this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
233 points (90.6% liked)
World News
32184 readers
380 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I apparently think about it more critically than you do. All journalism is not propaganda; some is good in fact, and we can determine which is good and which is bad. And I at least have sources, whereas you have, uh... brain damage I guess?
Also that's a laughable and total misunderstanding of Voice of America's history, mission, and goals. It has a reputation basically everywhere as being as close to objective and reliable reporting as you can get outside the BBC. I guess you're just assuming it's bad based on its name, which is not great on the critical thinking front!
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.
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 the 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.
WaPo just publishes Bezos's marketing emails.
Is your goal to be wrong in as many places in this thread as possible? Cuz you are killing it if so.
Just trolling now with nothing productive to add.
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.
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.
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?
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.
They aren't hiding though, you just keep saying how you write papers and make all these claims then barely back them up. I'm considerably more convinced of their argument than yours.
I cannot conceive of how someone would find their ad-copy arguments convincing compared to the citations offered throughout the thread by others, myself included. Nonetheless, here's another [PDF], and another but again I want to point out that their arguments are worthless, so the sources are beside the point. Do people really believe again that the US was broadcasting to "combat Soviet disinformation" in the Cold War rather than merely promote its own agenda, including its own disinformation, along with casting doubt on whatever inconvenient things were said by the Soviets, accurate or not? Have we fallen back into such a pathetic level of naivety about US institutions because Trump's garishness made Democrats rally around the flag? Come on. It's literally openly an arm of US diplomacy and publishes "editorials" that are point-for-point the State Department line on any given topic, which makes sense because it's literally part of the State Department!