• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I understand why people are skeptical. The source is Radio Free Asia which is literal US propaganda. I’m not super familiar with their reporting standards though. Even propaganda can have different levels of trustworthiness.

    Edit: looks like they editorialize but reporting is largely factual, assuming this source is accurate: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it should be dismissed but it’s important to keep in mind that its primary goal is to promote the interests of the US government. That doesn’t mean it’s false but what stories they cover and the way they are covered will reflect that agenda.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No shit, but every story covered by any outlet reflects a fucking agenda, that’s the point of propaganda.

          That still doesn’t explain the apologist tankie dumpster fire happening in these comments.

          Seriously, what does it take in someone’s brain to switch and go “I know, today I’ll make excuses for an evil authoritarian regime!”, and what does it take to then be a level down and make excuses for them?

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not all news is propaganda. But yes, every news outlet has a particular viewpoint they are reporting from. For some that shines through stronger than others. Awareness of what that viewpoint is and what their goals are is an important part of media literacy. I don’t see discussions on that as making excuses for anyone, it’s just useful information.