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.

[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Why are you making up what I think?

Because it's essentially what you're saying in subtext. You're free to clarify

I realized that I wrote “state media” when I meant “state-owned.” The media you listed are state-funded, while TASS is state-owned.

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.

I’m saying that some sources are worse than others.

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.

[–] Shatur@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Because it’s essentially what you’re saying in subtext.

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.

[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Whether you like or dislike a source is a personal reaction that doesn't determine its factual accuracy

[–] Shatur@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, but their content does.

[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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