sameAccording to a variety of sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda.[19][20] A 2005 report conducted by the U.S. government operated VOA, 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.[21] While another article in the Digital Journal called RT a "pro-Putin news outlet"[22] and its advertising campaign as "open propaganda war."[22]
A 2009 article by journalist Luke Harding for The Guardian reporting on RT's advertising campaign described the network as "unashamedly pro-Putin "[23] and part of the Kremlin's attempt to create a "post-Soviet global propaganda empire."[23]
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."[24]
An article by Accuracy in Media criticized RT as a "propaganda network funded by the Moscow regime of Vladimir Putin"[25] and charged that it "regularly features Marxist and radical commentators.[25] 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."[25] Furthermore, Preobrazhensky argues that Russia Today utilizes methods of propaganda that are "managed by Directorate 'A' of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service" and that "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."[25]
An editor for the Kyiv Post has noted criticism towards RT and its perceived anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian propaganda.[26] In December 2011 Andrew Osborn for the Daily Telegraph described RT as "the Kremlin's slavishly loyal English-language propaganda channel".[27]
so a bunch of guys opinions are proof?
loyal viewers like you and me, for the most part. (federal funding accounts for about 15% of the total.)
nope. nor is your rhetorical question a rebuttal.
who funds Voice of America?
that US propaganda exists hardly justifies your uncritical reliance on Russian propaganda
It's common knowledge.
After the easiest wiki search ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_RussiaRussia Today - state-funded, international English-language news channel
http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/03/23/230310_rt.htmlThe channel — created five years ago and widely seen as a Kremlin project to improve Russia's image around the world — regularly reports on conspiracy theorists’ claims that the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York on Sept. 11, 2001, were committed by someone inside the United States — not by Islamic militants. As of Tuesday, one of the top-rated videos on the channel’s web site, RT.com, was a report about a conference in Pennsylvania for “truthers,” those who believe that the U.S. government had a role in the attacks....
But of course you want to believe everything the Russian government tells you, because you are anti-American.
I never denied RT does not have propaganda. But I wouldn't call it Putin TV because not everything on it is.
Again, the RT article above, in which way is it Russian propaganda?
No one is citing or discussing VOA. You are trying to change the subject from your wholesale selling out to Vladimir Putin.
Putin likes them stupid. You're his target audience.
Disagree. CNN, Fox likes them stupid.
Hi stupid
There's a detectable anti-US foreign policy bias behind RT's fawning coverage of RP and its dissemination of RP related conspiracies. It's funny you can't see it.
Of course you disagree.Disagree. CNN, Fox likes them stupid.
Hi stupid
You thought RT stood for Ron Television.
the article above was about the troops supporting a candidate. Funny you can't see it.
so you're not only stupid but a pathetic comedian.
RP's support among uniformed military has been widely trumpeted and acknowledged. That said, the counter-demonstration you're so focused on here is barely newsworthy.
You're the one who didn't know RT was state sponsored and couldn't even execute the simplest internets search to verify that clear fact.so you're not only stupid but a pathetic comedian.
That's stupid.
No question.
I respect your opinion.
I would think 400+ war veterans and their families marching in Washington was newsworthy. But then again, I love the troops.
You love Putin.
You haven't done anything for the troops. Ever.
Wrong again. I knew they state sponsored. I disagree with calling it Putin TV thus we should dismiss all their content.
It's like people in Russia dismissing all Voice of America news because it's Obama TV.
that's stupid.
No, there is ample proof RT is Putin propaganda.
You're too stupid to realize it and you won't accept any evidence that is given to you. You can't stand to have your worldview threatened by reality.
No question.
And there is ample proof VOA is Obama propaganda.
You're too stupid to realize there are still newsworthy articles in both organizations.
OK, show us the proof of that.
Yes, the VOA 9/11 conspiracy series was amazing.You're too stupid to realize there are still newsworthy articles in both organizations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
