Bitcoin Forum

RT news never ever tells us about PUTIN and his CRONIES   why?..
I always hear about what the west and everyone else gets up to  BUT never nothing about PUTIN and his bunch of robbers..

So maybe it is a PUTIN propaganda machine ?  SO why don't you investigate some of PUTINS  cronies  plenty who have been in power and still are in power in RUSSIA
that have way way more monies than what they get paid to do   SO unless you investigate some of your own lot then your the same as CNN ..

No investigations of your own political class ?   then don't investigate at all ;)..
Mansions for a prime minister ?   must pay well in RUSSIA   but poor old MISS RUSSIAN  gets nothing much..

While this is true without a doubt, I do think that certain segments on RT do have more independence than others, and may be allowed to speak critically of Russia at certain points. Though RT was required to register as a foreign agent with the US DOJ, meaning that the US has taken the stance that RT is fully a Russian propaganda machine.

I'm not going to comment on how networks in the US operate, but there is a pretty good amount of fake news in all of the mainstream media today. Something that we should all be wary of while watching the news.

Though when going on Wikipedia to see who the sources are for calling RT a propaganda news station -- these are the companies which articles which are used as reference, take them as you will.

https://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-news-english-accent-11-12-2005/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-war-of-images-and-propaganda-with-russia-today-channel-a-916162.html

I believe RT is financed in large part by and through the Russian government. Also there is no free speech in Russia and dissenters are often jailed and killed under suspicious circumstances, so ignoring the financing issue journalists are likely afraid to criticize the Russian government.

At the start, I was excited when RT launched. At least it was interesting to find some news that exposed the other side of the divide. But it didn't take a lot of time for this excitement to die down. A lot of bias is aired apparently. But honestly, it's not different any from what we see on CNN and BBC. Every country is simply selling their propaganda these days and calling it news. Same thing with China and CCTN, Qatar and all these other countries too. I just think we should take what we're fed from all corners and decide what to believe.

RT is pretty biased but sometimes they have some quality journalism. I find that's with all networks though and everyone should always check with multiple sources and not just stick to one network.

For example, I like Al-Jazeera but I wouldn't trust them to report honestly on the Qatar government. FOX is pro-Trump/Republican. CNN is the opposite but more bearable imo. RT will be anti-Western/pro-Putin. Sky News has a conservative bias. CNBC, NPR I think has a liberal bias etc.

Bias isn't always a bad thing, but you should be aware of it. Some stations are more biased than others, for example Fox News is more biased than ABC News Australia. The former is more right-wing, the latter being centre (or centre-left) however ABC (Australia) has a lesser degree of bias and a high factual reporting grade.

The sources I check with the most usually have a centre to centre-left bias, but usually to smaller degrees and highly factual reporting. However there are some I watch that are a lot more biased than other channels I watch.

Some of the least biased sources are: ABC News Australia, Associated Press, Australian Financial Review, C-Span (duh), Daily Business Review (Florida), Digital Journal, AFP (Agence France Presse), DPA German Press Agency, Eurasia Review, Euronews, FactCheck, Fair Observer, Federal Times, Financial Express (India), Financial Times, Gallup, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Harvard Political Review, Investopedia, Japan Times, Knowhere, MarketWatch, National Journal, New America, News24 (South Africa), New Zealand Herald, Pew Research, Politifact, Reuters, Texas Tribune, The Canadian Press, The Conversation, The Economist, Transparency International, Tribune News Service, Transpartisan Review, Washington Journal, WikiNews, World Economic Forum, World Politics Review and World Press Review.

I personally like to mix it up between: ABC News Australia, Associated Press, AFR, AFP, Euronews, Financial Times, Gallup, Investopedia, Pew, Reuters, The Conversation, The Economist, BBC, CNN, Mises Institute, France24, Bloomberg, Cato Institute, The Age and Herald Sun (Aus). So mostly neutral stuff with a bit of centre-left and centre-right sources.

I recommend the following resources to get a better idea:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

https://www.snopes.com/

Exactly. As at some points they may seem to be this complete Russian bot (due to being financed by the Russian government, as QS said) I do think that you can't disregard them completely because of this. It's not like they're only reporting on Russia, as they do have mostly world news going on.


Don't know if I would agree with all of these, I would have to say that The Economist is a pretty far left -- and pretty shitty newspaper -- I've seen articles from them trying to make Lenin look like a good guy.

But I will agree with you on the portion that this is what most media companies are today, they have their own agenda and they report THAT way.

RT is 100% a tool to spread Russian propaganda. I remember reading an article about a ridiculous story involving RT. RT owned a video agency called Ruptly. Last year for Putin's birthday they made up a story that a burger place in NYC had made a 1952 gram (!) burger in honor of Putin's birthday. I guess they just wanted to show people that people love Putin all over the world. Of course, it was complete BS. There was never a burger like that. It's amazing the lengths that they'll go to to spread lies. Here's an article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/08/high-steaks-the-vladimir-putin-birthday-burger-that-never-existed

RT is good for a couple of things:

1) Their comment trolls are fantastic. Probably more deluded that Fox News ones. Always a good source for a laugh.
2) Their news stories, even though heavily Putinized (or perhaps because of that), can provide a unique insight into how Russian propaganda works. Luis_Gray's example above is a good one. Also anything on a topic like Crimea or Syria is gonna be a doozy.

No free speech in Russia?
Just look at what people write here in Russian-language section.
The same zoological russophobia (spread by Russians who often don't speak any other language!) you can find in any social media, and nobody bans them, like in some other countries.

There are more than enough dissenting voices which RT is positioned to offset internationally.
And the main motiff of the dissent boils down to: Mr Putin owes us money - on the scale Mr Qaddafi used to pay everyone in Lybia, until Mr Qaddafi was killed by the beneficiaries, who used those money to buy up armaments.
Why don't we get oil revenues like in Saudi Arabia? Why do we have to work? and so on.

In Russia you can talk complete and utter bullshit in public, without any Political Correctness, or even basic decency limiting you - and a lot of people do talk. Admittedly some miniscule percent get jailed for that (unfortunately usually not the worst offenders, just some random small guys), but any freedom comes with a small chance of responsibility.

The issue is that in Russia there is no freedom of press. All the mass press is essentially owned by the government. Nobody says anything bad about Putin on the big channels. Of course you can say anything you want in Russia, as long as not many people hear you. Any channels or newspapers that try to go against the regime are eventually run out of business. Why do you think Telegram was "banned"? I'll give you a hint, not because of terrorists.

Oh really.
TNT (owned by who?!) constantly jokes about Putin, deriding him and everything Russian.
Echo of Moscow (jokingly called Ekho Matsy by it's opponents) is owned by Gasprom and takes a moderate position. E.g. I saw recently live translation where they were discussing the situation in Central Africa in detail, clearly against the "regime".
How much of the Western media are not owned by huge transnationals? The same here.
There was a futile attempt to "ban" Telegram, but as distinct from China, Facebook and Google are not banned.
Russia is far, very far from modern China in this respect.

There you go, a perfect example. Equating "free speech" to "russophobia", to lazy people asking for money, etc. How about the corruption at the highest levels of the government? All those journalists that happened to die when they said bad things about Putin and his cronies? Political opponents being jailed?

Reminds me of a cold war era joke. A Russian and an American compare freedom of speech in the US and in the Soviet Union.
American: I can say whatever I want. I can stand in front of the White House and yell "Reagan is an idiot" and nothing will happen to me.
Russian: We have the same freedom. I can stand in the middle of the Red Square and yell "Reagan is an idiot" and nothing will happen to me.

Correction.
In today's Russia, top TV channels can call president idiot.
And a lot of populace follows, regardless of their reasons.
Freedom of speech is not primarily the possibility to call someone idiot.

Russia is not the only country curtailing it.
Start with comparing German legal situation re. Holocaust denial or nazi propaganda: in your country (if you are from US)
it's exercising your Constitutional right, but in Germany it's a criminal offence.

Every regime has its ways to protect itself.
Try to question validity of the official version of 9/11, for example.
US society is perfectly divided in two halves in respect to Trump. You think it's a good thing.
Russian society is not so divided. Chinese, even less.

Regarding repression: you speak of examples delivered to you by your MSM.
You omit what your own "dissenting voices" (even the official ones, like Chomsky) speak about - like
proliferation of "suicides by shooting twice in the back of the skull" as just one example.
You banned Alex Jones, hooray for that. "First they came for Alex Jones..."

It's a joke. And it's old. During the Soviet era calling Brezhnev an idiot would have landed you if not in jail then at least in a conversation with a KGB agent if a snitch happened to hear you say that. Of course it's much more subtle in today's Russia. Don't pretend you don't understand that.


Nice dose of whataboutism. A staple of Soviet propaganda and stills works beautifully in Russia. So... "there is freedom of speech in Russia but it's ok if there isn't because other countries do it too" - is that your message here?

I could question the 9/11 all I want - not sure why I would do that but there is nothing preventing me. I certainly think it's a good thing that I can oppose or support Trump as I wish.

Not sure what you mean with the Chomsky thing. Googling your quoted text didn't turn up anything. Alex Jones is not in jail and not banned. Not being able to post on some website is not repression.

Well, to be precise, we don't have an analog of the 1st amendment.
So the laws curtailing freedom of speech can be issued, and probably will.
My point was that as long as you are a small guy, you can talk whatever you want. The same with drugs: you can use them all you want, just don't get caught.
Once you become big, you need to think about repercussions - which is true for every society.
If you are big but the bigger guy allows you or even encourages - having his own agenda - you can also talk, according to some agenda overseen from above. So I'm not pretending we have freedom of speech as constitutional freedom, I'm just saying that a lot of people don't watch
their mouths (especially in Russia, less so in stricter countries like Muslim ones). All freedom vs responsibility business is relative.
So a lot of energy goes into internal bashing. While China makes another Great Leap Forward and so on.
You would be called a loonie once your "9/11 truthing" would get public enough. And you would be equated to "Holocaust deniers" (which is the worst known smear).

I mean that there are a lot of "conspiracy theorists" first ridiculed, then quietly killed. And in the coroner's conclusion they all have "suicide". It's not from Kremlin propaganda, it's from your own.

By that logic North Korea should be the most advanced country in the world. It doesn't work that way. My freedom of speech requires no energy. I can do my job AND speak freely.


Yes. That's how freedom of speech works. I can speak stupid shit and people can tell me that I'm stupid. Nobody goes to jail. I like that last part a lot.


Since you're not providing sources I'm going to assume you made it up.

North Korea is not an independent actor.
It's China's important ally (which is not widely advertised, of course).
It's also an ally of Iran, which is admittedly backward, despite social unity and Pehlevi's "rebranding" from "Persia". Pehlevi failed to modernize and westernize it enough. But at least they prevented a coloured coup recently - which Lybia, Tunisia, Iraq and Egypt failed.
Even with Iran and N. Korea lagging, can you deny that China is making progress?
Not because of absence of freedom of speech, because of her society being united in becoming World's hegemon.
"When China will be great", they used to say, and not "if".
Trump bashing is not springing from the freedom of speech, it's a symptom of a deep stress that is being masked by financial manipulations.

I will get to that in due course. But not tomorrow.

Russia isn’t run by a bunch of liberal idiots, it is run by Putin who is to the right and doesn’t care about political correctness. He also doesn’t care if you say stupid things as long as you are not criticizing him.

Look at the amount of criticism of Putin, real criticism about major issues. You just don’t see it in the press. Look at the number of anti-Putin protests— they simply don’t happen. Compare that to the US. There is a lot of dissent in the US, even to presidents that win reelection and these people are not arrested or otherwise harmed.

Tell you what, he doesn't even care about stupid forms of criticism. Unless you are Khodorkovsky who wants to squeeze the budget dry and to lobby laws allowing to drain capital straight to Cyprus.
He (oh blasphemy!) cares about Navalny much less than Navalny's supporters think, and Sobchak Junior sat in his lap when she was little.

You want us to bash Putin, that is quite understandable. But we don't obey you.

Is no one in Russia really curious as to how a former KGB agent became a multi-billionaire? Has RT (or other Kremlin media) ever published anything about the wealth of Russian top officials?

I know everything about that. It's in the bookshops. It's in the printed press. So what?
Do I want foreign billionaires like Joe Biden in president's chair? Hell no.
My business interests align more frequently with Putin and not with Biden or Nuland.

P.S. speaking decent English often correlates with being pro-West, but there are notable exceptions. Like Limonov.

It is normal for a politician to be the subject of criticism.

You don’t have to bash Putin if you agree with his policies, however you are naive if you think there is no major opposition to his policies. The amount of public protests and public opposition to Putin suggests everyone agrees with him.

rt is like any other media outlet the propaganda of those that fund them, that might be in russia the elite putin and the russian banks but its not different for the american media, they are also bigotted and behave the way their payment master tells them to or even do that voluntarily, without any force or demands

I've had artist friends who play in Russian cities and events regularly and if I were to quote them then it'd be something like 'that place is run by power hungry goons' of course I've never been to Russia and any opinion I have of them and their political situation is just from news outlets and publications.
About a couple of months ago I read this article : https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/gykvey/why-is-the-russian-mafia-vor-v-zakone-so-powerful-putin-trump This really gives you an idea why even the media is hushed up about Putin's exploit. They're either scared or removed from the equation.

What does this have to do with Biden?

I do appreciate the bit of honesty about business interests. That would explain why you support a murderous dictator. I doubt that this is the case for most Russians though. They're either brainwashed or frightened into thinking that Putin represents their best interests.

I didn't mean the person whom you call "a murderous dictator" is paying me money.
I meant that life in Russia (where I am) is much safer than in London, where I lived for 5 years. If I lived in Moscow, probably it would be the same story,
but with less comfort obviously due to overcrowding.
And I meant that life here has a future. So rather than "business" I should have written "vital interests".
Biden was sitting in Ukraine's president seat after they have overthrown elected president.
I mean that literally, that he physically sat as a ritual of accepting a new colony to establish external government.
So you better still think that I'm brainwashed/frightened. And I am, a bit, see below.
I hope one day the Trump (pun and definite article intentional) will wake you up.
Only your exceptionalism prevents you from realizing that in another country, another culture people have the right to think differently.

frightened into thinking how can one be frightened into thinking, if he is not living some 1984 nightmare? We aren't

But Yugoslavia, Lybia, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine and Viet Nam do frighten us. Why not?

To the 1st part of your statement: I personally lived in UK for 5 years and I think the place is run by dangerous psychos.
Does that prove anything to anyone? And which place is not run by psychos?
Regarding your friends: all our neighbouring artists from now-EU, ex-USSR are earning money here and badmouthing us. That's nothing new.

To the 2nd: I already mentioned that all info on Putin is in the printed press (glossy mags etc) and in the bookshops + public libraries.
So I don't understand your point about "media hushed" - which media?

Russia is so misrepresented that you try to fight a ghost, a Frankenstein.
Whereas we were always subservient to West, looked up at West, so we know West fairly well (and many of us still live there).

I don't have exceptionalism. I'm a big fan of certain basic freedoms, such as freedom of movement and freedom of speech. I can understand why someone would want to forfeit those freedoms in exchange of some real or perceived safety, even though it seems weird to me. I had a similar mindset until I left my Podunk shithole and had a chance to live in a few different countries. It's interesting that you have a nearly opposite view after having spent time abroad.


This is contradicted by how the Russian government portrays its involvement in Syria and Ukraine and the fact that the population seems to buy it.

The former KGB agent thought himself into this wealth.
Not everyone can do that.

My question was how one can be frightened into thinking in a certain way.
We were really frightened by US and allies' actions. Why shouldn't we?
But how can you frighten someone to think falsely? (i.e. contrary to your way of thinking).

I didn't live in a Mukhosransk, rather a small cozy shtetl. I returned there.
I was in Finland, France, Netherland (twice), Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and (after leaving UK) twice in Israel and twice in Thailand.
I also read a lot of books. Made a lot of observations. A lot of thinking.
If this led me to "support a murderous dictator", then maybe there is something in it.
Time will tell.

I personally like RT news (much better than the crap american news shows). I think there is a lot more truth on RT news than the common news stations focusing on the cat that can swim or race bating and class warfare that most american news networks focus on. IDK much about Putin and whehter or not RT news is biased towards that but at least comparing it to here in the US it seems like a much more open minded news network

That's one of the most basic tools authoritarian (or aspiring) regimes use. I'm quite certain you're fully aware of that so not sure why you keep asking.

Escalate the fear of enemies, real or perceived, and you can get away with all sorts of repressive measures. The West is Putin's favorite enemy, as well as terrorists, which is kind of a flexible category. Ukrainians too I guess.

We don't fear terrorists.
Out of Ukrainians, we fear a small number (70000 by Internal Ukrainian Minister Avakov's estimate) who are trained mercenaries hired
from prisons and so on, infused with extreme neonazi ideology. They do exist, and are feared also by current government of Ukraine.
They murdered and burned people in Odessa alive.
When have you last been there? or in Syria? you seem to know everything.

Do I have to go there to have an opinion about it? To be fair, Ukraine and Syria were not in your list of visited places either.

I don't know everything. I do know enough about authoritarian regimes and the climate of fear and propaganda they tend to rely on so that I don't fall for RT bullshit.

I didn't mention any ex-USSR countries.
Forgive me my imperial thinking. Here is full list: Kazakhstan (born there), Uzbekistan and Georgia (as a child), Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova.
RT is not my only source. I talked to refugees from Donbass in trains (they also know everything from RT?) and I talked to people of Crimea.
In the past, I lived with people from Poland and Ukraine in London's squats.
Actually RT is not a source at all, I know everything they are going to say from other sources.
Al-Jazeera would have more information.
To have an opinion, the least you have to do is to compare propaganda with it's counter-propaganda.

Well, I guess that's a psychological aspect to this whole debate. A matter of perspective if you will. One can make assumptions and form an opinion about something and anything looking from the outside in, but more often than less the ground reality is a lot different.

Example :
Give freedom of speech > Extremists form a cult > Extremists become anarchists > Start a domestic war: Real-life case of ISIS, Taliban, Hizbul Mujahideen etc etc

While in an authoritarian world with some form of prohibition in right to movement, freedom of speech, right to form communities and right to protest could, at least in theory, provide a thin blanket of a sense of security.

Now it's a whole different discussion about what the authority does behind this thin blanket that has been essentially put over the eyes of the people. It becomes a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Of course, I do not subscribe to the notion of authoritarian rule but I think I understand the motives behind the choice of many Russians to live happily with the way things are currently. However, note the part where I said its a matter of perspective, here I am still looking from the outside in and assuming what the people might be thinking.

First I would like to note that my freedom of movement is not restricted.
My passport allows to enter without a visa almost every country I would conceivably want to visit.
I wouldn't swap it to Ukrainian for any reason, especially since I believe their honeymoon with EU will be short.
I wouldn't reject Israeli one in addition to it, but I wouldn't replace it with one and our governments are OK with having the two.
If I cannot enter UK without a visa, that's not largerly a fault of my government.
If we would admit UK citizens without a visa, we might have a problem, and same for them.

Second, you are right about the blanket. That is part of the thinking that goes into contradicting Washington consensus.
And in your example, of course Washington will try to prop up said extremists, sending money, instructors, hiring PR
and journalists to portray the thugs as "freedom fighters" (real life examples abundant).

I don't consider my freedom of speech restricted either: I can go to bookshop and buy a book about Putin's "exploits" and discuss
them with peers and so on. I can speak freely about "identity politics": whether I am pro- or anti-LGBT etc and not get
hysterical shit from lefties and Social Justice Warriors. The 2nd is more important to me than the 1st.

Whether I support "murderous dictators" or not is not the point here.

What I am trying to popularize is: it's not like the West got suddenly ill, lost immunity and murderous dictators sprang up
everywhere like mushrooms after a rain. (But it will get well!)
It's more like the project is failed, and we need another one.
And Trump and Putin need to be reckoned with, whether you like them or not. They are symptoms, and you cannot treat
the disease by removing it's symptoms.
Let's hope the project's administrators will just "shoot their German sheepdogs" and not try to flood Berlin underground,
bringing everything and everyone down with them.
I am hinting at another project, that officially ended in May 1945.

Books suppressed despite the 1st amendment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcHRaxN-u5U