The propaganda mouthpiece of the oil magnate Dictator in Qatar - Al Jazeera America

[Catherina]

Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera America are the mouthpieces of a dictator in Qatar. Both channels are fully funded by that little dictator and other members of the royal family who have been funding terrorists and agitating to overthrow Assad so the Emir can have a pipeline. It used to be privately owned but to bypass media laws, the Emir put it under a private corporation lol. It's still the same people, the same funding and devoted to the Saudi-Arabia (an original co-founder) and Qatari goals of dominating the Middle East.

Here's the chairman of their new front operation "Al Jazeera Media Network":

Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer bin Mohammed bin Thani Al-Thani is the Chairman of the Al Jazeera Media Network, which is based in Qatar. He also served as Chairman of the Board of Directors and President of the Board of Administration.[1]
...
Before starting Al Jazeera, he joined the state's Minister of Information in 1987 and then served as undersecretary to the Minister of Information until 1994.[2]

He is the cousin of the Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. He is the 7th richest member of a royal family in the world.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Thamer_Al_Thani

Sure, they'll have some in-depth articles about NYPD corruption or homelessness in America but don't expect anything credible on the Middle East except how wonderful Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and their rebels are.

Qatar wants to overthrow Assad to built a pipeline.

Remember Prince Bandar 'Bush'?

Yes, critics are right to point to the network’s paymaster — a government whose political agenda has, at times, directly influenced its coverage. The channel, for example, has been one of the most avid watchers of the Syrian conflict (Qatar is known to be arming and funding factions of the Syrian rebellion) but was relatively quiet about Arab Spring unrest in the nearby Kingdom of Bahrain, a close Gulf state ally of Doha. But mainstream American networks are also susceptible to external political pressures. And while al-Jazeera presents the news sometimes with a discernible bias, it lacks the partisan shrillness of channels glued to the Beltway like MSNBC and Fox News.

http://world.time.com/2013/01/04/viewpoint-why-al-jazeeras-entry-into-the-u-s-is-a-good-thing/

They're right up there with BBC World Media which receives 34% of its funding from the UK government, 8% from the fucking US State Department...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/finance

We already know we need to beware our our MSM but beware with those news sources. Be very wary. There's a reason they're giving so much airtime to the fighters they've been backing all over the Middle East.

What do those knowledgeable about news and propaganda think about the new Al Jazeera? Adel Iskandar, Georgetown University lecturer and co-author of the book “Al-jazeera: The Story of the Network that is Rattling Governments and Redefining Modern Journalism” said, “The Al Jazeera of 2010 is not the Al Jazeera of 2013… We’ve seen the departure of various people at the network who claim that it no longer practices independent journalism.” Former BBC reporter Ali Hashem resigned his post at Al Jazeera Arabic saying, “The Qataris… are forcing Al Jazeera to commit suicide.” Tellingly, Iraq invasion co-architect and former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told David Frost on Al Jazeera English in September of 2011 that he was “delighted” by the new Al Jazeera.

http://www.media-alliance.org/article.php?id=2238

Rumsfeld says he's "delighted" by Al Jazeera English

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld granted an interview to Al-Jazeera English on Thursday, which will air Friday, and complimented the network for its service.

"It can be an important means of communication in the world and I am delighted you are doing what you are doing," Rumsfeld told Sir David Frost on "Frost over the World."

This statement stands in stark contrast to the tone Rumsfeld struck back in 2004 when he accused the network of lying and deemed its actions "vicious."

At the time, Rumsfeld was referring to the original Al Jazeera, which became well known in the United States for airing messages from Osama Bin Laden

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/us-aljazeera-idUSTRE78T47420110930

Don Rumsfeld DELIGHTED. Beat those war drums for those pipelines!

[dkf]

1. We need to know the context lest we not understand the players and their motivations.

[Catherina]

5. That's my secondary point. You can't discern things with any balance

when you're only processing news that's funded by corporations, oil magnates.

Adults need the full context to understand why the UK Parliament refused to lend their support for these coming war crimes.

Adults are capable of discerning things.

Our Congress, which represents us, needs to be set straight by us. How can we set them straight if our facts are at the mercy of the same corporate and royal propaganda that relentlessly lobbies them ?

[Jefferson23]

2. Sad but true..a shame, really.

Fuck Rumsfeld btw, war criminal still loose on the streets.

[Catherina]

6. Fuck him, Fuck McCain and that other war hawk who was sent to represent us in the Middle East

War criminals are roaming free, still directing their little think tanks that are flooding our media.

[David__77]

3. But those are "legitimate," while Russia Today is not.

It's rather mind-boggling.

[Catherina]

9. Deemed illegetimate by whom? Not by its 630 million viewers in over 100 countries or US millions

There's been a concerted, organized effort to ban any media that's not beating the war drums this week.

Reddit just banned it and its users are pissed off.

Reddit Censorship? Russia Today (RT) Cries Foul Over /R/News Ban, But Reddit Says Blame The Moderator
By Christopher Zara
on August 30 2013 5:59 PM

RT, Russia’s state-backed news organization, is crying foul after its website was banned from one of Reddit’s most popular forums.

In a blog post on Friday, RT blasted the popular vote-oriented message board, saying it had been kicked off the /r/news subreddit for alleged spamming and vote manipulation. The news outlet said it “views the sanctions as an act of censorship.”

Not so, says Reddit. Victoria Taylor, a spokeswoman for the website, told International Business Times in an email that subreddit moderators make their own decisions about what content is allowed on their forums. Reddit, she said, had no role in this particular decision.

“It is the prerogative of each individual subreddit’s moderators (like /r/news) to allow or ban domains, users, posts, comments, etc as they wish,” Taylor said. “As we are not moderators of /r/news, we were not involved or consulted on this decision.”

On Thursday, Reddit user douglasmacarthur, a head moderator for /r/news, posted that RT had been banned for spam and vote manipulation. The post has since attracted almost 1,000 comments, many critical of the decision to ban a news site from a news forum.

“Censorship amuck and fair reporting is gone from reddit,” one user wrote.

...

http://www.ibtimes.com/reddit-censorship-russia-today-rt-cries-foul-over-rnews-ban-reddit-says-blame-moderator-1402016

RT.com has been banned on Reddit’s /r/news section, with moderators accusing it of spamming. Puzzled with absurd allegations, RT views the sanctions as an act of censorship with many redditors expressing the same concern.

The announcement of the ban appeared on Reddit at around 12:30 GMT Thursday, with the forum's leading moderator posting: "RT.com has been banned for spam and vote manipulation." It was soon followed by another message, saying that “brigading the thread, downvoting, and crying aren't going to change it, sorry.”

RT immediately contacted the moderators of the /r/news section, as well as Reddit's press office, to request an explanation. But in more than 24 hours no details that could clarify what may have led to the ban have been provided to RT by Reddit.

Reddit’s press office instead replied that it is not consulted by subreddits about their decisions.

“To clarify, it is the prerogative of each individual subreddit's moderators to allow or ban domains from being submitted to their subreddits,” Victoria Taylor, of Reddit’s press service, said. “As we are not moderators of /r/news, we were not involved or consulted on this decision. You would need to appeal to the moderators of /r/news about their decision and address their concerns individually.”

RT has received no reply yet from douglasmacarthur, the moderator of Reddit’s /r/news section.

But later another redditor, BipolarBear0, listed as one of the moderators for the section, said in a comment on the website that there was “no vote manipulation,” calling it “an oversight there, but an honest mistake” by a moderator.

...



Responding to Michael Reed, co-founder of the Restore the Fourth movement, BipolarBear0 said he had nothing do with the decision to ban RT.com, but added he had in general been advocating that, “Simply because… It’s the Kremlin.”

...

RT’s leading web analyst, Aleksey Naumov, said there were no grounds for the moderator to accuse RT.com of spamming.

“Over the last two years, RT’s traffic has increased four- or five-fold,” Naumov said. “Quite naturally, during this period the number of submissions of our materials to Reddit.com, as well as the number of referrals from Reddit to our website, has increased. It’s not difficult to check that it’s not the same people, but different people, who are submitting our stories to Reddit.”

...

http://rt.com/news/rt-reddit-ban-censorship-169/

But the Qatari royal family that's ready to kill every last person standing in the way of their pipeline is ok.

The Cold War is up and running because the world won't buy our bogus intel for a few elites.

[David__77]

13. You know by whom.

"Them."

[Catherina]

32. So when you can't win war support based on facts, start demonizing and banning news sources

that present different viewpoints?

Hillary was hollering how RT and the old Al-Jazeera were *stealing* viewers because you felt like you were watching real news and admitted she watched them herself.

Yes, I know. It's pretty clear.

[sabrina 1]

15. I don't know, the American public seems to think that RT is a very reliable source of news.

I believe they are now viewed in over 50 million homes and, I don't know the numbers, but millions of Americans use them as a news source.

[David__77]

17. I like it.

But more than a few people, even on this board, tend to think that it is somehow beyond the pale.

[sabrina 1]

47. I've only come across a few people here who object to it, most of them have never

watched it other than WITH the idea that they will attack it.

The problem is RT is truthful and reports fairly on International news. And on news we are not allowed to see here.


Right wingers hate it of course, I would expect that. But every Democrat I know loves it and had we had when Bush was in office, there would not be a single person here who would be criticizing.

Put it this way you can always tell who is going to slam any news media that refuses to censor their reporting for Corporations.

I am thrilled we have so many choices now on our lineup. A new one is CCTV, similar format and great news roundups.

I never watch the Corporate Media, it is controlled so tightly that it is no longer news.

[Catherina]

75. I've seen several complaints about it in GD and the Video forum

Some guy had a whole thread in GD excoriating people for watching it recently.

I never watch the corporate media either. It's awful.

[sabrina 1]

77. Yes, but it's always the same small group. The truth hurts I suppose and one thing

you get on RT''s news are facts. Unlike the propaganda we are fed on the Corporate Media.

Trying to censor respected news sources will only make them more popular.

[Catherina]

83. Facts and reliability is how we should judge news outlets

and by that standard, RT News has the MSM beat by miles.

[sabrina 1]

97. Yes, the Corporate Media eg, was rated #54 on the Free Media scale a few years agao for the

lies they published to help Bush lie this country into war.

And we have some people here calling RT unreliable?

I want to see proof of this. I want to see something even close to comparable of the unreliability of the Corporate that has ever been published by RT.

So far, I'm not getting ANYTHING.

[Catherina]

110. The MSM has no credibility. If RT is the Kremlin's mouthpiece, someone better tell Howard Dean

Governor Howard Dean Breaks the Set, Wealth Disparity and Soaring Debt: Thanks Reagan!

EPISODE BREAKDOWN: On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin talks to former Vermont Governor and US presidential candidate, Howard Dean, about the his 2004 presidential run, and current views ranging from healthcare to the US military's use of drones. Abby then wraps up the show remarking on the 31st anniversary of the President Ronald Reagan's Economic Recovery Act, and speaks with to Richard Wolff, Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, and author of 'Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism', about why 'Reaganomics' is not a cure-all for the US economy's fiscal woes.

[sabrina 1]

114. Yes, I saw that. Howard Dean acknowledged in that excellent interview, where he was

actually allowed to speak without interruption btw, that he HAS THOUGHT about running, although he did add that it is 'unlikely to happen'.

Thanks, this is why I love RT. You get to see people from across the political spectrum being interviewed and ALLOWED TO SPEAK without interruption about their issues.

I will not only continue to watch RT, I will now make sure that everyone I know finds it, as I have already done, because one thing we need in this country is to STOP the Corporate Control of our media and the censorship of news from other sources.

Thanks for the link, it was an excellent interview, one of many. I haven't seen Dean on the Corporate Media in ages.

So thank YOU RT!

[Catherina]

121. That's what I love the most about their shows. Guests can speak without interruption

with the exception of CrossTalk where the format is for guests to debate and everyone interrupts each other.

RT is all over twitters feed from the best, most respected left-leaning US activists and quite a few journalists. I learned about RT from them. I totally agree that "we have to STOP the Corporate Control of our media and the censorship of news from other sources". I thought we were all agreed on that after they beat the drums of war for Iraq, the NYT lied about WMDs, WAPO fabricated stories about Jessical Lynch and Pat Tillman, etc..., but it seems not.

I really enjoyed watching that Dean segment too.

Did you see the last CrossTalk? It reminds me of the shows we used to have before our media was handed over to corporations and all we get is Botox News now. The last show was extremely informative.

Pepe Escobar vs. Stephen Schlesinger

[haikugal]

126. Maybe a silly question...

I've watched RT on youtube but is it available anywhere else, like on cable? Just wondering...good conversation!

[sabrina 1]

128. I think it's available on most cable and satellite lineups. We have Dish TV and it is

around channel 280 on Dish. When I was in CA we had Time Warner, they too had it somewhere in the 200s too I believe.

They have some incredibly good interviews with some fascinating people, like Dean and leaders of countries around the world. People we NEVER see on the MSN. And there are hardly any ads. The Interviewers, who are mostly American here, but others are from Britain and other countries, are extremely well informed and ask intelligent questions. Plus they do not interrupt the guests, as happens all the time on the Corporate media.

I've seen interviews with people from all over the political spectrum. All voices are allowed even ones I don't agree with, but want to see questioned professionally which never happens on our media.

If you have Dish or Time Warner you should be able to get them. And probably others also.

I just notices another very good News channel that has just started and is right next to RT. It's so refreshing to get actual news ON THE WEEKEND lol, now on several channels.

I can't stand to watch interviews on the MSM with all the interruptions and shouting etc and of course, the censored questions.

Good luck finding it. You may have it without knowing it, we did for a while.

[haikugal]

139. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

I have Comcast and have been trying to locate it on their lineup...so far no go. I remember running across it some time ago and enjoying Thom Hartman's show but I haven't seen it of quite a while. I'll make a call and see.

I don't watch the MSM anymore...pure propaganda and I'm shocked to hear about what's happening here on DU.

This is a good topic!

[Catherina]

130. You can watch Live here

You can watch RT News, RT America, and Prime Time here: http://rt.com/on-air/ (Tabs at the top)

I'm taking a break watching their News there right now. They're talking about Syria Intervention right now and the incredibly complicated situation there.

There's also a schedule here http://rt.com/schedule/

[haikugal]

140. Thanks for your reply..

I've been trying to watch online but am having problems for some reason...it's playing now but for how long?? *sigh*...oops it just cut off again WTF??? I have high speed...is it because I use a Mac?

on edit...it seems to be working now...Thx again

[KittyWampus]

4. This is like a slightly more lucid version of Palin's word salad. Catherina has a sad

cause she can't use Russian Times.


"They're right up there with BBC World Media which receives 34% of its funding from the UK government, 8% from the fucking US State Department… "

[Junkdrawer]

7. RT is banned on DU?

[DURHAM D]

8. No.

It is only considered a poor source for Latest Breaking News.

[bahrbearian]

11. Yes, Skinner gave the hosts OK to ban RT

leaving it up to them to decide , many are happy, Turbo used "off topic" on an OP as the reason to Lock. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014579215 Ask the Administrators http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593182

[DURHAM D]

21. "off topic" is the system generated message.

It can not be altered. But, I assume you already know this.

If you don't like Skinner's original Locking message perhaps you should take it up with him.

[dipsydoodle]

46. I think you will find

he actually said it is up to the hosts. Check in ATA. It only affects LBN anyway.

[DURHAM D]

52. The subject is the locking message.

Are you saying that you think the LBN Hosts can change the locking message or did you respond to the wrong poster?

[dipsydoodle]

56. The locking message comes from a host as far as I'm aware.

Scroll down LBN and find any locked post to confirm or otherwise.

[DURHAM D]

60. oh for pete's sake...

Every locked post in LBN has the same message - off topic.

This just isn't that hard.

[dipsydoodle]

66. Thats just an expression.

Shorthand for being outside of SOP.

[DURHAM D]

67. no shit sherlock

[sabrina 1]

117. So a tiny fraction of DU gets to censor News sources on DU? That is very disturbing

RT is one of the most watched and respected news sources in the US right now. People are sick of the Corporate Media Control which was responsible for the Bush War Criminals being able to push their disastrous policies on the American people.

Since then, many other news sources have sprung up around the world. This appears to be an attempt to censor the News as I have asked, but have yet to receive, some examples of any News Reports from RT that have been incorrect.

[bahrbearian]

12. I meant post #11 to be for you.

[Junkdrawer]

18. saw it and read the links provided....

Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

14. What?? I sure hope not. That would truly be unacceptable. It is a fantastic, reliable

source of real International news.

Far superior to the Corporate Media.


I would not want to participate on any site where respectable news sources like RT are banned. No way. We get enough enough censorship in this country as it is.

[Junkdrawer]

16. LBN posts are being locked that reference RT....

GD policy is still murky....

[Violet_Crumble]

23. It's not murky...

RT is currently not considered to be a reputable source for LBN. It's fine in GD...

I'm surprised that people who are wanting RT as a source don't appear to be concerned at attacks on Al-Jazeera as a source.

[KittyWampus]

25. And the BBC.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. The BBC is also a mouthpiece? Okay, that's funny n/t

[sabrina 1]

82. The BBC is a mouthpiece now, it used to not be, but it is now. And our Corporate

media, are the banned from LBN, because they ought to be. There is no less reliable media, according to the World Free Press re Western Media over several of the past years, than the US Corporate Media. I sure hope they are blocking them also then. Otherwise there is a huge inconsistency here and a whole lot of people are going to have something to say about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. How so? Again, you appear to have no problems with RT being a mouthpiece

Or are you going to try and argue that RT isn't a mouthpiece of the Russian government, and the Russian government doesn't control its editorial content?

[bahrbearian]

37. But your working on it ,right. Whose next? Al Jazerra.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Moi? I'm not banning anything...

And I've quoted RT MANY times in the last few days.

[bahrbearian]

43. I'm sorry I confused you with Turborama , Sorry.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I don't think anyone's working on anything...

Well, apart from the OP, who appears to be trying to argue that because RT currently isn't allowed as a source in LBN, Al Jazeera shouldn't be either.

I'm wondering how long it'll be before people turn up in this thread who think Press TV is the be all and end all for independent and progressive coverage of events. When they do, I'm going to ask them what the difference between Press TV and RT is because I couldn't see a lot of difference there...

[bahrbearian]

44. Hrmjsutin is happy to lock RT. When we start banning new outlets then we're just like the Repugs.

I'm sure Catherina is being sarcastic about Al Jazeera, but when you can start locking Tom Hartmann and Max Keiser your just like the Repugs.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. There's been a unanimous consensus from LBN hosts that RT isn't a reputable source for LBN...

And I know that LBN hosts have locked OPs in the past started with other sources that aren't considered to be a reputable source. That doesn't make Skinner nor the hosts 'just like the Repugs' at all. It makes Skinner and the hosts DUers who are following the SOP set by Skinner for LBN...

I didn't see a single hint of sarcasm in the OP. I suspect what happened is having access to the hosts forum, she spotted the discussion amongst LBN hosts on RT, saw my post where I'd talked about Al Jazeera and took the ball and ran with it...

[bahrbearian]

53. You should be very Proud,.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Of what, exactly? n/t

[bahrbearian]

57. That you can't see sarcasm when you read it , and now you can Censor the News.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Uh, there was no sarcasm there...

And I don't censor news, so I don't know what yr going on about with the proud thing...

[bahrbearian]

65. No Sarcasm that you could see, Remember when the GOP invited Cobert to Roast Chimpy.

Kind of like that.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. You may want to point out this supposed sarcasm then...

Coz Catherina's making it very clear in her other posts in this thread that she was very serious about Al Jazeera.

[bahrbearian]

71. She is not in favor of banning any respectable News Source , So I quess you can't see scarcasm.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. she's claiming all Jazeera isn't a respectable source

She's very serious about that. Of course if she was actually being sarcastic she can say so. In which case I've got a question for her about it

[sabrina 1]

89. You don't get it, do you? If RT is not a respectable, then American Al Jazeera sure isn't.

You think RT is not reliable? How so? Please provide ONE, just one news report from RT that was false. Then point out how the Corporate Media is reliable? They Supported Bush's lies even when they KNEW he was lying. Ever watch Cheney lie and get support from people like Tim Russert?

The point of this OP, and I'm guessing here, is that if Government Run is the criteria, then why on earth would anyone support Al Jazeera which is run by the Dictatorship of Qatar?

But we all know, don't we, that Al Jazeera International WAS a reliable source throughout the Bush lying years, DESPITE the fact that it was owned and funded by a dictatorship.

RT similarly is a reliable despite the government funding.

NPR is a reliable source despite the government funding.


Now do you get it?

Or is this some kind of campaign for censorship of a news source that TELLS THE TRUTH! Please provide an example of this 'unreliability' re RT.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. No I don't get attempts to equate Al Jazeera with RT...

Nor do I really get the confusion from some about the difference between government funding and government control of a media outlet. RT is owned and controlled by the Russian government. Al Jazeera, the BBC, and the ABC here in Australia are government owned, but despite sporadic attempts that fail, governments don't control the editorial content...

One big example of what's wrong with RT. I've read some stuff in RT about the anti-gay laws in Russia. I can go find a few if you want to see them, but I thought you would have already, being a big fan of RT. I can safely say that what I've read has been 110% ugly and wrong...

[sabrina 1]

98. Wait, let's sort this out here. What I'm reading here is the obection to RT is that it is

run by the 'government'.

Are you actually saying that Al Jazeera is NOT run by the Government of Qatar?

Are you saying that Qatar is some kind of 'democracy' or even close to that?

Are you denying that Qatar sent troops to fight in Libya and now in Syria and that their coverage is not compromised on these issues?

And how does Qatar treat Women, Gays, other Minorities?

Hey, let's have this debate with the WHOLE COMMUNITY.

Give me ONE example of a news report from RT that was not accurate.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. How about you go back and read my post again...

And how about you try answering the question I asked you downthread before firing off a salvo of questions that seem to be veering away from what I'm talking about...

I'll leave you with a hint. Ownership and control are two different things..

[sabrina 1]

104. I need no hint from you. I think it is YOU who needs to understand that 'ownership

and control are two different things'. It is not I who am promoting the opposite, is it?

I pointed out to you that consistency is the issue.

YOU are the one claiming that funding and control are the same thing for ONE news outlet, but you are inconsistent when it comes to other News Media, like the Qatar Government Owned Al Jazeera.

Why do you think that there is any difference?

I don't believe there is. Is that clear enough for you?

If I did, then I would have to explain my inconsistency.

It is you who are making the claim therefore it is you who needs to explain your inconsistent views and to provide some proof of your assertions.

[Violet_Crumble]

105. I think you do, which is why I gave it...

Let's get this sorted. I know I've asked a few times but had no response. Are you claiming that the Russian government doesn't have editorial control over RT and the outlet wasn't set up specifically to be a propaganda tool to promote Russia (eg bad Chechens, good and noble Russians) to the world? Because if that was correct, and RT was merely government owned, it'd be kind of similar to Al Jazeera. Though, I've noticed yr very anti when it comes to Al-Jazeera...

[delrem]

91. All I read in the OP was the truth, that al-Jazeera is the mouthpiece of Qatar's "royalty".

Remember, Qatar has been *very* strongly backing (funding, hiring, arming) the "Syrian rebels", along with Saudi Arabia.
I wouldn't tune into RT either, without reminding myself of the obvious bias. But that obvious bias is no greater than the biases of MSNBC and FOX, CNN, etc., and I no longer ever allow myself to absorb the information of a news source without examining the ownership at the very least, because those info flows are so influential in determining my picture of the world situation.

For example, it's very rare to see any mention in the western corporate MSM of the fact that it isn't known who was the perpetrator of the chemical weapon attack in Syria - rather, 99+% of "news items" state definitively that Assad did it. This kind of across the board bias, in this situation of yet another buildup to war, in fact saturates our info sources with a lie.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. That same 'argument' could have been made about Al Jazeera from the outset...

Y'know, back when Bushco was outraged that Al Jazeera dared to broadcast what Bin Laden had to say. When it was pissing off the US, Israel, and various Arab states by broadcasting things that they didn't want people to see. I spent a lot of time in the I/P forum at DU2 arguing when people would claim that AJ supported terrorists because it was giving them a voice, blah blah blah.

I'm aware that the OP is some silly game to try to equate Al Jazeera with RT and complain about the recent decision by LBN hosts to lock an OP that had RT as a source. I think they would have been more accurate if they'd tried to equate Press TV with RT, as having had a look at the Al Jazeera homepage today, I'm not spotting the mouthpiece stuff, especially as much of the editorial content about Syria was strongly opposed to the US launching strikes and spoke of Western hypocrisy, something I agree with 110%

[joshcryer]

127. Good decision from the hosts.

Particularly when it comes to RT's vile anti-gay propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

131. That is such a tiny fraction of the DU community. Considering your inability to answer my

questions about the consistency of the standards decided by this small fraction of the community, I am thinking this topic needs to be put to the entire community. Until then I will not be reading LBN. It has become unreliable as far as I am concerned. What else is being censored?

I don't come to DU to be forced to read the Corporate Media.

You have provide NO legitimate reason, no consistent standard for this decision.

I will think about it now that I know about it and decide what can be done to get a consistent standard for news, a super important issue for Americans just fyi. We are sick of censorship here on all sides and consider it to be one of the most important issues here in this country. It WAS censorship the got us into Iraq and people are extremely angry about any more attempts to restrict their reading material. WE ARE NOT CHILDREN HERE IN THE US.

I will not support a site that censors a legitmate news source. And I know I am far, far from alone on this.

[sabrina 1]

76. Well, that is ridiculous. Are the Corporate Media threads being locked as unreliable

sources? The BBC, which USED to be but is no longer, a 'reliable' source?

RT News is one of the THE best news sources on TV right now.

Has anyone pointed to a news article on RT that was NOT truthful, or is this just a few people's opinion with nothing to support it??

Maybe LBN needs more hosts. But that certainly isn't going to stop RT from being the second most watched media so I guess DU's LBN forum is joining the minority who don't want to see anything but the Corporate media.

Have they been locking Israili, Chinese, Indian news media? Or is it just the most popular media in the US right now?

[David__77]

28. References to it will be deleted as not "reputable mainstream."

Now, that's not usually much challenge at all because there's little on RT that cannot be found on other sites as well. I think it would be more appropriate to apply a different policy to RT news than to RT editorializing.

[sabrina 1]

20. Who can't use RT?? I have RT on my lineup and I and assume anyone else

can use RT as the incredibly reliable news source it is if their cable lineup doesn't include it by going to their excellent online site.

Of course she can use it. The whole world uses it as it is one of the most popular and considered to be one of the most credible news sites in the world right now.

And now in the US it is being used over the Corporate Media by huge numbers of people. I think this is why Americans are more informed now than ever before. They have access to so many more media than they had back when Bush was able to lie us into war.

What are you talking about 'she can't use it'. Everyone can use it and almost everyone is using it.

[bahrbearian]

49. She meant the we can't use RT as a source in LBN,

Skinner posted it was OK for the LBN Hosts to lock RT posts http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593182

[sabrina 1]

79. Really? I thought these were community decisions. What about RT news have they

exposed as 'unreliable'? I have seen a few people try to discredit it, but they have never been able to point to a single news report that was incorrect.

So what are the standards here now? If RT is unreliable, so is every other non-corporate government funded media.

That would include NPR, btw, are they locking NPR here now too?

[sabrina 1]

10. Well, Rumsfeld and his fellow war criminals used to hate Al Jazeera when it really

was doing a good job reporting on their criminal war.

If he's pleased with it now, it shows that bombing it didn't work, BUYING it and controlling it as they do our MSM, was the only way to do it.

Al Jazeera lost much of its credibility during the Libya invasion because NATO was using Qatar Troops to deceive the world about what most in the ME and Africa knew was a manufactured by the West, 'revolution'.

Qatar supplied troops we no one wants to see US troops anywhere in the ME anymore.

We now use proxy armies, which no one denies.

There was proof that their coverage was deliberately biased which was a shame. I have stopped donating to them.

People want to see real news, not 'messages' as Hillary called our 'news'.

I'm not sure why the Qatar Government stopped giving Al Jazeera's reporters the freedom they had for a while, but they did..

So I agree, I would be very wary of them now that they are being controlled by one of our dictator allies who seems to have 'come around' since the old Bush days.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I just looked at the AJ homepage, and I'm not seeing this dictatorial control...

The opinion pieces are overwhelmingly opposed to any US strike on Syria and speak of the hypocrisy of the West.

I'm curious. Why would you urge people to be wary of AJ, and then in the next breath urge people to embrace Russia Today, which is controlled by the Russian government, doesn't criticise the Russian government, and from what I saw when I looked at it, is totally supportive of Russia's anti-gay laws?

I've got three sources bookmarked that I read every day. They're The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and Al Jazeera. I looked at Russia Today for the first time yesterday, and based on what I read there about LGBT rights and about an almost total lack of press freedom in Russia, it's not something I'll be using as a go-to source for anything.

I also found this article from Der Spiegel about RT

Russia Today: Putin's Weapon in the War of Images

Russian President Vladimir Putin has created an anti-CNN for Western audiences with the international satellite news network Russia Today. With its recipe of smart propaganda, sex appeal and unlimited cash, it is outperforming its peers worldwide.

<snip>

Margarita Simonyan is the woman who shaped Russia Today into Russia's most effective weapon in the battle for influencing the opinions of the global public. In her office on the eighth floor of its headquarters in Moscow, the editor-in-chief has Orthodox icons on her desk and a dozen flickering screens around it. Putin made Simonyan the head of the new station in 2005. At the time, she was only 25 and derided as an unknown reporter from the crowd of journalists that accompany the president at meetings.

Simonyan's mission is to prevent Russia from ever losing a war of images like the one it did in August 2008. At the time, Russian tanks were advancing into the southern Caucasus, stopping just short of Tbilisi, the capital of the small country of Georgia. The young Georgian president at the time, Mikheil Saakashvili -- eloquent and educated in the United States -- appeared on all channels to condemn Russia as an aggressor, even though he had provoked the war and was the first to order an invasion of the separatist republic of South Ossetia, which has close ties with Russia.

CNN showed images of destroyed buildings, allegedly taken after a Russian bomb strike on the Georgian provincial city of Gori. According to Russia Today, however, they were actually shots of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali after a Georgian attack. "There is no objectivity," Simonyan says today, "only approximations of the truth by as many different voices as possible."

Mistrust of the domestic media is also greater than ever in the United States. CNN, for example, is struggling to cope with a massive loss of viewers. And sometimes US politicians make it particularly easy for the Russians to launch their attacks. When the plane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales was forced to land in Vienna because US intelligence agencies believed that Snowden was on board, Abby Martin expressed what many were thinking: "Who the hell does Obama think he is?"

At the same time, Russia Today also uses a chaotic mixture of conspiracy theories and crude propaganda. On the program "The Truthseeker," the attack on the Boston Marathon, in which two ethnic Chechens killed three people with bombs in April, mutated into a US government conspiracy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-war-of-images-and-propaganda-with-russia-today-channel-a-916162.html

[sabrina 1]

142. Al Jazeera exhibited so much propagandistic bias over Libya that it caused a huge

blow to their credibility. Not to mention that it wasn't just the viewers and readers opinion, the bias was fully exposed, acknowledged with the stepping down of a major Producer, showing that the Qatar Government WAS controlling the NEWS on Al Jazeera.

Your own link shows how unreliable CNN has become which is why it can't attract viewers here anymore. The American people now go to Award Winning News Sources like RT, (despite being only about two years old received the prestigious Monte Carlo Award for its 24 hour News Coverage this year).

What Journalistic Awards has CNN received lately?

If you are just now looking at RT, and reading a piece of propaganda from Der Spiegel, yes all news media have their biased opinion pieces, then I don't understand your supporting a clearly wrong decision, as evidenced by the huge popularity of RT in the US.

I trust the millions of Americans who have left CNN to go find real news than a few people on a website, or a biased opinion piece on a German news paper.

RT is a reliable source and will remain so, and any Democratic site that censors it will be losing not only credibility, they will be losing members. We've had enough of this kind of censorship here in the US over the past ten years.

[1-Old-Man]

19. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but its still better than FOX or CNN and it beats the hell ....

Do you for one moment think its coverage and messaging is really any different than ABC, CBS, or NBC - or even the god damned Discovery set of Channels? Hell no, in fact I find it much more insightful than any of the crap peddled by our "main stream media". At least we know who owns AJA. Tell me who it is at GE that decides what you get to see and hear.

[sabrina 1]

22. We'll see how good it is now that the Qatar Government has joined the Nato

mission of invading the countries they have had on their list for a long time.

International Al Jazeera was great, but became very biased over Libya due to the fact that Qatar had troops in Libya pretending to be Libyans.

[Catherina]

48. Yes indeed and, it's less shrill but it's changed over the years

We don't disagree about that. If anything, you're making one of my secondary points better than I am.

WHO at GE decides how the news is presented by the corporate-owned news media?

WHO at sweatshop Disney decides?



Reagan handed our news media over to corporations. It sucks.

Back in 1983 it was bad enough that about 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. But since that time, power over the media has rapidly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people....

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … In 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … In 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … In 2000 AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation was more than 1,000 times larger (than the biggest deal of 1983).

--Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

Al Jazeera will do great reporting on some issues. On others, like the Syria situation or anything that affects the Emir's profits, don't expect much. When it comes to promoting internal strife in the Middle East and painting Islamic extremists in a better light, that's what they're best at. No news that's unfavorable to Qatar is allowed and any news concerning Saudi Arabia has to be approved at executive level ever since the Emir and the House of Saud patched things up over their pipelines.

I'm not telling anyone not to watch it. I watch it myself, though much less often since their coverage of Libya.

I'm just informing people who Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera America serve and why coverage about things that concern their interests, can't be taken any more seriously than coverage from other news sources protecting their own interests too.

Anything is better than FOX or CNN.

[dipsydoodle]

24. I've given up watching it.

I prefer RT News.

[Catherina]

51. Same here. It's a lot more objective and balanced.

Their talk show CrossFire is what our shows used to be like, 2 opposing points of view discussing things with depth and their news feed is amazing. Always up to date and accurate, pulling reliable news in from everywhere. There's no propaganda in its news feed. Not a single piece of it.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. I'm curious. Why doesn't RT being a mouthpiece of the Russian government bother you?

Also, I've read the online one, and it's pretty full on with its support of Russia's anti-gay laws. I don't understand why anyone would be promoting something like that...

[sabrina 1]

81. Then you are not familiar with the media and please don't try to use 'left' issues

as fodder, women's issues, minority issues. You are just plain wrong. I have been watching RT News since it began and it was on RT that I learned about their Gay Rights Movement with interviews etc, FAR MORE than I saw here. And yes, they did cover laws, of course back then, not so long ago the US banned Gays in the Military and Gay Marriage.

I would never have known about Russia's Gay Rights movement if it had not been covered on RT. It certainly wasn't covered on the Corporate Media here.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. I am familiar with the media

I'm not sitting here trying to promote Putin's mouthpiece as something independent and trustworthy. And I will point out that RT is supportive of Russia's anti gay laws whether people like it or not

Seeing you replied to the post where I was asking the OP a question I'd be interested in yr answer as well.

[sabrina 1]

101. So who are you promoting? Qatar's dictatorship mouth piece?

I'm still waiting for you to provide us with one example of a News Report from RT that was not accurate.

If you are so familiar with their News Reports, that should be very easy.

Thanks in advance.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Huh? I'm not promoting anyone, and AJ is NOT a mouthpiece...

I'd suggest you go read the post where I gave an example. I'm pretty sure you replied to the post I did it in.

Also, you didn't answer the question I asked you (I'd asked Catherina but she didn't reply)

I'm curious. Why doesn't RT being a mouthpiece of the Russian government bother you?

[sabrina 1]

106. Neither is RT so we are finally on the same page.

Just for clarification.

The Qatar Dictatorship funds Al Jazeera but isn't controlling it.

The Russian Government funds Rt but isn't controlling it.

Finally, now explain since we got that all cleared up, why one and not the other should be considered 'reliable'??

We are nearly there. All you have to do is explain that strange inconsistency and please provide examples if you intend to stick with the inconsistency.

Otherwise we are in agreement and both are worthwhile and reliable News Sources.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. Yr saying that the Russian government doesn't editorially control RT?

After what I've been reading about RT the past few days, I'd need some evidence of that. I'm very doubtful as Russia is right down the bottom of the list when it comes to press freedom, and I can't see how in a country with that sort of poor ranking (I think it was Reporters Without Borders that have the rankings) that the Russian government would set up a news outlet and then take a hand's off approach.

When I read the RT homepage yesterday, it was the editorial articles that set my teeth on edge. The news section looked and read no different from other news sites I read, so in the news area I'm not seeing the earth-shattering awesomeness of news we'd get nowhere else, nor did I see that Russian government control was having much of an impact when it came to the news. Personally, I'll stick to The Guardian for getting my news, as they're excellent...

I've asked Catherina a few questions about RT downthread that will help clear things up for me when she answers them, as I'm a new LBN host and have been involved in and following the discussions about RT. I'm thinking RT should be treated on an article by article basis in LBN, but I'm just one of many hosts, so in the end I'll go with what the majority think...

[sabrina 1]

112. You're veering off course here. What I am trying to establish is what constitutes a

reliable NEWS source. NEWS. I'm not interested in opinion shows, all media outlets have their opinion shows.

CNN entertains on their opinion shows, right wing morons like Paul Ryan who makes MY teeth go wild. But their NEWS is totally separate from their opinion shows. And it is pretty damn bad frankly since Ted Turner sold it.

So lets stick with the topic at hand, NEWS. What NEWS sources are reliable.

YOU provided me with the standard for judging NEWS sources.

You mentioned Government Funded as the standard.

I asked you then why we should trust Al Jazeera which is Government Funded.

Are you eg, aware of Qatar's policies on gays? You mentioned Russia's I believe, but not Qatar's. It's a bit better than our other Ally, Saudi Arabia, but not for male homosexuals.

Are you aware that Al Jazeera lost credibility by its biased reporting on Libya after the Government sent troops to Libya. There is no doubt about this.

Which means that the Qatar Government DOES control Al Jazeera's NEWS reporting.

I can provide you with proof of this.

Now show me similar evidence of RT's NEWS reporting (NOT its opinion shows) being similarly influenced by the Russian Government.

It seems to me that LBN needs more hosts because it appears that you eg, know little if anything about any of this. And if you are representative of the 'majority' of the hosts, this is very concerning.

And frankly this is very concerning not just to DUers, but to Americans in general. We have had ENOUGH of Corporate Censorship here, and it is a BIG issue here.

Are you aware that RT NEWS has been JUDGED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to be a reliable NEWS source, now one of the most watched NEWS sources in the country?

I am attempting to find out what the standards on DU are, the American people have already made that decision regarding RT as a reliable source.

And so far I am not getting consistent answers. I am seeing BIAS here, on DU.

An acceptence of selected Government and Corporate Run News sources, and a rejection of one of the most popular News Sources in this weary, propagandized nation on DU.

This is truly disturbing.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. No, government control of editorial content is the crux of the matter for me...

If there's government control of the editorial content, then that's a source I don't trust...

And I didn't mention government FUNDED as the standard. I never have. My issue is with government control...

And I'm not getting this JUDGED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE thing. Was there some poll done or something? I'm not sure what that has to do with how reputable a source is. Would that poll be residing alongside the poll that said a majority of Americans believe angels are real?

[sabrina 1]

119. LBN is not about edictorial content. You are shifting the goal posts. We are talking about

NEWS.

And btw, RT's editorial content has that famous 'liberal bias', something we longed for throughout the Bush years. Why would you object to a slight liberal bias?

Do you object to Amy Goodman on Rt?

Thom Harmann?

Howard Dean?

What are you talking about re their Editorial content, it is a Liberal's dream come true where we get to see Liberals who are pretty much banned from the Corporate Media in favor of right wing morons?

Clearly you are not informed on this at all.

Have you read some of Al Jazeera's 'editorial' content? The Guardian's? The Corporate Media's?

You are not making sense, you appear to be disturbingly biased here, not to mention uninformed on t he media in general and as such, I am concerned about who is making these decisions.

Perhaps the entire Community needs to weigh in on this. I don't spend much time on LBN frankly because most of the 'sources' ARE the 'approved' Corporate Media sources. Why is the Corporate Media which we all know is controlled, accepted as reliable?

Can you explain why the Corporate Media is a 'reliable source' on LBN? Are you at all aware of who is influencing America's media?

This is quite shocking frankly.

[Violet_Crumble]

120. I didn't say it was. Are you just ignoring the government control thing?

Liberal bias? Is that what you call RT's blatantly anti-gay editorial content?

One thing I'm sure of is I'm much more informed than you are...

What's become abundantly clear to me is that you don't have any problem with government control over the content provided by news sources, because you keep on going on about 'veering off' and 'changing the goalposts' whenever it gets mentioned...

You don't seem to get that the Russian government controls the content of RT. That's not what happens when it comes to the Guardlan, Al Jazeera, the BBC etc...

Something I've noticed. Those who are complaining the loudest about a RT OP being locked in LBN show no willingness to answer questions they're asked, nor sign up to be LBN hosts and have some input and help out. Maybe they should think about doing that rather than yelling at other DUers and telling them how they're not informed, don't understand, are practising censorship etc...

[sabrina 1]

123. I am asking FOR EVIDENCE of Government control of the NEWS content. I have

told you there was GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF AL JAZEERA'S NEWS content and I am prepared to offer you that proof.

You have made a claim that the hosts in LBN base their decision of what is reliable and what is not on GOVERNMENT CONTROL of a News Org.

Why are you having such a hard time with this?

I just learned that RT was targeted by the hosts of LBN.

I want to know, since YOU TOLD ME what they used as a standard, there is NO CONSISTENCY in this decision. WE DO HAVE PROOF of Government Control regardomg A; Jazeera, yet, as I understand it, it is considered reliable. You have FAILED to provide what I can provide re Al Jazeera, re RT.

Please stop moving the goal posts.

I am shocked to find this out and want answers.

This forum is supposed to be run by community consensus.

You have told me that a tiny fraction of DU has made this decision and I know for a fact that a whole lot of DUers want answers to why there is NO CONSISTENCY regarding the STANDARDS you your self have outlined as a host.

So, once again, 'government funding' = 'government influence'

BASED ON WHAT PROOF?

I can provide PROOF of Al Jazeera being influenced by the Government of Qatar, it was a worldwide scandal and lost Al Jazeera its long time credibility.

So, why or IS Al Jazeera considered by these hosts to be a reliable source DESPITE THE PROOF that THEIR NEWS REPORTING, (leave out opinion it has zero to do with LBN) WAS Influenced by the Qatar Government.

That is all I want to know. Why is this so hard for you to answer? You're a host no? It's extremely disturbing to me to see that you are unable to answer a simple question regarding the standards YOU TOLD ME were used for the decision on ONE NEWS SOURCE but not on others?

[Violet_Crumble]

125. And I've been asking you questions that you still haven't answered...

Instead I get what looks to be you ignoring what I've actually said and a flood of questions about other things yelled at me.

So rather than waste my time on someone who so clearly has no interest in a civil discussion, I'm going to suggest again you do either or both of the things I suggested in the post you hit reply on and posted some weird unrelated stuff...

I'll LET YOU get THE LAST word IN!

on edit: from the perspective of a new LBN host who wasn't sure about RT and wanted to find out more, I've got some advice for you and Catherina in particular. If yr trying to persuade others of something, the way to ensure failure every single time is to ignore questions those people are asking you and attack and be condescending towards those whose minds yr trying to change. So thanks I guess to both of you for providing the complete opposite of what I was looking for when I came into this thread.

Have a lovely day

[sabrina 1]

134. You introduced yourself as a host of LBN. I asked about an issue brought up in this

thread regarding a very reliable NEWS SOURCE being blocked by a small fraction of the DU community.

My question was specific to the topic you inserted yourself into. You have failed to respond to a very simple and important question to the DU community.

I am not interested in your comments on 'opinion' pieces, that is another topic.

I am interested in what DU gets as NEWS. Your responses have only caused more concern about the standards of DU's news delivery something that has attracted people here for many hears.

Now, judging by your responses, it has lost a whole lot of credibility and appears to be censoring perfectly legitimate NEWS sources watched here by intelligent ADULTS all over the country, but you are telling us that a few people have decided to censor what DUers read, making them out of the mainstream regarding how Americans now get their news.

I will not read LBN until these questions are answered, until some consistent standards are explained.

I can understand why you do not wish to continue this conversation as you appear unable to respond to a very simple and important question.

I will try to get the answer elsewhere meantime LBN has lost a whole lot of credibility for a whole lot of DUers. You can bet on that.

[Violet_Crumble]

137. I mentioned when I asked Catherina those still unanswered questions that I was a new LBN host...

Please don't take that as an invitation to ignore questions I was asking you and start flinging all caps questions at me.

Yet again yr saying I said something I never said. Where on earth did I say a few people censor DU? If you'd been following what I've said, I've pointed out that DU is privately owned, Skinner calls the shots, and what is and isn't allowed on a privately owned internet forum isn't censorship. The LBN hosts work using the SOP that Skinner set for LBN. The admins would step in if they thought the LBN hosts got anything wrong, as they've done that before with GD hosts. There's slots for 20 hosts, and most of that time there's empty slots there, which is why I suggested that those attacking LBN hosts sign up and see for themselves what hosting LBN is like. I've watched them for a long time as I'm a longtime GD host, and the amount of work they do and how well they do it is something I'm happy to give them praise for...

The reason I have no interest in continuing any conversation with you is that I find yr posts to be belligerent and quite nasty, as well as the habit of ignoring questions I've asked you.

Here's another suggestion. If you honestly want a question answered about how DU's run, Skinner's the person to ask. There's this forum called Ask The Administrators and it might be more constructive than sitting here and attacking LBN hosts.

And one last thing. Just the same as when you claimed most Americans depend on RT for their news, I don't think you have any more idea than I do what a whole lot of DUers think. But let's do a big hurrah for the politics of popularism!

Now I really am wishing you a very lovely afternoon

[sabrina 1]

141. Skinner has said the standards of this forum are decided by the community.

Here in this thread we learned of a decision made by a few hosts which certainly doesn't represent the community. No one put words in your mouth, if this is not the case and there was some COMMUNITY consensus regarding this decision, then please point to it.

Or if the administration has a list of banned sources, something I have not seen.

I asked a simple question, what are the standards that determine a NEWS Source is unreliable.

I have not received an answer.

I just watched an excellent discussion on RT btw on Russia's LGBT's laws, community and it's activist community represented on the forum by a Gay Rights Activist. Not the first such program by any means. Unlike our MSN who rarely had such discussions and certainly never acknowledged the deep discrimination here in this country, no one on that forum denied the issues in Russia regarding the LGBT community.

I have seen false statements here regarding RT and its coverage of these issues. I will not stand by and allow people to make false statements about anything if I know them to be false.

As I said, LBN has lost credibility tonight. And that is a shame. I live here in NY and nearly everone I know here and in Ca where I lived until a few months ago, use RT as a reliable NEWS SOURCE. Especially Democrats. DU if it continues these ban these mainstream sources will find itself marginalized from the larger community. It was a bad decision. If my expressing my opinion is 'nasty' to you, then I suppose I could say the same about you.

But I don't find your disagreement with me to be 'nasty', I find name-calling and insults to be 'nasty'. Disagreements are simply that and as a host one should expect disagreement on issues as important as this.

Also I am willing to discuss anything with anyone, no matter how nasty they choose to be. There would be no point being on a discussion forum if I didn't want to discuss not just with those I agree with, but with those I disagree with also.

Sorry you view disagreement as nasty. It isn't.

[joshcryer]

129. Thank you Violet_Crumble for recognisting RTs homophobia.

I wrote a post here about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/113729757

RT is very propagandistic in general, their writing is designed specifically to trick the consumer into believing their lies. I recall the Russian protests and how RT reported on them and contrasted that to the Greek protests.

In Greece Russia called the protesters "anti-austerity protesters," and painted them in a very favorable light and came down hard on the police acting against them.

In Russia? They called the protesters "anti-government protesters," and defended the police by pointing out protesters attacking the police!

I can find other citations for this but RT simply is not a good source at all for progressives to aspire to, their "leftist" reporting is veiled propaganda hiding in plain site. Right wing nationalism disguised as left wing progressivism.

[Violet_Crumble]

135. Thanks for the link to that thread, Josh...

I hadn't seen that before. All I know was when I went looking at RT the other day, all of the articles about the anti-gay laws in Russia were supportive of the laws, yet in this thread someone was trying to tell me that RT's progressive and liberal when it comes to their editorial content. I think homophobic and bigoted are the words that they should have been using instead

[joshcryer]

138. Have a quick look at how they report on protests:

Russia's June 2013 protests is basically riddled with discussion of the May 6, 2012 protest: http://rt.com/politics/opposition-march-moscow-bolotnaya-576/

Followed by very strong imagery of police presence. Read the comment section at the bottom to really get a feel for their true nature (most of the comments are pro-Russian nationalism).

Then you look at this Feb. 2013 Greece protests article: http://rt.com/news/greece-national-strike-rally-128/

They condemn the police and basically do the exact opposite of what they did in the Russian article!

The difference between RT and AJE / AJA is that Al Jazeera simply doesn't report on Qatar at all. It doesn't white wash Qatar, it doesn't lie or have a double standard. In fact, some of the recent resignations in Al Jazeera was that Al Jazeera was too supportive of democratic action (they supported Morsi against the liberals wanting his ouster; which, as a matter of fact, many DUers did).

I haven't seen Al Jazeera America but since 40% of its programming will be Al Jazeera English I suspect it shouldn't be too bad. I know that Al Jazeera America will probably be more US-centric and appeal to US likes and dislikes so it can make money. But I do not agree with the characterization of Al Jazeera by the OP at all. It's nothing like RT.

[KoKo]

26. Hillary applauded Al Jazeera!

I personally like RT America for their reports, discussion and the Progressive Left emphasis.

He knows what he's doing and beats out MSNBC who has to answer to the Corporations.

I know many feel Putin/Russia is doing this as Propaganda....but then "Voice of America" is now pushing stuff over here in the US after the overhaul of "Smith-Mundt" act against American Propagandizing against it's own People!

So....I get my news from many sources. Not all have the time to do that. I work at home on our business...so I can do breaks on that stuff.

But...then...many of us "Work from Home" in the NEW AMERICA ECONOMY.

[dipsydoodle]

27. Check out France 24 too.

[Cleita]

30. Yes. I like them very much from what I have seen. n/t

[KoKo]

55. Irish TV...and Euro News.........(plus those above)

If you SEEK you will FIND!

I love the wit and discussion on RT... Reminds me of the "old days" on DU when we were WARRIORS for TRUTH! 's.

[dipsydoodle]

64. I've got 16 channels including China :)

Yes both RT and France 24 have good discussions and documentaries too.

[KoKo]

84. Cable, Satellite or "Other?"

I have a box.

[dipsydoodle]

144. Sky Satellite

and I've a box too which don't actually get used much. I tend to channel flick and see what catches my eye and looks interesting - France 24 have some good environmental features. Its also interesting to see who picks up what first on their news ticker - Bloomberg are pretty good at that.

[Catherina]

80. Do you have links for those two? n/t

[KoKo]

88. PM Me...I'm worried my access will be corrupted! LOL's

But, seriously...

Some folks have access to Satellite where they get extra channels and others get extended access from high tier cable.

I have Time Warner Basic...and could only get what I watch...from "other."

PM me.

[Catherina]

59. It's propaganda war time, hence increased censorship of anything weakening the propaganda

Putin's doing it because he was sick of how the Western media was portraying Russian affairs.

It comes down to this.. "if you want the truth about the USA...watch RT America...if you want the truth about Russia, watch France24...if you want the truth about France, watch Deutsche Welle.....anyone who thinks CNN or any other American news outlet is not American propaganda is a fool."

[Cleita]

29. They are funded by the Qatar regime, which is

funding the Syrian rebels, yet they are doing some excellent unbiased reporting since Obama's speech this morning, much better than what is coming from MSNBC. I hope they continue to do so. I am looking forward to Amy Goodman's reporting next week. She's whom I really trust.

[Catherina]

69. They'll do good work on issues that don't conflict with the Emir's pocketbook or Saudi Arabia's

I admit they'll do good work on issues that don't conflict with the Emir's pocketbook, but on anything that paints the extremists they fund all over the Middle East in a bad light, or the Muslim Brotherhood, they get an F.

Contrary to what the neocons and the oil lobby say, Saudi Arabia and Qatar's interests aren't the American people's. That's where people need to be careful because it's their mouthpiece.

Amy Goodman is a national treasure who would be running CNN if we had an honest media.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. In Soviet Russia, you do both sides. n/t

[Catherina]

70. Is that a saying? n/t

[geek tragedy]

33. Aw, the old USSR fan club has a sad that Putin's RT is considered

to lack credibility.

[dipsydoodle]

35. USSR ?

We have ways and means anyway.

[geek tragedy]

38. The folks talking about how awesome Putin News is

think the US is the bad guy in every single dispute or disagreement it has with any nation on the planet. Assad, Gaddhafi, Putin, etc are the good guys when they clash with the US, or at least victims of the mean Americans.

[dipsydoodle]

42. Mutually exclusive

The US having demonstrated they are the bad guys by acting solely in their own selfish interest in the past does not make the others the good guys.

Where would you like me to start ? Guatemala and the Dulles brothers ?

[geek tragedy]

45. Oh, the us has done plenty wrong.

Outsourcing our Latin America policy to UFC being among them.

But promoting the bigoted mouthpiece of a dictator just because he generally opposes US policy?

[sabrina 1]

136. That is false statement about DUers and you should apologize right now for making it.

DUers focus on ISSUES and will never, ever support Right Wing issues, no matter who is pushing them here on DU or anywhere else.

RT is one of the most watched NEWS organizations here in the US now and considered to be one of the most reliable.

Your childish references only emphasize why so many Democrats are disgusted with what is going on with OUR PARTY.

I am still trying to get an answer as to why a reliable NEWS SOURCE is being blocked by a small fraction of the DU community, causing what used to be one of DU's best features, to have lost a whole lot of credibility.

Give on example of a NEWS REPORT on RT that was 'unrelialbe'. Pay attention to the words "NEWS SOURCE". Putin has been trashed on RT. So you have totally discredited yourself with that childish comment, just FYI.

[joshcryer]

143. Indeed.

Even going so far as to invent RT programs defending LGBT rights (note: they don't exist and they are unable to provide a link to said programs for that simple reason).

[Junkdrawer]

40. You miss the Cold War, fess up....

Not to worry...

[Jefferson23]

61. I think what you have assembled here and I may be wrong, but it seemed clear to me

your OP was offering a cautionary tale...is that a fair assessment?

I read many sources, some here on DU would find objectionable, but that's fine with me.
I generally use a compass of who wrote it, researched it, as opposed to be overly worried about who
owns the website and their political views that I may have objections with. I don't think you were suggesting
people should abandon this publication nor the BBC, but be aware of the transformation.

Thanks for the OP Catherina.


Anyway, I wanted to offer this about Al Jazerra, b/c there was as your OP points out a change:

Al Jazeera and U.S. Foreign Policy:
What WikiLeaks' U.S. Embassy Cables Reveal about U.S. Pressure and Propaganda
by Maximilian C. Forte

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/forte220911.html

[Catherina]

73. Cautionary tale especially in view of that slippery slope of censoring RT in LBN

My post started out in response to a thread about a host decision to censor RT in LBN, but it was locked by the time I hit post.

People who are knocking RT's excellent and balanced news coverage because it gets funding from the Russian Government, or incorrectly stating it's the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, should be aware of this information because AJE and AJAM are the mouthpiece of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And BBC World is the mouthpiece of the UK government, the State Dept and Bill Gates.

What matters is the reliability of the news.

Consistency is imperative.

Thanks for your link. It helps explains the change in Al Jazeera. I bookmarked it.

The U.S. Embassy in Doha, and officials from Washington, used a variety of direct and indirect methods of ensuring a greater degree of compliance on the part of Al Jazeera. These methods included placing speakers on Al Jazeera news programs; supplying information approved by the U.S. Government; providing U.S. training for Al Jazeera's journalists; demanding editorial distortion of aired programs; securing Al Jazeera's agreement to check first with U.S. officials before airing "sensitive" programs; monitoring of Al Jazeera in minute detail, ranging from its news coverage to its internal structure and policies; lodging complaints with Qatari government ministers; constant, personal visits to Al Jazeera's headquarters; developing familiarity and close personal contacts with Al Jazeera staff; and going over the head of the Managing Director of Al Jazeera to ensure that "objectionable content" was removed and never repeated.

Mainstreaming, professionalism, balance, and objectivity emerge as the chosen tropes for a journalism that favors U.S. foreign policy. U.S. officials did not overtly threaten Al Jazeera staff, nor did they engage in any crass form of bribery. The intervention was more polite, prolonged, and intimate. In the process of reading these cables we learn that, for the U.S. Government, Al Jazeera was valued as a strategic tool, as a credible proxy for U.S. "public diplomacy." We hear senior Al Jazeera executives describe themselves as "partners" and "assets" of the U.S. We also learn about the degree to which Al Jazeera is controlled by the Qatari state and used as a foreign policy instrument. We witness the degree to which Al Jazeera English is almost entirely a foreign import, not even pretending to speak as the "voice of the Arabs" and operating as a colonial transplant. The picture of Al Jazeera revealed through the cables is a grim one, and it is not likely that Al Jazeera can proceed unscathed.

...

Likewise, we must note that the U.S. Embassy told Washington that it was ready to help exploit Al Jazeera's openness "through direct diplomacy with Qatar's ruling family and members of Al Jazeera's Doha headquarters." Elsewhere, Ambassador LeBaron insisted that,

to help improve the USG's image on the Arab street, we need to step up USG senior-level engagement of the Qatari leadership. Better relations with the ruling al-Thani family will translate into changes in al-Jazeera coverage that will gradually help improve the image of the United States in the Arab street.

While admitting that Al Jazeera has been great for Qatar's, and the Emir's, international public profile, Khanfar asserted that Al Jazeera did not see itself as part of any reform movement, nor was it the voice of the Arabs.

...

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/forte220911.html

[Jefferson23]

78. I thought that's where you were coming from, thanks.

watch out for my nasty socialist publication now, lol.

[Catherina]

86. I just gave you a hat tip in the thread about NSA spying on Al-Jazeera

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023572164

Between NSA, media intimidation and the censors, pretty soon all we'll have is State Dept-approved news.

[Jefferson23]

90. Thanks

[Violet_Crumble]

99. I'm a new LBN host, and I've got some questions for you about RT...

especially when it comes to equating it to the BBC and Al Jazeera...

My understanding of RT is that it was set up and is being run by the Russian government as a propaganda outlet so that things like Russia's slaughter of Chechens a few years ago have a 'balanced' counterweight when it comes to the world's media showing images that Russia didn't want people to see. And that RT is controlled by the Russian government. You won't see anything critical of the Russian government from RT. I was really disturbed when I looked at it for the first time the other day and found articles highly supportive of Russia's anti-gay laws.

So have I got that wrong? I'm open to being corrected on that if I'm wrong...

One thing I have noticed mainly from yr post to Skinner in ATA is that you appeared to be trying to draw no distinction between government owned and controlled media (RT) and government owned media (the BBC, the ABC here, etc) where the government doesn't have editorial control. I think it's important to draw that distinction, because both BBC and the ABC are very reputable news outlets, and there's no government control over their content, and I know the ABC has regularly been critical of the government of the day. My problem is that I can't call a government owned and controlled news outlet balanced or independent when the fact that there is government control over what they report says otherwise...

btw, I think yr using the term 'censorship' when it comes to LBN incorrectly. Censorship applies at a government level, not at DU where Skinner owns and runs the site and has the final say in what is and isn't posted here. As an LBN host who knew little to nothing of RT before the other day, I'm all for RT articles being treated on a case by case basis in LBN as long as the same applies to sources like Press TV, which even though I've asked several times, no-one has been able to explain the difference when it comes to government control...

[liberal_at_heart]

63. I haven't seen any bias but I am independently minded enough to ignore any propaganda if it

comes up. From what I've seen so far I like Al Jazeera America.

[Catherina]

74. It's got some good points and some bad. Like all of them.

I plan to watch them when they have good programs but people need to be aware of their bias.

[MFrohike]

87. Thought everyone knew it

AJ is good with the rest of the world, but don't trust them on the Middle East. I learned it when they completely ignored the Saudi uprising two years ago and skirted around the Arab Spring as much as they could.

[Catherina]

92. I thought they did a decent job on Egypt

then got bad when Libya happened. When Libya started, I felt I was watching BBC because there was a sudden influx of blondes with British accents. I remember thinking WTF.

The Emir also uses it for his personal grudges. At one time he was using it against Saudi Arabia, then they patched things up and now their journalists can't report anything about SA without getting executive authorization first.

[Liberal Veteran]

95. I'm not sure who, without a financial stake in something, would have the means to fund a news org.

Particularly one of this size.

[Catherina]

111. +1. They spent $1 Billion just to fund AJAM. They've got a huge stake.

Larger even than GE's stake in acquiring NBC. NBC is headquartered in GE's building, so whose mouthpiece are they?

[Violet_Crumble]

115. Hey, you must have missed the questions I asked you upthread...

Here they are again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3573382

Yr arguing that RT should be allowed as a source in LBN, so I would have thought you'd at least be slightly interested in answering some questions you were asked about it

[orpupilofnature57]

103. It was MSM then .

[libdem4life]

107. Today's Freedom Fighter is Tomorrow's Terrorist who then becomes the Freedom Fighter who

kills the newest Terrorist fighting the old Freedom Fighter ... it's all so confusing. Follow the Power/Empire/Money/Mineral Rights et al. Nothing new under the Sun.

[Jefferson23]

109. lol, I like this post. n/t

[Catherina]

124. +1 n/t

[Raksha]

116. So that's another thing my Syrian friend was right about.

He's someone I know in RL, not online. I asked him for a reliable source for news about Syria (in English), and I suggested Al-Jazeera. He replied that Al-Jazeera was not to be trusted, but didn't explain why. So over the next week I located what I believe are a few reliable sources of my own.

I wish I could explain further, but I've been on the computer arguing with people all day, and I'm kind of burned out at the moment.

[Catherina]

122. It's not just your friend and I know what you mean

I'm going to take a break too and switch to twitter right now because I've missed a ton of important news this afternoon/evening

[Egalitarian Thug]

118. Automatic K&R n/t

[alarimer]

132. It's unreliable only because it opposes the Obama war-cheerleading

By the "It's okay if it's by a Democrat" faction.

Apparently being blood-thirsty for another illegal war is a requirement for being a good Democrat these days and any media outlet that doesn't follow has some ulterior motive.

When are you throwing Democracy Now under the bus? Or Pacifica Radio?

[BlueToTheBone]

133. Why does it have CNN stamp all over it?

[Scuba]

145. Yes, we should limit ourselves to only one source of propaganda.

Getting propaganda from a second source will just confuse us.