Read the rest of the discussion. To me, you come across as part of a mob trying to defend Russian state media. And yes, arguing that all of western media, despite its freedom of the press, diversity of ownership and various degrees of editorial independence, is just as bad as Russian state media, is defending it.

I'm not arguing that all of western media is perfect; much of it is corrupt (especially in the US, but that is not all of the west). But not all of it is that bad. And even the corrupt ones frequently disagree with each other. That gives us access to much more diverse reporting than Russian state media provides.

I am aware that making sense of that diversity requires critical thought, which is in increasingly short supply in recent years.

Also note that the link you shared, of Trump flanked by billionaires, comes from western media.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Read the rest of the discussion. To me, you come across as part of a mob trying to defend Russian state media.

And I'm saying that's a problem with your reading comprehension; not the content of my argument. Especially because I never defended Russian state media. I too think state media is bad. The difference between you and I is that I'm not fooled by the corporate proxy that is western media.

I'm not arguing that all of western media is perfect; much of it is corrupt (especially in the US, but that is not all of the west). But not all of it is that bad.

Again, go on...

I am aware that making sense of that diversity requires critical thought, which is in increasingly short supply in recent years.

And yet you seem to struggle to explain how it's so "diverse." What's diverse about it? Who are the non-corrupt Western sources? Please tell me, since I'm so stupid 😕