RT news VS main stream media

Lets discuss the difference in media coverage between the US main stream media and alternative news sources such as RT NEWS (Russia Today)

Feel free to post any clip from any news source that you feel bolsters your position and tell us why you believe it.

I will start with this clip on RT news where it is pointed out that FOX News airs video of Greek Riots as they report on election protests in Russia.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrnQcOpnh-E"][/ame]

Here is the FOX clip.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfGCs8VXews"]Russia: FOX, lies & the wrong videotape: What's NOT happening in Moscow. - YouTube[/ame]

Lets get to the bottom of this. All I want is the truth.

I'm willing to believe the truth even if it disagrees with my current perception of reality.

The truth is the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.

Close-up of the Greek National Bank sign/still shot from video

i think RT is an much better source of actual news than FOX or any of the other mainstream outlets.

but the R stands for Russia so people get freaked out and just assume it's all lies.

the video you posted seemed pretty "fair and balanced" to me..

i like RT and several of the shows they air i watch regular like the Keiser Report and Capitol Accounts, i mean if you want the truth you wont find it in main stream US media.

they are either deliberately not airing important issues or they actually believe ignorance is bliss. either way the average US citizen has no clue just how fake the economy is, how much joe citizen is being screwed, nor how soon the house of cards will be crumbling.

i mention S1867 to 10 people and they all say, what's that? that's how screwed we are brutha....

i think RT is an much better source of actual news than FOX or any of the other mainstream outlets.

but the R stands for Russia so people get freaked out and just assume it's all lies.

the video you posted seemed pretty "fair and balanced" to me..

that seems to be the strangest thing, why does almost everyone i listen to have American accents? i always thought that strange. i can say one thing, Kaiser report and Capitol Account are spot on accurate with their info.

that seems to be the strangest thing, why does almost everyone i listen to have American accents? i always thought that strange. i can say one thing, Kaiser report and Capitol Account are spot on accurate with their info.

The reason that they use American accented broadcasters is for the same reason that they changed the name from Russia Today to RT - they'd rather that people didn't associate them with Russia and the Kremlin.

We've got a lot of Russian immigrants in my area, and in the building that I live in, and I've never met one that wanted to return. In fact, they're not only in NYC, they're spread out all over the U.S., in Canada, and other countries as well. Kind of makes you wonder just what kind of society they have over there, when so many of it's citizens want out.

RT shits on MSM. It's not even remotely close. Freedom Watch on Fox Business is the only MSM show that deserves watching. Also just because RT is based in Russia doesn't mean everything is produced there. Much of the American centered news is shot at their Washington center iirc. Most of the reporters I've seen are either American or British. MSM is by and large propaganda, not news.

Russian immigrants in my area, and in the building that I live in, and I've never met one that wanted to return. In fact, they're not only in NYC, they're spread out all over the U.S., in Canada, and other countries as well. Kind of makes you wonder just what kind of society they have over there, when so many of it's citizens want out.

America will soon be the country that people flee in order to find better economic opportunities. Unless Ron Paul can change things that's what this country is heading towards.

The reason that they use American accented broadcasters is for the same reason that they changed the name from Russia Today to RT - they'd rather that people didn't associate them with Russia and the Kremlin.

We've got a lot of Russian immigrants in my area, and in the building that I live in, and I've never met one that wanted to return. In fact, they're not only in NYC, they're spread out all over the U.S., in Canada, and other countries as well. Kind of makes you wonder just what kind of society they have over there, when so many of it's citizens want out.

Russia really isn't that great of a place to live, its a desolate and cold wasteland. Pretty sure the crime rate is the highest in the world due to the Russian Mafia, and their politics is rife with corruption, and their Ruble is collapsing.

When the main staple of the people is plenty of Vodka I wouldn't really want to live there either.


....Of course my knowledge of Russia comes from American TV so what do I know.

i think RT is an much better source of actual news than FOX or any of the other mainstream outlets.

but the R stands for Russia so people get freaked out and just assume it's all lies.

the video you posted seemed pretty "fair and balanced" to me..

I can understand what they are thinking when they are naturally suspicious of Russia. As a boy I played war all the time and the Russians were the 'bad guys'.

I think that we all cheered for Rocky with out realizing that we were being indoctrinated through entertainment.

It probably happened in Russian as well.

America will soon be the country that people flee in order to find better economic opportunities. Unless Ron Paul can change things that's what this country is heading towards.

This seems to be happening now.

More Americans Moving Overseas to Find Jobs - Careers Articles

I've been researching this topic a bit and I've come to the conclusion that the real reason MSM is distorting the truth so much has a lot to do with so called 'national security' issues.

Apparently our media is obligated to work with US government officials in order to push it's policies and agendas.

Probably a lot of politics involved too.

11. The Media Can Legally Lie | Project Censored

Fiction of Marja as City Was U.S. Information War
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Mar 8, 2010 (IPS) - For weeks, the U.S. public followed the biggest offensive of the Afghanistan War against what it was told was a "city of 80,000 people" as well as the logistical hub of the Taliban in that part of Helmand. That idea was a central element in the overall impression built up in February that Marja was a major strategic objective, more important than other district centres in Helmand.

It turns out, however, that the picture of Marja presented by military officials and obediently reported by major news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war, apparently aimed at hyping the offensive as a historic turning point in the conflict.

Marja is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers' homes or a large agricultural area covering much of the southern Helmand River Valley.

"It's not urban at all," an official of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), who asked not to be identified, admitted to IPS Sunday. He called Marja a "rural community".

"It's a collection of village farms, with typical family compounds," said the official, adding that the homes are reasonably prosperous by Afghan standards.

That very limited area was the apparent objective of "Operation Moshtarak", to which 7,500 U.S., NATO and Afghan troops were committed amid the most intense publicity given any battle since the beginning of the war.

So how did the fiction that Marja is a city of 80,000 people get started?

The idea was passed on to the news media by the U.S. Marines in southern Helmand. The earliest references in news stories to Marja as a city with a large population have a common origin in a briefing given Feb. 2 by officials at Camp Leatherneck, the U.S. Marine base there.

The Associated Press published an article the same day quoting "Marine commanders" as saying that they expected 400 to 1,000 insurgents to be "holed up" in the "southern Afghan town of 80,000 people." That language evoked an image of house to house urban street fighting.

The same story said Marja was "the biggest town under Taliban control" and called it the "linchpin of the militants' logistical and opium-smuggling network". It gave the figure of 125,000 for the population living in "the town and surrounding villages". ABC news followed with a story the next day referring to the "city of Marja" and claiming that the city and the surrounding area "are more heavily populated, urban and dense than other places the Marines have so far been able to clear and hold."

The rest of the news media fell into line with that image of the bustling, urbanised Marja in subsequent stories, often using "town" and "city" interchangeably. Time magazine wrote about the "town of 80,000" Feb. 9, and the Washington Post did the same Feb. 11.

As "Operation Moshtarak" began, U.S. military spokesmen were portraying Marja as an urbanised population centre. On Feb. 14, on the second day of the offensive, Marine spokesman Lt. Josh Diddams said the Marines were "in the majority of the city at this point."

He also used language that conjured images of urban fighting, referring to the insurgents holding some "neighbourhoods".

A few days into the offensive, some reporters began to refer to a "region", but only created confusion rather than clearing the matter up. CNN managed to refer to Marja twice as a "region" and once as "the city" in the same Feb. 15 article, without any explanation for the apparent contradiction.

The Associated Press further confused the issue in a Feb. 21 story, referring to "three markets in town - which covers 80 square miles…."

A "town" with an area of 80 square miles would be bigger than such U.S. cities as Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh and Cleveland. But AP failed to notice that something was seriously wrong with that reference.

Long after other media had stopped characterising Marja as a city, the New York Times was still referring to Marja as "a city of 80,000", in a Feb. 26 dispatch with a Marja dateline.

The decision to hype up Marja as the objective of "Operation Moshtarak" by planting the false impression that it is a good-sized city would not have been made independently by the Marines at Camp Leatherneck.

A central task of "information operations" in counterinsurgency wars is "establishing the COIN [counterinsurgency] narrative", according to the Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual as revised under Gen. David Petraeus in 2006.

That task is usually done by "higher headquarters" rather than in the field, as the manual notes.

The COIN manual asserts that news media "directly influence the attitude of key audiences toward counterinsurgents, their operations and the opposing insurgency." The manual refers to "a war of perceptions…conducted continuously using the news media."

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of ISAF, was clearly preparing to wage such a war in advance of the Marja operation. In remarks made just before the offensive began, McChrystal invoked the language of the counterinsurgency manual, saying, "This is all a war of perceptions."

The Washington Post reported Feb. 22 that the decision to launch the offensive against Marja was intended largely to impress U.S. public opinion with the effectiveness of the U.S. military in Afghanistan by showing that it could achieve a "large and loud victory."

The false impression that Marja was a significant city was an essential part of that message.

Read More: POLITICS: Fiction of Marja as City Was U.S. Information War - IPS ipsnews.net

I heard that RT was funded by the russian government in order to spread propaganda/info/news agaisnt the united states. Not sure if true though, cant be any worse than fox though fo sho

BTW russian communist party has gained more power in the recent elections

Edited by dubaba, 08 December 2011 - 04:20 AM.

I heard that RT was funded by the russian government in order to spread propaganda/info/news agaisnt the united states. Not sure if true though, cant be any worse than fox though fo sho

The truth about the US is already negative. There's no need to exaggerate or outright make things up. I've been watching RT for a long time and I don't feel as though there is any anti US agenda, and I'm good at picking up those kinds of things. I'm sure there is bias, but to think they have some mission against the US is silly at best.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE]Barry Goldwater - Khruschchev, We Will Bury You 1964 Election Ad - YouTube[/ame]

This seems to be happening now.

More Americans Moving Overseas to Find Jobs - Careers Articles

Thanks for the link. That type of thing will become far more common after the Dollar tanks. Emigration will hit record levels and stay there for a while.

We've got a lot of Russian immigrants in my area, and in the building that I live in, and I've never met one that wanted to return. In fact, they're not only in NYC, they're spread out all over the U.S., in Canada, and other countries as well. Kind of makes you wonder just what kind of society they have over there, when so many of it's citizens want out.

what does russia being a shitty place to live have to do with RT being a good or bad source of news?

cant always trust russia today. But i have to admit they cover things that american media wont. But ive noticed russia today never covers the corruption in russia, only the corruption in the united states and EU.

The reason that they use American accented broadcasters is for the same reason that they changed the name from Russia Today to RT - they'd rather that people didn't associate them with Russia and the Kremlin.

We've got a lot of Russian immigrants in my area, and in the building that I live in, and I've never met one that wanted to return. In fact, they're not only in NYC, they're spread out all over the U.S., in Canada, and other countries as well. Kind of makes you wonder just what kind of society they have over there, when so many of it's citizens want out.

Well I lived up the street from some Russian immigrants and went to school with a bunch, from what they told me their parents all left Russia after the collapse of the Soviet government and liked living more when the Soviets ruled.

Funny, I have a Russian family in my neighborhood too, you have 4 parents with about 10 children from 5-21 years all crammed into 2 households. They say the standard of living was worse then here and they had to keep their faith (Christians) a strict secret.

Ok my biggest concern about RT news is that I read its state owned and state sponsored by Russia. Russia is well known for its corrupt and overbearing government, much like the United States. My question comes down to do you trust RT,PBS and the BBC? Or do you just trust RT? If so why do you trust the Russian government?

Note: In my opinion RT tends to get it right more than Fox for example but I am hesitant to trust it.

Here is more info on the controversies surrounding TR fair or not:

http://en.wikipedia....RT_(TV_network)
Allegations of pro-Russia bias
According to a variety of sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda.[20][21] Russia Today staff have nonetheless claimed that their coverage was fair and balanced.[22] A 2005 VOA report interviewed Anton Nosik, chief editor of a major English-language computer internet site in Russia, in which he described the creation of Russia Today as an idea smacking of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns, and also noted that the channel was not created as a response to any existing demand.[23] While another article in the Digital Journal called RT a "pro-Putin news outlet"[24] and its advertising campaign as "open propaganda war."[24]
A 2009 article by journalist Luke Harding for The Guardian reporting on RT's advertising campaign described the network as "unashamedly pro-Putin "[25] and part of the Kremlin's attempt to create a "post-Soviet global propaganda empire."[25] The article also interviewed RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan where she said the network "takes a pro-Russian position"[25] and was unrepentant about RT's pro-Russian coverage of the 2008 Russian-Georgian war.[25]
An article published in The New Republic by James Kirchick characterized the news reportage of Russia Today as, "virulent anti-Americanism, worshipful portrayal of Russian leaders, and comical production values," that "can't help but revive the pettiness that was a distinctive feature of Soviet-era propaganda."[26]
An article by Accuracy in Media criticized RT as a "propaganda network funded by the Moscow regime of Vladimir Putin"[27] and charged that it "regularly features Marxist and radical commentators.[27] The article also cites the description of the network by former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky as “a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation” designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions."[27] Furthermore, Preobrazhensky argues that Russia Today utilizes methods of propaganda that are "managed by Directorate 'A' of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service...with the specialty of Directorate ‘A’ is deceiving world public opinion and manipulating it. It has got a lot of experience over decades of the Cold War."[27]
An editor for the Kyiv Post has noted criticism towards RT and its perceived anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian propaganda.[28]
In response, according to RT's editor, the channel welcomes controversy as it "provides an alternative to mainstream media."[29]
[edit]Allegations of supporting conspiracy theories
The Economist magazine which classified RT's reporting as "weirdly constructed propaganda" has suggested that the channel has provided a platform to conspiracy theorists.[30] Julia Ioffe claims that Russia Today is a Kremlin propaganda outlet featuring "fringe-dwelling experts" and "was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering."[31]
Ben Smith criticized an interview between Alex Jones and Russia Today discussing Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories and called Russia Today a "raw propaganda channel."[32]
[edit]Criticisms of coverage of specific news incidents
During the 2008 South Ossetia War Russia Today correspondent William Dunbar resigned saying "the real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it."[33] Human Rights Watch said that the claim of 2000 South Ossetian casualties, announced by Russia Today,[34] was "exaggerated."[35] The Moscow correspondent for the Independent said that Russia Today's coverage of the war was "obscene", claiming that the channel was "extraordinarily biased" and had "instructed reporters not to report from Georgian villages within South Ossetia that had been ethnically cleansed."[36]