We simply know Radio Free Asia’s bias. That doesn’t mean they lie about everything. They simply don’t cover things they don’t like to talk about. The language also matters, which can be used to influence the reader’s emotions. That’s why it’s important to look at what is reported.
Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can’t just dismiss it as false without overwhelming proof otherwise you’re just making a bad faith argument.
Examples
- Example of framing: https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/shaoshuminzu/ql2-04252014103555.html
- In this example, the headline is two Uyghur men being sentenced for marrying according to Islamic custom, while the article mentioned they married 13-year old girls.
- This shows RFA being factual while framing a certain way.
Further Reading
- See Noam Chomsky’s piece from manufacturing consent on “worthy and unworthy victims.”
- RE: The most pathetic attempted at debunking the Xinjiang re-education camps (and why Radio Free Asia is better than you think | /r/neoliberal)
- The peculiarity of Radio Free Asia is that its Board of Directors is chaired by the same CEO and Director of USAGM: Taiwanese-American journalist and entrepreneur Kelu Chao24. Basically, the head of the (government) financing body coincides with the head of the (private) financed company’s board of governors.