this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
198 points (89.9% liked)
World News
32291 readers
572 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
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!
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?
Didn't you ask this in another thread? Just in case you're a different person, here's another article from the VoA that certainly doesn't look good for Biden.
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)
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.
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.