4 ms·

Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can't just dismiss it as false without overwhelmi

Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can't just dismiss it as false without overwhelming proof otherwise you're just making a bad faith argument.

sudosysgen 6y ago
You can't prove a negative. If the only source for something was TASS or the CGTN and you couldn't find any other source, it would be treated as false until proof of the contrary. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something to provide a credible source. The CIA is not a good source for things that conflict with US interests.
- singlow 6y ago
  Any evidence that the CIA is involved with the modern RFA, which is a different organization than the one with the same name that the CIA ran in the 50s?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Right. So RFA was created by the CIA. In 1971 the directorship was transferred to the BIB. In 1994 the directorship was transferred once again to the USIA. In 1999, the directorship was transferred to the AGM. All four of these organizations are under the direct control of the US State Department. Seems to me that this is just shuffling around to obfuscate who owns what. It still uses the same tactics, is directed by the same people, and operates under the same name, it's just a game of shell companies. However, I never claimed it was still directly controlled by the CIA. It's still controlled by the State Department, and is indeed founded by the CIA, as there is continuity between the CIA and the modern RFA. By the standard that you are requesting, that is to prove that the CIA is still directly connected to RFA right this present minute, it's not realistic to provide such proof. However, there is proof that the RFA is still commanded by the same people as under the CIA, and that is sufficient.
- president 6y ago
  You literally made a claim without providing any evidence. Just because the CIA created something doesn't mean it's false. Do you hear yourself? And I'm the one being downvoted...unbelievable.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I didn't. I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. I'm willing to accept that the information might be true, which is why I'm asking for a reliable source. If some information is only reported by a source that is very interested and was created for propaganda, it is likely false.
    - president 6y ago
      > I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. This is not a universally accepted truth. You made a claim and didn't back it up. It's not that hard. Honestly, I'm not even trying to defend RFA but it's irritating to see people make claims without substantiating them and then trying to argue about it afterwards.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        It is a universally accepted truth that you should not trust actors with vested interests and a history of lying, yes.

sudosysgen 6y ago

You can't prove a negative. If the only source for something was TASS or the CGTN and you couldn't find any other source, it would be treated as false until proof of the contrary. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something to provide a credible source. The CIA is not a good source for things that conflict with US interests.

singlow 6y ago
Any evidence that the CIA is involved with the modern RFA, which is a different organization than the one with the same name that the CIA ran in the 50s?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Right. So RFA was created by the CIA. In 1971 the directorship was transferred to the BIB. In 1994 the directorship was transferred once again to the USIA. In 1999, the directorship was transferred to the AGM. All four of these organizations are under the direct control of the US State Department. Seems to me that this is just shuffling around to obfuscate who owns what. It still uses the same tactics, is directed by the same people, and operates under the same name, it's just a game of shell companies. However, I never claimed it was still directly controlled by the CIA. It's still controlled by the State Department, and is indeed founded by the CIA, as there is continuity between the CIA and the modern RFA. By the standard that you are requesting, that is to prove that the CIA is still directly connected to RFA right this present minute, it's not realistic to provide such proof. However, there is proof that the RFA is still commanded by the same people as under the CIA, and that is sufficient.
president 6y ago
You literally made a claim without providing any evidence. Just because the CIA created something doesn't mean it's false. Do you hear yourself? And I'm the one being downvoted...unbelievable.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I didn't. I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. I'm willing to accept that the information might be true, which is why I'm asking for a reliable source. If some information is only reported by a source that is very interested and was created for propaganda, it is likely false.
  - president 6y ago
    > I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. This is not a universally accepted truth. You made a claim and didn't back it up. It's not that hard. Honestly, I'm not even trying to defend RFA but it's irritating to see people make claims without substantiating them and then trying to argue about it afterwards.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      It is a universally accepted truth that you should not trust actors with vested interests and a history of lying, yes.