Russia Today (RT)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 75
Posts: 3,874
Racedo - surely the difference is that in the West there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting up your own newspaper or radio and TV station which can be as highly critical of the government as you want. Try that in Russia and see how long you last before the FSB thugs come knocking.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 52
Posts: 878
I watch RT and much of Russian TV (being that I live in Moscow and understand Russian)... on the whole it is quite nationalistic (and charmingly patriotic) but it never really goes overboard except when they put on the likes of Vladimir Zhirinovsky.... and I view him for comedy.
I don't think they distort the truth much beyond what the BBC does though... on the whole it is pretty balanced and I suspect that may be disbelieved by many... just my impression over the last twenty years of being here... but definitely Russians are proud to be Russian.... something you won't see much in the UK... and that patriotism shows in current affairs/news.
I don't think they distort the truth much beyond what the BBC does though... on the whole it is pretty balanced and I suspect that may be disbelieved by many... just my impression over the last twenty years of being here... but definitely Russians are proud to be Russian.... something you won't see much in the UK... and that patriotism shows in current affairs/news.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 54
Posts: 1,692
Thanks for the Russia point of view, Flash8. 
Let me ask you this, have you ever watched or read a piece on RT that was seriously anti-Putin? What about Pro-Clinton, or Pro-Obama? Am curious about your sensibilities and exposure.
Americans and the West are not against the Russian people, by the way, just anti-Soviet/Putin. I hope we appear that way in your neck of the (eleven time zones of) woods.
Let me ask you this, have you ever watched or read a piece on RT that was seriously anti-Putin? What about Pro-Clinton, or Pro-Obama? Am curious about your sensibilities and exposure.
Americans and the West are not against the Russian people, by the way, just anti-Soviet/Putin. I hope we appear that way in your neck of the (eleven time zones of) woods.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 54
Posts: 1,692
Originally Posted by racedo
Really then list 8,1 for each year where he was pillored and abused as much as current White House incumbent.
Rather than forcing Godwin's rule, which nonetheless would be valid here, the free press has a duty to call out the likes of Trump et al, for the lying, rabble rousing, racist despots they are.
While you're pondering all that, *consider this: A little over one year of Trump brought more improprieties, lies, deceptions, investigations, firings, resignations, governmental irregularities, ethics violations, and indictments out of his administration than the entire eight years under Obama.
What would you have the NYT do? Sit on their hands and fret over appearing too 'partisan' in reporting the truth?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 70
Posts: 928
Originally Posted by Tankertrashnav
Racedo - surely the difference is that in the West there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting up your own newspaper or radio and TV station which can be as highly critical of the government as you want. Try that in Russia and see how long you last before the FSB thugs come knocking.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,397
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 65
Posts: 900
I think RT is fine. I want to see what the hoods in the Kremlin are thinking.
The fact is if that you assume the Kremlin is lying then it's a good place to start.
Crimea (we have no troops there), Ukraine (we have no troops there), MH17 (we didn't do it, here's some photo-shopped images to prove it was a Ukrainian fighter that did it), Syria (we are only bombing Isis), Syria (Assad has not deployed chemical weapons), Syria (the Russian mercenaries are nothing to do with us), Syria (no planes were destroyed/damaged at the Khmeimim airbase. Oh, those planes with holes in them, well maybe seven were), Georgia (we are not moving the border further into South Ossetia (oh you pesky western hacks, why do you have to film us doing exactly that?!), cyber-attacks (we don't do them). Etc, etc. All examples of outrageous porkies.
There will be plenty more.
I am not saying the west is squeaky clean, but Putin is a KGB thug, don't forget it.
The fact is if that you assume the Kremlin is lying then it's a good place to start.
Crimea (we have no troops there), Ukraine (we have no troops there), MH17 (we didn't do it, here's some photo-shopped images to prove it was a Ukrainian fighter that did it), Syria (we are only bombing Isis), Syria (Assad has not deployed chemical weapons), Syria (the Russian mercenaries are nothing to do with us), Syria (no planes were destroyed/damaged at the Khmeimim airbase. Oh, those planes with holes in them, well maybe seven were), Georgia (we are not moving the border further into South Ossetia (oh you pesky western hacks, why do you have to film us doing exactly that?!), cyber-attacks (we don't do them). Etc, etc. All examples of outrageous porkies.
There will be plenty more.
I am not saying the west is squeaky clean, but Putin is a KGB thug, don't forget it.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 70
Posts: 928
Originally Posted by NutLoose
It is at times like this that any distinction between patriot and traitor is exposed.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 74
Posts: 3,127
I watch RT regularly, Al Jazera too, as well as the BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel 4.
I have no difficulty in sorting out propaganda and Fake News from the confusion. It is interesting how all of the British news media have a left bias - some more than others, but all are engaged in social engineering to a greater or lesser extent. Even our so-called right wing neo-Nazi Tory Party are well to the left of what used to be the centre. They are almost in the same place as New Labour and just as engaged in left wing practices. Perhaps it is time we had some proper right leaning viewpoints being given air time - just to balance things out a bit. TV Mail anyone?
I have no difficulty in sorting out propaganda and Fake News from the confusion. It is interesting how all of the British news media have a left bias - some more than others, but all are engaged in social engineering to a greater or lesser extent. Even our so-called right wing neo-Nazi Tory Party are well to the left of what used to be the centre. They are almost in the same place as New Labour and just as engaged in left wing practices. Perhaps it is time we had some proper right leaning viewpoints being given air time - just to balance things out a bit. TV Mail anyone?
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by strake
Having heard about the station following the Salisbury incident, I tuned in for the first time yesterday. It is obviously a propaganda tool. .
One, amazing you only just heard of it and two so you mean like all the other National Tv Stations.
Anyone swallowing what the Beeb is spewing out regarding this and most other events needs a check up from the neck up
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 162
Turned onto Sky news yesterday afternoon for the first time this year,only to see the female presenter KB wearing the most idiotic pink outfit i have ever seen.Talk about ego's,unbelievable,flippin eejit.Went back to the Fredrick Forsyth novel "The Devils Alternative" highly recommended.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 820
I haven't watched RT for a long while so, after reading some of the comments on here, I thought I would give it try this morning.
Of course the current fiasco in Salisbury was top of the agenda and I was surprised to find someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state. The suspect then has 10 days to reply. So far, the UK has not involved the OPCW, other than throwing the name around. Now Johnson has said the UK will "send samples" to the OPCW soon. The report also mentioned how the OPCW oversaw and certified the destruction of Russian Novichok and showed their report from Nov 2017 to confirm this. It is also alleged that stockpiles were stored in places such as Uzbekistan & Ukraine. In 1999 the US military were said to be involved in the "demilitarisation of the Chemical Research Institute" in Uzbekistan. This was one of the manufacturing/storage sites for this gas.
So, I shall continue watching RT intermittently if only to allow me to "contrast and compare" with the BBC output.
Of course the current fiasco in Salisbury was top of the agenda and I was surprised to find someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state. The suspect then has 10 days to reply. So far, the UK has not involved the OPCW, other than throwing the name around. Now Johnson has said the UK will "send samples" to the OPCW soon. The report also mentioned how the OPCW oversaw and certified the destruction of Russian Novichok and showed their report from Nov 2017 to confirm this. It is also alleged that stockpiles were stored in places such as Uzbekistan & Ukraine. In 1999 the US military were said to be involved in the "demilitarisation of the Chemical Research Institute" in Uzbekistan. This was one of the manufacturing/storage sites for this gas.
So, I shall continue watching RT intermittently if only to allow me to "contrast and compare" with the BBC output.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 5,975
Another useful idiot is heard from.
Kelvin, let me get this straight: the use of a nerve agent to kill someone in a UN member state isn't the problem, but the failure to follow a UN admin procedure is a problem. Is that the wheeze being sold here? Really?
... someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by KelvinD
I haven't watched RT for a long while so, after reading some of the comments on here, I thought I would give it try this morning.
Of course the current fiasco in Salisbury was top of the agenda and I was surprised to find someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state. The suspect then has 10 days to reply. So far, the UK has not involved the OPCW, other than throwing the name around. Now Johnson has said the UK will "send samples" to the OPCW soon. The report also mentioned how the OPCW oversaw and certified the destruction of Russian Novichok and showed their report from Nov 2017 to confirm this. It is also alleged that stockpiles were stored in places such as Uzbekistan & Ukraine. In 1999 the US military were said to be involved in the "demilitarisation of the Chemical Research Institute" in Uzbekistan. This was one of the manufacturing/storage sites for this gas.
So, I shall continue watching RT intermittently if only to allow me to "contrast and compare" with the BBC output.
Of course the current fiasco in Salisbury was top of the agenda and I was surprised to find someone from the UN pointing out that it was in fact the UK that was in contravention of the OPCW rules. The UK has a treaty obligation to report findings, allegations etc to the OPCW which will put these to the suspected state. The suspect then has 10 days to reply. So far, the UK has not involved the OPCW, other than throwing the name around. Now Johnson has said the UK will "send samples" to the OPCW soon. The report also mentioned how the OPCW oversaw and certified the destruction of Russian Novichok and showed their report from Nov 2017 to confirm this. It is also alleged that stockpiles were stored in places such as Uzbekistan & Ukraine. In 1999 the US military were said to be involved in the "demilitarisation of the Chemical Research Institute" in Uzbekistan. This was one of the manufacturing/storage sites for this gas.
So, I shall continue watching RT intermittently if only to allow me to "contrast and compare" with the BBC output.
Interesting view point, considering that the Russians developed the 80 to 100 novichok agents covertly, in part to create "undetectable" chemical agents and in part of get around the international conventions on chemical weapons.
The only way we know of the signatures of these agents (and we may well not know much more than that about them) is because Russian defectors told us about them.
If the Russians still had stocks of the novichok agents then it is they who should have declared them, but clearly they didn't, as some how someone managed to not only acquire one of them, but also managed to acquire the knowledge, skills and access to a highly secure containment facility in which to dispense an agent into a delivery system, test it and then safely transport and deploy it pretty accurately.
To argue that the UK should have only acted in a clear case of multiple attempted murder by a weapon of mass destruction by giving the OPCW ten days notice before doing anything is crass.
People here knew within hours that this was a chemical agent attack - the symptoms were clear and a lot of witnesses provided enough information for the world's press to know, beyond any doubt that it was a chemical agent attack. What wasn't known for some time is what the agent was, and given that it was pretty rare, and one of around 80 to 100 specifically Russian manufactured agents, that's hardly surprising.
It is not the OPCW's role to investigate attempted murder, go read up on what their powers are and when, and by whom, they can be asked to help in the event of alleged use of chemical weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organi...emical_Weapons
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,927
Originally Posted by VP959
It's interesting the way RT established itself as an apparently reputable news source here.
How do you reconconcile that statement with RT's editorial coverage of MH17 ?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 726
This piece in The Guardian, from last November, paints RT as clearly biased if a bit light on actual news. They parrotted the state line on the sports doping scandal - "no evidence" - while allowing foreign correspondents some free rein. One newsreader on RT America, Liz Wahl, resigned on air over coverage of Russia's annexation of Crimea.
More than outright lies, RT deals in moral equivalency. Its defenders don’t deny bias; they deny the possibility of objectivity. They say western media is equally biased. They liken RT to state broadcasters such as the BBC, France 24 and al Jazeera. They say other news channels have been sanctioned by Ofcom. It’s a triumph of cynicism: we’re all just as bad as each other.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 54
Posts: 473
“surely the difference is that in the West there is absolutely nothing to stop you starting up your own newspaper or radio and TV station which can be as highly critical of the government as you want.”
Perhaps, but surely the news media play a larger role than just being critical of Government.
If accurately informing the general public of all issues at hand were any yardstick for success then media outlets in the US and to a slightly lesser extent Australia and the UK have failed miserably probably no different to RT is this regard.
There is a reason why 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attacks on 11/9 and it had nothing to do with RT.
Perhaps, but surely the news media play a larger role than just being critical of Government.
If accurately informing the general public of all issues at hand were any yardstick for success then media outlets in the US and to a slightly lesser extent Australia and the UK have failed miserably probably no different to RT is this regard.
There is a reason why 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the attacks on 11/9 and it had nothing to do with RT.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234
RT's main purpose is not to present a glowing picture of Russia, but to create and promote dissent within the West. That is why they are keen to give a platform to controversial Western figures, as well as giving a high profile to issues that show us in a bad light.
.
.
Police and Government turning a blind eye while children have been raped and abused in Rotherham, Telford and numerous other cities and claiming that 14 year old girls choosing prostitution as "lifestyle choices" because investigating would be racism ?
Uk supplying and adiding Saudi's to do what they want in Yemen and salivating at prospect of selling more weapons to them ?
UK freely allowing Islamic fundamentalist in the UK despite 3rd countrys requesting their Extradition on direct terrorism charges................. not a new charge as France requests for Action Direct members in 1990's was duly ignored.
UK security services freely allowing and training Islamic fundamentalists in Syria and then wringing hands when they commit atrocities.
Uk media hiding any criticism of Saudi Arabia and its nuclear program with Pakistan which demanding Iran show everything ?
Are these the things which look bad ?
