As a Russian government owned entity, RT cannot be trusted

[MineralMan]

as a source for anything that involves Russia. When Russia is involved in any story, RT is nothing but propaganda. That much has been shown clearly over and over again. That one of their news anchors has quit over the false information being promulgated by RT with regard to the shooting down of the airliner is evidence of this.

Why anyone would use RT as a source for anything involving Ukraine is beyond my comprehension. Truly.

[MohRokTah]

1. Using it as a source is tanamount to using Infowars as a source. eom

[MineralMan]

2. Well, with regard to accuracy when Russia is involved, you're right.

I have discounted anything reported in RT for a very long time. If they say something about anything, I go search for other outlets to see another perspective.

[MohRokTah]

5. That's how I meant it.

World Net Daily is also comparable.

We don't have any media truly comaprable to RT in the sense that it is government owned and operated as a propaganda wing.

[thesquanderer]

49. Well, Fox comes close. (n/t)

[FBaggins]

54. "When Russia is involved"

That's correct - but Russia is involved in far more RT stories than most people realize.

[MineralMan]

56. Yes. Close reading is needed.

[paulkienitz]

60. it's not worth trying to fine-tooth the good RT content from the bad

There's no reason not to just flush the whole channel.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

77. I read/watch RT News every day as well as other sources

I like to get my news from around the world.

I watch several international channels and also can say that RT News does their homework.
By watching/viewing lots of sources I can get a better picture of what is really happening around the world

I do not watch ABC CBS CNN FOX MSNBC because they are all pwned by a few corporations and war industry.

[EX500rider]

93. "I do not watch ABC CBS CNN FOX MSNBC because they are all pwned by a few corporations"

And somehow that is worse to you then RT which is authoritarian government propaganda? lol

[randys1]

102. I was gonna say that, you beat me to it!

[paulkienitz]

94. Putin is a one-man war industry

Being broad about news sources is a fine thing, but shunning ABC and CBS while still accepting RT makes no sense to me. In what way is it better or more trustworthy? The old networks probably still do more real factual reporting than RT does, even if they're a shadow of what they once were. And even Fox... well, I certainly wouldn't want to hand the country over to Rupert Murdoch, but even he would be better than Putin.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

79. maybe U like NBC better? "NBC Pulled Reporter From Gaza After He Covered Child Deaths"

US Corporate media is absolutely corrupted. If anyone DARES to do real journalism,
his career is halted

NBC Pulled Reporter From Gaza After He Covered Child Deaths
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/report-nbc-pulled-reporter-gaza-after-he

[Hekate]

83. Has anyone here checked into the reporter's well-being from this incident?

He witnessed a terrible atrocious event close-up. Maybe he couldn't stop screaming. Maybe he couldn't stop vomiting. Maybe he couldn't stop banging his head against a wall.

Maybe NBC yanked him for his own safety because he broke down.

But you (sorry, U) and others here are so convinced of the evils of US news media that you immediately jump to the conclusion that the only reason this poor man is not to be seen is not that he saw too much, but that he was doing his job too well.

Where is he?

[cui bono]

117. No. He was on with Chris Hayes before he got pulled.

Maybe he was speaking too much truth.

http://on.msnbc.com/1ncCXQg

[Hekate]

120. Well he's back now, according to several recent posts

I'm glad he's okay.

[William769]

88. And we have this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025256471

I'll play tit for tat with you since you stopped answering the other posts.

[Cha]

101. Yes, thanks William.. I didn't know that was an OP.. I've been posting that news around

on different threads.

[William769]

105. Anytime.

I guess he doesn't like me, he took his ball & left. I guess it sucks to be on the wrong side.

[Cha]

107. None of them "like"..

Pooty being called on the veracity of his "news" outlet. Rolf

[William769]

108. RT is their holy grail and we all know it is financed by the Russian Government.

Yep no conflict on interest there.

[Cha]

109. It's like if the only source of news in the US were WhiteHouse.gov and

Obama controlled the message. You know.. big bad Obama! They'd be screaming their damn heads off.. and they'd have a point.

But, with Putin's RT.. the only "point" they have is that they're shamelessly pushing puttin propaganda.

[William769]

110. ...

[Cha]

111. OT.. and you've probably seen this.. but, speaking of big bad Obama.. I just ran across this right

now.

President Obama's protections for LGBT workers won't include religious exemptions

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/5916529/president-obama-to-sign-executive-orders-protecting-some-lgbt-workers

[William769]

112. See this DU thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014849940

Our President is offering us protections, and their president wants to throw us in prison!

Go figure.

[Cha]

114. Thank you for this, William! "Their president" is an

inhumane asshole.

And, we got lucky!

[Peacetrain]

3. When their own news achors walk out the door..

A person needs to stop and think, this may not be a viable source..

[geek tragedy]

4. why would they use RT as a source re: Ukraine?

because they're dishonest, soullless, shills for Putin and the Russian government, that's why.

Citing RT as a source on Ukraine is the same as declaring oneself a de facto operative of the Russian misinformation ministry.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, I have no idea, but anyone using RT for a source,

especially for news that involves Russia, gets devalued as a poster on DU by me. I feel the same about any advocacy-based or propaganda news source. Wherever there is a conflict of interest, I go find other sources. It's that simple.

People who use RT as a source on DU get disregarded by this DUer.

[Callmecrazy]

103. You know what?

It's these "My way or the highway" attitudes that are really starting to make this place suck.


Not everything that comes from these sources are all bullshit. They couldn't survive if they did. They're all just one more information source to read and decide on a case by case basis. Just like any other news source.

[Hekate]

113. LOL. Russian "news" outfits will last as long as the govt continues to fund them, saying whatever

...suits said government. They'll survive just fine whether a majority believes them or not.

I can tell by your post count that you've been here long enough to really know DU history and "what makes DU suck." Thanks so much for the elucidation.

[Callmecrazy]

121. In response to your snark...

Bite me.

What the hell does my post count have to do with anything?
Yes, I have been here long enough.
My post count isn't as high as yours so I should shut up and let the grown-ups talk?
My post count is low because I have a life outside of this website and don't feel the need to put a k&r on every post I read.

And thank you for proving my point. You are rude and condescending and I will have no further interest in your point of view.

[Hekate]

122. Oh good. Put me on ignore.

[Callmecrazy]

123. Why?

You're so...






nevermind.

[Hekate]

124. You wanted me to bite you. Sounds kind of kinky. nt

[Callmecrazy]

125. Entertaining!

That's the word I was lookin' for.

[Mojorabbit]

127. I agree with the poster

It does make this place suck. I read everything and do not need anyone telling me what I should or should not read. I am not stupid and I take every site with a grain of salt. Everyone reporting has an agenda.

[leftstreet]

6. Well, it was launched to combat Western propaganda

So...your point is reasonable

[L0oniX]

7. +1

[sufrommich]

18. It promotes right wing conspiritorial groups in the U.S.

Apparently it's OK with western propaganda that it agrees with.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/from-russia-with-love

[William769]

8. And it should be noted that RT is NOT a reputable news source for LBN here on DU.

[MineralMan]

11. True. Thanks for the reminder!

[dipsydoodle]

19. That's for LBN OPs - Just for clarity.

After that the hosts have no say - purely up to juries.

[William769]

22. Op's is good enough.

The bullshit post in thread can be handled as bullshit in a post.

[CreekDog]

97. will it cramp your style to not be able to post stuff from rt.com?

[William769]

106. It already has.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

66. Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad

people must be told what to think, so it is important to attack any sources of news that contradict
the mainstream media like ABC/CBS/CNN/FOX/MSNBC/PBS/NPR

which are all owned by either govts or big corporations. All are propaganda organs.

[William769]

67. Deal with it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. It sickens me to see people at DU SELF CENSORING

thinking, being objective should never be a crime.

[William769]

72. And it sickens me that people would would even try to defend that propaganda machine RT

Which is the mouth piece of the Kremlin.

So I guess we are even.

[William769]

73. And just in case you just might happen to miss this post, I am linking directly to you

To make sure you don't miss it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5257045

[Hekate]

80. Fact-checking, citing sources, searching out reputable sources: that's not self-censorship

That's the foundation of sound research and good journalism.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Absolutely agreed. However,

as corporate-owned entities, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, etc. cannot be trusted as sources for anything that involves corporate profits, crime in the suites, expressions of dissent, international politics, fossil energy, global warming…

[MineralMan]

12. Perhaps so. My OP is about RT and news involving Russia.

That's the topic of this thread. I plan to stick to the topic I started the thread with, and will not expand that topic to discuss unrelated issues.

[woo me with science]

24. No, that's exactly the wrong approach, and irresponsible.

The points are not unrelated at all. Your OP implies a need to avoid RT, because it is propaganda. However, since our own media is also indisputably biased, I would argue that we should pay attention to multiple sources, including RT and our own media, in order to try to discern the truth through the propaganda coming from all sides.

[MineralMan]

27. Again, this thread is about RT and its value as a new source

when stories involving Russia are used as a source. Your point is a different one, which I suggest you raise in a thread you start. I will not expand this thread in that direction. I will also not interfere with your thread, should you start one. Instead, I will stick to the topic of your thread.

[woo me with science]

29. Sorry, hall monitor.

You opened a discussion, and we are free to discuss.

Your resistance to this integral aspect of the conversation is interesting, however.

[Igel]

61. I find RT to be valuable at times.

However, it has a problem with accuracy and truth, and that makes it unreliable. We're past "biased." Fox is biased. The NYT is biased. CNN and Colbert are biased.

They will blithely report utter bull, as long as they can cite somebody saying it and as a result play CYA. If reporting on a news story, they will blithely leave out not only the elephant in the room, but also the lions and the herd of thundering wildebeest, if that's what's necessary to push the right story. They less often say a lie is the truth than lead you to infer that the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth. What you build your own lie, and what you build you're attached to; it's agitprop 2.0, you construct the web of fiction that your brain is enclosed in.

But it's useful because it says what the official attitude is. Esp. when Russia is involved (contra MineralMan). If you read RT, you get a good sense of what the average Russian sees. And if you accept that over Russians get their news from sources that are ultimately governmental, with 80% or more saying that the tv news is either trustworthy or very trustworthy, you see the problem. And it's always a good idea to see the problem before trying to figure out solutions or make predictions.

It's harder to ken than Pravda and Izvestiya were. Agitprop 2.0 has learned from the dissidents. Gone are the days when you hear about the glorious harvest of 3000 bushels of wheat, knowing that these 3000 bushels of wheat come from 3000 square miles of farmland and they've masked a crop failure as a glorious victory. No more about how wonderful it is that the country's produced 1000 tractors when common sense says they need 10s of thousands just to replace the ones that are 40 years old. It's harder to read past the text to see the facts that clever editors and writers want you to see, because these are in the first decade of the revolution and are mostly true believers. You couldn't read through the text to the reality in the first couple of decades after the October Revolution, either.

[leftstreet]

65. That's interesting

Thanks for taking the time to post that

If you read RT, you get a good sense of what the average Russian sees.

Excellent observation

[cprise]

44. Also, the BBC falls into that category these days

Their license fee for *local* UK reporting doesn't even amount to a fig leaf, IMO. Their run-in with Tony Blair's cronies was the end of any real independence.

Virtually all mass media today are oligarch-controlled; its important to see what different parties are saying and read between the lines.

[MineralMan]

45. Wherever there is a conflict of interest, trust in reporting is lost.

That's my rule, so I look elsewhere in those situations.

[cprise]

50. Then shun Al Jazeera's ME reporting if it suits you

I know plenty of people who do.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

70. you are 100% correct. BBC owned by gov, protects War Machine

BBC is a govt stenographer, a govt that has turned right wing and exists to fund the bankers and the war machine.

[sufrommich]

13. Interesting article from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Russian TV Channel Pushes 'Patriot' Conspiracy Theories

Five years ago, Russia Today made its debut as a news network aimed at enhancing Russia's image in the West.

Recently, however, the Kremlin-financed television channel has devoted considerable airtime not only to coverage that makes Russia look good, but to coverage that makes the United States look bad. Over the past year and a half, Russia Today has reported with boosterish zeal on conspiracy theories popular in the resurgent "Patriot" movement, whose adherents typically advocate extreme antigovernment doctrines. Its slickly packaged stories suggest that a legitimate debate is under way in the United States about who perpetrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, for instance, and about President Obama's eligibility for high office.
Russia Today screenshot
Russia Today's vision of the U.S. - a Byzantine nation animated by all kinds of dark conspiracies - is beamed out to as many as 200 million people.
It also frequently quotes U.S. extremists as authorities on world events or interviews them at length without asking anything more than softball questions. One British journalist called Russia Today "a strange propaganda outfit" after appearing on a show in which the host injected Sept. 11 revisionism.

Unlike most U.S.-based Patriot radio shows that do the same, the Moscow-headquartered Russia Today has a large global audience tuning in via cable, satellite and the Internet. In North America, Europe and South Africa, some 200 million paying viewers — including a growing number in the United States — have access to the network. Last year, more Washington, D.C.-area viewers told Nielsen Media Research they preferred to watch primetime news on Russia Today than on such other English-language foreign networks as Deutsche Welle (Germany), France 24, Euronews (France), CCTV News (China) and Al Jazeera English (Qatar). On YouTube, Russia Today ranks among the top 10 most-viewed news and political channels of all time. It employs some 2,000 staff worldwide, including about 100 in its recently opened Washington, D.C., office. (That makes its staff larger than Fox News, which reports a worldwide staff of 1,200, and about half the size of that of cable news pioneer CNN.) Russia Today has launched sister networks in Arabic and Spanish in addition to its flagship English broadcasting service.

Though a spokeswoman for Russia Today declined to give the amount of its annual budget, the Russian government has pumped millions into the network since its inception in 2005.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/from-russia-with-love

[MineralMan]

15. Thanks for that link!

[sufrommich]

20. You're welcome.nt

[maddezmom]

16. Everyone should read this^^^^^^^^^^^^

[herding cats]

23. Very informative.

I've never read that before at the SPLC about RT. Thanks for posting the link to the article for all of us to read and share with others. It's a lot easier than having to dig up the nonsense I've seen being pushed by them in the past one article at a time.

[Spazito]

41. Excellent link!

Thanks for posting it, I hope those who continue to tout RT as credible, in any way, read your link

[stevenleser]

48. That's really right on and its a shame. It had such potential in the beginning.

I really found participating in RT debates interesting before it took this dramatic anti-American turn.

It's no longer an 'alternative' news source. It's just Russian government propaganda 24x7.

It's a real shame.

[Hekate]

85. Speaking of good sources: Southern Poverty Law Center

TY for the link

[conservaphobe]

14. ...

[HooptieWagon]

17. UKR Govt hasn't been truthful either.

Lots of BS and propaganda being spewed by both sides. I'll say it again... neither side are "good guys", much like the situation in Syria. US efforts to keep Russian involvement to a minimum are good, but there isn't a "win" for the US in Ukraine.

[MineralMan]

21. As far as I know, the US is not trying to "win" anything.

Peace is the goal. President Obama reiterated that in his press conference today. I'll take his word for it.

I wouldn't listen to the Ukrainian government's point of view, either, to find out facts about this incident. Both are hopelessly biased and prone to propaganda dissemination.

[HooptieWagon]

25. "Win" means an outcome favorable to the US.

IMO, a victory by either side isn't favorable to US.

[MineralMan]

40. Peace in that area is favorable to the US, which

is why that's the goal. Think about it.

[HooptieWagon]

43. Whenever one side is victorious, peace will result.

That doesn't mean victory by either side is favorable to the US.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

74. The current Ukraine govt was installed w/help of NEO CON Victoria Nuland

The former head of Ukraine refused to accept horrible deal from the IMF that would have completely bankrupted
the country, and refused to accept the austerity measures like cutting pensions, pay, and privatizing public assets.

DC and the Neo Cons didn't like that and pushed through a coup of the democratically elected govt.


See

The Human Price of Neo Con Havoc
"By last September, leading neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, had identified Ukraine as the geopolitical instrument for punishing Putin. Gershman deemed Ukraine “the biggest prize” and hoped that grabbing it for the Western sphere of influence might undercut Putin at home as well.

Gershman’s NED funded scores of Ukrainian political and media organizations while Assistant Secretary of State Victorian Nuland estimated that the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in the cause of pulling Ukraine into the West. Nuland, a neocon holdover who had been a top adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the wife of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan.

Nuland went so far as to show up at mass demonstrations in Kiev’s Maidan Square passing out cookies to the protesters, while neocon Sen. John McCain stood with the far-right Svoboda Party – under a banner honoring Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera – to urge on the protesters to challenge elected President Viktor Yanukovych."


http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/17/the-human-price-of-neocon-havoc/

[HooptieWagon]

78. Yes, I know.

The previous govt was corrupt and incompetent, but at least it was legitimately elected. Current govt, taking power in what amounted to a coup with US help, appears to be strongly fascist and illegitimate.

[Bobbie Jo]

26. But.....

"RT is watched now by over 50 million US households. It is the ANTI-FOX network."

[MineralMan]

30. 50 million, eh? Someone's exaggerating, I do believe.

50 million US households don't watch any damned thing regularly. If they did, that network would always be Number 1 in the ratings.

As far as I know, I don't even get RT on my cable feed. But, then, I haven't looked to see.

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. Someone tried to conflate "availability" with "viewership" until they got called on it. Not only...

was there no source for that bald faced assertion, the party then went on to double down.

[MineralMan]

38. Propaganda is propaganda, it seems.

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. And still no "link"!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. "Why anyone would use RT as a source for anything involving Ukraine is beyond my comprehension".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Does that go for the BBC, DeutscheWeld, NHK, AFP?

Should we trust corporate media any more than government media?

I "trust" RT about as much as I "trust" CNN or Fox or any other media outlet. They all have axes to grind.

[MineralMan]

34. Yes, it does, when they report on the activities of

their own government. At least, that's how I treat it. Where there is a conflict of interest, I discount the value of any source. My habit for important stories is to use several sources that are not connected to the story. That has always been my habit with regard to news.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Me too. I tend to believe some more than others but I'm always skeptical.

Especially, when it comes to war and foreign policy.

OTOH, we would be foolish enough to "trust" any government and their press conferences or announcements.

[cprise]

46. I wouldn't trust either NPR or BBC when it comes to Venezuela

...or really anything in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Middle East, etc. The same is true for US corporate media. They may seem "unrelated" to those regions, but they see themselves as helping the "world's policeman". They are far from objective.

[MineralMan]

47. OK. That's your decision. I have no trouble with people

choosing not to trust a media outlet if they find it unreliable.

[PowerToThePeople]

32. As corporate controlled entities, no major US media can be trusted. n/t

[MineralMan]

35. This thread is about RT and the Ukraine.

It's not about anything else. Do you defend RT as a source for news about Ukraine? If not, you're off topic in this thread, and I won't respond further.

[PowerToThePeople]

39. The interesting thing about words and reading is

Each individual can garner their own perspective based on the same written words.

I responded based upon my reading of your OP, as I am able within an open discussion forum.

Thank you for your response.


edit - the truth will or will not be flushed out in time. I lean towards the truth will not be completely flushed out, as is the norm for any event such as this.

[PowerToThePeople]

53. who are you?

17 days vs over 3400 days.

You are a bright bulb aren't you? And trolling me in another thread even.

Enjoy your stay.

[conservaphobe]

55. Quality > Quantity nt

[Adrahil]

71. What does that have to do with the OP? Are you anxious to protect RT or somethin'? NT

[PowerToThePeople]

75. I am just saying

That the USA has no legs to stand on in regards to accusing other nation's media sources of propaganda.

[NuclearDem]

86. RT is owned by the same people who own Gazprom and UAC.

[Whisp]

37. True, but we were propagandized reeeeal good for the Iraq war by our media.

I'm not quite ready to do the ultra good guy vs. the ultra evil guy thing yet.
even though I think Poots is an ultra assholio.

[smknz]

59. Still are here

Your still being propagandized with regard to Ukraine if you think that eastern rebels are the bad guys and the Ukrainian so called government are the good guys.

[hrmjustin]

52. Yesterday cemented the fact it a useless station when they pushed this bull story the rebels didn't

have the capability to do this.

[smknz]

57. RT propaganda

It's no more a source of propaganda then western media sources are, including NPR, PBS, MSNBC, etc. In fact those news sources are worse because they are very good at feigning objectivity and suck in progressives. Fox on the other hand is less effective as their bias is obvious.
RT is government owned and controlled where as in the west corporations control the government, military, economy, media, justice system, etc. As for one or two RT personalities resigning in protest, that speaks better of RT than it does of western media where not one of the media personalities speak out and parrot to propaganda spewed out by the corporate controlled government sources.
Western media is just better at propaganda than the Russian's who, while improving are still no match for the west. Goebbels would stand in awe of todays western propaganda machine which controls the conversation on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. You need to buy a map, and a dictionary

"America" is not "the West".

[smknz]

62. Spell check

First of all America is in the west and second, what most of us would regard as the west is dominated by America. As for the dictionary comment, it's a reflection of the strength of your argument.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. Not really, no

I'm in the UK, and guess what? People over here don't pay any attention whatever to US news media. Nor do they in France or Germany. Or for that matter other Western countries like the Netherlands and Belgium and Italy. (Guess what all of these countries have in common, by the way? A state broadcast entity that has a mandate of neutrality and impartiality; if the BBC, France24, Deutsche Welle, RTL, et al are reporting things that are considerably at odds with what Putin's RT is reporting? RT is probably lying.

[cprise]

91. I've made that same point on other subjects

However, the Anglophone parts (and probably a few others) of the West aren't looking so healthy journalistically. Its more than just the US now.

Rupert Murdoch recently initiated a press war against Labour in Austrailia, essentially making the last two elections into a referendum over the carbon tax...

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/how_rupert_murdoch_created_the_worlds_newest_climate_change_villain/

Gillard’s carbon pricing laws eventually came into effect in 2012, amid the biggest fear campaign ever seen in Australia. Rupert Murdoch-owned mastheads, controlling as much as 70 percent of the newspaper market, carried front-page stories attacking the laws.

Its not much, if any, better in the UK.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

63. The same can be said about our media sources. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

68. Max Keiser: only censored by BBC; never by RT, Press TV, Al Jazeera E

Max Keiser compares BBC (British Govt owned media) censorship to other stations he has appeared on:

"The only news organization who has ever edited my content is the BBC; not RT, Press TV, Al Jazeera English or France24."

~ Max Keiser on twitter today 7/18/2014

https://twitter.com/maxkeiser/status/490206353231982594

[Octafish]

81. When was the last time William K. Black appeared on US television?

William K. Black: Justice Department is the Dog that has Refused to Bark for a Decade

[Hekate]

76. You would think people would have figured this out by now. TY for the reminder. nt

[90-percent]

82. RT?

They have Thom Hartmann, Abby Martin and Max Keiser, all of which have complete or almost complete journalistic autonomy. I will take anything they have to say about Russia with a grain of salt, however.

I'll take professional honorable journalism where ever I can get it. David Cay Johnstone is on Al Jeezera and I like him, for example.

And while I'm at it, please let us all know any sources of unimpeachable journalism available in current American Main Stream Media?

Bill Moyers, perhaps?

And that sounds snarky, but I'm asking with all the sincerity I can.

-90% Jimmy

[Octafish]

95. When's the last time Russell Tice was on tee vee?

So, even if it's "Russian news," it's better than most of what comes out of ABCNNBCBSFakeNoiseNutworks, the same group that's now selling us another war on Iraq, uh, Ukraine.

[NuclearDem]

84. Rants about corporate media

Watches news channel owned by owners of enormous oil/natural gas company and one of the largest aerospace defense conglomerates in the world.

[BainsBane]

87. That should be obvious

I for one no longer read anything by people who continue to site that source or uncritically parrot Russian propaganda. They have no credibility to me. None.

As for the counterpoint... "the American media," there are lots of sources to read on the internet. One does not have to rely on a major American network. There are international news sources that are not propaganda arms of one of the parties involved in the global conflict being discussed.

[CreekDog]

98. how about when they downplayed the anti-gay laws in Russia?

there's one and there were DUers quoting that.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=559235

(you asked a question and I'm answering it, there's no rule against that)

[Cha]

100. Another Russia Today Anchor Admits Spreading 'Lies' For Putin

Russia Today Anchor Admits Spreading 'Lies' For Putin
By Catherine Taibi @cathtaibi

Another Russia Today anchor has resigned from her post at the Kremlin-funded TV network. I resigned from RT today. I have huge respect for many in the team, but I'm for the truth. pic.twitter.com/m...
HuffPost Media @HuffPostMedia

46 Retweets 7 favorites

Corespondent Sara Firth's announcement came nearly two hours after she stated on Twitter that RT anchors "do work for Putin" and spread "lies," in a conversation with RT London correspondent Polly Boiko. Firth alleged that the network asks its anchors to "obscure the truth," and now she is saying she's had enough.

Polly Boiko @Polly_Boiko

@ukTanos what am i spreading?

Sara Firth @Sara__Firth
Follow
@Polly_Boiko @ukTanos Lies hun. We do work for Putin. We are asked on a daily basis if not to totally ignore then to obscure the truth

11:50 PM - 17 Jul 2014 550 Retweets 175 favorites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/sara-firth-resigns-russia-today-lies-anchor_n_5598815.html

Mahalo for your post, MM

[TransitJohn]

104. Nothing can be trusted.

Wall Street owned media is no more a keeper of veracity than RT, and a lot worse in lots of ways. Nonsensical post, IMO.

[Cha]

115. Oh just a note to mention.. the "RT-USA Haters" OP got

a Hide. I wouldn't have alerted.. let them show their pro putin proclivities.. but evidently 4 jurors said differently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5258306

[Jamaal510]

119. How could someone

on a political website have such a profound misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment? Wow!

[cui bono]

116. Except for Tham Hartmann's show. n/t

[reorg]

118. That news can be neutral and objective is a myth

and people who don't realize that will inevitably fall prey to propaganda.

For me, honest reporting means that you don't hide your viewpoint, as slanted as some may consider it to be.

This is from the "about us" statement at rt.com:

RT news covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more and delivers stories often missed by the mainstream media to create news with an edge. RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint.

http://rt.com/about-us/

That's good enough for me.

[MineralMan]

126. That may well be true. However, whenever "news" is presented

by a party to the news itself, it should simply not be trusted at all or used to support any argument. The bias is automatic in almost all cases. RT is a propaganda arm of the Russian government, and Russia is intimately involved in the conflict in Ukraine. I'm just pointing out that RT is not a trustworthy source for any news regarding Ukraine.

It's trustworthiness in other matters is not the subject of this thread, although I do have an opinion on that.

[reorg]

128. No, all sides are "party to the news itself" here

because this tragic incident didn't happen in a political vacuum.

The bias is automatic in all cases, yes. That's why we should listen to all sides.

As to RT being a "trustworthy" source, take this example of news that I haven't seen reported elsewhere:

Meanwhile the Russian Defense Ministry said that the Ukrainian military has several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers, capable of bringing down high-flying jets, in the Donetsk region where the Malaysian passenger plane crashed.

Later it added that a Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft missile battery was operational in the region and deployed at a site from which it could have fired a missile at the airliner.

The south-east of Ukraine remains the scene of heavy fighting between Kiev troops and the militia, who refuse to recognize the regime change in Kiev and demand federalization.

http://rt.com/news/173964-ukraine-malaysia-intercepted-calls/

Why are you demanding that these statements by the Russian Defense Ministry should be ignored? This information, if true, must be considered by an international and impartial investigation and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't know about it.

[etherealtruth]

129. Agree completely

I can understand wanting to see what the Russian people are being told .... but, beyond that it is pure idiocy to assume RT is reporting anything but the official "State position" on anything Russia may be involved in or have an interest in.

[DonCoquixote]

130. bottom line is

No countries native media will expose flaws. The BBC will not expose UK Flaws, Cnn not ours, and RT will nto expose theirs. There is nothing worng with the idea that when someone talks about themselves, to take it with a grain of salt. That being said, it is always good to look at what they say, even if it is to do research and find they are full of shit.

[Number23]

131. Yep, but when you consider the sources touting RT (at least here)

You quickly come to realize that the worse thing RT has going for it is its supporters.