[kasey_junk]

The point isn’t that it’s an unbiased news source. The point is you don’t have to make up some shadowy CIA/State Dept. story about it.

It’s right there in the public mission of the governmental agency that actually runs the RFA. You can see the budget, strategy directives etc.

The RFA is unapologetically an arm of the US government. Judge it for what it is without dramatizing it.

[imwillofficial]

Well this is awkward…

“One of the C.I.A.'s first major ventures was broadcasting, Although long suspected, it was reported definitively only a few years ago that until 1971 the agency supported both Radio Free Europe, which continues, with private financing, to broadcast to the nations of Eastern Europe, and Radio Liberty, which is beamed at the Soviet Union itself.

The C.I.A.'s participation in those operations was shielded from public view by two front groups, the Free Europe Committee and the American Committee for Liberation, both of which also engaged in a variety of lesser‐known propaganda operations.“

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propag...

[kasey_junk]

Correct, RFE was originally a CIA operation. Though VOA was a WW2 operation by the war office and precedes it. The blowback created by the CIAs involvement and other CIA reforms in the 70s caused those operations to be moved into their own organizations.

They were consolidated in the 90s and reorged a few years ago. Again, this is literally on their website!

So when you say they are “literally” a front for the state department you are wrong. I suspect you know that, given it’s public ally documented, so the only reason to say it is to cast aspersions on them as sources rather than evaluating the information provided.

Say they are US governmental propaganda! That’s absolutely true. Just don’t add drama as if they aren’t completely open about this.

[imwillofficial]

What drama? I pointed out that they are State/CIA fronts for propaganda, and that would be taken into account when reading the news.

This isn't drama, it's context.

As for this line "So when you say they are “literally” a front for the state department you are wrong."

Their connections to State/CIA is well documented. This is hardly drama, it's context that would be helpful for people to know when judging information presented. This is basic critical thinking 101 stuff.

I feel like you are arguing that we should ignore the history, years of deception, and trust their website.. Why?

[kasey_junk]

You said they are “literally” a front for the state department and that’s just not accurate. Even your own coverage points out that they were once connected to the CIA but that relationship had been severed long ago (when RFA was shuttered in the 50s, the new one is a 90s era creation) and there aren’t claims about the state department.

The State department is not the CIA, like the usagm the CIA is an independent agency of the US government, not part of the State department.

I’m just looking for you to be accurate. A statement like “RFA was a CIA backed operation at one time and it still is a US propaganda outlet” would be fine. Instead, your now edited reply to me said I “didn’t know what I was talking about” when I pointed out your inaccuracy.

[imwillofficial]

I can't say more, NDAs and all that.

I encourage you to read up on the topic of interactions between the DoS and the Intel Community. Fascinating reading.

[smcl]

There's no drama, but people like the simple explanations of the world. USA: good, North Korea: bad. USA propaganda: justified, special, exceptional. non-US propaganda: suspect, biased, evil. So being confronted with the idea that they're simply a little bit blinkered (not totally brainwashed, just a little ignorant) and that history and current events involves more complexity and nuance causes some people a bit of discomfort.

[tptacek]

North Korea is bad.