• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 days ago

      The point made was probably that it is ironic you wold use them as a source for RFA being government-founded insinuating that makes them inherently biased.

      He didn’t claim that tho? DW started being discussed here – https://lemmy.world/comment/14345095 – where it talks about Trump/Biden hiring/firing staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM).

      Are you saying Trump/Biden did not in fact hire/fire staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM)?? Coz that’s the only reason you’d bring up DW’s credibility. Otherwise you’re just diverting.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 day ago

        DW started being discussed here – https://lemmy.world/comment/14345095

        It was first mentioned as a reply to that comment. It was first being discussed here :https://feddit.org/comment/4011934

        He didn’t claim that tho? They are insinuating it. Why else would you mention that in a reply to a comment asking to prove a lack of credibility.

        Trump/Biden did not in fact hire/fire staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM)

        In the linked DW-article it says the administration hired/fired stuff. Which is arguably different then them doing it directly, although that is a bit pedantic I guess. My main point is that that alone does not makes RFA an unreliable source. I am using DW as an example because it exists in a similiar framework (directly appointed by a government administration) and yet is credible.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 day ago

          In the linked DW-article it says the administration hired/fired stuff. Which is arguably different then them doing it directly, although that is a bit pedantic I guess

          Look the the headline of the thread we are in. It begins KIM JONG-UN BANS HOTDOGS