PressTV and RT are NOT news organizations

[RZM]

They are English-language outlets for Iranian and Russian propaganda. They (especially RT) tailor their message to the Western left by selectively 'reporting' what people already want to hear, making up other items out of thin air, and omitting anything and everything that might call into question the views they are peddling.

Don't believe the hype.

[SidDithers]

1. Exactly. Good post...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

3. is you tawkin to meee? dere's no one else in da rooom....

:hi:

[Taverner]

2. PressTV, maybe but RT is more of a news org than any major network in the US

[RZM]

4. Please tell me you are joking n/t

[Taverner]

10. No - are you going to tell me that ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX really "reported" on the Iraq invasion?

Are you going to tell me that our news orgs have reported on Corporate America honestly, objectively and without bias?

[RZM]

23. Of course not

Bias is pretty much inherent in reporting . . . reporting is done by human beings, after all, and we are fallible. I thought a lot of the Iraq reporting was pretty bad, actually.

Are you aware of the political situation in Russia itself? Are you aware that Freedom House consistently gives Russia the lowest score possible on its index of freedom? Do you think that's a big issue? Because RT sure doesn't. Neither does the Russian language media either, which is mostly owned or co-opted by the same people that fund RT.

[Taverner]

24. Like I said, verify everything you read

I wouldn't turn to RT regarding Putin like I wouldn't turn to Gramma regarding Castro - although even Gramma will give you honest insight into some things (for example terrorism being done by the Anti-Castro Miami Right Wing goons)

[RZM]

27. If you can't trust RT's reporting on Russia

How do you know you can trust their reporting on anything else? Seems like a leap of faith to me.

[Taverner]

30. Can you trust FOX news on the weather?

Can you trust CNBC on stock prices?

[RZM]

31. Reporting on weather or stock prices are not the same as a complex story

That has multiple angles and is open to multiple interpretations. You can't compare a weather forecast to the situation in Libya.

[SOS]

109. RT's reporting on South Ossetia proved true

while the US media was nothing but a pack of lies.

Every US outlet pushed the fraudulent propaganda that Russia was the aggressor in South Ossetia.

In 2008, the Council of the European Union established an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia.
The EU fact-finding results: Georgia started the war with unprovoked military aggression.

So in this case RT was factual and the US media was not.

The independent report by EU:

http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html

[LanternWaste]

63. your choice of biased news sources is more valid than someone else's

Ok... you believe your choice of biased news sources is more valid than someone else's choice of biased new source. :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

12. Taverner is correct. Please give an example of how 'they make

stuff up'?

[RZM]

18. Here's a story I remember seeing here on DU, actually

http://rt.com/usa/news/mumia-abujamal-usa-deathrow/

You want to tell me this is both sides of the story? Not a word about any of the evidence against him or any perspective other than the 'innocence' crowd. This could have been produced by Mumia himself.

[Taverner]

25. Well, having studied that case I know that the scene was "salted"

Even though he probably did it. Never try to frame a guilty man.

[sabrina 1]

29. Well, it looks like they were covering a story about his appeal

against the death penalty and covered it from his pov. Personally I know very little about that story, which kind of proves their point, there is little to no coverage of it here. And what coverage there is would be from the pov of the U.S. government. I, eg, from the little I do know from our media coverage, assumed he was guilty. So, it's interesting to read another pov.

No media outlet anywhere is going to be perfect, but our own media is so biased, I hardly watch it anymore to be honest.

From my viewing of RT they cover all sides of issues and often interview Americans from eg, the Bush administration who don't seem to have a problem being on their shows.

[RZM]

32. All sides?

Where were the prosecutors? FOP? Or anybody that thinks he's guilty?

[sabrina 1]

45. They presented the side of the person whose life was on the line

that day. I did not see that here, did you? Maybe the prosecutors did not want to speak to the foreign press. In the scheme of things, this is a minor story right now, but it's interesting to see people already digging so deeply to try to find reasons to smear these new media outlets.

Having been watching them for nearly three weeks, I am very impressed with their balanced coverage of International events and with the number of people, from all sides and from this country also, they give a voice to.

[RZM]

47. But not the side of the person whose life was lost n/t

[sabrina 1]

53. Not in that article because he was not the focus of the news

that day. Anyhow, this story is of little interest to a majority of people, but I do notice that it is always brought up when there are anti-war rallies here, eg, and there is out of proportion focus on it by people who want to discredit the anti-war movement.

And now, it seems, to discredit other news organizations. I will expect to see this 'mumbia' story repeated whenever there is a discussion of RT from now on as if that is all they cover :eyes:

[RZM]

54. So it should be off limits then, becuase of what other people say about it?

I really don't care how the right uses Mumia. Whatever they say or don't say, it doesn't change the fact that this story is ridiculously biased.

[sabrina 1]

58. One story?? You are going to judge an entire news organization

based on one insignificant story? That would seem like you are looking for something to criticize them on.

How do you like their coverage of current events in Egypt, Tunisia eg? And the ongoing struggle especially in Egypt to get the democracy they fought for?

The entire world is changing and you are worried about this story? As I said, I have seen nothing in the three weeks I've been watching RT about that story, and I don't think it is a huge story there or will be.

But I have seen excellent coverage, probably not as good as AJ/E's but definitely comparable, of the world-changing events that are taking place around the world right now. And that is why I will continue to watch them.

[Selatius]

44. His case has been contentious since 1981. If he were plainly guilty, he'd get no support.

But when you have this much debate in the legal community and see him getting support from both foreign and domestic politicians, academics, and celebrities, you kind of have to wonder if he really is another Leonard Peltier, if you know who he is.

[RZM]

46. I think some of his support is less about what he did and more about who he is

He's African-American and the cop was white. It was Philly, which was coming out of the Rizzo 'law and order' era. He was a member of MOVE, which was a black nationalist organization that had its own controversial demise a few years later. He was someone who fundamentally rejected US society and there are a lot of people here and elsewhere who have sympathy for that.

[Selatius]

57. I don't really know if that's the case, given the inconsistencies found in the prosecutor's case.

For example, witnesses dispute each other over Jamal's confessing to the murder of Faulkner. Some say he confessed, while other witnesses testified he was unconscious at the time of the supposed confession in the hospital. That, and the cab driver who testified that he parked behind the police vehicle at the time Jamal was stopped and witnessed Jamal killing Faulkner had a criminal record at the time and was on probation, which has led to questioning on whether he falsified his testimony in order to reduce his own criminal punishment over arson and driving his cab illegally the night of Faulkner's murder because he had a suspended driver's license from a previous DUI conviction.

[Puregonzo1188]

73. Seriously, that story is no less biased the kind of stuff you see about

Mumia in the US, just from another perspective.

[RZM]

21. They are also pretty much a 'truther' organization as well

http://rt.com/usa/news/911-continues-haunt-americans/

[sabrina 1]

33. No, they present the views of a vast majority of the people of the

world, and of Americans, that we do not know the facts about 9/11. That there are many unanswered questions and that the official account never satisfied most people and is not accepted by most people, including the victims' families.

And in your comment you demonstrate the effort to suppress anyone even asking questions, by using the propagandistic label 'truthers' for anyone who does. Here in the U.S. the whole topic is censored. Although not among ordinary people who when polled, as time goes by, are less and less convinced they know the truth about that crime.

In a free and open society there would have been no such effort to stop any questions about this life-changing, world-changing actually, event. Yet there was.

The POTUS announced, eg, that there would be no investigation at all. Is that acceptable? We only got the sham of an investigation we got BECAUSE the American people did not believe the 'official' story and had to fight to even get those very unsatisfactory hearings.

But the rest of the world is not constrained by the censorship here so they do what people do when there are unanswered questions about an event like this. They ask the questions, everywhere in the world, except here. Without fear of being called names.

You might have had a point though had you not shown that you are part of the problem of the attempt to silence people. Why should it bother you if people raise questions? I know that the word 'truther' began to be used on rightwing boards right after 9/11 when people were in shock and were demanding an investigation after Bush's statement that there would be none. Sad to see the 'left' protecting the Bush administraion now also.

So, for all those reasons I am very glad to see that U.S. media can no longer 'control the message'. For far too long U.S. propaganda WAS the message people received around the world. Now people are getting a much broader view of how things really are.

[RZM]

37. Russia is far less of a 'free and open society' than the US

I'm pretty skeptical about what their government has to say about how free we are here. If you are, more power to you. But I'm not. Would you accept a lecture about the golden rule from a violent thug? Or would you tell them to shut up? Because getting a lecture about our degrees of freedom from the Russian government is a bit like a thug telling someone else to treat people better.

[sabrina 1]

50. Yes, of course the are. But that is not reflected in the programming

on RT. Whenever it is, I will definitely say so, just as we consistently point out how much our media caters to the government here and to Corporate interests. I trust people's intelligence, and perhaps Russia is learning to do that also. Ten years ago, RT could not have existed, so that is progress.

I don't expect to see them attacking Russia's government, but then, I have not seen them attack any government, just covering news and statements from important members of various governments.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Wholly agree

.

[lutefisk]

68. I agree

:toast:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RZM]

7. I never mentioned AJE

I don't particularly care for their editorials on Israel/Palestine, but they seem to do excellent breaking news coverage.

Watch RT and decide for yourself.

[ljm2002]

8. Do you care to provide examples?

It sounds like you may have a beef with something that was aired by one or both of these outfits.

I have seen Thom Hartmann on RT and I do trust him, so wonder why he would allow himself to be exploited by a propaganda organization.

Anyway, it is always true we must be careful of sources. But then again, you can hardly claim that the standard US "news" outlets are anything but US / Big Corporate propaganda. So I ask you: where would you suggest we go to find an unbiased news source?

[RZM]

It's hard to do so

I approach it by gathering information from a variety of sources. Some claim to be objective and do a decent job, while others claim to do so and are full of it. Still more make no such claims at all.

My go-to sources are generally the BBC and NPR. I watch the three major US cable networks (though not all that frequently) and get most of the rest from online versions of the major metropolitan dailies in the US and UK and the AP.

This site is also very useful:

http://www.aldaily.com/

[ljm2002]

28. So no examples then...

...got it.

So to recap: your main sources are BBC, NPR, and the three major US cable networks; while online you use the major metropolitan dailies in the US and the UK, and the AP. It sounds to me like you just go to the sources you are familiar with, which do not appear to include "foreign" sources.

I note that you have not backed up your assertions at all regarding PressTV and RT. By the way, what do you think of AJE?

Ultimately you sound concerned that the rest of us rubes may be taken in by these suspect -- and, er, foreign -- sources.

[RZM]

36. Are you reading this thread? See posts 18 and 32.

Those were just the tip of the iceberg.

And since when is the BBC not 'foreign'?

I didn't list everything I read or listen to . . . though the majority of sources are US and UK, I do sometimes read Der Speigel and I try to keep up with the Russian-language media as well, though since it's mostly co-opted by the Kremlin, it's pretty much the same as RT.

Press TV is even easier to debunk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5UBEeepO1g

Does that sound credible to you?

[ljm2002]

60. Somehow I knew you'd claim the BBC is indeed foreign...

...but then, you know, we both speak the same language and we have a "special relationship" with the Brits. In other words, Americans don't think of the UK as foreign in the same way we think of Russia, or Iran, or even France as being foreign. I was commenting on the US / Anglo-centric aspect of your referenced sources, to be clear.

Yes I saw the references to a story about Mumia Abul-Jamar (sp?). One story, hardly an indictment of an entire news organization. After all, one can cite hundreds of stories from the NYT, Washington Post, and AP in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, breathlessly citing the "evidence" of WMD and connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, all of which have been shown to be simply false. So again, I'm not seeing them as any more credible than the outfits you take issue with.

As I cannot watch the clip you provided just now it will have to wait until this evening. But again, while there may be examples of poor journalism on these networks, your claim was that both organizations are disreputable and not to be taken seriously, and are biased and catering to "leftist" viewpoints in the US. Sounds almost like the old Cold War thinking, where those dirty Commies were influencing the gullible if not downright evil leftists here in the good ol' USA.

[sabrina 1]

9. What utter nonsense. RT is one of the best news organizations

in the world right now. Even Hillary Clinton has conceded that to be the case.

Of course they don't pander to anyone, they ask hard questions of former Bush administration officials, such as pointing out how people see it the hypocrisy of claiming to be on 'humanitarian missions' when they ignore major humanitarian crisis around the globe. Wow, imagine asking them to explain something like that?

They have some of the best discussions on current events anywhere. Sorry that we have become so accustomed to propaganda here that when we see real news, it is hard to get used to.

[RZM]

14. I think you are talking about Al-Jazeera

I'd be very surprised if Hillary Clinton was lauding RT.

[sabrina 1]

19. No, I'm talking about RT, which we now get and which I watch

every day finding it far more informative and balanced, especially on the ME, than our rightwing media here.

And yes, Hillary did include RT/E, along with AJ/E when she bemoaned the fact that the U.S. was losing control of the 'message'. See, that's the problem right there. News is not supposed to be anyone's 'message'. And that is why these new media outlets, like AJ/E and RT/E have become so popular around the world. People want real news with no biases. Our media is totally biased and as a result has little credibility around the world.

[sabrina 1]

41. She incuded RT as part of the new media that is

now available to the rest of the world, where before, the U.S. media, CNN eg, had a monopoly.

Armed with Twitter Clinton Seeks New Information War

Clinton directly referenced the success of Al Jazeera, China's CCTV and RT as reasons the US needs to step-up and increase funding to its media machine.

“We are in an information war and we are losing that war. Al Jazeera is winning, the Chinese have opened a global multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English-language network. I’ve seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive,” Clinton remarked.

I think it's great the way we are now getting so many other points of view. It's way past time and should help people come to more educated conclusions about world events. The U.S. media, eg, promotes its POV about people in the Arab World and as we know, that is a very distorted view intended to promate an agenda. People want facts, and if RT and AG start showing signs of doing the same thing, becoming Commercial, as our media is, people will definitely point that out.

[Ikonoklast]

69. Hillary was praising foreign propaganda networks.

She would like the US to match those efforts.

[sabrina 1]

70. Actually she referred to them as delivering 'real news'

and bemoaning the fact that the U.S. cannot get 'its message across'. In the face of real news reporting it is difficult to catapult the propaganda, so she wants more funding to do that. What she doesn't understand is that around the world, U.S. propaganda, eg, on the Iraq War, never worked. A vast majority of people never believed it. But their governments, especially the coalition of the willing governments, ignored their citizens.

Citizens now know how much interference there has been in their own elections, Australia and Europeans especially, thanks to Wikileaks so they are now better informed on what to watch out for. That could seriously affect getting support for our forever war campaigns from those countries should we be unable to influence their elections anymore.

[Modern_Matthew]

11. Hartmann is better than anyone on MSNBC. nt

[sabrina 1]

13. And Hartmann can be seen on RT. I don't think I've seen him

much on our MSM.

[Modern_Matthew]

17. I know I haven't. Things that make you go hmmm... nt

[RZM]

22. How long would Thom Hartmann last on RT

If he started talking about United Russia's monopoly on political power and censorship of the press in Russia itself?

[sabrina 1]

55. I think he would be invited to express those opinions from what

I've seen so far. However, RT is a huge step forward for Russia so I'm sure he would congratulate them for that. RT could not have existed ten years ago.

[upi402]

105. He and Amy Goodman

Thom doesn't call himself a journalist, but could make the switch effortlessly. Amy Goodman is giant. She was in E. Timor when I was just looking into things in the world.

[Better Believe It]

15. They are government supported news organizations so what's your point?

And almost all news organizations and reporters in the United States are corporate supported.

[Puregonzo1188]

16. I agree, but are they really any different than the New York Times?

NYT refused to print the truth about the CIA agent in Pakistan and then defended it by saying that journalist in the US were motivated by the "national interest." They even pulled their original article on the atomic bombings in Japan and replaced it with a Pentagon piece.

The US media isn't serious.

[thewiseguy]

20. I would not categorize Press TV as a news organization

NYT has its flaws. But Press TV is just shameful.

I will give you an example, IRNA ran a news story saying millions of Syrians were protesting in favor of the Syrian government and within 4 minutes they reported that the Syrian government had handed its resignation in response to protests. loool

Please do not compare NYT to Press TV. The difference is just huge.

[Puregonzo1188]

75. The difference is huge because the bias is in your favor.

[Taverner]

26. Yep - and the NYT is HIGHLY biased towards Israel

The IDF can do no wrong in their eyes.

Then take Al Jazzera. Less biased, but STILL biased towards the Palestinians

[Puregonzo1188]

72. Oh yes, the Israel bias in the writing of Ethan Broner is pervasive.

It's really tough to take the American corporate media seriously.

[sabrina 1]

94. I think I just figured it out, the attack on RT.

I've been trying to figure out why a news organization that is so much better than most of ours is being attacked here, and now I know why. They actually present both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Here I never, ever hear a single Palestinian voice on our MSM. I want to hear all sides of every issue. This censorship is getting a lot of people pretty damn upset.

But now it makes sense ~

[Marblehead]

34. Thom Hartmann

is on RT...

[RZM]

39. I see his vidoes here all the time

I wasn't familiar with Thom Hartmann until recently. He seems like a well-reasoned person who puts forth articulate progressive arguments. But I'm troubled by the fact that he's being paid to do so by the Russian government. Clearly if he wants to keep his job there, then certain topics are going to be off limits and that decreases my willingness to trust him. If a commentator is constrained in what he/she can talk about, it inevitably affects perceptions of what they are talking about. I have to question the journalistic integrity of anyone who would take a job where it's understood there are certain things they cannot talk about.

[BOG PERSON]

35. agreed

that's why i only get my prolefeed from comcast/ge + the walt disney company. that's news i can use!

[Bluenorthwest]

38. The two are not comparable at all

Press TV is not even available in Iran, think about that. RT is a news organization, Press is a political communications arm of the Iranian government, full tilt.

[RZM]

42. RT is funded by the Kremlin. How is that different from Press TV?

I do agree that Press TV is more ridiculous and that RT is a larger, more sophisticated operation. But in the end, their funding sources are both their own governments.

[ljm2002]

62. Just as a point of information...

...please tell us how BBC is funded.

[RZM]

64. By an actual democratic regime that respects human rights within its borders n/t

[ljm2002]

99. I get that you like the British government better...

...as do I. But still.

[Turborama]

85. The BBC is funded by the British public

You own a TV in Britain, you have to pay the BBC a license fee.

There is no advertising on the BBC. Documentaries run a full hour with no breaks. How cool is that?

[ljm2002]

100. Yes the mechanism is through a license fee...

...collected by the British government.

In other words, the BBC is government-funded. It is not funded by private citizens a la PBS, for example.

I don't have a problem with it, but it did seem reasonable to point out in the context of the current discussion.

[indimuse]

40. US media is OWNED BY WORLD BANKERS!!

hellooo

[indimuse]

43. You should be thankful for outside info...

Breaking news and lies! gotta weed through it all.. ;)

[RZM]

48. I've never said people shouldn't watch RT, I'm saying they shouldn't trust it. Big difference.

There's value in learning other perspectives, even if they are bogus.

[BOG PERSON]

49. *sigh* guess i can't watch pbs or listen to npr anymore either, huh?

after all, they both get funding from the US government.

[RZM]

52. I don't know about PBS, but NPR doesn't get all of its funding from the US gov.

If the Republicans have their way, it might go down to zero. That's not the same as the outlets I mentioned. From what I can tell they get all of their funding from their respective governments.

[Kalun D]

78. NPR Sold Out Long Ago

look at the source of all those funding foundations

N ational
P etroleum
R adio

[democracy1st]

51. RT and they're love for Alex Jones opened my eyes!

[sabrina 1]

56. I've been watching it for nearly a month now and I have

not seen Alex Jones once so far. But the better question is 'why is alex jones or anyone else with a different POV to the U.S. government censored in THIS country?

Our news media is carefully packaged. No dissenting voices, including people like Thom Harmann eg, will ever be given a major voice on U.S. media.

Why are you afraid of the opinions of Jones being aired? Why is what we get to see so controlled? Don't you think we are smart enough to make our judgements, given various points of view?

I would like to Alex Jones on U.S. TV. If he is so off the wall, that will become apparent and people will tune him out, the same way I tune out the many totally off the wall people who DO have a voice on our media.

When RT starts giving a voice to James O'Keefe, eg, as our media does, then I will seriously question their legitimacy as a news organization.

[Armstead]

79. LOL...So true. O'keefe is treated as a legitimate source in the MSM

The little twerp should be ignored.

[democracy1st]

82. Its not that Alex has a pov thats different,he's a lying lil rightwing conspiracy

theorist. He believes mediamatters is a liberal organization who functions only to destroy the right. He believed the 200 million dollar Obama India trip and pushed the story.

here's a link he's been on at least 5 times over the last few months that I've seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1qlB61mmFg

[Turborama]

86. Wow, they treat Alex Jones like he's a knowledgeable voice of reason in that interview

Unquestionably.

How can anyone take them seriously after that?

[RZM]

95. Judging by reactions to this thread, DU seems to be behind RT

I don't think people realize they are being swindled here. RT is telling them everything they want to hear and nothing that they don't want to hear. Sadly, some people think that's what news is supposed to be.

[Kalun D]

103. Bullship

RT covers hard news, wider and better than the sold out corporate crap here in states. The news here is not even news, they don't even talk about certain things, it's like there's a total black out, you have to go somewhere else to get the real news.

sure RT may be biased especially about local Russian news, but most Americans don't go to them for that. Everything else they do covers both sides. A lot of the US media doesn't even touch either side of the story in some cases, like the story doesn't even exist.

The proof is that people are leaving the US corporate news behind, it's so damned biased and weak, why even watch it anymore, it's useless. Thank God for the internet, the television is a wasteland when it comes to news.

[girl gone mad]

107. What is it you think that we don't want to hear?

[sabrina 1]

92. I'm familiar with Alex Jones. I see Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz

and Rudolph Giuliani, Dick Cheney and a whole host of other rightwing liars on the MSM attacking Obama, stating that democrats are 'soft on terror' no matter what they do, among other things. Compared to the war criminals who are treated as if every word they say is gospel, and who are never, ever challenged no matter what they say, why should I care about Alex Jones? Has he tortured anyone? Bombed any countries lately?

Unbelievable how afraid we are in this country of allowing people to hear all views and make up their own minds about who is off the wall and who is not. That of course can only happen if we have news people who challenge them, not drooling morons who let them lie without even being questioned.

[democracy1st]

101. you made a great point,and I understand where you're coming from and that

is how can we call any news organization fake after the nonsense we get from the MSM corp media.

[Rex]

59. OH...so they are the Eastern versions of Foxnews/CNN?

Thanks for the 411.

[sabrina 1]

65. I think you should watch it and make up your own mind.

Having done so, I can assure you that if Fox ever comes up to the standards of RT I will take back everything I ever said about it.

[Rex]

87. Oh okay, I will see for myself then.

Tnanks.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

66. I like RT.

It's very refreshing to see actual leftists on television once in a while as opposed to the centrist corporatists who are supposedly counterbalancing the hard right conservative corporatists on all American television channels.

[sabrina 1]

93. That's why people here don't like it. Because it actually

gives people like Thom Harmann eg, a voice who will never be allowed on the U.S. media. They are great, I am so glad I discovered them. They do great documentaries also, and have excellent interviews.

Our media is so far to the right that now even Democrats here cannot get used to anything that is not hard right. It has worked, eliminating any kind of real discussion about war, about torture etc. People from even the left here, have been successfully indoctrinated to not feel comfortable with anything they don't see on our rightwing media.

Yet they will tolerate a media that presents War Criminal and Election Thief, Karl Rove as a brilliant political analyst.

[xchrom]

67. They're better than abc, CBS, NBC, CNN, fox, and often msnbc.

Too bad you're missing so much.

[cali]

71. I don't know the Russian news outlet but even Fox is better than Presstv

it's absolutely a caricature.

[Hannah Bell]

74. And US media doesn't make stuff up when told to? Please. WMD's.

Incubator babies. etc.

The western press in general acts as a mouthpiece for the state when required to. The western press in general presents the perspective of its owners.

[grahamhgreen]

76. Neither are ours.

[Kalun D]

77. UNREC P.O.S. Post, RT Rocks

they actually cover real stories. unlike the garbage corporate news in this country which doesn't cover jack crap
(I don't look to them for news of Russia so can't comment on that.)

RT had way more timely and comprehensive coverage of the Japanese nuclear disaster as it broke than any of the garbage US channels.

even the Huff Post has gone to heck now that they sold out to AOL, the Japan nuclear story is barely on the front page, it's 24-7 pro Libya war. Yeah DU munitions, that will help those democracy fighters.

[HEyHEY]

81. How can you rail against propaganda on one post then support it on another

As I said I KNOW people personally who have worked for both and they say there was little difference in the editorial meetings when it came to spinning and taking orders from above.

[Kalun D]

84. We Hear the US Corp

side of the story ad nauseum

it's refreshing to hear the other side

in addition it's way more real/hard news than the typical, little girl kidnapping, sports, Hollywood, lotto garbage that passes for news over here.

[HEyHEY]

89. But the "other side's" story is just as bad in terms of propaganda

[Kalun D]

104. No It's Not

and RT covers stories that the US wholly corporate owned garbage media doesn't even touch,

because they're to busy feeding us garbage filler.

[HEyHEY]

80. I know people very well who have worked for both and I agree with you as would they

[Obamanaut]

83. .

[timtom]

88. Actually, our very own DUer, Max Keiser broadcasts on RT

Keiser is one of our more incisive economic analysts.

Check out some of his videos and tell me if he might not be giving "the other side of the story."

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/

[Turborama]

91. So? The fact that he is employed by RT diminished any respect I had for him

And I'm sorry to have to say the same about Thom Hartman, but there it is.

[timtom]

96. Doesn't that equate to everything they've said is a big fat lie?

[Turborama]

97. No, it means my respect for them has been diminished. n/t

[timtom]

98. Just out of curiosity,

whom do you respect as a news source?

[Kalun D]

108. No One

No one in the predatory corporate military industrial media complex, not one single sold-out-prostitute-whore-stenographer-bagman-scumbag-sorry-excuse-for-a-journalist comes within a country mile of Thom Hartman.

name one, NAME JUST ONE

You know why RT gives voice to Thom Hartman? Because he tells the truth.

[tekisui]

90. As has been said. PressTV is not credible, RT is a good news source.

[chatnoir]

102. Brings to mind an article in the Guardian when they launched in the UK

...

Next year the Russian government will spend $1.4 billion (£866m) on international propaganda – more than on fighting unemployment. In January RT launches a Spanish service aimed at Latin America, a region of growing Kremlin geopolitical interest; RT already broadcasts in Arabic.

The Kremlin has trebled the budgets for its main state news agencies, Ria Novosti and ITAR-Tass, despite Russia's deep economic crisis; there is a paid-for monthly supplement in the Daily Telegraph, Russia Now, and a revival of the Soviet-era radio station Voice of Russia.

The Kremlin employs two major PR agencies, Ketchum and GPlus, and in London uses Portland PR. And then there are the angry bloggers – a shadowy army of Russian nationalists who are active on western newspaper websites, including the Guardian's Comment is free site. Anyone who dares to criticise Russia's leaders, or point out some of the country's deficiencies, is immediately branded a CIA spy or worse. "They are coming to realise that information matters and that control of information internationally matters even more," says Evgeny Morozov, a Yahoo! fellow at Georgetown University's institute for the study of diplomacy.

...

The Russian government lost the PR battle over the conflict, at least initially, and failed to get its message across to shivering European consumers during two recent gas wars with Ukraine. "They have realised it is only by controlling what gets printed in the international media they can advance their hard policy agenda items," Morozov says. Current Russian aims, he says, include thwarting Nato expansion and winning recognition for Moscow's puppet states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Insiders at RT praise the professionalism of the staff. It includes several British journalists and newsreaders. "Generally people there are pretty talented," one former employee said. "But nobody is under any illusions as to what it's all about. There is such a lack of objectivity. It's like North Korea TV."

RT enjoys more freedom than Russia's domestic state-controlled channels. But while there is sometimes broad-based criticism of the regime, there is an unspoken understanding that you cannot criticise Putin, the ex-employee said.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz

[upi402]

106. RT seems valid to me. I need evidence and time. n/t