RT is the Devil's news service!

[another_liberal]

Well he didn't exactly say that, but he might be inspired to add that accusation later. At any rate, what our new chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Andrew Lack, did charge was something almost as ludicrous when he began his new tenure by equating RT News with the two worst terrorist groups currently active in the World. I guess there is only one acceptable "Point of view," the American one, and any news source which doesn't adhere to our government's line on all events of the day is just plain equivalent to people who kidnap children en-masse, murder helpless prisoners and film beheadings for their propaganda value? Right?

Andrew Lack.



RT equated to ISIS for ‘daring to advocate a point of view’


Following comments from the US overseas broadcasting chief listing RT as a challenge alongside the Islamic State and Boko Haram, critics said the outlet was singled out for “daring to advocate a point of view,” as well as for “competing for viewership.” On Wednesday, the new chief of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Andrew Lack, told the New York Times that RT posed a significant challenge – putting the broadcaster in a list alongside the Islamic State and Boko Haram terror groups.

The comments have since been denounced on social networks and across the media spectrum. Speaking to RT, legal analyst and media commentator Lionel said the channel was being outrageously singled out and equated to the Islamic State for “daring to advocate a point of view. In the history of incoherent statements, this might be the granddaddy of them all. In reading this, he alleges that Russia Today pushes… ‘a point of view,’” he told RT’s Ameera David.

Georgetown University journalism professor Chris Chambers added that Lack’s words were “supremely silly and careless,” especially considering his media background. Lack previously worked for NBC, Bloomberg, and Sony Music. “This is a guy who has some media savvy, supposedly, even though he’s moved around a lot – maybe this is one reason he’s moved around,” Chambers told RT. “But this was a very careless and silly thing to say considering the prevalence of corporate media here in the United States, and the purpose of BBG’s constitutes like Voice of America, who are supposed to put out all kinds of views.”

While Lack’s comments were roundly criticized, Steven Ellis of the International Press Institute said he was right in one way. “Mr. Lack could have phrased his comments more carefully: RT does indeed pose a challenge to US international broadcasting in terms of competing for viewership,” he said. Asked about the issue on Friday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki distanced the US government from Lack’s comments, saying it doesn’t agree with the statement.

(snip)



Read more, and see videos of RT's coverage of the story, at: http://rt.com/usa/225819-rt-isis-point-view-competition/

[elias49]

1. Just another pretty, rich face.

And pretty ignorant.
From Bloomberg News, Sony, (hmmm. Sony)
and for what it's worth I never even heard of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors. Nut, hey, the guy needs a job.
"Doin' a great job Andy"

[another_liberal]

2. To paraphrase Art Linkletter. . .

"Fat old rich guys say the darndest things!"

[uhnope]

44. RT is the Putin's press agency, and Putin is using terrorism

Is Putin Turning to Terrorism in Ukraine?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/06/is-putin-turning-to-terrorism-in-ukraine.html

Putin’s Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/putin%E2%80%99s-russia-state-sponsor-terrorism

[sabrina 1]

53. Lol, they said that about Al Jazeera also. Because we couldn't have real reporters reporting

on news they THOUGHT they had managed to suppress by buying OUR media.

RT is staffed with some great and REAL reporters, unlike our corporate tools.

The way to combat lies, if lies are being told, is to tell the truth.

Bashing every news organization other than the one they totally control, only makes US like the terrorists. Jailing bloggers, desperately trying to silence every foreign news agency that doesn't toe the line of the war mongers.

The Left used to defend the right of even Al Jazeera, owned by a DICTATOR, yet providing some of the best coverage of the criminal war in Iraq.

But the propaganda from the neocons about RT seems to have silenced the free speech advocates. RT journalists were killed in Ukr, just as Al Jazeera journalists were persecuted, jailed and bombed during the Bush era.

The more I see morons like the one in the OP, who btw, is being TRASHED all over the world, trying to stop me from watching something especially with these childish 'terror' threats, the more I will seek it out to find out what it is they are trying to hide.

[polly7]

54. BINGO! nt.

[uhnope]

56. lol. RT is not being "suppressed" any more than FOX is suppressed

What we are doing is exposing RT for the crap it is, like we expose FOX.

BTW if you are so concerned about news being suppressed, why don't you post about the press freedom hell that is Russia, that is created by the Kremlin, which funds RT propaganda?

But the central appeal of RT is to leftists, libertarians, conspiracy theorists, and other marginalized groups. The main thematic work of RT is to paint the West in the worst possible light, as decadent, corrupt, and failing – the Cohen method of defense-by-implication. RT’s deep coverage of the Occupy protests and harsh coverage of American politics and life in general offers a platform to critics who are denied respectful treatment in the U.S. media. They are bound, above all, by a desire to get on television.

The demise of communism has left a void in the place where socialist fervor once animated the Soviet dupes. In the absence of any positive motivating force, Putin’s Russia, which has positioned itself as America’s main rival, has sponged up whatever motley collection of outsiders it can find. Russia is not the vessel for their ideological fantasies, but merely a placeholder for their accumulated discontent.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/pathetic-lives-of-putins-american-dupes.html

[sabrina 1]

58. Yes, all those Liberals RT gives a voice to who are kept off the Corporate Media, MUST be

(their favorite propaganda word) CTS!!!! OMG, Thom Hartman, Amy Goodman!!! Thanks for a perfect example of the propaganda I was talking about.

It really pisses of the neocons that RT is so popular around the world, same way they hated Al Jazeera.

And the more they do stuff, like the subject of this OP, the more popular it becomes.

Same thing happened when the idiots tried to discredit the reporters on Al Jazeera. I remember donating to them in response along with many other Democratic Liberals.

RT is a great place to see all the Liberals, Chris Hedges, eg, that our Corporate Media is so frightened of, and we USED to be so outraged that there were no Liberal voices allowed on the Corporate owned media.

Of course they are not being 'repressed', but there sure is an effort to do so.

The reason it isn't working is because over the past ten years, the climate for the demonization of Real Journalists as we have watched them being persecuted, has changed dramatically.

I'm not worried about RT, just pointing out the propaganda we have become so accustomed to by now, and watching the hypocrisy of some on the Left who raged against it a few years ago.

Some great discussions on RT with people from all sides of the issues. And the Left does get to have a voice.

[uhnope]

59. You don't want "liberals"--you want fools in service to the Russian neocons

(or who will bash the US--which is what RT provides). This is obvious from your previous posts:

A hysterical rant that Russia didn't annex Crimea by force:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024860167#post23

In defense of calling the Kiev government Nazis, and lathering all over the fool Robert Parry:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5499514

So please don't pretend you just want "all sides of the issues."

While some legit voices get on RT--just like on FOX--in general it's embarrassments like Robert Parry, people with no other place to go like confirmed plagiarist Chris Hedges, and marginal folks struggling in their career like Thom Hartmann.

[sabrina 1]

63. I want Facts, and I find that RTs reporting is backed up on reputable sources around the world on

the Coup in Kiev. THAT is a FACT. THere was a coup! Thanks John McCain and Nuland. The World knows it. Because they were caught red-handed in every reputable source around the world. And no we are not going to war with Russia no matter how much the war mongers want it. So the propaganda they are spreading, from so many questionable sources, simply isn't working.

Speaking of Neo Nazis, part of the Coup Government in Kiev. I don't consort with or support anyone that include those haters as part of their government. Nice photos of McCain posing with one of them though. Right wingers, birds of a feather, no surprise there.

Robert Parry has always been hated by war mongers, one of this country's BEST investigative journalists and a source for Liberals who actually WANT FACTS.

Please don't pretend you are presenting any kind of facts here.

RT is a threat to warmongers, as was Al Jazeera.

That too is a FACT.

Your angry ranting makes me wonder why you care what sources people you don't know, and there are literally millions of them so it's going to be a difficult task trying to get to all of them, use or don't use.

YOU are free to as you please, and your angry attacks on others for their views isn't getting you much credibility frankly.

[uhnope]

78. Respectfully, you have no idea what a fact is.

RT is a threat to warmongers, as was Al Jazeera.

That too is a FACT.

Um, no. That is at best a supposition.

Your mention of the hilarious Nuland conspiracy theory as proof of anything tell us more about your relationship with facts.

Your angry ranting makes me wonder

Um, did you look at your own post?

I like how you totally ignored the fact that I exposed your pattern of support for Russia aggression. & you accuse others of being warmongers?

[sabrina 1]

82. Since I am more than happy to repeat every word I have ever written here, why didn't you save

yourself the trouble of all that work to try to dig up something to play 'gotcha' with? And when you couldn't find it, just make stuff up? That makes YOU look bad. Why not simply ask me to repeat my opinions, I would have been more than happy to do so. But then you couldn't have made stuff up I suppose.

You 'exposed' nothing, You used an old over used, tired tactic which is so familiar here people simply laugh when they see it.

Let me explain how it works for those reading who may be new around here.

Tactic

Someone dares to have an opinion you don't like.

1) Frantically search through that person'scomments. Try very hard to find something to use AGAINST THEM. Do NOT discuss anything, you might lose.

2) If you can't find anything damaging, just post LINKS, NO TEXT. Goal is to hope readers won't click the links.

3) Then, in ominous sounding text claim something was stated in the link that was not stated, then hope readers won't click links.

4) Q.E.D. Person who dared to disagree with you will now be, (in this case) transformed from merely a person with a different opinion into: A COMMIE!! Lol.

Of course it only works if the person is not well known to most people on the forum. This wasn't even a good try. But knock yourself out if you have nothing better to do, I suppose.

Btw, your opinion means nothing to me. No disrespect, but I've read your comments also.

Oh, and RT is one of many great sources of information we have today, unlike back in 2000 when all we had was the MSM.

I love that we can now get different viewpoints and don't have to be stuck with the war mongering on our own Corporate Media.

Enjoy your evening. Try not to take all this so seriously.

You really can't influence what books people choose to read, not yet anyhow, or movies or websites grown up adult human beings choose as sources of information.

You read what books YOU want, the rest of us will read and watch what we want.

[AgingAmerican]

65. So Thom Hartmann is in service of the Russian Neocons?

Oogly boogly! We are DOOMED!!

http://rt.com/shows/big-picture/

[uhnope]

74. Sometimes he is

Your reading assignments:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wcw+hartmann+kos&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/07/stephen_cohen_vladimir_putin_s_apologist_the_nation_just_published_the_most.html

Extra credit: What logical fallacy is represented by your post?

[AgingAmerican]

75. Lemme guess, guilt by association fallacy?

Oh, wait, that's the logical fallacy YOU are pushing.

Never mind!

[uhnope]

76. yeah, go on your way

I show you the evidence and you just ignore it. Here


LEAVE THOM HARTMANN ALONE!

[AgingAmerican]

80. Evidence of what?

??

That Thom is a closet right winger/Putinista? Your theory holds zero water.

[uhnope]

81. I showed that Hartmann endorses Cohen's Putin apologia

and in fact he has had Cohen on many times to spew this stuff, and Hartmann chimes in.

My original point was that nobody very legit is on RT. Hartmann (who I agree with on most things) is a marginal figure.

You did the strawman thing (a change of subject), and then I showed you that, actually, Hartmann does get pretty flaky when it comes to the Putin's totalitarian government, the very opposite of anything progressive.

The possibilities are that Hartmann is of the Chomskyite Putin apologists school, or he just knows who pays his rent and gives lip service when due.

[AgingAmerican]

83. So you are proposing that Thom Hartmann supports Putin, you just can't prove it...

Your article makes no mention of Thom Hartmann.

Please post some direct quotes from Thom where he shows support for Putin, so we can see them for ourselves, with links.

Thanks in advance!

[uhnope]

84. apologies, original link was in error.

should be http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/10/1283668/-Thom-Hartmann-Sticking-with-RT-despite-Resignations-over-Putin-s-Actions-in-Ukraine#

and it's easy enough to find the many times Hartmann's had Cohen on to do the Putin apology dance.

"Hartmann supports Putin" is too strong. Cohen supports Putin, and Hartmann does a shilly-shally, which is disgraceful for any progressive

[sabrina 1]

86. How about Chris Hedges, Democracy Now? How about Kucinich, or Members of the British Parliament?

Do you actually KNOW anything about this network? Or are you just repeating the expected attacks on any media other than the Corporate Controlled, War Mongering MSM here?

Btw, what do you consider to be reliable sources??

[BainsBane]

85. RT is useful for knowing the POV of the Russian government

aka Putin. To take it as anything other than that is ridiculous. Al Jazeera is a reputable news agency, though certainly not a good source for analysis of Quatar. If one looks at the actual content of the news rather than what you think about who owns it, it helps. To pretend there is one singular news service that counters RT, as though it's one vs. the other, is a ridiculously false construction. You people pick the worst example of news that no self-respecting, educated person wastes time on and pretend that represents the totality of news information available in the US. It does not. There are thousands of news sources available today from all around the world, and if one bothers to learn some foreign languages one can actually read news that is not pitched to English-speaking audiences. To pretend it's either trash cable vs. RT is distorting and reductionist. If people choose to limit themselves to cable or network news or even waste time watching it at all, that is their fault entirely. It certainly doesn't excuse an uncritical approach toward a state news agency from Russia. A key step in examining a source is to consider their biases--since everyone and every source has them.

There is nothing leftist about Russia or RT. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know the first thing about what leftism is. Russia is characterized by unbridled capitalism, where a few rich oligarchs, including Putin himself, own everything and wield political power. Communism collapsed there decades ago. This absurd paradigm a few have created that imagines we are still in the Cold War and that Russia and the US represent left and right respectively is ridiculous. You might as well pick the House of Saud to champion. The idea that "corporate tools" or big money only have an influence in the US and not Russia is patently false. Just because you don't like something about America doesn't mean that Russia represents the polar opposite. Simplistic paradigms make it impossible to approach an understanding of the complexities of the contemporary world.

[sabrina 1]

87. Clearly you've never watched it. But thanks for the opinion. Opinions are always better when backed

by facts. And the fact it is, it is very similar to AL Jazeera which is why it is so popular.

I wonder why people are so afraid of anything outside of our own Corporate Media??

Al Jazeera and RT are among the most popular news agencies around the world, both are government run and funded, which is actually great, no ads!! So you can watch a great discussion between world leaders and politicians without interruption.

Their interviewers do not interrupt Liberals the way our stenographers here do, (thanks Colbert).

Don't worry you don't have to read or watch anything you don't want to.

RT will remain a great source of information, and we adults are more than capable of figuring out what is propaganda and what is not.

But please, if you're going to comment on something, make sure you are more familiar with it than those you are addressing.

Not much difference between RT and Al Jazeera at all. I have watched both since their inceptions, so am very familiar with them among so many other sources.

What IS propaganda is the US Corporate owned media. Which is why so many of us sought out other sources and found them, tons of them from all over the world.

[BainsBane]

88. Well, since you obviously didn't read my post

and rather than addressing any of the points I made, such as the false comparison of "corporate media," as thought that is the only kind that exists except for RT, or that contrasting one type of crap media doesn't excuse or negate the biases in another. Instead, you simply repeat the same points that show you have not even the slightest awareness of the critiques I raised in my previous post.

Indeed opinions are better when backed by fact, or more appropriately, evidence. Assertions of "Real journalists" at RT as opposed to every other news outlet on the planet are absurd. What is so "real" about RT journalists as opposed to all other news organizations? How is the CBC "corporate'"? The Nation? Monthly Review, The International Socialist Review? How are they corporate organs? Of course they aren't, but you refuse to address that because they would highlight how exceedingly reactionary and ultra-right wing RT and those who take it uncritically actually are. RT is funded by the state, like the CBC, like countless other public broadcasting networks around the world. It is far from alone in that regard. We have them too you know: PBS, NPR, as do lots of other countries. We even have state-funded news outlets that like RT are designed for foreign audiences: Radio Marti, and once Radio Free Europe. There probably lies a better comparison than Al Jazeera, but that is the one outlet you named. I did not say RT did not have value. but what it objectionable is your assertion that it represents the only "real" news outlet on earth. As I already noted, all news outlets, like sources of any kind, have biases. That is the nature of the written word and indeed the human condition, so naturally the news reflects such biases. The point is to understand those biases and read with discernment, not decide one source is the purveyor of absolute truth.

You repeatedly dismiss other people's views as less than factual, even when they provide copious evidence, as I have done in the past with you, while you provide none. Your views alone count as fact, whereas evidence, even documentary support, that doesn't affirm your view is less than factual. The notion of truth and self as indistinguishable is an unfortunate one. Your consistent references to yourself as the holder of fact and anyone who disagrees with you as less than factual--when you haven't even made an effort to provide anything other than opinion. You don't even provide examples to support your argument, which I at least have done. The problem with the positivist notion of truth, in addition to being 100 years out of date and representative of the very class-based values you claim to oppose, is that it limits the mind: when one already believes they know everything, there is no space to learn.

I'll leave you to your empiricist and imperious notions of truth. Critique is something you clearly don't brook. I expect that is essential to maintaining the view of the world with which you are comfortable.

[sabrina 1]

90. I see you didn't read my comment at all. You have done what has become a recognizable

tactic, despite how ineffective it is, and simple WRITTEN A COMMENT FOR ME.

First, since I subscribe to most of the news sources you mention, the Nation eg, they were not included in my reference to the MSM. That means MAINSTREAM, Fox, CNN, the media from which most Americans get their 'news'.

When did the Nation become Mainstream?

Those you mentioned are far from Mainstream in this country nor are they allowed to offer their POVS on the US MSM. Way too LEFT, like RT.

The fact that you ask me about the journalists on RT tells me you are not at all familiar with it.

I, eg, have seen contributors from most of the non-MSM you listed on RT, but never on the Corporate Media.

RT is far to the Left so again, your claim that it is to the Right absolutely tells me you are not familiar with at all.

Unless people like Noam Chomsky eg, have suddenly swung to the Right: http://rt.com/news/202995-chomsky-rt-nuclear-war/ .

Or Chris Hedges, Thom Hartmann, several Nation Contributers, not to mention Democratic politicians.

Many of these Liberals have been asked why they appear on RT, by Right Wingers or Third Wayers mostly. Most have responded that they are aware of the fact it is government sponsored, 'so why not use it'?

Others have stated, correctly, that their Liberal views are not welcome on the US MSM.

Which was my point in the first place, before commenting on something, it's always better to be familiar with the subject.

Al Jazeera is now allowed on US TV. Censored by the Bush gang. The far Right hates Al Jazeera as they hate RT. When relations improve between this country and Russia, we will see the hypocritical acceptance of RT as we are now seeing of Al Jazeera.

I can understand the Right's hatred for RT though. They do occasionally appear on the network, and do not get away with what they get away with on our own Corporate Media.

All media is biased, but as one Liberal stated, 'we are all grown up enough to sort out the biases from the facts'.

[Scuba]

3. Like any cult, the first lesson is "Trust No One But Us"

[another_liberal]

4. Fascinating . . .

Just one big, stinking rich club.

[polly7]

16. Interesting! nt.

[KoKo]

37. Recommend

[reorg]

49. 'state-sponsored' media targetting foreign audiences

RT: $271 million
BBC World Service: $382 million
VOA, RFE etc. (but without AFN): $700 million

What you have pointed out is only the private conglomerates which control the message in the US. They distribute content in foreign countries as well, but for the most part just for entertainment, distraction and ad revenue. Regarding the shaping of opinions and distribution of news, the US government is the big spender.

“On a global scale the BBC are concerned because they are being outspent by the Russians and Chinese on a spectacular scale,” said Professor Stewart Purvis, the former ITN chief executive. “It’s the soft power war that’s replaced the cold war.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/21/bbc-world-service-information-war-russia-today

The BBC World Service, a leading international radio and internet broadcaster providing programmes and content in English and 27 other languages, has a budget of £245 million ($382 million) that is funded from UK TV license fees. RT, with its 24-hour TV and internet coverage in English, Spanish, Arabic and Russian, plus French and German services ready to be rolled out in 2015, will reportedly have a combined budget of 15.38 billion rubles ($271 million as at December 22, 2014) for 2015.

http://rt.com/uk/216559-bbc-rt-budget-horrocks/

Andrew Lack was sworn in this week as the first chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, putting him in charge of an agency with a $700 million budget and an outsize influence on shaping world opinion about the United States. Foreign policy experts and some critics say the appointment of Mr. Lack, the former president of NBC News and a prominent news media executive, represents a sea change for the often-criticized agency, which oversees United States government-supported civilian international news media such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Asia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/broadcasting-board-of-governors-names-chief-executive.html?_r=2

[Scuba]

50. Interesting and noteworthy, thanks reorg!

[uhnope]

60. The RT-Putin cult?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017235745

[SidDithers]

5. Leave RT alone!!!...

Fucking shameless.

Sid

[elias49]

10. Ah, another bon mot by Sid.

Why bother?

[IDemo]

6. Good morning, tovarich

[another_liberal]

7. Hey, that's a new one!

Someone else learn how to use Photoshop?

[polly7]

11. I find all those photoshops hilarious!

But, I guess I'm a Pootie lover for being able to consider articles from all sources and make up my mind how accurate they are.

Dear Pootie (the newest necessary boogeyman) looks wonderful here! lol

(To anyone ready to jump on me, no ...... I don't believe any of the cruel, bigoted laws passed by Russia's gov't are anything but sick.)

[another_liberal]

13. Agreed . . .

On all points, except how "Wonderful."

[polly7]

15. LOL. ok, I was exaggerating (quite) a lot.

I've been accused of wanting Hussein's babies! way back in the day, for posting from Al Jazeera. This RT crap is just the same - trying so hard to censor what adult, intelligent people are allowed to read. I always look for other sources to verify anything from any media source - I doubt anyone here accepts anything they read without making sure it's true. Censorship makes me ill.

[another_liberal]

28. Good for you!

I remember the "Go have his babies if you love him so much" cat calls.

If one didn't want to level Baghdad with an nuclear bomb, then one just had to want to have sex with Saddam.

[polly7]

34. Yep!. nt.

[hobbit709]

8. He finally posted a true statement about RT.

[malaise]

9. Bet like Cheney the hotels have to make sure the channel is

on Fux before he reaches the room.

[another_liberal]

12. Cheney needs to always be surrounded by a universe of himself . . .

Last edited Sat Jan 24, 2015, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)

His beliefs, values and opinions need to be on all lips or his paranoia kicks in. No one wants to be around when he starts to feel paranoid!

[malaise]

17. I actually hope he got the heart of an African-American

Muslim

[polly7]

20. That would be perfect! Especially if he ever found out, lol. nt.

[malaise]

24. Only if he croaked on finding out

Then not only would I LOL - I'd pop that champagne cork immediately if I could get up from ROFL

[NCTraveler]

14. RT, as it stands today, is truly easy to understand.

It is the propaganda outlet of the extreme right wing government under the control of Putin. Really pretty simple. It is a great way to understand how Putin wants to be seen by the world. It is good to watch his actions and then read his propaganda. Helps to understand how fascist they are today. It is all a part of the big picture. Anyone calling it "news" is simply foolish, uneducated, or has an agenda. It is not news. It is propaganda. Same as someone calling it worse than a terrorist organization.

Anyone who thinks it is news should go here for some hard-core journalism.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room

[elias49]

18. Exchange Russian propaganda for US propaganda?

Bwahaha. Oh, there is the Times and the likes of Judith Miller.

[NCTraveler]

61. Exactly.

No clue how some people are so blind to RT yet fully get it from the American side. Makes no sense at all.

[AgingAmerican]

67. I didn't know Thom Hartmann was a Russky spy!

Thanks for letting us know that!

http://rt.com/shows/big-picture/

[randome]

19. Enough. You're embarrassing yourself.

Regardless of what your personal beliefs (obsessions?) are, it should be plain that the DU community in aggregate does not equate RT with objective reporting.

How hard is it to accept that? There are plenty of other news sources to counter the corporate line.

I'd admire anyone for being outside the mainstream but you seem to enjoy being the turd in the punch bowl and that's not nearly as admirable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[polly7]

21. What have you got against personal freedom to pick and choose and evaluate information

from 'any' source? Do you think people here are so stupid they can't decide for themselves what is accurate and what isn't? It seems to me those trying so hard to censor here are very afraid of people posting the 'wrong' news, just as we were told when we first reported anything from Al Jazeera. It's deja vu ...... only 'Hussein lovers' read that trash.

[randome]

22. So go ahead and post excerpts from Fox News. That's the same thing.

Sheesh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[polly7]

23. No thanks.

But there are plenty of stories here posted from Fox, and they actually are easily verified with other sources.

[malaise]

25. Actuallly RT is way more accurate than FOX on several issues

starting with GITMO.

[polly7]

27. The Truth. nt.

[AgingAmerican]

69. RT hosts a lot of Thom Hartmann's content

Didn't know that Thom Hartmann = Fox News. Thanks for the heads up! I had a feeling Thom was a Ruusky spy!

http://rt.com/shows/big-picture/

[another_liberal]

30. No, not nearly "enough" . . .

Your response makes that much clear to me.

[randome]

42. I get it now.

You're willing to promote what you claim are alternate opinions yet you are singularly unwilling to consider the opinions of anyone else on DU.

Truer colors were never flown.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[another_liberal]

43. You bad-mouth me and my opinions ("turd in the punch bowl" comes to mind) . . .

Then you say I'm not giving your "opinions" a fair "consideration."

Really, randy?

[randome]

45. What would you call someone who joins a community then refuses to listen to said community?

Like I said, outside the mainstream is fine but you seem to think you know better than everyone else. And of all the things to hitch your flag to, you've chosen RT. You are either our savior come from afar or incredibly blind.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[polly7]

47. Who made you the arbiter of what's acceptable in the mind of most posters here?

If RT wasn't considered an acceptable source, it would be banned. Why not work on that instead of trying so hard to bully people who dare to consider, judge and post articles from it they believe are true?

I believe the ATA forum is just for that, you might want to try there.

[another_liberal]

57. Either a "savior" or "blind" and that's it . . .

How about something as far as possible from both those extremes?

[SidDithers]

32. That ship sailed a long, long time ago...nt

Sid

[KoKo]

26. Andrew Lack would say that...wouldn't he? Its his new job:

His new job is head of American Propaganda at Home and Abroad...

---------------------------------------

New CEO Andy Lack Sworn In to Lead BBG
January 20, 2015

http://www.bbg.gov/blog/2015/01/20/new-ceo-andy-lack-sworn-in-to-lead-bbg/

Jeff Shell, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, congratulates Andy Lack after swearing him in as the first ever CEO of U.S. international media.

WASHINGTON – Respected journalist and media executive Andrew Lack was sworn-in today as the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the federal agency that oversees the five networks and broadcasting operations of U.S. international media. Those networks include the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio and TV Martí, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

Lack is the first-ever CEO of U.S. international media. Creating the position of a CEO has been a key objective of the agency’s governing board and the Administration.

“We are at a unique time in the extraordinary history of this agency. The 21st Century’s global war on information is increasingly threatening to our country and our values,” said Lack. “I am lucky to join a great group of journalists and news professionals spread across the globe who care so deeply about our critical role in that battle.”

Lack’s selection follows an almost year-long search process that began in October 2013.

“To say we are fortunate that Andy has agreed to accept this challenge is a huge understatement,” said Jeff Shell, Chairman of the BBG. “He is an experienced media executive, a respected journalist, and an energetic and inspirational leader. We are grateful that Andy has decided to serve his country and lead the BBG at this critical juncture.”

Prior to being selected by the BBG, Lack served as the Chairman of the Bloomberg Media Group. He joined Bloomberg in October 2008 as CEO of its Global Media Group and was responsible for expanding television, radio, magazine, conference and digital businesses.



Previous to joining Bloomberg, Lack was Chairman and CEO of Sony Music Entertainment, where he led the company’s roster of prominent international artists and vast catalog of recorded music from around the world. Before joining Sony Music Entertainment, he was president and chief operating officer of NBC, where he oversaw entertainment, news (including MSNBC and CNBC), NBC stations, sales and broadcast and network operations. He was responsible for expanding the Today show to three hours and creating the show’s street-side studio in New York’s Rockefeller Center.

From 1993 to 2001, Lack was president of NBC News, which he transformed into America’s most-watched news organization through NBC Nightly News, Meet the Press, Today and Dateline NBC.

[another_liberal]

29. "The 21st Century’s global war on information," what a noble cause.

Does he get to wear a general's uniform?

Will there be special medals for any big victories over "Information" which are achieved?

[pampango]

31. It is what it is - a mouthpiece for the Russian government. It is useful for presenting a different

"official" view events but that is all.

[another_liberal]

33. Just a "Mouthpiece" is it?

But Western networks, which it has been documented do take orders from their governments concerning when (and if) they can air a given story, are somehow independent and free of interference?

Either they are all just "Mouthpieces" or you must be using the wrong term entirely.

[pampango]

36. If you believe that RT criticizes Russian policy and actions as frequently as the Times does to US'

policy or the BBC does to British policy, you are welcome to your opinion.

[KoKo]

39. duplicate

[KoKo]

40. It's RT America, UK, Latin America that they are afraid of.....

The U.S. has not had a counter to "Radio Free" since WWII. It's not just RT.. its ANY competition. This appointment of Lack with expanded funding means that we don't stand for true Free Press and we aren't bringing "Freedom and Democracy" to the world as we espouse. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, South Africa and our interventions in South America and elsewhere. Do these countries have "Free Press?"

--------

Respected journalist and media executive Andrew Lack was sworn-in today as the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the federal agency that oversees the five networks and broadcasting operations of U.S. international media. Those networks include the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio and TV Martí, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

Lack is the first-ever CEO of U.S. international media. Creating the position of a CEO has been a key objective of the agency’s governing board and the Administration.

“We are at a unique time in the extraordinary history of this agency. The 21st Century’s global war on information is increasingly threatening to our country and our values,” said Lack. “I am lucky to join a great group of journalists and news professionals spread across the globe who care so deeply about our critical role in that battle.”

If our values are so pure and noble and able to withstand scrutiny....why is news from other countries, available to U.S. viewers, a Threat? What's next...Book Bannings?

[another_liberal]

41. I didn't say that . . .

Last edited Sat Jan 24, 2015, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I was finding fault with your characterization of RT as a "Mouthpiece."

Tell me, though, if RT reports well on international news stories, and even wins Western awards for that coverage, why should it be discredited for not criticizing Russian policy enough? There are many countries we are allied with who would not allow very much of that kind of coverage either.

[SidDithers]

35. What's RT got to say about Mariupol, comrade?...nt

Sid

[another_liberal]

38. Since you ask so politely, Sid . . .

It's pretty even-handed, if not dubious, in regard to Separatist claims as well:

Donetsk militia 'not going to storm Mariupol', trades accusations with Kiev


The Donetsk militia has been ordered to suppress Kiev’s military positions to the east of Mariupol, but is not going to storm the city, said Donetsk Republic head, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, accusing Kiev of a false flag operation and shifting the blame. “Until now, we weren’t conducting any operations outside Mariupol. We’re saving strength,” Zakharchenko was cited by RIA-Novosti news agency as saying.

“But now, after Kiev decided to shift the blame on us for its erroneous fire from Grad multiple rocket launchers at residential areas [in Mariupol], I gave an order to suppress the positions of the Ukrainian military, stationed east of Mariupol,” he added. Zakharchenko added that the forces of the People’s Republic of Donetsk (DPR) have no plans of storming the city itself.

The DPR leader said that “in the last few days the Ukrainian side had relocated a large grouping of its troops to Mariupol. Day and night, our positions in the town of Novoazovsk are subjected to massive bombardment from Grad multiple rocket launchers and heavy artillery. Today, the armored vehicles from the 28th Ukrainian brigade have arrived in the area as well,” he stressed.

According to Zakharchenko, Kiev is doing everything to make the rebels “move the forces, which are now involved in the battle for the Donetsk airport, to Mariupol, to weaken us and dislodge us from there [the airport].”


http://rt.com/news/225955-mariupol-ukraine-shelling-kiev/

[Duckhunter935]

51. even handed

I see nothing about the fact that the shelling of Mariupol came from the direction of the Russians and that is documented by the OSCE and HRW.

Nothing about the declaration of an offensive on Mariupol that was stated by the "DNR"

[foo_bar]

46. I enjoyed listening to Radio Moscow on my shortwave in the 80s

I doubt anyone confused it with unvarnished truth, which was hard to find on the radio (aside from Radio Canada Int'l :p), but it was interesting to hear from the cosmopolitan wing of their state apparatus, almost like if FOX had a world service where they toned down the bombast and discussed real issues in order to give republicans a Euro-friendly façade. I mean it's all really weaponized disinformation, but that doesn't detract from its entertainment value.

The BBC World Service is being financially outgunned by Russian and Chinese state-owned news channels, its former director Peter Horrocks has warned, amid high-level concerns that Britain and the US are losing a global “information war” with the Kremlin.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/21/bbc-world-service-information-war-russia-today

[another_liberal]

55. I like the BBC World Service quote . . .

It's the typical Western perspective: a rivalry with other points of view must be characterized in terms of who "out-guns" the other. To the Western powers information isn't always about revealing truth, it's often about using information like a weapon.

[Purveyor]

52. kick. Thanks for posting. +1 eom

[LanternWaste]

62. No doubt, there are half-wits and idiots who believe that stories which invalidate a particular RT..

No doubt, there are half-wits and idiots who believe that stories which invalidate a particular RT piece is simply 'propaganda.' No reason at all to invest any credibility into the sub-literates who state as much...

[KamaAina]

64. Well, it is Putin's news service

and he's pretty darn close.

[Electric Monk]

79. Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible

TV is key to Putin's authoritarian regime in Russia http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016112635

[Rex]

66. I've said it before and probably will say it again, why would anyone trust

news from a corporate mouthpiece? OTOH, why would anyone trust news in a society run by a dictator? Which is worse?

You decide.

[99Forever]

68. WTF would some NYT bozo know about journalism?

They stopped doing journalism years ago. Just another 1%er mouthpiece hating on truth.

[another_liberal]

70. When you're right, you're right . . .

And you are right about that bought-and-sold mouthpiece.

[L0oniX]

71. I watch RT just to piss off people.

[another_liberal]

72. Are there really people who don't like RT News?

Who could have imagined?

[William769]

73. RT is not the Devil's news service. It's Putin's.

Oh, wait...

[Rex]

89. Yes, we should trust state run media...that's just like McCarthyism!

NO.