• Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t think critically about mediabiasfactcheck?

    Voice of America was created to promote American propaganda, it’s literally the US propaganda outlet. You’re a shill.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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!

      • edward@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        and reliable reporting as you can get outside the BBC

        “Russian state owned media bad. British state owned media good.”

        I guess you’re just assuming it’s bad based on its name

        No, we know it’s bad because it’s literally run by the US government.

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          The BBC isn’t state-owned. I know facts and nuance are tough but I do mention this in another comment. Go read it, you might learn something!

          • edward@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Type: Statutory corporation with a royal charter

            A statutory corporation is a government entity created as a statutory body by statute.

            It doesn’t matter what language you try to couch it in, “state funded”, “editorial independence”, whatever. It was founded by the state, is funded by the state, and is a government entity. If it quacks like a duck.

            • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Couch it? What? You’re just wrong, it’s not state-run. Like words matter.

              • BuxtonWater@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                As a brit, it absolutely is state-run in every way except the technicallity of the employees not being government workers and having a semi-indepdent structure, it is undeniably linked to the british government by nature, history, and practicality.

                • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It absolutely is not state-run; VOA and RT are and the BBC is not. Obviously it’s not totally cut and dry but to claim it’s state run is simply a misunderstanding of its history and charter. As I said earlier, words actually mean something.

      • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Suggesting I have Brain Damage and then doubling down on your argument that VOA is as good as another state-owned media outlet that promotes its own nation with a history of imperialism, colonialism, and a bunch of other atrocities. I’m not sure if you think you’re convincing me or anyone beyond your echo chamber of anything or just like to read your own words as reaffirmation of your own beliefs. Either way it’s useless.

        • Lemminary@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cite reliable sources proving it’s “another state-owned media outlet that promotes its own nation” or at least give us a demostrable example.

          • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would the government support one of its own appendages acting for decades against its own interest in public reporting? Can you show me a single case of it seemingly acting against the interest of the government to which it belongs? Because all I see on the front page right now is speculation on what Russia “Could Be Preparing”, talking about how China’s “Dismal Foreign Minister Reflects Turmoil”, one about “Chinese Spy Ships” oh and the Chinese economy “Facing New Difficulties,” along with a Russia/DPRK story. idk, it seems to toe the line pretty strictly.

            I can give it the most marginal credit in terms of headlines for a few articles down the page

            "As Taiwan Election Heats Up Young Voters Flock to Third-Party Candidate "

            I’m surprised they aren’t more defensive of DPP, but then reading the article I see that the angle is apparently attacking the KMT and taking the new third party, the TPP, as a viable alternative that is still generally following western interests and hilariously promises to promote a “color revolution” in Taiwan along with class third-positionist nonsense about “divisiveness” that liberals always seem to fall for. TPP seems most in line with the “de-risking” line favored by the Biden administration rather than the more extreme “delinking” or the left wing “actual diplomatic engagement”.

            "Cambodian Ream Naval Base Modernized by China Nears Completion: Defense Ministry "

            I’m surprised this isn’t framed in a more threatening manner, let’s see how it opens:

            PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA — Cambodian officials say renovation work on a naval base in the coastal city of Sihanoukville is nearly complete, but U.S. officials have voiced suspicions the facility, being upgraded by China, will be used exclusively by China’s military.

            Suspicions about China’s intentions for the Ream naval base were raised after satellite imagery showed that a major pier capable of anchoring aircraft carriers had been constructed on the site.

            There we are. The rest is slightly softer but continues a tone of fearmongering.

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

              Can you show me a single case of it seemingly acting against the interest of the government to which it belongs?

              You’re asking for a very tall order considering that, having listened to US news most morning for the past three years, I can’t recall of a single mainstream US or foreign news outlet that has done that. Not even DW does that from Berlin. I don’t think that’s how the mainstream news operates, tbh.

              But if you ask, “do they report critical news on the US”?

              Then the answer is yes. It’s largely criticizing Gov. Abbott’s move as unethical and dangerous, which is true. I even checked other largely unbiased news sites like NPR and their reporting is on par. (Don’t even try to pretend that NPR is another shill news outlet. Spare me the eye rolling.)

              along with class third-positionist nonsense about “divisiveness” that liberals always seem to fall for

              I honestly find your entire assessment more biased, nit-picky, and exaggerated than the article itself.

              I’m surprised this isn’t framed in a more threatening manner,

              It’s the second time you act surprised that they didn’t meet your expectations of an overt propaganda channel.

              but continues a tone of fearmongering.

              Does it, though? I’m not saying it can’t be subtle, but let’s browse Newsmax or any of the extremist, domestic news outlets for a second and draw a comparison for what it really could be, and then reassess if it really fits the shoe.

              • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re asking for a very tall order considering that, having listened to US news most morning for the past three years, I can’t recall of a single mainstream US or foreign news outlet that has done that. Not even DW does that from Berlin. I don’t think that’s how the mainstream news operates, tbh.

                That’s really the point of what people are arguing, that these are interested parties that clearly promote certain agendas pertaining to respective national interests. If you agree, then that’s most of the meaningful discussion concluded, imo.

                But if you ask, “do they report critical news on the US”?

                Then the answer is yes. It’s largely criticizing Gov. Abbott’s move as unethical and dangerous, which is true. I even checked other largely unbiased news sites like NPR and their reporting is on par. (Don’t even try to pretend that NPR is another shill news outlet. Spare me the eye rolling.)

                I am unimpressed. You are making the very common mistake of “critical of any individual or group within the US” being the same as “critical of the US”. I can point you to a thousand stories of Orange Man Bad (a large portion of which are correct, albeit meaningless, for the record) from CNN or MSNBC, but that is because what they are doing is partisan reporting from within the frame of Republican vs Democrat politics. That the Dem-aligned outlets say the Republicans are bad and the reverse does not mean they are in any meaningful sense criticizing the US. In fact, this can easily result in whitewashing the US, as happened constantly under Trump, whether it was rehabilitating the war criminal Bush or indeed pretending VoA used to be impartial, a huge portion of these attacks rest on a framework that the object of criticism does not represent the agenda of the US and what its systems seek to preserve but is instead a rogue, an infection, or in some other manner foreign to or against those interests.

                I honestly find your entire assessment more biased, nit-picky, and exaggerated than the article itself.

                It’s media criticism, and what I had to say was mostly regarding the overall argumentative arc of the article rather than trying to hit on small details out of context. Is my assessment at all incorrect? Obviously I included a sardonic joke about diplomacy being communist, but besides that.

                Also, I’m not a fucking journo! I’m not pretending to be reporting on international news for the pure sake of keeping my audience informed on political developments, I’m just some asshole commenting. I also, unlike that journo, have a significant hostile audience that I am writing in the context of. That guy doesn’t give a shit what China thinks of what he is writing. Your comparison is apples to oranges.

                It’s the second time you act surprised that they didn’t meet your expectations of an overt propaganda channel.

                Did you not see the five or so headlines that made up basically the entire front page? I talked about those first to establish a baseline (there was one neutral one and one on basketball that I left out).

                Does it, though? I’m not saying it can’t be subtle, but let’s browse Newsmax or any of the extremist, domestic news outlets for a second and draw a comparison for what it really could be, and then reassess if it really fits the shoe.

                This is an anemic argument and you show that you know it. No, it’s not stormfront, but that’s because it has an extremely different audience and a different set of liabilities than stormfront (and obviously a neoliberal ideology rather than a Nazi one). If you thought the argument you were saying was worth anything, then I can just say “What’s your issue with Fox? OANN is way further out there. What’s your issue with OANN? Breitbart is way further out there. What’s your problem with Breitbart? It’s a little edgy but nothing like the unhinged rants at InfoWars. InfoWars? Please, they look like liberals compared to stormfront.”

                These are different factions with different audiences, different styles, and different ideologies. Being able to point to something more vulgar is no defense, especially because – as others have stressed in this thread – that creates a huge, multi-layered bias towards establishment media relaying a centrist, neoliberal message! The place that happens to be America’s political center has no particular reason to correspond with what an informed and “impartial” observer would conclude except by cosmic coincidence, because the American center (as with any country’s political center) is historically arbitrary and constantly changing! We can’t just tacitly assume that the establishment ideologies are what are most reasonable and the fairness of all other things must be measured against that. It’s part of this myopia that I explained at the top of this comment about how people are so stuck in partisan shitflinging and those sorts of issues that they have no idea of what “impartial” could even mean! And I say this as someone who thinks there is no such thing as “unbiased,” that there are stronger framings for what is theoretically a pillar of your ideology, which I oppose, than what you have put forward.

                You cannot escape your own perspective, your own circumstances and interests, but you can do a better job than you currently are of stepping outside of the bubble of Mainstream American Political Discourse and investigating what people from other countries not aligned with the US say, or even a more serious investigation of what fringes within America say.

                Oh, and out of pure spite, I will inform you that NPR is a zionist rag that does nearly whatever the Democrats want. It’s laughable to call it unbiased, even if we pretend such a thing is real. They are partisan hacks and apologists for the neoliberal project with a progressive veneer faintly glossed overtop.

            • Lemminary@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What about it? You can’t just link to a page with a thousand words on it and pretend that it all proves your point. Elaborate.

              • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh sorry, read the first paragraph on that page. You don’t need to read anything else. Usually when someone shares a link I read the first few sentences if there’s no further explanation.

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

                  Voice of America (VOA) is the largest U.S. international broadcaster, providing news and information in more than 40 languages to an estimated weekly audience of more than 326 million people. VOA produces content for digital, television, and radio platforms. It is easily accessed via your mobile phone and on social media. It is also distributed by satellite, cable, FM and MW, and is carried on a network of more than 3,500 affiliate stations.

                  That’s the first paragraph. What are you talking about?

              • edward@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                lol you didn’t even bother clicking the link did you?

                VOA is part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government agency that oversees all non-military, U.S. international broadcasting. It is funded by the U.S. Congress.

                • Lemminary@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  you didn’t even bother clicking the link did you?

                  I mean, ditto for not bothering to exposit your point earlier

                  But then:

                  The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) … is an independent agency of the United States government that broadcasts news and information. It is considered an arm of U.S. diplomacy.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media

                  In the United States government, independent agencies are agencies that exist outside the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary) and the Executive Office of the President.  In a narrower sense, the term refers only to those independent agencies that, while considered part of the executive branch, have regulatory or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control, usually because the president’s power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

                  And while it’s true that Obama restructured the agency to operate under a single CEO appointed by him and Congress in 2008 rather than a bipartisan board, and was briefly caught serving some arguably innocuous political ads on Facebook to Americans violating the Smith-Mundt Act (brief pause to applaud the US for protecting its citizens), its reach and influence is largely limited to countries that have strict censorship laws.

                  I’ve yet to see something even remotely comparable to the egregious ethical violations that RT practices on the daily. Most of the times I’ve seen it mentioned online is by people using the big scary word propaganda to discredit whatever they publish. And when push comes to shove, all they have to show for it is “well, it’s government-funded” and act all surprised when their headlines are milder than they had imagined, or cry out that their content is sending subliminal messages to advance Western Ideals for Democracy because they didn’t like the wording. And to that I’d like to say, y’all have worse reporting coming from within the house from more than one outlet. This is a weird scapegoat to single out solely for its funding. Actually point out something it has done instead if we’re gonna keep ourselves honest here.

      • 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
          9
          ·
          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 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.

            • 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@lemmy.ml
                    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.

          • 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@lemmy.ml
          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.

      • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know it’s tough to believe, but government-funded things aren’t necessarily bad. To discover if they’re bad you have to do more research than seeing who funds them!

        It’s shocking I know.

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

            Yes; have you? If you have you’d know they have a reputation basically everywhere for journalistic integrity, high objectivity, and high factuality.

            • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re making this up. It’s known around the world for being US propaganda. Next you’ll be saying Stars and Stripes is highly objective.

              • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m literally the only one who hasn’t made shit up this thread because I’ve linked sources. Want some more?

                Columbia Journalism Review writes in a rather incisive examination of its position as state-run media:

                VOA earned credibility around the world on the basis of its honest journalism, even when its stories conflicted with US policy. “Some might argue that as a government-funded network, the voa should always be expected to portray US policies as righteous and successful,” wrote former VOA Director Sanford Ungar in Foreign Affairs in 2005. “But experience demonstrates that the VOA is most appreciated and effective when it functions as a model US-style news organization that presents a balanced view of domestic and international events, setting an example for how independent journalism can strengthen democracy.”

                From the Dallas News:

                As anyone who’s ever lived, worked or served overseas will tell you, the Voice of America (VOA) is an invaluable and highly respected source of news and reliable information in a world too often flooded with misinformation and propaganda.

                Here’s some other bias checking websites.

                So certainly you have some sources for your claim that it’s US propaganda, right? It’s based on more than just the name and you continually asserting it?

                  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I honestly could go on; are you claiming that literally all English-language reporting on the VOA (including a fair amount of critical coverage that still talks about its journalistic integrity) is participating in some kind of conspiracy to support its reputation?

                    Certainly you have evidence of that? Even a single source?

                    But obviously not. You have no interest in things like “evidence,” and asking you to support your absurd assertions is simply a waste of time.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve never heard of this in history before. The whole thing smells.

      You don’t think critically about mediabiasfactcheck?

      😂😅