and RT are state-controlled international broadcasters. The sources of funding are different, the target market is different, and the entire management structure is different.

        The President can dictate through executive order to the VoA, but the Prime Minister cannot dictate what the BBC or CBC does (and, often times, these public service broadcasters are happy to lambast the governing party).

        [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-we-charity-margaret-trudeau-alexandre-1.5645781] [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65961889]

        Find me a articles from the VoA or RT that criticize the current President.

          • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except… that isn’t? That isn’t a VoA opinion, it’s literally just quoting what other people have said.

            • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you’re expecting the VOA’s editorial voice to be different than it is. It strives for objectivity and neutral language in all its articles; so the kind of titles and content you’re looking for are just not the sort of thing it delivers.

              This doesn’t apply only to the President though. You will find exactly the same voice in basically all its content, including that critical of Biden and supportive of the Republican party. (And vice versa for Republican Presidents.)