The value of watching/reading RT is found in their increased willingness to expose dissenting views. Like, you can read the Washington Post, but you can't realistically read all of their articles. So what you're more likely to be exposed to is the front page news articles, even if they report on such a dissenting view. There's a good chance they won't like to expose their own sponsors as corporate thugs, so you're less likely to see negative news about them on the front page, unless you really dig through it you're not going to see it. And thus, technically they may be reporting on it, but it's not brought to light in the same way as news about things that don't risk negatively impacting their bottom line.
The same goes for watching, for example, MSNBC. They're going to be less willing to expose corruption in Democrats because they largely support that political party, and the party supports them (by appearing on the channel to catch eyeballs, advertisement money, etc). They'll be willing to give a lot of exposure to corruption amongst Republicans, though. Conversely, if you watch Fox News, you're less likely to catch news that puts Republicans in a bad light (even if it might be posted somewhere on an obscure Fox News website behind a few click-through links, which means they have technically reported on it).
For an example akin to what you're looking for, I seem to recall reading about the water protesters on RT a few days before I saw it appear on any other news site. Despite that, I'm sure you can find some western news source reporting on it at the same time if you dig hard enough (maybe Democracy Now?). But since RT was more willing to give them exposure because of their bottom line ("dividing the west") I saw it on there first rather than on the classical western sources that I frequented at the time.
I wasn't talking about the Dublin water protests, but OK.
Still, even if some western source did report on the Native American water protesters in the US before RT did that doesn't take away from the fact that I saw it on RT first despite frequenting the Guardian as well. You can ALWAYS find some source, mainstream or otherwise, that will report on things. RT can't compete against the whole breadth of western media. It would ridiculous to hold RT against the whole of western media and then proclaim "see, RT leaves blindspots as well!" or "RT doesn't give more exposure to things since X source reported on it as well!". RT is just one tiny organization, while western media as a whole consist of many many organizations.
I personally see The Guardian as a much better and comprehensive source than RT as well. Still doesn't undermine the point that I am making.
On April 11 2017 22:12 LightSpectra wrote: And what do other countries (not USA or Russia) say? I would expect that kind of nationalist bias in most media sources.
Literally "two russians and an american launched to ISS"
So you're entirely correct, it's completely normal.
The notion of whether its normal or not isn't in question here. The point is that there is an inherit bias in news reports, and that this bias extends from basic things like launching astronauts into space all the way to the most significant geopolitical events. I think that it is important to keep that in mind when looking at events as they take place. A lot of people and news organizations seem to be woefully incapable of doing that. For all its superiority in personal freedoms, freedom of press, etc, "the West" is not above this problem.
You do realise that neither NASA nor Roscosmos are "news agencies", regardless of how often you repeat that, no? NASA certainly did name the cosmonauts in their actual article on nasa.gov, as was pointed out by people in the reddit thread that you borrowed this from already.
Of course media is biased. Everywhere in the world, btw. RT is far from the exception, and quite possibly the worst "but they're better" example that you could've picked. Even Al Jazeera would've been better to make a point.
Why are you now talking about RT's blindspots? The argument was that you ought to watch RT to gain access to news that you can't access elsewhere. You then failed to demonstrate which news one cannot access using Western media. Your argument has then devolved into: RT is just another news channel. But it clearly isn't. It's filled with propaganda and lies, serving the interests of the leaders of one country (notice, I don't think it serves Russia). So your burden of proof is higher: you should show why we ought to expose ourselves to the mental and emotional strain of propaganda if we can access the same news stories using media sources in the free world.
Most of the "you can't see this in the West" articles from RT I've read are pretty sloppy yet spun reposts of stuff from hot press sites like Daily Beast or Mediaite.
FakeCheck’s selection bias is therefore not its biggest sin. The bigger problem is that it mixes dubious fact checks among the legitimate ones, leading to unproven or poorly sourced conclusions.
That's on RTs fakechecker. To be clear, i'm not saying they're worse than others, but i certainly am saying that if you're trying to paint them "better" than others, you completely missed the plot.
I'm talking about blindspots because someone (maybe not you) brought up the notion that RT leaves a giant blindspot when it comes to reporting (probably they meant critical reporting on Russia, which is obviously true).
What I have been arguing in this thread regarding my perceptions about the exposure on articles regarding certain subjects and so on is very hard (impossible) to prove without thorough empirical research, so I will be unable to back up my point by simply looking into one news article or another seeing if it has been reported on. The notion that you can get the same news without watching RT isn't an argument against my perceptions regarding exposure and bias. To resolve this discussion, we would require thorough statistics about exposure of certain news and statistics about the bias of phrasing in articles and the like.
And no, I don't think RT is "better". I don't think I've ever tried to make that case. I'd put them at about the same level as CNN, though. They're both crap compared to news sources like The Guardian and The New York Times.
And no, I don't think RT is "better". I don't think I've ever tried to make that case. I'd put them at about the same level as CNN, though. They're crap compared to news sources like The Guardian and The New York Times.
That one sounds considerably better, this wasn't clear by skimming through the thread.
Sidenote, i do read The Guardian and Spiegel (which is [certainly was, no idea about nowadays] the pinnacle of investigative journalism).
I was not talking about RT alone but all of Russian media. I would make my challenge even easier for you if you'd like: I restrict myself to either reputable American media or British media or German media, you decide (sorry, my languages are limited). Though please note that the event must then be of some relevance to the respective country. That you found something first on RT tells us more about you than it does about the state of the media in the West. You are right that you shouldn't rely on CNN though... However:
On July 30 2017 21:54 a_flayer wrote: And no, I don't think RT is "better". I don't think I've ever tried to make that case. I'd put them at about the same level as CNN, though. They're both crap compared to news sources like The Guardian and The New York Times.
This is exactly the kind of equivocation that drives me nuts. Yes, CNN is awful and RT is certainly awful but for very different reasons: CNN is awful because it puts revenue before facts and analysis. A consequence for international news is that a point of view consistent with the largest part of their viewership is taken (pro-American). RT is literal Russian state propaganda. This does not mean they are fake news (though fake news stories have been propagated on RT) or even wrong news stories. But state propaganda is very different from the biases that plague commercial news organizations in the way that it is singularily directed. The bias in CNN is much more organic so to speak. To illustrate this I invite you to another challenge: I bet that I can find many more and much harsher criticism of any recent president/American foreign policy on CNN than you can of Putin/Russian foreign policy on RT.
A_flayer, you seem to try to hide behind a lack of empirical research being available. Yet, there has been research into this for years (RT is really RIA Novosti, an old propaganda channel created for Russian elections to make sure Medvedev got to be a placeholder and it played an important role in generating fake news on the Georgian conflict).
Placing CNN and RT on the same level does a disservice to all readers. I'm the first to criticize CNN, but it's full of actual journalists with no governmental oversight. While the are biased and often superficial, their bias is in-house and bias is healthy in a diverse media environment. RT doesn't have a bias, they write whatever they are told to write by the FSB. In fact, the worst aspect about them is that they mix in real journalism with the fake articles, making it more difficult to understand what is real and what is not. And this leads to people like you comparing it to other media, which reduces people's trust in the media as a whole. The effect of having RT around is that it sows confusion and distrust, undermining democracy, just like the authoritarian leader of Russia wants.
A case in point, when CNN found out a Trump story had no evidence, they retracted the story. This of course meant that many people, including Trump, started equivocating them with Fake News like RT. But the very fact that they retracted their story shows that they are not fake news. On the other hand, RT never seems to retract their fake news. For example, they still have this piece up suggesting a Ukrainian fighter shot down MH17. No clarification or modification 2 years later.
This would be addable to the list as well. The english wiki page doesn't have the bit in regards to russian media, so use google translate for the german one.
edit: though that'd be more "local news" i guess, didn't stop RT etc.
On July 30 2017 22:45 silynxer wrote: I was not talking about RT alone but all of Russian media. I would make my challenge even easier for you if you'd like: I restrict myself to either reputable American media or British media or German media, you decide (sorry, my languages are limited). Though please note that the event must then be of some relevance to the respective country. That you found something first on RT tells us more about you than it does about the state of the media in the West. You are right that you shouldn't rely on CNN though... However:
On July 30 2017 21:54 a_flayer wrote: And no, I don't think RT is "better". I don't think I've ever tried to make that case. I'd put them at about the same level as CNN, though. They're both crap compared to news sources like The Guardian and The New York Times.
This is exactly the kind of equivocation that drives me nuts. Yes, CNN is awful and RT is certainly awful but for very different reasons: CNN is awful because it puts revenue before facts and analysis. A consequence for international news is that a point of view consistent with the largest part of their viewership is taken (pro-American). RT is literal Russian state propaganda. This does not mean they are fake news (though fake news stories have been propagated on RT) or even wrong news stories. But state propaganda is very different from the biases that plague commercial news organizations in the way that it is singularily directed. The bias in CNN is much more organic so to speak. To illustrate this I invite you to another challenge: I bet that I can find many more and much harsher criticism of any recent president/American foreign policy on CNN than you can of Putin/Russian foreign policy on RT.
I don't see how you can say CNN has an "organic" bias, when they most likely use the same techniques as RT when it comes to their operational processes. CNN wants reporters who feed into their bottom line and are obedient to their corporate sponsors. They get people who worked in Washington to share their "opinions" which just happen to support the US government (you know, the Corporate States of America) on international matters or even simply repeat government statements on air. Similarly, RT does this from the opposite position. There's nothing organic about it in either of these cases. It's all very deliberately manufactured. And yeah, they're both awful for different reasons as well (on top of all this underlying operational stuff) which makes comparisons more difficult in those areas.
On July 30 2017 22:51 Ghanburighan wrote: RT doesn't have a bias, they write whatever they are told to write by the FSB.
That's just not true. I seem to recall Liz Wahl (an RT America reporter who quit in protest over RTs reporting on Crimea) saying that was specifically not the case when Stephen Colbert asked her that directly after she had quit RT America. I mean, you're really being either incredibly naive or just hypersensationalistic when you state that so matter-of-factly. What RT does in terms of propaganda is far more nuanced than that (it starts with hiring only reporters who want to be critical of "the establishment" and they go from there using the same techniques I've described before in this thread [except I said it about the WaPos agenda to protect its corporate sponsors, but obviously it will apply to any organization that has an agenda] - prominently displaying some reports, omitting others, etc). Add in some 'reporting' (eg uncritically copying statements) on what Russian government officials say and you'll have rounded out the "propaganda" aspect of RT quite well, I think.
Anyway, if it is available, show me the research that looks into how prominently the Washington Post displays criticisms about their corporate sponsors and how the way they phrase their reports about Russia are steeped in neutrality and then compares that to all the other news organizations taking into account the bias of each organization. Show me the readily available research that confirms that RT did indeed blatantly spread propaganda about Macron rather than just report on his person and his campaign like CNN did or all the other things that people claim RT is doing. Show it to me.
Something like this that I saw on Fair.org (which was on the specific subject of reporting on an American arms deal):
The Trump administration wrapped up a weapons deal with the Saudi Arabian government this week that will be worth up to $350 billion over the next ten years. News of the deal came as Trump visited Riyadh and paid fealty to one of the United States’ most enduring allies in the Middle East.
The vast majority of the reports on the topic, however, omitted a rather key piece of context—namely, whom the weapons will be used to kill.
I'd love to see something like that on the subject I've been talking about regarding a comparison of exposure of certain news reports and articles from specific sources and so forth, but much more comprehensive and expansive than the above report. Something which also includes all the reports from certain news sources, divided by subjects, comparing news reports about the same subject and even compilations of phrases & adjectives used to support one agenda or another, etc.
The notion that RT doesn't bother correcting articles when they've been debunked is one of my biggest criticisms towards them as well, yes. Beyond the obvious omissions of critical reporting on Russia (but I mean, really, do we need another news source that does that? Can't you just unplug your ears for a nanosecond and be instantly overwhelmed by that sort of news?).
That's just not true. I seem to recall Liz Wahl (an RT America reporter who quit in protest over RTs reporting on Crimea) saying that was specifically not the case when Stephen Colbert asked her that directly after she had quit RT America. I mean, you're really being either incredibly naive or just hypersensationalistic when you state that so matter-of-factly
"In 2009, Luke Harding (then Moscow correspondent for The Guardian) described RT's advertising campaign in the United Kingdom as an "ambitious attempt to create a new post-Soviet global propaganda empire."
Former KGB officer turned political refugee, Konstantin Preobrazhensky, criticized RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation".
An 2013 article in Der Spiegel noted that RT "uses a chaotic mixture of conspiracy theories and crude propaganda", referring to a program which linked the Boston Marathon bombings to a U.S. government conspiracy.
Sorry, you don't have a point because a reporter said it's not the case. A reporter/newsreader has zero connection to the issue that is pointed out, if anything, it'd be the editors.
Put this way, you're arguing that western media have conflicts of interests because of the way they're funded etc. That's a fair assessment, and i'm inclined to agree. Protect your interests, manipulate others.
We know who funds RT. To assume that it'd be any different there, is naive at best.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to portrait RT as, or why you're so hung up on it, or why "RT bias is different/better" than "CNN bias", or why people now have to bring you "proof" etc in regards to how often the WaPo does X.
That's just not true. I seem to recall Liz Wahl (an RT America reporter who quit in protest over RTs reporting on Crimea) saying that was specifically not the case when Stephen Colbert asked her that directly after she had quit RT America. I mean, you're really being either incredibly naive or just hypersensationalistic when you state that so matter-of-factly
"In 2009, Luke Harding (then Moscow correspondent for The Guardian) described RT's advertising campaign in the United Kingdom as an "ambitious attempt to create a new post-Soviet global propaganda empire."
Former KGB officer turned political refugee, Konstantin Preobrazhensky, criticized RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation".
An 2013 article in Der Spiegel noted that RT "uses a chaotic mixture of conspiracy theories and crude propaganda", referring to a program which linked the Boston Marathon bombings to a U.S. government conspiracy.
Sorry, you don't have a point because a reporter said it's not the case. A reporter/newsreader has zero connection to the issue that is pointed out, if anything, it'd be the editors.
Put this way, you're arguing that western media have conflicts of interests because of the way they're funded etc. That's a fair assessment, and i'm inclined to agree. Protect your interests, manipulate others.
We know who funds RT. To assume that it'd be any different there, is naive at best.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to portrait RT as, or why you're so hung up on it, or why "RT bias is different/better" than "CNN bias", or why people now have to bring you "proof" etc in regards to how often the WaPo does X.
None of those quotes say that RT reporters write whatever they are told to write by the FSB (and how would the people you quoted know?). Undoubtedly some of that 'FSB' stuff bleeds into the RT news cycle, but I'd argue that's mostly by their uncritical reporting on statements by Russian officials, rather than by the FSB blatantly telling them to do one thing or another. There's also plenty of people who appear on RT that freely speak their mind or write what they want to write about (specifically hired because they have that critical attitude towards the US). And yes, once the editor comes in for written pieces, just as with the WaPo and CNN, they will add modifications to suit the agenda they've been assigned.
I also don't think it's different in the sense of that they don't have an agenda, it's just a different agenda. I don't think RT bias is different/better, either, on the whole of it. It just, in part, suits my own agenda better than CNN and the like. I'm hung up about it because of the (in my view 'promotional', but unfortunately that's not how other people see it) ODNI report which was largely about RT:
In the runup to the 2012 US presidential election in November, English-language channel RT America -- created and financed by the Russian Government and part of Russian Government-sponsored RT TV (see textbox 1) -- intensified its usually critical coverage of the United States. The channel portrayed the US electoral process as undemocratic and featured calls by US protesters for the public to rise up and "take this government back."
RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to "take back" the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through "revolution." After the 6 November US presidential election, RT aired a documentary called "Cultures of Protest," about active and often violent political resistance (RT, 1-10 November).
If people agree with those kind of sentiments (calling for a revolution and claiming that the two party system along with the electoral college is undemocratic == propaganda), how will there ever be any chance of change in American politics? How will the next Bernie (who called for a revolution, the dirty Russian propagandist that he is) ever get elected if everything that he stands for is constantly dismissed as "propaganda".
I am talking about the Washington Post because I see them (and their obvious attempt at curbing criticism towards their corporate sponsors, as I pointed out a few posts ago) as part of the problem of corporate media that cast Occupy Wallstreet in the mainstream media as some kind of kooky ridiculous pointless uninformed protest rather than the call for revolution that it was. RT did not do that because they have a different agenda (and no corporate sponsors to protect, which I believe prevented some other mainstream news organizations to look at this in the same way as I did). Our goals are somewhat aligned in that sense. I may disagree with them on some subjects, but we share a common enemy so to speak. Different aims, different means, different methods, with some common ground in between.
So when the whole of RT is dismissed as utter trash and propaganda, that doesn't sit well with me, especially if some of the people who appear on there are people who align with my views on some subject matters.
Also, for the person who asked for an example of someone being critical about Russia on RT (not that it matters this exists, of course - feel free to point out the obvious here if you wish to do so, I certainly can't be arsed to write it out again):
On July 31 2017 01:21 Ghanburighan wrote: Don't have the time to respond to all of that, but a few points:
Pomerantsev is an excellent source where to start, you should read some of his latest work on the issue.
Secondly, if the propaganda of an authoritarian state run by its secret service "suits [your] own agenda better", I'd rethink my life.
Aight, I'll start supporting the American oligarchy from now on.
From Wikipedia:
RT America focuses on covering news in the United States from an alternative perspective. Programs are hosted by American journalists. Similarly, most guests are American (and sometimes Canadian) activists, academics, speakers and analysts with alternative perspectives on "mainstream" issues. The channel covers issues that see lesser coverage in the mainstream media, such as using non-GMO ingredients in foods, corporatism, growing wealth inequality, corruption in politics, peace and environmental issues. It maintains a separate schedule of programs each weekday from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight Eastern Time, and like its counterpart in the UK, it simulcasts RT International at all other times.
Do I really need to rethink my life because I support coverage of those things that I highlighted? You're just being insulting, just like that German dude who puts words in my mouth.
If more people had the sense to listen to this kind of "Russian propaganda", we wouldn't have been stuck with Trump right now.
On July 30 2017 21:42 farvacola wrote: Most of the "you can't see this in the West" articles from RT I've read are pretty sloppy yet spun reposts of stuff from hot press sites like Daily Beast or Mediaite.
You'd be much better off looking at BBC or Al-Jazeera, to get outside news.
There are a lot of media-outlets that Americans can access to get outside news. For obscure, internal news on subjects like GMOs, again, there are a lot of media outlets around the world that actually have credibility/
But, yeah, watch RT and Sputnik instead! ::rolls my eyes so hard they hurt::
edit: You posted Abby Martin as an example of someone on RT speaking out against Russia -- Dude, she left RT almost immediately after that happened.
EPT
