7 ms·
While the article mentions RT as an example of state-owned media, none of the cited incidents actually involve it. Also this website self-identifies as anti-Ru
by tastythrowaway 10y ago
While the article mentions RT as an example of state-owned media, none of the cited incidents actually involve it. Also this website self-identifies as anti-Russian "disinformation." RT, ironically, has a similar mission against mainstream Western and EU media. So every one of these outlets has bias (even though not all of them are honest enough to claim it). So who should we believe?
- unprepare 10y agoahh a classic А у вас негров линчуют https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
- tastythrowaway 10y agoIronically, your implication of tu quoque is itself a logical fallacy. I am not saying "RT is unbiased because Western media _is_ biased" - in fact I am saying all media is biased but of the parties mentioned only one consistently draws ire for its bias.
- unprepare 10y ago"RT is the only media outlet criticized for bias" riiight
- tastythrowaway 10y agoYou quoted something I didn't say. How does that even work? Is there a word for this? There should be. Anyway that's not what I said - I said they are the only ones who draw consistent ire. As in they are forcefully denounced as biased consistently, instead of all of them being called out for bias and conflict of interest equally (which, really, many more news networks should be).