• Veraticus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -211 months ago

    “Actually being state-run is okay if those journalistic institutions can be independently verified to offer high-quality, objective reporting, based on nothing more than an analysis of that reporting – especially with regards to that institution’s stances of its government’s actions.”

    Not sure why this is so hard for you all. Like, actually, in order to determine if a news source is good, we have to – shockingly! – examine the output of that news source. By this metric, the VOA and BBC are pretty good… uh, single Tweets notwithstanding.

    • @GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      I think people find it pointless because you’re surely going to dismiss counterexamples as edge cases and remembering all the various horseshit we’ve seen over the years to compile it and then be told we’re cherry-picking is not how anyone wants to spend their free time, so it’s much more efficient to work from first principles. I’m sure I couldn’t quote some old Soviet news article to you, could I?

    • @zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      Comparing VoA to the BBC or CBC is… silly.

      The BBC and CBC are public service broadcasters with a primarily domestic market, while VoA and RT are state-controlled international broadcasters. The sources of funding are different, the target market is different, and the entire management structure is different.

      The President can dictate through executive order to the VoA, but the Prime Minister cannot dictate what the BBC or CBC does (and, often times, these public service broadcasters are happy to lambast the governing party).

      [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-we-charity-margaret-trudeau-alexandre-1.5645781] [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65961889]

      Find me a articles from the VoA or RT that criticize the current President.