RT news propaganda news station yes or no?

[popcorn1]

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..

[squatz1]

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

[Quickseller]

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.

[Charles_Summers]

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.

[PrinceKael]

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/

[squatz1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Luis_Gray]

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

[suchmoon]

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.

[byteball]

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.

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.

[Luis_Gray]

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.

[byteball]

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.

[suchmoon]

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.

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.

[byteball]

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..."

[suchmoon]

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.

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.

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..."

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.

[byteball]

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[suchmoon]

So a lot of energy goes into internal bashing. While China makes another Great Leap Forward and so on.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

[byteball]

So a lot of energy goes into internal bashing. While China makes another Great Leap Forward and so on.

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.

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.

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

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

[Quickseller]

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.

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.

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.

[byteball]

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.

[suchmoon]

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?