5 ms·

So where do you suggest we draw the line between what state-sponsored news is allowed vs forbidden to do? Should we only forbid them from buying advertising? Wh

by alehul 9y ago

So where do you suggest we draw the line between what state-sponsored news is allowed vs forbidden to do? Should we only forbid them from buying advertising? Why not forbid their reporting of news altogether? Also, I don't think people have similar complaints about Al Jazeera's reporting on Russian election campaigns? Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live with and I don't get the overreaction.

pm90 9y ago
> Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live with and I don't get the overreaction. Please don't normalize this kind of behavior. Every country does not do "this". There is no major news agency supported directly by US Federal Funds, except perhaps NPR, but that has been openly critical of the US all the time. And that is perhaps the test of truly independent news outlet: if its willing to criticize its own Government, if its able to do so, even when the information paints the Govt. in a really bad light.
- blfr 9y ago
  NPR has been openly critical of the GOP all the time. I'm sure RT is willing to deliver a scathing criticism of Putin's opposition if anyone cares to listen.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Pedantic, but Voice of America is basically a US "propaganda" outfit. But a lot of countries do not really have this. RT is totally at a different scale. It's clearly being used as a political outfit. Other state-owned media in many countries have rules about editorial independence. RT clearly does not.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    >Voice of America Anecdotally, I've literally never heard of this before.
    - rtpg 9y ago
      It's not allowed to target Americans, so its profile in the US is pretty low.
- weirdstuff 9y ago
  He's not normalizing anything, he's setting the context which I happen to account for as well; for example our country directly attempted to (and did) influence the Brexit campaign and Scottish referendum – and not just our media but our elected officials. Our news outlets have been caught colluding with certain candidates – federal funds is one of countless vectors in which governments/elites can steer the news. Think of Donna Brazil, for example. She had to leave MSNBC after forwarding debate questions to Clinton.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > There is no major news agency supported directly by US Federal Funds Voice of America is a major global news agency directly funded by the federal government, which, because of concerns of the government propagandizing it's own electorate, was prohibited from broadcasting directly to American citizens until 2013. (Radio Free Europe, etc., used to part of a separate federal government office, too.)

by alehul 9y ago

pm90 9y ago

> Every major country does this, every election, to every other major country. It's something we live with and I don't get the overreaction. Please don't normalize this kind of behavior. Every country does not do "this". There is no major news agency supported directly by US Federal Funds, except perhaps NPR, but that has been openly critical of the US all the time. And that is perhaps the test of truly independent news outlet: if its willing to criticize its own Government, if its able to do so, even when the information paints the Govt. in a really bad light.

blfr 9y ago
NPR has been openly critical of the GOP all the time. I'm sure RT is willing to deliver a scathing criticism of Putin's opposition if anyone cares to listen.
rtpg 9y ago
Pedantic, but Voice of America is basically a US "propaganda" outfit. But a lot of countries do not really have this. RT is totally at a different scale. It's clearly being used as a political outfit. Other state-owned media in many countries have rules about editorial independence. RT clearly does not.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  >Voice of America Anecdotally, I've literally never heard of this before.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    It's not allowed to target Americans, so its profile in the US is pretty low.
weirdstuff 9y ago
He's not normalizing anything, he's setting the context which I happen to account for as well; for example our country directly attempted to (and did) influence the Brexit campaign and Scottish referendum – and not just our media but our elected officials. Our news outlets have been caught colluding with certain candidates – federal funds is one of countless vectors in which governments/elites can steer the news. Think of Donna Brazil, for example. She had to leave MSNBC after forwarding debate questions to Clinton.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> There is no major news agency supported directly by US Federal Funds Voice of America is a major global news agency directly funded by the federal government, which, because of concerns of the government propagandizing it's own electorate, was prohibited from broadcasting directly to American citizens until 2013. (Radio Free Europe, etc., used to part of a separate federal government office, too.)