15 ms·

Good. It’s important to be able to see all sides. Everybody with a brain will know to be very skeptical of any news source directly controlled by a government.

Good. It’s important to be able to see all sides. Everybody with a brain will know to be very skeptical of any news source directly controlled by a government. Same is true for CGTN and other channels still on YT.

lnsru 5y ago
It’s a wishful thinking, that everybody has some brain. There are enough flatearthers, antivaxers and wannabe putin’s buddies.
- kyrra 5y ago
  Silencing ideas that you do not agree with does not lead to an open society. Because guess what, the less popular ideas ends up being the right one sometimes. (In this case I agree that RT is likely propaganda, but knowing an argument you disagree with makes it easier to argue against people that make it.)
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    Every media is propaganda. RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration. It's absurd to think any of these channels will not try to manipulate their audience. What is certain on the other hand is that it is Russia which invaded Ukraine, a free country, at first place. What is also certain is that any news organization in Russia that doesn't follow the Kremlin's narrative is deemed criminal by Russian authorities.
    - iforgetti 5y ago
      While I agree with the sentiment of your comment, I do not agree that a government financed news station is in fact "just like" CNN providing favorable coverage to the current administration presumably in exchange for access or similar. In the case of CNN, we see the collective bias of those who run the company optimizing coverage for engagement based on their assessment of the bias of those watching. In the case of RT, we literally know that guests or anchors who do not work to legitimize propaganda are at risk of physical retribution.
    - kcb 5y ago
      > RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration It's not just like at all.
  - baybal2 5y ago
  - 0xcoffee 5y ago
    In theory I agree with you, but it's not like silencing 'ideas and argument you disagree with' Look at this: https://www.rt.com/russia/551384-russia-ukraine-nuclear-false-flag/ https://www.rt.com/russia/551384-russia-ukraine-nuclear-fals... >“The SBU and the militants of the Azov Battalion are planning to blow up the reactor and accuse the Russian Armed Forces of allegedly launching a missile attack on the experimental nuclear facility,” This isn't a discussion in which people are arguing different opinions in good faith, it's straight up manipulation to excuse killing more people.
    - jafoi 5y ago
      It's a quoted statement...
    - logicchains 5y ago
      Given that some of the Azov are literally Nazis (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/german-tv-shows-nazi-symbols-helmets-ukraine-soldiers-n198961 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/german-tv-s...), that's hardly completely beyond the realms of possibility. Or we're supposed to start giving Nazis the benefit of the doubt now just because Russia started it?
      - fer 5y ago
        Given that Russia deployed Wagner Group in Ukraine, whose founder has SS tattoos on his neck, why unsubstantiated statements from Russia are to be believed?
      - friedturkey 5y ago
        Russia is also a known hotbed for neonazis. So is Alabama. Just because a region has small factions of race extremists it doesn’t mean they’re blowing up nuclear reactors. But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example. They’ve invaded Georgia and Ukraine before using the same exact lies. Putin’s history in Chechnya is also horrific. So you should trust Russia saying they’re coming to liberate someone as much as you should trust a certain other country coming to liberate someone: you shouldn’t.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” Easily my favourite George R. R. Martin quote. We discovered why free speech is important during the 17th century in the Enlightenment period. The scientific method itself owes its existence to free speech, and the ability for any person to disagree with any other person, regardless of their class, race, age, nationality, religion, or beliefs. The same goes for democracy. Take away the fundamental principle of free speech and you undermine science and democracy. Are evil people going to attempt to convince the suggestible that they're not evil? Of course! Contrary to common sentiment, free speech has a cost. We pay this cost gladly so that we can live in relative prosperity.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    Free speech has never been absolute. RT is a state owned propaganda organ, disinformation doesn't contribute to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - lamp987 5y ago
      "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise." this still applies. RT readers arent shooting you. funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.
      - lm28469 5y ago
        > as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion I mean, we obviously can't. Who's going to make them provide balanced news ? no one since they're literally part of the Russian government. You can't "counter them by rational argument" if these arguments never reach the target What about islamist news ? Why don't we broadcast that freely ? Can't you provide rational arguments against that ? What about nazis, why are they banned in Germany ? Are you afraid of not having rational arguments ? > funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least. Well, I can say the same about freedom of speech...
phatfish 5y ago
Right now it is worthless, anything on RT about the "special military operation" is 100% propaganda. It's just fun watching their presenters try to act normal.
- newsclues 5y ago
  It’s not worthless if you contrast it to the propaganda from CNN.
  - fer 5y ago
    It's worthless since everything on RT is "Russia is always right, the rest are always wrong, and also they're Nazis/fascists/imperialists, and America/NATO did it too btw".
    - shabier 5y ago
      So it is western media but from a Russian POV
      - pydry 5y ago
        Theyve clearly picked up a few tricks. Yesterday they published a story on chemical weapons WMD laboratories they supposedly found. Western media has ignored the story so far. It's almost as if it's designed specifically to be awkward to denounce.
      - fer 5y ago
        You have people defending Putin and his war on western media. You can find them without trouble. On the other hand, I dare you to find an RT story critical of Putin, without any sugarcoating. Beyond the war, on literally any topic. So no, it's not western media from a Russian POV.
        shabier 5y ago
        You cannot simply give me one criterion, one that's conveniently specific to RT, to validate the statement in parent. Both sides are, generally speaking, enforcing a narrative and rejecting objectivity in favor of the narrative ergo it's propaganda
Raed667 5y ago
I don't see how exposing a vulnerable audience to distilled pure propaganda is actually a good thing.
- mariusor 5y ago
  But the paradox is that everyone is part of some kind of "vulnerable audience". Maybe you like to consider yourself superior to the people who would lead credence to what RT writes, but in my opinion there's nobody immune to some kind of propaganda machine. Maybe something more insidious is required for you or me, but in the end it's hubris to consider yourself invulnerable.
darthrupert 5y ago
Not good. Reporting should be held to some standard. At minimum, knowingly lying about important topics while claiming to be a serious news organization needs to be a serious crime. For instance, RT claims to be a news source, but knowingly lies about atrocities committed by the Russian government. Most people don't have the resources (time, knowledge, smarts) to see what is not true by themselves. Alternative viewpoints need to be shown for actually controversial topics, of course.
b3nji 5y ago
Everyone has a brain, its up to the individual to treat others with the knowledge that they have different information, perceptions, and experiences. I'm not certain writing off whole swathes of people based on personal perspective is a good plan. Reach out to those you disagree with, be it antivax, flat earth, whatever. They are human, and want the best for themselves, and their family. Try not to "other", if you can help it.
- loudmax 5y ago
  It's also exhausting when there are centers manufacturing bullshit on an industrial scale. It's simply easier to manufacture lies than to track down the truth. I don't think the correct answer is the repression of lies, or certainly not in the long term. But fighting for truth without giving up freedom is not easy.
cabirum 5y ago
Another source worth mentioning is waronfakes.com which counters ukrainian propaganda echoed by western msm.
- jonathanstrange 5y ago
  A page that doesn't even reveal openly who runs it (real names, affiliations, background) is completely worthless crap. If you judge alleged "news" uncritically like that, just by consuming it, you're part of the problem.
  - cabirum 5y ago
    They don't have to reveal their identities in order for their statements/arguments to be valid. It also eliminates authority bias.
    - jonathanstrange 5y ago
      They sure as hell have to do that, it's basic journalistic integrity. These people could directly sit at their FSB office and you'd never know. You don't know who does it, who pays for, and you don't have the slightest clue how to fact-check their "arguments."
keymone 5y ago
RT reported about ukrainian army crucifying a child in Donbas in 2014 which literally caused some people in Russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention to kill ukrainians. No, RT should be banned and every person working for it should be jailed for life. Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Edit: here, educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy
- shabier 5y ago
  > Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Zelensky lied about a Russian shell hitting a nuclear plant and called for retaliation, which is exactly inciting violence. There's a lot of misinformation spread by both sides (Russia and the West) but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair. unfair to whom exactly? Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the massacre of its citizen is certainly a bigger injustice.
    - shabier 5y ago
  - keymone 5y ago
    Zelensky was talking about an attack that happened within hours of his message, can't blame him for fog of war. And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community, which frankly he has every right to do when fascist invaders are taking over major nuclear power plants in your country, don't you think? You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response and getting separatists to start fighting?
CedarMills 5y ago
Normally I'd agree but knowing the damage that propaganda does - RT and any other Russian-government owned channels should be shutdown/"canceled". For the last eight years, they've been riling up the Russian population with portraying Ukrainians as Nazis, barbarians, etc. It's gotten to the point now where they would make up fake stories (e.g. crucified boy). Right now, during the war - you literally can't call it a "war" or you might face being sentenced. If you share anything opposing the official view - you could get 15 years behind bars. Russian government has also forced all "opposition" media to shutdown in the last couple of days. Soon, they will annex themselves from the internet and the population will only have one source for news - the propaganda channels.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lnsru 5y ago

It’s a wishful thinking, that everybody has some brain. There are enough flatearthers, antivaxers and wannabe putin’s buddies.

kyrra 5y ago
Silencing ideas that you do not agree with does not lead to an open society. Because guess what, the less popular ideas ends up being the right one sometimes. (In this case I agree that RT is likely propaganda, but knowing an argument you disagree with makes it easier to argue against people that make it.)
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  Every media is propaganda. RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration. It's absurd to think any of these channels will not try to manipulate their audience. What is certain on the other hand is that it is Russia which invaded Ukraine, a free country, at first place. What is also certain is that any news organization in Russia that doesn't follow the Kremlin's narrative is deemed criminal by Russian authorities.
  - iforgetti 5y ago
    While I agree with the sentiment of your comment, I do not agree that a government financed news station is in fact "just like" CNN providing favorable coverage to the current administration presumably in exchange for access or similar. In the case of CNN, we see the collective bias of those who run the company optimizing coverage for engagement based on their assessment of the bias of those watching. In the case of RT, we literally know that guests or anchors who do not work to legitimize propaganda are at risk of physical retribution.
  - kcb 5y ago
    > RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration It's not just like at all.
- baybal2 5y ago
- 0xcoffee 5y ago
  In theory I agree with you, but it's not like silencing 'ideas and argument you disagree with' Look at this: https://www.rt.com/russia/551384-russia-ukraine-nuclear-false-flag/ https://www.rt.com/russia/551384-russia-ukraine-nuclear-fals... >“The SBU and the militants of the Azov Battalion are planning to blow up the reactor and accuse the Russian Armed Forces of allegedly launching a missile attack on the experimental nuclear facility,” This isn't a discussion in which people are arguing different opinions in good faith, it's straight up manipulation to excuse killing more people.
  - jafoi 5y ago
    It's a quoted statement...
  - logicchains 5y ago
    Given that some of the Azov are literally Nazis (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/german-tv-shows-nazi-symbols-helmets-ukraine-soldiers-n198961 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/german-tv-s...), that's hardly completely beyond the realms of possibility. Or we're supposed to start giving Nazis the benefit of the doubt now just because Russia started it?
    - fer 5y ago
      Given that Russia deployed Wagner Group in Ukraine, whose founder has SS tattoos on his neck, why unsubstantiated statements from Russia are to be believed?
    - friedturkey 5y ago
      Russia is also a known hotbed for neonazis. So is Alabama. Just because a region has small factions of race extremists it doesn’t mean they’re blowing up nuclear reactors. But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example. They’ve invaded Georgia and Ukraine before using the same exact lies. Putin’s history in Chechnya is also horrific. So you should trust Russia saying they’re coming to liberate someone as much as you should trust a certain other country coming to liberate someone: you shouldn’t.
Gareth321 5y ago
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” Easily my favourite George R. R. Martin quote. We discovered why free speech is important during the 17th century in the Enlightenment period. The scientific method itself owes its existence to free speech, and the ability for any person to disagree with any other person, regardless of their class, race, age, nationality, religion, or beliefs. The same goes for democracy. Take away the fundamental principle of free speech and you undermine science and democracy. Are evil people going to attempt to convince the suggestible that they're not evil? Of course! Contrary to common sentiment, free speech has a cost. We pay this cost gladly so that we can live in relative prosperity.
- lm28469 5y ago
  Free speech has never been absolute. RT is a state owned propaganda organ, disinformation doesn't contribute to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - lamp987 5y ago
    "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise." this still applies. RT readers arent shooting you. funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.
    - lm28469 5y ago
      > as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion I mean, we obviously can't. Who's going to make them provide balanced news ? no one since they're literally part of the Russian government. You can't "counter them by rational argument" if these arguments never reach the target What about islamist news ? Why don't we broadcast that freely ? Can't you provide rational arguments against that ? What about nazis, why are they banned in Germany ? Are you afraid of not having rational arguments ? > funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least. Well, I can say the same about freedom of speech...

phatfish 5y ago

Right now it is worthless, anything on RT about the "special military operation" is 100% propaganda. It's just fun watching their presenters try to act normal.

newsclues 5y ago
It’s not worthless if you contrast it to the propaganda from CNN.
- fer 5y ago
  It's worthless since everything on RT is "Russia is always right, the rest are always wrong, and also they're Nazis/fascists/imperialists, and America/NATO did it too btw".
  - shabier 5y ago
    So it is western media but from a Russian POV
    - pydry 5y ago
      Theyve clearly picked up a few tricks. Yesterday they published a story on chemical weapons WMD laboratories they supposedly found. Western media has ignored the story so far. It's almost as if it's designed specifically to be awkward to denounce.
    - fer 5y ago
      You have people defending Putin and his war on western media. You can find them without trouble. On the other hand, I dare you to find an RT story critical of Putin, without any sugarcoating. Beyond the war, on literally any topic. So no, it's not western media from a Russian POV.
      - shabier 5y ago
        You cannot simply give me one criterion, one that's conveniently specific to RT, to validate the statement in parent. Both sides are, generally speaking, enforcing a narrative and rejecting objectivity in favor of the narrative ergo it's propaganda

Raed667 5y ago

I don't see how exposing a vulnerable audience to distilled pure propaganda is actually a good thing.

mariusor 5y ago
But the paradox is that everyone is part of some kind of "vulnerable audience". Maybe you like to consider yourself superior to the people who would lead credence to what RT writes, but in my opinion there's nobody immune to some kind of propaganda machine. Maybe something more insidious is required for you or me, but in the end it's hubris to consider yourself invulnerable.

darthrupert 5y ago

Not good. Reporting should be held to some standard. At minimum, knowingly lying about important topics while claiming to be a serious news organization needs to be a serious crime. For instance, RT claims to be a news source, but knowingly lies about atrocities committed by the Russian government. Most people don't have the resources (time, knowledge, smarts) to see what is not true by themselves. Alternative viewpoints need to be shown for actually controversial topics, of course.

b3nji 5y ago

Everyone has a brain, its up to the individual to treat others with the knowledge that they have different information, perceptions, and experiences. I'm not certain writing off whole swathes of people based on personal perspective is a good plan. Reach out to those you disagree with, be it antivax, flat earth, whatever. They are human, and want the best for themselves, and their family. Try not to "other", if you can help it.

loudmax 5y ago
It's also exhausting when there are centers manufacturing bullshit on an industrial scale. It's simply easier to manufacture lies than to track down the truth. I don't think the correct answer is the repression of lies, or certainly not in the long term. But fighting for truth without giving up freedom is not easy.

cabirum 5y ago

Another source worth mentioning is waronfakes.com which counters ukrainian propaganda echoed by western msm.

jonathanstrange 5y ago
A page that doesn't even reveal openly who runs it (real names, affiliations, background) is completely worthless crap. If you judge alleged "news" uncritically like that, just by consuming it, you're part of the problem.
- cabirum 5y ago
  They don't have to reveal their identities in order for their statements/arguments to be valid. It also eliminates authority bias.
  - jonathanstrange 5y ago
    They sure as hell have to do that, it's basic journalistic integrity. These people could directly sit at their FSB office and you'd never know. You don't know who does it, who pays for, and you don't have the slightest clue how to fact-check their "arguments."

keymone 5y ago

RT reported about ukrainian army crucifying a child in Donbas in 2014 which literally caused some people in Russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention to kill ukrainians. No, RT should be banned and every person working for it should be jailed for life. Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Edit: here, educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy

shabier 5y ago
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred. Zelensky lied about a Russian shell hitting a nuclear plant and called for retaliation, which is exactly inciting violence. There's a lot of misinformation spread by both sides (Russia and the West) but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair. unfair to whom exactly? Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the massacre of its citizen is certainly a bigger injustice.
  - shabier 5y ago
- keymone 5y ago
  Zelensky was talking about an attack that happened within hours of his message, can't blame him for fog of war. And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community, which frankly he has every right to do when fascist invaders are taking over major nuclear power plants in your country, don't you think? You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response and getting separatists to start fighting?

CedarMills 5y ago

Normally I'd agree but knowing the damage that propaganda does - RT and any other Russian-government owned channels should be shutdown/"canceled". For the last eight years, they've been riling up the Russian population with portraying Ukrainians as Nazis, barbarians, etc. It's gotten to the point now where they would make up fake stories (e.g. crucified boy). Right now, during the war - you literally can't call it a "war" or you might face being sentenced. If you share anything opposing the official view - you could get 15 years behind bars. Russian government has also forced all "opposition" media to shutdown in the last couple of days. Soon, they will annex themselves from the internet and the population will only have one source for news - the propaganda channels.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]