Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATS Poll: Has ATS been infiltrated and infested with western establishment-paid shills?

page: 8
90
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: eikmun
a reply to: Vovin

why make Russia Today and station that is in english? that is a propaganda news service for the kremlin? Russia wants you to be questioning the gov why they are the fox in the hen house.

Russia spent more money funding anti war-movements in the US during the Vietnam war than they did arming the NVA gov.

Russia cares a lot. same deal as during the soviet union.

www.youtube.com...


Why make an English version of RT?

Maybe because we live in a globalized world where English is the universal language. Why are American news networks in English and not Navajo or Commanche?

The bottom line is that RT takes international news seriously while CNN, MSN, Fox are a complete farce riddled with commercialism and discriminatory ideology. European networks are much more professional than American, but I don't prefer them because they have agendas that present angles that make little sense to me, and because I personally find them boring.

Does RT serve an agenda? Just like any other news network. The difference is that RT backs up their claims with real facts. Americans are so used to watching news where a narrative is presented foremost with the source of facts being irrelevant. It's because they don't believe in objective journalism, they believe in pushing a subjective narrative that selects convenient facts to serve its purpose. They want viewers to buy in to what they are selling.

Again, objective reporting vs subjective narrative.

Is that a reasonable enough explanation?




posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

call me crazy, but i always believed american news outlets are done in english, because they're american news outlets, and america is a predominantly english-speaking country.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

RT is a direct property of the Government of the Russian Federation by way of a media conglomerate playing middle man to the paperwork and declared owners. I.E.... RT serves the Kremlin if push comes to shove, or RT people get shoved OUT.

Should anyone listen to Voice of America and trust 100% of what they hear? I'd seriously worry if they did. That, likewise, is a controlled asset of the United States Government.

It's a little disingenuous to compared CNN, Fox or the others. They sold their souls to Government at various levels, but they aren't literally an owned property of it. Not like RT and VOA. (VOA is, as the name implies, 100% open about their status at least)

I DO listen and read RT reports because in local matters? You go where the local physical reporters are reporting to hear what is happening. At the same time, I take it with enough salt to fill a small truck. Some places are sources and some places are references. There is a BIG difference and I consider RT to be a valuable reference, but still, a reference. Their ownership details are why.
edit on 5-5-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

So what is your point? I would much rather trust a state managed news network than a news network controlled by oligarchs with obvious agendas.

I'll give you an example. In my country, Canada, a man named Izzy Asper basically took over the more important paper media in this country over a few decades. He was an ardent fan of Israel and a liberal. Liberals were popular enough to control government during Izzy Asper's years of media control. When Izzy Asper died in the early 2000s, his sons took his place. They are ardent Conservatives and look what happened: Harper has maintained control by playing up to the bewilderment of Zionist-Christians in Canada because that's who the mainstream Canadian media caters to.

In other words, corporate media controls the population who control elected officials. Corporate agendas clearly run my country. So why would I trust state media less?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Vovin

call me crazy, but i always believed american news outlets are done in english, because they're american news outlets, and america is a predominantly english-speaking country.


So it would only be appropriate for Russia to only have news in Russian so that only Russian-speaking people of the world should be allowed to follow what the Russians have to say? But Americans are fine with their English media because English is the global language and Americans are the global empire so only the things they say should be listened to?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

I would have thought the bias built into a news organization owned by who they are reporting on and about wouldn't need much elaboration. Very different ways of looking at things, I suppose.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

that is absolutely NOWHERE NEAR what i said...i think you might have a comprehension problem...



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Vovin

that is absolutely NOWHERE NEAR what i said...i think you might have a comprehension problem...


Then what did you say?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

it was in english...you obviously can read english...i can't comprehend the statement for you...

i'll try to simplify it for you..though it was extremely simple to begin with...

American news outlets.

American news outlets are in America.

America is a predominantly English-speaking country.

American news outlets print and broadcast in English, because America is a predominantly English-speaking country

does it make sense now?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Vovin

it was in english...you obviously can read english...i can't comprehend the statement for you...

i'll try to simplify it for you..though it was extremely simple to begin with...

American news outlets.

American news outlets are in America.

America is a predominantly English-speaking country.

American news outlets print and broadcast in English, because America is a predominantly English-speaking country

does it make sense now?


Thank you for your obvious commentary then. If you have a point, please explain it.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

there's no more explanation to be had....i've broken it down as far as i can.

i can't compensate for your inability to comprehend plainly written text.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Vovin

there's no more explanation to be had....i've broken it down as far as i can.

i can't compensate for your inability to comprehend plainly written text.


You wrote about how the US media is in English because the USA is an English-speaking country. That is a correct observation. But I fail to see what the purpose of your comment meant in terms of the discussion. Maybe I'm just expecting more substance out of your post, but it's not really there?



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

it wasn't necessarily in terms of the discussion as a whole, but as a reply to something you said...specifically:

"Why make an English version of RT?

Maybe because we live in a globalized world where English is the universal language. Why are American news networks in English and not Navajo or Commanche? "

you asserted that English is the universal language of the world, and that's why there's an English version of RT, and why American news networks are in English, and not one of the native tribal languages.

i was simply pointing out that this was an incorrect observation, and that the reason American news networks are in English, and not one of the native tribal languages, is because America is a predominately English-speaking country, and any station that wants to speak to the majority of Americans, better be broadcasting in English, or nobody's gonna hear it..

is it making sense now?



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Maybe if you understood what the terms "universal language" and "globalized world" meant, you may then understand the point of my original statement.

RT has an English division to communicate to a global audience, despite Russians speak Russian. When the USA was first settled by colonists, the English language came with them as part of commerce, and has long since been used and adopted by the USA to communicate on a global level, despite it not being the first language for many Americans.
edit on 9-5-2014 by Vovin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

i understand what a "universal language" is, and english isn't one, by virtue of the inescapable fact that not everyone speaks, reads, or understands it.

and "globalized world" is one of those faux intellectual terms...it's redundancy is unmissable....

again, my point seems to have eluded you.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: Daedalus

Maybe if you understood what the terms "universal language" and "globalized world" meant, you may then understand the point of my original statement.

RT has an English division to communicate to a global audience, despite Russians speak Russian. When the USA was first settled by colonists, the English language came with them as part of commerce, and has long since been used and adopted by the USA to communicate on a global level, despite it not being the first language for many Americans.


I think what you may be trying to refer to is "Lingua Franca" which is a defined term.

It is meant as a "bridge language" to facilitate communication. At present, that language is English, but as the name indicates that wasn't always the case in the past and likely wont be forever either.

German was very nearly the first official language of America.

English is not even the most spoken language on the planet. It is behind Mandarin and Spanish at least.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas

English is not even the most spoken language on the planet. It is behind Mandarin and Spanish at least.


Uhhhhhhhhhh . . . your data is dated.

IIRC, There are MORE ENGLISH SPEAKERS IN CHINA than there are in the USA, CANADA, UK & AUSTRALIA COMBINED.

I'm proud to have had a small part in helping make that true.

All Chinese school children are currently learning English. It is certainly the language of international business in China.

Certainly Taiwan has had an extensive English language training focus for a long time, too.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

As is often the case, you are both right.

English may be well known in China but it is known only in the context of a second language and while it is taught, it is generally not used by most who learn it.

English is not the largest preferred language in the world, far from it. Look at the population of China and then add the thousands of 'China Towns' or enclaves of Chinese around the world many of whom speak Chinese as the language of choice at home.

'Known' and 'Preferred' are two entirely different concepts. All of those Chinese children may speak English, but they don't speak it at all well.

Please do not try to convince me that ten Chinese, sitting around a conference table, in a business meeting, are going to hold the meeting in English! It will not happen.

P
edit on 10/5/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358



Please do not try to convince me that ten Chinese, sitting around a conference table, in a business meeting, are going to hold the meeting in English! It will not happen.


Actually, it does happen. I don't know how often. But I know it happens.

Sometimes it happens to practice such discussions for an upcoming important meeting with foreign industrialists--whether customers or bosses or investors.

Sometimes it happens because the Chinese boss of the company has decreed that is the way it is to be in order to maximize effectiveness when foreigners are involved with the company leaders.

Sometimes it happens because the participants are zealous about one-upping their competitive cohorts in industry by having better PRACTICED English.

Certainly parents are also eagerly pressuring their kids to become proficient.

True. Not all the kids speak English well by any means. However, many, in raw numbers, do. Some speak much better than many native Americans speak--in terms of educated, standard American or British or Australian English compared to idiomatic 'sub-dialects' in the USA, for example. Their pronunciation can even be better and their grammar can be better.

Just imagine being part of a 1.x billion people . . . competing for the top positions as well as wealth. Their motivation for such striving is unequaled by any Americans I've ever known. They KNOW that a major ticket to top positions and higher income is English. And, certainly in that and other global contexts, it is.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I have met Chinese kids from top schools in exchange programs. These kids are year 10 students and they barely communicate effectively.




True. Not all the kids speak English well by any means. However, many, in raw numbers, do. Some speak much better than many native Americans speak--in terms of educated, standard American or British or Australian English


Well, I have never met them! None of the exchange students that come here can do that.

P






top topics



 
90
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join