Disclaimer: Just because I think RT is propagandistic, that hardly means I think the US news media is not. RT is about as propagandistic as, say, MSNBC.
Last week I got all my news from RT, a Russian news outlet. This post is about my experiences last week (April 23rd to 29th 2017). I will do a post on RT itself next week, hopefully.
Overall: just like with my Breitbart News diet, it was a nice break from Donald Trump. RT does cover President Trump, but they do not go nuts about it like the White Liberal press in the US. Trump is a somewhat unpredictable world leader, sure, but hardly an insane clown president, as Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi calls him. RT seems more concerned with what Trump does than with what he says.
I watched an hour of RT America on television every night: the headline news and then one of its half-hour “soft” news shows: “CrossTalk”, “Redacted Tonight”, “Watching the Hawks”, a documentary, etc. I also looked at their website (RT.com), Twitter feed and YouTube channel. I had malware issues with the website.
News coverage: Mainly Europe and Syria and the highlights of US news. Little on Russia, surprisingly. None on Africa – unlike The Economist or Democracy Now during the same week. All RT America had on Africa was “Granny Fight Club”, a documentary heavy on the Broken Africa stereotype.
Stuff I did not know because I watched RT America:
- Nationwide protests against Putin in Russia.
- Pentagon investigates Michael Flynn over foreign payments (some from RT itself).
- Trump expands offshore drilling.
- Trump wants to cut corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%.
- Trump lied about being “great friends” with opera singer Luciano Pavarotti.
- Koch Industries, Nestlé and others lobbied for Trump’s cabinet picks.
- Sheriff David Clarke might get a top position at Homeland Security.
- Police in Grand Rapids, Michigan stopped unarmed Black boys at gunpoint.
- Seven Black employees sue Fox News for racial discrimination.
- United Airlines settled with Dr Dao.
- #NoDAPL protests at Citibank.
- Turkey blocks Wikipedia.
- Sebastian Gorka is out.
- Jonathan Demme is dead.
They cannot report everything, of course, but I found these out from Democracy Now’s headline news, also aimed at a US audience but only half as long.
Whitelandia: The only hard news I saw about a Black person all week was the botched execution of Kenneth Williams in the US. It was like I was living in Australia. To add to the effect, nearly everyone at RT was White, mostly with North American and British accents. I saw only one Black person (Natalie McGill).
Propaganda: RT does seem to believe in fact-checking, so that puts them well ahead of Breitbart or Fox News. But they are markedly one-sided. For example:
- France: Nearly all the talking heads commenting on the election for president favoured (racist) Marine Le Pen.
- Syria: Headline news repeatedly had stories on the airstrikes at Raqqa, but not those on hospitals in Idlib. The difference: those in Raqqa were backed by the US, those in Idlib by Russia.
Thanks to Resw for suggesting this diet.
– Abagond, 2017.
See also:
- Programming note #32 – when I started the diet
- RT
- Breitbart news diet
- White Liberals
- MSNBC
- Democracy Now
- Fox News
- The Economist
- RationalWiki media guide
- propaganda model
540
I had to comment this. Your first point on nation wide protests of opposition.. is that how it’s being translated in the US?:-)
Those protests on 26th March were the biggest recently, though slightly artificial, but even them we can’t call ‘nation wide’. And regarding the last joined opposition meetings which you’ve mentioned (“Open Russia”, led by Khodorkovski) – they were pathetic (250 people protesting in Moscow? Wow!)
P.S. I would love to hear your opinion on “ethnic esthetic surgery”, getting wide spread around the world and in the US. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad abagond took my suggestion by going on an RT news “diet” (no need to thank me or anything, as he would if it were one of his colleagues).
While I still think it would have made more sense to go on the diet before spending months bashing RT and spreading alternative facts (not lies), it’s better late than never I suppose.
“Propaganda: RT does seem to believe in fact-checking…But they are markedly one-sided. For example”
Being biased or “one-sided” is not synonymous with propaganda. All media outlets selectively report, but that does not make them propagandist.
If abagond wanted to prove his point, he’d provide an example of RT’s propaganda, not a list of things it (seemingly) did not report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The ‘talking heads’ aka journalists are INDEPENDENT!!! This is probably new to you since you are used to MSM where everybody tows the party line of what ever station they are working for.
Going to have to disagree with you there. Perhaps you missed the idlib stories. They did a great comparison of how one was ignored by MSM. Maybe that was the week before. I watch often and the coverage has been remarkably even handed; in contrast to MSMs which was totally one sided.
In general I, as you might imagine, think your assessment is wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend to agree with Nomad on this matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I take that back
” Nearly all the talking heads commenting on the election for president favoured (racist) Marine Le Pen.
I have never seen a journalist favor a candidate. So what talking heads? Whoever it is RT doesn’t pre screen so they have no control over what the talking head has to say. But if your complaint is about the selection of interviewees, I have found RT uses informed sources which are more likely to have their fingers on the pulse of whats going on. Hence RT is less surprised by things like Brexit because they are in touch with sociocultural undercurrents. Something, again, sadly missing from our out of touch MSM. That could not predict Trump and still fails to understand gross failure of our political system, particularly the Democrats, that vomited him forth.
LikeLike
“Whitelandia: The only hard news I saw about a Black person all week was the botched execution of Kenneth Williams in the US. It was like I was living in Australia. To add to the effect, nearly everyone at RT was White! I saw only one Black person (Natalie McGill).”
What’s the percent of the population of Russia that’s Black? Are lies truths if a Black face mouths them? Funny how Russia was way more hospitable to Blacks, they had the Jews and others to kick around, than the USA.
http://www.blackpast.org/perspectives/russia-s-black-entertainment-empresario-remarkable-saga-fyodor-fyodorovich-tomas-freder
LikeLike
RT has international news. But mostly RT America. In America anyway. Its directed towards an American audience. Most of RT America correspondents and personalities are American. One, Max Keiser, is even planning to run for congress.
LikeLike
First and foremost, mind the history of RT. Russia needed its propaganda news media, which was absent. So no surprise it is indeed intended to work as kind of “voice of America”.
LikeLike
@ gro jo
Russia has been quite hospitable to individual persons of African descent, historically. From native son Pushkin to esteemed visitor Paul Robeson, Black individuals have fared well in Russia.
In 2014, the LA Times ran a couple of stories about the treatment of African-Americans and Africans in Russia from the early 20th century to the present day. The upshot is while Black folk were a curiosity (a few individuals here and there), the Russians were welcoming. Now that they are receiving communities of African migrants they have become just as hostile as other Europeans.
Black Americans in Russia:
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-c1-black-russian-americans-20141119-story.html
African Migrants in Russia:
http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-russia-africans-20141102-story.html
The old Five Percent Rule: When Black people are under five percent of the population in a country, a neighborhood or a bar, they are ok or at least tolerated. When their numbers climb and they become more visible, White hostility grows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
Here’s one black related story you might have missed. True, not strictly black but talking about issues important political empowerment to people many of whom are black.
(https://youtu.be/FxD9OqSxIsk)
LikeLike
They covered this NoDAPL protest. don’t know if its the same
(https://youtu.be/kZxa0HIbtDs)
LikeLike
A little insight: I think it would be a mistake for a black skinned person to seek asylum in Russia now. It would be very difficult to live in a country, where the word “negr” is very much a normal way of naming a black person.Even highly educated persons, doctors with phd etc… will easily afford this “n” word. That is how they teach at schools, they will say: “In Europe there are europeans; in America there are americans; and in Africa there are “negry””.
I live in african country for a couple of years, and this strikes me when I hear that.
As from the experience of my african friends, who studied in Russia: it could be nice and friendly in smaller cities, but tough in capitals. From my experience: and vice versa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heres an black citizen who was talking about the offensiveness of the confederate flag on RT last week. You probably missed that.
(https://youtu.be/yVHhLaf6RMM?t=40s)
LikeLike
Wherever there are drug arrests there are black victims.
(https://youtu.be/h96eyQs5Cmo) This was last week too.
LikeLike
In addition I saw Larry King a day or two ago interviewing some giant black basketball player. obviously famous but not to me.
LikeLike
@ Anton
Thanks for the insight.
LikeLike
@ Anton
“That is how they teach at schools, they will say: “In Europe there are europeans; in America there are americans; and in Africa there are “negry””.”
Shows that ignorance about America is as common as ignorance about Africa.
Both America and all of the countries in Africa have multi-racial and multi-cultural populations.
LikeLike
Well.. I had an American experience this year. Three months of US news diet:-) Had been in Michigan. For me, as a Russian, it was tricky to realize how indistinct the term “American” is. Indeed, hollywood movies do not teach properly, that spanish/chineese are about to come the US official languages. Russians didn’t experience such a dramatic artificial mixture of ethnicities and cultures until very recent time, when Mid Asians (Uzbek, Kyrgyz) fliwed in the country for a better life.
LikeLike
@ Anton
“Three months of US news diet 🙂 “
You have my sympathies. That had to be hard. Many Americans can barely tolerate most US news.
“spanish/chineese are about to come the US official languages.”
In some parts of the country, many immigrants (from Africa, Asia and Latin America) have made an effort to understand Spanish and certain dialects of Chinese. Native born Americans are very resistant to this learning.
These languages and dialects may never become “official languages” in the USA, but unofficially will become very useful to learn for many Americans.
LikeLike
I changed
to
to help make it clear that the people in front of the camera are not mostly Russian.
LikeLike
@ resw
I added to the post:
My apologies for not having that up originally.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Thanks for the links.
LikeLike
I’m not sure whether I would characterize regular RT viewers as Kool Aid drinkers. I think of MSNBC and FOX as Kool Aid channels. People who drink the Kool Aid are usually so blind by their idiology that can’t see another way. RT has a purpose to subtly push Russian influence but It seems ideologically neutral.
LikeLike
found this comment interesting:
Is the target audience of RT news (English) people in Russia? I don’t see how the racial percentage in Russia is relevant (especially since it did not carry too much news about Russia itself).
LikeLike
Suggest that Abagond pick a period to get all his news from CCTV, the PRC state news media outlet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
abagond
They don’t just speak with American accents. That’s like saying the people at CNN speak with American accents. They speak with American accents because they are Americans, as I have shown several times before. The Russians are in the minority on the Russia International division. Most of the programming is RT America. The personnel are, as far as I know, based in America. They are Americans.
LikeLike
@abagond
“My apologies for not having that up originally.”
Since I’ve been subjected to your unfair treatment for so long, I’m shocked you not only showed your gratitude, but absolutely stunned you actually apologised. Perhaps you are turning over a new leaf, but I rightfully have my doubts.
I’d be more impressed if you actually gave an example of the RT propaganda you have alleged.
You once expressed a difference between being biased and propagandist when you said, “The Times is biased journalism, Breitbart is outright propaganda.”
So will you agree that you’ve only shown us how RT is biased, but you have not shown how it’s propagandist? And will you give just one little example?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Russians are in the minority on the Russia International division.
But they are very good from what I can tell. I don’t “watch” the Russians but I catch snippets. Love those Russian newswomen.
This chick puts them on the grill, baby!
LikeLike
@Abagond
Was is RT America? They tend to employ former BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Aljazeera journalists, that is why their coverage of Africa is biased. I watch more than 5 different News Channels, never one.
LikeLike
@abagond
So you might have picked the wrong week.
(https://youtu.be/oMfe0n2tG60)
@villagewriter
RT has international news. But mostly RT America. In America anyway. Its directed towards an American audience. Most of RT America correspondents and personalities are American. One, Max Keiser, is even planning to run for congress.
LikeLike
@villagewriter
as if the same cannot be said of them all. its the degree of bias that matters. and RT is among the least biased. nothing has yet been established about their bias against Africa. Abagond said it fits a stereotype which is a rather vague and spurious charge, since its hard to do a documentary on Africa that cannot be characterized as stereotypical, as I have indicated. There is no significant difference in the treatment of Africa by RT or by MSM. Its a bogus criticism. And even tho I have pointed that out you treat it as if it were established fact. Its not.
Like resw I too await abagonds examples of RT propaganda. In fact that was going to be the next thing I was going to say. Resw beat me to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ villagewriter
RT America is RT’s cable news channel in the US, their answer to CNN. There is also BBC America and there used to be an Al Jazeera America.
You would think RT America would be mainly US news or mainly Russian news or some kind of mix. Instead it SEEMS like it is run by the Russian foreign ministry, so there is plenty on Europe, Syria and North Korea instead.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Villagewriter LIVES in Africa, so she would be a far better judge than you or I.
LikeLike
not necessarily.
LikeLike
she may know more about Africa than me but not more about bias.
LikeLike
@ villagewriter
I agree: you should never get all your news from just one source, no matter how wonderful it might seem. Just to be clear, my RT news diet was an experiment, not something I would recommend to anyone long-term.
LikeLike
esp if she hasn’t seen RT and only have you to go by. it doesn’t matter how much she knows about Africa if she accepts your assessment as fact. because shes basing her judgement on a biased assessment.
LikeLike
obviously
LikeLike
That’s sad. Now she’ll probably never tune to RT if she has a chance because of abagond’s bogus claim. Never be open to this alternate narrative of geopolitical exigencies. Because she thinks RT is biased against Africans. Not true.
LikeLike
What? RT America is mainly what the name says. Most of the focus is on America. There are stories on Europe, Syria and North Korea but it hardly replaces America. I think your one hour a day for a week has not allowed you to grasp the nature of RT. You haven’t watched it enough to make those kind of blanket statements. I would have thought you’d have to watch more than that, perhaps twice as much, to get anywhere near an adequate assessment.
LikeLike
@ nomad
I mainly watched it after midnight Eastern Time. According to the Wikipedia, what I was mainly seeing was a simulcast of RT International. Do you know if that is true?
LikeLike
No, not really, but if it was RT international then it was indeed international news. RT America’s go to newsman is Ed Shultz. Looking at the schedule I see “Headline News”. I think that’s International. Then theres “News with ED”.
LikeLike
Ed Shultz is a fairly recent addition BTW. Actually I don’t actually “watch” the news as glance at it in passing. The RT shows I watch are the ones you call ‘soft news’.
LikeLike
@”Like resw I too await abagonds examples of RT propaganda. In fact that was going to be the next thing I was going to say. Resw beat me to it.”
Since this request/question is being completely ignored, no surprise there, maybe abagond can be more objective here and just admit that while he suspects RT of propaganda, he has not been able to justify it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guys, I am a he…lol….
LikeLiked by 2 people
larry king is so cool. currently interviewing Charlemagne tha god whoever that is.
shoulda did rt diet this week.
LikeLike
@ villagewriter
Sorry, my mistake!
LikeLike
This post is about my experiences with RT last week. It does not present itself as anything more than that. And from what I saw, yes, it came across as propaganda. Maybe it was a bad week. Maybe it is me. I will do a post on RT next week when I give the matter careful thought and study.
I consider it propaganda for the same reason I consider Fox News and MSNBC propaganda: biased news reporting that favours a political cause: Republicans (Fox), Democrats (MSNBC), Russian foreign policy (RT). Unlike CNN, there is not even a good faith effort to be balanced.
To play up the atrocities by one side in a war and play down those by the other, that is straight-up propaganda. To dismiss it as just “bias” is like dismissing murder as a lack of anger management.
During the US election, at least 80% of MSNBC’s talking heads were favourable to Hillary Clinton. Not Bernie Sanders. Not Donald Trump. No, Hillary Clinton. I did not see every talking head nor did I count the ones that I did see, but “at least 80%” I think is a fair bet. Assuming I am right, was that just “bias”? Was that just a scheduling issue? Did they just happen to be the “best” taking heads – the most knowledgeable and well-spoken? Unlikely. Ditto RT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ jefe
What a great idea. Thanks.
LikeLike
^ Let me know when you do that, so that I can pay attention to the CCTV English channel at that time so that I know what you are talking about.
Not sure if APA heritage month is a good time to do it though.
LikeLike
@abagond
goosey goosey gander. is that supposed to be your example of propaganda? give something specific. because this is definitely not true
Its a generalization and I have observed just the opposite. RT is much more balanced than anything ive seen on MSM. and that includes CNN.
LikeLike
RT is pro-Assad indeed. Where most news outlets talk about the “Assad regime,” RT describes it as the “legitimate government of Syria.”
In adition to jefe’s idea: are you planning a France24/DW/TRT World/I24/ANN7-diet soon?
By the way: CCTV is now called “CGTN.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
never happened.
Yes it is. You and MSM.
LikeLike
accusing RT of something that MSM is guilty of. I think they call that projection. and its just what I said you would do. defend MSM.
LikeLike
And here is a list of news channels that can be seen free streaming on the internet:
Africanews Africa
Al Jazeera English Qatar
ANN7 South Africa, ANC
Bloomberg Television USA, Finance
Bloomberg Television Asia Asia, Finance
Bloomberg Television Europe Europe, Finance
CBN News Evangelical Christian
CBS News USA
CGTN America China, USA
CGTN News China
Channels TV Nigeria
CNBC Africa Business, Africa
CNC World China
DW Germany
eNCA Africa
ET Now India, Business
Euronews Europe
France 24 France
Free Speech TV USA, Progressive
Headlines Today India
i24news Israel
NDTV 24×7 India
NDTV Profit India, Business
Newsmax TV USA, Conservative
NewsX India
NHK World Japan
Press TV Iran
RT News Russia
RT America USA, Russia
RTÉ News Now Ireland
Sky News United Kingdom
Times Now India
TVC News Nigeria
Maybe it could be helpful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jeff Elberfeld
Because the ‘most news outlets’ youre talking about are American and as abagond admits. they are propaganda. they always say a legitimate gov is a regime when they want to overthrow it.
That’s the thing about living in a propaganda bubble. Stuff outside the bubble seems propaganda to you. You folks need to wake up.
LikeLike
@nomad
Not just the american ones.
France 24 (France) and DW (Germany) do the same, since France and Germany agreed with Obama’s policy on Syria. And the TRT World (Turkey) also uses the “Assad regime”-term, since that country is even less friendly to Assad than Obama was.
However, PressTV (Iran), prefers the term “Assad government.”
My conclusion is that all those news outlets understand the power of words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
///That’s the thing about living in a propaganda bubble. Stuff outside the bubble seems propaganda to you. You folks need to wake up.///
Actually, to me it seems that all news outlets are spiced with a point of view.
During last year’s Democratic National Convention, the Dutch tv showed images of crying Bernie Sanders-supporters.
Then I switched to CNN, and I saw an enthusiastic reporter saying that all former Bernie Sanders-supporters now happily supported Hillary Clinton.
Then I heard that one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors owns CNN.
Thus, I still got some faith in the BBC, but the best thing to do is seeing a topic from all possible angles, and then make your judgement.
LikeLike
absolutely. and don’t be mislead by people saying things that aren’t true.
LikeLike
no surprise there. NATO. they and turkey want assad gone. who they want to overthrow, they call a regime. they need to call it that in order to call for regime change. its a propaganda word.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PressTV is Iran? I didn’t know that. have to start watching.
LikeLike
@ jefe
“Suggest that Abagond pick a period to get all his news from CCTV, the PRC state news media outlet.”
Judging from what has thus far happened w RT, I don’t think that’s a good idea. Abagond should stick to MSM and alternative American news sources. He understands them better.
LikeLike
I’m surprised they haven’t started calling the trump administration the trump regime.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
Thanks for that list. I will have to explore some of those media outlets.
LikeLike
@”goosey goosey gander. is that supposed to be your example of propaganda? give something specific. because this is definitely not true”
Nomad’s right, abagond still has not supported his claim.
As shown above, abagond makes a clear distinction between “biased journalism” and “propaganda” but his only way of convincing his readers that RT is propaganda is pointing out its apparent bias.
When I called out New York Times’ anti-Russian propaganda, I gave a specific example, an article, and explained exactly how it was propagandist.
But as usual, abagond just wants you to take his word for it, instead of being honest and saying he does not have any examples to support his claim–only a hunch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there really a difference between biased journalism and propaganda if we talk about international broadcasting?..
The aim of RT is to translate Russia’s point of view. The aim of CNN, which is being translated worldwide, even in Africa, is to translate the US point of view.
Both can be called extensively biased. It’s their nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
certainly. its the degree of bias that makes the difference. msm is much worse than rt.
LikeLike
misread that. that’s goosey goosey gander. one is extensively biased and even propagandistic. the other is only minimally so and goes out of its way to be balanced, despite what abagond says.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Anton
“Is there really a difference between biased journalism and propaganda if we talk about international broadcasting?”
I don’t follow what “international broadcasting” has to do with anything.
Btw, abagond was the one who initially made the distinction, and yes I agree with it, because by definition “bias” and “propaganda” are not synonymous.
If network A simply reports more entertainment news than business news, then it’s biased in favour of entertainment news. If network B reports more business news than entertainment news, but also publishes material that repeats unproven allegations and misleading statements about Russia/Putin, like the New York Times, then that network is both biased and also anti-Russian propagandist.
I have not seen RT publish propaganda, but then again I don’t read/watch RT regularly, so what do I know.
But since abagond supposedly (which I’m starting to doubt) spent a week getting all his news from RT, and then represented that it’s so “propaganistic”, then it’s only reasonable to wonder HOW he came to this conclusion.
Instead, he gets defensive, “as if he’s hiding something”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
This could be a valid example. I was thinking of another incident before. But looking for this particular Idlib attack I saw nothing on the RT site. If so, and because the sources are the propagandistic MSM, it may not be, its is the exception to what I have otherwise found to be the case. At best its a maybe. It may have been covered and not show up on YouTube.
LikeLike
I was thinking about this stark hypocrisy.
I guess this is a case where both sides do it. Goosey goosey gander indeed.
(https://youtu.be/nBqA7bbVe9M)
LikeLike
@”To play up the atrocities by one side in a war and play down those by the other, that is straight-up propaganda.”
What does “play down” mean? Is that just lack of reporting (i.e., “biased journalism”) or outright lies or deception?
And for those of us who don’t want to just take abagond’s word for it, where was this done? Article title? Link? YouTube video link?
LikeLiked by 1 person
it’s the annihilation olympics!
LikeLike
@”To play up the atrocities by one side in a war and play down those by the other, that is straight-up propaganda.”
It is the kind of assertion that requires observation over a period of time. As a relatively long time observer, I cannot say that that is the case. In my estimation, just the opposite. This would be the only example, if it is true, that I have seen.
They do not ‘play up’ or ‘play down’ one tragedy over another, generally speaking. The value in RT is that it highlights tragedies that MSM neglects. As in the video posted. It is in fact MSMs approach to the wars that is totally one sided. RT is quite consistent in giving both sides of the story. Since their very raison d’etre is as a counter narrative to MSM, they often have to cite the MSM story to make their own perspective clear.
This is what I have observed as a general rule. (And I have been observing longer than abagond,) If the playing down of Idlib is a fact, it is a rarity if not a one off.
LikeLike
Since their very raison d’etre is as a counter narrative to MSM, they often have to cite the MSM story to make their own perspective clear.
When you think about it, this is smart propaganda on the part of the Russians. Its a kind of counter propaganda. Instead of, or maybe in addition to, spouting Russian doctrine they simply show where MSM is being biased and propagandistic. That’s basically what RT does. Reveal western hypocrisy and propaganda. ‘They give you the news MSM won’t’. Great propaganda strategy! Reveal the other guys propaganda. And, lets face it We live in a fabricated propaganda bubble. So theres a lot to reveal. As long as MSM is lying to us RT will thrive..
LikeLike
@Anton
Comment deleted for moderated language.
LikeLike
The record shows abagond refused to substantiate his claim about RT being “propagandistic”. He supposedly (doubtful) went a whole week watching/reading RT, but can’t even come up with a single example.
This post is nothing but another of abagond’s attempts to disseminate dangerous anti-Russian propaganda, which is helping to lead his readers to supporting war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ resw
“This post is nothing but another of abagond’s attempts to disseminate dangerous anti-Russian propaganda, which is helping to lead his readers to supporting war.”
Prove it. Back up your claims. Provide quotes of Abagond advocating war, either implicitly or explicitly.
LikeLike
@Afrofem
Learn to read. No one said abagond was “advocating war.” I said he’s disseminating “dangerous anti-Russian propaganda, which is helping to lead his readers to supporting war”
And I’ve pointed out each and every bit of false information abagond has spread about RT and Russia in the appropriate threads, which you are free to read, although I’d suggest getting someone who can actually read to help you.
LikeLike
Whereas nothing yet has been proved of RTs propaganda, there is ample documented proof that MSM is thoroughly propagandistic. Washingtons Blog has lots of proof of this fact.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/02/cia-one-main-peddlers-fake-news.html
So its rather ironic to accuse RT of propaganda when the MSM is so propagandistic that Washingtons Blog says
The West Has No News Media, Only Propaganda.
It seems absurd to say the propaganda on RT is equivalent to Deep State controlled MSNBC. Especially without proof.
As I say, stuff outside our propaganda bubble that contradicts it looks like propaganda to us.
Look out!!!
LikeLike
@abagond
And really, why begin with this? Displayed so prominently it kind of becomes your thesis. It would have sounded somewhat more balanced had you left it off.
You’re saying “I’m going to examine this Russian propaganda.” Conclusion formed beforehand. A priori RT is Russian propaganda. That’s a given. Hence you feel you shouldn’t have to prove it. But that’s hardly objective and is a kind of propaganda in itself on your part promoting this preformed Western judgement of RT. You’ve pointed to some editorial bias in their reporting which so far does not amount to propaganda. In addition its hard to make that case on RT America because of the range of political perspectives they give platform to. Like the completely mainstream Larry King and the nauseatingly mainstream Democrat Thom Hartman. So show me the money. If you have some proof of propaganda lets see it.
LikeLike
Wow, 81 comments, more than Jordan Edwards.
LikeLike
RT is propaganda
LikeLike
oh yeah. for contrast about downplaying atrocity. heres cnn
https://politicalfilm.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/17904381_1437153152994882_8068116283976776465_n.jpg?w=800&h=450
LikeLike
@”for contrast about downplaying atrocity. heres cnn”
+1000
That reminds me of how the msm “played down” the US military’s involvement in “atrocities” in Mosul over a month ago.
For example, Washington Post’s article was entitled: “US Concedes it Played a Role in Iraqi Deaths”. In other words, US airstrikes killed innocent Iraqi civilians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^^ This is precisely why I put in that disclaimer: because I knew if I said RT was propagandistic, someone or someones would say that the MSM was propagandistic too, as if it proves something, as if I ever said otherwise.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Number of Google hits on rt.com for:
That is 3.6 times more for Yemen.
The numbers for the BBC, just for comparison, were 263 and 436 (64% more for South Sudan).
An ACTUAL famine has likely broken out in South Sudan, the first famine anywhere in the world in five years, but it seems that RT is far more interested in a POSSIBLE famine in Yemen because it can use the THREAT of famine there to bash the US.
This fits what I have seen more generally with RT: it loves to bash the US and is hugely indifferent to Africa.
The US should be bashed for its part in Yemen, I do not disagree with that, but RT’s interest in famine is crocodile tears all the way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
No, it does NOT go out of its way to be balanced. Hardly. Of the talking heads I saw during the French election, not one gave a strong defence of Macron. Nearly all were favourable to Le Pen. RT was generally dismissive of the claims that she is fascist and racist, the main thing people have against her, trying to paper over it by saying she is better than her father. So, no, not balanced. Not at all. And the French election was hardly a story it barely covered.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
Thanks for the list! I might try an Indian media diet. France and Germany are Western, so I doubt I would gain that much perspective.
LikeLike
@ nomad
I have given three examples: the French election, Idlib v Raqqa and, just now, famine:
And I expanded on the French election example:
All three are examples of biased reporting that favour the interests of the Russian state, which provides the money that keeps RT going. To think that that is just an “accident” is naive or disingenuous. Not being an accident, it counts as propaganda, not mere bias.
The bias shown during the French election is extremely easy to avoid – yet they chose not to. Why? If it is because they want to counter Western propaganda, fine, but that still makes them propaganda.
LikeLike
Oxford dictionary:
propaganda
NOUN
‘he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/propaganda
LikeLike
The main US reporter I saw on RT is Caleb Maupin. He has no journalism degree. And it shows: he sometimes reports in this kind of sarcastic tone I have heard elsewhere on RT. Extremely unprofessional. They never tell you he is a communist whose main background is in activism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
///Wow, 81 comments, more than Jordan Edwards.////
Does that surprise you? I would think that there isn’t much discussion possible about the question if killing an unarmed 15-year-old for “being in a car” is right or wrong.
LikeLike
More examples of RT-propaganda:
A panel discussion on the centenary First World War, turning into a case for Russian Ukrainians to break from the Ukraine:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJMPuPZXXaw)
And naturally, RT claiming that the MH-17 plane explosion happened because of all possible reasons, except a Russian missile shot by Russian-Ukrainian separatists, with the same fanaticism as a tobacco company claims that smoking is not that bad for your health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wo. Lots of response finally. I’ll take them last to first.
I’ve never even seen caleb Maupin. And Im a frequent watcher. So he certainly couldn’t be the main US reporter. As I have said, its Ed Shultz. What about his credentials. Now I’m going to say that not only are your statements false, in an unintended way based on ignorance, but you are actually lying. Back for the rest later.
LikeLike
@abagond
So he has a sarcastic tone. And he’s a commie. And everybody on RT has a sarcastic tone. That is unprofessional, but how does that equate to propaganda? You sound like a rabid Russophobe. Sounds like the kind of justification I have heard racists make when they discriminate against me. They don’t like my tone. Its the same kind of thing, except here applied by a black man against Russians.
And heck. I didn’t even know commies still exist. Isnt the cold war over?
LikeLike
@abagond
heck, I agree w that. if it means ‘mass disinformation’. sounds like its describing msm.
LikeLike
You seem to be talking about Headline News. As I say, I don’t watch so I cant really comment, except to say that when I have watched it was much more fair and balanced than anything I have seen on MSM. So here I think we simply have to agree to disagree. We have simply come away with two entirely different assessments. What I can comment on is the shows I watch which I have listed elsewhere. Absolutely fair and balanced with as I say a range of political perspectives from mainstream Thom Hartman to radical Chris Hedges. Much more fair and balanced and without propaganda than anything I have seen on MSM.
LikeLike
@abagond
I have no idea what youre talking about. whats a google hit?
LikeLike
@abagond
^^ This is precisely why I put in that disclaimer: because I knew if I said RT was propagandistic, someone or someones would say that the MSM was propagandistic too, as if it proves something, as if I ever said otherwise.
this too makes no sense. someone was going to say it one way or another. because, despite what you say, its relevant.
LikeLike
@abagond
///Thanks for the list! I might try an Indian media diet. France and Germany are Western, so I doubt I would gain that much perspective.///
Good luck with that. My experience is that, given the fact that India’s population is bigger than that of Europe, Canada and the USA combined, India has enough news concerning politics, sports and culture of themselves.
Therefore I did not see much news from outside India, but maybe that will be the interesting part of such a diet.
LikeLike
@abagond
it aint much.
LikeLike
Well Nomad, if you want more: then here is more:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/from-russia-with-news-1869324.html
http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286048
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/03/06/russia_today_anchor_liz_wahl_quits_job_onair_in_protest.html
And the file of Media Matters on RT:
https://www.mediamatters.org/shows-and-publications/russia-today
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the file of The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/russia-today
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jeff Elberfeld
that’s not propaganda.
neither is this. the propaganda is in the accusation that
‘a Russian missile shot by Russian-Ukrainian separatists’. unless it has been proven. which I don’t it has. but you believe the charge anyway. that’s how propaganda works. like Russia hacked the election. you believe what your government tells you to believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@”I have given three examples: the French election, Idlib v Raqqa and, just now, famine”
I love this game you are playing. As you know, giving a list of topics is not showing examples of RT.com doing what you claim.
Note, we gave actual examples. I gave you an actual article title that you can read to see exactly how the Washington Post did “play down” the “atrocities” in Mosul.
Where is your actual example supporting your claim?
“Oxford dictionary:”
You’re the one who made a distinction between bias and propaganda when you said on another thread, ““The Times is biased journalism, Breitbart is outright propaganda.””
Why don’t you just admit that now you’re backtracking now, instead of being dishonest?
LikeLiked by 1 person
that’s not propaganda.
It is. The message was that borders are not sacred, meaning that Russian seperatists are in their right to secede from Ukraine, meaning it was biased information, meaning that it was propaganda.
neither is this. the propaganda is in the accusation that
‘a Russian missile shot by Russian-Ukrainian separatists’. unless it has been proven. which I don’t it has. but you believe the charge anyway. that’s how propaganda works.
I see. So as long tobacco companies make you doubt if there is evidence that smoking causes cancer, they do not use propaganda-techniques? Thanks for the explanation!
LikeLike
@”Does that surprise you?”
Of course it doesn’t surprise abagond. He just wanted to deflect from his refusal to support his claims. An extremely crafty move.
@abagond
“They never tell you he is a communist whose main background is in activism.”
Interesting. Do you have an example of him conveying his communist views on air?
Did you also express your dismay when CNN hired Van Jones, a Democrat and activist? He appears on air and writes articles on a host of political issues. Is that worrisome too that he’s not a real journalist and is biased toward Democrats?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jeff Elberfeld
@that’s not propaganda.
It is. The message was that borders are not sacred, meaning that Russian seperatists are in their right to secede from Ukraine,
that’s the message that you took because you are programmed by western propaganda to take it that way. I did not watch the episode you reference but I know from the many others ive watched that crosstalk does not deal in propaganda.
weve already established bias is not propaganda and that all news agencies have editorial bias.
LikeLike
@resw
I had to look up caleb Maupin. don’t know why I thought he was a Russian. turns out I have seen him before. also in looking him up turns out rt does talk about his activism. though they do hide his commie background.
LikeLike
Oh yeah. And another thing I like about RT! Your favorite internet star is likely to show up. You know. Alternative media on network news! As talking heads. Ive seen John Rappaport, PCR, Ted Rall, HA Goodman. Tim Black, for gosh sakes! They give voice to these outsiders.
LikeLike
@ nomad
What i watched during my diet:
8 x Headline News
2.6 x CrossTalk
1 SophieCo
1 Watching the Hawks
1 documentary (“Granny Fight Club”)
1 Redacted Tonight
I saw Caleb Maupin on Headline News.
LikeLike
Jeff Elberfeld
youre not going to convince me that rt is propaganda by citing msm. for obvious reasons
LikeLike
@abagond
I’ve never watched Sophieco. So, did you find any propaganda on?…
2.6 x CrossTalk
1 SophieCo
1 Watching the Hawks
1 documentary (“Granny Fight Club”)
1 Redacted Tonight
LikeLike
I meant to delete granny fight club from that list. already have your views on that.
LikeLike
I was trying to remember why I started watching RT. Beginning in 2013 I searched around on ‘dish’ for stations to watch. I used to watch Democracy Now, but I wasn’t so much interested in ‘hard news’ as commentary. I wasn’t particularly mindful of the stations I was watching, finally came across a station that had a counter narrative to the uni-vision one that prevailed everywhere else on television. In fact the person that first attracted me to RT was Abby Martin with her bold reporting on 911, something that was completely off the MSM radar. So I started watching regularly and found their shows to be antithetical and antidotal to MSM propaganda. They simply give voice to people and ideas you will not see on MSM.
LikeLike
oh. and it didn’t bother me one teeny bit that the sponsor of these shows was Russia.
LikeLike
@nomad
///youre not going to convince me that rt is propaganda by citing msm. for obvious reasons///
I cannot say that disqualifying all mainstream media in favour of RT is making your case any stronger.
It makes me wonder:
1) since when is a media watchdog like Media Matters for America, or the “Digital Journal” part of mainstream media?
2) If I would come up with a link to an article of non-mainstream media like Infowars or Breitbart, would THAT be convincing?
3) Unlike the UK and the US, the media in Russia is not free: just see https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-press Could you explain to me, how a news outlet, that is forced to write and broadcast what the government dictates, is more independent than all big news outlets in countries with media independence?
LikeLike
eff mainstream media
a media watchdog would have to prove its independence from msm before it can have credibility with me. if its conclusions contradict what I have personally observed I doubt that it is a credible arbiter.
3) whatever this refers to ive seen no evidence of being forced to write and broadcast what the government dictates on RT.
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence of msm reporters being told what to write by the CIA and submitting their articles to the gov beforehand for approval.
LikeLike
snopes, rational wiki and the like are sheeple herders, to steer people away from dangerous sites like rt and back to the uni-vision of msm.
I don’t let watchdogs and censors tell me what to watch and what to read.
LikeLike
Like that’s a bad thing. They have disqualified themselves. They are corrupt, deleterious and possibly criminal in their negligence and enablement of war crimes and the impoverishment of America. Eff the mainstream media.
(https://youtu.be/4hgA9j-4dB0)
LikeLike
@nomad
a media watchdog would have to prove its independence from msm before it can have credibility with me. if its conclusions contradict what I have personally observed I doubt that it is a credible arbiter.
O.K. You are entitled on your own opinion. That is fine with me.
snopes, rational wiki and the like are sheeple herders, to steer people away from dangerous sites like rt and back to the uni-vision of msm.
I like snopes, but rationalwiki is a joke indeed. That said, we were not discussing them in this thread.
I don’t let watchdogs and censors tell me what to watch and what to read.
Not? Let’s see your opinion on the Mainstream Media (in this case, The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist, The Toronto Star, the Digital Journal and the Columbia Journalism Review) first:
They have disqualified themselves. They are corrupt, deleterious and possibly criminal in their negligence and enablement of war crimes and the impoverishment of America. Eff the mainstream media.
And now, let’s see some articles on the RT-website of the last three months:
1-feb-17 Western MSM complicit in fueling ‘artificially’ ignited Syrian war – Bolivian filmmaker to RT https://www.rt.com/news/375864-syria-artificial-conflict-western-msm/
7-feb-17 Russia conducts snap air force combat readiness check, Western media accuse Moscow of ‘going to war’ https://www.rt.com/news/376626-russia-surprise-military-check/
9-feb-17 Western media coverage of Navalny & Le Pen shows breathtaking hypocrisy https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376848-navalny-france-western-media/
11-feb-17 ‘Western media losing viewers as audiences seek alternative news sources’ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/377064-bbc-wikileaks-daily-mail/
6-mar-17 The Western media myth of two battles: ‘Aleppo is falling, Mosul liberated’ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/379616-aleppo-mosul-iraq-syria-media/
16-mar-17 ‘Amazing news from Petrograd’: Western press’ caustic reaction to abdication of Tsar Nicholas II https://www.rt.com/news/381069-newspapers-react-nicholas-abdication/
22-mar-17 Western MSM ignoring ‘unworthy civilian victims’ of US-led Mosul attacks https://www.rt.com/op-edge/381752-us-media-coverage-mosul/
23-mar-17 ‘Disruption of World Cup in Russia is new goal of Western media’ – Russian FM spokeswoman https://www.rt.com/sport/382058-zakharova-world-cup-disruption/
23-mar-17 ‘Aleppo boy’ versus ‘Mosul girl’: How the Western MSM peddles war propaganda https://www.rt.com/op-edge/381966-aleppo-boy-versus-mosul-girl/
1-apr-17 Western media scripting yet another ‘Russian invasion,’ this time in Libya https://www.rt.com/op-edge/383085-russia-invade-libya-fake/
5-apr-17 Western media conspiracy theories about St Petersburg ‘false flag’ attack are insane https://www.rt.com/op-edge/383601-conspiracy-metro-blast-msm-russia/
8-apr-17 Western media ‘whooping for joy’ following US missile strike on Syria https://www.rt.com/op-edge/384041-syria-war-attack-trump-criminal/
17-apr-17 ‘Rank hypocrisy: Western media caught in its own echo chamber over Syria’ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/385066-syria-convoy-blast-msm/
19-apr-17 Why not all chemical attacks worthy of Western media attention https://www.rt.com/op-edge/385323-chemical-attacks-syria-iraq/
21-apr-17 Western media ‘inflate’ Syria death toll to justify intervention – Assad https://www.rt.com/news/385607-assad-death-toll-inflated/
21-apr-17 Syria bus bombing: ‘Western media reporting bears zero resemblance to eyewitnesses’ testimonies’ https://www.rt.com/op-edge/385618-aleppo-terrorism-syria-idlib/
So, nomand if watchdogs and censors do not tell you what to watch and what to read, then who does?
LikeLike
@nomad
How do you determine whether a given news outlet is propaganda?
LikeLike
Yes, Jeff Elberfeld, yes! Condemn Western media!
LikeLike
@abagond
if it intends to deceive on behalf of the gov or powerful demagogues like the Clintons. its propaganda.
if it is a part of the Deep State its propaganda.
Mainstream media is a part of the Deep State
Mainstream media is propaganda.
LikeLike
All of you should know by now that the media is full of lies and half truths.
LikeLike
And, you know, if the news outlet is saying the same thing EXACTLY as other news outlets, as if reading from a script, its propaganda because that’s a sure indication that it is part of a matrix of disinformation which I call the propaganda bubble.
It’s a bit ironic calling out the propaganda of RT, which as far as I can tell consists only of editorial bias (according to you), when you virtually breathe propaganda. Youre swimming in it. Its like that biblical parable where a man is trying to remove a speck from his fellows eye, but he has a beam in his own. Also, the propaganda is so much more blatant on our side than anything I have seen on RT, which of course is virtually no propaganda at all.
(https://youtu.be/pklk7fCHSXE)
LikeLike
Even NPR doesnt pass the propaganda smell test.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/05/wikileaks-busts-npr-spreading-fake-news-destroys-them-on-twitter/
LikeLike
@ nomad
Right, so because the Western media is biased or propagandisitic, I cannot call out the same in RT? What kind of sense does that make?
I have written about bias and propaganda in the Western media at length, particularly when it comes to race. But now when I do the same to RT, suddenly Certain People do not like it. How odd.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I have written about bias and propaganda in the Western media at length”
LOL! You know abagond is lying when he/she uses “at length”
Apart from Breitbart, Fox News, and MSNBC, abagond has not labeled US mainstream media as propagandist. He even went out of his way to defend New York Times, CNN, etc. How deceitful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
perspective. given the beam in your eye, propaganda should not have been an issue in the first place, that’s like Israelis talking about the aggression of Palestinians, or whites talking about reverse racism. the context from which you are observing must be taken into consideration. you highlight propaganda from the beginning and then go on to prove that there is not much to back up the accusation. As I say, twould have been better to have not made the accusation at all. we would have never needed to go down this long dark tangent of refutation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
you haven’t pointed out anything. you made a claim and failed to back it up. editorial bias, in the cases you’ve pointed to, do not, it seems to me, rise to the level of propaganda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@nomad
I know Abagond is not that fond of dictionaries, but according to Merriam-Webster, propaganda is:
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also
a public action having such an effect
See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda
I fail to see how RT’s coverage of news does NOT fall under the second and third description. Just see how I pointed out above how RT is covering “Western media” agressively on a more-than-weekly basis.
LikeLike
@abagond
I have written about bias and propaganda in the Western media at length, particularly when it comes to race. But now when I do the same to RT, suddenly Certain People do not like it. How odd.
Odd indeed.
Government-funded-news networks are fun to watch, since you know what to expect: the country funding it is great, as well in politics, technology, business and as destination for your holiday trip.
The USA, however, is nothing of that at all, nor is any other country or institution that was critical of the funding country. And if that institution is the European Union, everyone that could weaken it is welcome, like Marine Le Pen was welcome to RT.
That is why I often watch RT while cooking. Like soap operas, You already know the message even if you miss half of it. But at least RT is more informative.
LikeLike
and we all know why
LikeLike
@nomad
“and we all know why”
“we”?
That is an fallacious appeal to fictional masses. Please, show me you can do better.
LikeLike
@ nomad
“We” don’t know why. Please enlighten “us”.
LikeLike
ive already told you. you live in a propaganda bubble. that’s how it affects you. it hides things from you and causes you to fail to see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jeff Elberfeld
no I cant. I really cant. you have more faith in me than I do in myself.
ok, ok, try this.
“I know why.
LikeLike
I thought I had made that clear about the propaganda bubble. Thought everybody understood. That’s why I said ‘we’. Reminds me of a joke about Tonto. “What you mean “we”, white man?”. Anyway, I should have known the bubble wasn’t clear. Its actually opaque. Look out!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sounds like they have journalistic standards. contrast that to msm. its why rt is a class above.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/facts-dont-matter-to-corporate-media
Dr. Theodore Postol professor emeritus of science, technology and national security issues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The facts don’t seem to matter at all to anybody,” he said. “It looks to me like a complete collapse of any kind of journalistic standards within the mainstream press.”
with creds like that he otto know
LikeLike
@ nomad
Do you live in a propaganda bubble? And how could you tell if you did?
LikeLike
@abagond
yes and r u kiddin me? the evidence is everywhere. ive ciited many instances.
by watching and reading alternative media. but that doesn’t work for everyone, apparently. that’s how I would tell. you, on the other hand, I have no idea.
LikeLike
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/11/are-you-ready-to-die/
LikeLike
Abby Martin, who used to work for RT:
Which fits what I have seen.
Starting at the 1:05 minute mark:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZcdJgImPiQ)
LikeLike
yeh. I’m not too crazy about abby now. precisely because of that crimea kerfuffle. that’s her opinion. its typical of americans. the statement is true though. which is what I have said. editorial bias. doesn’t amount to propaganda from what ive seen of RT. it does for Western media. as for comparison of the two US media is much much worse in his regard and doesn’t descend into propaganda, as I was about to say, but is already there. as PCR says. American media is evil beyond all measure. beyond all measure. got to remember that phrase. that sounds much better than saying MSM is much much much much much much worse than RT. worse beyond measure. I like it!.
LikeLike
I didn’t watch the whole thing, but I like how she does the goosey goosey gander. the both sides are equally evil argument, when clearly the evil and propaganda of one towers above the other like their stockpile of nuclear weapons and war (“defence“) budget.
LikeLike
@abagond
Another indication that we, you and I, all Americans, live in a propaganda bubble is the fact that our media is controlled by the CIA. They say so themselves. The CIA tells us, by the following cognitive infiltration admission, that we live in a propaganda bubble.
CIA Media Infiltration
cia-pao-media.png
DOC_0005524009
DECLASSIFIED CIA DOCUMENTS SHOW AGENCY’S CONTROL OVER MAINSTREAM MEDIA & ACADEMIA
Yes, my friends, indeed we do live in a propaganda bubble. Courtesy MSM and CIA.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the following video, you can disregard all of the chemtrail stuff if you like. I happen to think it is one of the most critical issues of our times. But that’s just me. But check out what Landman says about the news media. And its all Western media he’s talking about. But on this issue he could have included RT too. They won’t touch chemtrails. But be that as it may, check out what he says about what I call the propaganda bubble we all live in as americans.
(https://youtu.be/euqn-j2iUYI?t=6m13s)
LikeLike
@”Abby Martin, who used to work for RT: ‘RT toes a perspective of the Russian foreign policy just as the entire corporate media apparatus toes the perspective of the US establishment.'”
But she didn’t call RT propaganda, like abagond did on multiple occasions.
But Abby did say “if this was a Kremlin mouthpiece, why was I able to have the main opinion show on prime time television on RT for an entire year after” she publicly denounced Putin.
LikeLike
@nomad
Another indication that we, you and I, all Americans, live in a propaganda bubble is the fact that our media is controlled by the CIA.
I could quote reports of Amnesty International telling how Russian journalists are harassed (from intimidating house searches to outright murder), and compare it with the situation in the USA.
However, I am not sure if you believe that any organization that says something bad about Russia/RT will dis qualify itself automatically.
At least, I see that that the reverse is true: any conspiracy nut is trustworthy if he serves your viewpoint. Just see what Wikipeda has to say about Paul Craig Roberts’s ideas on several events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts#Alleged_false_flag_operations
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jeff Elberfeld
Not exactly what I said. If the findings of such groups contradict what I have personally observed they are not credible. To me. If they lie about things I know then they likely lie about things I don’t. So I don’t trust them. Like Wikipedia. I don’t trust them on empire stuff. They are propaganda too. I would not trust them on PCR. As for harassment of Russian journalists, that’s sad, but over here, we still live in a propaganda bubble. Regardless of whats going on in Russia. I’m sure they have their own set of problems. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with USA! USA! USA!
LikeLike
Michael hastings, Breitbart
LikeLike
@ nomad
Which Breitbart journalists have been murdered or died under suspicious circumstances?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael Hastings (US journalist who died under suspicious circumstances)
compared to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
LikeLike
@ nomad
I have seen “CrossTalk” two more times since then. It is straight-up propaganda. It is not just editorial bias. It does that thing that Fox News and MSNBC do: hold panel discussions that are one-sided.
If you are going to hold a panel discussion on an issue it does not take a degree in journalism – just a ninth grade education – to know that you have panelists on both sides of the issue. Even Don Lemon on CNN knows that.
To call what “CrossTalk” does “editorial bias” is disingenuous because it cannot be a mere mistake. It is a propaganda trick, making an echo chamber sound like serious attempt to understand an issue.
So “CrossTalk” can talk about Trump firing FBI Director James Comey for 28 minutes (linked to below) and dance around the fact that Trump just fired the person in charge of investigating his campaign! Instead the US media is dismissed as “hysterical” because there is “no evidence” for Russiagate – as if they do not know what the word “investigate” means.
“CrossTalk” can pull that off because there were no Democrats in the room, no one from the half of the US that sees it differently than host Peter Lavelle, a Putin sycophant.
The “CrossTalk” I saw on the French election was much the same: no Macron supporters were in the room. How odd.
The tagline for “CrossTalk” is “where all things are considered”. That is as laughable as Bill O’Reilly’s “fair and balanced”.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvMt9ekP1tw)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is part of another episode of “CrossTalk”:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smuksFtqL48)
The Economist comments:
LikeLike
@abagond
Thanks! I remember vividly this episode on the 2012 Israel-Gaza-crisis:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsOTA2N8cZc)
While RT was showing a speaker from the pro-Israel-side, (as opposed to the two opposing views) it was the only one that got critical questions and got interrupted.
LikeLike
breitbart himself dude. he said he had explosive news. a couple weeks later he was dead. I don’t know exactly the time frame, but soon after. you do know the cia can induce heart attacks right? and they can remotely hijack cars right? theres numerous instances of us intimidating reporters. who was it that had their keyboard hijacked?
LikeLike
@agabond
I’m sorry man. your def of propaganda is way off.
that was indeed editorial discretion. they have a perspective that’s not Western, so it seems like propaganda to you. Apparently. To me its a breath of fresh air.
LikeLike
The Economist comments:
“Sometimes the programming [on RT] is ludicrously bad, such as this discussion in which Douglas Murray, a British commentator, tries in vain to explain to a comically combative presenter [Peter Lavelle] that the 9/11 attackers were in fact Islamist terrorists. ”
translation
Douglas Murray, a British commentator, tries in vain to explain to astute presenter [Peter Lavelle] that government propaganda about 9/11 is true.
Abagond. You cant really prove RT is propaganda by citing propaganda. What else are these organs of the Western establishment like the Economist going to say?
LikeLike
@ nomad
That comment was not addressed to you, partly because I knew you would dismiss it out of hand.
LikeLike
What you are describing is a counter narrative. And it is a counter narrative to American propaganda. god bless em
LikeLike
@ nomad
Sure, “CrossTalk” might be pushing a “counter-narrative”, but since it is not a serious attempt to understand the world, that means it is pushing propaganda, plain and simple.
LikeLike
@ nomad
What you saw as “breath of fresh air” I saw as a desperate attempt to move attention off of Russiagate.
LikeLike
@abagond
say what? it sure looked like it was addressed to me. even if it wasn’t I probably would have responded.
LikeLike
abagond
@ nomad
What you saw as “refreshing” I saw as a desperate attempt to move attention off of Russiagate
of course. but I was not talking about that specific episode, I’m talking about the show as a whole. a breath of fresh air in the tsunami of western propaganda that gushes unabated from my tv.
LikeLike
that is a ridiculous statement. of course theyre serious. and I have gained a great understanding of geopolitical issues thru watching them.
LikeLike
greater
LikeLike
There is a word in geekdom that can also be applied elsewhere: fanboy.
Increasingly I think Nomad is an RT fanboy. Not a Russian troll, not a conspiracy nut, not a dupe of propaganda. Just a fanboy totally in love with RT who wants to share his great discovery with others, who will hear no criticism of his favorite channel, and will defend it for all he’s worth.
There’s no arguing with a hardcore fanboy, whether it’s comix, gaming, movies, or books. Presumably this can also hold true for news channels. 🙂
LikeLike
not true. just don’t like the disparagement abagond is engaged in. putting forth all these bogus accusations. but call me what you will. just so long as I don’t have to subscribe to your misconceptions. troll, nonfan club. fanboy. whatever.
abagond made an accusation that he cant back up. all the rest is diversion from that. long as he keeps deflecting ill keep rejecting.
LikeLike
if that’s true, I’m no fanboy (or boy of any kind) because I respond to proof. so far none has been forthcoming. the only proof has been abagonds redefining of propaganda to fit his accusation. and that’s not proof.
LikeLike
@”Michael Hastings (US journalist who died under suspicious circumstances)”
Notice how abagond deceitfully tries to deflect by conflating Russian journalists turning up dead in Russia to his claims that RT is “propagandistic”, which he still has not substantiated.
@”Increasingly I think Nomad is an RT fanboy. ”
When there are no facts to support claims, bring on the childish, trollish name-calling. We’ve seen this pattern over and over again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! That’s what I like about Peter Lavelle! I cannot say that that’s not a good description. That’s what I love about Lavelle. Combative! And funny! I mean all of these RT guys are cut from the same mold. Combative! And funny! Lionel! Max Keiser! And of course Lee Camp. These is some hilarious mofos! That’s what I like about them. They are hilarious and true.
LikeLike
@ Nomad
I’m sorry. I meant it good-naturedly, not as a slam.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
no worries. was not offended. you know how I roll.
LikeLike
this guy wasn’t a reporter, but he was killed for reporting, so add him to the list suspicious journalist deaths, almost certainly assassinations.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
Comments deleted for being about another commenter’s psychiatric condition.
LikeLike
@ nomad
“Accusation” is kind of an odd word to use, unless you or a relative work there.
In any case, I HAVE backed up my claim. Whether I have proved it to your satisfaction is another matter, but my claim is hardly baseless.
And, unlike you, I do not dismiss news outlets out of hand as propaganda just because I do not like what they say or because of what country they are based in. I try to show that it is their techniques that make them propagandistic.
LikeLike
@abagond
lol
so what are you suggesting?
certainly not to my satisfaction..
I don’t dismiss them simply because I don’t believe what they say. True, I mostly don’t believe what they say, but I don’t dismiss them at all. I often judge them to be erroneous after evaluating what they say. I recognize what they say is propaganda because it. Especially as regarding anything Russian. I’ve given ample evidence that this is true. And can give more. MSM is not going to tell the truth about RT. Just like it accuses Russia of hacking the election without proof, it accuses, and you accuse, but that’s redundant, RT of being propaganda, fake, unserious, unprofessional , etc. All without proof. You have given none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think RT has gotten silly with their recent shows.
LikeLike