Question ATS More…

a reply to: Indigo5

No it is not the "same thing RT does"...because I am simply stating facts, lest you want to argue that they are not State Run or that Russia does not suppress opposing opinions? Or that RT Reporters themselves have acknowledged the directive to deceive?

No, read what I wrote. You are doing the same thing in here that you are accusing RT of. You are not stating facts, you are stating your opinion of a foreign news outlet based off of your personal feeling of Russia. You accuse Russia of beating people without realizing what the US has done to people. That's a pretty solid correlation.

Please direct me to your facts. The map to your opinions is certainly on display but these "facts," seem as factual as the evidence the Western Media never presents to back up their accusations of Russia blowing up planes. Please show me where you have factually shown how RT is less factual than western media. It is a fact that they are state-owned but it is not a fact that they are less credible than a western media outlet. That would be an opinion.

What about France 24? Even though they echo the same information as the US about Russia, should we dismiss France 24 because it's also state owned?

You don't think the US suppresses opposing opinions? You can't actually be serious. So when Ron Paul was running for President, what facts was the media using? Telling people someone is "unelectable," that has won multiple elections in his life is an opinion not a fact. The US created the Dept. of homeland security to directly deal with opposing opinions so is RT now worse than hallow point bullets?

When I say that the Western Media outlets created RT, I'm referring to how western media outlets have driven people away that are tired of the narrative, that is very easy to see through. The inept way of reporting from the West created an audience void that RT was happy to fill, thus we helped create the audience for their network.

Here's a fact, Putin has killed less innocent people than George Bush. Here's another fact, Putin has killed less innocent people than Barak Obama. I don't need RT for those facts, I can just watch a Western news outlet to be reminded of that.

originally posted by: Cypress
The difference between Russia and the US as far as the news agencies are concerned is a little thing known as Freedom of the Press.

That has been in danger, lately.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
Here's a fact, Putin has killed less innocent people than George Bush. Here's another fact, Putin has killed less innocent people than Barak Obama.

You won't have very much luck trying to convince the people of Chechnya of that misstatement.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5

You are not stating facts, you are stating your opinion of a foreign news outlet based off of your personal feeling of Russia.

I discriminate between "News outlets" and "State run media/messaging arms".

I have no "personal" feelings toward Russia.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5

You accuse Russia of beating people without realizing what the US has done to people.

I realize well what the US Government has done to people, largely due to US news outlets...If only Russia had a similar system.

Aside from that you seem to be conflating Military actions and conflicts with the direct targeting of native journalists for arrest, beatings and murder. Apples to cats?

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5

Please show me where you have factually shown how RT is less factual than western media.

You have yet to explain why one of their Anchors would resign claiming this..

Corespondent Sara Firth's announcement came nearly two hours after she stated on Twitter that RT anchors "do work for Putin" and spread "lies," in a conversation with RT London correspondent Polly Boiko. Firth alleged that the network asks its anchors to "obscure the truth," and now she is saying she's had enough.

...
Firth said that if she was "asked to burn the facts and not tell the truth" then she would "be a goner."

"And so I’m gone,"

www.huffingtonpost.com...

or this?

Back in March, Washington-based anchor Liz Wahl announced on-air that she was leaving the station because she “could not be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashed the actions of Putin,”

nypost.com...

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5

It is a fact that they are state-owned but it is not a fact that they are less credible than a western media outlet. That would be an opinion.

"Credibility" is not a value that can be expressed as "fact". It is an opinion that can be supported by facts. It is my opinion I have repeatedly provided facts to support my opinion that RT News is not credible, even by Western News standards.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5
What about France 24? Even though they echo the same information as the US about Russia, should we dismiss France 24 because it's also state owned?

Don't know them, don't care..perhaps you can start another thread on them? Otherwise it seems "but what about billy!!" distraction.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5
You don't think the US suppresses opposing opinions? You can't actually be serious. So when Ron Paul was running for President, what facts was the media using?

If Ron Paul ran for President in Russia he would be arrested on trumped up charges and the only coverage RT News would have of him would be when the Russian Militsiya dragged him away. I like Ron Paul, but his followers are under the mistaken impression that his failure to succeed is because of lack of media coverage, when in reality his ideas, for better or worse, are not mainstream. The US Media focuses on front-runners.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5
The US created the Dept. of homeland security to directly deal with opposing opinions so is RT now worse than hallow point bullets?

Hmm. I might have missed that story. Please show me where Homeland Security has been gunning down journalists? Putin's count is around 150 so far.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Really Skeptic Overlord? Is the condescending tone necessary? What was the news reporting on before Snowden and Assange forced them to talk about this? Yes who could argue with Rolling Stone magazine as an authority on global events. You should be careful when you accuse people of disinformation, especially with how many pop-ups I have to click on my screen just to access an article :-) You and your ilk seem to think I hold RT above other outlets when I just keep repeating they are all sources of info that shouldn't just be dismissed because some admin on a message board uses the term "state-sponsored".

What was the point in sending me those links? You think the western media broke the lid off of NSA or IRS targeting? You think the western media, based off of these articles, is holding people responsible for banking manipulation? Books, decades old, written by people with conviction that contain all of the information your articles from 2014 contain which is just info Snowden forced them to finally talk about. Many of these articles seemed like blogs and not news stories. "Obama may be accused of war crimes...." It may rain tomorrow or it may not, but it might.

Would the Western Media be reporting any of this if Snowden or Wikileaks hadn't come forward or are western media outlets being forced to report on it because it is all over the internet? In fact, western journalists had to find out from Snowden that THEY were being spied on by the NSA!!! Can you share with me, from your western news outlets, all of those same links BEFORE Snowden, Assange and Manning? And even though these three men are the source of most of the media's information, how are these men treated by the majority of western media? It's my understanding that multiple whistleblowers have come forward over the past few decades, with similar information but the media didn't seem to pay them much attention.

Talking about WMD's in 2013 and 2014 is great, but where was this journalism being done in 2003, to help prevent mass murder? Which editor was asking their reporters, "If we are going to report on Iraq having WMD's can we prove where they are and how they got there?" Then when we didn't find any, which western media outlets were demanding accountability for the people who lied? That is a simple, basic, journalism 101 approach but it seems to be beneath the approach of our western outlets. What reporter didn't allow George Bush to leave a room until he answered questions honestly about Iraq 2003? There were Democrat leaders and journalists that were against the war but who has lead the charge to demand the truth? Since we didn't find any WMD's I would assume this would make a pretty easy case for those that thought Bush and his administration were criminals.

If western media was really "better," and not the same as RT, then we would know why we shouldn't send our tax dollars to Syrian rebels and why we shouldn't use our tax dollars to back coups of democratically elected leaders, the world over. If our media was truly better and RT was just a state-sponsored puppet of Putin, than we would know why we shouldn't involve ourselves in the same situations, time and time again.

Again, not saying RT is better, just saying it's as viable a source as any outlet in the west. I could highlight and send you articles that highlight how great RT is but a few articles a platform does not make.

a reply to: Indigo5

If Ron Paul ran for President in Russia he would be arrested on trumped up charges and the only coverage RT News would have of him would be when the Russian Militsiya dragged him away. I like Ron Paul, but his followers are under the mistaken impression that his failure to succeed is because of lack of media coverage, when in reality his ideas, for better or worse, are not mainstream. The US Media focuses on front-runners.

Yes, you have no personal feelings towards Russia at all.........

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

they are all sources of info that shouldn't just be dismissed because some admin on a message board uses the term "state-sponsored".

You do realize that the term "State Sponsored" is not a term that "some admin on a message board " made up?

That is a simple reality, like the earth is round...and while you shouldn't take my word for it...it is still a fair description of the earth.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5



-------
INDIGO5:

If Ron Paul ran for President in Russia he would be arrested on trumped up charges and the only coverage RT News would have of him would be when the Russian Militsiya dragged him away. I like Ron Paul, but his followers are under the mistaken impression that his failure to succeed is because of lack of media coverage, when in reality his ideas, for better or worse, are not mainstream. The US Media focuses on front-runners.
------


Yes, you have no personal feelings towards Russia at all.........

Correct...just a few months back is a good recent example..

Russia court places Putin opponent under house arrest
jurist.org...

a reply to: RisingTerra

I get your point. The Western media are no angels. I think most of us understand that (at least I would hope so given the nature of the site)

RT is no different from any other news agency/channel. It has its fanbois the same as Alex Jones/Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Ron Paul do. Such people think the sun shines out of their particular favourites backside.

But ultimately It is there to serve its own interests and that of its paymaster/owner/editor. To think otherwise is ludicrously naive.

So I'm wondering why such a verbose and passionate defence of it is necessary, together with a sly dig at the forum.

Argument for arguments sake perhaps?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You won't have very much luck trying to convince the people of Chechnya of that misstatement.

So sad.

This is how disinformation works, I post a fact and then you follow it up with something irrelevant. Why would I have a hard time convincing Chechens and what would it matter if they believed me or not? George Bush and Barak Obama have killed more innocent people than Vladimir Putin. You and the Chechens don't have to agree but that doesn't make me wrong. I didn't say Vladimir Putin didn't kill innocent people, he just killed less. What's even more sad is that he's been in office longer than either of those Presidents and has invaded few countries and killed less people. How many countries does the US have a military base in these days oh Overlord of Skepticism?

And one more thing...

Assuming Snowden is all he is appears to be, that means he's been an operative inside an intelligence agency.

Painting such a man as a paragon of virtue, as so many people seem to want to do, is also naive. The man was paid to lie for a living and was quite happy doing so for some time. The fact that so many people want to believe him and hold him in high regard is troubling, because no one knows for sure if he's not simply lying still.

a reply to: neformore

I've pretty much echoed the same things you have. I used Ron Paul as an example of how the western media won't promote people whose business interests are not tied to it's own. I'm simply holding RT on an equal playing field as every other news outlet without being prejudice. I readily acknowledge that no media outlet is "the good guy," and we should take our time and do our research through a variety of outlets.

Since this began as state-sponsored talk, I also asked the question about France 24. They are state sponsored and pretty much repeat the American narrative so what makes the information more credible since France 24 is state-owned like RT. I've also made the point that since Corporations own the media and also the politicians who run our country, could it be argued that the US media is state run.

There is value in each network but it is dangerous to hold one over others as the "true," source of information. That's all.

a reply to: Indigo5

You do realize that the term "State Sponsored" is not a term that "some admin on a message board " made up?

That is a simple reality, like the earth is round...and while you shouldn't take my word for it...it is still a fair description of the earth.

Thank you also for your condescending approach to an adult discussion. Yes, I'm well aware of what state-sponsored means. You can tell how much I know what it means when I bring to the discussion the idea that American government may also state-sponsored. If the people who own networks, own the companies and organizations that back our politicians and government officials, than it could be argued that in some ways, the American media is also state sponsored. I know the earth was round, but did you know that it wasn't the only planet in our solar system?

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5

You do realize that the term "State Sponsored" is not a term that "some admin on a message board " made up?

That is a simple reality, like the earth is round...and while you shouldn't take my word for it...it is still a fair description of the earth.

Thank you also for your condescending approach to an adult discussion. Yes, I'm well aware of what state-sponsored means.

OK...By the way you expressed it you seemed to imply that it was some contrived derogatory description by SO rather than a simple fact?

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You and your ilk seem to think I hold RT above other outlets when I just keep repeating they are all sources of info that shouldn't just be dismissed because some admin on a message board uses the term "state-sponsored".

originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5

You can tell how much I know what it means when I bring to the discussion the idea that American government may also state-sponsored. If the people who own networks, own the companies and organizations that back our politicians and government officials, than it could be argued that in some ways, the American media is also state sponsored. I know the earth was round, but did you know that it wasn't the only planet in our solar system?

You have made this argument before? If not, then someone else did.

It fails on the premise that (1) Assuming Corporate interests have complete control of both government and news media. and (2) Even if Corporations did have complete control of government and news media...Corporate interests in free-market capitalism are large and diverse...and competitive. Each competing in different views and agendas. This would pre-empt "control" and is mathematically, very simply the precise opposite of a singular State Run dictate of media.
It ties into the "Free" market and competition. In order for your claim to be correct ...all business and union interests in the USA would need to be ONE. Absent that, the result is occasional bias via various network advertisers vs. Dictated Propaganda.

originally posted by: RisingTerra
especially with how many pop-ups I have to click on my screen just to access an article

Logged-in members don't get pop-up ads. If you're getting them, they're not from us.

You and your ilk seem to think I hold RT above other outlets when I just keep repeating they are all sources of info that shouldn't just be dismissed because some admin on a message board uses the term "state-sponsored".

I'm far from the only person discussing the state-sponsored nature of Russia Today, as partially indicated in the opening post of my thread.

What was the point in sending me those links?

You implied there was no coverage.

Would the Western Media be reporting any of this if Snowden or Wikileaks hadn't come forward…

You can't put the cart before the horse.

Can you share with me, from your western news outlets, all of those same links BEFORE Snowden, Assange and Manning?

Google is your friend.

Talking about WMD's in 2013 and 2014 is great, but where was this journalism being done in 2003, to help prevent mass murder?

Unknown, since even Saddam Hussein was bragging that he had lots of weapons of mass destruction.

If western media was really "better," and not the same as RT, then we would know why we shouldn't send our tax dollars to Syrian rebels

Google is your friend: www.nbcnews.com...

Again, not saying RT is better, just saying it's as viable a source as any outlet in the west. I could highlight and send you articles that highlight how great RT is but a few articles a platform does not make.

I'm very familiar with Russia Today, I typically review their top stories every day.

My point is, and has always been, no state-directed news source should ever be given credibility or traffic. I would never use VOA as a source for the same reason.

On a related note, but different core topic; Matt Pearce, LA Times reporter, is doing a pretty good job live-reporting events the administration(s) would rather not be live-reported.

I agree with the OP.


RT may well run propaganda in their news, many of us take it all with a grain of salt, listen to the other side, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

My thing is, the talking heads on RT, many respected people end up on there, they are given a forum
and time to speak, you don't have a Hannity type pushing the conversation a certain way.

Another thing is this confirmation Bias, I'm well aware of what it means but
holding RT to one standard and the rest to another is also confirmation bias.

Propaganda is generally seen as negative with good reason but it doesn't mean the propagandists are
telling outright lies.

I'm from the UK and I've studied propaganda for a long time, I'd vote for any change to the rules about RT should instantly be put towards the BBC. There is no difference even if BBC are perceived as liberal or lefty.

ALL news is agenda driven, facts became secondary along time ago.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Logged-in members don't get pop-up ads. If you're getting them, they're not from us.

What does that have to do with what I said? There are pop-ups if you aren't a member, and there are many more flashing little ads on this site than there were before. I didn't say the pop-ups came from anyone else, I just said there are pop-ups on the site now because there are.

I'm far from the only person discussing the state-sponsored nature of Russia Today, as partially indicated in the opening post of my thread.

I didn't single you out. I said "you and your ilk," to make sure that you knew you were a part of a group of people and not being singled out The world "ilk," is in reference to a type or group of people. Is RT responsible for your lack of reading comprehension?

You can't put the cart before the horse.

That's a convenient cliche to use but the information that was 'leaked,' by Snowden and Wikileaks had been talked about and written about for decades. So no, until Snowden and Wikileaks, the media was not reporting on these things even though the information was available.

Unknown, since even Saddam Hussein was bragging that he had lots of weapons of mass destruction.

Again you are wrong because many Americans knew we had sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam, among others, prior to the invasion of Iraq. So the information was there and it had nothing to do with what "Saddam," was bragging about but nobody was discussing it within the media. Where did the WMD's come from? Did Saddam make them? Who did he buy them from if he didn't make them? What will he use them for? Those are all questions that should be answered in detail before we kill a million people for a reason that doesn't actually exist. But please, tell me more about propaganda.......

Google is your friend.

That's a really neat catch phrase to simply dismiss something but it doesn't actually mean anything. To share an article about the amount of money we are giving Syrian rebels, that doesn't discuss where or how the money is being distributed doesn't count as news and it doesn't counter my point. The article you shared was no different than a vague edict that happens to try to slip in the fact that we have already been arming Syrian rebels before Obama asked for even more money to arm them. I could have read to you my wife's christmas wish list in the same manner that that article was written. Where is the followup story or the in depth analysis of how our government got away with arming rebel groups without Congress or the nation's consent? How can we talk about the economy in one article and then discuss how we are going to give money away to another country's military in the very next article?

I'm very familiar with Russia Today, I typically review their top stories every day.

My point is, and has always been, no state-directed news source should ever be given credibility or traffic. I would never use VOA as a source for the same reason.

Good for you. So do I and at no point am I revolted or think Russia is playing some huge con on me because it is fairly easy to tell, just as it is with mainstream news like the articles you attempted to use as evidence with me, when a story is BS. Based on your point, is the information from France 24 BS since they are state run? It is practically identical to western media but it is state-run so does that affect the overall value of the information?

I think we should all recognize that RT is a direct competitor of alternative sites like ATS and that someone who is either financially benefitting or hopes to financially benefit from ATS someday, would want to dismiss other sites if he/she thought he could convince people based on a really flimsy premise; "State-Sponsored anything means the information is not credible."

You implied there was no coverage.

No, I didn't imply there was no coverage. What i said was is that there was no effort, as a whole, to get to the truth of a situation and that most major news outlets support the overall policy of an administration, not the social aspects that are used for campaigns and that whatever coverage of the counter points existed was limited since alternative viewpoints were silenced by most mainstream outlets. Didn't Napolitano just get fired?

You have a strange way of communicating. I tell you there are pop-ups on the site, and you tell me there aren't pop-ups for members. Okay, but that doesn't mean there aren't more pop-ups now than there used to be. If I hadn't signed up and kept clicking onto an article, I would continue to get pop-ups, like I do when I'm logged out. I talk about the need for the media to discuss where our tax dollars go and you put the smarmy quip "google is your friend," with a link to an article about Obama asking for $500 to help Syrian rebels. A news article would discuss these issues: Why would we give money to a militia opposing its democratically elected government? Where is the money coming from? WHo is going to receive this money? How will the money be monitored and and allocated? What are the goals for this money and when do we expect a result?

Those are questions adults ask and should demand from their news source and leaders. It looks state-run when those questions aren't even discussed, let alone asked.

I thought I'd add this.

Let's say I disliked people on Welfare/Benefits, I can right now hit up Telegraph, Dailymail, Fox news
and many other sites to get my fill of Benefit hate pornography.

If I want to hear Fracking is Evil I could join The guardian or others to hear that.

Confirmation Bias in action.

Instead of fighting, we should really be looking for a fix.
Some of us know the Modus Operandi of most mainstream, state entities.
Or at least where they align politically.

Maybe there should be a thread on News Sources with some facts thrown in
so everyone can make their own mind up. I'm not sure how it would work or who would undertake the action,
I'm just trying to think how to solve the problem.

a reply to: Taggart

Instead of fighting, we should really be looking for a fix.
Some of us know the Modus Operandi of most mainstream, state entities.
Or at least where they align politically.

Maybe there should be a thread on News Sources with some facts thrown in
so everyone can make their own mind up. I'm not sure how it would work or who would undertake the action,
I'm just trying to think how to solve the problem.

Now that's the attitude!! People seem to want to cast stones without recognizing we've created this glass world baby! No government, media or religion has has the 'ONE' answer or the 'RIGHT' way and to start to place judgment on one, without being accountable for your own, is incredibly counter productive to the momentum of humanity. We should be thankful we live in a world that is bigger than 3 television networks and that we can connect with people all the way around the world by just clicking a button. We waste time arguing about the same things that affect each of us, independent of where we are from.

To listen to an admin of an alternative news site, tell other people not to look at other alternative news sites because it's propaganda is like an executive of Coke telling someone not to drink Pepsi because carbonation is bad for you. We should spend less time trying to convince people what they should or shouldn't ingest and spend more time preparing to listen and respond to them.

"Stop listening to Led Zeppelin, it's the devil's music." Same old censors, just with a UFO forum now :-)