Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance!
And consider donating to individual instances instead.
Check the megathread for more!
As someone who has been accused of being a tankie, I view RT and Chinese state media as roughly equal in level of bias and reliability to western corporate and state media.
All media tends to be more or less factual, the main difference is in what facts are reported and how the facts are talked about.
You can consume media from all of the available sources as long as you recognize what the biases are and why some sources are better for some topics and worse for others.
why tho? Liberal media make their reporting transparent and allow you to contact them if there are any mistakes they make
It’s not about factuality, it’s about what stories are chosen and how those stories are written. Liberal media’s primary motivation is to make money by putting your eyes on advertisements (which they mostly do by trying to outrage you). Since liberal media is largely all owned and operated by capitalists, their secondary motivation is to propagandize capitalism to their audience. Therefore, liberal media promotes stories that 1) largely don’t interest me, and 2) are promoting a world view that is blatantly against my own self-interest.
Edit; I’ll add that I don’t think that RT or Chinese state media is necessarily for my interest, but I do think they can be valuable just for the different perspectives and attention to different topics. For example, western media tells me all about the terrible shit Russia and China do, and non-western media tells me about all the terrible shit the west does. I take each side with a grain of salt, and end up with a more complete worldview than if I just listened to one.
That’s not true though, BBC isn’t looking to make money.
BBC is controlled by a capitalist state, so part 2 (they promote a worldview that is harmful to me) still stands true.
But China and Russia are also capitalist states. You can perhaps argue that China’s capitalism is just gearing up for communism, but that sounds like cope. Not sure how you can make that argument for Russia though.
Personally, I suspect that most “tankies” that stan for modern Russia are botfarm employees. I see no evidence that Russia is even contemplating a return to socialism. If a tankie does say they support Russia, I suspect that it is entirely because Russia opposes Western hegemony, and the tankie believes that building multi-polarity would lessen the power of western states. Which is true, but not really an improvement if we’re just filling that vacuum with another capitalist state like Russia. At least China professes to be socialist (which is a whole other topic).
As for their media, I also don’t regard their state sources as unbiased. That’s kind of my point. No media source with the backing of a state or capital is going to be 100% reliable. In fact, no media source ever is going to be 100% reliable. Journalists will always have bias. You have to do your own critical thinking.
I agree, but there are times when you have to rely on the media for your information. But isn’t this a bit of a hole in your logic? You distrust the media because it’s owned by capitalist states, fair enough, but surely the liberal media is more reputable, as it’s more transparent than those of China and Russia? If we’re using a percentage system, would the BBC score higher?
I’m curious, what media do you use? I personally mediabiascheck for my sources, and if I’m unsure, I compare biases.
The state does not have editorial control over the BBC. The BBC is not a political mouthpiece.
The state appoints the editorial board. What do you mean they don’t have control?
There is no “editorial board.” The Chair and the four non-executive “nation members" (for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) of the actual board of directors is appointed via a public process following the Governance Code for Public Appointments. The rest of the members are chosen by the Board itself.
Did you actually think that the state just picks whomever they want, so that they can dictate the editorial positions of the BBC? Shit, man! No wonder you hate the BBC! I’m so happy I could relieve you of this misapprehension, I’m sure you feel tremendously better. I am sure having facts will change your outlook, like a rational person.