5 ms·

I am reluctant to use a buzzword like "fake news" when I have been reading Chomsky's detailed critiques of American newspapers for a long time and have been (fo

I am reluctant to use a buzzword like "fake news" when I have been reading Chomsky's detailed critiques of American newspapers for a long time and have been (for a long time) well aware of the significant political and corporate motivations behind news organizations (print and television). What are the "memes" (per Dawkins' definition) that RT intends to publicize? Which of those are false, which are true but misleading, and which are actually true? Does publishing stories that might make some voters angry with the status quo constitute being "fake news"? Is RT "fake news" simply because of its origin? Or because of its content? Or because of the timing of its content? Specific examples please. Under whatever definition you would use to classify RT as fake news, are any American news orgs (NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, WSJ, etc.) also fake news? How do you draw the line? Is it based on content that is false, true but misleading, or true? Do you believe that certain ideas are dangerous for Americans to believe? Should reading the writings of some of history's dictators be banned? Should violent music lyrics be banned?

gandhium 9y ago
> Specific examples please. All their articles related to Ukraine: Donbass, Crimea, MH-17. They're repeating same lies designed by Kremlin hosts.
- grandalf 9y ago
  Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters. I'm not looking to RT for useful coverage of issues in the Ukraine, but when it writes about the Flint Water crisis or police brutality, it might actually have a less biased view than the American press. I hope this isn't actually the case but I fear it may be.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    Are you saying that RT has less biased and better coverage of the Flint water crisis than Rachel Maddow? Specific examples, please: Exactly what have they gotten right that she got wrong? What have they covered that she missed? When have they brought attention to it when she ignored it? Who have they interviewed who she wouldn't invite to her show?
    - grandalf 9y ago
      RT covers many other issues that, like the Flint water crisis are deeply embarrassing to the US but are actually legitimate concerning issues to the poorest and most disempowered Americans.
      - DonHopkins 9y ago
        You didn't answer my question, and you failed to provide any specific examples. You yourself just insisted on specific examples, so I would expect you to provide the same courtesy and evidence to back up your own claims that you demand of other people. Why didn't you? If you don't have any evidence for your claim, just say so, and don't try to deflect instead. Better yet, don't make claims you're not willing to provide any evidence to support, in the same breath that you demand other people to provide specific examples!
        grandalf 9y ago
        I do not watch any cable news, so I can't comment on the quality of Rachel Maddow's coverage. I used the example of the Flint Water crisis not to compare RT's coverage to the coverage offered by US media, but to use an example of a very embarrassing thing about the US that is the sort of thing that RT is inclined to publish. Most people consider it quite reasonable that Maddow covered the Flint water crisis. But there are many other similar issues that do not get any press coverage by the US "news and entertainment" media. One thing I will say about the US media's coverage of the Flint Water crisis is that a great effort was made to focus only on the problem in Flint, and a small number of officials who acted irresponsibly in the matter. In reality, many elected officials make similar judgments all the time across all areas of government. It's just rare that we have something as reliable as a simple water pollution test to observe the harm that was caused. So the real issue with the Flint water crisis is how did incentives come to exist that led Flint's infrastructure to fail so horribly? Where else in the US are similar incentives causing the decline of other important infrastructure? What can we as citizens do to help fix the incentives so that our leaders take it upon themselves to fight for proper upkeep of key infrastructure? And, even more pragmatically, how many city water supplies are tainted by lead and other chemicals? Have all tests been administered and interpreted properly, etc. I recently learned (for example) that lead level testing in many cities has been highly inaccurate and has led to artificially low readings. This stuff has a tremendous public health impact. It would be great to have a news organization (RT or other) whose goal it was to publish embarrassing things about the US, its failing infrastructure, and its corrupt politicians. For some reason we are told (by the charlatans) that in order to be patriotic we must defend those things against any foreign assault. In reality, we in the US would benefit tremendously from increased scrutiny of our nation, its leaders, and its infrastructure. Why is Paul Ryan worth $8M after earning a paltry public servant's salary for his entire career? I'd like to know, and I think chances are if the truth were discovered he'd be run out of office with pitchforks.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    "Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters." You're really trying to have it both ways, aren't you, comrade?

gandhium 9y ago

> Specific examples please. All their articles related to Ukraine: Donbass, Crimea, MH-17. They're repeating same lies designed by Kremlin hosts.

grandalf 9y ago
Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters. I'm not looking to RT for useful coverage of issues in the Ukraine, but when it writes about the Flint Water crisis or police brutality, it might actually have a less biased view than the American press. I hope this isn't actually the case but I fear it may be.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  Are you saying that RT has less biased and better coverage of the Flint water crisis than Rachel Maddow? Specific examples, please: Exactly what have they gotten right that she got wrong? What have they covered that she missed? When have they brought attention to it when she ignored it? Who have they interviewed who she wouldn't invite to her show?
  - grandalf 9y ago
    RT covers many other issues that, like the Flint water crisis are deeply embarrassing to the US but are actually legitimate concerning issues to the poorest and most disempowered Americans.
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      You didn't answer my question, and you failed to provide any specific examples. You yourself just insisted on specific examples, so I would expect you to provide the same courtesy and evidence to back up your own claims that you demand of other people. Why didn't you? If you don't have any evidence for your claim, just say so, and don't try to deflect instead. Better yet, don't make claims you're not willing to provide any evidence to support, in the same breath that you demand other people to provide specific examples!
      - grandalf 9y ago
        I do not watch any cable news, so I can't comment on the quality of Rachel Maddow's coverage. I used the example of the Flint Water crisis not to compare RT's coverage to the coverage offered by US media, but to use an example of a very embarrassing thing about the US that is the sort of thing that RT is inclined to publish. Most people consider it quite reasonable that Maddow covered the Flint water crisis. But there are many other similar issues that do not get any press coverage by the US "news and entertainment" media. One thing I will say about the US media's coverage of the Flint Water crisis is that a great effort was made to focus only on the problem in Flint, and a small number of officials who acted irresponsibly in the matter. In reality, many elected officials make similar judgments all the time across all areas of government. It's just rare that we have something as reliable as a simple water pollution test to observe the harm that was caused. So the real issue with the Flint water crisis is how did incentives come to exist that led Flint's infrastructure to fail so horribly? Where else in the US are similar incentives causing the decline of other important infrastructure? What can we as citizens do to help fix the incentives so that our leaders take it upon themselves to fight for proper upkeep of key infrastructure? And, even more pragmatically, how many city water supplies are tainted by lead and other chemicals? Have all tests been administered and interpreted properly, etc. I recently learned (for example) that lead level testing in many cities has been highly inaccurate and has led to artificially low readings. This stuff has a tremendous public health impact. It would be great to have a news organization (RT or other) whose goal it was to publish embarrassing things about the US, its failing infrastructure, and its corrupt politicians. For some reason we are told (by the charlatans) that in order to be patriotic we must defend those things against any foreign assault. In reality, we in the US would benefit tremendously from increased scrutiny of our nation, its leaders, and its infrastructure. Why is Paul Ryan worth $8M after earning a paltry public servant's salary for his entire career? I'd like to know, and I think chances are if the truth were discovered he'd be run out of office with pitchforks.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  "Why would you expect a state-funded news agency to dissent from the official positions of its government on key political matters." You're really trying to have it both ways, aren't you, comrade?