if The New York Times feels that RFA is reliable enough to directly republish their journalism, then I don't see why we have much of a case to say that RFA is anything but generally reliable for reporting facts on the ground.
They bolded this. They think this is a good point.
They bolded this. They think this is a good point.
Enhancing the credibility of RFA rather than diminishing the credibility of NYT
well yeah, it's the imperial gold standard after all