There is already a serious problem in modern discourse with the term "independent media," a phrase commonly defined as any media outlet, no matter how big an empire it is, that is not owned or funded by the state (as if that is the only form of dependence or control to which media is subject). But even at this extremely low bar, all these outlets fail. Indeed, Weimers' warning underlines the fact that none of them are independent in any meaningful way. They are, in fact, completely dependent on USAID for their very existence.
Not only that, but some USAID-backed journalists candidly admit that their funding dictates their output and what stories they do and do not cover. Leila Bicakcic, CEO of Center for Investigative Reporting (a USAID-supported Bosnian organization), admitted, on camera, that "If you are funded by the U.S. government, there are certain topics that you would simply not go after, because the U.S. government has its interests that are above all others."
While USAID specifically targets foreign audiences, much of its messaging comes back to America, as those foreign outlets are used as credible, independent, and reliable sources for newspapers or cable news networks to cite. Thus, its bankrolling of foreign media ends up flooding domestic audiences with pro-U.S. messaging as well.
It doesn't matter how many times people post stuff like this, Mint Press News is no more credible than One America News. The only real difference is that one is pushing propaganda from the left (-ish, since Russia ain't exactly left), and the other is pushing propaganda from the right.
According to whom, Media Bias/Fact Check? According to Ad Fontes Media’s horseshoe theory of journalism?
Mint Press is at least as credible as anything coming from the big news agencies, none of which ever mention the 1.6 billion earmarked for anti-China propaganda alone.
at least as? it's at least a million percent more credible. US media is ALL controlled by the CIA.
And those not directly controlled are coerced into subservience by the knowledge of what they did to Gary Webb, Julian Assange, and thousands upon thousands of others.
Are you saying the claims made in the article are lies?
They're saying they desperately need a reason not to read.