• cm0002@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    107·
    3 days ago

    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:

    • kuato@lemmy.worldEnglish
      66·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • cm0002@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        56·
        2 days ago

        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.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      25·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • cm0002@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        51·
        3 days ago

        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?

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          22·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • cm0002@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            31·
            2 days ago

            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