If the news story is, e.g., non-political, does not try to influence your opinion on something, and is based on first-party facts that can be independently verified and that are correctly represented, the source does not matter for the factuality of the news story, even if it is from a non-democratic source.
What is non political? What doesn’t want to influence you when it’s from a dictatorship government “news source”
Its not covered, there is nothing about the funding of the News, the contact info and mission they say they have isn’t saying anything about who funds it, for some “news” its pretty hard to find out who is actually behind them. Especially regarding topics about china or middle east, or climate change where big oil is literally funding a BS campaigns.
You should search explicitly for discrediting information about a source and then decide if thats plausible and important for the article you read.
Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.
I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.
Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.
So it is untrustworthy. Shure the “fact” of this “news” is true, but thats nither newsworthy nor is it up to journalism standards. It should never be used as source.
I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.
I don’t call the news itself fake entirely, i say the news outlet is just not usable as source and should be avoided entirely because they will stage shit to influence people.
In what way is it not covered, according to you?
If the news story is, e.g., non-political, does not try to influence your opinion on something, and is based on first-party facts that can be independently verified and that are correctly represented, the source does not matter for the factuality of the news story, even if it is from a non-democratic source.
What is non political? What doesn’t want to influence you when it’s from a dictatorship government “news source”
Its not covered, there is nothing about the funding of the News, the contact info and mission they say they have isn’t saying anything about who funds it, for some “news” its pretty hard to find out who is actually behind them. Especially regarding topics about china or middle east, or climate change where big oil is literally funding a BS campaigns.
You should search explicitly for discrediting information about a source and then decide if thats plausible and important for the article you read.
Example: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/600410-germany-gelsenkirchen-renamed-taylor-swift/
Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.
I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.
So it is untrustworthy. Shure the “fact” of this “news” is true, but thats nither newsworthy nor is it up to journalism standards. It should never be used as source.
I don’t call the news itself fake entirely, i say the news outlet is just not usable as source and should be avoided entirely because they will stage shit to influence people.