this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
53 points (92.1% liked)

The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk

992 readers
221 users here now

Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.

Rules:

  1. No bigotry of any kind.
  2. No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
  3. No genocide denial

We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion.

Curious about non-tankie leftism? If you've got a little patience for 19th century academic style, let a little Marx and Kropotkin be your primer!

Marx's Communist Manifesto, short and accessible! Highly recommended if you haven't read it

Kropotkin's Conquest Of Bread

Selected works of Marx

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] koper -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Idk about the rest but RFE/RL is literally a CIA propaganda outlet. Even the consensus of wikipedia acknowledges this:

"RFE/RL may be biased in some subject areas (particularly through omission of relevant, countervailing facts), and in those areas, it should be attributed in the article body."

Just find a different source.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When you quote your link, in its entirety, it's message changes drastically

Additional considerations apply to the use of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). RFE/RL should be used cautiously, if at all, for reporting published from the 1950s to the early 1970s, when RFE/RL had a documented relationship with the CIA.

RFE/RL may be biased in some subject areas (particularly through omission of relevant, countervailing facts), and in those areas, it should be attributed in the article body. There is no consensus as to what subject areas require attribution. The scope of topics requiring attribution of RFE/RL should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

It hasn't been true for some time now and is generally found to be credible and fairly unbiased and RFA is seen in even a more positive light, from your own link:

Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.

[–] koper -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think you misread what I linked. They are two different ratings: red (no not use) for older articles and orange (restrictions apply) for anything newer. The verdict that RFE/RL is biased is still current, as was confirmed by the 2024 discussion.

And the question remains: why link to RFE/RL when there are other sources covering the same event that are more broadly trusted?