3 ms·

I think your point is valid, but I would like to point our that PBS has a lot of great stuff on Youtube. I think there is a role for public broadcasting, but it

I think your point is valid, but I would like to point our that PBS has a lot of great stuff on Youtube. I think there is a role for public broadcasting, but it will probably be marginal. > who gets to decide what is disinformation/misinformation? I certainly hope it isn't the authors of this paper, the German Marshall Fund. The GMF funds their own propaganda like the Alliance for Securing Democracy, and they are funded by USAID. USAID overtly does what the CIA used to do covertly. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/13/state-backed-alliance-for-securing-democracy-smears-the-grayzone/ https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/13/state-backed-alliance-...

gowld 5y ago
FYI that article reads as very crank-y. Not saying they are wrong, but it's impenetrable reading to an uninformed neutral party. Too much emotional accusations and a huge cast of characters, but no clear explanation of what they are claiming. But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.
- dj_gitmo 5y ago
  It is very cranky, no denying that. The founder of the site, Robert Parry, uncovered US involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking during the 80s. Nobody denied the facts, but by the time the story came out American political culture had become more conservative (Reaganism) and people weren't as interested in hearing about covert crimes the way they were in the 70s (Watergate). Parry got drummed out of the journalism for not towing the line and became somewhat bitter. It's not my only source of news, but it can be refreshing to read something that quickly attempts to poke holes in mainstream narratives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist) > But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project. There are laws against domestic propaganda. For instance, the CIA is not allowed to plant stories in US media. The German Marshall fund is part of USAID and USAID was founded by the members of the CIA. They're sister organizations that service the same political goals. It should raise eyebrows that USAID wants to construct a domestic propaganda operation.

gowld 5y ago

FYI that article reads as very crank-y. Not saying they are wrong, but it's impenetrable reading to an uninformed neutral party. Too much emotional accusations and a huge cast of characters, but no clear explanation of what they are claiming. But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project.

dj_gitmo 5y ago
It is very cranky, no denying that. The founder of the site, Robert Parry, uncovered US involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking during the 80s. Nobody denied the facts, but by the time the story came out American political culture had become more conservative (Reaganism) and people weren't as interested in hearing about covert crimes the way they were in the 70s (Watergate). Parry got drummed out of the journalism for not towing the line and became somewhat bitter. It's not my only source of news, but it can be refreshing to read something that quickly attempts to poke holes in mainstream narratives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry_(journalist) > But anyway, accusing an organization of having a pro-USA bias isn't a strong criticism against a domestic USA project. There are laws against domestic propaganda. For instance, the CIA is not allowed to plant stories in US media. The German Marshall fund is part of USAID and USAID was founded by the members of the CIA. They're sister organizations that service the same political goals. It should raise eyebrows that USAID wants to construct a domestic propaganda operation.