Mainstream media on Syria/Turkey/Russia: Clueless congeries of cackling correspondents.
Lionel, RT 30 Nov, 2015 12:36
Before our very eyes the world is heaving in a cataclysm of change with Ankara, Washington, Damascus and Moscow front and center. But don’t wake the media.
During the all to frequent course of my various contributions, submissions and iterations of “media analyses” – our Western and American mainstream media (MSM) in particular – the refrain seems to always revolve around how those news guardians, entrusted with delivering the latest critical update and informing their wards, failed completely yet again to grasp the complexity of a particular issue or omitted altogether critical elements and facts that are absolutely necessary for the comprehension of the particular case reported.
It’s not uncommon for some observers to swear there’s some conspiracy to keep the truth from the audience. I know. I’m often leading the chant! After all, these glaring omissions and what amounts to breathtaking intellectual incuriosity cannot merely be accidental. They have to be deliberate in serving up this tepid gruel and obvious propaganda. What’s more, just when I think the media has set new standards for journalistic nadirs, plumbed new depths, new lows . . . I’m mistakenly surprised as how they outdo each other through each successive issue of non-coverage. Let me explain.
Let’s review the history of the congeries of MSM news aggregators and presenters and how they handled the Syria-Turkey-Russia matter.
The most glaring example of journalistic nonchalance. NO MAPS! Was there a memo, a directive that forbade maps, territorial graphics and references to geography when attempting to explain or describe a critical operation or event? There had to be. Oh, there are the flashy graphics packages with pithy titles that emphasized the ubiquitous refrain of radical Islam or generic references to terror.
But no maps! Kassab, Latakia and Jablah were critical flashpoints of decisive military action and being able to visualize their propinquity and proximity to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey was critical in understanding what actually happened. To comprehend the devastating and profound defeats that ISIS suffered in the Aleppo-Palmyra area, Sinjar and Ramadi along with devastating bombing attacks on their capital of Raqqa all require A MAP! But as far as the MSM were concerned references to terrorists or ISIS or rebels (whoever they were) were as specific as they got. Why?
My guess is a combination of ignorance and disinterest with a dash of intellectual torpor and journalistic desuetude, a most deadly combination. I have no cartography fetish per se, just a sincere and honest desire to understand what is happening in a part of the world that seems to be exploding. Call me old-fashioned. And as you recall, we saw this during the Libyan adventure when Darna (transliterated as Derna or Darnah), Tobruk and a little place called Benghazi were al Qaeda strongholds in Cyrenaica. Try explicating what that means, the geostrategic criticality of this troika without a map. A map, a map! My kingdom for a map (With apologies to Richard III).
Talking Turkey during Thanksgiving
I recently mentioned this and feared that I’d be taken as making a cheap joke or pun – an inappropriate paronomasia, if you will worthy of the ‘punitentiary’ – when I suggested that the chances of a discussion of Turkey the country during Thanksgiving being confused were substantial, I meant every word of it. An example is in order.
As you undoubtedly recall, “Je suis Charlie,” the shibboleth that commemorated and memorialized the horror of the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre, was ubiquitous in every media permutation available. Do you have any idea the number of people, some in the vaunted world of MSM news, who asked me what “Jesus” had to do with it? Yes, “Je suis” is somewhat similar to “Jesus,” but this was made after countless pronunciations were heard. Ostensibly. Let that sink in. Let that marinate. So, to reiterate, the sheer synchronistic timing of the issues planted the seed for multiplicities of confusion to take root. I wish I were kidding.
Supporting ISIS?! I’m shocked! Shocked! And while the world media in collective unison referenced repeatedly accusations of President Erdogan’s complicity on various levels in the active support and protection of ISIS along with his son Bilal and daughter Sumeyye, the MSM never so much as uttered a reference that such claims were even being made. Not as substantiation or validation of such, but just a passing, cursory reference to fill in the blanks and gaps to flesh out the story so that the news consumer would better understand what was happening. Not a peep! Not a whisper (You can’t whisper what you don’t know). And I haven’t even mentioned similar stories as to Generals Petraeus and Allen and their respective alleged roles in the history of ISIS. And did I mention NATO? Nothing. How can anyone understand what the stories are when they were never told what the stories are? Again, I reiterate and asseverate, just mention what pockets and channels and constituencies of the world are saying.
Rebels, freedom fighters and opposition forces. The MSM have an affection for the term “rebel” and, in their ostensible roles and duties as news repeaters versus reporters, they never seem to question what that term even denotes. Whose rebel? Rebellion against what and whom? Keep in mind that today’s war lexicon has introduced to news presenters and consumers alike a host of terms that have supplemented and in many cases replaced appellations of yore: insurgents, counter-insurgents, opposition forces, rebels, militias, inter alia. N.B. There’s no qualification as to the legitimacy or legality of the particular cause advanced by the aforementioned. And I haven’t even approached or addressed the multiplicity of religions, sects, tribes and geographical dominations lending to the considerable complexity of an already Byzantine superstructure of critical players.
It’s nothing new for the news
We saw it Libya when the beloved rebels and freedom fighters were actually al-Qaeda. When it comes to the FSA, the Free Syrian Army, they’ve been called freedom fighters, rebels (again) defectors and opposition forces to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. If you were to ask any MSM reporter, anchor or presenter by what authority are international forces calling for his removal and the euphemistic “regime change” they couldn’t tell you. He’s the proverbial “bad guy” who’s generically despotic and . . . a bad guy. Were he to sport the colorful Sgt. Pepper regalia of the man of a thousand spellings, Muammar Gaddafi, he’d enjoy the additional appellation of “crazy” as well. Why? Because they’re told to say that think it and report it. No questions asked. The meme is set, the trope is cemented, scripts are circulated and off they go spouting and barking and bleating à la mynah bird without so much as a clue, a question or the occasional bout of skepticism.
Rushin’ to blame the Russians
And let’s now enter the world of Russia and President Putin. It seems evident to even the most casual observer that MSM repeaters are simply unable to grasp the fact that the Cold War worldview along with its antediluvian argot and mothballed reporting instruction manuals are over and that what they’re doing all too often unfortunately is to repeat and regurgitate a trope that harkens back to an epoch most probably weren’t even living during. And to confound the matter even more is the added twist that Mr. Putin has vowed to ablate and militarily amputate the dread horrors of ISIS. Remember ISIS? The bad guys? But that seems to have escaped many of the Ted Baxter bumper sticker, echo chamber, cookie cutter media. The enemy of my enemy . . . may still remain an enemy unless someone updates the memo.
Mr. Putin has received at times what seems to be universal acclaim and approbation for vowing to destroy ISIS and appears to be well on his way to such. Instead of asking what took the West and NATO and even President Obama so long, no, they repeat through an orchestrated echolalia the same rote ripostes with what still appears to be nary a clue as to the underpinnings and undergirding of the factual and issue matrix. NATO and the West have appeared at time to be prosecuting their own ‘Sitzkrieg’, referencing to the 1939 Phony war. Is it fair to ask what is the international commitment to ridding the world once and for all of ISIS?
China, Russia to launch joint news agency to boost Eurasian integration.
RT.com 1 Dec, 2015 09:46
Russian and Chinese authorities have agreed to set up a joint information agency that would work in both countries, as well as a major discussion club with the provisional name of the Amur Dialogue.
“The proposal to create a joint news agency has been made at the Russian-Chinese forum that is currently taking place in Beijing. Also, there is an initiative to set up an expert panel that would host a permanent dialogue for Pacific Region countries,” the head of the State Duma Committee for Mass Media, Yuri Shuvalov, said in comments to Izvestia daily.
Shuvalov added that both projects were likely to be implemented in 2016, which has been declared as the year of the Russian and Chinese mass media.
The official noted that, in his view, the Russian and Chinese mass media were in the “quality growth phase” and new joint projects would contribute to mutual trust, adequate appraisal of events across the world and precise understanding of positions that the two nations hold on various issues.
“This concerns the whole range of international politics, economic development of the Eurasian continent and the junction between the Eurasian Economic Union and the ‘Silk Road’ economic region, because these two projects had been developed in two different countries, but together they work in synergy.” Shuvalov told reporters.
The Eurasian Economic Union was started in 2015 as the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Soon the bloc was joined by Armenia and later by Kyrgyzstan. Many other countries have expressed interest in setting up a free trade zone with the EEU. Vietnam has already signed the agreement, while India may follow suit. Thailand is expected to launch a free trade zone with the EEU in 2016. In July, Syrian Prime Minister Wael Halqi said that Damascus wants to join the Eurasian Union and set up a customs-free zone to boost economic relations with friendly states.
The new Silk Road is China’s project with the goal of establishing an economic corridor with Russia and Mongolia.
In May, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping signed an agreement that will see the two countries cooperate on linking the development of the Eurasian Economic Union with the Silk Road economic project, along with a number of other deals in energy, trade and finance.
Anniversary present: RT first news network to hit 3bn views on YouTube.
RT.com 2 Dec, 2015 21:33
It has taken RT’s YouTube channels less than 12 months to go from 2 to 3 billion views for its videos on the media sharing network, as RT celebrates its 10-year anniversary and stays ahead of CNN, BBC and other mainstream TV rivals.
“RT has remained the world leader for a number of years in terms of generating news content that enjoys robust demand with international audiences,” said Kirill Karnovich-Valua, Head of Online Projects at the channel. “We constantly interact with our viewers, studying their attitudes and interests to make sure RT’s current and future online projects are most relevant for them.”
Even more than in previous years, RT has been able to attract viewers with footage that often shows a different side of big news events, or original clips that can’t be seen anywhere else.
“In my opinion the market has become a little more homogenous as it develops, that’s why it’s fun to work with RT on platforms that value content from perspectives not always represented in mainstream news,” said Ivor Crotty, the RT’s Head of Social Media.
RT’s various channels – including RUPTLY, its news agency arm – have worked together to deliver news through new platforms.
“While growth acceleration is connected to scale, we’re also a better organization than we were a year ago. Teamwork with Ruptly has made an enormous contribution to our growth this year, delivering virals like the Shaolin monk. We’re also livestreaming more in the Russian and Spanish verticals and that’s proven very popular with YouTubers,” said Crotty.
Of course, as the channel marks 10 years on-air and 8 years on YouTube, RT has also been able to rely on its ever-widening catalogue of thousands of past videos, which continue to be in-demand.
After taking six years to reach its first billion views, RT’s channels, which now have over three million subscribers, took just 18 months to reach two billion, and hit the current three-billion milestone in a third less time.
After launching new services in German, Chinese, and French, together with its popular Spanish and Arabic services, RT is poised for even faster growth in 2016.
Fury as the BBC refuses to call ISIS killers terrorists: MPs demand Corporation stop referring to them as militants because it sound like they're 'placard-waving strikers'
By KATHERINE RUSHTON MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL 22:13 GMT, 4 December 2015
The BBC should stop referring to Islamic State killers as militants, and call them the terrorists they are, say MPs. The broadcaster has an effective ban on the word terrorist, arguing that its impartiality could be thrown into doubt. It says the term risks ‘implying judgment where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups’. The restriction means that millions of radio listeners and TV viewers routinely hear Islamic State maniacs described as militants on the airwaves. But MPs across the political divide have attacked the policy, saying it was time to use plain English when describing cold-blooded killers.
Although the BBC does not ban the word ‘terrorist’ outright, the corporation is explicit that journalists should modify their language. Where they slip up, the BBC’s Editorial Policy Unit sends journalists an email reminding them of its standards. As a result, BBC presenters and writers routinely use the words ‘militant’ or ‘jihadists’ as substitutes, unless they are quoting someone directly. Alternatively, they avoid using adjectives altogether and simply refer to Islamic State as a ‘group’. In a 1,700-word article published on the BBC’s website earlier this week, and entitled What is Islamic state? the words ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorist’ do not appear once. The closest the article gets are two references to America’s National Counterterrorism Center. But Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘“Militants” has the ring of placard waving strikers. The BBC can’t use the T word because they don’t want to be judgmental, but these are people who are willing to travel half way around the world to commit murder in cold blood.’
Labour MP John Mann said: ‘They should be called terrorists. That’s what they are. ‘There is no ambiguity. There is no doubt. They’re terrorists.’ Conservative Philip Davies added: ‘God help us all if the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, can’t describe things as they are. Are they not wanting to offend the IS terrorists? It is absolutely extraordinary.’ Their views are shared by BBC journalists who have privately expressed frustration that they were not able to describe the perpetrators of the recent Paris attacks accurately. An insider said: ‘It’s inappropriate. Of course we should be allowed to call them terrorists. We just appear out of step with the public.’ However, the BBC argues that the word terrorist is too loaded with ‘value judgements’ – something it says it is desperate to avoid. It tells staff: ‘Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements. We try to avoid the use of the term “terrorist” without attribution…We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper”, “insurgent”, and “militant”.’
BBC sources said that although the rules ‘made a lot of sense’ during the IRA bombings, when they were originally drawn up, they urgently needed redrawing for the current era. ‘I accept that in Northern Ireland, where there are licence fee payers who might not regard Gerry Adams as a terrorist, it was a difficult issue. But I also think it is pretty clear to everyone that IS are terrorists. The guidelines are just silly,’ said a BBC news source.
Yesterday, the BBC came up with a sample of articles to demonstrate exceptions to the rule. But whilst six of them referred to ‘terrorist attacks’, ‘threats’ or ‘offences’, it only described Islamic State as ‘terrorists’ on two occasions. ‘It’s quite extraordinary that the people behind the atrocities in Tunisia and Paris won’t be called terrorists,’ Mr Davies said. ‘What on earth are they?’ A BBC spokesman said: 'We’re sure the British public are in no doubt from our coverage that this is as murderous organisation. The BBC is committed to democracy and our history shows it. Our aim is to report accurately and we use the appropriate terms to do so.'
It is not the first time that BBC critics have pointed out that its effective ban on the word ‘terrorism’ is out of date. In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron criticised the broadcaster after it described the terrorists behind a hostage attack in Algeria as ‘militants’. He said: ‘These are terrorists and they should be described as such. This was a terrorist attack, it was to take hostages, to kill them, to kill innocent people and it should be condemned utterly.’ The BBC also came under fire in 2012, when it told journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the hate preacher with links to Al Quaeda, an ‘extremist’. And during the summer riots of 2011, it repeatedly referred to looters and rioters as ‘protesters’.
Baz Bazzan, London, United Kingdom, 1 day ago Propoganda channel.
leejennings, Leamington Spa, United Kingdom, 1 day ago I wonder if they would call them terrorists if they carried out an attack on one of their studios?
Crossx77, Leicester, United Kingdom, 1 day ago I'm surprised the Left-wing BBC don't call the 'freedom fighters'!
Anne Smith, Gloucester, United Kingdom, 1 day ago The bbc is INSULTING the people of the UK who pay for it - and their self-inflated egos. The USA know what to call these 6th century psychopaths; why can't the bbc refer to them as 'daesh' - which apparently these psychos just hate. Poor dear little bbc - won't ever admit it is in the wrong - never. So why don't we just laugh at the bbc - that's all they deserve - our contempt..
Morgan79, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 1 day ago It's about time the bbc was shut down what a waste of money!
RebeccaC, Other side of the world, United Kingdom, 1 day ago The bbc has turned into a joke; it is too restrained by pc overload and overly leftie views, in fear of offending anyone who isn't a white, straight, anglosaxon male.
Post by TsarSamuil on Dec 11, 2015 20:13:44 GMT -5
Saluting RT's contribution to a world of more diversified news and opinion.
RT.com 10 Dec, 2015 14:04
On the 10th anniversary of RT's founding, our regular Op-Edge contributors forwarded their opinions as to how RT has transformed the field of journalism, creating new avenues of thought and deliberation where before there was just one.
RT smashed the monopoly of Western corporate media in presenting international relations; an approach that essentially mixes arrogance and ignorance. No wonder Exceptionalists of all strands hate RT with a vengeance. In the wilderness of mirrors of an implacable, global information war, one badly needs a GPS. And the GPS is RT.
In just ten years, Russia Today has become an important news outlet worldwide. It always contributes to – and at times defines – the narrative, both in terms of breaking news and longer-term perspectives.
Russia Today provides a worthy counterpoint to dominant, corporate news outlets – primarily those based in the U.S. – and provide access to opinions which extend beyond the remit, interests and allegiances of the dwindling number of corporations which decide what is and is not news for much of the English-speaking world.
In particular, Russia Today has a great deal to offer Western citizens concerned about the turn their own societies are taking. The excesses of the Soviet Union are fresh in the minds of many who work for RT or contribute to its output, and this perspective energizes and informs some part of serving an audience which historically has taken its freedoms for granted.
Russia Today is also to be commended for providing a broad range of views and giving a platform to many articulate and important voices, some of which – for whatever reason – would be denied space in other English-language media with a worldwide reach.
RT is without peer in providing comprehensive, no holds barred, in-depth analyses on a host of subjects and areas conventional and mainstream media have either refused or failed to address. First and foremost has been its dedication to according a subject the depth and coverage density that it deserves. Complex and historically deep-seated issues cannot be thrown together slapdash if the consumer’s ultimate comprehension and the ability to assess the matter presented are of concern. RT sees a subject through to its conclusion rather than a perfunctory sampling of the issue and moving on as is too often the case in mainstream media. As the RT consumer is not subjected to a steady and mindless fusillade of commercial interruptions and distractions, news and features can be thoroughly vetted, parsed and dissected. And finally, as a legal analyst, constitutional issues are of supreme importance to me and no news source has been as thorough and comprehensive as RT when it comes to privacy, the militarization of police, the prison industrial complex and challenges to free speech. RT is a template and exemplar for just how powerful and critical news reportage can actually be. Happy first decade, RT.
RT has over its existence proved a bulwark of intellectual and analytical resistance to the dominant ideas of the Empire. For too long the world has labored under this domination, responsible for creating an information and cultural desert and calling it truth. Not anymore. The Death Star no longer reigns supreme thanks to RT. Long may its resistance and defiance continue. May the force be with you.
Happy Birthday RT! As far as I’m concerned and I truly believe many, many people will recognize themselves in my comments, RT has been a burst of fresh air in an otherwise suffocating media landscape. RT’ strength and traction remain its dedication to REAL journalism, not corporate-organized misinformation. If not for RT, voices like mine would not have been given a platform, and THAT, again, stands credit to RT’s open-mindedness and desire to go beyond the accepted narrative to get to the truth. Hands down the best media organization there is; I have no doubt RT will continue to grow from strength to strength.
But beyond that RT, offers balance where there was only onesidedness and reason where there was irrationality. So yes happy birthday but most of all thank you!
I cast my mind back to 2003. Britain and the United States were pushing for an illegal, and senseless, war in Iraq which all right-thinking people opposed. The governments of Russia, France and Germany tried to resist it, but were overwhelmed by the Anglo-American propaganda machine. I'd like to think that if RT had been around at the time, it mightn't have been as easy for the warmongers.
However, my special interest area is Russia. Cast your mind back a decade and Russia was, frequently, the butt of jokes in the Western world. Coverage of the country was an endless stream of negativity, often downright racist in its nature. What RT has done is allowed Russians to tell their own stories to a worldwide audience, without them having to pass through a Western filter first. The value of that is incalculable.
RT has been a breath of fresh air, providing a professional platform for activists and dissidents to broadcast views which challenge mainstream narratives on foreign, trade and economic policy. To think that such a platform - on prime-time TV, and made with the highest production values - would exist in a country like Britain was unthinkable just ten years ago. It has given people access to a genuine range of opinions, massively broadening the highly constricted boundaries of debate that dominates news programming in the West. In particular, it has given a voice to people who actually support governments under attack by the West. This is a very clear breach of the unwritten rule of mainstream Western media – that whilst Western foreign policy can be criticized, under no circumstances must the states it targets be shown to have any popular support; only those who accept in advance that these states are illegitimate must be allowed airtime. By breaking this taboo, RT has humanized the countless tens of millions who support such governments – and brought home the human cost of the West’s wars of societal destruction, euphemistically downplayed as ‘regime change’. Long may they continue to do so.
RT literally changed the world, and that is not hyperbole. In the past, information used to come almost exclusively from one-sided, Western and corporate sources. Now there is finally a diversity of views in the world. Several other channels, on different continents, are greatly inspired by RT. Nothing is the same. Tens of millions, all over the world, joined ranks of thinking beings. No matter how small is my participation in this grand 'project', I feel proud to be part of the RT team and its dedicated efforts to improve the world.
Perhaps one of the best compliments to RT on its 10th anniversary is the increasing vehemence from the United States for the news service to be blocked from broadcasting. We have seen shrill calls from senior Washington politicians and US broadcasting “regulators” (sic) for such a draconian curtailment in RT’s service. This extraordinary desire for official US repression of a news channel is in conjunction with vicious slurs against RT from various reactionary politicians and pundits, claiming that it is a “Kremlin propaganda service”.
All this reactionary commotion is testimony to the quality of RT’s news and analysis. It merely demonstrates that the information RT is providing is actually quality journalism. The American authorities are seriously discommoded because RT is, through its journalism, shedding an accurate light on the depredations and deceptions of Washington’s foreign policies.
RT has exposed the unconscionable and criminal conduct of Washington and its other Western allies in many international events, in particular the violation of international law by the US in carrying out regime-change operations and subversion against sovereign states. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen are just some examples of where Western pretensions of upholding democratic rights and international law are exposed as nothing but a cynical charade.
The collusion of Washington and its European minions in deploying terrorist proxy groups to fulfill their illicit, covert schemes of regime change has been exposed through the courageous reporting and analysis provided by RT. This is a huge indictment of Western governments that they are seen to be actually consorting with terrorism. This calibre of journalism has been abnegated by Western mainstream news media, since they often program their “news” in subservience to the political agendas of Western governments. RT is performing a vital service to inform citizens around the world about what is really happening in major developments. This is vital for the functioning of democracy, international law and the empowerment of citizens to speak truth to power. The fact that Western “authorities” – the US government and its lackeys in the European Union – want to silence RT is proof that RT is seriously challenging their legitimacy, or lack of it, in the eyes of the Western public. It also illustrates the fraudulence of Western claims about the right to “freedom of speech”. That freedom is, evidently, only granted by Western authorities if it does not challenge their abuse of power, whether against foreign countries or against their own citizens.
The increasing popularity of RT among the Western public – who are abandoning respect for their traditional Western media outlets – is a superb accolade for the achievements made by RT in only 10 years of service. By informing people, RT is empowering people and likewise disempowering Western governments who have for too long gotten away with violations and conflicts imposed on the world to serve the hegemonic ambitions of their ruling elite. At a time of increasingly reckless foreign misconduct by Western power, RT is a crucial democratizing influence. Here’s to many more years of excellent journalism. Happy Birthday!
Has Russia Today made a difference to global media coverage in the past ten years? There is a very easy answer to this. As an analyst of Middle East geopolitics, I cringe to think where my region would be without this major media outlet giving voice to people, events and leaders whose worldview goes entirely uncovered by the traditional mainstream. Perception is 100 percent of politics, goes the old adage. So where would we be if we were still constrained by a single narrative on All Things? More ignorant, sadly homogenous, catastrophically limited in this information age. Russia Today has sometimes singlehandedly offered us all the opportunity to challenge our perceptions of the world around us. And for political writers like myself, it has offered up a valuable platform from which we can question conventional wisdoms and chronicle untold stories. Yes, RT has made a difference. As global power centers, economies and social systems shift further into unknown territory in the next decade, I look forward to more of RT where I know I can find the 'fuller' story.
RT has established itself as an important voice in a media landscape increasingly characterized by group think and myopia. There's no better evidence of this, than to see the sheer venom with which its detractors go after the channel. From in-depth interviews on shows like World Apart, to excellent and award-winning documentary reporting from all over the world, RT's success lies in the fact that it adds something of real value to the media environment. News consumers deserve to hear both sides of every story, and everything in between. RT provides a much-needed alternative perspective on world events.
I started following RT when the Ukraine crisis erupted in 2014. The amount of information that was never published in the Western media shocked me. Western censorship works primarily through omission to achieve the desired conscious and intelligent manipulation of the opinions of Westerners. RT enabled me to understand the political ploys and motivation.
Western mainstream media ignores voices and angles that do not conform to its narrative. Crucial questions are never asked. The reason why growing numbers in the West understand that their media fail to tell the real story is that RT’s highly professional journalists seek the truth and publish it fearlessly.
RT does great service to not just suppressed critical voices in the West, but to the truth. Morally, truth and freedom are mutually dependent. By serving truth, RT serves freedom.
Putin attends RT10 anniversary evening: Full speech with English translation.
RT Dec 10, 2015
Vladimir Putin speaks at the anniversary evening marking 10 years since the start of RT broadcasts.
CrossTalk: RT's World.
RT Dec 11, 2015
Ten years ago this week RT started its career in international broadcasting – and what a ride it has been! Never far from controversy, this network has prided itself on being different and saying what many dare not utter in public. On this edition of CrossTalk we ask how RT has changed the media environment.
CrossTalking with Rob Taub, John Laughland, and Dmitry Babich.
RT 10-year anniversary: Willy Wimmer.
RTQuestionMore Dec 11, 2015
Former State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Defense of Germany Willy Wimmer talks with RT about sanctions against Russia.
RT 10-year anniversary: Ray McGovern.
RTQuestionMore Dec 11, 2015
Former CIA officer Ray McGovern talks with RT about the suicide of Aaron Swartz and the whistleblowing movement.
RT 10-year anniversary: Gregory Copley.
RTQuestionMore Dec 11, 2015
Historian, author and strategic analyst Gregory Copley talks with RT about the impact of the mainstream media on public perception of wars.
‘RT’s work has never been more important than now’ – Jesse Ventura.
Robert Bridge, RT 13 Dec, 2015 09:29
In the center of Moscow for the 10th anniversary celebration for RT, former US governor and aspirant to the US presidency, Jesse Ventura, offered his candid insights into why the world needs RT more than ever.
At the risk of sounding like a pimply teenage groupy overcome by the experience of meeting his rock ‘n’ roll idol, the shock and awe of standing face-to-face with Jesse Ventura, discussing world events and sharing a few laughs was a bit of a mind-blowing experience.
I began following the political career of Jesse Ventura, a Vietnam War veteran, professional wrestler and political commentator, ever since he sent shockwaves through the gangrene US political system by being elected as Governor of Minnesota in 1999. The most amazing thing about this accomplishment was that Ventura won the election as a political outsider, that is, beyond the two-party Democratic-Republican duopoly as a member of the Reform Party.
Upsets like that just don’t happen anymore in the corporate-controlled jungle of American politics.
It was not difficult to spot Ventura at the historic Metropol Hotel in the heart of the Russian capital. Pushing 65 years old, Ventura, who stands 6’5”, wears his hair long and has a marked preference for bright t-shirts as opposed to drab suits, was easy to spot among the attendees at the conference.
Cursing the dying battery in my old Samsung voice recorder, I nevertheless took my chances and cornered the hulking Ventura halfway between the bathroom and the dining room. A very cruel maneuver, but I wasn’t letting my political hero escape without a few words. Ventura, however, proved every bit the gentleman I imagined him to be and was very generous with his time, speaking at length on a variety of issues even though it was lunchtime.
Commenting on the number of high-profile people who appeared in Moscow for the gala event – UK politician George Galloway, US presidential hopeful Jill Stein, ex-director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn and even Julian Assange, who made a guest appearance from the Ecuadorian embassy in London via video – Ventura said RT served a “crucial public function by giving air time to folks who are rarely seen on television in the US.”
“It’s pretty obvious to me why RT is criticized so much in the West, and that’s because you are providing a platform for people who tend to be shunned by the mainstream media for a variety of reasons,” Ventura said. “Back in the US you see the same old faces, the same old talking heads repeating their same old lines. At least with RT people can hear the other side of the story.”
“Journalism demands balance,” he advised.
I asked Ventura what has changed in the world since RT began broadcasting 10 years ago, and he said there is now a larger media platform for voicing opposition to “NATO-led wars.”
“Ten years ago, it was 2005, and the US military had already occupied Iraq on the totally false claim that [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. Not only did American journalists never challenge that accusation in any serious way, but they actually worked around the clock as cheerleaders for war, harshly criticizing anybody’s patriotism for questioning the flawed intelligence put forward by the Bush administration,” he told me.
“Had RT been a media player at the time, I think there would have been much more debate on the rush to war, much as there is now over the West’s determination to overthrow the legitimate government in Syria.”
I asked Ventura what he would do differently if elected president of the United States.
“I would immediately end all of the overseas wars we are conducting,” he said. “I would bring our troops home.”
He then had some tough words for Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who has been climbing in the polls despite “committing mistakes that would have destroyed the career of other candidates” [for example, Trump created a stir when he said he would “ban Muslims from entering the United States” – a comment that has not hurt his popularity among his constituents].
“Republicans always look to former US president Ronald Reagan as their guiding light on foreign and domestic issues, yet it was Reagan who famously told Mikhail Gorbachev to 'tear down this wall'” (a barrier that divided Berlin from 1961 to 1989).
“Yet today we find that the Republican Party wants to build their own wall between the United States and Mexico,” Ventura noted with a knowing smile.
“Walls can never work to improve the situation between people,” he said. “We’ve tried to build walls among people many times in the past yet the situation never really improves. We need to engage with our fellow man, not build barriers between them.”
Could Jesse Ventura, as president of the United States, work with Russian President Vladimir Putin to solve the great issues of the day?
“Certainly,” he replied with a laugh. “Great minds think alike. We’d get along fine.”
Role of intl news media on new geopolitical chessboard (#RT10 Panel Discussion)
‘Putin killed reporters? Prove it!’ – Trump to ABC show host.
RT.com 21 Dec, 2015 10:49
Donald Trump has fiercely defended Vladimir Putin when an ABC host cited “allegations” accusing the Russian president of killing reporters. Try to prove it, the Republican presidential hopeful said, reminding the media of the presumption of innocence.
The heated discussion took place on ABC's "This Week" show on Sunday when host George Stephanopoulos started asking the mogul about President Putin’s policy.
Question after question – on Russia's alleged desire for world domination, relations with Iran, Ukraine – and finally, Stephanopoulos decided to play the Politkovskaya murder card.
“There are many allegations he was behind the killing of Anna Politkovskaya,” Stephanopoulos said. Politkovskaya, a prominent investigative journalist and human rights activist, was killed on October 7, 2006.
He even quoted a tweet from Obama's Republican rival in 2012, Mitt Romney, who wrote: “Important distinction: thug Putin kills journalists and opponents; our presidents kill terrorists and enemy combatants.”
“But, in all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people, I haven’t seen that. I don’t know that he has. Have you been able to prove that?” Trump said, sharply.
The US presidential candidate admitted that it would have been “despicable” if Putin were really implicated, but he hasn’t seen “any evidence that he’s killed anybody in terms of reporters.”
“It’s never been proven that he’s killed anybody. So, you know, you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, at least in our country,” Trump added.
The ABC host referred to numerous “allegations.”
“I’m saying when you say a man has killed reporters, I’d like you to prove it,” Trump argued. “And I’m saying it would be a terrible thing if it were true. But I have never seen any information or any proof that he killed reporters.”
In fact, "our country does plenty of killing," Trump added, referring to the United States. When he was asked to clarify his phrase, he lashed out at another presidential candidate – Hilary Clinton.
"I think Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, made some horrible, horrible decisions, and thousands and thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Take a look at what we're doing in the Middle East. We went into Iraq, we shouldn't have."
Trump has never concealed that he approves Putin’s policy, including Russian military operation in Syria. In October, he said that he likes that “Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS.”
Earlier in December, Putin praised Trump during his traditional end-of-year Q&A session with journalists for wanting deeper ties with Russia. Putin also described Trump as the “absolute frontrunner in the presidential race.”
“He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that... He is the absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it,” Putin said.
Trump quickly responded to Putin’s comment, stating that it was a “great honor” to receive praise from a “highly respected” leader such as Putin.
“It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond,” Trump said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio.
Post by TsarSamuil on Dec 22, 2015 12:07:03 GMT -5
BBC Biased? EU money to media giant cause accusations ahead of Brexit referendum.
RT Dec 22, 2015
Critics of the British Broadcasting Corporation have said that financial contributions from the EU could unbalance its reporting of next year’s expected referendum on whether the UK should remain a part of the European Union.
Post by TsarSamuil on Dec 22, 2015 18:52:27 GMT -5
BUSTED: Fake Info in German Putin Film Could Explode into Major Scandal.
Russia is charging that the biggest German channel ZDF hired actors to portray separatist soldiers, allegedly paid by Russia, in a major documentary film about Putin which was released a week ago.
RussiaInsider Enrico Braun 7 hours ago
Just when you thought the Russophobic propaganda put out by Western mainstream media couldn't possibly get any worse or more hysterically absurd, German state-run US-sponsored TV channel ZDF has exceeded all bounds.
Not satisfied with the truth of what's really happening in Ukraine's war-torn Donbass region, they decided to hire actors to show exactly what they wanted their audience to believe about Russia's supposed involvement. Or at least that is what Russia's channel 1 is charging in an explosive expose that verges on the unbelievable.
If true, the allegations are sure to set off an uproar in Germany, where crassly dishonest reporting about Russia coming out of the main media companies has become a national scandal and a serious political liability for Angela Merkel, who many observers say is about to lose power due to a series of missteps over the last several months. This could be the final nail in her political coffin.
Most major television stations are taxpayer funded in Germany, and 100% owned by the government, and Germans are famously finicky about following "the rules", so this is sure to be a major bruhaha, ending up with who knows what.
See Rossiya 1's exposé of this disgraceful farce for yourself.
It is truly extraordinary.
Caught in the act: German state channel accused of faking Russian soldiers in Ukraine.
RT.com 23 Dec, 2015 15:38
A Russian television channel alleges a German state broadcaster hired actors to show Russian involvement in the eastern Ukraine conflict. The scandal centers around a Russian ‘volunteer’ paid by the German company to say he was fighting in Ukraine.
The documentary film, entitled ‘Strongman Putin’ produced by ZDF, suggests many Russians are fighting for the separatists opposed to the Kiev government. However, holes in the channel’s story start to open immediately, such as the Ukrainian flag being visible on the soldier’s uniforms.
However, this was nothing in comparison to the lengths they went to in order to find a hero for their story, the Russia 1 TV channel found out.
“Igor is a volunteer for the separatist fighters, a fact which he is proud of,” the documentary by ZDF says.
The only problem was ‘Igor’ was in fact an unemployed 27-year-old from Kaliningrad, Yury Lobyskin, who had never joined the separatists.
“A German journalist called Dietmar came to see me as well as a film crew from Germany and said ‘let’s film a documentary about you’ saying that you went from Kaliningrad to Donetsk to fight for the separatists,” Lobyskin admitted. 'Dietmar' is ZDF political observer Dietmar Schumann, the Rossiya 1 report states.
“[Dietmar] said to me that they needed me to say that I was wounded, despite the fact that I have never be wounded. Firstly they took me to Moscow and then two hours later I was in Rostov."
Lobyskin was met at the airport by the German channel’s Russian speaking producer Valery Bobkov, who offered Yury 50,000 rubles (some $700 at current rate) to take part in the documentary. He was taken to the Donbass region where the conflict was taking place and instructed what to say.
“[Bobkov] trained me for three or four days. He told me exactly what to say and encouraged me to write things down,” Lobyskin said.
The fact that Yury had never been near an army was instantly visible, as he had to be told what to do on numerous occasions, such as how to walk properly with a gun. One episode where he stopped a car at a checkpoint had to be repeated three times before the film crew got the shot they were looking for. The ZDF documentary even suggested that Yury had been paid 25,000 rubles a month to fight as a separatist and had left his ‘wife’ and ‘young child’ back in Kaliningrad.
“[Bobkov] found a girl and paid her 2-3,000 rubles and asked her to play the role of my wife. I don’t have any children and I had never seen this girl before.”
Despite its criticisms of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the documentary’s ratings were not high and the film was criticized in Germany.
“I don’t think that the Germans believe everything they see on television. There are a number of people who criticize our mass media, such as state channels like ARD and ZDF. Germans are very good at reading between the lines and I don’t think that this one-sided position against Russia will prove to be effective,” said politician Alexander Gauland, who spoke to Russia 1.
When asked to comment on the situation by Russia 1, ZDF said the film crew who took part in making the documentary were busy filming another project. The channel said ‘Igor’ the protagonist in the film was real and was given money because they felt sorry for him.
However, on the raw tapes, it is clearly audible how Lobyskin is being given instructions about what to do. When the broadcast was shown to the public, this speech could no longer be heard, as it had been dubbed over.
This is by no means the first time that ZDF has been caught altering material to portray Russia in a bad light.
In February, a citizen's media group lodged a complaint against the broadcaster for airing a photograph of "Russian tanks in eastern Ukraine".
The news segment aired by ZDF featured a photo with the caption "Russian armored vehicles moved through Isvarino in the Lugansk region, February 12, 2015," citing "Ukrainian army spokesman Andrei Lysenko." However, there is one glaring problem with the photograph in question: it shows Russian tanks in South Ossetia in 2008, not Ukraine.
Last Edit: Dec 29, 2015 4:41:37 GMT -5 by TsarSamuil
No other country, with the exception of maybe China, gets as much of a look in as Russia does from the Washington Post’s editorial board.
It’s hardly strange that the newspaper would focus some of its attention on Russia, an increasingly influential global player, but it does seem to have a bit of a bee in its bonnet about the old enemy.
Reading the Post’s editorials on matters of global affairs is like an exercise in understanding the very worst imaginable interpretation of American exceptionalism — and the latest dispatch on Syria is a perfect example. The headline reads: “A UN resolution on Syria is shattered - and Russia is to blame.”
The UN resolution referred to by the Post stated that all parties must “immediately cease any attacks against civilians and civilian objects” as well as “any indiscriminate use of weapons, including through shelling and aerial bombardment.” Leaving aside the laughable notion that the US itself would adhere to such a resolution and “immediately cease” anything whatsoever, let’s take a look at what concerned the Post.
Two days after the resolution was passed, the editorial says, Russia carried out strikes in the northern Syrian provincial capital of Idlib “killing scores of civilians”. It is not for this writer to judge the authenticity of that claim or to question the word of the Post’s reporter in Beirut — and it would be ludicrous to claim Russia’s strikes have killed not one civilian, but it is at least worth noting that one of the newspaper’s original sources for the story was The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an ‘organization’ run out of a home in Coventry by one man who hasn’t visited Syria in 15 years, has received “small subsidies” from the European Union, and whose reports are at best, unreliable. Nevertheless, SOHR has become one of the single-most important “sources” of information on Syria in the Western press.
The Post continues on, unabashed. Secretary of State John Kerry, they chide, should be embarrassed by “this outrage” which “shattered” the UN resolution. They say this without so much of a hint of irony as the US continues to wage its illegal bombing campaign in the country they purport to care so very deeply about. They always care, you see. The more they care, the more bombs they want to drop.
And in the Post’s world, the UN is important and should be respected. Unless you’re the United States, in which case, go ahead and do whatever you want. Ever the pen-wielding champions for the spreading of good old freedom and democracy, they are always there, on the frontlines, cheering on America’s wars. It’s awfully easy to be in favor of ‘humanitarian’ military interventions when you comfort yourself with the knowledge that it’s okay, because you’re the good guys — always. But still, the board likes to be outraged (!) — and it needs to get its outrage fix from somewhere.
At least they’re consistent
Enter Russia. You have to at least hand it to the Post for its consistency. Russia and Putin continue to be the scapegoats for all seasons. There is nothing Moscow can’t be blamed for and nothing it can do right. If the Kremlin produced a cure for cancer tomorrow, the Post would re-imagine it as a sinister plot devised by Putin to put Western oncologists out of jobs.
In early October, the board warned Obama: Don’t green light Mr. Putin’s Syria project. That piece argued that the “moderate” opposition to Assad — which in the real world includes Al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate Al Nusra, should be given more US anti-tank missiles and that Putin should be given “red lines”.
In November, after the Paris attacks, sensing that things were moving in Putin’s favor, and that an international anti-ISIS coalition might be in the making, they jumped in to ensure no one thought that was a good idea with a piece headlined: Teaming up with Russia in Syria could be a dangerous.
And of course, when Turkey shot down a Russian jet near the Syrian border after claiming that it had violated Turkish airspace, the Post did its bit to make sure no one was left with the wrong impression about who exactly was responsible for the incident: Russian “provocations” and “dangerous behavior of Vladimir Putin’s regime.” Reading that, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was Russia recklessly shooting planes out of the sky. One wonders would the Post’s reaction have been the same if an American warplane had been shot down in Syria? It’s certainly unlikely (to say the least) that the Post would be calling the US’s illegal flights over the war-torn country “provocations” and demanding accountability.
The Post’s penchant for US exceptionalism extends far beyond Syria. Here, they lament, Obama just "doesn't understand” Putin’s "Eurasian ambitions". Apparently it's not worth noting that Russia is in fact a massive Eurasian country, unlike say, the US.
And God forbid any other countries might think they could act independently of Washington in any arena. Obama was "right to order a sail-by" in the South China Sea because “failure to respond” to the “aggression” of other countries is always the greatest sin. Meanwhile, Iran "steps up its aggression" in the Middle East. The list goes on and the Washington Post's editorial board fails, time and again, to see the irony.
That’s the kind of world the Post’s editors live in: Black and white. Good and evil. We’re always right, you’re always wrong. Do what we say, not as we do. The destruction this kind of thinking leaves in its wake is always someone else’s problem to solve.
Imagine if a leading news organization based in a major country was colluding with government officials to ensure their content satisfied those same apparatchiks? Ponder the reaction in Washington?
It’s almost certain that words like “condemn,” “regrettable” and “affront” would be used. Probably by the State Department.
After all, the State Department was so alarmed about “Russian propaganda” earlier this year that “it appealed to major media companies, including Sony Pictures, for help,” according to The Guardian. Now, envisage John Kerry’s merry band armed with proof of RT journalists taking orders DIRECTLY from Russian Foreign Ministry personnel? It’s fair to assume that the outrage would be audible on the dark side of the moon. Doubtless, the likes of Buzzfeed, the BBC and the New York Times would splash the story with giddy abandon.
Isn’t it curious then, that when a State Department email dump revealed, in late October, that CNN actually coordinated their coverage of a 2013 congressional hearing on Libya with a former Hillary Clinton aide, the MSM didn’t pay much attention to the revelations? Even when they touched on them, most just wanted to defend Elise Labott, the reporter involved, and explained away the apparent collusion as “business as usual."
Meanwhile, the State Department itself was silent. No condemnations, no expressions of regret and no descriptions of the move as an "affront to democracy" or the like. Incredibly, many of the same media outlets weren't half as supportive of Labott when she was recently suspended by CNN for expressing sympathy with Syrian refugees on Twitter. Thus we can assume that they believe that sacrificing journalistic principles is far more acceptable than showing solidarity with some of the weakest and most vulnerable people on earth.
Collusion for favors
Gawker published a batch of State Department emails, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request. Through it, we learned that Labott, the CNN global affairs correspondent was in regular contact with Hillary Clinton's then-personal spokesman and aide, Philippe Reines, on Jan. 23, 2013. That was the day when the former Secretary of State (who is again seeking the Democratic Party nod as a Presidential candidate) testified before Congress about her role in the events surrounding the deadly Sept 11, 2012 attacks on US facilities in Benghazi in Libya.
Reines suggested a number of Tweets to Labott, who duly obliged by posting them (mostly verbatim) on her own personal feed. For example, Reines emailed Labott: “You should tweet something like 'Feb. 1st looking like Hillary's last day' and link to the story. That will drive your colleagues nuts.” The CNN reporter later tweeted almost the very same words.
Earlier that January, Labott apparently admitted in an email to Reines that she deliberately misled other networks on behalf of Clinton's State Department team. "I did get several emails from networks today asking if I thought the reason there was no on-[camera] was because you guys were trying to hide something. I just answered that it was customary in the week of new years (even though that's not entirely true) but frankly nobody believes me," she wrote. "So there shouldn't be a big deal about an on camera briefing right? You know better than anyone that optics matter. I'm just saying.”
Remarkably, some of the high-profile media colleagues who leaped to Labott’s defense are often disturbed at what they term ‘propaganda’ in other countries. Take Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed who whitewashed the CNN reporter’s actions.
"This exchange seems like normal source [conversation] to be honest," he told the Washington Examiner, referring to the State emails. "(I) feel like people would be pretty surprised at stuff operatives and reporters from both parties say to each other.”
Apparently , there’s nothing objectionable in a reporter trying to ingratiate themselves with authority in exchange for a story. Unless you’re a reporter who’s not working for the right kind of western MSM.
It’s not only CNN, of course.
Reines also interacted with Politico’s Mike Allen that very same month. In a January 10 email he offers Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea, a “no-surprises” interview with questions agreed in advance. Hilariously, Allen later criticized Barack Obama in Politico for an alleged preference for “softball” interviews.
The menace of mendacity
For Russian watchers, this is all very strange. Especially given the vitriol usually thrown at RT for imagined transgressions. For example, the Wall Street Journal’s Lukas Alpert once tried to convince Slate podcast listeners that “RT coordinates its activities with the Russian Foreign Ministry to prepare news packages supporting Foreign Ministry issues of the day; and that, according to unnamed former RT employees, ‘Foreign Ministry handlers’ vet all of RT’s political reporting.”
Naturally, this is complete nonsense – and no proof to substantiate these ridiculous allegations was ever presented. Amazingly, however, Alpert has completely ignored the, actually proven, story of CNN doing more-or-less what he, falsely, accused RT of.
Speaking of the Foreign Ministry, BBC’s Andrew Neil once (also falsely) stated that RT’s reporter Anastasia Churkina had interviewed her father Vitaly Churkin (the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations) “live on air.” She had never done any such thing and the BBC had to apologize. Nevertheless, it’s stunning that Neil has nothing to stay about the CNN incident, obsessed as he claims to be about media balance and integrity.
Here's to the state of Mississippi
American mainstream media has a habit of censoring dissenting voices. Who can forget how Phil Donahue was fired by MSNBC when he refused to alter his, principled, anti-war, views as the MSM whipped the nation into a frenzy over Iraq? Odd then, that they made a martyr of Liz Wahl following her on-air resignation from RT in 2014 - a stunt that was actually stage-managed by a neocon think-tank, helped by a few loyal MSM journos. Wahl is now being used as a – this is not a joke – a Russian foreign policy expert by CNN. Her expertise on the subject extends to having read a tele-prompter for two years at RT America, a Washington-based, US affairs-focused channel.
Other MSM scandals that have been brushed under the carpet recently include the UK broadcasting regulator Ofcom finding the BBC to have broken its “rules on sponsored and free content funded by governments, NGOs and charities” (i.e. disseminating “propaganda”) – in more than 20 instances. CNN and CNBC were also cited. The story was barely reported. Even when it was - by the London Independent, which actually did use the term “propaganda” in describing the case – it simply vanished from their site shortly thereafter. The original headline “How the BBC showed propaganda films – but didn’t tell its viewers” now only survives as a Tweet.
The Independent has given no indication as to where the article has gone or why it was removed. The first half of it survives here. A milder take of the story does still exist at The Guardian.
When Ofcom finds RT to be in breach of its rules, the UK media obliges by going to town on the story, with The Guardian,Independent, Financial Times and the BBC itself all giving huge coverage to the issue, and regurgitating it virtually every time they report on RT from whatever angle, no matter how unrelated the development.
That BBC rules breach story broke in August. The following month, the BBC's announcement of new plans to expand its reach in Russia and the Middle East were greeted with delight by the Guardian. There wasn't a mention of “propaganda” anywhere, even though its geographical focus is clearly politically motivated, and comes amidst the ‘Beeb’s’ frequent lamentations about losing the “information war” to Russia.
Of course, when RT announced similar projects for France and Germany, these were only ever treated as “propaganda” by the same Guardian.
Thus, when the BBC, found guilty of broadcasting "propaganda," expands its foreign messaging efforts (ones they are happy to dub as "propaganda" when coming from outside the US or Europe), the Guardian is overjoyed defining it as news and the proliferation of virtuous “British values.” However, when RT seeks new audiences, it can only be sinister propaganda. The logic doesn’t jump off the page.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there are five direct synonyms for "hypocrisy." At the rate MSM is guilty of it, wordsmiths will have to invent a few more.
Last Edit: Dec 29, 2015 5:51:32 GMT -5 by TsarSamuil
The year 2015 is about to end and what a ride it has been! There was no shortage of stories for this program and station to cover. We have reported the news and provided alternative narratives. On this edition of CrossTalk some of my colleagues at RT and I talk about the year that was. CrossTalking with Anissa Naouai, Rory Suchet, and Oksana Boyko.
TsarSamuil: A guy keeps spamming casino links every day, I have to ban him constantly, I wonder what his post count would be otherwise, approaching mine?
Jan 10, 2020 14:27:01 GMT -5
Borrka: Anybody here? Where are the old regulars!?
Mar 15, 2020 10:48:19 GMT -5
Deleted: On FB, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc.
Apr 19, 2020 4:29:09 GMT -5
gioblack94: Hello,I'm the representative of the Bulgarians and the main coordinator of Bulgaria of a movement called:"The slavic movement".Our mission is to create a slavic union and we welcome everybody who wants to join our cause:https://discord.gg/gMh2Zm
May 18, 2020 9:10:02 GMT -5
WhiteGaysack: And what do you think OUR mission is since 2004?
Jun 5, 2020 14:56:11 GMT -5
WC: Tsar, habe you lost interest? Kudos that you continued posting all the years.
Jun 20, 2020 3:10:01 GMT -5
WC: Nikolov, wuz up?
Jun 28, 2020 13:54:49 GMT -5
TheChornyvolk: Borka, I still fuck your mother.
Jul 15, 2020 14:52:53 GMT -5
Raskolnikov: A thread about the racial movements currently happening in the west would be interesting. Is this forum alive enough to create a topic about it?
Jul 20, 2020 9:57:24 GMT -5
TheChornyvolk: No. But you can lick my ass, instead.
Jul 24, 2020 2:37:47 GMT -5
Raskolnikov: And get an STD? no way
Aug 5, 2020 11:06:27 GMT -5
Raskolnikov: I changed my opinion. Now I want!
Aug 9, 2020 15:46:12 GMT -5
White Cossack: WTF is going on here? That's Slavija, not Spermia.
Aug 30, 2020 13:48:17 GMT -5