5 ms·

Please don't cite rt.com. That is pure Russian propaganda. Not saying your general point is wrong, but the minute you cite rt.com you're basically repeating pol

Please don't cite rt.com. That is pure Russian propaganda. Not saying your general point is wrong, but the minute you cite rt.com you're basically repeating politcally generated fake news straight from the Kremlin.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Agreed. Also, don't cite BBC because it is fake news straight from Buckingham. Also, don't quote WSJ or NYT because it is fake news straight from the 1%. And don't quote CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News because they are all just fake news buzzfeed wannabes.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Buckingham? The British monarchy is only a figurehead.
  - bdamm 9y ago
    Right, they probably meant Downing Street.
  - macawfish 9y ago
    I took that as silly humor. Buckingham is a funny word.
  - googlryas 9y ago
    It's cute you believe that. Ever read the Black Spider memos?
    - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos#Reception: "The Black Spider Memos met with little criticism, and public support for the Prince of Wales."
      - googlryas 9y ago
        Most people in the UK will support the monarchy regardless of what they do. Including meddling in political affairs and not being figure heads.
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  So what totally unfiltered source do you get your information from?
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    4chan
okreallywtf 9y ago
I know why you were downvoted, unfortunately you are more or less right but at the same time chances are they do publish or republish legitimate news soem of the time. I think its fine to ask for another source to verify a questionable source like RT.
- Jesus_Jones 9y ago
  RT is a particular case, because they publish things straight from a national state. Legitimate news sources do not. You'll never see them publish something that challenges their national sponsor.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kafkaesq 9y ago
Your point is perfectly valid, and shouldn't have been downvoted. But as a footnote, the sibling comment here happens to also be correct: like any truly effective propaganda outlet, RT leverages a mix of largely legitimate / mundane news along with a certain proportion of fake or distorted news. But for the sake of simplicity it's best to stop citing RT or feeding it attention of any other form, altogether.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Agreed. Also, don't cite BBC because it is fake news straight from Buckingham. Also, don't quote WSJ or NYT because it is fake news straight from the 1%. And don't quote CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News because they are all just fake news buzzfeed wannabes.

wavefunction 9y ago
Buckingham? The British monarchy is only a figurehead.
- bdamm 9y ago
  Right, they probably meant Downing Street.
- macawfish 9y ago
  I took that as silly humor. Buckingham is a funny word.
- googlryas 9y ago
  It's cute you believe that. Ever read the Black Spider memos?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos#Reception: "The Black Spider Memos met with little criticism, and public support for the Prince of Wales."
    - googlryas 9y ago
      Most people in the UK will support the monarchy regardless of what they do. Including meddling in political affairs and not being figure heads.
okreallywtf 9y ago
So what totally unfiltered source do you get your information from?
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  4chan

okreallywtf 9y ago

I know why you were downvoted, unfortunately you are more or less right but at the same time chances are they do publish or republish legitimate news soem of the time. I think its fine to ask for another source to verify a questionable source like RT.

Jesus_Jones 9y ago
RT is a particular case, because they publish things straight from a national state. Legitimate news sources do not. You'll never see them publish something that challenges their national sponsor.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kafkaesq 9y ago

Your point is perfectly valid, and shouldn't have been downvoted. But as a footnote, the sibling comment here happens to also be correct: like any truly effective propaganda outlet, RT leverages a mix of largely legitimate / mundane news along with a certain proportion of fake or distorted news. But for the sake of simplicity it's best to stop citing RT or feeding it attention of any other form, altogether.