• mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    That claim includes a source

    Yeah, an anonymous source. Did you look at it?

    Why not just claim they eat babies or something equally horrific?

    They do publish many horrific claims.

    gets the same results in the end

    No it doesn’t. When your outlet is obvious propaganda, fewer people believe you. RFA’s sheen of reputability was a huge factor in the haircut story’s enormous reach in western media.

    Hire a bunch of hatchet job propagandists

    …the sort of people who would write this disproven haircut story and dozens of other goofy unsourced claims they’ve published, yes. You can even tell them to write normal stories too just to mix it up.

    Convincing journalists to lie seems like a lot of work

    Not if some or all of your journalists are US intelligence — Radio Free Asia began as a CIA front operation (google it), and might still be one.

    • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Of course I looked. An anonymous source is actually fine, especially when reporting on a regime known for torturing sources.

      You’re right that fewer people believe it; but again, it is obviously propaganda when it is and it’s not a secret. So again why bother with the fig leaf when no one will believe it anyway?

      And certainly you have a source for your absurd conspiracy theory that the CIA actually runs RFA, right?