Does RT have a hidden agenda?

Originally posted by Severin
reply to post by sylvie

 

Interestingly though, if you take a look at their about page: RT/About you'll see their partners, one of which is WhatreallyHappened.com

Omg, I think I freaking love you. I have been monitoring and watching the reporting of RT, Huffington Post, and NewsCorp affiliates, as a concerned citizen, for a while now as they all seem to be, at times, singing the same song and are frequently used as the sources of information by a variety of anti-government or anti-government corruption groups here in the US. I felt like they were connected but did not know how. I feel like an idiot for never looking at that "partners" page. They are right there. News.com.au = NewsCorp, btw, since that is the least obvious. Please, please, please look very critically at these agencies' activities over the last two years and the individuals at the heads of them.

That kinda brings me to the next question: what about the people working for RT? Lauren Lyster, Max Keiser, etc.? Do they know what the station's agenda is, and are they in on it? Or do they have no clue? Or do they know, but accept the fact that it's Russian state propaganda, because it gives them a medium to voice their honest opinions?

What if one of them, let's say Max Keiser, wanted to talk about Putin's grab of natural resources, i.e., being on his way to monopolizing the energy markets in Europe? Would he be told, "Sorry, can't do," or is he free to talk about whatever he feels like as an independent "contractor"?

Just found another article that I really like, titled What is Russia Today?

Very interesting background info here.

reply to post by sylvie


Wow. Forget manufacturing consent...Considering that News Limited (aka News Corp, owner of Fox) is partnered with RT, that could almost be seen as manufacturing dissent. Fantastic article, Sylvie.

In regards to your thoughts on whether the news anchors/journalists/pundits and whatnot are aware or how they feel about it, I think that there are examples of how difficult it is to get into such a position and keep it elsewhere. There's been a few former anchors in the past from a variety of news agencies that broke line with their bosses and complained about their times there. Sometimes, a job is a job and somebody will do what they are told to keep that job. It's probably as simple as that though I think, based on how excited some seem to get being provocative, they may be 100% behind whatever they are saying. Either that or they are really good actors.

reply to post by sylvie


Really? A state owned Russian "News Agency" might have an agenda?! Who would of thought......................?

$hit YES - it emanates from a nation ruled by the former KGB which some consider to have simply gone underground without giving up anything of its agenda. Nonetheless, given it is opposed to many of our own established power structures, it does quite often reveal hidden truths which our own leader hide away painstakingly. Yet we must take care not to confuse these revelations with what agenda they are meant to serve, as their editorialists and chosen experts tend to add some SPIN to the truth for their common purposes. A great source to awaken us to maybe investigate revelations further, but not to be taken at face value. FWIW


GS

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
In reality RT is owned by the Russian state, in the same way as the BBC and the British state (the details might differ).

and those different details are why it is not owned "in the same way".

RT is a mouthpiece for the Govt of Russia - for which read Tsar-wannabe Putin - and is funded from the russian Federal Budget.

they are not allowed to criticise the Government, or report any disaffection within Russia (unless simultaneously condeming the protestors!) or any criticism of Putin.

The BBC has a requirement to be impartial, and is funded by a public and obvious dedicated tax (the licence fee) and commercial activities (selling programmes, etc) for which it competes in the open market.

RT has a very anti-western and pro-Russian agenda as such many conspiracy theorists view it as reliable and trustworthy, but not because this is true, but because both have the same agenda.

Yes it is quiet ironic that people who believe in all sorts of conspiracies about Western govt's are willing to believe such an obviously biased and self-serving site as RT - thus supporting a conspiracy that does actually exist!

reply to post by sylvie


I agree with you on most things, however it seems like their agenda is not so nefarious as you are suggesting, but rather their agenda seem to be telling the "inconvenient truths" that are rarely, if ever, covered in the MSM.

In other cases they tell the story from "another perspective", than the one being trumpeted from the western MSM. I find this very refreshing, as i long since tired of the obviously biased propaganda spewed by FOX, CNN, MSNBC etc.

And i find many agree, that actually bother to watch it for awhile.

The lack of Russian coverage is understandable, since the english version want to attract western viewers, and thus they have to cover what they are most likely interested in, which is somewhat local/relevant news.

When you have been force-fed lies and propaganda for so long by the MSM, the truth may eventually look like a conspiracy, so your concern is understandable, though.