10 ms·
What is your point? That Russia state TV should be available everywhere so everyone can watch Russian propaganda?
by arroz 5y ago
What is your point? That Russia state TV should be available everywhere so everyone can watch Russian propaganda?
- imwillofficial 5y agoWho are you to decide what’s propaganda for me?
- smoldesu 5y agoSure, as long as Russians have access to the rest of the world's news for a contrasting dialogue.
- xtian 5y agoWould you apply the same standard to BBC? If not, what's the difference?
- dsabanin 5y agoThe difference is, RT is pure, unadulterated, lie. It's government-sponsored infowars. It's under complete control by FSB/KGB and serves exclusively as a platform for launching russian PsyOps.
- oulipo 5y agoWe do apply the same standard. It just happens that BBC is not propaganda television
- xtian 5y agoHow can you tell?
- GiorgioG 5y agoBecause the stories they tell line up (generally) with non-government controlled news media.
- t0bia_s 5y agoSource?
- freemint 5y agohttps://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart look into their methodology.
- shkkmo 5y agoYou know that goverents frequently distribute their propaganda through media outlets that are not state owned, right?
- GiorgioG 5y agoYou know these media outlets aren't legally required to do so, right?
- xtian 5y agoWhat if the people who own these media outlets and the people who control the government share the same interests?
- shkkmo 5y agoYou don't have to be legally required to spread propaganda to be effective at spreading it. Seriously, relying a on state media matching non-state media to determine if either is propaganda is an ineffectual strategy. You need to find reporting that contradicts the media source and then try to independently verify the disputed information.
- random_upvoter 5y agoSomething makes me suspect that you never ever watched RT for even 5 minutes. Am I right?
- danielktdoranie 5y agoYes. One man's "propaganda" is another man's news. It's an assault on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. I also note other news networks have been happily spouting anti-Russian propaganda as well (i.e. "Ghost of Kiev", "Miss Ukraine Fighting", and the "Snake Island Martyrs" to name but 3). I also note none of the Western Media talk about shelling, murder, and rape of the ethnic Russian civilians in the Donbas since 2014. They call it "propaganda" now but 6 years ago these same western media outlets reported that "Fascist Azov Battalion Ukrainian Military were shelling and murdering Donbas "separatists" (now western media calls them terrorists). News shouldn't have bias, full stop. news should just report the facts and let the viewer/listener decide. However, bar that both sides should have their voices herd in a democracy.
- archi42 5y agoI haven't watched RT in the recent years, so I can't judge that instance (but I have do admit that, unless there is some heavy misrepresentation going on, I can understand why they want to ban it. That's without judging the ban as good or bad, which I find exceedingly difficult; and I don't want to [and will not] engage in that discussion, at least not without thinking more about it and considering the facts and implications). However, I think you're [technically] wrong about "news shouldn't have bias". I'd like to start by pointing out that there is a huge gap between biased news and propaganda. A conservative and a liberal news outlet might report on the same thing with different point of views and come to different conclusions (why did it happen? is it good that it happened? what effect has the thing happening? and so on). That's bias; and it's not even too bad a thing. Reading multiple outlets with different biases will give you a good idea of what different people think about an event, allowing the reader to keep an open mind and engage in a more fruitful discussion. Good journalism will even do that for you, by mentioning opposing views without discrediting them. That's the reasoning behind "I think you're [technically] wrong". Now, what you have in mind goes beyond simple bias. Given the example, either outlet might use their news to push their own agenda, and in my book that's dangerous and on the verge of being propaganda. They might also knowingly misrepresent the facts to do so, or outright invent things (or leave out important bits), which I'd classify as full blown propaganda. Yes, a lot of popular/mainstream "news", especially in the US (but also in the EU), are closer to propaganda than to being just biased (or are propaganda, think "stolen election" narrative). So one man's "propaganda" is indeed another man's news. Or, more precisely, some man's "news" is propaganda.
- byteshock 5y agoIf someone wants to watch Russian propaganda or RT, they should be free to do so. Just like you are free to browse western media sites. This choice should be up to the individual and their beliefs.
- arroz 5y agoYeah let people consume junk all they want. Just don’t be surprised when Jan 6th happens again.
- random_upvoter 5y agoYou think that if you only close enough TV stations these people are going to start watching Rachel Maddow?
- mardifoufs 5y agoLol, yeah January 6th truly is the important event here. Truly the benchmark for the worse that could happen. What a completely self centered comment, like I'm sorry but you realize we are talking about a war and you still managed to bring up January 6th as if that was even remotely comparable or similar to what is currently happening?
- arroz 5y agoWTF? Where did I say Jan 6th is the worst that could happen? I just said it is the sort of shit that happens when you let people consume propaganda. Of course that what is happening right now is way worse, as other things in the past have been.
- mardifoufs 5y agoSorry for the tone of my comment, I think I'm just tired of seeing Americans referencing that event everytime something bad happens as a benchmark for the worst thing ever (I'm exaggerating of course). But I can see that your comment didn't imply that, so again sorry for being rude.
- schwarze_pest 5y agoYes, exactly. If we are talking about media in general I can think of only very few examples that should be banned (like CP). I don't need anyone to decide what I'm allowed or not allowed to consume. If I want to study russian propaganda or american propaganda or "Mein Kampf" than that's what I should be able to do--without any censor.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoHave you not encountered this sort of "information cannot be harmful" type of free speech absolutist before?
- pavon 5y agoI disagree with these sort of bans on speech as well, and it has never been because I naively believe that the speech is harmless. It is because I believe that granting the government the authority to pick and choose which speech is harmful is far more dangerous, and prone to abuse. It is because I think it is beneficial for reasonable members of the public to be able to see what garbage the other side is being indoctrinated with. It is because I believe that the portion of the public who is mostly likely to believe the harmful speech will see the censorship as more proof that they should. Most importantly it is because I believe that sheltering people from harmful ideas might protect them in the short term, but won't prepare them to deal with the seductiveness of harmful ideas that sound right when they do slip through.
- wazoox 5y agoIMO they should be closed after due process. Not by administrative decision, i. e. censorship. If they were closed because after a short trial, a judge determining that they were spreading disinformation systematically, that would be completely fine. But some administrative authority claiming that it should be closed, then getting it closed in a few hours? with hundreds of actual professional journalists getting shown the door as a consequence? That's just the sort of shit Putin does. I want my country to do better than Putin in all matters, please.