Gay reporter DESTROYS Russia Today RT TV, kicked out by Kremlin. RT is over.

[uhnope]

&feature=player_embedded
RT only talks about Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden because it's anti-American fodder. I hope this vid makes people stop citing RT. It's the Putin-powered FOX news of Russia.

Reporter James Kirchick was kicked off the air of Russian TV Wednesday after he refused to talk about Bradley Manning and instead spoke about the Russian government's anti-gay laws.

"Being here on a Kremlin-funded propaganda network, I'm going to wear my gay pride suspenders and speak out against the horrific, anti-gay legislation that Vladimir Putin has signed into law," Kirchick said.

RT is funded by the Russian government, which recently passed a sweeping law that bans the public discussion of gay rights and relationships in the presence of children.

As Kirchick continued to speak about the laws and the government's funding of the network, one RT host insisted to Kirchick, "You have to come over here and see for yourself."

"You have 24 hours a day to lie about America, I am going to tell the truth with my two minutes," Kirkchick went on to say after RT hosts tried to cut him off.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. I wonder if the "discussion" was claiming gay rights activists are defending perverts.

[proud patriot]

2. he's going to be on Lawrence O'Donnell tonight

Lawrence gave him a standing O last night while covering this story.

[pancha]

3. You sure swallowed that stunt hook, line & sinker!

No mention of the fact that the "journalist" in question, James Kirchick, is a fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies?

Or was that simply not an important fact to you?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-11-06jk.html

[hrmjustin]

4. Was he fired for being gay or being a fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of

Democracies?

[pancha]

5. Why does he need to be fired to be discredited?

Or do you also just ingest whatever Fox News and the talking heads on every other network spout off simply because they're employed by someone?

I'm not saying the guy didn't have a right to make a scene -- though he's been widely discredited on basically all of his points, RT does cover the gay propaganda laws, though not nearly as scathingly as Western media does, though then again they are based in Moscow and are obliged to reflect the unfortunate laws' support in a conservative country.

All I'm saying is that the guy just made a scene in a panel that was supposed to be about an entirely different and valid topic, but no one is asking who he is, or what his motives may have been. He's credible because he's "gay"? What about all the rest of his odious views?

[hrmjustin]

6. I was just asking a question because I did not know the answer.

As for the Russian laws they are evil.

[dawn frenzy adams]

13. Yep.

I agree.

[geek tragedy]

19. They were cool with him being a Neocon when they asked him to do the interview. nt

[uhnope]

7. whaat? he might be a pro-Israel zealot but he kicked ass like Code Pink on Putin and RT

According to this, his main conservative tendencies are around being a hardcore Zionist http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/kirchick_james

You're not going to bat for RT, are you?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. And there is your clue.

Also, sometimes homophobia is OK, it just depends on the target. I would say sarcasm, but it really seems to be that way, just check out about any thread on Lindsey Graham. Hell, just look at some of the posts on Russia in the past three weeks. Of course, today, transphobia has exploded all over the webs.

[Sand Wind]

11. Yes, someone choose a new name and logo just to do that here...

[uhnope]

18. Could you two decode that for the rest of us? nt

[cprise]

14. Yeah, they may be reinforcing an association there

with gays as one of the faces of American imperialism (which is real, BTW). That would be a tragic outcome from encouraging neocon idiots like Kirchick.

As for RT, I still think their POV is valuable on many issues. They have given a platform back to American Liberals who were taken off the air by plutocrats. I don't see them as inherently any less democratic than our mass media corps--who are owned by the same banks that own our government.

FWIW, even the BBC's foreign operations (which I believe to be much larger than their license-funded domestic news service) is funded by the British government.

They are all guilty of having phobias and anti-something attitudes.

[uhnope]

16. RT has value the way FOX has value in a twisted way

but that's all. It's dripping with bias and agenda.
You are right, of course, that they all have some bias. For example, though NPR is devoutly middle of the road and has a great breadth of coverage than the more commercial networks, it is afraid (phobic, as you might say) to be seen as progressive and so avoids hard-core issues. But RT and FOX are ridiculous and not to be taken seriously.

[cprise]

20. The US encircling the globe with military bases

is dripping with bias and agenda. And its not like we aren't inadvertently supplying foreign networks with unprecedented amounts of interesting material. (When was the last time that any nation kept 1% of its adult population in prison, with 20% of adults having been through the system?)

Between RT and Fox, the former is easily the more factually accurate network. The difference in global warming coverage alone is enough to put RT in a different class and redeems a lot of their shortcomings in my book. RT's bias comes mainly from the topics they choose to focus on or ignore. Fox is an echo-chamber for an endless stream of outright lies... it isn't mere bias, its blatant misinformation.

So, your opinion of the two networks seems like an exercise in false equivalency to me.

The Russian government has nothing to gain by having a network named "Russia Today" dispensing falsehoods to a foreign audience that already have their domestic, primary news sources. That would be asking to have their national prestige suffer for no good reason. Its the same logic that applies to BBC World Service and Voice Of America.

[uhnope]

21. Don't make the black-and-white mistake

I don't understand your first sentence, what bases have to do with this.

Don't make the black-and-white mistake, that because the US is terrible in many ways, its (former) enemy the USSR or current semi-foe Russia is not. Just to take your example, Russia was the leader in prison population until fairly recently when it started emptying some of its prisons, and it is still second in incarceration rates among the major nations. Russia via the USSR was also despoiling, robbing and militarizing the world with a vengeance until its system collapsed. I know, I lived in some of those places in the aftermath. To gain perspective, compare the US occupation of Japan or West Germany after WW2 with the Russian occupation of Czech Republic or East Germany. As much as I decry the soulless materialism of the western way, the Russian way was the iron fist, prison for the slightest protest, gulags full of political prisoners.

The choice of stories, the way of presentation, the avoidance of criticism of policy of a de-facto dictator--no, sorry, RT is to be taken with massive amounts of salt, enough to make anyone gag.

[cprise]

24. Think harder.

I doubt many here would see dualism in my replies, nor do we need another high school history lesson. US media is chock full of Russophobia, and I don't recall seeing any modern Russian characters in Hollywood shows who weren't either evil, or good by virtue of trying to become American. I detest dualism as much as I do double standards and (aptly here) jingoism.

OTOH false equivalency is a sensitive subject here. Conservatives got away with murder due in part to that kind of rhetorical abuse.

I know, I lived in some of those places in the aftermath. To gain perspective, compare the US occupation of Japan or West Germany after WW2 with the Russian occupation of Czech Republic or East Germany.

You might gain a less parochial perspective on history via Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein.

Enjoy your stay here on DU.

[uhnope]

25. try again. your answer doesn't make much sense, really,

What does the evil Russian antagonist in Hollywood movies prove? There might be some connection to the point to you in your mind, but hello, there are other people out here. Or do those characters just hurt your feelings?

You don't explain what is parochial in being honest about the soul-crushing history of Russia's actions, and name-dropping Chomsky and Zinn is a lazy shortcut to thought. You seem to want to give a pass to Putin while assuming the worst about the USA. Maybe that's not right, but how would anyone know.

Your answer is laughable, actually. This:

The Russian government has nothing to gain by having a network named "Russia Today" dispensing falsehoods to a foreign audience that already have their domestic, primary news sources.

Oh, hmm, because you can't understand a motivation for them doing that means that it's not happening.

You mention "jingoism" when this was never about the USA at all, it was about Russia. You just plain seem to have a problem with someone calling Russia on their human rights infamy generally and criticizing Putin's mouthpiece RT specifically.

You've mumbled and name-dropped so far without making any real point. There's a saying that a point that can't be made clearly in straightforward words is not a point worth making.

[cprise]

28. You're more than a decade late for that

I don't hash out 100 years of world history with random jingoists, and good luck trying to find anyone else here who will indulge you. There is a huge trove of past conversations here that you can read, but history books are quicker.

My dropping of authors' names looks lazy to you because you have no familiarity with them and I don't speak the language of American exceptionalism. Well, consider yourself introduced to a Progressive reading of history!

As for Hollywood, they're really just an extension of the same info-tainment complex these days. News is fictionalized to dovetail with the stereotypes and narratives that suit the ruling elite's objectives; In particular, states and cultures that don't permit the corporate globalization model of selling off land and resources under fire-sale circumstances to Wall St. banks are demonized.

The difference here to what you were saying is that I don't think RT stoops to the level of Fox news, nor do I think Russia is in a position any longer to misrepresent events to the same extent as US organs. I only watch an hour or two of RT per week, but I don't recall them ever making it a habit to invite guests on their network for the purpose of angrily shouting them down with insightful rejoinders like "Shut up!" and cutting off their mics. That's how Fox gained its following. And that's without the guests trying to hijack the discussion to an unrelated subject as we see here.

In this specific case, I can't really disagree with Kirchik's tactic (I have mixed feelings about the content, stammered out as it was). But neither do I object to the way the RT staff handled it.

You mention "jingoism" when this was never about the USA at all, it was about Russia.

Well the segment was about Bradley Manning, and it turned into a squabble between anti-US propaganda and anti-Russian propaganda. I think you're being presumptuous in trying to make it all about Russia. There is a certain irony in the way you phrased that, however.

The reference to Russia's "human rights infamy" sounds to me like vague nonsense that may be reaching too far into the past.

I don't intend to give Putin or Russian society a 'pass' on this issue and I don't agree with their new law. I'm glad people are making it an issue. OTOH, its not clear to me how it rates compared to other burning issues of today. Politicians in Uganda want to execute gay people because of incitement and panic created by American evangelicals, who claimed they discovered a "gay agenda" emanating from the US that plans to sexually assault Ugandan children to convert them into homosexuals.

[cascadiance]

26. I think that Thom Hartmann would take that characterization as an insult for his RT show...

I don't think that RT has shown any evidence that I've seen yet of trying to exercise editorial control over his show content. They probably realize that his commentary is quite good enough without any control to give both Democratic and Republican administrations a black eye when they are wrong.

Any dripping bias on that show is Thom's own bias, and the bias of some of the other talkers he argues with from time to time.

[DonCoquixote]

27. what

gays as one of the faces of American imperialism (which is real, BTW).

Please do not tell me you are saying that being gay is imperialist?

[cprise]

29. No, I'm saying imperialism is real

...not just some odd word Americans are supposed to roll their eyes at (like capitalism, socialism, exceptionalism, neoliberal, oligarchy, etc.). I could have been more clear about that, so thanks for mentioning it.

I think there is a risk that gays and other groups could become associated with American imperialism, especially if their concerns are used as a pretext for aggression.

[Sand Wind]

8. I dont care about that, yes...

[Sand Wind]

9. You have 24 hours a day to lie about America, I am going to tell the truth with my two minutes

Lol, so true !

[dawn frenzy adams]

12. He didn't handle it well

I do not think this is the right tactic when dealing with Russia. After all, we can't hound them about gay rights when we have 2 million people in prison. We have stop and frisk. Women are losing their reproductive rights. Besides when America was in the throes of Jim Crow, the Russians never advocated boycotting the Olympics.

Martin Luther King was always diplomatic when he plead for equality. After seeing this guy, I hope there will not be a backlash against Gays in Russia. That's who this young man should have been concerned about. Yes, he is right in is advocacy, but he handled it poorly. Tonight he can sleep safely in his bed. But we don't know what the consequences may be in Russia.

[Lenomsky]

15. Um ok ...

RT only talks about Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden because it's anti-American fodder. I hope this vid makes people stop citing RT. It's the Putin-powered FOX news of Russia.

I think we the people can decide what is or is not relevant/true from New pieces on RT, BBC, Fox, Al Jazeera etc while I never watch Fox I do watch the others .. oft times things unreported by one News outlet is covered by another.

All News outlets have their own agenda.

[uhnope]

17. When a news source reports something that we don't hear at all anywhere else, that's true, but

I don't agree that habitually watching a channel that's loaded with strong bias and agenda is a good idea. Nobody can detect every lie or obfuscation every time, even when we think we are good at it. I have often had the experience of reading a piece or watching a program on a subject new to me when I will catch something that I know to be not true or a distortion of the story; at that point, I have no idea whether the new info I've just heard wasn't also falsehoods or twisted facts. I will then doubt the value of the whole program or article, and maybe stop reading that publication or watching that news program.

Think about it this way. Do you really think most FOX news viewers are critically deciding on what is relevant or true? I don't, and in my experience I know they are not.

[cprise]

22. You don't have any idea what RT viewers are like, do you?

They are mainly outside of Russia (i.e. rest of the world) and grazing on diverse sources of news on the Web.

"Habitually watching" RT? LOL.

Think about it this way. Do you really think most FOX news viewers are critically deciding on what is relevant or true?

Fox viewers are almost diametrically opposite to RT viewers (and US Liberals) in their news habits (academic studies support this; its not just my opinion). They stick with one or two domestic sources that form cornerstones of the Republican echo chamber.

Now, why don't you go construct some straw men so you can have a panic attack about Voice Of America?

[napoleon_in_rags]

30. I agree on RT viewers.

I watch RT, love the liberal commentators, interesting to hear the Russian perspective on news. When I hear this guy going off the term "overplaying ones hand" comes to mind. If we really start looking at LGBT abuses, there's a lot of countries a lot higher on the list, with a lot less being said about them.

[dipsydoodle]

31. Dream on.

.