Does this seem evil?

[UGagain]

It seems eminently sensible to me.

Especially compared to the madness of the political process being displayed in the US (and the UK).

[rowan]

& while the Americans have been accidentally bombing civilians in Manbij, the Russians have been helping the regime free a safe passage for civilians out of "ISIS"-besieged Aleppo - with little attention from the Western media: http://tr.euronews.com/2016/07/30/halep ... oru-acildi

[Sandydragon]

& while the Americans have been accidentally bombing civilians in Manbij, the Russians have been helping the regime free a safe passage for civilians out of "ISIS"-besieged Aleppo - with little attention from the Western media: http://tr.euronews.com/2016/07/30/halep ... oru-acildi

It's been on the BBC headlines for the past few days.

[rowan]

& while the Americans have been accidentally bombing civilians in Manbij, the Russians have been helping the regime free a safe passage for civilians out of "ISIS"-besieged Aleppo - with little attention from the Western media: http://tr.euronews.com/2016/07/30/halep ... oru-acildi

It's been on the BBC headlines for the past few days.

Good to hear. That's not one of my regular haunts, of course...

[UGagain]

Must have been in between all the Putin is evil/Assad is the devil shit they propagate.

The BBC is a pathetic shadow of an actual news organisation.

[Sandydragon]

The BBC is a long way from perfect.

But compared to Russia Today its a beacon of journalistic integrity.

[jared_7]

The BBC is a long way from perfect.

But compared to Russia Today its a beacon of journalistic integrity.

Both seem quite similar to me, obviously just with blatantly opposing views.

[cashead]

Interesting how if Putin says it, it's immediately accepted unquestioningly.

[Sandydragon]

The BBC is a long way from perfect.

But compared to Russia Today its a beacon of journalistic integrity.

Both seem quite similar to me, obviously just with blatantly opposing views.

BBC remains independent of the UK government, despite attempts at the contrary. RT just parrots Putin's latest soundbites. The blind support for the Crimean invasion for example, or the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner.

[cashead]

The BBC is a long way from perfect.

But compared to Russia Today its a beacon of journalistic integrity.

Both seem quite similar to me, obviously just with blatantly opposing views.

BBC remains independent of the UK government, despite attempts at the contrary. RT just parrots Putin's latest soundbites. The blind support for the Crimean invasion for example, or the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner.

What's RT's standard of coverage of LBGT rights in Russia?

[Sandydragon]

Interesting how if Putin says it, it's immediately accepted unquestioningly.

Putin is a keen student of history. He saw the role that the BBC World Service played in dismantling the USSR and is trying to achieve the same. Although RT's integrity standards are somewhat less.

[Sandydragon]

Both seem quite similar to me, obviously just with blatantly opposing views.

BBC remains independent of the UK government, despite attempts at the contrary. RT just parrots Putin's latest soundbites. The blind support for the Crimean invasion for example, or the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner.

What's RT's standard of coverage of LBGT rights in Russia?

Wasn't a journalist sacked for not toeing the party line?

[Stom]

Interesting how if Putin says it, it's immediately accepted unquestioningly.

Putin is a keen student of history. He saw the role that the BBC World Service played in dismantling the USSR and is trying to achieve the same. Although RT's integrity standards are somewhat less.

After some of the reporting in the middle east, I'd say that if RT's integrity standards are low, so are the BBCs...

Actually, only really Al-Jazeera, of the major news broadcasters, has any semblance of integrity any more.

[rowan]

Not sure about that. It's worth a read, covers the Middle East extensively, and provides a good counterweight to the Western perspective. But ultimately it does the bidding of Qatar and Saudi and needs to be taken with a grain of salt where issues concerning either of those two repressive, warmongering nations are concerned - most notably when it comes to Syria & Yemen.

[jared_7]

The BBC is a long way from perfect.

But compared to Russia Today its a beacon of journalistic integrity.

Both seem quite similar to me, obviously just with blatantly opposing views.

BBC remains independent of the UK government, despite attempts at the contrary. RT just parrots Putin's latest soundbites. The blind support for the Crimean invasion for example, or the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner.

Oh please. Its entire foreign policy coverage is from embedded journalists pandering to whatever official sources tell them.

RT parrots Russian interests, the BBC parrots western interests. The support for the invasion of Syria, Libya, Iraq, for example.

[rowan]

Agreed, you simply have to read everything you can get your hands on, including in foreign languages if you're capable, and then make up your own mind from there. I take a look at the American news headlines every day, if only out of a morbid sense of curiosity, along with Euronews, Al Jazeera and various alternative news sites (such as CounterPunch). In addition to these, I read El Pais in Spanish and Le Monde in French regularly, as well as Turkey's Hurriyet. I only watch the news in Turkish, but listen to Radio Francais Facile's 10 minute news bulletin every morning. I dropped RT from the agenda for too much silliness, even though they did run some good stories in between. Apart from this, I get stories from numerous sources (including my friends) on Facebook. So the net has definitely revolutionized the way I've read the news over the past decade-and-a-half and broadened my horizons a great deal in the process.

[jared_7]

Agreed, you simply have to read everything you can get your hands on, including in foreign languages if you're capable, and then make up your own mind from there. I take a look at the American news headlines every day, if only out of a morbid sense of curiosity, along with Euronews, Al Jazeera and various alternative news sites (such as CounterPunch). In addition to these, I read El Pais in Spanish and Le Monde in French regularly, as well as Turkey's Hurriyet. I only watch the news in Turkish, but listen to Radio Francais Facile's 10 minute news bulletin every morning. I dropped RT from the agenda for too much silliness, even though they did run some good stories in between. Apart from this, I get stories from numerous sources (including my friends) on Facebook. So the net has definitely revolutionized the way I've read the news over the past decade-and-a-half and broadened my horizons a great deal in the process.

It can be hard to compare apples to apples because with RT (and other channels such as Al Jazeera, CNN etc...) we get the international version and hence the majority of stories are foreign policy focussed, which is where the propaganda and differing interests tend to come out most. So with RT every article has a spin, whereas with the local BBC coverage 80% of it is actually just reporting daily news stories, which it is more than capable.

[Sandydragon]

Interesting how if Putin says it, it's immediately accepted unquestioningly.

Putin is a keen student of history. He saw the role that the BBC World Service played in dismantling the USSR and is trying to achieve the same. Although RT's integrity standards are somewhat less.

After some of the reporting in the middle east, I'd say that if RT's integrity standards are low, so are the BBCs...

Actually, only really Al-Jazeera, of the major news broadcasters, has any semblance of integrity any more.

And Al Jazeera doesn't have sponsors it needs to please?

[Sandydragon]

Both seem quite similar to me, obviously just with blatantly opposing views.

BBC remains independent of the UK government, despite attempts at the contrary. RT just parrots Putin's latest soundbites. The blind support for the Crimean invasion for example, or the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner.

Oh please. Its entire foreign policy coverage is from embedded journalists pandering to whatever official sources tell them.

RT parrots Russian interests, the BBC parrots western interests. The support for the invasion of Syria, Libya, Iraq, for example.

Support for followed by hasty criticism of in the case of Iraq. I do recall RT coverage of events in Georgia when I was a peacekeeper there which was 180 degrees from reality. Suited the Russian audience though, and for the record the Gerogian equivalent was no better, but RT is just pumping out propaganda at the behest of the Russian government.

How about the views of a former employee:

The American journalist Liz Wahl became a hate figure after resigning from RT live on air in protest at its coverage of Russian intervention in Crimea.

“Much of the bullying came through social media trolling,” she told The Times. “RT’s strategy was to partner with ‘useful idiots’ that spread a false story about me that suggested I was part of a conspiracy where right-wing war hawks were controlling my actions as a provocation to denigrate Russia.

“Those with extreme anti-western views that buy into the RT narrative believed it. It led to accusations of being a ‘neocon’ and a slew of messages accusing me of being everything from a warmonger to a CIA operative to a Zionist puppet.

“It was an ongoing theme from RT’s far-left viewers. If one is perceived as not being sufficiently anti-western, the accusations eventually evolved to supporting US imperialism and western hegemony.”

Wahl, who was a Washington-based correspondent for the network, said that the abuse became crudely sexist and antisemitic, even though she is not Jewish.

“The dark and deranged language underscored the hatred and paranoia evoked by Russian media messaging,” she said.

During her on-air resignation in March 2014 Wahl told viewers that RT was not about the truth but promoting a Putinist agenda.

She says now: “The origins of the directives to reporters and producers were shrouded in secrecy. Generally stories got the green light if they painted the US or western countries in a negative light. There were some stories we were instructed to cover relentlessly — the Snowden revelations, WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, various protest movements, Guantanamo Bay.

“Since I left RT, its reporting has become more skewed and more troublesome. The continued coverage of Ukraine, from MH17 to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, has been peppered with misleading information, manipulation and omission of critical facts.

“It operates under the guise of simply providing alternative news. However, the alternative viewpoints are broadcast when they serve to degrade the US and the West, and to deflect or distort stories that involve Russia or Russian allies. I am unsure why the Russian government finds it worth the investment. But expanding and promoting the Russian narrative seems to be a top priority.”

Another journalist, Sara Firth, resigned following her refusal to push propaganda following the shooting down of MH17.

Another interesting quote from the Times

RT has breached broadcasting rules 15 times, often by failing to be impartial, and was sanctioned last year by Ofcom over bias in its programme The Truthseeker. Ofcom ruled the channel to be in breach of impartiality rules in July for accusing Turkey of genocide against the Kurds and supporting Islamic State

[jared_7]

BBC remains independent of the UK government, despite attempts at the contrary. RT just parrots Putin's latest soundbites. The blind support for the Crimean invasion for example, or the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner.

Oh please. Its entire foreign policy coverage is from embedded journalists pandering to whatever official sources tell them.

RT parrots Russian interests, the BBC parrots western interests. The support for the invasion of Syria, Libya, Iraq, for example.

Support for followed by hasty criticism of in the case of Iraq. I do recall RT coverage of events in Georgia when I was a peacekeeper there which was 180 degrees from reality. Suited the Russian audience though, and for the record the Gerogian equivalent was no better, but RT is just pumping out propaganda at the behest of the Russian government.

How about the views of a former employee:

The American journalist Liz Wahl became a hate figure after resigning from RT live on air in protest at its coverage of Russian intervention in Crimea.

“Much of the bullying came through social media trolling,” she told The Times. “RT’s strategy was to partner with ‘useful idiots’ that spread a false story about me that suggested I was part of a conspiracy where right-wing war hawks were controlling my actions as a provocation to denigrate Russia.

“Those with extreme anti-western views that buy into the RT narrative believed it. It led to accusations of being a ‘neocon’ and a slew of messages accusing me of being everything from a warmonger to a CIA operative to a Zionist puppet.

“It was an ongoing theme from RT’s far-left viewers. If one is perceived as not being sufficiently anti-western, the accusations eventually evolved to supporting US imperialism and western hegemony.”

Wahl, who was a Washington-based correspondent for the network, said that the abuse became crudely sexist and antisemitic, even though she is not Jewish.

“The dark and deranged language underscored the hatred and paranoia evoked by Russian media messaging,” she said.

During her on-air resignation in March 2014 Wahl told viewers that RT was not about the truth but promoting a Putinist agenda.

She says now: “The origins of the directives to reporters and producers were shrouded in secrecy. Generally stories got the green light if they painted the US or western countries in a negative light. There were some stories we were instructed to cover relentlessly — the Snowden revelations, WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, various protest movements, Guantanamo Bay.

“Since I left RT, its reporting has become more skewed and more troublesome. The continued coverage of Ukraine, from MH17 to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, has been peppered with misleading information, manipulation and omission of critical facts.

“It operates under the guise of simply providing alternative news. However, the alternative viewpoints are broadcast when they serve to degrade the US and the West, and to deflect or distort stories that involve Russia or Russian allies. I am unsure why the Russian government finds it worth the investment. But expanding and promoting the Russian narrative seems to be a top priority.”

Another journalist, Sara Firth, resigned following her refusal to push propaganda following the shooting down of MH17.

Another interesting quote from the Times

RT has breached broadcasting rules 15 times, often by failing to be impartial, and was sanctioned last year by Ofcom over bias in its programme The Truthseeker. Ofcom ruled the channel to be in breach of impartiality rules in July for accusing Turkey of genocide against the Kurds and supporting Islamic State

What about the former head of BBC news who said, on air that she didn't believe fact-checking government statements with regards to the Iraq war was necessary, because government press releases themselves are the news? And when asked about multiple independent news stories that were released on the AP refuting official government statements, she said it wasn't policy to question the government?

I don't really get the article you just posted - I never said RT wasn't propaganda?! I'm simply saying the BBC is also propaganda.

[Digby]

I get most of my news from Today, sometimes PM but I rarely get to listen to PM, and from the Times.

On the video in the OP then i'd agree the US has gone more than a little OTT in their efforts to design and implement a defence system, and that their actions in doing so fall way outside various non proliferation agreements. However I don't know if Putin wants us to infer that prior to the 1970s there was balance in the MAD approach and we weren't seeing dangerous escalations in the arms race, that would be nonsense. I'm also not sure why he's complaining about the cost of developing such programmes, with the amount of money he's taken in bungs then the World's richest man could likely fund Russian developments out of his own pocket.

No idea of course if the translations shown on screen are even remotely accurate, I've got about 10 words in Russian, and then tend towards the more colourful metaphors

[morepork]

I get most of my news from Today, sometimes PM but I rarely get to listen to PM, and from the Times.

On the video in the OP then i'd agree the US has gone more than a little OTT in their efforts to design and implement a defence system, and that their actions in doing so fall way outside various non proliferation agreements. However I don't know if Putin wants us to infer that prior to the 1970s there was balance in the MAD approach and we weren't seeing dangerous escalations in the arms race, that would be nonsense. I'm also not sure why he's complaining about the cost of developing such programmes, with the amount of money he's taken in bungs then the World's richest man could likely fund Russian developments out of his own pocket.

No idea of course if the translations shown on screen are even remotely accurate, I've got about 10 words in Russian, and then tend towards the more colourful metaphors

"does this prostitute come with caviar"?

[Digby]

I get most of my news from Today, sometimes PM but I rarely get to listen to PM, and from the Times.

On the video in the OP then i'd agree the US has gone more than a little OTT in their efforts to design and implement a defence system, and that their actions in doing so fall way outside various non proliferation agreements. However I don't know if Putin wants us to infer that prior to the 1970s there was balance in the MAD approach and we weren't seeing dangerous escalations in the arms race, that would be nonsense. I'm also not sure why he's complaining about the cost of developing such programmes, with the amount of money he's taken in bungs then the World's richest man could likely fund Russian developments out of his own pocket.

No idea of course if the translations shown on screen are even remotely accurate, I've got about 10 words in Russian, and then tend towards the more colourful metaphors

"does this prostitute come with caviar"?

I learnt my Russian working alongside a Latvian on a farm, and there wasn't much call for any such wording, typically it was much more prosaic. I've been able to practice/confirm such teachings in the last decade with the arrival of the Poles in the UK and trips to Warsaw and Moscow. Sadly it being IT it's mostly talking to blokes, but there a couple of interesting things, first about the women, that often they'll have no hesitation to swear in English but are far from happy to use Slavic swear words as that would be impolite (for women), and second, and of course, they think we in the West are absolute amateurs and far too effete when it comes to swearing.

[Sandydragon]

Oh please. Its entire foreign policy coverage is from embedded journalists pandering to whatever official sources tell them.

RT parrots Russian interests, the BBC parrots western interests. The support for the invasion of Syria, Libya, Iraq, for example.

Support for followed by hasty criticism of in the case of Iraq. I do recall RT coverage of events in Georgia when I was a peacekeeper there which was 180 degrees from reality. Suited the Russian audience though, and for the record the Gerogian equivalent was no better, but RT is just pumping out propaganda at the behest of the Russian government.

How about the views of a former employee:

The American journalist Liz Wahl became a hate figure after resigning from RT live on air in protest at its coverage of Russian intervention in Crimea.

“Much of the bullying came through social media trolling,” she told The Times. “RT’s strategy was to partner with ‘useful idiots’ that spread a false story about me that suggested I was part of a conspiracy where right-wing war hawks were controlling my actions as a provocation to denigrate Russia.

“Those with extreme anti-western views that buy into the RT narrative believed it. It led to accusations of being a ‘neocon’ and a slew of messages accusing me of being everything from a warmonger to a CIA operative to a Zionist puppet.

“It was an ongoing theme from RT’s far-left viewers. If one is perceived as not being sufficiently anti-western, the accusations eventually evolved to supporting US imperialism and western hegemony.”

Wahl, who was a Washington-based correspondent for the network, said that the abuse became crudely sexist and antisemitic, even though she is not Jewish.

“The dark and deranged language underscored the hatred and paranoia evoked by Russian media messaging,” she said.

During her on-air resignation in March 2014 Wahl told viewers that RT was not about the truth but promoting a Putinist agenda.

She says now: “The origins of the directives to reporters and producers were shrouded in secrecy. Generally stories got the green light if they painted the US or western countries in a negative light. There were some stories we were instructed to cover relentlessly — the Snowden revelations, WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, various protest movements, Guantanamo Bay.

“Since I left RT, its reporting has become more skewed and more troublesome. The continued coverage of Ukraine, from MH17 to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, has been peppered with misleading information, manipulation and omission of critical facts.

“It operates under the guise of simply providing alternative news. However, the alternative viewpoints are broadcast when they serve to degrade the US and the West, and to deflect or distort stories that involve Russia or Russian allies. I am unsure why the Russian government finds it worth the investment. But expanding and promoting the Russian narrative seems to be a top priority.”

Another journalist, Sara Firth, resigned following her refusal to push propaganda following the shooting down of MH17.

Another interesting quote from the Times

RT has breached broadcasting rules 15 times, often by failing to be impartial, and was sanctioned last year by Ofcom over bias in its programme The Truthseeker. Ofcom ruled the channel to be in breach of impartiality rules in July for accusing Turkey of genocide against the Kurds and supporting Islamic State

What about the former head of BBC news who said, on air that she didn't believe fact-checking government statements with regards to the Iraq war was necessary, because government press releases themselves are the news? And when asked about multiple independent news stories that were released on the AP refuting official government statements, she said it wasn't policy to question the government?

I don't really get the article you just posted - I never said RT wasn't propaganda?! I'm simply saying the BBC is also propaganda.

The BBC will undoubtedly carry information that the government of the day wants it to, but its more of a nuanced relationship between the 2 parties. Comms officers in government will provide certain information and try to influence, but they can't dictate what to air and when. Thats the key difference. And if the BBC gets opposing information, it will normally run with it, unless there is a very good reason not to.

Personally, I don't trust the BBC 100%. It will edit news to cover what it thinks is important, journalists are human and will add some element of subjectivity, even unconsciously. But compared to other news outlets with far closer ties to their respective governments, they are generally far more reliable.

[morepork]

I'd be more wary of the editors than the journalists.