Russian network RT must register as foreign agent in US

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: yuppa

They did shoot down that plane.

Next your going to tell us that they annexed Cremea by threatening voters with the promise of torture.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Next your going to tell us that they annexed Cremea by threatening voters with the promise of torture.

With a giant chapka-wearing unicycle-riding bear didn't you know ?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse
Oh, and nice touch claiming that ATS has ever considered banning RT. You know that is not true.

I know that it is true because I witnessed it. It was declared enemy propaganda and the administration threatened to ban anybody even talking about RT on ATS, because anybody who did so was apparently a Russian agent. And some members were banned. Then a certain member recanted their declaration banning RT, after the damage was done and enough people criticized the agenda.

You can look it up for yourself, if the thread wasn’t deleted.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

To answer your question, technically all state funded media are propaganda, by definition. Some state funded media are more objective than others, due to the nature of liberal democracy. The bottom line is that all media will lie if forced to. Russian media lie constantly. As I have pointed out, and you demonstrated, they deliberately tell contradictory lies, their objective being to undermine the belief that it is possible to know the truth.

Here is the fallacy that you are promoting: that whoever funds something does so to dictate their own agenda. So you are claiming that all state-funded media is propaganda for their states.

Then you add a completely subjective claim that some state-funded media is “more objective” because of “liberal democracy”. This, of course, does not make any sense unless you twist the definition of “liberal democracy” into an anologue for “objectivity”, which is most certainly is not. By its very definition, “liberal democracy” is a system of governance based on subjectivity.

Back to explaining the original fallacy in your logic: if you are claiming that anything funded is biased towards the funder’s agenda, then by your own logic private media is corporate propaganda, and thus should be viewed as just as credible as state-funded media and vise versa.

Now I’m sure you are not ignorant to the point of not being able to discern the difference between state funding and corporate funding, but let me reiterate it: corporate funding comes from a corporate source whose only concern is to increase profit margins to appease its shareholders. State funding is similar. The difference being who constitutes shareholders, which under state-funding would be taxpayers (aka citizens).

But if you want to go even further, let’s look at American corporate-funded news. It’s all owned by top corporations with billions in revenue, made possible by tax breaks. So how does a tax break function? The state refunds these private corporations with taxpayer funds. So in other words, the state still funds the news in the USA.

originally posted by: TheStalkingHorse

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

To answer your question, technically all state funded media are propaganda, by definition. Some state funded media are more objective than others, due to the nature of liberal democracy. The bottom line is that all media will lie if forced to. Russian media lie constantly. As I have pointed out, and you demonstrated, they deliberately tell contradictory lies, their objective being to undermine the belief that it is possible to know the truth.

Here is the fallacy that you are promoting: that whoever funds something does so to dictate their own agenda. So you are claiming that all state-funded media is propaganda for their states.

No and yes. All state funded media is, by definition, propaganda. That does not mean that the state dictates the content. In some states, the state media has free reign, the idea being to demonstrate how unfettered the media is in that state. Conservatives in Britain constantly assail the BBC's "liberal bias."

Then you add a completely subjective claim that some state-funded media is “more objective” because of “liberal democracy”. This, of course, does not make any sense unless you twist the definition of “liberal democracy” into an anologue for “objectivity”, which is most certainly is not. By its very definition, “liberal democracy” is a system of governance based on subjectivity.

Something is either objective or it is not. One of the hallmarks of liberal democracy is that it allows for subjective opinions about objective facts. The media in liberal democracies portray objective facts rather than government dictated misinformation, and they are free to voice their subjective opinion of those facts. In authoritarian regimes the media have no choice but to propagate whatever the government wants, whether it is true or not, and they do not have the liberty to express an opinion.

Liberal democracy is based on the idea that many minds are more likely to find the best solution than a single one. The more "opinions," the more likely the best solution will be reached.

Back to explaining the original fallacy in your logic: if you are claiming that anything funded is biased towards the funder’s agenda, then by your own logic private media is corporate propaganda, and thus should be viewed as just as credible as state-funded media and vise versa.

You are completely misrepresenting what I said, of course. Some sources of funding are more insistent on pushing their agendas than others. It is you who are creating the fallacy, not me. But, yes, private corporations also pay media to lie for them.

Now I’m sure you are not ignorant to the point of not being able to discern the difference between state funding and corporate funding, but let me reiterate it: corporate funding comes from a corporate source whose only concern is to increase profit margins to appease its shareholders. State funding is similar. The difference being who constitutes shareholders, which under state-funding would be taxpayers (aka citizens).

Now there lies your fallacy. Under some systems, the taxpayer is not necessarily a stakeholder; the state has its own agenda which does not necessarily benefit those who are paying for it.

But if you want to go even further, let’s look at American corporate-funded news. It’s all owned by top corporations with billions in revenue, made possible by tax breaks. So how does a tax break function? The state refunds these private corporations with taxpayer funds. So in other words, the state still funds the news in the USA.

Wow. You have no idea how things actually work, do you? Advertisers pay media to publish what they want the public to believe. The media have the option to accept these ads or reject them. There is no compulsion involved, and if a media outlet chooses to decline an advertisement, for whatever reason, it is not censorship but a business decision. Your fantasy about "tax breaks" is actually amusing. Are media in liberal democracies biased? Of course, but the system allows the biases to cancel one another out.