It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Russia Today ( Is Russia's Propaganda Channel - "Truth is not the mission at RT"

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:23 AM
I'm ok with RT News being on cable, even if they are a shill for Putin's Russia. We don't have a state-controlled media; we have a dollars-controlled media, which in some ways is just as bad. The worst of it is where American values and opinions are projected onto the rest of the world, as if everyone on Earth is a wannabe American. We have a global civilization now, and Russian news, al-Jazeera news, and our news are going to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:21 PM

originally posted by: pennydrops

originally posted by: MrCynic
a reply to: pennydrops

RT draws it's funding, sanction and support directly from the central Government of the Russian Federation.

Very few media outlets in the world can say the same for official and direct Government sanction. Far fewer have it and then do everything to make it an "open secret". It is obvious, but takes enough effort to see the actual names and lines of evidence so most don't have the time to pursue it.

RT stands a bit a part from even a station like the infamous Voice of America. The VOA has never made pretense about who and what they are, is what puts RT ahead of even those guys. Watch RT television sometime. What is just a subtle theme to everything online is outright propaganda in the open for the broadcast side.

The BBC gets most from the taxpayer ie. govt fundinhg.


Don't stop there.
The UK government made it law to have a TV license. No license and you go to court.
Proceeds off the license to go to the BBC via the Government.
Punishment can be jail for repeat offenders. This is regardless of whether you watch BBC.

BBC's good old boy network stretches a long way and an extremely large peadophile cover up has recently came out involving the BBC.

If that isn't a dodgy state media entity I don't know what is.

Any future punishments towards RT have to go towards BBC too, go down that road we won't be posting ANY links at all.
edit on FriFri, 08 Aug 2014 18:22:47 -050008America/Chicago472014-08-08T18:22:47-05:00pmFriday2231 by DrMescalito because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:18 PM
Sure it's just another form of propaganda. Let the reader be aware and research their own conclusions. Lies are mixed with truth every single day of our earthly lives. However…weren't you the one that fathered the "Posse Comitatus" forum into existence with some fairly heavy rhetoric?

Hard--sometimes--to figure where you're coming from, SO.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:20 AM

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: nOraKat
Really makes me wonder if the 'owner' of this site was able to 'over-ride' ATS and spam flags and stars to make this topic top headline. If so, that's f'ed up.

This article made top headline with only a few posts when it first came out..

I know that I, for one, flagged and starred this subject so I can with great confidence say that some are legitimate. ..

I made an almost identical post on RT over 2 years ago..

Is RT (Russia Today - cable news network) a legitimate non-propaganda news network?

It received 4 flags and 2 stars.. I guess everyone is suddenly passionate about the subject.


I, for one, am very glad that they exist. As this website has revealed; that is, as SkepticOverlord's website has revealed, 'our side' (if they are even on our side) - the US and its allies, are out of control, and seemingly, *not* good natured, made apparent by their actions. I think it is great that there is another significant group to keep them in check - Russia and the BRICS nations.

RT also voices a side to situations you would never hear on American mass media. It is a relief to hear these perspectives voiced on major cable and satellite networks.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 04:23 AM

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
An iconic quote from the movie, Red October: "Russians never even go to the [bathroom] without a plan,"

Assuming you refer to the 1990 movie "The hunt for Red October" - that was a work of fiction based on a book written by an American novelist, produced by a number of American film companies and distributed by an American distributor. Hence II'm not sure if the quote accurately reflects the mentality of "the" Russians.

When compared to the Soviet mentality at the time the quote is accurate. If you take into account the Soviet Command style and their training doctrines you would see, when compared to the west's doctrine, that initiative / on the fly snap decisions was discouraged - right down to the level of how artillery units must be set up / positioned and how the units were to respond.

It hearkens back to the days of Stalin where Paranoia reigned Supreme and any Russian Officer exercising independent thought, no matter how correct, could result in the officer's death out of fear that they would try and kill / over throw Stalin. That paranoia permeated the Soviet Military culture and never left when Stalin died.

It also created the issue where Superior officers had to protect themselves from officers under their command who were not good / exercised independent thought. Those actions could be used against the senior officer, resulting in imprisonment / death. If you establish a rigid / inflexible command / military doctrine, the person violating it was not only easy to remove but it offered protection to the senior officers who could use the doctrine for their own protection.

Stalin, who was not only paranoid, played his Generals against each other, creating yet more paranoia directed at those who are serving in the same military.

The Soviet doctrine / mindset under Stalin was to force the troops to fight, regardless of supplies, it forced officers into the position of expending their troops regardless of how tactically unsound their orders were, it created distrust and competition at the higher levels which in turn leads to political maneuvering between senior officers who would blame one another for mistakes in an effort to get rid of competition. It allowed for the Military to be controlled to the extent that is mitigated against a possible military coup since no one could really trust each other.

It resulted in a mindset of everything must be planned and approved that removed initiative and on the fly changes to orders. So Tom Clancy was on the money in that regards, however the application is to the Soviet Union. We see a hybrid setup now in modern day Russia, however of putin continues the route he is on I don't think it will take long for Putin to tighten his grip on the military to ensure his rule.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 01:36 PM
I'll trust Abby Martin over Gretchen Carlson and the other bimbo dudes any day of the week. Ditto the teleprompter readers on the MSM news channels.

RT gave Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement a lot of air time and treated him respectfully, unlike the MSM that simply laughed about the idea of getting rid of capitalism in order to save the planet, hopefully sooner rather than too-later.

Putin gave Edward Snowden asylum while the US government spokespersons and military personnel were calling, quite literally, for his head. Guess pointing out the truth is treason.

RT isn't a monolithic source with only one voice talking - I've ignored the Ukraine coverage simply because that subject doesn't interest me, and it seems a cluster**** of different opinions and agendas, impossible to make sense of. As long as I'm not there dodging rockets, I can't really do much about it.

As far as I can parse things out, Putin is trying to strategically, very carefully, maneuver the world away from the future that the U.S. government has in store for us - a fascist banker and war machine owned global police state pretending to be a benign Big Daddy all the while spying on everyone against a backdrop of Monsanto, BP and Corexit poisoning the food supplies. Oh, and not saying a word about Fukushima, because, you know, panic.

Has Putin used his people's money to develop an insanely expensive series of interconnected underground bases, all stocked with enough food, water and other supplies to outlast any number of disasters that might be going on above ground? I think not.

Has he allowed a breakaway civilization complete with technology decades or hundreds of years ahead of what's known publicly to form in secrecy, using public funds? Dunno, but the US government sure as hell has.

And you don't have tickets to either of those parties.

Frankly, I like Putin at this point more than I like nearly ANYone in the U.S. government. Things sure have changed since Duck and Cover.

And I'll keep watching Abby Martin, if that's okay with you.

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 02:38 PM
a reply to: signalfire

Has he allowed a breakaway civilization complete with technology decades or hundreds of years ahead of what's known publicly to form in secrecy, using public funds? Dunno, but the US government sure as hell has.

And what breakaway civilization are you talking about?

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:24 PM

originally posted by: Kokatsi
That's a non sequitur, it does not follow. The EU is not an empire with a single ethnic agenda, a single ruler etc.

Check out the definition of empire on Wikipedia:

The term empire is derived from the Latin imperium (power, authority). Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled by a central authority either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy. Aside from the traditional usage, the term empire can be used in an extended sense to denote a large-scale business enterprise (e.g., a transnational corporation), or a political organisation of either national-, regional- or city scale, controlled either by a person (a political boss) or a group authority (political bosses).

The EU is not just an economic union anymore. It is run by a parliament, has one currency and there is a lot of EU law, there are many European standards and an emerging EU foreign policy. So, it's an empire allright. An empire on the rise, might I add. And it is devouring former Russian territory with an amazing stamina and with amazing succes. The EU grew from 6 countries in 1951 to 28 in 2013! Now, that is colonization in my eyes - albeit a form that does not require much shooting or fighting. Brilliant!

When my parents were protesting in the tragic 1956 Revolution of Hungary, it was against being a Russian colony with a brutal colonial aristocracy kept up by terror, censorship and Gulags. (Claimed to be Socialism which it never was - Socialism is what you had in Sweden).

I sympathize with your parents struggle for freedom. Yes, it is true: the super powers, the empires, will suppress opposition. This holds true for Russia, America an will hold true for Europe one day, unless we are very vigilant - while we still can. Or should I say; IFF we still can - notwithstanding sometimes massive opposition the EU's growth seems unstoppable. Your observation that some Eastern European countries have leaders that oppose the EU is correct, but it's even wilder: ALL European member states - even the UK! - have a number of people / parties that are against the EU and those parties are growing in popularity. For example UKIP in GB, the PVV in my country and most European left wing parties. Many feel that if we have to have an EU it should be a more decentralized cooperation, and not the centrally led colossus it now is. But opposition or not: the EU keeps growing, as if an external force has dictated it and we can't do anything against it.

I fully underwrite your point that Russia never implemented communism or even socialism, it was (and some say it still is) in fact an ordinary dictatorship, comparable with what they say they hated most: fascism. This does not change the fact that Europe has "conquered" most of the former East European countries and that we are all being told the people of these states "want to be part of the EU".

That in itself is a form of propaganda too.
edit on 9-8-2014 by ForteanOrg because: necessary correction of url

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:17 PM
a reply to: nOraKat

Two years ago, the political climate has changed dramatically between Russia and the US. In particular, the activities within Ukraine and involving Crimea basically brought the art of obfuscation into glaring focus. I've been beating the questioning RT drum for years but I don't find it suspect that the subject is of more interest now specifically because the activities of both Western and Russian media were so confusing and muddled that it was hard to figure out who was telling the truth. Ukraine, I think, made a huge difference in people's interest and views in the subject of possible state-run propaganda on both sides (the affectionate term for it in the US is "media patriotism"). There is rarely anything that is ever "sudden". It's all a matter of cause and effect. A series of events leading into another.

There's also a difference between when you or I might post something and when the site owner does. Site owner saying something on the same subject trumps average user. It's just the way it is. Reviewing your post that you linked, I'd also say that it's also a difference in format and content. While your post is taking a reasonably objective look at RT, citing both pros and cons, SO's post is more direct and compact. People are more likely to star or flag in the case of a post with a strong and direct opinion than with a post that is simply questioning something. I see that play out all the time and if you start noting the patterns to starring and flagging, it tends not to be going to the fence sitters but those with strong and frequently one sided positions. I'm the same way on most subject as you and lol, I don't get a whole lot of stars for being a fence sitter even though I view being a fence sitter as beneficial.

That said, don't change your trying to maintain an objective and questioning view just to garner stars and flags. I, for one, appreciate it.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:26 AM

originally posted by: Tucket
Why do you single out RT?

I personally don't trust any of them, that's why I gather my information from all available sources and see for the discrepancies - what is one not saying, what is one avoiding, what is another completely reversing... etc.

All of them are biased in one way or another. It's impossible to be completely unbiased in any situation, Humans form opinions and they express those opinions even when attempting not to. This is the same for all news broadcasters.

You can even see it in the face of someone reporting the news on the BBC, you can see minor movements of facial expression and changes in tone of voice which betrays their own opinions on anything they are saying. Whether we like it or not it's Human nature to have an opinion and want to express it.

Having said all of that, RT is far worse than most others (barring perhaps Fox). They actively lie, they actively ignore and they actively BS their way through things that we all know to be true. The fact that they refuse to even mention the resignation of their own staff over their own propaganda is evidence enough.

I don't trust any, but I trust RT the least. I would rather watch the state broadcaster for North Korea than watch RT, because at least then you know they don't care about lying to their own public. At least you can watch that and laugh knowing that hundreds of thousands of people in their own country couldn't possibly be swallowing that tripe with a straight face (even if they are too terrified to say it openly). In Russia, they actually BELIEVE this BS, and that's quite scary.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:39 AM
a reply to: signalfire

Perhaps that trust is based on confirmation bias? Seriously...

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:43 AM
a reply to: ForteanOrg

While they have never embraced communism they speak constantly on communist and socialist style ideals... Stark difference to the American individualism.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:53 AM
Just because our news corporations are privately owned doesn't mean they are not brimming with propaganda ,they are given a script on what to report on and what not to report on ,there is no actual investigative journalism anymore.I find that RT deals with the topics that mysteriously (but not surprisingly) seem to be absent from our own news reports.

Either way skepticoverlord I respect that this is your website but I have seen all too often your personal opinions being forced upon the majority,I'm still not happy the way you have banned all discussion about the holocaust that denies the official story in any way,but what can I do ? Not a lot other then moan about it but if things get any worse il have to leave
edit on 16-8-2014 by amurphy245 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 07:18 AM
"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely,
so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it."


posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Oh the report its by " Liz Wahl "

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 10:24 PM
a reply to: amurphy245

If you seek to deny the holocaust happened (I type "if" because you were coy enough to not make me certain that's what you were saying) then I would say the exit is the little red "x" in the upper right hand corner of your browser window, please use it.

If you're just bitching about logic and decency being required here then just get over it.

edit on 11-2-2014 by Springer because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 10:28 PM
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Do we live in the same country?

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 10:39 PM
If I were SO I'd have a forum called BS for every socialist/Anti-west/Kill the Jews POS posted here.And despite his charity in letting you post your pure garbage,he let's you ridicule him?You people make me vomit.
I guess denying ignorance means giving free reign to those championing the complete opposite.
edit on CSTSunpm01061 by TDawg61 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 10:54 PM
What Would be a reliable news source then? Not being snarky,I'm asking because I'd really like to know.Is just Al-Jazeera left then? Because I sure as hell don't trust any of the mainstream networks,most especially not American ones.Where Does one go for reliable,unbiased news/event coverage and discussion? I don't see how RT is so much worse,All have their agendas and biases.I'd propably trust RT before any other source.But it's always good to know of more.Anyone have any suggestions? I don't have time now,to read the whole thread,unfortunately.

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 12:22 AM
a reply to: rigel4

Because then they'll have to ban all other MSM news.

Out of interest, can anyone give absolute proof that RT has Russia tried to shape opinion through lies and twisted facts, as has been claimed by the OP?

Russia Today and the US-centric focus of is part of a long-term plan to shape opinion through lies and twisted facts,

Where are these lies? Where are these twisted facts?

Are they in the debris of Obama's Syria policy? Or in the mountains of Afghanistan where Yankee soldiers ain't wanted? Or in the impotent US space launch capability? Or in the calamitous US financial situation? Or in the state-sponsored terror America is so proud of? Or the collapse of law and order in US cities? Or in the fascistic abuses of power exercised by US and state authorities on a daily basis? Or in the theft of millions of dollars by the IRS - just because they can...

Forgive me, I ramble. Or perhaps I too am inventing these things?
edit on 3-11-2014 by Blister because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in