Hacker News Reader

Comment by ardy42 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

> 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.

"...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." Afair most news organisations were pretty sceptical about those claims. There were also a few leaks from the intelligence community that were sceptical and complained about the pressure from the administration.

It's propaganda for liberal values as long as they serve the interests of the US. Allies get a pass, and liberal enemies of our allies will be criticized.

Bin Laden was a good guy when he was fighting the Soviets.

I wouldn’t consider NYT approval a great validation metric. Their reporting on Xinjiang in particular really made it sound to me like someone has an axe to grind and they know they’re preaching to a choir over here. There was one massive “Xinjiang expose” they published a couple years ago that hung on allegations by a few individuals who the reporters claimed were putting their lives at risk by talking, but who the reporters nonetheless identified by name and face.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com