Anyone willing to post a cite from "Russia Today" should read this...

[Archae]

And realize just how they are being played for suckers.

6 Reasons You've Probably Read Russian Propaganda Today

By Robert Evans, Jim Kovpak | December 16, 2015 | 214,970 views

Soviet propaganda is iconic across the world, from museums to the T-shirts worn by that guy that always brings an acoustic guitar to the party. But it's not a thing of the past: The modern Russian state has their own propaganda, and they spend at least $300 million a year delivering it directly from the Kremlin to your Facebook feed. Cracked sat down with Professor Eugen Fedchenko, who helps run the propaganda-busting website StopFake.org, and talked to him about how Russian propaganda slips into our reading every day.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2074-6-ways-youve-probably-read-russian-propaganda-today.html

[hobbit709]

1. The ones that claim RT is a legitimate news site crack me up.

That's right up there with those claiming Mercola is a legitimate source.

[leveymg]

40. $300 mil. doesn't cover the budget of a single U.S. State Dept "public diplomacy" program

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Not like the Russians are the only ones or the biggest spenders on propaganda in the world. In fact, if that figure quoted is remotely accurate, it wouldn't cover one US Government agency program that sponsors Syrian opposition propaganda and "nonlethal aid."

The term is "public diplomacy" or "perception management" not "trolling." It isn't just a game played by the Russians.

Most US global perception management comes from the State Department, its contractors and foreign program beneficiaries, since USIA was folded into State Public Diplomacy and Public Affiars in 1999. http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/commentaries/11-11-15/murphy-and-kuehl-national-information-strategy-i-%E2%80%93-introduction

During the Cold War, the two note, “USIA was to act as the agency responsible for achieving strategic cognitive information effects globally in support of U.S. strategy and policy.” Currently, however, “no single executive government agency is in charge of the information instrument of national power overall.” Looking beyond connectivity, they see inadequate attention to “content” and its linkages with “cognitive effects” (might we say “influence”?).

USIA was folded into the Department of State in 1999, so the Public Diplomacy cone has succeeded to this national imperative. I’m not aware that any other branch of government has claimed it.

The State Department runs what it classifies as $330 million in "non-lethal assistance" to the Syrian opposition. The Department describes the media component of that as follows:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/09/232266.htm
Home » Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs » Bureau of Public Affairs » Bureau of Public Affairs: Office of Press Relations » Press Releases » Press Releases: 2014 » Press Releases: September 2014 » Syrian Crisis: U.S. Assistance and Support for the Transition
Syrian Crisis: U.S. Assistance and Support for the Transition

Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 29, 2014

U.S. non-lethal assistance includes training and equipment to build the capacity of a network of more than 3,000 grassroots activists, including women and youth, from more than 400 opposition councils and organizations from around the country to link Syrian citizens with the national- and local-level Syrian opposition. This support enhances the linkages between Syrian activists, human rights organizations, and independent media outlets and empowers women leaders to play a more active role in transition planning.

Support to independent media includes assistance to both television and radio stations; mentoring from Arab media experts to broadcast professionals inside Syria; training for networks of citizen journalists, bloggers, and cyber-activists to support their documentation and dissemination of information on developments in Syria; and technical assistance and equipment to enhance the information and communications security of Syrian activists within Syria. U.S. technical and financial assistance is also supporting the Coalition’s outreach to Syrians through the internet, local, independent radio stations, and satellite television.

An example of a program funded through State to achieve "strategic cognitive information effects" is as follows: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/25/selling-peace-groups-on-us-led-wars/

Syrian dissidents received funding from the Los Angeles-based Democracy Council, which ran a Syria-related program called the “Civil Society Strengthening Initiative” funded with $6.3 million from the State Department. The program is described as “a discrete collaborative effort between the Democracy Council and local partners” to produce, among other things, “various broadcast concepts.”

James Prince, the founder and President of the Democracy Council, is also an adviser to CyberDissidents.org , a project created in 2008 by the Jerusalem-based Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, founded and funded by Sheldon Adelson, a patron and confidant of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Other resources include postings on social media and alternative websites with sensational stories such as the anti-Assad activist “Gay Girl in Damascus” who turned out to be a middle-aged American man in Scotland or Syrian Danny Abdul Dayem, who was frequently interviewed using fake gun fire and flames in his interviews.

[randys1]

101. Defending RT? sigh...And Thom Hartmann being on RT pisses me off, he is

not supposed to be connected to a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT BULLSHIT site like RT.

[leveymg]

120. No, just pointing out that the USG is also in the business of spreading lies. Our lies cost more

and are so numerous and omnipresent in the media that we don't even notice them. One could well argue that a 1000 lies that go undetected are worse than the few obvious ones from the usual suspects.

[randys1]

122. Ugh

[leveymg]

130. Try realism. It's not so bad.

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Empires run on lies, and ours is no exception. The sun never sets . . . for instance.

[Ghost Dog]

140. Thank you leveymg

This is why I am here.

For the (as far as discernable, and that takes highly valuable work) truth.

[wildbilln864]

148. well said. Thanks. n/t

[nationalize the fed]

176. +300 million Excellent post

It's smelling a lot like 1980 in here. It stinks.

[CanSocDem]

2. But Cracked magazine is OK.....????

.

[elias49]

3. Haha! Good point! nt

[DetlefK]

4. Is Cracked owned by a government?

And maybe you should read the quality-guidelines contributors have to abide by if they want to write for Cracked. Contrary to RT, they don't treat a guy with a blog as "western media".

[MattSh]

13. Quality guidelines for contributors to Cracked...

Is that anything like the quality guidelines to write for the mainstream media?

Talk about a low bar...

[DetlefK]

178. Look it up yourself:

http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/178054/how-to-get-published-cracked

How do I Format a Pitch?

The most important first thing to learn is how to format your pitches, because we have such specific rules for how we like things organized. When a Workshop Mod is look at your pitch, the first thing they decide is what kind of pitch it is: “Fact-Based” or “Observational.”

A FACT-BASED pitch is a pitch that relies mainly on surprising, counter-intuitive, or mindblowing information you’ve found. These are examples of FACT-BASED articles:

...

Each entry on a fact-based pitch should look like this:

X. Title of the Entry
Three to five sentences explaining the entry in your own words. They need to be your own words. We need these sentences so we know what this particular point is, and why we should care about it.

www.A-Very-Reliable-Source.com
Quote
A quote from that source that backs up what you’re saying.



...

http://www.cracked.com/forums/index.php?topic=178054.msg3127410#msg3127410
(Please note how blogs and Wikipedia are explicitly mentioned as not being acceptable sources. Cracked has a higher bar for the quality of sources than RT...)

[MattSh]

180. Well, I'm assuming the NYTimes has similarly high "standards" for their content...

Yet it's not hard to find them parroting official government positions, ensuring advertisers don't get offended, and even being just plain wrong.

[appal_jack]

5. I'll take Cracked over Russian state propaganda any day. nt

[FlatBaroque]

20. How do you feel about American state propaganda?

i.e., NYTimes, Wash Post, CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.

[kwassa]

22. They aren't state propaganda outlets.

If they were, I might get upset.

The government doesn't own any of them.

[jwirr]

27. But they are owned by the people 1%ers who own our

government.

[kwassa]

31. They are publicly held corporations.

Which mean that many private individuals own stock. Some that own stock may be 1%ers, and many others may not.

[jwirr]

32. Then explain why they are all selling us the goods all the

time? Why are they refusing to cover Bernie Sanders? Why did they help lead us into the Iraq war? Why don't they look at who led us into the 2008 recession and why they were not prosecuted?

I stopped watching tv almost totally because of this and I am not alone.

[Archae]

55. As to Bernie Sanders, I'm afraid it's far simpler.

Sanders is boring.
I don't mean this in a negative connotation, I mean simply that Sanders is boring, compared to Trump and Hillary.

Covering Hillary and trump generates controversy, and ratings, which translate into ad $$$.

The last time Sanders was in any controversy of note, was when those Seattle BLM activists shouted him down.

[cui bono]

164. You've got to be joking.

Sanders is electrifying people all over the country and you think he's boring? lol.

Sanders is not being covered by the MSM simply because he has a message that goes against everything they represent; concentrated power, control of the message and the power, etc... He's pulling in 27,000 person crowds and they don't cover him? It's because they are scared to, they know what he represents and what he is fighting for and it's not the status quo.

Agree with the controversy about covering Hillary and Trump, but also, and mostly, covering Trump is a a money maker beccause it's a carnival show. It's like a trainwreck you can't help looking at. Covering Hillary brings out emotional responses by those that hate her and love Trump.

And nice try sliding in the BLM issue. You know, BLM has said that Bernie 'gets it' more than Hillary. And at least Bernie didn't sequester the BLM activists and talk down to them and point in their faces while doing so.

!

[Archae]

170. You're misunderstanding me.

I mean Sanders isn't a big ratings grabber, like Hillary or Trump.

And I'm just stating what happened in Seattle, a small (I think there were no more than 2 or 3) group of BLM activists made a big stink at a Sanders rally, shouting him down.

[cui bono]

171. He would be a ratings grabber if they would put him on the air.

The people love his message, it's the MSM and the 1% that doesn't. Why would so many people go out to see him if they weren't excited by him? You are just pushing the MSM message of nothing to see here, but there is a lot to see here when it comes to Bernie. That's why they are afraid to put him on air. His message is the LAST thing they want getting out because it will upset their apple cart.

As to BLM, again, Hillary treated them worse and doesn't "get it" like Bernie does according to BLM activists. If we're going to talk about all the candidates about one thing, we should talk about all the candidates about the other thing as well. And Hillary didn't even allow BLM into her event without sequestering them off where they couldn't disrupt her.

!

[Archae]

173. I know that, you know that, and a lot of people here know that.

But the TPTB at the big news networks want with all their hearts, Hillary vs Trump.

Those two will bring in the big ratings, to hell with what people watching want.

[Act_of_Reparation]

56. Sure thing.

We get bullshit news because news is a for-profit industry. Because their profits are derived from ratings, they shy away from risky topics that might cost them viewers.

[kwassa]

62. You are mixing up a number of different things.

Not all media is the same, nor covers things in the same depth.

Press coverage of the Iraq war lead-in was poor. On the other hand, there was a lot of good journalism about the cause of the economic collapse, but the press doesn't prosecute, the government does. The government didn't prosecute.

Bernie Sanders certainly gets press, but Hillary is still way ahead of Bernie so there is no controversy there. The big story currently is the bizarre Republican primary field, with Trump and his relatively high polls numbers.

[MattSh]

41. If you think that makes it more likely you'll get the truth...

Well, that's pretty delusional. There is no relationship whatsoever between publicly held corporations and the truth. If lies are more profitable, you'll get a whole shitload of lies.

[kwassa]

59. No, it is not delusional.

All news operations have their biases, but some strive much more for objectivity than others. Not all media is the same, not all mainstream media is the same.

To find the truth, or as close as one can get to it because often the truth is unavailable, it is important to read as wide a variety of sources as one can, and to go for those that make a serious practice of journalism. Many media sources don't.

Then, one must make one's own decision as to what is true.

[cui bono]

165. +1

All you have to do is look at what companies own the media and then you can see why they push for war etc...

!

[Facility Inspector]

118. that's the funniest thing I've read today

[kwassa]

143. I'm glad your amused. Now, if you have a rebuttal ...

that would be even more amusing.

[Recursion]

181. Arguably VoA, though they make a point of running stories critical of USG

But, yeah, we don't have explicit propaganda arms like the Kremlin does. Though one could argue our media system is such that the government doesn't need them.

[appal_jack]

82. Not much impressed by them either. nt

[sufrommich]

6. One is state owned and operated by Putin bootlickers.

That should be enough to discredit RT to everyone but the perennially gullible.

[MattSh]

10. But the ones owned corporations that hate informed citizens...

and are believed by mainstream media bootlickers are OK...

In some kind of topsy-turvy upside down world, I guess that makes perfect sense.

[stevenleser]

23. You say all of that as if saying it means something. It doesn't.

WE can take 100 articles at random from cnn, ap, reuters and msnbc/nbc/abc and 97-99 of them will be completely accurate.

We can take 100 articles from RT or Voice of Russia and 75 of them will be lies.

[Ghost Dog]

25. The most effective propaganda speaks truth, it is said by apparent experts.

Please provide examples of RT 'lies', supported by evidence.

[stevenleser]

30. How many do you want? nt

[MattSh]

35. As many as you can find...

Don't worry. We can wait.

[stevenleser]

44. Without breaking a sweat...

Here are five completely dishonest or disreputable articles or video segments and an article on Russian media disinformation. This took 5 minutes. If I wanted to, I could compile hundreds maybe thousands in a few hours.

- Jan 2011 RT Promoted Climate Change denial conspiracy theories by Piers Corbyn https://www.rt.com/news/change-climate-warming-corbyn/

- Feb 2010 "US Will start WW3 by attacking Iran"

obviously the Obama agenda was completely the opposite of that

- May 2012 RT had Alex Jones on saying US was preparing re-education camps for political activists

- Tons of false Russian media reports about Ukraine here: http://www.stopfake.org/en/russia-s-top-lies-about-ukraine-part-1/

- RT Lies about its viewership: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/17/putin-s-propaganda-tv-lies-about-ratings.html (plenty of backup in the article)

- Here is an excellent article on the Russian media propaganda system in general. http://www.newsweek.com/putins-news-network-lies-just-start-361877

[starroute]

96. This only confirms my feeling that it's propaganda on both sides

Take that Newsweek piece you call "an excellent article." The authors are Anne Applebaum and Edward Lucas. Below are snippets from the Wikipedia articles on both of them, which make it clear that while they may have lengthy credentials, they are hardly neutral observers. Applebaum casually tosses Salvador Allende into a list of "murderous communist leaders" and Lucas has written an entire book detailing his own personal conspiracy theory concerning Edward Snowden.

I don't know about you -- but this strikes me as a throwback to the purest Cold War rhetoric. And I'd just as soon have an occasional sampling of RT for balance, even if they do exaggerate their viewership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum

Applebaum's first book, Between East and West, is a travelogue, and was awarded an Adolph Bentinck Prize in 1996.[8] Gulag: A History (2003), on the Soviet prison system, was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction writing. Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944–56, was published in 2012 by Doubleday in the USA and Allen Lane in the UK; it was shortlisted for the 2013 PEN/John Kenneth Galbraith Award. Applebaum has also been a vocal critic of Communist regimes more broadly, commenting "Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Salvador Allende, Mengistu, Castro, Kim Il-sung: the list of murderous communist leaders is long, diverse and profoundly multicultural." ...

Applebaum was a George Herbert Walker Bush/Axel Springer Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, Germany, in 2006. Applebaum was also an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lucas_%28journalist%29

Lucas has contributed to several books, including Why I am still an Anglican (Continuum 2006). Lucas's own book, The New Cold War, appeared in 2008. Newsweek stated that "Lucas has built a very strong case for the prosecution [of Vladimir Putin]. And, on all too many of the counts in his indictment, the defendant looks smugly guilty".[3] The Sunday Telegraph called it the best portrait to date of the mentality of Putin's ruling class.

The Independent wrote: "His book's urgency is fueled by the belief that, while the Russian bear has been sharpening its claws, the West has slept. Our first mistake, he argues, is ever to have regarded Russia as "normal". Our second has been to take our eyes off the ball, so obsessed with the "war on terror" that we have failed to understand the implications of Kremlin policy and pronouncements, as personified by Vladimir Putin." ...

Lucas has condemned whistleblower Edward Snowden, saying "If Snowden had approached me with these documents I would have marched him down to Bow Street police station and asked them to arrest him." Lucas has written an e-book called ‘’The Snowden Operation: Inside the West’s Greatest Intelligence Disaster’’ detailing his own conspiracy theory that Snowden was working as a Russian spy.

[Ghost Dog]

142. .

Some perspective. Valuable, thanks starroute.

[MattSh]

179. Stopfake.org... Seriously?

All they basically do is parrot Ukraine, USA, NATO, and western mainstream media positions.

From their About Us page:

The fact-checking website Stopfake.org was launched in March 2014 by faculty and alumni of The Mohyla School of Journalism (that's in Kiev) and students from the Digital Future of Journalism program for journalists and editors.

The team was then joined by other journalists, marketing specialists, programmers, translators, and those concerned about the fate of Ukraine and its people.

The main purpose of this community’s work is to check facts, verify information, and refute verifiable disinformation about events in Ukraine covered in the media.

The StopFake community does not represent or support any political party, commercial organization, or government.

This ongoing project relies on viewer support. In 2015, StopFake also received financial support from the International Renaissance Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Nevertheless, StopFake maintains its editorial independence: the organizations and governments supporting the project stipulate how funds are allocated, but not StopFake’s content. (And if you believe that...)

Not that they would ever go against official government positions. A number of outlets that maintained independence have been shut down because they wouldn't toe the line hard enough.

[stevenleser]

51. And there is the several RT hosts who quit in disgust at the lies they were asked to peddle

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/sara-firth-resigns-russia-today-lies-anchor_n_5598815.html

[randys1]

103. A. you are my hero today. B. can you BELIEVE you have to have this conversation

in a group ALLEGED to be liberals?

[stevenleser]

117. It is ridiculous that I have to have this conversation, but Orwell summed it up nicely in his notes

on nationalism. If you look up his definitions of negative nationalism, you will recognize immediately the behavior of so called Liberals with regard to RT and Putin.

Just about anything and anyone against the US is automatically deemed OK and righteous, just because they are against the US.

[randys1]

119. Makes sense. I like the way you said you even criticized Obama FROM THE LEFT

If you have read anything I say around here what I have said for YEARS now, almost 8, is ALL

and I do mean ALL criticism of Obama FROM THE RIGHT is first and foremost based in good ole fashioned racism.

Even in the rare instance when righty was for or against something BEFORE Obama was, i.e. even when they are legitimately on the opposite side they are still basing their reaction and attitude in racism.

I mean for fuck sake man, they met the DAY he was elected and agreed to DESTROY America if necessary to DESTROY him!

[pscot]

151. We are lucky that our reporters

are never afflicted with attacks of conscience like that. Of course the money is vastly better and money eases the mind. They're all members of our ruling class when you get down to it.. Very cozy.

[Ghost Dog]

39. A merely rhetorical response?

Nothing readily at hand?

[stevenleser]

45. See #44 above and again, without breaking a sweat, there are hundreds more. nt

[Ghost Dog]

58. Well, without breaking a sweat,

<g> I would suggest that

a). The Daily Beast article is a simplistic and self-contradictory hit-piece for those who don't bother to read, never mind 'between the lines'. And only refers to 'viewing', as opposed to reading. The sub-heading, for example, asserts that "RT hugely exaggerates its global viewership", while lower down in the article we are informed that "RT has never divulged a single, absolute figure confirmed by measurements of its audience. All the press releases put out by the channel about its viewing abroad are based on playing with relative numbers: the audience doubled, the coverage is 60% greater than its competitors, and so on. The only absolute figure on the RT site is that the television audience consists of 630 million people in 100 countries of the world. In reality, this number is only the potential geographical scope of the audience." It appears that RT's numbers according to the article, which I haven't looked into, refer to 'reach', ie. potential audience, while the article's author(s) present attempts to ascertain actual audience figures, from which we might come away with the impression that only some Arabs, and some in the UK, pay any attention to RT. Anyway, such 'playing with numbers' doesn't seem to have much to do with the kind of 'lies' i thought were under discussion.

b). The Newsweek piece appears to be just noise, interesting though. Give me more time to analyse it. Here's an example:

... On September 11 last year, hundreds of Twitter accounts began “reporting” news of a major chemical explosion in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Nothing of the kind had occurred, but the abundance of “eyewitness” reports gave the accident a War of the Worlds-like credibility. As the Times reported

“A powerful explosion heard from miles away happened at a chemical plant in Centerville, Louisiana #ColumbianChemicals,” a man named Jon Merritt tweeted. The #ColumbianChemicals hashtag was full of eyewitness accounts of the horror in Centerville. @AnnRussela shared an image of flames engulfing the plant. @Ksarah12 posted a video of surveillance footage from a local gas station, capturing the flash of the explosion. Others shared a video in which thick black smoke rose in the distance.

This was not an elaborate prank. It was a carefully planned exercise involving cloned websites, spurious text messages, a faked YouTube video, doctored screen shots and hundreds of social media accounts run by the Kremlin’s “trolls.” Other hoaxes, involving an Ebola outbreak and a police shooting, followed in subsequent weeks.

Of course these were one-off stunts, but they prove that the Kremlin is building its capabilities in this sphere, practicing for bigger tasks.

I'm sorry? Where is the proof of 'Kremlin' (note the buzzword, like also the use of 'regime') involvement in such nonsense?

c). Alex Jones? Home-grown Russian? Gimme a break. Sure, RT should be more discerning as regards its junk opinion shows (looking for an audience in that demographic?). But please refer to sender.

d). StopFake? Oh sure. Ukrainian coup Kiev "National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy (NaUKMA)" with a US veneer... Fulbright Scholar, the boss...http://en.j-school.kiev.ua/%E2%80%8E . Cough.

e). "Man is trivial compared to nature and cannot change climate - astrophysicist". This, finally, is an actual RT 'news' article. Similar can be found in eg. the UK's Daily Telegraph and much US MSM. It appears to accurately report the opinions of this person. As an environmental sciences graduate from the 1970's I am sometimes moved to check out such people's opinions and find them to be mistaken.

Errors of judgement, bad taste, obfuscation, perhaps (what's new in the 'news' media). Lies? Unproven.

[stevenleser]

64. You have one link to back you up, all of my stuff is sourced.

And the one link is a dubious one at that and doesnt address the actual content.

In other words, you only have your own opinion. NO facts.

[Ghost Dog]

69. My rapid analysis & opinion on your 'evidence', yes.

The onus is on you to support your case that such a high percentage of news that RT reports consists of 'lies'.

My opinion is that you have not yet done so.

What's more, it's my opinion that when and where any media 'news' source can be found to be lying, on deeper analysis nuggets of submerged 'truth' can often be discerned.

[stevenleser]

80. which doesnt mean anything. I have links backing me up, you don't. nt

[Ghost Dog]

86. ...

Weak. Sorry. Eom.

[MADem]

135. Nyet--not weak--I'm with Steve. Your argument fails to convince. nt

[randys1]

104. I have a friend who is a journalist who would join you in this thread and DEMOLISH these

people With facts, articles, etc.

We know our MSM is biased and owned by very wealthy rightwingers for the most part, but with all that comparing our MSM to RT is like comparing Hillary to ANY con.

No, no comparison on most of the important stuff.

[Ghost Dog]

145. Please point out where stevenleser's material, above,

made reference to any "important stuff"?

[Ghost Dog]

149. BTW, the "dubious link" is to the "about us" page at the site you refer to.

So you doubt your own dubious source. Reasonable.

... And, the reference to "The Times"... Hmmm. To what credible source could this refer...

The Times of India, maybe. Murdoch's Times of London (as once was, but of course no more, thanks to the power of corruption)? Or was it, I dunno, the Times of the Alternate Universe?

[MattSh]

37. That's true...

WE can take 100 articles at random from cnn, ap, reuters and msnbc/nbc/abc and 97-99 of them will be completely accurate.

As long as you restrict yourself to the sports and entertainment sections...

[leveymg]

43. Where did you get those statistics, Steve? FoxNews? 97-99% of MSM reporting "Completely accurate"?

That is delusional, Steve, but completely in line with Faux News "Fair and Accurate" standards.

[stevenleser]

46. Since you support Bernie and Bernie appears on Fox, I guess you will be endorsing Hillary.

[leveymg]

52. But, he isn't paid by Fox, is he? You would know the answer to that, wouldn't you, Steven.

Your leaps of logic have reached new heights. Keep practicing. Speedy recovery to your coach.

[stevenleser]

54. Neither am I, Bernie and I are both guests when we appear. So again, anything you say against me

regarding this applies to Bernie!!!

[leveymg]

57. You appear on Fox for free! Just for the sake of "fair and balanced", I suppose?

Bernie's a politician, and a damn brave one, who's trying to reach out into the Outer Limits of the electorate, so he has a reason for being there. But, I am astonished that you literally contribute to Faux pro bono.

Why??????

[stevenleser]

63. Same reason Bernie does. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

68. That was an interesting "damned if you, damned if you don't" exchange.

First, you were chastised for being "paid for by Fox", then you were ridiculed for "not being paid for by Fox." Heads he wins, tails you lose.

[leveymg]

72. Ridicule is for being on Fox, regularly, and not just as the subject of an interview.

Either way, ridiculous. The question is, which is more ridiculous? How would you answer that, BtA?

[Behind the Aegis]

73. Your comments.

You simply changed tactics once your "paid for by Fox" was shot down.

[leveymg]

75. What don't you believe, that he's on the NewsCorp Masthead as a "Fox News Insider"?

And, that he does it for free?

http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/steve-leser

Or, that Steven Leser is there for the same reason as Bernie Sanders? Do you REALLY believe that?

[stevenleser]

76. You get put on "Fox News insider" if a segment is considered a good one. The "Insider"

doesnt refer to the guest, its for regular consumers of Fox News to be directed there to see what the network feels is good content.

You keep reaching for stuff that you have no idea about and keep looking foolish.

[stevenleser]

78. And keeps making assertions about things she/he doesn't know about.

Its quite striking actually. You prove one assertion to be false and they make another false assertion.

[Behind the Aegis]

87. It is strange and sad.

Especially in a thread where RT is being so voraciously defended.

[stevenleser]

91. Yep. And he supports someone who goes on Fox for President. As I said in my last comment below

he has nothing to say to me about it at that point.

[stevenleser]

83. The folks who criticize me for appearing on Fox always have this kind of pretzel logic in their

comments.

And they are desperate to cling to the ability to use me being on Fox against me no matter how ridiculous they look when their hypocrisies are pointed out.

[randys1]

106. Fox is blocked by me on my TV so I have never seen you. The first thing that came up when

i googled you was this

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/

The anti-Hillary Select Congressional Committee oops I mean Benghazi Select Committee outs itself as a Partisan Witch-hunt

I am intrigued now, how do you get on FOX with that attitude>?

[leveymg]

71. Of course, I forgot. Bernie Sanders is on the masthead of Fox News as a Contributor. Just like you.

Sure, Steve. http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/steve-leser

[stevenleser]

77. Except I'm not a contributor.Contributor is a specific term in television that means a paid employee

You know, most people would quit after the first or second time they looked foolish for talking about things that they really dont know about.

Not you. You keep going.

I think this is the fourth or fifth thing you raised in this thread where you tried to assert something that you dont have the knowledge or background to talk about.

[leveymg]

84. It ain't me who should be ashamed to be on this thread and board. n/t

[stevenleser]

85. You should be ashamed. DU has always been about logic, knowledge and sources. You are on the wrong

side of all three of those things in this exchange.

[leveymg]

89. Like Fox News is about Balance and Fairness, Steve? Don't answer that.

I have a paid job I have to get back to.

[stevenleser]

90. You support someone who goes on there for President. You have nothing to say to me. nt

[ViseGrip]

105. Bernie is a politician who speaks to all. What is your purpose that you think you are so important?

[randys1]

108. Surely you must have watched him when he is on Fox? To make that kind of statement?

I havent, didnt know about it till 5 minutes ago.

Does he go on Fox and push a rightwing agenda?

If so I will stop being nice to him.

Anyone want to show me that?

I am open.

[stevenleser]

113. You notice you never see specific criticisms of what I say on Fox.

You won't see me saying anything right wing/conservative on fox. I argue the liberal viewpoint.

I've even criticized the President twice, once because I disagreed with attacking Syria, and once because I disagreed with moving to chained CPI. In both cases I criticized the President from the left.

[randys1]

116. A guy has to make a living. If they paid me to talk to them, I would, I wouldnt watch it

but I would do it

They wouldnt like what I had to say and from what I have read about you in the past 10 minutes, they must not like you much either

[stevenleser]

110. What is your purpose that you think YOU are so important? Nt

[Ghost Dog]

147. Excuse me

for asking:

Just who the fuck do you think you are, here on this board?

I smell narcissism, and none of the above has much to with the reality of the international situation, in all its diverse aspects, at the present moment in time.

¿Do you have anything of value to contribute to the present subject under discussion (quality of RT journalism) apart from your own personal ego?

[stevenleser]

150. Who do you think YOU are? Nt

[Ghost Dog]

154. Mere rhetoric, again?

I should bow to your (censoring) worship's unexplained authority?

[stevenleser]

155. If you don't like that kind of rhetoric, don't use it.

You said the silly "who do you think you are" to me first as did the other poster. It's such a silly and passive aggressive thing to say to someone.

[Ghost Dog]

158. You're right. I apologise. Let's drop the personal,

and get back to the subject (quality of RT journalism) about which you have presented few, weak points, imho.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss

[MisterP]

175. ALERTER'S COMMENTS

A ridiculous, unprovoked and completely unnecessary personal attack

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 17, 2015, 09:24 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He was goaded into a little bit of a sassy post. Gooses and ganders, I say.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: yeah seems a bit personally directed.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Ghost Dog]

177. Well done, DU.

Reasonably fair discourse, I thought.

[cui bono]

167. What's wrong with Leser going on Fox? He's a pundit, so?

The same people who defend him trashed Kucinich for going on Fox. I think the viewership is pretty much brainwashed or braindead but hey, maybe there's someone out there who can be reached.

!

[cui bono]

166. But they can be accurate and still not tell the truth.

If they only tell one side of the story but it's accurate, that doesn't make it any less propaganda really. It's what they don't tell us when they don't tell the whole story that is a lie. Or what they simply choose to not cover at all. The same corporations that own the media own our government as well. The media will do what's good for those in power because they are owned by those in power.

Don't trust and verify. Then you can listen to whatever you want, just know you have to check it out further to be sure it's an accurate portrayal of what is really happening.

!

[Blus4u]

33. When I was growing up, Cracked Magazine was....

....the "poor man's" Mad Magazine.


Peace

[randys1]

102. Uh yes, I cant believe what site I am on, this CANT be DU

YES

Cracked is vastly more legitimate and credible than RT.

[stevenleser]

156. You should have been here when Hannah Bell and her various incarnations were

Fawning over North Korea.

Yes, being fanboys/fan girls for RT and Putin is pretty bad for a Liberal/Progressive but not quite as bad as being pro North Korea.

[starroute]

7. But we absorb torrents of American propaganda without thinking

AP is particularly bad, but they all put their spin on things that might reflect badly on official US interests. RT at least acts as a counterbalance.

[FlatBaroque]

21. No counterbalance required

We now live in a unipolar world and only our propaganda is acceptable.

[stevenleser]

24. See my #23 above. Care to take me up on that 100 articles at random test? nt

[starroute]

36. I don't see any #23 -- did you delete it?

Or can you repeat it?

[stevenleser]

88. You've probably got one of the folks upthread on ignore. Here is the upshot...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7455757

[MohRokTah]

8. That's why I question anything Thom Hartmann has to say.

He sold out to RT and became a Putin mouthpiece.

[NurseJackie]

16. Thank you. (nt)

[randys1]

111. NO, dont say thank you, please, seriously. It makes me mad as hell Thom is on there

but I cant think of ONE instance where he did anything that would make him remotely a Putin supporter.

[NurseJackie]

124. I can't stand listening to him. Maybe it's just me ...

... but this is the guy that he reminds me of:

[cui bono]

168. Not true at all. If it is then I'm sure you can provide examples of how he "sold out" and

how he is a "Putin mouthpiece". Quotes please.

He says exactly what he wants to say and he is the most stand up guy out there in the media. He's fair to everyone, he has conservatives on as long as they will seriously discuss an issue, he will have any politician on as long as they are willing to answer unsolicited questions from callers (he did do a different, pre-taped interview for O'Malley though).

So please provide some examples or retract that and apologize to Hartmann.

!

[tech3149]

9. That's the equivilant of saying anyone citing CBC or BBC should question everything from the source

If you are truly determined to maintain the information dominance of US media I/m sure you'll cite F.A.I.R to show how accurate and informative US media is in comparison.

[jeff47]

12. They should.

Any government-owned media should be questioned when the story involves the interests of that government.

Now, CBC and BBC have a good track record of not spouting bullshit to help their government while RT does. But that doesn't mean you can blindly trust them.

It's the same for US media - when the story involves the people/corporations who own them, you should be somewhat wary of the reporting.

[jwirr]

28. Agreed. Question everything.

[Ghost Dog]

60. Definitely.

Sadly. Think for yourself. So what's new?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

11. I avoid RT like the plague. But U.S. news sources are no better. Tell me...

Which U.S. news source we can trust?

Can you name one? Can ANYONE name just one reliable U.S. news source?

[KamaAina]

42. LBN.

[randys1]

112. No better? So Rachel Maddow and RT are the same?

This is getting so ridiculous.

[Octafish]

14. Censorship is un-Democratic.

Ever hear of Angus Mackenzie? He documented how the CIA use the global media to influence American citizens and politics.

Oh, and as a source, CRACKED isn't much to brag about.

[FlatBaroque]

18. What a hilarious thread

Pure propaganda complaining about propaganda.

[Octafish]

95. Archae uses DU as his personal Twitter.

He likes to tell me writing about the JFK assassination is like "beating a dead horse."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158313#post18

Forgive and forget isn't what I say.

[Agony]

137. Ha Ha Ha! Exactly! "Pure propaganda complaining about propaganda."

cheers

[cui bono]

169. Ain't that the truth...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027454811#post8



!

[zappaman]

67. so is Putin.

[Octafish]

93. What would Frank Zappa think?

Why am I asking you? You don't know.

[zappaman]

99. Maybe he would recognize RT for the propaganda outlet it is?

Doubt he would like Putin either.

[randys1]

115. Frank was a prick.

And a musical genius and nobody's fool

He would have hated Putin

[leveymg]

132. Frank Zappa, Syria Mosque 11/06/74

[Fumesucker]

138. On the other hand Frank would have ~loved~ Hillary

"I hear Linda Ronstadt is looking for a guitar player."

[Octafish]

121. Certainly would recoginize it as a propaganda outlet.

He liked to read: “So many books, so little time.”

He knew how to think for himself: “A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”

Doesn't sound like you, does it, zappaman?

[zappaman]

123. Wow, just insult after insult, eh?

You asked a question and I answered.
Why so nasty, my friend?

[Octafish]

125. I'm not your friend.

Here's what's nasty:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022194573#post239

[zappaman]

126. I'm sorry you're having a bad day.

Holidays got you down?
I'm here to help if you need it, old chum.

[Octafish]

128. ''It's shameful. You nailed it.''

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027005752#post20

[zappaman]

129. I hope you get out of your funk and have a great holiday, my friend!

[Octafish]

131. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

Going from what you've written, it's clear what side you fell on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024028402

My holiday wish to you is for you to experience the true joy of the season.

[zappaman]

133. Have a great holiday!

who knows, maybe this will be the year Santa confesses to killing JFK!

[Octafish]

136. There's the real zappaman of DU.

If we had an honest news media, they would report what RFK's children said:

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

That's what his son and daughter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rory Kennedy, reported in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2013 in Dallas.



It's also what author and Salon founder David Talbot reported, when he called Robert F. Kennedy the "first conspiracy theorist" in 2007.

Here's why the news from Robert and Rory is so important:

The important issue is that he and his sister reported their father -- the president's principal counselor and the nation's chief law enforcement officer -- privately thought a conspiracy was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

RFK called the Warren Commission report "shoddy workmanship."

Attorney General Kennedy knew about the Ruby-Mafia connections immediately, which is vital when considering the Mafia were hired by Allen Dulles and the CIA during Eisenhower's administration to murder Fidel Castro -- an operation which the CIA failed to inform the president and attorney general.

The interview with Charlie Rose marked the first time members of the immediate Kennedy family have voiced the attorney general's doubts about the Warren Commission and its lone gunman theory.

For some reason, that is the one Charlie Rose show that PBS chose not to air. Guess you and the censors agree that the American people don't need to know that the Attorney General thought his brother, the President of the United States, was killed by a conspiracy.

For me, that's important to know. That means that the conspirators have been let free -- like the people who lied America into war in Iraq and Vietnam have never been held to account for their treason. What a coincidence.

[randome]

15. Oh, really? Tell me something I don't know.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[FlatBaroque]

17. Statists always fear and denigrate the words that they feel

are coming from their enemies.

I would read RT and any other Russian news source with far greater regard than I would watching MSNBC or CNN.

[Ghost Dog]

153. With a certain regard,

Yes.

[NCTraveler]

19. RT is a great sourse to analyze the direction of Putins propoganda.

Nothing more. That information is very valuable in itself. Those promoting it for any other reason have a very shady agenda.

[Ghost Dog]

26. Please explain what you see as 'shady' about Russia's, RT's and RT's readers' 'agenda(s)'?

Do you refer to questioning US and other large, sometimes monopolistic corporate 'agendas'?

Do you also question the latter?

[NCTraveler]

34. If you read my post you would see I think it is valuable to read.

"'shady' about Russia's, RT's and RT's readers' 'agenda(s)'?"


So now we have cleared up that remark.

"Do you refer to questioning US and other large, sometimes monopolistic corporate 'agendas'?"

I don't know what you mean by that sentence. It can be taken a minimum of three different ways.

[Ghost Dog]

48. Yes, agreed. All information is valuable

as long as one reads between the lines...

I find RT (& the BBC, for another example and other State-sponsored European media, too) to be a rather more transparent source of information than much US corporate media, largely financed by MIC and 'big energy' as well as other 'big money' interests, at least as regards international affairs, which are what I generally pay attention to.

The government of Russia & its media tend to support & defend Russia & the interests of people of the Russian Federation, it seems to me. Can the same be said of the US government, corporations & their media?

[NCTraveler]

53. This is just painful to read.

"tend to support & defend Russia & the interests of people of the Russian Federation, it seems to me."

"Tend to"

"interests of the people of Russia"

You have to be kidding. It's Putin's mouthpiece. Not the mouthpiece of the Russian people. Not even close.

"It seems to me" you haven't paid much attention to the hate the outlet promotes amongst their own people.

You also keep acting as if I have made some statement about our media. Please point me to where I have promoted it as some beacon of truth? You can't but it is the only way to contort ones self to this position: "the interests of people of the Russian Federation."

[Ghost Dog]

61. President Putin is the top-level (& not the only) elected representative

of the people of the Russian Federation.

[Ghost Dog]

157. Does the incorporated US MSM

represent & defend American people?

[pampango]

47. Agreed. It is like reading our State Department news releases or White House releases.

It is good to know the "official" line is on current events but don't take it as an independent objective news source. RT (and Sputnik News) and these others are telling you the spin that each government wants on current events.

[Ghost Dog]

29. Oh, shit. All the guys with acoustic guitars, busted.

Especially if they perform Dylan, I guess, eg:

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion'
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

... Or, for example:

[zappaman]

38. So RT, which "is watched now by over 50 million US households" is now propaganda?

If you say so...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024362938#post71

[Archae]

49. Did you actually read the article?

It shows quite clearly that RT is a Kremlin mouthpiece.

They also are very fond of flying saucer conspiracies, and official Putin pronouncements like the faked "Ukrainiian fighter shot down the airliner" story.

We have a bad distrust of Faux "news," with good reason.
Most of their programming is conservative deceptions and propaganda.

Likewise, Putin's official network is RT and their spinoffs.

[zappaman]

65. Why do you hate Putin?

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. "watched by over 50 million" was the propaganda

as the rest of that thread showed. It was laughably wrong. It's just possible that RT could be watched by 50 million households - about half of the USA - though I'd think incredibly unlikely, since their own page just lists a few cable areas: https://www.rt.com/where-to-watch/USA/#where-to-watch__form (it does list individual hotels that carry it, though ...), but that doesn't mean people do.

I posted the UK viewing figures for RT in that thread - it's available to the entire country, since it's on the Freeview broadcast system. 1% of the population watched it at all in a given week, compared to 9.8% for the Murdoch-owned Sky News channel, and 17.2% for the BBC News channel.

[Ghost Dog]

97. Ok, thanks, that UK data is of interest:

Only some 1% of UK telly-addicts 'watch' (ie. switch-off with, while absorbing brainwashing mud) (at any time?) RT tv on 'the freeview broadcast system', whatever thst is (cable, satellite?, apart from the license fee, how much does that cost?). Why would they, if "Come dancing" or "I'm a Celebrity" or football soccer or another documentary about WWII or whatever is on?

I rarely 'watch' any tv (but now with pending elections in Spain I observe occasionally). RT tv could be 'wallpaper' in background for me, little else, but would at least be a break from the usual UK hive-mind, I suppose. Maybe some good documentaries can be found there.

But I certainly observe RT's text website as a news source, amongst many, many others...

The BBC is not what it once was, post-Thatcher.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. 'Freeview' is a digital terrestial broadcast system, free to everyone

It carries all the main non-subscription channels, including RT, though a very few channels on it are encrypted and you need a subscription for them. The licence fee is £145.50, and you still have to pay that if you use cable or satellite (about half of households have one of those).

[Ghost Dog]

159. Ok.

You know: I'm self-exiled this latest definitive time around 28 years ago. Since then, more or less happy.

Shit.

[Number23]

174. THAT card is always well played.

As well as mortifyingly embarrassing in its absurdity.

[Historic NY]

50. I won't click or retweet any of the stuff they spew.....

I do find that once a breaking news item is out they are all over it. Its all geared to the (state). The closest thing we have is FOX news.(GOP)

[Ghost Dog]

66. You would not pay any attention to Putin's annual parliamentary address & Q&A?

Today, for example?

But you would read &/or watch/listen to soundbites from other US MSM spinners of the same?

https://www.rt.com/news/326198-putin-2015-media-marathon/

Did you read (the translation of) Mr. Putin's recent address to the UN General Assembly? If not why not?

[Ghost Dog]

160. "Crickets"

[dembotoz]

74. i used to listen to some shortwave radio.....pre internet days

mostly bbc world service and deutsche welle (yes i know i spelled that wrong)

but on occasion other stations too

what did i learn other than any half baked church that could rub 2 nickels together could get a shortwave station?

I LEARNED there are all kinds of things going on that amurican media did not choose to tell me about.
yes i know lots of it was slanted by some--radio havana could be out and out funny that way.l.... but as a whole
i learned and i learned.

so i will take rt with a grain of salt and trust is prob as much as i do fox

[TheSarcastinator]

79. I quite trusting RT when they posted all those lies about WMDs in Iraq

You remember, all that clearly government-crafted propaganda about nukes and anthrax and a mushroom cloud over NYC that led us to attack Iraq? I mean, how dare the Putin-led press engage in such lies! They even hired Judith Miller!!!!

American corporate media is MUCH more trustworthy, after all.

[FlatBaroque]

107. .

[LittleBlue]

81. I believe it. The west does the same thing

How many times has the media led us to ruin? Judith Miller publishing false intelligence for Cheney. The WaPo literally reading from White House propaganda that Assad should fall. We must liberate Libya! How did that work out? Dissenting voices don't even get published. Or they get one article hidden away behind the cacophony of voices advocating stupid policies, as if that somehow demonstrates that we're fair.

The west has simply merged media and state in an informal manner rather than the Soviet version of overt control.

Takes a lot of doublethink to praise corporate control as somehow superior to direct control.

[sagat]

92. .....but the West!!!

Good article.

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. They've switched to "Sputnik News" now, and hoped you wouldn't notice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. You know this propaganda is not limited to RT

Ours may not be government run (though the Iraq war should give people pause, and Judith Miller does come to mind. But also the whole Cold War Operation Mockingjay) But it is propaganda nonetheless

It is way obvious if you keep your mind open and feeds open to foreign news sources. (For the record, they also have some or a lot of it)

So when I read ops like yours I gotta smile. Who profuces it, and why is not too complicated. But you should also become adept at spotting the loonie (and calling it so) in your own media.

This is critical if we are to break from the illusion.

[Matrosov]

109. It goes both ways

American news is full of anti-Russian propaganda.

For example, the Associated Press loves to cite the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights when it comes to all the civilians the Russians are supposedly killing in their airstrikes. Yet when you look up the SOHR, you'll find it is a part-time operation, run by one man out of his house in Coventry, England, and he gets his info from his buddies he calls in Syria on a daily basis. He also happens to be someone who was once imprisoned by Assad.

The American press also loves to cite so-called Russian experts and Kremlin experts who just happen to be political opponents of Putin or even businessmen who've gotten into trouble in Russia. That's as silly and deceitful as referring to Republican politicians as experts on President Obama.

[Rex]

114. It is really simple, even though it might not win any friends...RT is owned by a dictator

The entire country of Russia is owned by a dictator. I wouldn't trust state run media in a dictatorship, any more than I would trust corporate for-profit media in a plutocracy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. And that is the point

both should be questioned.

Some years back somebody I know who is a local reporter for a major national outlet put it quite succintly ,everybody has an agenda.

he also recommended this book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002WJI1GC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

Ours is not a free press either.

[Rex]

141. Thanks I will look into it.

Question everything and always take information at face value until you research it yourself...I never say but would always say, if I thought about it.

Thanks for the link I will go check it out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. It is a disturbing book

[Ghost Dog]

161. .

You have constitutional right to question everything, right?

Please do.

[LiberalArkie]

127. I guess that means that the quake in South America was a lie then. Happy to find that out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027456295

[steve2470]

139. RT is wholly owned and operated by the Russian government

Yes, some of their coverage is fair and accurate, but anything having to do with "the West" or with the USA, I'll take with a huge grain of salt unless it's confirmed by other outlets.

It's a propaganda outfit, pure and simple. Just like VOA.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

182. I just saw a documentary about Oklahoma earthquakes on RT.

Do you really think the American networks would say that the earthquakes, many times a day, are caused by fracking, because they would never do anything to alienate oil companies?

I have found that I tend to get more impartial news on RT and Al-Jazeera America.

I used to listen to Thom Hartmann on Air America and he is probably the most knowledgeable radio/TV host I have seen besides Rachel Maddow. He knows his history. Rachel was on Air America too.

I see discussions about pervasive police violence in the United States, the Drug War, the Prison-Industrial Complex, and other such topics that make America look bad, that I would never seen ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, or any other corporately controlled media outlet.

[FlatBaroque]

184. I am told that

ignorance is bliss.

[uppityperson]

144. Go west

[zappaman]

146. Young man

[Ghost Dog]

162. I tried that, for a loooong time (trusting a woman).

Got burnt.

I'm stilling willing to try, though.

[wildbilln864]

152. and:

[SidDithers]

172. RT is passé...

sputniknews is now the go-to place for all your Putin propaganda needs.

Sid

[Blue_Tires]

185. +1000

I've taken a lot of shit for pointing it out here, but some are starting to wake up a little...

I'm eventually going to be proven correct on a couple other contentious issues, as well.