• SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t disagree with you about VOA not being 100% propaganda, but I think the thing that RT and VOA do share in common is that they are state-funded. With that being said, WaPo (just like the BBC) isn’t state funded so it’s still a poor comparison.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The BBC is quasi-state funded; its relationship with the government is not entirely cut-and-dry, since it is funded through a government act (though not directly by the UK itself).

      What matters is whether the state has controls that prevent it from interfering with its media sources, and whether those sources have missions respecting journalistic integrity. For the VOA and BBC this is entirely true, both have charters specifically mandating them to do that and their respective governments have very clear “hands-off” laws and policies (or did until Trump, the story does get a little complicated for the VOA recently).

      RT on the other hand just publishes Putin’s marketing emails.

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

        WaPo just publishes Bezos’s marketing emails.

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is your goal to be wrong in as many places in this thread as possible? Cuz you are killing it if so.

            • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I added productive statements already; I’m still literally the only one in this thread that’s cited anything. Are you afraid of researching your stances and backing them up? Because there is a troll here, and it is not me.

              • Hexadecimalkink
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve written papers where I just cited the articles that supported my arguments and didn’t do a full analysis of the literature. It’s a common practice in academia. Logic is better at convincing people.

                • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, your logic has been spectacularly unconvincing. And my continual exhortations for you to offer a single shred of evidence in support of your position have gone ignored, so… honestly my conclusion is you indeed have no evidence and no logic. Why are you even still replying if you have nothing to offer other than conspiracy theories and bad takes?

                  • Hexadecimalkink
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m just entertained you’re spending more time arguing than me than searching out a counter to your own argument. I do my research on both sides of an issue before sharing my opinion. You’re just hiding behind a few links and foaming at the mouth that I haven’t shared any links. Maybe if I’m bored this weekend I’ll go through my KMS and find some citations for you since this isn’t the common sense I thought it was.

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

        Ok, fine. Let’s operate under this assumption. Find me an article from the VoA that is critical of the current President.

        I can find articles from the BBC that are extremely critical of Rishi Sunak (and Boris Johnson when he was still in office). I can find articles from the CBC that are extremely critical of Justin Trudeau (and old Stephen Harper). Any truly unbiased non-propaganda media outlet could surely find something to criticize about the ruling President, right?

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

            Again, this isn’t about reporting facts that, by your opinion, look bad for Biden, but about political analysis (that VoA does do) that is negative for Biden.

            For example, articles like “Justin Trudeau drops into another pitfall of his own making” or “Why won’t Rishi Sunak give Partygate verdict on Boris Johnson?”, which has classic quotes like “‘Cowardly cop-out’” and “A scandal in plain sight”

            An independent journalist agency has no problems making such claims. VoA does.

            (Also, that article is by AP lol)

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

              I think this is goalpost shifting frankly. I can find more articles on VoA that are critical of Biden. The fact that they don’t include sensationalized titles doesn’t mean they’re less critical.

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

                Sure, go ahead. The article you sent is written by Associated Press, which is in fact an independent (American) not-for-profit and not funded by the US government. I would be a little more worried if they were, in fact, a government front.

    • Hexadecimalkink
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I concede it’s a stretched argument but WaPo is known for hiring ex-State Department/ex-CIA staff onto its editorial board. I’m too lazy to find source but say something that gets me riled up and I’ll find the source out of spite.