Well you know the old saying: "If you can't trust VOA, America's official propaganda arm, then who can you trust?"
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
27 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
1374 readers
120 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If only it was true. Sadly, the source is Reuters, not VOA.
Yes VOA, which is what is linked to, does say the source is Reuters, which I'm sure we've both noticed is not the WSJ that Reuters refers to in the article, which would be the primary source of this information ostensibly.
Half the news networks republishes Reuters content. Instead of using Reuters link, I used VOA, since they don't break embedded metadata. The content is identical. If you had an issue with the content or primary source, that would have been one thing, but instead you had to showcase your ignorance, or alternatively you deliberately tried to inflame a controversy out of nothing.
but instead you had to showcase your ignorance, or alternatively you deliberately tried to inflame a controversy out of nothing.
