I don't get people's reliance on these media fact-checking tools. They don't exist in a vacuum, free from bias themselves. From what I've seen they just report the maistream consensus about different networks, which is the liberal consensus and not necessarily correct.

Take this comparison between BBC ("far-left"), a "good source with factual reporting" and China Daily, a "mixed bag in factual reporting":

From what I can tell, the only thing bringing down China Daily's is the fact that it's run and funded by the CPC, although the site is unaware how much funding it receives. Because of this, it's been labelled state propaganda.

But the BBC is also funded by its government, the UK, and has admitted that the funding will be used to spread BBC's reach over the world, especially in countries where there is a "democractic-deficit.". The government document cited in that page is pretty explicit about this being a soft power move...it's literally in the title of the section where they announce the new investment.

So then why hasn't the BBC been labelled as spreading state propaganda and had its score on this media bias site docked?

Then there's this entry for TeleSur, also a "mixed bag in factual reporting":

It's funded by various Latin American governments, although the media bias site doesn't know how much, and has also been docked for being "propaganda." Also, it seems like it's been docked for some false reporting, of which a couple are listed at the bottom.

One of these is a tweet wrongly reporting an image as a popular mobilization in Chile.

Another is wrongly reporting that El Chapo set a bounty on Trump.

Another is falsely reporting that Christian Ronaldo donated $1.5 million to Palestinians in Gaza.

While these should not be excused, it also shouldn't be used to generalize entire news networks as unreliable when many news networks wrongly report things at times. That's why it's good to judge things on a case-by-case basis like @[email protected] did in this case.

Lastly, here's the media bias site's rating for Radio Free Asia:

The RFA has ties to the CIA, has a history of citing Falun Gong members, of citing unnamed sources, and yet it's been given a good rating by this site.

Again, this site just seems to have a liberal bias in its reporting.

RT is far from perfect, and there is a lot of trash on their front page. But at times they also publish articles from excellent analysts, like this one by Tom Fowdy. I certainly didnt notice any pro-Russian bias in the article.

This thread is about the specific article linked, not about RT in general. If you want to criticise RT, please do that in another thread.