If there is a better community for me to post this in please let me know prior to deleting this post.

Do any of you use Ground.news? It’s pretty great at finding multiple sources of information on the same topic and helping to compare biases. Sometime in the not-too-distant past they stopped including articles from RT.com. I’m not really sure why. I found it really helpful when people would post from the Russian government news agency and show them other sides of the story, or when they actually posted decent stuff, share it from something that isn’t so often crap.

  • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    23·
    1 month ago

    RT is a mouthpiece of the Russian government; the only “other side of the story” that would come from it would not only be misleading, but also promote the authoritarianism, war crimes, and aggression of the Russian government.

    In an age when LLMs make reading the truth harder and harder, blacklisting publications that are guaranteed propaganda is essential.

    In the same vein, even though I’m fully supportive of Ukraine and its right to self-defense, I don’t think people should use any of the equivalent American propaganda agencies (U.S. Agency for Global Media: Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and Office of Cuba Broadcasting), since their reporting is often deliberately biased in favor of American foreign policy interests. Furthermore, there’s plenty of Western media sources not backed by state interests, so they’re never the only source on something anyhow.

    The only reliable public broadcasting organizations are those with independent operations financed via public contributions, such as the BBC.

    Private broadcasting organizations often have bias as well, with tabloids and extremist sources such as Newsmax being just as unreliable and misleading as state-backed outlets, so vigilance in maintaining a line in the sand between journalism and propaganda is essential.

      • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        14·
        1 month ago

        Aside from the organization’s charter mandating editorial independence, the BBC being publicly-funded by the country’s annual broadcasting fee ensures that it does not need to pander to politicians to conduct its operations. It’s far more effective at this than PBS, which is more likely to be biased due to its need for corporate and charitable sponsors.

        RT in contrast is only accountable to the Russian government, and ultimately Putin, and is thus unable to maintain editorial independence from the government’s national and foreign policy interests.

          • thelucky8@beehaw.orgEnglish
            6·
            1 month ago

            @zante

            I don’t think you actually know how it works ?

            Do you?

            Ifyou want to criticize the BBC (or other public media in the West) you’ll find a lot of reasons, but your comments here are outright Russian and Chinese propanda narratives that are blatantly false. A BBC journalist can criticize the own government. If RT or Xinhua propagandists criticize the Kremlin or the CCP, respectively, they fall out of the window or simply dissappear.

            [Edit typo.]