Should Russia Today be allowed as a legtimate News Source on ATS?

I wouldn't say, RT is a trusted source but; people should be free to choose. though, I recently start watch there "tech update"
show and it was sorta cool... as far as there "news" items? yea its very slanted towards Russian Views but I like to get my information form all around; sometimes its pretty informative to see the the other side.... and; sometimes, they will have
internal "Russian" experts talking about stuff, slanted or not sometimes its good to hear anther point of view....

because god knows our MSM news is not slanted... right??

but hell, "trusted" is a very key word here. once you get into that game many sources drop off the list very few "sources"
have proper old fashioned news rooms validating sources and data...

At least RT says what it is right in the name.

reply to post by rigel4


Should we also ban the BBC?




That being said RT is filled with lies that are pushed by idiots. But if you ban them.......slippery slope.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Actually, Walter Cronkite . . . while exalting in being the most trusted man in America . . . or one of the top 3 anyway . . .

was actually a dedicated worshipful brazen shill

for the globalist oligarchy.

And proud of it.

. . . the point being . . .

like finding the one honest man . . . where is the one honest and thoroughly accurate news source?

Both sources are equally false.

Nah. GLP is much more false. It is also not a news source. Nor is BIN, nor is TNS, nor is Sorcha Faal.

RT is a news source and actually does provide some good information. It's our job to realize the biases.

Corruption Exposed
it most certainly should be considered a source of news, and a rather decent one at that. There have been many times that RT has reported on things way before other MSM outlets have.

Then you have been fooled. That's sad.

It would be like relying on the U.S. State Department press releases for your news.

I would like to know what your definition of a news source is...

There's not many left in the "general" category. My short list of "least bad" would be BBC, AP, Wired, Rolling Stone, Daily Show.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


They are a good source to expose the US government, but not a good source to expose the Russian government. U see they give alternative media a platform to degrade and expose their own government. They really don't have to push any propaganda. The alternative media will do the work for them, since they hate the government so much.

State sponsored news outlets can be (sort of) unbiased.

ABC here in Australia is tax payer funded and have recently upset the current government with a few stories lately, so much so the government has called for an "efficiency review" on them and SBS, another mostly impartial news source.

www.abc.net.au...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Daily Show.

John Stewart is hilariously brilliant. But news? No.
Just a means of pointing out the mentalness of our world. He takes the "news" that has been released elsewhere and shows us how silly (and sad) it can be.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Interesting.

Semi topic related...

With Last Media Critics Blocked, Putin Silences the Russia Press

Forget investigative reporting, even critical commentary is now out of bounds as the Kremlin clamps down on Web news sites.

Until this week, a handful of websites seemed to be the last bastions of the free press in Russia. But on Thursday those bastions fell. The Kremlin blocked three independent news sites, including one run by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, as well as a widely read investigative blog, Livejournal.com, by Alexei Navalny.

Only two years ago, during protests in Moscow against the return of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, the Russian online media played a key role mobilizing demonstrations. They were called the front line of democracy in an ever less democratic state. They were popular and they were the only media able to operate freely since television had come under government control and the newspaper industry fell into the hands of oligarchs loyal to the Kremlin.

How, then, did Putin manage what some are calling an “online coup d'état?”

reply to post by SLAYER69


Good find slayer... the true colors of
Vlad the bad are starting to shine brightly..wait..should that be darkly.

I'm ready for a new Cold War..

Maybe the Russian people are too?

reply to post by rigel4


No one wants another Cold War.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by rigel4

 

No one wants another Cold War.

It would appear some HI up people do not share your
sentiment.. Vladimir Putin is the key player here.

This is off topic though.

SkepticOverlord
There's not many left in the "general" category. My short list of "least bad" would be BBC, AP, Wired, Rolling Stone, Daily Show.

Seriously? That's the cream of the crop? BBC has a long history of biased coverage, and I'm sure some British users would disagree with you. AP is not only biased, but has been involved in shady business practices to boot. And I wouldn't trust Rolling Stone to give me accurate information about music (the Rolling Stones, even), let alone political news.

News sources are dead.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Then you have been fooled. That's sad.

What's even more sad is that you believe that I have been fooled simply because I disagree with your biased opinion, I was hoping that the owner of a conspiracy website would be more open minded when it comes to this topic. Attack the content not the source right?

Even Phage admitted that RT is a news source that puts out decent news from time to time, and I agree with his statement that it is our job to filter out the BS...that goes without saying in my opinion. There is no denying the fact that RT reports stories other outlets won't touch such as certain aspects of whistleblowering and 911 truth for example. Regardless of their obvious agenda, they are bang on some of the time.

That being said, RT is also known for pushing sensational stories which are obviously put out to gain ratings and influence the gullible, just like Press TV...they can put out a gem once in a while but a lot of the time it's crap.

I just don't find it logical to automatically dismiss any source without analyzing the content unless you rather be an ostrich with their head in the sand who already has their mind made up on every single subject and have no room for compromise regardless of any evidence presented no matter the source...that would be a shame.

It would be like relying on the U.S. State Department press releases for your news.

Just like a large portion of ATS does on a daily basis? All the U.S. outlets are nothing more than mouth-pieces for the State Department but are disguised under the false portrayal of "Freedom of the Press" while they poison the minds of Americans but that's okay since pushing the Western Government State Sponsored media propaganda is okay. I don't see many people react when the Washington Post or Time Magazine puts out something anti Muslim, Russia and or China.

Personally, I do not prematurely discriminate any source. I view the content and make up my own mind with what has been presented, I don't automatically dismiss or believe a news report just because which outlet it came from.

It appears to me that you have discredited ALL news sources but have taken it upon yourself to cherry-pick RT, perhaps it you who has sadly been fooled...?

There's not many left in the "general" category. My short list of "least bad" would be BBC, AP, Wired, Rolling Stone, Daily Show.

BBC, AP, Wired, Rolling Stone and Daily show are the exact same as RT (IMO) and the Daily Show is especially bad because they use comedy to push their propaganda and perpetuate the left/right, Lib/Con myth which is used so efficiently to divide the American people and trick them into believing they actually have a choice.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Skeptic Overlord has merely offered his opinion ...as you have.
However you seem offended by your opinion being challenged.

Carry on...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I am with you on Rolling Stone... not so much on BBC, they are getting pretty bad anymore for copying what others say.

That said, everything is mainly biased, some articles that RT has put out I have enjoyed, some I do not and sometimes I just get PO'd with their biases showing a bit too clearly; even if what they are reporting is good they often try to interject buzzwords which can be annoying.

But in general, these days we have to listen to everyone, biased or not, in order to find where the middle is because it is that middle where the truth usually lies. By banning one countries biases you are leaving out any way to decipher the truth, and that I think is most harmful.

AlphaHawk
reply to post by rigel4

 

No one wants another Cold War.

Sorry to say this, but you are too late...

reply to post by rigel4

Skeptic Overlord has merely offered his opinion ...as you have.
However you seem offended by your opinion being challenged.

Carry on...

He initiated the "slight unpleasantness" by implying that I have sadly been fooled.

All I did was reinforce my opinion in regards to his.

The exact opposite of what you claimed is what actually happened, I believe that he was offended since his opinion was challenged. But that is just my opinion