5 ms·

What makes RT propaganda? The fact that they are critical of the US in ways our own media isn't?

DanBC 10y ago
No, the fact that they're state owned media and used by the Russian government to put out propaganda makes RT propaganda. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ EG: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/
- tastythrowaway 10y ago
  While the article mentions RT as an example of state-owned media, none of the cited incidents actually involve it. Also this website self-identifies as anti-Russian "disinformation." RT, ironically, has a similar mission against mainstream Western and EU media. So every one of these outlets has bias (even though not all of them are honest enough to claim it). So who should we believe?
  - unprepare 10y ago
    ahh a classic А у вас негров линчуют https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
    - tastythrowaway 10y ago
      Ironically, your implication of tu quoque is itself a logical fallacy. I am not saying "RT is unbiased because Western media _is_ biased" - in fact I am saying all media is biased but of the parties mentioned only one consistently draws ire for its bias.
      - unprepare 10y ago
        "RT is the only media outlet criticized for bias" riiight
        tastythrowaway 10y ago
        You quoted something I didn't say. How does that even work? Is there a word for this? There should be. Anyway that's not what I said - I said they are the only ones who draw consistent ire. As in they are forcefully denounced as biased consistently, instead of all of them being called out for bias and conflict of interest equally (which, really, many more news networks should be).
the_watcher 10y ago
Uhh, the fact that they are the state run media arm of a notoriously free press-hostile regime in a country with a famous history of a government propaganda arm?
- tastythrowaway 10y ago
  RT is state-funded as is the BBC and PBS, among many others. But none of them are immediately dismissed as propaganda. Why? Simply because "it's Russia?"
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Why? Simply because "it's Russia?" Yes.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    No. Simply because it's propaganda. BBC has spent decades earning a reputation for being (mostly) accurate and unbiased. RT has spent at least one decade earning a reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece, and part of his mechanism of control over Russia. The two are not remotely equivalent, despite lapses you can cite at BBC.
    - tastythrowaway 10y ago
      Where is evidence of this 'reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece?' Other than your impassioned assertions? Also, all media is biased. BBC is biased toward Western and UK interests, RT is biased toward Russian interests. This is something RT freely admits. But does BBC?
      - the_watcher 10y ago
        RT is beyond biased. Your claim, if true, equates all media to propaganda. Biased media is simply not the same as propaganda.
        10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 10y ago
I decided to look, given that I'd heard a lot about Rt being untrustworthy. Here's what a cursory search found, but it's possible the results may have been biased by my search term. It's up to you to determine whether these are credible or if there's another side not represented here. One (American) new sanchor for RT quit on the air because they believed the agency was advancing Putin's agenda over the news[1][2] As to how much of a public institution it is, I think it's important to look at how much of the organization's budget is from the state. For PBS, it appears it was around 12% in 2010[3]. RT appears to get almost all its funding from the government (if Wikipedia is to be trusted)[4]. Sorry for the Quora links, but really, there's no reason to accept anything I present over what people there might be able to supply anyways. I present them not as sources, but as additional discussions about the topic. 1: https://www.quora.com/How-biased-or-accurate-is-RTs-coverage-of-the-political-goings-on-in-Ukraine https://www.quora.com/How-biased-or-accurate-is-RTs-coverage... 2: https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-... 3: https://www.quora.com/What-portion-of-PBS-funding-comes-from-the-federal-government https://www.quora.com/What-portion-of-PBS-funding-comes-from... 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  The BBC gets almost all of its budget through taxation and mandatory purchases of "television licenses"

DanBC 10y ago

No, the fact that they're state owned media and used by the Russian government to put out propaganda makes RT propaganda. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ EG: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/

tastythrowaway 10y ago
While the article mentions RT as an example of state-owned media, none of the cited incidents actually involve it. Also this website self-identifies as anti-Russian "disinformation." RT, ironically, has a similar mission against mainstream Western and EU media. So every one of these outlets has bias (even though not all of them are honest enough to claim it). So who should we believe?
- unprepare 10y ago
  ahh a classic А у вас негров линчуют https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
  - tastythrowaway 10y ago
    Ironically, your implication of tu quoque is itself a logical fallacy. I am not saying "RT is unbiased because Western media _is_ biased" - in fact I am saying all media is biased but of the parties mentioned only one consistently draws ire for its bias.
    - unprepare 10y ago
      "RT is the only media outlet criticized for bias" riiight
      - tastythrowaway 10y ago
        You quoted something I didn't say. How does that even work? Is there a word for this? There should be. Anyway that's not what I said - I said they are the only ones who draw consistent ire. As in they are forcefully denounced as biased consistently, instead of all of them being called out for bias and conflict of interest equally (which, really, many more news networks should be).

the_watcher 10y ago

Uhh, the fact that they are the state run media arm of a notoriously free press-hostile regime in a country with a famous history of a government propaganda arm?

tastythrowaway 10y ago
RT is state-funded as is the BBC and PBS, among many others. But none of them are immediately dismissed as propaganda. Why? Simply because "it's Russia?"
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Why? Simply because "it's Russia?" Yes.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  No. Simply because it's propaganda. BBC has spent decades earning a reputation for being (mostly) accurate and unbiased. RT has spent at least one decade earning a reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece, and part of his mechanism of control over Russia. The two are not remotely equivalent, despite lapses you can cite at BBC.
  - tastythrowaway 10y ago
    Where is evidence of this 'reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece?' Other than your impassioned assertions? Also, all media is biased. BBC is biased toward Western and UK interests, RT is biased toward Russian interests. This is something RT freely admits. But does BBC?
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      RT is beyond biased. Your claim, if true, equates all media to propaganda. Biased media is simply not the same as propaganda.
      - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kbenson 10y ago

I decided to look, given that I'd heard a lot about Rt being untrustworthy. Here's what a cursory search found, but it's possible the results may have been biased by my search term. It's up to you to determine whether these are credible or if there's another side not represented here. One (American) new sanchor for RT quit on the air because they believed the agency was advancing Putin's agenda over the news[1][2] As to how much of a public institution it is, I think it's important to look at how much of the organization's budget is from the state. For PBS, it appears it was around 12% in 2010[3]. RT appears to get almost all its funding from the government (if Wikipedia is to be trusted)[4]. Sorry for the Quora links, but really, there's no reason to accept anything I present over what people there might be able to supply anyways. I present them not as sources, but as additional discussions about the topic. 1: https://www.quora.com/How-biased-or-accurate-is-RTs-coverage-of-the-political-goings-on-in-Ukraine https://www.quora.com/How-biased-or-accurate-is-RTs-coverage... 2: https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-... 3: https://www.quora.com/What-portion-of-PBS-funding-comes-from-the-federal-government https://www.quora.com/What-portion-of-PBS-funding-comes-from... 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget

alasdair_ 10y ago
The BBC gets almost all of its budget through taxation and mandatory purchases of "television licenses"