"Independent" of who? Who gets to decide what is "independent" and therefore deserving of the human right to free speech, versus what is "not independent" and therefore subhuman and not deserving of rights?
Well, ask the parent of my comment, which introduced the term.
But it's not as if you don't know. The dictionary provides two useful definitions of the word:
* not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence
* capable of thinking or acting for oneself
which both apply here. So, media that does not depend on some benefactor (such as a state or larger corp) to stay alive, and that is free to form its own opinions. RT fails these criteria.
So how about using common sense instead of trying that state indignant, passive-aggressive relativism.
> not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence
Unless your journalists are hunter-gatherers living in the woods, they depend on someone for subsistence. Even if it is just their readers. But probably also their editor, boss, colleagues, government, philanthropic donors, etc. We all live in a society, we all depend on the people around us.
And we all deserve the human right to free expression. If bad people don't get human rights, then the whole concept of human rights is meaningless.
