• Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    What made you think I don’t know this?

    I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.

    And I wouldn’t discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.

    And the incumbent doesn’t need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I dunno. Maybe the first sentence saying not to dismiss it as propaganda?

      All of the major and many (most?) of the minor independent news outlets are also propaganda. (See: Washington Post being Bezos’ outlet. Fox and Murdoch, too.)

      The only real difference is VOA belongs to a government and not an oligarch.

      • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I did say “mere propaganda”. I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.

        It feels like we are arguing about things. 😜