I wouldn’t discount VOA as mere “American propaganda”. I read articles by them in multiple languages (while recognizing the source) and they offer far more nuanced takes than most nominally independent private US-based news sources (I am not talking about just Fox News); at least from my experience of living in the US for several years.
Compare the tone and style of this article with a similar article from a private US entity.
A fact that has been recognized by the Smith-Mundt act; which, until 2013, barred it from publishing where US citizens were likely to see it. Because. They didn’t want the incumbent to use it to propagandize voters.
I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.
And I wouldn’t discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.
And the incumbent doesn’t need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.
I dunno. Maybe the first sentence saying not to dismiss it as propaganda?
All of the major and many (most?) of the minor independent news outlets are also propaganda. (See: Washington Post being Bezos’ outlet. Fox and Murdoch, too.)
The only real difference is VOA belongs to a government and not an oligarch.
I did say “mere propaganda”. I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.
I wouldn’t discount VOA as mere “American propaganda”. I read articles by them in multiple languages (while recognizing the source) and they offer far more nuanced takes than most nominally independent private US-based news sources (I am not talking about just Fox News); at least from my experience of living in the US for several years.
Compare the tone and style of this article with a similar article from a private US entity.
It’s literally funded by the federal government as propaganda
A fact that has been recognized by the Smith-Mundt act; which, until 2013, barred it from publishing where US citizens were likely to see it. Because. They didn’t want the incumbent to use it to propagandize voters.
What made you think I don’t know this?
I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.
And I wouldn’t discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.
And the incumbent doesn’t need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.
I dunno. Maybe the first sentence saying not to dismiss it as propaganda?
All of the major and many (most?) of the minor independent news outlets are also propaganda. (See: Washington Post being Bezos’ outlet. Fox and Murdoch, too.)
The only real difference is VOA belongs to a government and not an oligarch.
I did say “mere propaganda”. I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.
It feels like we are arguing about things. 😜