4 ms·

being a liberal doesn't have anything to do with it. RT is state propaganda of a dictatorship, not some legitimate news source with a left or right bias.

by tpm 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago
It is a legitimate news source though. If you're sorting news sources into all-good and all-bad buckets and uncritically believing or disbelieving everything they print then you're going to end up with a distorted view.
- cat199 9y ago
  "going" to end up with
- dmix 9y ago
  Or more likely no news sources at all besides bloggers who totally aren't pushing agendas... I've read a few good articles on RT and used it for news on a number of occasions. I'd never look to it for any balanced view about the Ukraine conflict, but I also wouldn't look to WaPo/NYT for a balanced view on US geopolitics either.
- tpm 9y ago
  I have grown up in a communist totalitarian state and possibly as a result of that always consumed media with a critical attitude. There are no sources in the all-good bucket. The all-bad bucket is full of RT, Breitbart and other sources, because they have only one purpose. And that purpose is to further the agenda of their masters, not to inform their audience. That is the reason why it is not a legitimate news source.
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    Who decides what's legitimate? Twitter? Trump? There's nothing more anti-communistic than thinking for yourself.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    I come from same background and have opposite opinion to yours. So you can see this is all personal biases and saying RT is not legitimate news is comparable to me saying CNN is state propaganda of US. Propaganda, by the way, is a tool used by all governments, not just Russia and North Korea but also US, China and so on. All have their own propaganda they are trying to push which favors their interests.
    - tpm 9y ago
      "I come from same background and have opposite opinion to yours. So you can see this is all personal biases" This is a nice example of a non sequitur. "saying RT is not legitimate news is comparable to me saying CNN is state propaganda of US" It is comparable, so let's compare - both are statements, one of them is true and one of them is false. RT is not legitimate news, because made up stories are not news. CNN is not state propaganda of the US, because - as far as I know, please do correct me if I am wrong - it is not a state-owned, state-run, state-financed news channel. There is no US institution that sets the agenda of the CNN. Also, my impression from the American media landscape is that the media do shovel loads of (well deserved) abuse on president Trump - state propaganda would not allow that. "Propaganda, by the way, is a tool used by all governments" Yes, but not all governments have the same legitimacy and the same aims. If you are looking for an American equivalent of RT, you won't find one; the closest you get is probably Voice of America, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, which were instrumental for Eastern European dissent during the Cold War, but are not very relevant anymore.
- 1024core 9y ago
  I think the biggest gripe that the US establishment has is that sources like RT and Al Jazeera don't kowtow to them. The USG wants to control the message inside (through various subtle means, not really overt means), but can't with these outfits. Is the VoA a fair and biased news source? What about Fox News? Or the BBC? What makes RT especially egregious? I remember when, post 9/11, Al Jazeera wanted to broadcast in the US. It was denied permission, which I found strange, as ... isn't the US all about free speech and free flow of ideas? And the best part is: Al Jazeera used to be the BBC's Middle East service, but spun off. So: it was OK when these folks were under the BBC banner, but suddenly became biased and unreliable when they spun off on their own?
- psergeant 9y ago
  > It is a legitimate > news source though On what basis? Because a certain percentage of their stories aren’t propaganda? What % does that have to be? Is Uriminzokkiri a legitimate news source because some of their stories are factual? Was Pravda?
simonh 9y ago
To what end would you make that distinction though? Who should officially decide which organisations are legitimate news sources and which are not? In an open democracy any voice (that e.g. avoids criminal incitement) must be tolerated, even RT.
- tpm 9y ago
  There is no "must" in tolerance. Tolerance is a peace treaty, if it is broken by one side of the deal, then the other side is no longer bound by it. Since Russia is activaly trying to destabilise "the West" (including central and eastern europe, including countries against which it literally wages war), we don't really have to tolerate Russian propaganda outlets.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Well we do if we don't want to shred a right enshrined in the Constitution which is, at least in my opinion, one of our best ideas.
    - tpm 9y ago
      Well I'm not American and also not a lawyer. But RT is not an American citizen either, so I doubt it has rights enshrined in the American Constitution. In fact as an agent openly financed and run by a foreign government, there are probably special rules for such organizations.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Ok, then I'm skipping too many steps. But the First Amendment specifically forbids "the abridging of the press."
  - smokeyj 9y ago
    > Since Russia is activaly trying to destabilise "the West" This is what happens when we allow CNN to broadcast. They radicalize the population and turn them into fanatics. It's funny how Russia became an existential threat immediately after the elections. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/20/flashback-obamas-debate-zinger-on-romneys-1980s-foreign-policy/?utm_term=.aa140f14af8e https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/...
BeetleB 9y ago
>RT is state propaganda of a dictatorship, not some legitimate news source with a left or right bias And yet the quality of its content exceeds quite a few "legitimate" news sources.

being a liberal doesn't have anything to do with it. RT is state propaganda of a dictatorship, not some legitimate news source with a left or right bias.

by tpm 9y ago

being a liberal doesn't have anything to do with it. RT is state propaganda of a dictatorship, not some legitimate news source with a left or right bias.

emodendroket 9y ago

It is a legitimate news source though. If you're sorting news sources into all-good and all-bad buckets and uncritically believing or disbelieving everything they print then you're going to end up with a distorted view.

cat199 9y ago
"going" to end up with
dmix 9y ago
Or more likely no news sources at all besides bloggers who totally aren't pushing agendas... I've read a few good articles on RT and used it for news on a number of occasions. I'd never look to it for any balanced view about the Ukraine conflict, but I also wouldn't look to WaPo/NYT for a balanced view on US geopolitics either.
tpm 9y ago
I have grown up in a communist totalitarian state and possibly as a result of that always consumed media with a critical attitude. There are no sources in the all-good bucket. The all-bad bucket is full of RT, Breitbart and other sources, because they have only one purpose. And that purpose is to further the agenda of their masters, not to inform their audience. That is the reason why it is not a legitimate news source.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  Who decides what's legitimate? Twitter? Trump? There's nothing more anti-communistic than thinking for yourself.
- richardknop 9y ago
  I come from same background and have opposite opinion to yours. So you can see this is all personal biases and saying RT is not legitimate news is comparable to me saying CNN is state propaganda of US. Propaganda, by the way, is a tool used by all governments, not just Russia and North Korea but also US, China and so on. All have their own propaganda they are trying to push which favors their interests.
  - tpm 9y ago
    "I come from same background and have opposite opinion to yours. So you can see this is all personal biases" This is a nice example of a non sequitur. "saying RT is not legitimate news is comparable to me saying CNN is state propaganda of US" It is comparable, so let's compare - both are statements, one of them is true and one of them is false. RT is not legitimate news, because made up stories are not news. CNN is not state propaganda of the US, because - as far as I know, please do correct me if I am wrong - it is not a state-owned, state-run, state-financed news channel. There is no US institution that sets the agenda of the CNN. Also, my impression from the American media landscape is that the media do shovel loads of (well deserved) abuse on president Trump - state propaganda would not allow that. "Propaganda, by the way, is a tool used by all governments" Yes, but not all governments have the same legitimacy and the same aims. If you are looking for an American equivalent of RT, you won't find one; the closest you get is probably Voice of America, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, which were instrumental for Eastern European dissent during the Cold War, but are not very relevant anymore.
1024core 9y ago
I think the biggest gripe that the US establishment has is that sources like RT and Al Jazeera don't kowtow to them. The USG wants to control the message inside (through various subtle means, not really overt means), but can't with these outfits. Is the VoA a fair and biased news source? What about Fox News? Or the BBC? What makes RT especially egregious? I remember when, post 9/11, Al Jazeera wanted to broadcast in the US. It was denied permission, which I found strange, as ... isn't the US all about free speech and free flow of ideas? And the best part is: Al Jazeera used to be the BBC's Middle East service, but spun off. So: it was OK when these folks were under the BBC banner, but suddenly became biased and unreliable when they spun off on their own?
psergeant 9y ago
> It is a legitimate > news source though On what basis? Because a certain percentage of their stories aren’t propaganda? What % does that have to be? Is Uriminzokkiri a legitimate news source because some of their stories are factual? Was Pravda?

simonh 9y ago

To what end would you make that distinction though? Who should officially decide which organisations are legitimate news sources and which are not? In an open democracy any voice (that e.g. avoids criminal incitement) must be tolerated, even RT.

tpm 9y ago
There is no "must" in tolerance. Tolerance is a peace treaty, if it is broken by one side of the deal, then the other side is no longer bound by it. Since Russia is activaly trying to destabilise "the West" (including central and eastern europe, including countries against which it literally wages war), we don't really have to tolerate Russian propaganda outlets.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well we do if we don't want to shred a right enshrined in the Constitution which is, at least in my opinion, one of our best ideas.
  - tpm 9y ago
    Well I'm not American and also not a lawyer. But RT is not an American citizen either, so I doubt it has rights enshrined in the American Constitution. In fact as an agent openly financed and run by a foreign government, there are probably special rules for such organizations.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Ok, then I'm skipping too many steps. But the First Amendment specifically forbids "the abridging of the press."
- smokeyj 9y ago
  > Since Russia is activaly trying to destabilise "the West" This is what happens when we allow CNN to broadcast. They radicalize the population and turn them into fanatics. It's funny how Russia became an existential threat immediately after the elections. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/20/flashback-obamas-debate-zinger-on-romneys-1980s-foreign-policy/?utm_term=.aa140f14af8e https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/...

BeetleB 9y ago

>RT is state propaganda of a dictatorship, not some legitimate news source with a left or right bias And yet the quality of its content exceeds quite a few "legitimate" news sources.