Question ATS More…

The BBC point is irrelevant. Yes, the BBC is state funded, but it is editorially independent of central government. And there are a great many systems and processes to ensure it is fair and balanced. And if not, there are mechanisms to complain and have hearings to address any bias.

RT is state funded, and is completely controlled by central government.


You're comparing two completely different entities.

originally posted by: blupblup
People, including SO, keep using it as if it's uniquely something that only RT does.

I have never made any such implication.

The jerking of your knee has attributed that baseless assumption to me.

a reply to: Mikehawk
I couldnt agree more.

I've been reading/watching RT since its birth, and it is far superior in both content and journalistic research and integrity to any of the dreck in the west. The BBC used to be first in my book, but they have gone "the way" and fallen far in my eyes that last few years.

Is RT perfect? No. Which news source is? But it is far superior, and, yes, even balanced than just about every other source out there. And as you said, when they are pumping the propaganda, it's pretty obvious, if even only from the looks on the newsreaders' or reporters' faces.

I was in fact shocked at the RT backlash here in recent months. Thought I had entered another time loop.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I agree with you. RT has no real stake in swaying our minds either to the right or left, they slam all of the political puppets and the corporations that fund them. Didn't RT cover the Paul campaign when all the rest would not?

Personally I think that there is more truth in the ATS hoax bin than in any of the news forums here.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Skeptic Overlord.


Has ATS staff ever engaged in talk About banning RT from ATS ?



If so why ?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I'm completely and utterly flabbergasted by this -- and other ATS members -- opinion. Giving any stamp of approval to a know state propaganda machine is beyond my comprehension. Even if "the facts" of many stories are apparently correct, no one should be lending any degree of approval or credibility to such an outlet in any way.



Seriously. This is bad.



I'm, unfortunately, done with this. Not because I'm fatigued over the argument, but because I'm disgusted.

Have at it. Embrace your favorite deceptions.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: blupblup
People, including SO, keep using it as if it's uniquely something that only RT does.

I have never made any such implication.

The jerking of your knee has attributed that baseless assumption to me.

SO, come on, you can't say that ATS hasn't done the same things we lambaste others for...

a reply to: SkepticOverlord



You use absolute terms as if they apply to everyone, and then wonder why since you only attack the stereotypical things the Mainstream fully agrees with, tell people that we should worry about only the outsiders because the insiders are better, and you are disgusted ??


I rarely feel so much revulsion as when I see such obvious and blatant terms to category us that we are crazy.

We ARE crazy, and real, not completely owned and trained by religions, dogmas, and power games.

That does not even compute to you, does it??

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I'm completely and utterly flabbergasted by this

I'm not, not in the least. Proof of the effectiveness I was speaking of earlier.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

I was in fact shocked at the RT backlash here in recent months. Thought I had entered another time loop.

Having read through a lot of these threads over the last month or so I'd conclude that the majority of members on here are happy to use and view RT like most other news outlets, regardless of the concerted efforts of owners and moderators to control and manipulate discussions on RT and its validity or bias.
Most of the membership here have felt fairly uneasy and concerned about the owner attacking them so aggressively while giving the likes of FOX & CBS a free pass.
I read through the last two big threads and I'd say many, including myself, were left perplexed.

Maybe it's because irl the cold war seems to be well under way again and ATS is just doing its national duty?
Maybe it's because Russia Today mentioned ATS recently in some article - someone mentioned this on another thread.
Or maybe Skeptic Overlord really is just a stickler for honest and unbiased journalism and reporting.

I have no idea but it has been very interesting to follow this on ATS.
Passions run high and all manner of weird things said - highly entertaining.

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I suggest you read here.
SO's previous posts on the subject

a reply to: SkepticOverlord


And I must say, that Robin Williams, would not agree with your positions, he embraced madness, which includes thinking OUTSIDE of the box, not desperately clinging to it in feigned shock.

Are you serious that you can actually believe your paradigms of the world, that we actually are traitors for even listening to someone that is not on the side you believe we need to be??

This is bad, you say?

And then accuse us of only believing the other side ?

A lot of us can actually see it ALL, and we are actively trying to wake things up, before the REAL bad stuff tries to go down, you know, the garbage that goes on because we believe our certain GOD groups.

And we WILL win.... no amount of protesting for the good old COLD WAR days will have any effect........

Thanks for providing the impetus to see how they STILL think, carry on with the war.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I suggest you read here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=SkepticOverlord

Tell me again why we should fear Russia, or anything else in this world ??

When will the REAL problems of this Earth and beyond get some real attention.

Seriously i just don't get this thread.

I don't get why its so popular.

I don't get why there are some people using language like "shill" or "gatekeeper"

I really don't understand why some people feel that SO has to rubber stamp his approval on a state run propaganda machine, why does it matter?

SO happens to be smart enough to see RT for what is is, a Kremlin run propaganda tool.

I think its pretty horrible the way some people are treating the guy who keeps the website running for us, for free, all because they think he should conform to their views.

originally posted by: Painterz
The BBC point is irrelevant. Yes, the BBC is state funded, but it is editorially independent of central government.

Is it?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I don't get why there are some people using language like "shill" or "gatekeeper"

Because SO refers to RT as propaganda, and the Wests version of propaganda as being simply biased.

I'm fairly amused at what is happening in this thread. I'm sure other members have their own reasons for taking interest, maybe some are offended at the suggestions that we members need help with our own powers of discernment.

a reply to: Witness2008

That does not really answer my question though.

I cannot fathom why so many people seem to think it matters one way or another what SO thinks about the merits of one source over another.

Double post

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It's a clever tactic, calling out the guy with an opinion, for daring to have one, attack him for it, and avoid the indisputable substance if his argument.

Who is right or wrong in this?

Strictly a matter of manipulable perspective.

I don't get why there are some people using language like "shill" or "gatekeeper"

Because ATS is playing the same card of calling others propaganda, but doing it against ATS, that can't be tolerated.