4 ms·

> There is apparently a rule that says it’s perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNB

> There is apparently a rule that says it’s perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (Kaplan/The Washington Post), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it’s an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Full Analysis and links: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_reveal_much_about_the_critics/print/ http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_re...

mseebach 14y ago
The problem with that analysis: "US media isn't perfect" ==> "Any media outlet that isn't perfect is as good as the US media". The key indictment of US media is that they all disagreed with him on the Iraq war, at least in the beginning. What's missing from the analysis is degrees of imperfection. RT will tout the Kremlin line even to the point of being comical. Even if Assange's show doesn't contribute to this, he still serves to legitimise the rest of the channel. He is extremely naive if he doesn't think he's going to be a cog in RT and Putin spinning itself and Russia as a home to disenfranchised and persecuted western intellectuals - while conveniently not mentioning the fact that disenfranchised Russian intellectuals, especially of the journalist variety, have a nasty habit of dying young - which is very unlike their western counterparts.
- jdjiaikej 14y ago
  Haha. Assange serves to legitimize the rest of the channel. Good one!
gyardley 14y ago
When it comes to news organizations, it's not the presence of an organization-wide viewpoint that's objectionable - every organization has a viewpoint. The content of that viewpoint is what's being objected to. You might feel that the viewpoint of RT is no less objectionable than the viewpoints of the other news organizations you mention. Others disagree.

mseebach 14y ago

The problem with that analysis: "US media isn't perfect" ==> "Any media outlet that isn't perfect is as good as the US media". The key indictment of US media is that they all disagreed with him on the Iraq war, at least in the beginning. What's missing from the analysis is degrees of imperfection. RT will tout the Kremlin line even to the point of being comical. Even if Assange's show doesn't contribute to this, he still serves to legitimise the rest of the channel. He is extremely naive if he doesn't think he's going to be a cog in RT and Putin spinning itself and Russia as a home to disenfranchised and persecuted western intellectuals - while conveniently not mentioning the fact that disenfranchised Russian intellectuals, especially of the journalist variety, have a nasty habit of dying young - which is very unlike their western counterparts.

jdjiaikej 14y ago
Haha. Assange serves to legitimize the rest of the channel. Good one!

gyardley 14y ago

When it comes to news organizations, it's not the presence of an organization-wide viewpoint that's objectionable - every organization has a viewpoint. The content of that viewpoint is what's being objected to. You might feel that the viewpoint of RT is no less objectionable than the viewpoints of the other news organizations you mention. Others disagree.