> RFA is the only station outside China that broadcasts in the Uygur-language.[32] It has been recognized for played a vital role in exposing Xinjiang re-education camps.[33][34][35] The New York Times regards RFA as one of the few reliable sources of information about Xinjiang.
My understanding is that RFA, RFE, VOA, etc. are basically meant to promote the idea free independent press in areas where only heavy-handed propaganda is available, and the propaganda value is in undermining blatant propaganda.
I think it is fair to call it propaganda. It is funded by U.S. Agency for Global Media [0], their first principle is to "Be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" [1]. That means they cannot be considered free independent press since they won't be able to take a stance that goes against the US government.
> That means they cannot be considered free independent press since they won't be able to take a stance that goes against the US government.
I don't think it means that. Sure, they're not going to run strongly anti-American editorials, but we're talking about news reporting here, and they don't seem to finch at reporting news that doesn't make the US look good. For instance:
This article repeats criticisms of US police actions against journalism and carries this gem: "“Abuse of power against journalism is really as old as America itself,” Wheaton said. “It’s an eternal struggle between journalists trying to expose and power trying to hide.”": https://www.voanews.com/press-freedom/police-response-press-...:
This article (republished from the AFP) is actually not too different from a certain type of subtle anti-democracy propaganda you'd see on CCTV (i.e. selectively emphasize foreign unrest to make Chinese authoritarianism look good): https://www.voanews.com/usa/timeline-us-race-riots-1965
They have an entire category dedicated covering one of the biggest American domestic problems (which, IMHO, doesn't make the US look good): https://www.voanews.com/usa/race-in-america
This article (from a US conservative website) criticizes VoA for not being pro-government enough, and carries another gem: "The viewpoints generally expressed in these Voice of America articles are those of demonstrators, protesters, and rioters, and indistinguishable from coverage in The New York Times or The Washington Post.": https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-voice-...
And the Comintern was merely meant to promote workers rights?
It's definitionally a propaganda arm of the government. If you think that we're the good guys, then they're the good guys, but they're still propaganda.
> It's definitionally a propaganda arm of the government. If you think that we're the good guys, then they're the good guys, but they're still propaganda.
If it's propaganda, it's propaganda for western-style journalism and liberal values.
The question shouldn't be "is it state sponsored or not;" it should be "is its reporting reliable or not." On that question, RFA's reporting on this topic has gotten the endorsement of the news pages of at least one top-tier American paper. I'd put it in a similar space as the BBC or AFP.
> On that question, RFA's reporting on this topic has gotten the endorsement of the news pages of at least one top-tier American paper.
While we like to consider the mainstream press as completely free and unbiased, I think it's fair to remind everyone that in the early 2000s all publications were parroting the US lie that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Something similar happened last year with the election in Bolivia and subsequent coup.
"...I think it's fair to remind everyone that in the early 2000s all publications were parroting the US lie that Iraq was hiding WMDs."
Afair most news organisations were pretty sceptical about those claims. There were also a few leaks from the intelligence community that were sceptical and complained about the pressure from the administration.
> While we like to consider the mainstream press as completely free and unbiased, I think it's fair to remind everyone that in the early 2000s all publications were parroting the US lie that Iraq was hiding WMDs. Something similar happened last year with the election in Bolivia and subsequent coup.
That's true, taking that observation too far leads to a quagmire or cynicism, paranoia, and/or ignorance.
If RFA basically has the problems of the mainstream press, then it's actually pretty good, since the mainstream press, despite its issues, is the best press we have. It definitely compares favorably to outlets like RT and Xinhua.
It's propaganda for liberal values as long as they serve the interests of the US. Allies get a pass, and liberal enemies of our allies will be criticized.
Bin Laden was a good guy when he was fighting the Soviets.
I wouldn’t consider NYT approval a great validation metric. Their reporting on Xinjiang in particular really made it sound to me like someone has an axe to grind and they know they’re preaching to a choir over here. There was one massive “Xinjiang expose” they published a couple years ago that hung on allegations by a few individuals who the reporters claimed were putting their lives at risk by talking, but who the reporters nonetheless identified by name and face.
Eh, not so much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia
> RFA is the only station outside China that broadcasts in the Uygur-language.[32] It has been recognized for played a vital role in exposing Xinjiang re-education camps.[33][34][35] The New York Times regards RFA as one of the few reliable sources of information about Xinjiang.
My understanding is that RFA, RFE, VOA, etc. are basically meant to promote the idea free independent press in areas where only heavy-handed propaganda is available, and the propaganda value is in undermining blatant propaganda.