• edward@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    mediabiasfactcheck, the site that squashes two complex spectrums (left vs right, unbiased vs biased) into a one dimensional line, making no distinction between centrism and being unbiased.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yet certainly this has more nuance than that idiot who sees literally no difference between VOA, WaPo, BBC, and RT?

      • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Look up the concept of hyperbolic statements in conversation.

        All they were saying was that they don’t trust the Washington Post for foreign news. They weren’t literally putting WP in line with RT.

        • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Washington Post is an american propaganda outlet when it comes to foreign policy articles. You might as well be linking VOA or RT.

          They are literally putting WP in line with RT. This statement is still wrong in exactly the way I’ve described numerous times here.

          • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That quote is meant to be taken figuratively.

            Propaganda in the loosest definition just means reporting in a biased manner to push a political agenda. You can be 100% accurate with what you say and it still can be considered propaganda due to the manner in which it is presented.

            While WP or VoA, in contrast to RT, don’t outright lie or deceptively create fake stories, they do have a pro-USA bias. That’s why it’s a hyperbolic statement. It was just meant to elaborate on the distrust for the article.