RT is the Devil's news service!

[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.