Stopping the use of RT news as a source

a reply to: MessageforAll

I agree with ya that ATS is declining recently. We have seen such a influx of posters since Ukraine went to war and many of them are saying the same exact thing. I notice many are not even posting anymore? I guess ATS was not their cup of tea. I wonder how many will still post after this is said and done.

a reply to: SubTruth I think people need to understand that the situation in Ukraine is very complicated and not as black and white and clear cut as some people would like to make out. The history of the conflict began long before Russia annexed Crimea. Yet for some that seems to be the starting point, with no consideration that happened before for many.

I was being labelled pro Russian in that thread by people who seemed to want to swallow the western version of events unquestionably. I wasn't prepared to do that and I'm glad I didn't. The pro Russia slur was employed to silence debate, which in my opinion is just as bad as promoting one side of the conflict and placing all the blame on one side, while ignoring the actions of the other side. Maybe there were some Russian "shills", but they were matched by the pro western posters, who ignored the build up of events.

I made sure I never used RT as a source, because it was too easy to dismiss. I did however watch a live stream of events in Odessa, and was told by the op the opposite of what I saw for myself. That my own eyes were lying.

a reply to: SubTruth

well about dang time they stopped being so vocal and shut their traps. I swear i all for fair coverage but i still dont liek RT.

I just saw this on youtube, Charlie Brooker is what I would call a real journalist(disguised as a comedian). He tells it how it is.

And here he is talking about fox news....



One of the best shows Ive seen on TV.... Newswipe.
He nails it every time.

a reply to: yuppa

I dont like any of them, they all have an agenda.

But they all serve their purpose to give as many sides to a story as possible so critical thought can come to a reasonable conclusion somewhere in the middle given all the available evidence.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Sremmos80

It was in another thread dealing with th eukraine situation. I will not go back through that many pages to find it. It was a post by dragonrider or Xcartha i think if you want to find it yourself.

So you think they lied one time...but you can't even remember what about?

Can anyone provide some concrete examples of where RT was 100% false and they didn't go back to correct their information?

I discussed the same thing in a recent thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I am for RT being banned...obviously

When I'm asked a question, my two favorite answers are "It depends," and "Yes and No." In this case I'll use the latter.

No, RT shouldn't be banned, regardless of my personal preferences. But, yes, it is wildly different from any major American news source (although The New York Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC come close).

RT, PRESS, and Al-jazeera, are completely government controlled top to bottom. The government determines and sometimes writes, the stories and punishes nay-sayers. Their goal is to attack the West, and say little if anything bad about their government. (See why I mentioned the Times, Post, and MSNBC?)

Granted, the current administration is trying to push us closer to the RT model. Search warrants for the private home and taps on telephone conversations of "Questioning" reporters, suggestions that the government should put monitors in news rooms to establish "Fairness" criteria and the like are only some of the obvious and public steps they've taken.

Still, those who say RT is basically the same as FOX have, apparently, not had the time to explore the subject carefully. There is a bright line between RT and American news sources. If we, unfortunately, ever get around to banning news sources for things other than libel, and consistent one-sided, provable, lies; Press, RT, and Al-jazeera should be in the first group considered for defenestration.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: SunnyDee
Isn't that exactly what CNN ABC CBS ABc Fox and all the rest of ours do? Seriously? How many news stations across our country run "Verbatim" news stories. I'd call that state sanctioned also.

I'm not absolutely convinced, even with Fox News.


The result is most-certainly the appearance of scripted prefabricated infotainment in the form of a news program/website… and even the appearance of an agenda determined by sources outside the news organization. "Conspiracy theorists" often speculate those outside sources are government in nature -- and no doubt, there has been some collusion -- but in reality, those outside sources are primarily marketers and advertisers demanding a well-defined audience.

Yes, makes the sense. But that doesn't account for the licence funded BBC doing the porkies increasingly in the last 10yrs, at least in my perception. And they have also developed a curiously schizophrenic way of producing the news now.
Their BBC24 news is a news only channel, while they still present an hour-long newscast at prime hours on the BBC1 entertainment channel. What you get on BBC1 news often differs in some ways to the BBC24 news.
For instance, there was an 'expert' on BBC24 one day talking about MH370's disappearance, and the anchor asked about why there were no phone calls from the plane, the 'expert' just said that nobody on board had satellite phones, and it was left at that. That conversation was not transferred to the hour-long BBC1 6pm news.