One important factor in the whole discussion over whether we take western propaganda seriously, whether we take the censorship to be benevolent, which I'm seeing completely neglected, is how we're dismissing it because of all the lies which western governments have told in the past, we're not just dismissing it because it's state affiliated, or propaganda, all journalism is propaganda. When former CIA officers tell us that the purpose of the organization is misinformation I think we would be wise to listen to them, if only on that point. With a little bit of reading we can easily discover that western propaganda is based entirely in taking embedded reporters who serve alongside the Israeli military, the Ukrainian military, and other allies at face value, or taking statements by the US and its allies at face value without investigation or waiting for them to provide any evidence for these claims. Due to a monopoly on media distribution and high-ranking universities they don't have to make any contact with reality to be taken seriously. Quite the opposite, the more uncritically they repeat what they're told the more prestige is heaped upon them.

I am speaking directly to you about what you are doing and saying there is no fantasy here I am describing you.

That's not how it works you're the one complaining about the article you have to find a point that was made in the article that you disagree with you need to supply the evidence that refutes the point otherwise you're just thoughtlessly dismissing it because that affirms your liberal worldview.

Of course there are other reasons that you could dismiss the article such as actually pointing to something that made the source unreliable that they'd said in the past. But I don't think you can do that either.