Really?! Is this what has become of ATS?

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
This entire RT issue has gone full-retard.

There's too many people on both sides of the issue taking this too far.

No kidding!

Fact is, if they feel they want to be beholden to what others think of their business practices they would file an IPO.

Since they are not (that I know of...feel free to PM if so ) and they haven't banned RT as a source, why not just cross reference with other sources to prove it validity. If the original RT story is sourced well enough then allow the default (propaganda tag) as is to show it for the bull# that it is. If you can't, than well, 2pts for ATS ownership.

a reply to: karmicecstasy

This is the most intelligent post on the thread so far. RT is government-run media. Do all the western media have some kind of propaganda or agenda? Sure, but they are still not government-run. That is the difference. When you can prove that Fox or CNN or MSNBC is government-run, then I would say ATS needs to label them as such.

Also, I agree with their house, their rules. If they want to distinguish government-run media from other media - that's their right.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB It's apparent people aren't questioning RT even a little bit.

it's more apparent that you have missed the point of this thread entirely.

a reply to: hellobruce

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MessageforAll
RT - state run propaganda?

So you do not think RT is propaganda?

RT has been accused of providing disinformation and commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The U.S. Department of State,[13] Ukrainian journalists,[14] English news reporters, former Russian officials,[15][16][17] and former RT reporters have accused RT of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.[18][19][20][12][21]

en.wikipedia.org...

And many other western new agencies don't spread false info or have an agenda? The point is RT has a lot of very good and truthful journalism if you look at the pieces it runs on non-Russian topics.
Are we going to smear every piece of interesting investigative journalism with a propaganda sticker if it comes from a new agency with an agenda? If so, that doesn't really leave us much else.

The best we can do is pick through the propaganda to get to the truth as best we can.
THIS isn't helping do this.

To be honest it is only making me question what I am doing here and if it is serving the purpose it used to for me.
Anybody got a suggestion for an alternative?

a reply to: b14warrior

Are we going to smear every piece of interesting investigative journalism with a propaganda sticker if it comes from a new agency with an agenda? If so, that doesn't really leave us much else.

You need to understand that Vladimir Putin is waging a war against the entire world on three fronts. The first is the physical war in Ukraine, where he has used a combination of deception, bribery, agents provocateurs, military aggression and support for violent mercenaries. The second front is economic, using the manipulation of energy supplies and the various sanctions and counter-sanctions that have followed. The third, and most important, is the battle for "hearts and minds." This last is being fought in the "infosphere." At home, he controls all the media, so his propaganda goes unchallenged. To influence the rest of the world, he relies on RT. RT broadcasts in English because English is the most widely spoken language on Earth. Through it he is attempting to manipulate not only native speakers, but people all over the world who speak English as a second language.

So why label RT? Because RT is an infosphere weapon. It is not intended to spread the truth, it is intended to conquer minds. It is supported by teams of propagandists who post comments in support of Putin's aggression all over the internet. These are not ordinary citizens posting their opinion, they are literally an organized infosphere army. RT is one of their preferred weapons because it alone can provide the sort of ammunition they need to make their attacks seem credible.

By tagging RT as they have, the site owners are doing no more than make these infowarriors conform to the Geneva Convention by forcing them to wear their nation's uniform.

Anyone that likes RT, wants to keep using RT as a source that they link to can.

ATS is not blocking the use of RT as a source.

As for the label of it being Government Controlled, most people here on ATS have already made up their mind about RT one way or another, so the labeling will not really affect them at all. They either like and trust RT, or they don't.

Period.

As for new people showing up, they can make their own decisions about that. Simply because one reads a label does not mean that one should always trust it, right?

People should do their own research and come to their own conclusions. They'll either agree with the labeling, or disagree with it (all though you can't change the fact that RT IS controlled by the Russian government, that is a fact that is well known and public knowledge. However, people may or may not agree with the word "propaganda"), but they will still be able to use the links to RT as their source if they so wish and provide stories.

Anyone simply trusting what a label says, without looking into it and making up their own minds, are doomed to believe anything they are told.

a reply to: b14warrior

My point exactly. Smear. When you "smear" a thing you tarnish something's "good" reputation - and attempt to make it bad.

So, in using the word "smear" you believe RT to have an excellent reputation that is undeserving of being "tarnished". Yet, a propaganda machine, is not a smear, its the truth of what RT is - or so people keep saying they admit to.

How can you tarnish the reputation of something by stating fact?

originally posted by: Cantbebothered
I been here since the beginning under various guises and this is my last post. If the site owner wishes to smear another countries news as propaganda whist not doing the same of western media then he can have this site all to himself. Obviously he is intellectually challenged or dishonest. CYA u brainless fools

Another excellent point I was making.

The truth being on display for all to see seemingly makes you want to leave the site, as if truth is not what your interested in.

And again the word smear, as if you actually disagree that Russia owns the channel and might spin stories or overreact or spin propaganda out of their own channel.

:Scratches head:

a reply to: OpinionatedB
People seem to have a problem with only one source being slapped with the label. If they put a label on all of them, there wouldn't be an issue. But then, people have said that over and over and you still don't seem to understand the issue people have, so I am not sure stating it again will help.

FOX news(right wing propaganda)
MSNBC(left wing propaganda)
BBC(brittish propaganda)
CBC(canadaian propaganda)

Etc etc. If they were all labeled as such, there would be no issue. It just feels like ATS has been feeding into cold war 2.0 recently, and doesn't envoke good feelings.

originally posted by: TKDRL


FOX news(right wing propaganda)
MSNBC(left wing propaganda)
BBC(brittish propaganda)
CBC(canadaian propaganda)

These media still have all one thing in common - they are run by citizens, NOT by the government. I suppose ATS could label all of them "citizen-run propaganda", compared to RT's "state-run propaganda" label. Only then is it a fair comparison.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: TKDRL


FOX news(right wing propaganda)
MSNBC(left wing propaganda)
BBC(brittish propaganda)
CBC(canadaian propaganda)

These media still have all one thing in common - they are run by citizens, NOT by the government. I suppose ATS could label all of them "citizen-run propaganda", compared to RT's "state-run propaganda" label. Only then is it a fair comparison.

This explanation is all that is needed.
Short and sweet.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

These media still have all one thing in common - they are run by citizens, NOT by the government. I suppose ATS could label all of them "citizen-run propaganda", compared to RT's "state-run propaganda" label. Only then is it a fair comparison.

Corporate run is the same as government run. in some ways its even worse.

Honestly run by the people? do you have any idea how naive you sound right now? I made this one for you

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: TKDRL


FOX news(right wing propaganda)
MSNBC(left wing propaganda)
BBC(brittish propaganda)
CBC(canadaian propaganda)

These media still have all one thing in common - they are run by citizens, NOT by the government. I suppose ATS could label all of them "citizen-run propaganda", compared to RT's "state-run propaganda" label. Only then is it a fair comparison.

regulated

commission

whose reporting what?

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: OpinionatedB
People seem to have a problem with only one source being slapped with the label. If they put a label on all of them, there wouldn't be an issue. But then, people have said that over and over and you still don't seem to understand the issue people have, so I am not sure stating it again will help.

FOX news(right wing propaganda)
MSNBC(left wing propaganda)
BBC(brittish propaganda)
CBC(canadaian propaganda)

Etc etc. If they were all labeled as such, there would be no issue. It just feels like ATS has been feeding into cold war 2.0 recently, and doesn't envoke good feelings.

there is no point they really don't 'get' it. They think everyone here who is complaining about the labelling are Russian propagandists.. They don't get that if it were the BBC or CNN being labelled and not RT I would be reacting the same way.

But what can you expect from people who still think that their government has nothing to do with their media.

a reply to: MessageforAll

Of course there is propaganda everywhere. Did I say there wasn't? But here's the difference: One corporation (or really rich person) can just buy out another corporation's ownership of a media, and promote their own propaganda. There's no government law stopping them from doing that. You can't do that with a government-run media. The government calls all the shots, and no one else gets a say, no matter how much money they have.

Apparently people haven't noticed that the same flag applies to Voice of America links.

a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

If it was true, and so long as it was true, it wouldn't bother me in the least. Because what I strive for above all things, is the truth.

It's all I care about. So no, it wouldn't bother me in the least.

originally posted by: loveguy

regulated

commission

whose reporting what?

They don't control what the media says. The fact that Fox bashes Obama every single day tells you that.