this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
96 points (99.0% liked)
World News
36372 readers
389 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Could you give us an example of a source that isn't "politically captured"?
Not really, heh.
There are different degrees though, and different environments for each one, which is what I meant to convey. Like, AA is a better source for Gaza information than, say, Turkish political opposition parties.
Well, I was expecting you to say Reuters, allowing me to rip into them + AP + AFP. Was not expecting someone to say that the PKK is an unreliable source of information. Who sent you? That's supposed to be one of my takes!
You misinterpreted my, to be fair, vague statement. I meant AA is seemingly a bad source to read about opposition parties like the PKK, because of the obvious conflict of interest.
I mean, AP is a pretty decent source. It’s a nonprofit coop stretching back to 1846 in a country with, err, could-be-worse press freedom history, while AA has been explicitly state run since 1920, somewhat akin to VOA, BBC, Al Jazeera or RT I guess.
And yes, I know, AP is still an objectively bad source for specific topics, you don’t have to drill that in. So would whoever shills for the PKK, in some respects. But I’m not playing the game of “they did this and this, they can’t be trusted like them and them!” either. One has to look for conflict of interests everywhere, but it’s also okay to respect the good work long running institutions have done (like AA and this article).