It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5
You accuse Russia of beating people without realizing what the US has done to people.
originally posted by: RisingTerra
a reply to: Indigo5
Please show me where you have factually shown how RT is less factual than western media.
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,"
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,”
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.
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?
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?
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?
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: 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".
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.........
You won't have very much luck trying to convince the people of Chechnya of that misstatement.
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
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.
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?
originally posted by: RisingTerra
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?
Would the Western Media be reporting any of this if Snowden or Wikileaks hadn't come forward…
Can you share with me, from your western news outlets, all of those same links BEFORE Snowden, Assange and Manning?
Talking about WMD's in 2013 and 2014 is great, but where was this journalism being done in 2003, to help prevent mass murder?
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
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.
Logged-in members don't get pop-up ads. If you're getting them, they're not from us.
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.
You can't put the cart before the horse.
Unknown, since even Saddam Hussein was bragging that he had lots of weapons of mass destruction.
Google is your friend.
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.
You implied there was no coverage.
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.