At first I was surprised, that he aired the show on Russia Today (heavily pro-Putin and anti-US TV station, that is the first to report on any occupy protest, but is very quiet about anti-Putin protests) and that the first person he interviewed was Narsallah, leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
However, the next few episodes are quite nuanced, so that's fine. I am still quite unsure what to think about him being on Russia Today, though
The mainstream press in America is very pro America. They don't air lots of news pieces that would paint a critical picture of the US. Is it any surprise that Assange's show is not aired by the mainstream press? How is RT's slant towards Russia any different from CNN's pro-America stance?
This isnt the issue. You said the channel was very quiet about Russian protests and the same can be said about a lot of US media outlets (Some even call OWS nazis). This is actually true of any government; it is very hard to find a media outlet that escapes the government narrative, and when they do, they will be called many things, among them is anti-said-government, like you exemplified above.
In the US anonymous individuals, groups or corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising. Super PACs and (c)4's makes the current US political system more like the political system the founding fathers created. A system where only wealthy white men could vote.
So yeah, the US is a _real_ democracy _if_ you happen to be a rich white man. Not unlike Russia.
US politicians are passing voter repression laws in states with the specific aim of making it harder for voters to vote. Not to mention the gerrymandering of districts.
In the US people are assassinated and jailed for being against the government. Anwar Al-Awlaki and Tarek Mehanna.
There's only a duopoly democracy, where the most popular two people are the only potential choices. If you don't like either the two choices, tough luck. Welcome to USA's FPTP.
As for being against USA government, obviously Amazon, Visa and Mastercard's suddenly decided to stop Wikileaks was due to their own decision, not by a visiting congressman?
> There is apparently a rule that says it’s perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (Kaplan/The Washington Post), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it’s an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government.
The problem with that analysis: "US media isn't perfect" ==> "Any media outlet that isn't perfect is as good as the US media". The key indictment of US media is that they all disagreed with him on the Iraq war, at least in the beginning.
What's missing from the analysis is degrees of imperfection. RT will tout the Kremlin line even to the point of being comical. Even if Assange's show doesn't contribute to this, he still serves to legitimise the rest of the channel. He is extremely naive if he doesn't think he's going to be a cog in RT and Putin spinning itself and Russia as a home to disenfranchised and persecuted western intellectuals - while conveniently not mentioning the fact that disenfranchised Russian intellectuals, especially of the journalist variety, have a nasty habit of dying young - which is very unlike their western counterparts.
When it comes to news organizations, it's not the presence of an organization-wide viewpoint that's objectionable - every organization has a viewpoint. The content of that viewpoint is what's being objected to.
You might feel that the viewpoint of RT is no less objectionable than the viewpoints of the other news organizations you mention. Others disagree.
I am curious what other people think of the rt.com channel. It is a Russian funded news organization and I have heard that it is just a propaganda tool, but a lot of the news seems very legit especially the coverage of all things our mass media ignores or hides. I used to watch it slot but found myself increasingly aware of even more crap I didn't know or government was doing. I found myself wondering if it is just a spin, true to the information but spun in just the right way so as to bring the most negative light to bear on events. I crave a real news source untrained by politics and corporations, but I have as yet found none, so I instead piece the events together by reading opposing news sources and grok from the diff. Would anyone here know the validity or the restrictions with which the news people are constrained to tell the whole story?
Watching RT every now and than certainly gives you another perspective on the news. Yeah, they're Russia-funded, but s what? They don't make the news, they just use a different filter. Check out their America channel as well: http://www.youtube.com/rtamerica
I generally trust their reporting on most topics outside the CIS. But I watched an RT stream the day of last year's Domodedovo Airport bombing: for every single new expert or witness they brought in, every other question out of the anchor's mouth was "How very comforting is it to the entire Russian people to hear from the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev so soon?"
It is hard not to believe the popular charges against RT after this.
"funded news organization and I have heard that it is just a propaganda tool, but a lot of the news seems very legit especially the coverage of all things our mass media ignores or hides."
This has also been my experience with Al Jazeera English. This sort of thing makes me wonder what other sorts of things are not as portrayed to us in the 'free' world.
I still think largely well of AJE, and check it almost every day mostly for its editorial emphasis on major African and Asian political events that even the BBC tends to bury. But their reporting on some topics that I know well enough to read critically (some scare pieces they did on Anonymous, prior to the Arab Spring, come to mind[0]) can be awful, and stink of the same sloppy bias it is the popular perception that Al Jazeera is superior for being free of. It was disillusioning to read.
I know such stories are probably handled by a different bureau, and that pretty much every major news organization is bad at understanding/presenting the internet (especially as of several years ago). But it makes me wonder what else might be off in their coverage of topics I don't know as well.
-----
[0] Sorry, I cannot readily find a link, so this is just my personal libel for now.
I can definitely believe that, though to be fair I'm not really aware of any major news outlet that gives sensible coverage to Anonymous.
Nobody is perfect I suppose. I mostly stick to getting world news from AJE/BBC type sources and try to get closer to the horses mouth for anything tech related in the slightest.
They are OK if they are not reporting about Russia and/or former Soviet Union republics.
And the US, sometimes. It seems that "sticking it to America" is the main reason RT was created in the first place, so it shows in some of their US coverage.
Nevertheless, we don't live in an ideal world and I think it's good to have both RT and Western media, and all those news sources in between.
I can't speak about RT, but there is definitely a truth to American news simply being bad. Some friends who moved to the US for a period described it as being "a country without news".
A pretty clear example of this was the time leading up to the latest invasion of Iraq. At the time, a majority of Americans seemed to literally believe that Iraq was a threat to the US. I remember a survey at the time saying that the majority of the population in every other country in the world was opposed to the invasion. The US was going to war based on the claim that Iraq was a threat to US, which most commentators in my end of the world doubted. A different picture was apparently presented to US audiences.
That's exactly why I disagree with US banning Twitter accounts that "spread propaganda", even if I have no interest in them myself. But imagine US being at war with UK, and then banning any communication from UK because they are "spreading anti-US propaganda" about the war.
But I'd much rather see what both sides have to say about the war then just believe the US lies or half-truths. Perspective is good. People should be able to tell if it was the US that caused the war or UK, and how it all came to be.
Now, the US-UK war scenario may be very unlikely, but you can replace UK with any Middle East country, and I believe the same is true.
When I first saw RT I thought 'this could be interesting', however after watching it for a few days it became obvious that it is hilariously bias. Every time I turn it over they are busy flogging the OWS dead horse as if it's some virtuous world-wide freedom movement whilst maintaining an almost total silence on the anti-Putin protests. Their moralizing on Afghanistan is also pretty hypocritical, they must think we have short memories. Hilariously it's also produced in the US. Wouldn't it be good to have an unbiased news channel?
Bias is fine so long as its clear as their editorial policy. Its when news tries to be 'fair' that we get problems.
I consider The Economist to be a perfect example of this. They are quite openly biased to supporting the virtues of free trade and free markets. No one thinks this is a bad thing and allows them to present that position quite freely. We all have biases and pretending that you can report on news impartially is silly and deceptive.
All news channels are skewed one way or another, RT is no different. I suggest that it's a step up from CCTV though. Either way, if you plan to watch a rolling news channel, watch as many different ones as you can.
> Would anyone here know the validity or the restrictions with which the news people are constrained to tell the whole story?
Only the rules of validity that restrict all statements, such as the law of non-contradiction. Individuals such as yourself are the only agent of restriction for all sources of news.
You might enjoy the interviews of Jan Helfeld, who attempts to hold journalists and foreign policy officials to the law of noncontradiction: http://www.youtube.com/user/janhelfeld
I actually like this channel. British news channels have got a bad habit of either depressing the viewers with endless stories about murder and child abuse etc., or bombarding you with 'high-brow' political commentary which is actually devoid of usefulness. RT gives an interesting cross-section of the world news and their panelists are a bit more lively.
I think Julian should release the leaks on Bank of America that he has been holding over their heads for two years. Here's to hoping it isn't anything too egregious.
If he had anything substantial he would have used it already. Whatever it was, after 2 years Bank of America has contained it or used their lobby to defuse it.
So far, RT seems to be the only source of US News with which the US propaganda machine hasn't been able to infiltrate. I miss the Al-Jazeera English of years yonder.
Unfamiliar with RT? Watch Live and decide for yourself:
41 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadHowever, the next few episodes are quite nuanced, so that's fine. I am still quite unsure what to think about him being on Russia Today, though
Btw, our real democracy harasses people who are critical of the US gov. E.g., see David House.
So yeah, the US is a _real_ democracy _if_ you happen to be a rich white man. Not unlike Russia.
US politicians are passing voter repression laws in states with the specific aim of making it harder for voters to vote. Not to mention the gerrymandering of districts.
In the US people are assassinated and jailed for being against the government. Anwar Al-Awlaki and Tarek Mehanna.
As for being against USA government, obviously Amazon, Visa and Mastercard's suddenly decided to stop Wikileaks was due to their own decision, not by a visiting congressman?
Full Analysis and links: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_re...
What's missing from the analysis is degrees of imperfection. RT will tout the Kremlin line even to the point of being comical. Even if Assange's show doesn't contribute to this, he still serves to legitimise the rest of the channel. He is extremely naive if he doesn't think he's going to be a cog in RT and Putin spinning itself and Russia as a home to disenfranchised and persecuted western intellectuals - while conveniently not mentioning the fact that disenfranchised Russian intellectuals, especially of the journalist variety, have a nasty habit of dying young - which is very unlike their western counterparts.
You might feel that the viewpoint of RT is no less objectionable than the viewpoints of the other news organizations you mention. Others disagree.
It is hard not to believe the popular charges against RT after this.
This has also been my experience with Al Jazeera English. This sort of thing makes me wonder what other sorts of things are not as portrayed to us in the 'free' world.
I know such stories are probably handled by a different bureau, and that pretty much every major news organization is bad at understanding/presenting the internet (especially as of several years ago). But it makes me wonder what else might be off in their coverage of topics I don't know as well.
-----
[0] Sorry, I cannot readily find a link, so this is just my personal libel for now.
Nobody is perfect I suppose. I mostly stick to getting world news from AJE/BBC type sources and try to get closer to the horses mouth for anything tech related in the slightest.
Once they report about Russia, it snaps to "Putin is God, anyone not agreeing with him should be put to jail" mode.
And the US, sometimes. It seems that "sticking it to America" is the main reason RT was created in the first place, so it shows in some of their US coverage.
Nevertheless, we don't live in an ideal world and I think it's good to have both RT and Western media, and all those news sources in between.
A pretty clear example of this was the time leading up to the latest invasion of Iraq. At the time, a majority of Americans seemed to literally believe that Iraq was a threat to the US. I remember a survey at the time saying that the majority of the population in every other country in the world was opposed to the invasion. The US was going to war based on the claim that Iraq was a threat to US, which most commentators in my end of the world doubted. A different picture was apparently presented to US audiences.
But I'd much rather see what both sides have to say about the war then just believe the US lies or half-truths. Perspective is good. People should be able to tell if it was the US that caused the war or UK, and how it all came to be.
Now, the US-UK war scenario may be very unlikely, but you can replace UK with any Middle East country, and I believe the same is true.
I consider The Economist to be a perfect example of this. They are quite openly biased to supporting the virtues of free trade and free markets. No one thinks this is a bad thing and allows them to present that position quite freely. We all have biases and pretending that you can report on news impartially is silly and deceptive.
Only the rules of validity that restrict all statements, such as the law of non-contradiction. Individuals such as yourself are the only agent of restriction for all sources of news.
You might enjoy the interviews of Jan Helfeld, who attempts to hold journalists and foreign policy officials to the law of noncontradiction: http://www.youtube.com/user/janhelfeld
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/22/unrelea... An ex-wikileaks member disagreed with wikileaks and 'destroyed' information by destroying the keys. Wikileaks said BoA documents were part of them.
Unfamiliar with RT? Watch Live and decide for yourself:
https://rt.com/on-air/