It's definitionally a propaganda arm of the government. If you think that we're the good guys, then they're the good guys, but they're still propaganda.
It's definitionally a propaganda arm of the government. If you think that we're the good guys, then they're the good guys, but they're still propaganda.
If it's propaganda, it's propaganda for western-style journalism and liberal values.
The question shouldn't be "is it state sponsored or not;" it should be "is its reporting reliable or not." On that question, RFA's reporting on this topic has gotten the endorsement of the news pages of at least one top-tier American paper. I'd put it in a similar space as the BBC or AFP.
While we like to consider the mainstream press as completely free and unbiased, I think it's fair to remind everyone that in the early 2000s all publications were parroting the US lie that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Something similar happened last year with the election in Bolivia and subsequent coup.
That's true, taking that observation too far leads to a quagmire or cynicism, paranoia, and/or ignorance.
If RFA basically has the problems of the mainstream press, then it's actually pretty good, since the mainstream press, despite its issues, is the best press we have. It definitely compares favorably to outlets like RT and Xinhua.
Bin Laden was a good guy when he was fighting the Soviets.