The point made was probably that it is ironic you wold use them as a source for RFA being government-founded insinuating that makes them inherently biased.
The point made was probably that it is ironic you wold use them as a source for RFA being government-founded insinuating that makes them inherently biased.
He didn’t claim that tho? DW started being discussed here – https://lemmy.world/comment/14345095 – where it talks about Trump/Biden hiring/firing staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM).
Are you saying Trump/Biden did not in fact hire/fire staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM)?? Coz that’s the only reason you’d bring up DW’s credibility. Otherwise you’re just diverting.
He didn’t claim that tho?
They are insinuating it. Why else would you mention that in a reply to a comment asking to prove a lack of credibility.
Trump/Biden did not in fact hire/fire staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM)
In the linked DW-article it says the administration hired/fired stuff. Which is arguably different then them doing it directly, although that is a bit pedantic I guess.
My main point is that that alone does not makes RFA an unreliable source. I am using DW as an example because it exists in a similiar framework (directly appointed by a government administration) and yet is credible.
In the linked DW-article it says the administration hired/fired stuff. Which is arguably different then them doing it directly, although that is a bit pedantic I guess
Look the the headline of the thread we are in. It begins KIM JONG-UN BANS HOTDOGS
Brandolini’s law moment.
You want me to “hunt down” the DW background? I’ll do the labour if you do, ok?
I know the DW background, I live in the country they’re based in. I’m asking if you know the background of the source you use.
Also, still waiting for anti-vax source.
Dw is founded entirely by the German culture&media ministry: https://corporate.dw.com/de/wer-finanziert-die-deutsche-welle/a-279073
The point made was probably that it is ironic you wold use them as a source for RFA being government-founded insinuating that makes them inherently biased.
Now you go.
He didn’t claim that tho? DW started being discussed here – https://lemmy.world/comment/14345095 – where it talks about Trump/Biden hiring/firing staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM).
Are you saying Trump/Biden did not in fact hire/fire staff at US Agency for Global Media (USAGM)?? Coz that’s the only reason you’d bring up DW’s credibility. Otherwise you’re just diverting.
It was first mentioned as a reply to that comment. It was first being discussed here :https://feddit.org/comment/4011934
In the linked DW-article it says the administration hired/fired stuff. Which is arguably different then them doing it directly, although that is a bit pedantic I guess. My main point is that that alone does not makes RFA an unreliable source. I am using DW as an example because it exists in a similiar framework (directly appointed by a government administration) and yet is credible.
Look the the headline of the thread we are in. It begins KIM JONG-UN BANS HOTDOGS