Ahead of the mutiny, steps were taken to boost security at the Kremlin, but Putin was uncertain how to respond to a warlord critical to many global operations.
I know it’s tough to believe, but government-funded things aren’t necessarily bad. To discover if they’re bad you have to do more research than seeing who funds them!
VOA earned credibility around the world on the basis of its honest journalism, even when its stories conflicted with US policy. “Some might argue that as a government-funded network, the voa should always be expected to portray US policies as righteous and successful,” wrote former VOA Director Sanford Ungar in Foreign Affairs in 2005. “But experience demonstrates that the VOA is most appreciated and effective when it functions as a model US-style news organization that presents a balanced view of domestic and international events, setting an example for how independent journalism can strengthen democracy.”
As anyone who’s ever lived, worked or served overseas will tell you, the Voice of America (VOA) is an invaluable and highly respected source of news and reliable information in a world too often flooded with misinformation and propaganda.
So certainly you have some sources for your claim that it’s US propaganda, right? It’s based on more than just the name and you continually asserting it?
I honestly could go on; are you claiming that literally all English-language reporting on the VOA (including a fair amount of critical coverage that still talks about its journalistic integrity) is participating in some kind of conspiracy to support its reputation?
Certainly you have evidence of that? Even a single source?
But obviously not. You have no interest in things like “evidence,” and asking you to support your absurd assertions is simply a waste of time.
Is your answer to everyone that questions your preferred media outlets narratives on foreign events that they believe in conspiracies?
You seem to employ a lot of hyperbolic and binary thinking in your arguments. Have you taken a critical thinking or philosophy course in university before?
Since you keep replying and won’t let the argument go, I’ll find something you can access for free. But if you want a longer read that will shatter your worldview about mainstream american media outlets like the NYT and WaPo (since your worldview is so insular it will be easy)
https://www.amazon.com/Gatekeeper-Robert-Chernomas/dp/1594516839
“Basically” is a weasel word here. Give me a clearer standard before challenging me to falsify it. My point is merely that a general consensus between major outlets in America, Canada, Britain, Australia, South Korea, and Germany is not “basically everywhere” and in fact I suspect the general trend in media reception of “people whose interests its ideology align with like it, those misaligned dislike it” holds true here as well
I know it’s tough to believe, but government-funded things aren’t necessarily bad. To discover if they’re bad you have to do more research than seeing who funds them!
It’s shocking I know.
Have you done any research on VoA?
Yes; have you? If you have you’d know they have a reputation basically everywhere for journalistic integrity, high objectivity, and high factuality.
You’re making this up. It’s known around the world for being US propaganda. Next you’ll be saying Stars and Stripes is highly objective.
I’m literally the only one who hasn’t made shit up this thread because I’ve linked sources. Want some more?
Columbia Journalism Review writes in a rather incisive examination of its position as state-run media:
From the Dallas News:
Here’s some other bias checking websites.
So certainly you have some sources for your claim that it’s US propaganda, right? It’s based on more than just the name and you continually asserting it?
Please cite more US sources about the US propaganda outlet.
I honestly could go on; are you claiming that literally all English-language reporting on the VOA (including a fair amount of critical coverage that still talks about its journalistic integrity) is participating in some kind of conspiracy to support its reputation?
Certainly you have evidence of that? Even a single source?
But obviously not. You have no interest in things like “evidence,” and asking you to support your absurd assertions is simply a waste of time.
Is your answer to everyone that questions your preferred media outlets narratives on foreign events that they believe in conspiracies? You seem to employ a lot of hyperbolic and binary thinking in your arguments. Have you taken a critical thinking or philosophy course in university before?
Since you keep replying and won’t let the argument go, I’ll find something you can access for free. But if you want a longer read that will shatter your worldview about mainstream american media outlets like the NYT and WaPo (since your worldview is so insular it will be easy) https://www.amazon.com/Gatekeeper-Robert-Chernomas/dp/1594516839
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/06/02/americans-in-news-media-bubbles-think-differently-about-foreign-policy-than-others/
https://theintercept.com/2014/03/03/venezuela-establishment-media-enables-powerful-vested-interests/
I could provide more sources but you’re not worth my time.
Always the Same Map
Ah, good point; certainly you have evidence to show that what I said isn’t true?
“Basically” is a weasel word here. Give me a clearer standard before challenging me to falsify it. My point is merely that a general consensus between major outlets in America, Canada, Britain, Australia, South Korea, and Germany is not “basically everywhere” and in fact I suspect the general trend in media reception of “people whose interests its ideology align with like it, those misaligned dislike it” holds true here as well
https://web.archive.org/web/20220520112752/https://www.cjr.org/opinion/broadcasting_board_of_governors_house_trump.php