Blaze it

  • 1 Post
  • 8 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2024

help-circle



  • Why are you making up what I think?

    Because it’s essentially what you’re saying in subtext. You’re free to clarify

    I realized that I wrote “state media” when I meant “state-owned.” The media you listed are state-funded, while TASS is state-owned.

    Yet either way you try to (re)define it both reflect either states ruling class bias and you arbitrarily decide to dismiss one of those and didn’t even realize about the existence of the other.

    I’m saying that some sources are worse than others.

    And I’m saying it’s a logical fallacy to dismiss it in it’s entirety, as there exists context where these sources of information are valuable.


  • State media is biased towards it’s ruling party/class and therefore not trustworthy. I’ll assume whatever media source that confirms my bias is trustworthy

    Sounds like an echo chamber

    Also

    US don’t have state media

    PBS, NPR, CSPAN, VoA, RadioFree, etc

    Parenti and Chomsky to some degree argue that private corporate media is closely aligned to state interest, due to its intertwining with intelligence services


  • Your comment reveals a lack of media literacy. There is a fundamental difference between Russian outlets like TASS and RT, which are state-controlled, and Fox News, which is corporate-owned. State media acts as the direct voice of the government, whereas corporate media answers to advertisers and owners. This makes the bias in state media far more explicit regarding national interests; their agenda is transparent. Conversely, Fox News still operates within a framework of journalistic standards and market competition. It contains valuable context depending on the situation, so dismissing it entirely is a mistake