Do It right DU : RT banned from /r/news section of Reddit.

[Sand Wind]

The reason RT.com was banned on Reddit’s /r/news section may not be spam or vote manipulation, as was stated officially, but “simply because it’s Kremlin.” This was revealed by a user from his discussion with one of the subreddit’s moderators.

RT.com was banned from /r/news this Thursday on accusations of “spam and vote manipulation”, with no evidence of the violations being presented by the moderators, who said that this information was only for “internal” use.

[Junkdrawer]

1. Prep for WW III....

Iiiiittttts cooommming....

[Billy Love]

2. RT is already banned from LBN - unreliable source.

GD is okay, per Skinner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593182

[dipsydoodle]

5. Not actually banned from LBN

Just that some hosts don't seem to appreciate it.

[hrmjustin]

70. It is pretty much banned for LBN.

[dipsydoodle]

72. You are an LBN host.

'nuff said.

[William769]

74. Another LBN host 2nd's hrmjustin. nt

[dipsydoodle]

76. That's inevitable.

There are however problems with shooting the messenger for the wrong reasons.

[NYC_SKP]

84. LBN Host confirms rule. Hey, people are still free to post RT sourced stuff in GD or Politics 2013.

It's not like we're being all Hitler about it.

[dipsydoodle]

86. I'm aware of that

and what I suspected to be the general background has just been confirmed in ATA.



btw this is their latest headlines http://rt.com/news/line/2013-09-02/ if you've the time please indicate the lies therein.

[NYC_SKP]

87. FWIW, it was never a big issue for me.

I kind of like a range of sources and there's no way I can put RT in the same category as, say, Infowars, but I sort of understand the admins wanting to keep LBN free of even modestly biased sources.

But at the end of the day, none of our US mainstream sources are all that reliable (Fox, ABC, CBS, etc.).

[David__77]

3. Why do YOU want Russia Today banned by this site?

People are anti-Russia for different reasons. For instance, as a gay man, I oppose Russia's anti-gay policies. Some people, like al Qaeda partisans, don't like Russia for other reasons.

Why do you want Russia Today banned?

[Sand Wind]

9. Kremlin mouthpiece. Nt

[David__77]

13. How... insubstantial.

"Kremlin bad."

[Sand Wind]

14. See #10 and 12.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Where do you think those anti gay policies and vicious rhetoric come from, the Bolshoi?

nt

[David__77]

21. That doesn't mean that the OP thinks that's why it should be banned. That was my question.

I don't agree with those policies, but don't think it should be banned. One could be really mad at Russia about Chechnya or who know what else, and that could be one's reason.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. So you 'don't agree' but still think those who foist those hateful policies are trustworthy sources?

I think I'd have to say I 'don't agree' with the more strongly than you do. I just do not see bigots as journalists of integrity in any way. You do. To each his own, 77.

[David__77]

30. No, that's not true.

Just because I don't favor banning something doesn't mean I think it's a fount of journalistic integrity. And please don't lecture me about who is more opposed to anti-gay discrimination. I've been actively fighting it my whole life.

[Kurska]

22. I think it should be because of the scores of Russia Today articles that I've read

that seemed to turn out to absolutely nothing.

It is a propaganda mouthpiece very unconcerned with the truth.

[Sand Wind]

54. +100 nt

[rhett o rick]

90. Banning sights sounds a lot like part of the conservative agenda.

Just because you dont like it, you want the rest of us not to use it?

[TomClash]

34. There are some people who tend to post

for the interests of other nations. You are not one of them.

Who exactly would benefit from the banning of RT, urged by a Sunni from the Mahgreb?

[grahamhgreen]

78. Why not ban FOX News first as a corporate/MIC mouthpeice....?

[HooptieWagon]

4. The problem with banning sources...

...is that sometimes there is only one writer/source covering a particular story. Or only one soutce covering an opposing view.
If an article is citing named witnesses and directly quoting them, then I'll give it a good bit more credibility than an article with unnamed sources spewing unattributed statements.
If RT article is quoting Putin or another named Russian official, why shouldn't it be taken seriously? Its probably more accurate than what you'll read on AP.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Most RT's stuff is just straight forward unspun news anyway.

If you really do like spin then the USA media takes a whole of beating.

[HooptieWagon]

8. Exactly.

Peeps should be sophisticated enough to know when a story is being spun...but I guess not. Perhaps because they only read limited sources...all the more reason not to ban sources.

[KittyWampus]

7. Why are some DU'ers so torqued about it? Because it's the only source claiming false flag in Syria.

Outside of World Net Daily and Infowars.

From the second the recent events in Syria became public knowledge a group of supposed liberals on the internet began claiming this was a false flag and the dead civilians either weren't really dead, not dead from chemical warfare or not dead via Assad's forces.

A group of supposed liberals keep comparing those dead civilians (real) to an empty vial (intentional lie).

A group of supposed liberals can't oppose war without denying reality and using all events to fit an already pre-existing narrative.

A group of supposed liberals keep bleeting PNAC without bothering to suppose for one instant that maybe things might be slightly more complex than Obama and Kerry being Skull and Bones stooges of Cheney. That maybe oil and pipelines are involved but so are deep water ports, democratic allies, refugees etc.

A group of supposed liberals can't distinguish between a mouthpiece of Putin's from news organizations funded by government to help keep impartiality (BBC).

[David__77]

11. I think it goes far beyond all that.

And I think that principled opposition to war against Syria requires no allegations of "false flag" at all. It's about properly understanding our national security interests.

I think that the administrators have taken the right approach in not banning RT, and leaving moderator discretion for LBN. I agree for LBN it's best to have multi-sourced stories to avoid "spam."

[KittyWampus]

16. We agree with each other, then.

[Junkdrawer]

25. So that's it. Questioning the source of the Syrian Gas attack will be verboten soon....

Conspiracy Theory to be moved to Creative Speculation.

[MattSh]

61. Got a link for that?

Nah, I didn't think so. It's your compadre how has the links...

[DevonRex]

79. Thank you. nt

[NYC_SKP]

85. Well, that, and how are we gonna have our daily hissyfits without hot unsourced made up lies?

I mean, seriously.

[MADem]

10. RT is like PRESS TV in Iran or GRANMA in Cuba -- it's pure bullshit,

straight from the mindset of the Dear Leader.

[Sand Wind]

12. Exactly, we should quote them uniquely when we want to show what their leader want to express.

And nothing more.

I mean, I supposed PressTV know what the Republican Guard Boss want to say when they make a citation of him...

[FSogol]

15. +1 n/t

[SidDithers]

43. Yup...

Sid

[Lasher]

17. Did you forget a link to your source, RT.com?

Here, let me help: http://rt.com/news/rt-reddit-ban-kremlin-261/

[Sand Wind]

18. I was seeing the paradox, and ask myself if some one will notice....

[sufrommich]

23. The fact that RT sees fit to make Reddit's decision

to ban them as a news source a "news" headline only confirms to me that they shouldn't be taken seriously.Well that and the fact that they are Russia's version of Tokyo Rose. America bad- Russia good.

[David__77]

26. Well now that is interesting.

And quite different than I imagined:

To be fair, RT.com was not singled out in any other way, apart from being on the list. The moderator proposed to ban it as according to him, RT.com fell in the same category as the Daily Mail for providing “misleading/sensationalist/unreliable” content. Others, like the Huffington Post, Gawker and the Raw Story were labeled “Blog Spam.”

I could see lumping RT in with tabloids like Daily Mail (or, for that matter, Express or New York Post). This is more fair than a simply ban for "being Kremlin."

[Bluenorthwest]

29. And again you dig that Kremlin no matter how viciously they attack gay people. Good for you.

How awful to ban a source simply for being run by hate mongers, that would be so bad!

[David__77]

31. There's gonna be a really long list of media to ban if that's the right metric.

And it's going to include essentially all African or Arab media sources... That would be fine, if that was the objective.

[Junkdrawer]

32. Are we really going to conflate War and Peace with Gay Rights?

Is THAT where we're going?

[DevonRex]

80. But they'll give you "free conversion therapy."

Which just might be a ticket to a "camp" that disappears people. The "conversion" could be from alive to dead.

With so many in Russia being closeted and education on LGBT issues being extremely hard to access, that could be a very dangerous trap.

You read this, right?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113731218

[KG]

19. generally, I put the same trust in RT as I do in US MSM.

[jakeXT]

24. Isn't reddit more like lounge material ?

2337

Gf sent me a pic from her holiday in Bali. (i.imgur.com)

submitted 3 hours ago by furr_sure to WTF

174 comments
share

[The Straight Story]

39. Not the news sections. Reddit is huge, news has over 1 million subscribers, world news over 3 mill

A pretty open board with some excellent conversations.

[jakeXT]

41. I just went to their main section

Their hot top ten post are from those categories

AdviceAnimals
funny
pics
movies
WTF
gaming
gifs
worldnews
aww
todayilearned

[The Straight Story]

44. I stay away form the main (except when I have the top story)

The AMA section is awesome. News, World News, Politics are good. The science section always has something of interest.

Anyone can make their own subreddit so I don't even know how many there are out there

If you are new there check out the AMA's (I am A XXX ask me anything): http://nr.reddit.com/r/iama
News: http://nr.reddit.com/r/news/
World: http://nr.reddit.com/r/worldnews/
Politics: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

[jakeXT]

52. Is it just my impression or do news,politics and worldnews have less recs than pics ?

And what is god mode ?

basically avid redditors build up their cred so that they can start surfing reddit in god mode.

They get mod on a small or medium sized sub, someone from the oligarchy (existing mod on popular sub) gets interested, gets modded. Those mods now establish a friendship and he gets vouched to be modded across other larger subs. Great! Now you get to surf reddit in god mode.

Every once in a while they think they have a good idea, but usually its awful. They dont care, this is just the website they use to surf on god mode. If they feel the backlash threatens their power they reverse it, otherwise they just carry on making whatever decision they feel like hoping no one notices.

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1lenw6/rtcom_partially_banned_by_reddit_rt_answers_back/

[The Straight Story]

53. Generally yes, most voted on are usually the pics and such on a broad scale

I think more news people hang out in both areas and less people who prefer the pics and such don't hang out in news.

There is usually at least one world news item that makes the front page (how long it stays varies, I had one at #2 and a short time later was off the main).

I don't get into the whole mod thing myself. I have built up some 'cred' I guess (Karma points) to over 45,000 (links up voted) in a short period there but that does not really mean much to me, I just like posting and commenting.

God mode is sort of like being on MiRt team and a host here (currently doing both). You have power to lock things, ban people, etc. On reddits if someone is a good (or well known) mod in one place and make friends in other reddits they can become mods there as well so instead of just reading a sub reddit you have mod power in it - the more sub reddits you are a mod in the closer to 'god mode' you are technically.

A good way to learn more on that is just make your own sub reddit and see what powers you have and such (I have not done so but am working on creating one with a few friends).

[jakeXT]

55. I think I'll stay out of board politics...lol

Sounds like a whole microcosm with all it's problems ..

[The Straight Story]

56. Indeed, I stay out of them as well. One other thing I that I do hate there

Is when someone down votes a story as soon as you post it for no reason at all.

I see this mostly late at night. A story that fits well, ends up on that reddits' front page later, but a few people just sit around and downvote anything some people post without even reading it (sometimes I think it is because they wanted to post it and were beaten to it).

Now one thing I love there is reporting spam and such. Just click report, click yes, and the spam goes away right then (don't use that to report stories you don't like, mods frown on that and may ban you).

Another thing you may see if you post a lot (especially in news, not so much in world news) is your story just vanishes. Spam filter picks it up. Most the time I message the mods and ask them to fix it and they do. Sometimes I never hear back (it is things like that which may drive me to try to become a mod in the future on the boards I post in).

Lastly, it is not DU. There is no bubble we can sit in protected from views we don't like. Don't like a post, down vote it, argue against it, etc. There are more progressives and moderates than there are rw nut jobs there, which gives me hope for election days ahead The fundies like to stay in their bubble on the blaze and such and not be challenged.

[L0oniX]

27. I'm sure the US gov will be pleased. Less people reading Russian news is good.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. there is no question that RT is biased and has an agenda. That's obvious. But can ANYONE watch CNN

as they discuss the prospect of a military attack on Syria and claim that they are neutral an have no agenda? Can ANYONE say that with a straight face?

[Junkdrawer]

35. I'm 60 yrs old. I'm perfectly capable of listening to ALL sides and filtering agendas....

this kind of censorship is just insulting.

[woo me with science]

38. Thank you. nt

[onyourleft]

59. Indeed.

Thank you. Censoring is not just for Republicans any more.

[snappyturtle]

77. Me too. nt

[RC]

36. Strange that RT.com suddenly has reliability problems about the same time

Russia comes out against Gays.

I'm thinking there is a connection. Especially since there are several groups here that are very vocal and very sensitive on various very narrow slices of certain topics. That is where I think this is coming from. Nothing more.

[David__77]

37. Eh...

I agree with you in part, but I think your wording is insensitive. Why shouldn't gay people be "sensitive" and "vocal" about anti-gay discrimination? I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to imply that gay rights are "very narrow slices" in the grand scheme of things...

I'm gay, I like reading RT for what's it's worth, and oppose "banning" it, but that doesn't minimize the importance of criticizing and opposing anti-gay discrimination.

[RC]

58. Just some.

I didn't mean in general, not by any means. Just a select few people that are extremely sensitive. Just as there are a few "Either you praise Obama, or you hate him" people. Or that all heterosexual sex is suspected rape on the part of the man, that is the apparent position of some posting here.

Sorry If I was unclear. I don't understand why sexual preference should determine anyone's Rights. Men, women, gay, straight, some combination, all of us need to be treated the same, as far as legal Right are concerned. We are not, not by a long shot.
I think the IRS treating all married Gays equally in all the states, as being married, as a good step in the right direction. But there is still a long way to go in Equal Rights for all in this country.
Russia is wrong in their position on this. Why do people care about other people's sexual preference in the first place? Most people are not effected by who does what to whom in reasonable privacy, but again for some, on both sides, it is always front and center for them. And they act out wherever they perceive their pet outrage has been affronted. In this case, it is RT.com, only because it is based in Russia. If it were located in, say Europe, or Australia, there would probably not be a problem. And that was where I was coming from.
I hope I made myself a bit clearer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. To be fair, VOA and BBC should be banned too

They are government pieces too

[Sand Wind]

42. VOA clearly, BBC got a huge history of being independant, if not a lot of time against

Their government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. They do at times

Let me see who else, the French have a government news service, Israel does as well, we really cannot have a thing from Notimex either. I am being fair here, all government sources are out. Even the comedy service at Sana and the Iranians...and for good measure include Debka files (good for fiction writers everywhere) they are like RT...not really government (that be interfax) but with deep ties to their respective governments.

Wait, at times the NYT does that too...so off with the gray old lady...we know what they did with Judith Miller!

Or we could let the reader beware and make up their end mind. After all, every media outlet has an agenda, every last one of them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. RT was created to put forward the Kremlin point of view

Russia's Public Diplomacy Effort: What the Kremlin is Doing and Why it’s Not Working

...
The next major nation re-branding initiative came in April 2005 with
the launch of the news channel Russia Today, which is sponsored by RIA
Novosti and positioned as “the first 24/7 English-language news channel
to bring the Russian view on global news.” Generously endowed with
resources from state funds, Russia Today quickly developed into a major
news portal, comparable to Al Jazeera English or Germany’s DW World,
and currently broadcasts in English and Arabic, with plans to expand into
Spanish. The majority of Russia Today’s broadcasts is devoted to Russian
and international news, but the channel also airs documentaries, travel
shows and commentaries on present-day life in Russia. According to Margarita
Simonyan, Russia Today’s editor-in-chief, the station was born out
of the desire to present an “unbiased” portrait of Russia and “make Russia
clearer for understanding” (CBC News 2006). However, to this end, the
station is often criticized by Westerners and Russians alike for applying a
positive spin on stories about Russian authorities and for refraining from
broadcasting stories that cast a negative light on the Kremlin leadership.
As Finn writes, “At first glance it looks a lot like CNN, but it can be a
breathless cheerleader for the Kremlin” (Finn 2008, 1).

http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2009/6.pdf

[Sand Wind]

47. Except that you found this on RT Wikipedia :

Russia Today has been described by Konstantin Preobrazhensky, himself a former Soviet KGB officer who defected to the West, as “a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation” designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions. He says Russia Today television utilizes methods of propaganda that are managed by Directorate “A” of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. He explains, “The specialty of Directorate ‘A’ is deceiving world public opinion and manipulating it. It has got a lot of experience over decades of the Cold War.”


After the 2005 announcement the station would be launched, the U.S. government-owned Voice of America (VOA)[107] interviewed Anton Nosik, chief editor of MosNews.com, who said the creation of Russia Today "smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns."[108] A representative of Reporters Without Borders called the newly announced network “another step of the state to control information.”[109] In 2009 Luke Harding in The Guardian described Russia Today's advertising campaign in the United Kingdom as an "ambitious attempt to create a new post-Soviet global propaganda empire."[33]
In 2010 The Independent reported that RT journalists had revealed that coverage of sensitive issues in Russia is allowed, but direct criticism of Vladimir Putin or then President Dmitry Medvedev is not.[23] Masha Karp wrote in Standpoint magazine that contemporary Russian issues "such as the suppression of free speech and peaceful demonstrations, or the economic inefficiency and corrupt judiciary, are either ignored or their significance played down".[110] In 2008 Stephen Heyman wrote in the New York Times that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy.”[21]
Russians also have been critical of RT. Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky criticized RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation".[111] Andrey Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin, has labeled the channel as "the best Russian propaganda machine targeted at the outside world. On the other hand, prominent Russian officials such as Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov are strong advocates of RT."[72]
James Kirchick in The New Republic accused the network of "often virulent anti-Americanism, worshipful portrayal of Russian leaders."[112] Ed Lucas wrote in The Economist (quoted in Al Jazeera) that the core of RT was "anti-Westernism."[113] Julia Ioffe wrote "Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering."[31] Shaun Walker wrote in The Independent that RT "has made a name for itself as a strident critic of US policy."[114] Allesandra Stanley in The New York Times wrote that RT is "like the Voice of America, only with more money and a zesty anti-American slant."[47] David Weigel writes that RT goes further than merely creating distrust of the United States government, to saying, in effect: "You can trust the Russians more than you can trust those bastards."[29]

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Look at the VOA mission

They have deep ties to the kremlin, they are not the official news channel. That is interfax. In some ways they are a modern version of Pravda, which was not interfax either. That does not mean I am all for censorship. I do think adults are mostly discerning and can see the propaganda.

For example, watching the Fuku disaster through the eyes of RT was a fascinating exercise. There were several reasons for that.

1.- their own accident in the Ukraine, they studiously avoided it and when they touched on it, well the heroics of the Red Army and all that.

2.- There is no love lost between Russia and Japan due to the kuril Islands.

3.- oh the stupidity, like a few western Reporters I am betting in some from of cancer for their young field reporter.

Now you are advocating censorship, so let me add CBC to the list, Deutche Welle, and other news services. I have a huge problem with censorship.

[Sand Wind]

49. I understand...thanks for the civil discussion . Nt

[MattSh]

62. Wait, you're quoting a defector?

Maybe, just maybe, he's really an economic refugee, but understood to get refugee status, he needed a better story.

And why would he be an economic refugee? Maybe it pays better than the KGB? A possibility maybe?

[Sand Wind]

65. I saw some people here quoting Snowden, so I said to myself : why not ? Nt

[bananas]

57. The article that prompted the ban was also carried by Reuters

Obviously Reuters is a commie front!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3571286

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Interesting

And makes my point

[Posteritatis]

60. Public broadcasting and outright state mouthpieces are two slightly different things. (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. VOA is a state piece. Believe it or not rt falls in the category of BBC

The mouth piece is interfax.

And all media has a bias to it, and an agenda. RT is good since their agenda is way obvious. So is the la times. Don't get me started with the Union Tribune.

It is the responsibility of the reader to discern the bias of any news service and organization. As it is said, everybody has an agenda

[ocpagu]

50. It's a pity.

RT is better than 99% of US mainstream media outlets.

[MattSh]

64. +Infinity

[tokenlib]

67. I like RT, and I can filter out the pro-Putin bias...

And they still go into depth on many more issues than our commercial media can.
Basically, most media has a bias,so all this anti RT venom is annoying. Watching RT try to maneuver around the homophobia in Russia has been quite interesting. And just the other day, Max Keiser went nuts over fracking in an over the top manner that would never make it on other networks.

You take what you can learn from and disregard the rest. These censorship attacks based on bias could be directed at most media..if you want to go that route.

[dipsydoodle]

51. Is reddit the same as ribbit

the French national news service ?

Ribbit, ribbit, ...................

[hrmjustin]

68. FYI RT is not appropriate in LBN as well.

[quinnox]

69. Meh, never heard of Reddit, sounds like just another stupid social site

I couldn't care less what news sources they start censoring or if they only allowed Fox news on their site. I would never go to these kind of dumb social sites in the first place. Facebook is bad enough.

[TBF]

71. The 50s called and McCarthy needs you back in the office .... nt

[rug]

73. Get rid of Reddit.

[libdem4life]

75. La la la la ... I can't hear you !!!

We're not DumbBunnies. Holy crap, we're back in Second Grade again. Censored. Liberals. Democrats.

Get out yer binoculars...look up in the sky for the Incoming Commies. Yes, some of us actually did that in a small Nebraska town as a kid back in the 50s.

I'll trade an RT for Fox News ... that would be a toss up for propaganda ... heavy on the FN side. At least the RT folks don't have ditzy blondes who twerk to an entire national audience...Jeez. (Gretchen whats-her-name)

It's between a bridge (purchasing or jumping off) or a bus (underneath or transport to saner time zone) ...take your pick.

[backscatter712]

81. Does that mean we have to ban Thom Hartmann too? n/t

[KoKo]

89. DU's Steve Leser Interviewed on RTAmerica along with Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter and

a whole Hour interview with Spymaster General Michael Hayden defending the NSA Spying program a couple of weeks ago...along with Ray McGovern, P.J. Crowley (former Obama Administration)....and so many more!

[Warpy]

82. Kind of a stupid reason to ban

I know their news stories often have to be read with a pound of salt, but some of their videos have been great.

What do those people think it is, 1952?

[rhett o rick]

83. Let's not get "ban happy" plez. nm

[Union Scribe]

88. RT is just the beginning

Hosts are trying to establish a list of sites to ban, etching it in DU stone for perpetuity. RawStory is on the chopping block, Examiner, basically anything not American (they pulled a fast trigger on a Scottish paper because they thought it was linked to the Daily Mail- so that's probably out too). It's getting out of hand.