6 ms·
The question at issue here is whether RFE/RFA's reporting is known to be reputable. As far as I can tell, it is. (Funding a reputable journalistic organization
by matthewdgreen 6y ago
The question at issue here is whether RFE/RFA's reporting is known to be reputable. As far as I can tell, it is. (Funding a reputable journalistic organization is entirely consistent with "broadcasting the benefits of freedom", and doing the opposite would probably undermine those goals.)
The person who started this thread is trying to discount an RFA report solely because of the source. That seems unwarranted.
- free_rms 6y agoRFE/RFA's reporting will never, ever, ever undercut US geopolitical interests.
- matthewdgreen 6y agoIs the allegation in this case that RFA is misreporting this story in order to avoid undercutting US geopolitical interests? It seems like the goalposts are moving in a way that still doesn't support the implied accusation.
- free_rms 6y agoIn this particular case, IMO, 2 things are true: * The linked story is way out over it's skis, pulling together partial opinions from a bunch of sources to make a definitive claim that is not really supported. I doubt the Party themselves have even reached a firm decision on the matter yet. * The (minor!) Radio Free Asia link is a random person they were interviewing, who gave an opinion. It's not RFA's official opinion on the matter, but I'll opine that they pick and choose who they have on based on US interests, that's their charter and raison d'etre.
- zigh 6y agoUnfortunately, this particular report does not seem to be reputable, based on the way unsubstantiated rumour and uncredible source were solely used to draw an eye-catching title.