|
|
|
|
|
|
by jnaddef
2577 days ago
|
|
|
I 100% agree with you, so let me clarify what I was trying to say in my first comment. US will label as propaganda any article coming from RT - for Russia, or that Iranian journal - for Iran, and now FB starts simply censoring those contents. At the same time in Russia or Iran, news coming from US are labelled as propaganda as well. Depending on where you live, you get fed either one of these "propaganda" and you feel you are on the "good" side and that others are on the "bad" side. My point is the world is not divided between "good" and "bad", everything is not black or white, and the fact that a website with billions of users has the power to decide what is good or bad (or has the obligation to follow directives from a government) is a very bad idea imho. |
|
|
This is not a situation of moral relativity.
CNN, even Fox, are actually very independent news outlets. Their news is news. (Especially the non-editorial stuff, is usually above bar)
On some, mainly political issues, they are biased.
On some national issues, they 'close ranks'.
But they are not propaganda outlets.
RT is absolutely propaganda outlet. RT is an organ of the Russian state, created specifically to promote Russian interest abroad, and to serve as a mouthpiece for the government, specifically Putin.
Trump has friends in Fox News, but quite a number of haters; many popular folks there disagree with him quite loudly, a lot. Trump has no friends in most of the rest of the press, and there's no opportunity for him to set the agenda directly for example.
RT was designed so that Putin could create the narrative he chooses, and to oppress any opposition to his regime, or the state.
Even the BBC/CBC etc. have quite a degree of independence from state organs. They have obvious political leanings in many situations, and surely will work with the state on some issues, but they are in many ways 'more independant' because they don't have to survive on click-bait.