RT (2005- ), known as Russia Today before 2009, is a news outlet, the Russian government’s answer to the BBC and CNN. RT runs a news website (rt.com), at least two YouTube channels, and seven television stations: RT, RT Arabic, RT en Español, RT Deutsch, RT America, RT UK and RT Documentary. Despite its name, RT America is almost all White.
What people at RT say:
Margarita Simonyan, its editor-in-chief, said of RT in 2005:
“It will be a perspective on the world from Russia”
Abby Martin, presenter of RT’s “Breaking the Set” (2012-15):
“RT toes a perspective of the Russian foreign policy, just as the entire corporate media apparatus toes the perspective of the U.S. establishment.”
Peter Lavelle, the presenter of RT’s “CrossTalk” (2009- ):
“The paymaster determines a lot. Are you telling me Murdoch doesn’t control the editorial line of his publications? No one can escape who pays for what.”
RT’s paymaster is the Kremlin, the Russian government.
What others say:
US intelligence says RT was a big part of Russia’s attempt to affect the US election in 2016, saying that RT was
“aimed at undermining viewers’ trust of US democratic procedures”
Casey Michel, who has worked as a journalist in both the US and the former Soviet Union and worked with Columbia Journalism School’s RT Watch:
“RT ignores the inherent traits of journalism – checking sources, relaying facts, attempting honest reportage. But RT’s model creates a concerted mask of traditional journalism with all the trappings. […] If you’re looking for critique or criticism of Kremlin decisions, you won’t find them on RT. Instead, you’ll find ‘experts’ lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line.”
If you use RT as a news source:
- Check out the source for their report. It is not always as RT makes it seem.
- Check out who their experts and talking heads are.
- Get the other side of the issue. RT can be very one-sided or bad at explaining both sides (particularly on “CrossTalk” and in covering of street protests).
They are infamous for having on conspiracy theorists, like Alex Jones.
Overall they are better than Fox News but not as good as MSNBC. Don Lemon of CNN is leagues beyond RT, if only because he regularly presents more than one side of an issue.
Two dire examples of RT’s coverage:
- Nina Ognianova of the Committee to Protect Journalists, when interviewed on the murder of Russian journalists, said that of her comments, “the most critical ones were edited out.”
- Peter Lavelle on “CrossTalk”, when looking back on Putin’s first 15 years, he, his guests and the captions informed us that:
- Putin is “an amazing brand” that “Western media simply cannot comprehend.”
- Putin “almost perfectly reflects where the centre of the Russian popular opinion has been.”
- Putin is “wildly popular at home.”
- Putin is the “personification of the nation and the national interest.”
- Putin is “a leader.”
and so on. There is hardly space enough here for it all.
– Abagond, 2017.
Sources: mainly Columbia Journalism Review, Politico, RT Watch, RT: CrossTalk, My RT media diet.
See also:
557
Note that after months of abagond claiming RT was “propagandistic”, the “P” word is eerily absent from the main post. Maybe that’s because s/he was asked repeatedly to point out an example of RT propaganda and could not do so.
Just like the anti-Russian propagandist New York Times, which is coincidentally pushing the same anti-RT propaganda simultaneously:
So NYT and abagond push propaganda, but then have the nerve of accusing RT, with no evidence, of doing the same:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why are using s/he?
At this point in time you should know that Abagond is a he!
LikeLike
maybe now we can get to the real deal with RT, without that bogus propaganda charge
I>f you use RT as a news source:
Check out the source for their report. It is not always as RT makes it seem.
Check out who their experts and talking heads are.
Get the other side of the issue. RT can be very one-sided or bad at explaining both sides (particularly on “CrossTalk” and in covering of street protests).
this is a much better way of framing your criticism
I cant say I agree, but at least its not a prevarication.
LikeLike
@nomad
“this is a much better way of framing your criticism”
+1000. And abagond’s instructions can also apply to the use of ANY news source, not just RT.
LikeLike
A more balanced approach, this time around.. It seems odd that you call hosts ‘presenters’, as if to diminish their status. .
This is a way of saying that the Kremlin controls the content. This is not true. We have already determined that the hosts are independent. See Hedges. See Abby Martin.
Lavelle’s statement does not say what kind of control the Kremlin has. Maybe its just the administrative details. Who knows? He just says the paymaster determines a lot. He doesn’t say what specifically with regard to Russia. He does, however, say what specifically it is with regard to Murdock. Murdock is hands on. The Kremlin is not, given what you yourself have reported about RT “presenters”.
LikeLike
“Don Lemon of CNN is leagues beyond RT, if only because he regularly presents more than one side of an issue.”
Why is that a good thing? The on the one hand and on the other hand presentation is usually good for creating spectacles but useless for getting at the truth. The assumption that only two sides exist in a debate is usually bs. When you pick up a book or any other written material you usually get the views that the authors deemed important, the same holds for talking heads on tv. NYT has foisted a number of hoaxes on the public, Judith Miller, etc., yet it retains credibility with people like Abagond. The only serious approach is to let the person expressing a view to do so, including his/her biases. After listening to him/her, check out what you deemed dubious in their presentation and come to your own conclusion. In other words, everything you read, hear and see is propaganda, regardless of the source. This post is propaganda for “Don Lemon of CNN” types of issue presentations. Assertions about Putin blowing up an apartment building in Moscow in 1999 to justify his rise to power are made by the respectable media without any proof.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sounds like another biased source. It is the consensus of Western media, RTs adversary, that
I have not found this to be the case.
Meaning they function just like traditional journalism. Rather than saying this, this biased source calls it a mask.
This is simply a lie. They have great experts and do not indulge conspiracy theories. I challenge abagond or anyone elseto show me where.
I’ve watched RT for three years. Never seen Alex Jones on RT. I’m sure he was on once maybe, but I didn’t see him. Nor any other “conspiracy theorist”. So this “infamy” seems just more MSM antiRussian propaganda.
LikeLike
Did he say anything that wasn’t accurate about Putin? Its positive so I know it seems strange to you. You’re used to Putin being demonized to the point where you think he actually is a demon. Well, RT isnt MSM and hence doesn’t do that. And that’s a breath of fresh air.
LikeLike
I don’t quite understand this:
In many prior posts and comments, it was said that both Fox and MSNBC are biased and present one side of the news. If RT is better than one, but worse than the other, what does that mean?
LikeLike
@abagond
Despite its name, RT America is almost all White.
That is not surprising. I do not know if the “Well-dressed white-skinned news-anchor with an Oxford-English accent” is an official stereotype, but you find them at most government-funded English-language news channels that are made for a foreign audience. I believe it is considered to be the most reliable-looking news-anchor-type, because of the BBC-feel they have.
@nomad
I’ve watched RT for three years. Never seen Alex Jones on RT. I’m sure he was on once maybe, but I didn’t see him.
Just see Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday/search?query=Alex+Jones
and
https://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica/search?query=Alex+Jones
Two points:
It doesn’t necessarily mean that RT agrees with Alex Jones. After all, the MSM gave much coverage to Donald Trump, just to make him look stupid (and we all know how that turned out).
Are there people in the USA who take Alex Jones serious? He sounds like the bad guy in a WWE-show.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@nomad
Comment deleted for moderated language.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
RT, MSNBC and Fox News are all one-sided and even use some of the same techniques. My ranking of the three is based mainly on their apparent level of fact-checking.
LikeLike
@ nomad
I picked Columbia Journalism School’s RT Watch, upon which much of the post is based, because I wanted a journalistic perspective.
I added what US intelligence said because to NOT put that would give a false impression of its position in the West.
I left out the many criticisms made by former reporters because they can be written off as bad blood. That is why I wind up quoting editors and presenters, people with more editorial control.
LikeLike
@ nomad
“Presenter” is the right word, but it is a Briticism:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/presenter
LikeLike
Jefe asked: “If RT is better than one, but worse than the other, what does that mean?”
It means exactly what Abagond wrote, which was: “Overall they(RT) are better than Fox News but not as good as MSNBC.”
LikeLike
@nomad
Michel’s examples:
‘experts’ lacking in expertise:
(http://rtwatchcuj.tumblr.com/post/117203994463/rt-brings-on-dubious-expert-to-charge-ukraine-with)
conspiracy theories:
(http://rtwatchcuj.tumblr.com/post/118252129138/rts-op-ed-conjures-cartoon-characters-to)
outright fabrication:
(http://rtwatchcuj.tumblr.com/post/111237757973/who-started-the-shooting-at-maidan-bbc-finds-a)
LikeLike
More examples of conspiracy theories on RT:
Source:
(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT)
You can go to that article to follow up on their citations to see what their examples are.
LikeLike
And this! This is just bovine excrement.
LikeLike
Source:
(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT)
yeah. I’m going to believe rationalwiki
LikeLike
they are not credible sources, that’s like asking the cowboys what they think about the Indians, the Israelis what they think about Palestinians or the klan what they think about black people. you are not going to get an honest answer.
LikeLike
@ nomad
At this point you are sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LA LA LA LA LA”.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3mxVjB4aqI)
LikeLike
@abagond
presenter not exactly the right word.
noun
1
British A person who introduces and appears in a television or radio programme.
‘a TV presenter’
not a host. who is the star, interviewer and conducts the show.
it is a diminishment of the hosts role to call him/her a presenter.
LikeLike
@ nomad
By that measure, RT is not a credible or honest source about the US or the West.
LikeLike
@abagond
Right. LALALA. I don’t trust the source. And since I don’t I would have to investigate each and evry charge they make. I don’t have the time but I suspect I will find the same kind of distortions ive pointed out in your critique. Because discrediting RT is their agenda. They want to steer people away from it because it offers a counter narrative to the otherwise all pervasive American propaganda and thus is a threat to the system. They, like you, want to scare people away from RT. Good luck with that. From what I have seen so far, you will indeed succeed.
LikeLike
stop with the goosey goosey gander. whats true of one is not necessarily true of the other.
LikeLike
whats true of one is not necessarily true of the other.
As in “alternative facts,” I guess?
LikeLike
@abagond
I went to site just to find out the kind of criticism they make about unqualified experts.
pickypickypicky. so what? they also have very qualified experts on as well. I like that they give voice to people not normally heard from.
they had tim black on to talk about black issues for example. hes not a major expert, but I was still glad to here his perspective. and I’m not asking why they had him and not Cornel West. They give voice to people not usually heard. And I like that. The rest you can see on MSM.
on the conspiracy theory list, I’m not going to check them all probably. because I don’t think dealing with ct is a bad thing. I just, personally, have not seen them do it in the three years ive been watching. I must have missed it like I missed alex jones. so it certainly has not been a prominent feature of rt. conspiracy theory. I actually wish they would do conspiracy theory.
LikeLike
fabrication
I don’t understand why this is called fabrication
just seems a difference in opinion.
LikeLike
@”They are infamous for having on conspiracy theorists, like Alex Jones.”
So’s CNN:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2kprvVqEHA)
among may other “conspiracy theorists” they’ve been “having on.”
LikeLike
@”outright fabrication:”
https://www.rt.com/news/231775-bbc-maidan-shooting-started/
I read the actual RT article and couldn’t tell what was supposedly fabricated. It seems like real journalism to me where RT is just reporting multiple sides of the same story.
If abagond actually read the article instead of just relying on Casey Michel’s word, maybe abagond could point out exactly what RT supposedly fabricated. But don’t count on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and while were on the subject of fabrication, here is MSM totally fabricating a story. what you sited does not appear to be fabrication. this is what total fabrication looks like.
the state dept fabricates stih whole cloth. Amnesty Guardian the WaPo and the BBC and every other mainstream outlet disseminate it. Its a propaganda bubble. you believe what the gov tells you to believe. RT is a threat to that mass mind control.
LikeLike
@nomad
“Right. LALALA. I don’t trust the source.”
And why should you? Rationalwiki explicitly tells us it’s not an authority on facts:
“it is important to realize that RW is not trying to be an encyclopedia. While many of RW’s articles may look like encyclopedia entries, RW goes much further – it encourages original research and opinion formation”
and make no mistake:
“Worth noting is that RationalWiki is also deemed to have a slight (politically center-left) bias compared to Wikipedia — and that’s no surprise, as we explicitly do not aim for a neutral point of view”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ munubantu
Resw does that kind of stuff because he is a troll.
LikeLike
Thank you for explaining what “better” means.
LikeLike
@abagond.
LOL! That tells the story right there. Why ratonalwiki thinks RT indulges in conspiracy theory. And this is the meaning of the word that abagond, in referencing the cite is also supporting. Conspiracy theory, for these guys, is anything that contradicts the mainstream Western, primarily USA, consensus. In that case, everything RT does is conspiracy. That is their self proclaimed mission: to contradict Western consensus, or as I call it, Western propaganda. No wonder You think they deal with conspiracy theories and I don’t. You and the rest of the corporate propaganda matrix. We have a different definition of what a conspiracy theory is. I have two. One is the pristine definition, which means what it says. A theory about a conspiracy. The other is what has become the common meaning. The pejorated one. Unfounded beliefs. RT, as Lavelle says, does not deal in that.
LikeLike
I wonder why rationalwiki didn’t say
it would be the right word
LikeLike
@abagond
F@ck off. Not kissing your rear or falling for your many lies does not make one a troll, just an independent thinker.
@munubantu
Not that it’s relevant to this thread, but I have no knowledge of abagond’s gender without making sexist assumptions based on his writings. But considering he has a lengthy record of lying, I don’t know or care what gender abagond is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And abagond had time to make another childish personal remark about me, but not to approve my comment with links showing the times Alex Jones appeared on abagond’s CNN.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ohhhhh. I was looking for Alex Jones appearances on RT on YouTube. And found this, which tells me why I have never seen Alex Jones on RT. I only started watching three years ago.. Thats when he was stopped from appearing on RT thru pressure from the Obama admin according to him. That is why I never saw him.
(https://youtu.be/9laOjPe30J0?t=3m1s)
LikeLike
de ja vu. we are back to where this discussion began. because it seems I have said all this before.
My points are that..
RT is a valuable tool.
Because of the problem we have with our media. Our MSM is like the firemen in Fahrenheit 451. The firemen that race to start fires rather than put them out, as traditional firemen did. Our news media does the opposite of what news media is supposed to do. Instead of reporting the news it hides the news. Behind a façade of lies. Exhibit A, the Clinton debacle. MSM has been stripped bare as the fraud it is. They hide the truth. From 911 to NSA surveillance. They cannot be trusted. They have to be checked. RT is a way of checking them. Just as alternative media is another way. And that is why they are trying to shut both down with propaganda like what you just spieled. “Conspiracy theory and fringe beliefs. As I say, RT boasts, and rightfully so, that they report the news they don’t reveal on American MSM. And that’s why I watch them. I don’t want to be kept in the dark by MSM, by the Root, by rationalwiki and this blog. RT. The antidote to American propaganda.
I’ve seen nothing since that alters that assessment.
LikeLike
I was just thinking. What I was thinking was that the most serious charge abagond has brought, the one that there is evidence for, is that they don’t have any black on air personalities. One or two. But blacks are significantly absent. Then I was thinking maybe its not RTs fault. From what I have observed here and elsewhere, black Americans tend to be Russophobic. Maybe they are scared to work for RT. Maybe they are afraid of having something like that on their employment history.
Future employer at interview: “Oh, you worked for RT, eh? NEXT!!!
And not to mention the FBI and police putting you under surveillance. And the neighbors! What would the neighbors say? Why would a black person even attempt to contemplate a job at RT?
LikeLike
Well you have to remember in the us if you look at a newspaper most of the ‘national’ or ‘international’ stories come from syndicates like AP or Reuters. They will often be practically identical from paper to paper. I suppose once a journalist reaches a certain point in their career they can exercise some discretion in their reportage but if you see something besides ‘staff writers’ in the byline … Of course on TV a ‘producer’ will set the tone or agenda ie which stories to present. The web? Well I guess it’s something a little more free but maybe abstracted a bit. Not talking about Alex Jones here more like cnn.com.
LikeLike
@v8driver
funny you should mention cnn. I was just watching this video.
Proof CNN Is a Military Psyop
(https://youtu.be/1ZHifTobAgY)
LikeLike
I remember seeing that maidan incident on TV or the web, wow those protesters getting picked off
LikeLike
I cannot watch the mainstream media anymore because their propaganda is so transparent. The latest I overheard on CBS evening news is that Trump shared “classified info” about a possible terrorist threat during an official meeting with the Russian foreign minister. BFD. Presidental prerogative. He didn’t write it on a napkin and slip it to Putin. Meanwhile, who is leaking what the president is sharing with foreign diplomats during offical discussions?
They don’t have anything indicating illegal links to Russia or else Trump would have been impeached. Really, put up or shut up. Trump can’t take a dump without someone leaking it and they were monitoring his electronic communications so they don’t have anything and can only resort to insinuations to influence public opinion. Is this timed to distract from renewed questions surrounding the murder of DNC employee Seth Rich who was likely a wikileaks source (not Russian hackers)? Who knows.
Honestly, RT would have to try really hard to be worse than CNN, CBS and MSNBC. They’re more interested in implanting opinions within the public than reporting reality. They haven’t learned from the last time they tried this and reality smacked them in the face and Trump won. It would be quite something if we had a retread of the scenario where the media backs the wrong horse: new FBI director indicts Hillary Clinton under the espionage act and more of her indefensible behavior comes to light.
The naked corruption and what is supposed to be our “lesser evil” is a major reason Trump won. They don’t plan to change but intend to use their propaganda arm to convince us that Trump is working for Russia. Yes, attacking Trump while you’re wearing the emperor’s new clothes worked really well the last time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“not as good as MSNBC”
Well RT doesn’t represent the DNC like MSNBC does.
FOX is mostly the mouth piece for Republicans the same way MSNBC is the mouthpiece for the Democrats. It’s not traditional propaganda but it’s Kool Aid that gets manufactured for their viewer base.
RT is no different. RT’s enemy is my enemy but that doesn’t mean I trust RT or the Russians are my friends.
The idea that MSNBC sources their material better then other networks is silly. Facts are like statistics and can be arranged anyway to support a specific bias. It doesn’t make it true.
The MSM uses language like “citizen journalists” to deflect away from their own insular bubble they reside in along with their company of “experts” and “real” journalists. What a joke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Origin
Way to turn a blind eye and blame the messenger.
LikeLike
A common tactic that RT and Fox News use when Trump screws up – you know, obstructs justice, gives away secrets to the Russians, stuff like that – is to dismiss it as “hysteria” by the “mainstream media”, a “meltdown” by Democrats, etc. That way they do not have to take seriously the media, the Democrats or Trump’s misdeeds.
This is not a serious attempt to understand the world. It is apologetics, plain and simple, for Trump (on Fox News) and Russiagate (RT).
RT could provide a useful function by giving a critique of the Western media, but at least in this case, that is not what it is doing. It is just glorified name-calling, not reasoned criticism.
LikeLike
I think abagonds attitude to rt is unhinged.
LikeLike
^^^ Wow, the very tactic I just talked about.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Huh? It was the New York Times, not RT, not even Fox News, that broke the Clinton email scandal.
LikeLike
@ nomad
Like what?
LikeLike
@ v8driver
I saw the same thing in China in 2004: pretty much the same top headlines from one news website to the next.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
This is straight-up propaganda right in front of your nose and you do not see it.
Putin is not the devil, but neither is he a saint.
The truth is never that clean and simple, which is what makes outlets like Fox, Breitbart, MSNBC – and RT – suspect.
LikeLike
Folks, you will never get a ‘correct’ rendering of events in the news that’s why you have to consult numerous sources. Even then you will not get to the crux of the matter. Remain sceptical always.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ nomad
RT used a “political analyst” who turns out to be a nobody to advance the claim that there is “a full revival of Nazism and fascism in Ukraine.” For a supposedly journalistic enterprise, that amounts to a LIE.
LikeLike
@ nomad
RT is trying to blame the Maidan Massacre on protesters instead of the police. They do that by twisting a BBC report:
More:
(http://rtwatchcuj.tumblr.com/post/111237757973/who-started-the-shooting-at-maidan-bbc-finds-a)
LikeLike
abagond
I’m thru. as I say this is deja vu. ive said what I have to say on the subject.
LikeLike
but one last question, what outlet isn’t suspect?
LikeLike
eh the takeaway is that currently it’s definitely team trump vs the fbi. it’s kind of like he’s saying since you ‘officially’ leaked the ‘conversations’ of flynn or whatever with russia your top dog is fired.
can he do the nsa or cia like that? obviously not.
special prosecutor, blah blah blah it would be interesting to see him go through an actual impeachment hearing or whatever but pence? is that his name indiana man?
from nonce to pence lordie lordie lordie
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/sally-yates-anderson-cooper-cnntv/
cold war ii!!! tres gauche!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Nomad
“Proof CNN Is a Military Psyop”
i was googling a whole bunch of stuff no joy but i think it is an army ‘attache’ or something probably in atlanta like on site
LikeLike
2 is corroborations and not cut n paste conspiracy blogs
LikeLike
@ nomad
Every outlet has issues. It is like what Herneith said:
LikeLike
@abagond
“Way to turn a blind eye and blame the messenger.’
Turn a blind eye to what? It’s irrelevant. He didn’t put classified correspondence on an unsecured server and told every Tom, Dick and hacker to “come and get it” [in violation of Espionage Act]. Trump was in a meeting with Russian diplomats and shared intelligence about a terrorist threat. OMG, hang him! What would we do without brave “whistleblower” trying to make a meal out of Trump meeting with, gasp, those evil communist Russians? It’s not like Saint Obama ever met with the Russians.
Oh wait.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/27/news/la-pn-obama-defends-hot-mic-comment-20120326
I didn’t believe Obama was a Russian spy then either. Obviously negotiations would be easier after he secured his final term after which his Russia diplomacy could not be used as a political weapon the way it is being used now against Trump.
The fact that you find this concerning, abagond, and yet you wanted Hillary to be President after her severe breaches of protocol has me truly baffled. You don’t seem to be concerned by the actions but by something else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
so you trust rt as much as cbs? some are obviously better than others, which? Univision?
you obviously think fox is not good. which do you think are good. where do you go for your news? I recall it was Univision, wasn’t it?
LikeLike
@abagond i couldn’t handle cn.com i guess scmp? i’m kind of behind on china right now
LikeLike
@ Origin
Just because I think Donald Trump is bad that does not mean I think Hillary Clinton is good. Real life is not a Hollywood movie. I saw her as the lesser of two evils:
LikeLike
@abagond
still thinking about it? lemme see. obviously …that is, if I had to guess… you rank “Indian Country Today, Univision, the Root, Democracy Now! ” high.
I would say those are the ones you feel are the best.
RT ranks just above FOX, which is worst. Amorite? Is there any other news service worse than RT? Is ABC worse? CBS? NBC? CNN? PBS? Is there anybody worse, besides FOX?
LikeLike
@abagond
which of these vipers do you trust most?
LikeLike
well AP is american, reuters is british? and that is a level up from rupert murdoch etc
LikeLike
@”Just because I think Donald Trump is bad that does not mean I think Hillary Clinton is good…I saw her as the lesser of two evils”
So hypocritical. Abagond wants us to treat him differently than how he treated commenters who did nothing but tell truths about the “lesser of two evils.”
He personally attacked us and labeled us as Trump supporters. But God forbid anyone call abagond a “supporter” of the candidate for whom he actually voted and told his readers to vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ nomad
I did a post on this:
LikeLike
@abagond
yeah, i never really understood that post. it seemed to be saying the best news sites are the ones who oppose donald trump. which is kind of a non sequitur.
i did find this quote from you though. you find the msm appendages to be at the top of the heap.
LikeLike
all they are there to do is validate msm, which, as afrofem has pointed out, is an integral part of the deep state.
LikeLike
@ nomad
The press is supposed to be adversarial. So in the Trump Era they would be the best, all other things being equal.
LikeLike
non sequitur. does not follow. i am nomad.
LikeLike
if i may engage in goosey goosey gander for a moment…
by that logic the best news source in the obama era was fox.
LikeLike
@ nomad
I said “all other things being equal.”
If you read the post, you will see I threw out all television news:
In addition, Fox News is terrible at fact checking, and that is the nice way of putting it. The Seth Rich story is a case in point. True, they did ultimately retract it, but it should not have taken that long. They did the same sort of thing to Shirley Sherrod.
LikeLike
^^ I also threw out all those with known Clinton ties: Daily Beast, Washington Post, Huffington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN.
LikeLike
like I said, I don’t quite understand the post. but be that as it may, the degree of opposition to a political figure has no bearing on how good a news service is. that’s determined by the other things you didn’t mention and the one that you did, fact checking.
The Seth Rich story is not a case in point because it has not been resolved. It is part of the SOP of the empire and its MSM propaganda wing. Conclusion without proof. Like with russiagate. Like with the Syrian chemical attack. Assad did it, without proof.
LikeLike
True, they did ultimately retract it, but it should not have taken that long.
Well it’s been 5 months and counting, and abagond’s New York Times still has not retracted this
liemisstatement about RT:“RT, a state-run Russian television network that broadcasts around the world in English”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“True, they did ultimately retract it, but it should not have taken that long.” should have been in quotation marks, attributable to abagond.
LikeLike
“If you read the post, you will see I threw out all television news…. I also threw out all those with known Clinton ties”
So New York Times somehow doesn’t count even though its biggest owner, Carlos Slim contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation, paid her hundreds of thousands for at least one speech, and Clinton Foundation donated to the New York Times.
Got it!
And NYT routinely
liesmisstates and retracts things about RT. Like these:RT first stated Abby Martin “quit during live broadcast” but retracted only after Martin called out NYT’s lies: “Correction An earlier version of this article misstated the timing of Abby Martin’s departure from RT. She quit some months after denouncing on air Russia’s incursion in Ukraine, not during that broadcast.”
NYT “….referred incorrectly to coverage of the Democratic National Convention by a Russian television outfit, RT. It devoted little time to the speeches, focusing instead on scattered demonstrations, on the day President Obama spoke — not throughout the entire convention.”
LikeLike
@ nomad
Tell me if I have this right:
#1. You do not believe in Russiagate conspiracy theory because there is no proof.
#2. You believe in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, yet there is no proof.
If #1 and #2 are both right, then why do you believe in one but not the other?
LikeLike
i dont ‘believe in’ either. and i dont call either a conspiracy theory. thats a distorting mind control term.
i believe in proof.
and what i dont believe in is msm. they lie. bigly.. and since they lie bigly, i dont believe anything they say without proof.
LikeLike
Here’s another
liemisstatement in the same article that abagond’s New York Times still has not retracted after 5 months:“Last year, Swedish authorities said they traced to Russia a disinformation campaign when Sweden was considering cooperating militarily with NATO.”
Go to that article and this is what they said “last year”:
“As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the false reports.”
So they contradict their own
liemisstatement. Now we can see the direct correlation with abagond’sliesmisstatements and those he clearly is getting from drinking the NYT.In his words, “But maybe the best proof of all that [NYT] is propagandistic is [abagond himself] and how [he has] drunk its Kool-Aid.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
all of it based on the premise that russia is a threat. ive seen no such indication
Oh my name it ain’t nothin’
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I was taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side
I’ve learned to hate the Russians
All through my whole life
If another war comes
It’s them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side
LikeLike
True but you’ll see black american stories you’ll never see on MSM. Black Panthers, MOVE interviews and the interview i just saw on Watching the Hawks. Writing My Wrongs. S Senghor. Powerful.
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Embassy+of+the+Russian+Federation/@38.9245652,-77.0773456,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b7b623a10f7ce9:0x90c63e106d45500d!8m2!3d38.924561!4d-77.0751569
yay google
russia today dc office
blessed be!
LikeLike
QED .: point to nomad no questions please
LikeLike
*1 then click on maps
LikeLike
Nadya Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot on RT:
Source: (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/13/pussy-riot-in-london-on-protest-prison-and-putin)
LikeLike
Garry Kasparov, a critic of Putin, on RT:
Source: (https://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/kasparov-trump-russia-propaganda.php)
LikeLike
Media Bias/Fact Check on RT:
Source: (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/)
LikeLike