this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
82 points (83.6% liked)
Memes
55875 readers
1019 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not a westerner. But TASS and RT are like Fox News in the US. Those are simply bad sources.
Your comment reveals a lack of media literacy. There is a fundamental difference between Russian outlets like TASS and RT, which are state-controlled, and Fox News, which is corporate-owned. State media acts as the direct voice of the government, whereas corporate media answers to advertisers and owners. This makes the bias in state media far more explicit regarding national interests; their agenda is transparent. Conversely, Fox News still operates within a framework of journalistic standards and market competition. It contains valuable context depending on the situation, so dismissing it entirely is a mistake
I know this. I just don't think state-controlled media is much different from corporate media under oligarchy. US don't have state media (edit: state-owned, not just state-funded) as far as I know, but if they were, those media would simply change bias toward the ruling party.
I mentioned Fox News because they feel similar in spirit: conservative and usually not trustworthy.
Sounds like an echo chamber
Also
PBS, NPR, CSPAN, VoA, RadioFree, etc
Parenti and Chomsky to some degree argue that private corporate media is closely aligned to state interest, due to its intertwining with intelligence services
Why are you making up what I think?
I realized that I wrote "state media" when I meant "state-owned." The media you listed are state-funded, while TASS is state-owned. But that's not the point. I'm not a native speaker, so sometimes what I say might not be entirely clear. I'm saying that some sources are worse than others. I don't like TASS or RT, similar to the mentioned Fox News - you can see my comment above as an example of why.
Because it's essentially what you're saying in subtext. You're free to clarify
Yet either way you try to (re)define it both reflect either states ruling class bias and you arbitrarily decide to dismiss one of those and didn't even realize about the existence of the other.
And I'm saying it's a logical fallacy to dismiss it in it's entirety, as there exists context where these sources of information are valuable.
No, I didn’t imply any of this.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't like any of the media we mentioned in this dialogue. Not because of where they get their funding, but because of their content. I explained why I don't like TASS in this comment section above.
Whether you like or dislike a source is a personal reaction that doesn't determine its factual accuracy
Yeah, but their content does.
On an article to article basis dependent on the context. Not as the entire outlet like you suggest. You're intellectually dishonest to yourself if you do
Lol