3 ms·

>Agreed. They are not impartial about Russia, but their coverage of, say, Latin America was pretty good quality. People said similar things about Al Jazeera, b

by vba616 5y ago

>Agreed. They are not impartial about Russia, but their coverage of, say, Latin America was pretty good quality. People said similar things about Al Jazeera, but how many people actually were aware that they were state media? I wasn't for a long time, and I still can't remember the country offhand without looking it up. I'm not saying that they made it a big secret, and I'm not saying that it is shocking that "Russia Today" is what it is, but I dunno, why did KFC start using its initials or Dunkin change its name? Marketers know there is a benefit to not saying words like "Russia", "Fried", or "Donuts" because a significant number of people will not think of them. And it doesn't make sense to assume that bias towards something can't affect reporting on anything else, because everything is interrelated.

the_af 5y ago
Well, I like that Al Jazeera exists and their coverage of many things was good. That RT is "state sponsored" or "funded partly by the Russian state" was plastered all over YouTube, Twitter, etc. Why was that not enough? I know for a fact RT's coverage of current affairs in Latin America was pretty good. The "interrelated" argument is dangerous, because it cuts both ways -- Western news media wouldn't escape unscathed, for example.
- vba616 5y ago
  >Well, I like that Al Jazeera exists and their coverage of many things was good. I'm not criticizing their reporting (because I haven't read much of it) or saying that knowing who finances them necessarily results in a more objective reaction. That is, certainly there is prejudice that comes into play. I'm saying that it is demonstrably possible to have gone for years generally aware they exist without being aware they are state sponsored, and not encountering any mention of it. I would expect more people to know about RT, but my point is, regardless of how you view people who are ignorant, the proportion of people who are ignorant matters. It has some influence on how they affect society. There's a genre of articles that link the CIA to things and makes a big deal about it, like the most sinister imperialist forces in the US government are necessarily controlling it. So it seems to me that the idea of the source of something tainting it is universal. Saying people should be aware of what RT stands for cannot be taken as an argument that they are. >The "interrelated" argument is dangerous, because it cuts both ways So? Rejecting it doesn't produce a license for inconsistency. If we agree that Fox News is unreliable when reporting on Republicans, does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Democrats? Does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Ukraine and Russia?
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    "There's a genre of articles that link the CIA to things and makes a big deal about it, like the most sinister imperialist forces in the US government are necessarily controlling it. So it seems to me that the idea of the source of something tainting it is universal." Is this about RT, Al Jazeera, or other media? So far I have read such things about CIA in all kinds of media, including the so-called trustworthy ones, so I would say that a lot of these claims are probably credible.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > If we agree that Fox News is unreliable when reporting on Republicans, does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Democrats? Does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Ukraine and Russia? Two things: Reps vs Dems is obviously two sides of the same coin, so I don't think your example works. You probably meant trusting Fox News is objective about sports or medicine or other unrelated topics. However, I will agree with you it still makes sense that everything Fox News reports on is permeated by their political stance; e.g. there are obvious political aspects to medicine and health (because of enacted policies that happen to be partisan, or touchy topics such as abortion laws, or healthcare, or the myriad of things that are touchy subjects in the US). But it doesn't matter whether I think Fox News is reliable on any given topic, what matters is: do I think they should be deplatformed in most of the Western world, removed from YouTube and access severely hindered or completely restricted for most of their audience? No, 100% no. It's for me to watch Fox News and decide they are crap. Make it available. Let me decide. Do you want to plaster all over Fox News streams that they are "partially funded by this or that corporation" or "aligned to this or that political party" -- sure, go ahead. But let me watch and decide for myself. > Does it make sense to expect [Russia Today] to be objective in reporting on Ukraine and Russia? I don't think they are objective in the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I wouldn't trust them on that subject (still, I'd like to see, unfiltered, what Russian media is saying about it. Not what the West reports that Russian media is saying, which is always filtered). But RT and affiliated channels also reported on Latin America, a subject I know better -- I live there -- and I know for a fact their reporting was good; better than most US media. And it also got blocked/removed.
kingcharles 5y ago
Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar. They seem to operate very independently, considering their owners. Qatar censors their Internet, and their outward culture is standard Middle-Eastern Islamic fare (i.e. homophobic etc). [this always amuses me because statistically speaking, with no data to back it up, and based only on my observations, I would bet that Qatar has a higher percentage of LGBTQ population than any Western nation] AJ's journalists in Russia have been doing their best to ignore the insanity of the new media laws and get their message out there, against their own best interests, bless them. Which is weird because most of the Gulf has been neutral or pro-Russia in their stance so far. Disclaimer: My other half is Qatari and she will now have me "disappeared" for speaking badly of her homeland.
btilly 5y ago
I was aware, and it is part of why I used them as an example along with the BBC. Like RT, they worked to create a reputation as high quality media funded at least in part by a national government.

by vba616 5y ago

the_af 5y ago

Well, I like that Al Jazeera exists and their coverage of many things was good. That RT is "state sponsored" or "funded partly by the Russian state" was plastered all over YouTube, Twitter, etc. Why was that not enough? I know for a fact RT's coverage of current affairs in Latin America was pretty good. The "interrelated" argument is dangerous, because it cuts both ways -- Western news media wouldn't escape unscathed, for example.

vba616 5y ago
>Well, I like that Al Jazeera exists and their coverage of many things was good. I'm not criticizing their reporting (because I haven't read much of it) or saying that knowing who finances them necessarily results in a more objective reaction. That is, certainly there is prejudice that comes into play. I'm saying that it is demonstrably possible to have gone for years generally aware they exist without being aware they are state sponsored, and not encountering any mention of it. I would expect more people to know about RT, but my point is, regardless of how you view people who are ignorant, the proportion of people who are ignorant matters. It has some influence on how they affect society. There's a genre of articles that link the CIA to things and makes a big deal about it, like the most sinister imperialist forces in the US government are necessarily controlling it. So it seems to me that the idea of the source of something tainting it is universal. Saying people should be aware of what RT stands for cannot be taken as an argument that they are. >The "interrelated" argument is dangerous, because it cuts both ways So? Rejecting it doesn't produce a license for inconsistency. If we agree that Fox News is unreliable when reporting on Republicans, does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Democrats? Does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Ukraine and Russia?
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "There's a genre of articles that link the CIA to things and makes a big deal about it, like the most sinister imperialist forces in the US government are necessarily controlling it. So it seems to me that the idea of the source of something tainting it is universal." Is this about RT, Al Jazeera, or other media? So far I have read such things about CIA in all kinds of media, including the so-called trustworthy ones, so I would say that a lot of these claims are probably credible.
- the_af 5y ago
  > If we agree that Fox News is unreliable when reporting on Republicans, does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Democrats? Does it make sense to expect them to be objective in reporting on Ukraine and Russia? Two things: Reps vs Dems is obviously two sides of the same coin, so I don't think your example works. You probably meant trusting Fox News is objective about sports or medicine or other unrelated topics. However, I will agree with you it still makes sense that everything Fox News reports on is permeated by their political stance; e.g. there are obvious political aspects to medicine and health (because of enacted policies that happen to be partisan, or touchy topics such as abortion laws, or healthcare, or the myriad of things that are touchy subjects in the US). But it doesn't matter whether I think Fox News is reliable on any given topic, what matters is: do I think they should be deplatformed in most of the Western world, removed from YouTube and access severely hindered or completely restricted for most of their audience? No, 100% no. It's for me to watch Fox News and decide they are crap. Make it available. Let me decide. Do you want to plaster all over Fox News streams that they are "partially funded by this or that corporation" or "aligned to this or that political party" -- sure, go ahead. But let me watch and decide for myself. > Does it make sense to expect [Russia Today] to be objective in reporting on Ukraine and Russia? I don't think they are objective in the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I wouldn't trust them on that subject (still, I'd like to see, unfiltered, what Russian media is saying about it. Not what the West reports that Russian media is saying, which is always filtered). But RT and affiliated channels also reported on Latin America, a subject I know better -- I live there -- and I know for a fact their reporting was good; better than most US media. And it also got blocked/removed.

kingcharles 5y ago

Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar. They seem to operate very independently, considering their owners. Qatar censors their Internet, and their outward culture is standard Middle-Eastern Islamic fare (i.e. homophobic etc). [this always amuses me because statistically speaking, with no data to back it up, and based only on my observations, I would bet that Qatar has a higher percentage of LGBTQ population than any Western nation] AJ's journalists in Russia have been doing their best to ignore the insanity of the new media laws and get their message out there, against their own best interests, bless them. Which is weird because most of the Gulf has been neutral or pro-Russia in their stance so far. Disclaimer: My other half is Qatari and she will now have me "disappeared" for speaking badly of her homeland.

btilly 5y ago

I was aware, and it is part of why I used them as an example along with the BBC. Like RT, they worked to create a reputation as high quality media funded at least in part by a national government.