The White House called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "stop interfering" in U.S. elections after he stated his support for Vice President Kamala Harris at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on September 5.
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a private, nonprofit, multimedia broadcasting corporation founded and funded by the US government during the Cold War to counter Soviet propaganda. According to their about page, their mission is “RFE/RL journalists report the news in 20 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. We provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.”
They’ve got a good rating, it just feels like implicit bias.
Something can still be propaganda even if it’s true, and it’s hard to quantify bias in article selection.
Not a “non profit” controlled by the US government.
I think it’s an important difference there, but I understand some people would be fine with it as long as they agree with government administration currently in power.
Unfortunately very few people think both parties should be held accountable
Frankly, I kind of feel like you’re looking awfully hard for a way to stir shit.
We use news articles all the time reporting statements from governments; there’s certainly no requirement to only use primary sources. If any news source would be acceptable as a secondary source to report a government’s statements, I’d think BBC in the UK, DW in Germany, France24 in France, or RFE/RL in the US would be the one you’d use.
And I don’t see what this business about two parties has to do with the matter.
I believe this sub requires articles, doesn’t it? I don’t think an official statement would qualify, but I’m mot a mod.
Never mind. It appears that’s not the case. I must have gotten confused with the rules for /c/politics
Not a “non profit” controlled by the US government
Are these scare quotes meant to imply they are actually for profit?
I don’t disregard instances when I see Reuters report a TASS statement verbatim because I know that is just the official Russian state position. I similarly don’t take an issue here
Random comment without reason or source is exactly how I’d describe some of MBFC’s bias analysis. If you care about that stuff feel free to look more into it and come to your own conclusions, I just wanted to give a heads up.
No need for the attitude, I assumed you were concerned with media literacy and would prefer to look into it yourself and come to your own conclusions. It’s really not hard to look at MBFCs own website and see their analysis and the glaring holes in their methodology. If you want a bit more hand holding though here’s a post I made criticising their rating of the BBC specifically.
Thank you for your thorough critique of my analysis. I am humbled by your attention to detail and your admirable level of dedication to media literacy. If only we could all demonstrate such tenacity in the pursuit of our ideals the world would be a better place.
He’s not backing Harris he’s sowing discord and trolling.
Also, I’m not sure we should be posting a media source controlled by the US government…
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-europe-radio-liberty/
They’ve got a good rating, it just feels like implicit bias.
Something can still be propaganda even if it’s true, and it’s hard to quantify bias in article selection.
To report a statement from the US government? Who would you propose?
The US government releasing a statement…
Not a “non profit” controlled by the US government.
I think it’s an important difference there, but I understand some people would be fine with it as long as they agree with government administration currently in power.
Unfortunately very few people think both parties should be held accountable
Frankly, I kind of feel like you’re looking awfully hard for a way to stir shit.
We use news articles all the time reporting statements from governments; there’s certainly no requirement to only use primary sources. If any news source would be acceptable as a secondary source to report a government’s statements, I’d think BBC in the UK, DW in Germany, France24 in France, or RFE/RL in the US would be the one you’d use.
And I don’t see what this business about two parties has to do with the matter.
Unfortunately modern political discourse has gotten to the point of consistent standards often being met with that accusation.
Have a nice life tho, I appreciate you being honest about it at least, I just don’t have time for people who think that way
I believe this sub requires articles, doesn’t it? I don’t think an official statement would qualify, but I’m mot a mod.Never mind. It appears that’s not the case. I must have gotten confused with the rules for /c/politics
Are these scare quotes meant to imply they are actually for profit?
I don’t disregard instances when I see Reuters report a TASS statement verbatim because I know that is just the official Russian state position. I similarly don’t take an issue here
I get checking media sources and understanding their biases, but do you really think it needs to be added to the blocklist?
Seems excessive to me.
If you’re concerned about media sources I’d strongly encourage you to reconsider relying on MBFC.
Oh ok, if a random social media comment says too without a reason let alone a source, I’ll definitely do that without thinking…
Random comment without reason or source is exactly how I’d describe some of MBFC’s bias analysis. If you care about that stuff feel free to look more into it and come to your own conclusions, I just wanted to give a heads up.
Thanks man!
It’s gonna take me a couple days to read all those links that back up your opinion, so sit tight and I’ll let you know when I’m done.
No need for the attitude, I assumed you were concerned with media literacy and would prefer to look into it yourself and come to your own conclusions. It’s really not hard to look at MBFCs own website and see their analysis and the glaring holes in their methodology. If you want a bit more hand holding though here’s a post I made criticising their rating of the BBC specifically.
Oh wow!
Another one of you social media postings!
Well now I have to believe you, but if you do it another time I think Beetlejuice shows up or something, Candyman?
Thank you for your thorough critique of my analysis. I am humbled by your attention to detail and your admirable level of dedication to media literacy. If only we could all demonstrate such tenacity in the pursuit of our ideals the world would be a better place.