"You keep posting credible news sources on .ml world "news"?? Oh that's a banning!" ~dessalines, .ml admin, main dev
Modlog: https://lemmy.world/modlog?userId=15392422
Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (Except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance!
You're viewing a single thread.
What’s RFA?
Radio free Asia. In this case it's actually radio free Europe.
Oh well to be fair that is a US propaganda outlet.
all fake news is propaganda, some fake new is US propaganda, Radio Free whatever is US state department sanctioned propaganda targeted at foreigners similar to Russia today or whatever sheepooh is running for CCP
I don’t think it’s fake news. US propaganda is very sophisticated and it usually focuses on the facts—at least, the ones they want you to know. But it being directly created by and for the benefit of the US government sets it apart from other types of biased media. It’s understandable to me why it might be viewed with suspicion, despite being factual. Good propaganda can speak only truth yet very effectively mislead people.
A lot of Radio Free Asia literally is fake news. Most of their “sources” are anonymous/unnamed. They’re just, “trust me bro.” They make stuff up all the time, especially about North Korea, because they know no one’s going to fact-check them.
especially about North Korea,
Oh boy, let me guess DPRK is actually a utopia that's being kept secret from everyone amiright?
fake news = propaganda. i guess at the end of the day everything is propaganda. i shill here all day.
i guess if you define fake news = factually wrong information, i will agree with your position.
but as you said, skilled propagandist will use factual information to misinform the target.
I guess I don’t like the way that term has come to be used. Fake news to me would be something wholly fabricated without any basis in reality. This type of coverage is actually fairly uncommon outside of fringe sources.
We have other, more specific words to describe coverage that is biased or created specifically to influence people but is describing real events. Why not use them instead? The term fake news has itself become propaganda. By which I mean, information or news intentionally designed to influence people in a specific way. I don’t agree that all news falls into this category, though it does have other types of bias.
But yeah I mean I also engage in propaganda for the causes I believe in, as do most people. But propaganda from nefarious people or organizations certainly should be viewed with suspicion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFE/RL
Additional considerations apply to the use of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). RFE/RL should be used cautiously, if at all, for reporting published from the 1950s to the early 1970s, when RFE/RL had a documented relationship with the CIA.
RFE/RL may be biased in some subject areas (particularly through omission of relevant, countervailing facts), and in those areas, it should be attributed in the article body. There is no consensus as to what subject areas require attribution. The scope of topics requiring attribution of RFE/RL should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
It hasn't been true for some time now and is generally found to be credible and fairly unbiased and RFA is seen in even a more positive light:
Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.
And MBFC:
In contrast this is what RT looks like:
It hasn’t been true for some time now and is generally found to be credible and fairly unbiased
And I have a bridge to sell you. It’s as much a CIA cut-out as it ever was.
And MBFC
MBFC is shite. Of course it’s going to give RT a worse rating than RFE: It’s run by an American physical therapist as his side gig.
And I have a bridge to sell you. It’s as much a CIA cut-out as it ever was.
Source
MBFC is shite. Of course it’s going to give RT a worse rating than RFE
You're a tagged Tankie. Cult followers angry at an org calling out their dear leaders' propaganda outlet calls it "shit". Next up, water is wet.
If you think it's shit, then provide credible sources to backup your claim.
My man, I watch their content, I know what they shill.
It is a step above CNN on regime whoring scale, but under NPR and PBS.
But all of them shill propaganda for the benefit of the owner class and their regime including US geopolitical interests around the world. In fact, RF specifically shills US geopolitical interest in a manner that the target can accept and/or get behind themselves.
Let's say you're 100% right, "Between CNN and NPR/PBS" is still not a bad spot and certainly not ban/removal worthy. Considering they turn around and allow shit like RT which spreads straight up conspiracies....
So now, here's question for you, what news source do you trust? Who in your mind isn't a shill and can be trusted?
i am a shill and my source is wikipedia
on more serious note, these new "agencies" are just old version of filters... i don't trust any of it, just got to work with facts as they happen. propaganda taints everything else.
Ok, but then where do you get said facts then if not from a "news agency". I assume you're not rich and able to just jet around the world all the time to see everything that happens in person lmao
Radio Free Asia/Radio Free Europe