Do Not Cite RT

[Simulist]

Well, for the record, my remarks (just above) weren't snarky at all; in fact, I think I asked a pretty good question.

[wordspeak2]

OMH, I hear you on not being reliant on it as gospel, but if you're going to be a purist about what news you consume and link to then you should ignore "Democracy Now!" too, as it's funded by the CIA-linked Ford Foundation, and thus has largely ignored the most important stories of our day.
You want us to never link to Al-Jazeera, too? Like Alice said, national and global-scale reporting requires $$, and that's what little community radio stations don't have. That said, I agree we shouldn't be overly dependent on one source, and there are a lot of web-based news sources out there doing great work. However, there's something unique to the power of television, no?

[Wombaticus Rex]

It did bear repeating, I missed that data point -- appreciate it. I wonder how that info has held up in the ensuing 2 years.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50157

NEW YORK, Jan 29, 2010 (IPS) - Television viewers in the United States seeking international news are starting to switch over to foreign channels to learn what is happening in the outside world, media watchers here say.

"They are comparable to CNN," said Steve Randall, about television news channels such as Russia Today, Al Jazeera, CCTV of China, and the Press TV of Iran, which are now being watched by millions of people in the United States via cable and dish networks.

According to a survey by Nielsen Media Research, many people in Washington, DC now turn to Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Euronews, and China Central Television to get their foreign news.

However, Russia Today easily led the pack, with a daily audience over 6.5 times bigger than that of Al Jazeera English, the second most popular source of TV news among foreign broadcasters in the U.S. after BBC.

As for the snark, it's borne of desperation, innit? RI is pretty grim but I don't see how it could be otherwise. Any article about NatSec expanding their surveillance programs is generally met with 3 pages of "they're already doing that" & "so fucking what," so this is par for the course.

This closely parallels the #Occupy convo going right now about taking DNC/MoveOn money..."but we're using it for our own ends, so are they really co-opting us?"...I don't have any answers for that quandary, either.

[Occult Means Hidden]

Well, for the record, my remarks (just above) weren't snarky at all; in fact, I think I asked a pretty good question.

Yes, but I didn't claim yours was snarky. As for the question, I think there's clearly varying degrees of support. Using as a source to support your world view makes you permanently associated with that source. This is an unfortunate fact in politics. Rightly or wrongly.

[Simulist]

Well, for the record, my remarks (just above) weren't snarky at all; in fact, I think I asked a pretty good question.

Yes, but I didn't claim yours was snarky. As for the question, I think there's clearly varying degrees of support. Using as a source to support your world view makes you permanently associated with that source. This is an unfortunate fact in politics. Rightly or wrongly.

OMH, surely someone who's screen name is "Occult Means Hidden" knows very well that everything — absolutely everything — in the material realm is corrupt, at least to the tiniest degree.

Were we to avoid every form of corruption, we would need to shuffle off this mortal coil.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Excellent. The op warning that a source feeds you content you then spread to gain rapport for a strategic purpose...is spot on.
Also, that almost ALL media is now spook-run using sophisticated layered agendas.

BUT. I think it's better to add the disclaimer warning of the source's integrity/record/agenda to educate readers rather than just avoid the source. That's like leaving a landmine for others to step on.

Remember all the stealthily anti-semitic sources that dished out 9/11 truth tidbits to discredit the topic?
TruthSeeker? Greg Szymanski? Arctic Beacon? American Free Press?
And people scooped it up no questions asked about the sources or their agendas.
As they still do with spook-run Wired and New Scientist and and and....

Eventually, it will dawn on progressives why the BBC finances Greg Palast as a cred prop and as a tool against the US in the US-UK competitive 'alliance.' Now that they are more suspected, the Big Media are working harder to convey the myth that they are 'independent liberal watchdogs of democracy.'

CIA-NPR just put Bill CFR Moyers back on the air.
Washington Post did that 'Top Secret America' limited-hangout expose.
New York Times gave itself an award for reporting that generals on tv worked for the Pentagon.
etc.
etc.

[Occult Means Hidden]

As an enthusiast of what can be quickly described as "conspiracy analysis", I have to question to whom am I being permanently associated with? Alex Jones? RT? Rense? Of course none are perfect. But the struggle to establish and maintain representative local information sharing and honest reporting, goes on... This should always have been the focus, so no double-dealing white knight rides against our responsibility as citizens.

[jcivil]

First, only cite RI and all will be credible.

Second, they all lie, and here and there a journo squeeks out some truth. I remember watching a really good piece on the sterilizations of indigenous people in Peru by USAID/Fujimori through NWI outta Canada before Gore/Others bought it and made it Current. Thanks AL. That and your 2050 decades late, triatches !!! Goat getters. http://www.cwpe.org/node/49

Third, Assange make one wrong step at RT and Puty has some polonium for him, or suicide vhateva. Vlad.

Fourth, I just won the lotto in Maryland, so I have 101mUSD for radical action, which will be to burn the money so people think about the worthlessness of money, and turn to their mother earth. And April fools, heh. That is so not funny which makes it so much funnier again, and there you are, still reading it, april fools laughs for me again.

[peartreed]

The fifth estate lost any vestige of independent objectivity when the less-than-dozen multinational conglomerates cornered the major mass media for corporate control, much like they co-opted governments through political funding and support. Most of the “news” we receive is thus first filtered through the vested interests of the corporate powers, the same forces manipulating the primetime political chess games being played upon the world stage for control of the populations and the planet’s resources. We are left to discern and factor the built-in biases ourselves.

While some of us obsess over the covert spooks plying the political polarities through the public press, and others concentrate on corporate corruption of consumer communications, the experienced just eye the entire spectrum as special interest advertising, promotion and reporting. Objectivity has long been extinct.

The trick is to gold pan - take it all in and self-sift the shit for the nuggets that shine through for your truth as you see it.

peartreed

[wintler2]

OP: "Do not cite RT [if wishing to engage with US conservatives]". Now why would i waste my time doing [that] ?!

.. I think it's better to add the disclaimer warning of the source's integrity/record/agenda to educate readers rather than just avoid the source. That's like leaving a landmine for others to step on.

Excellent point.

[JackRiddler]

OMH, just for the record, please rank the following TV news sources from first to last, first being the best to cite, and last being the worst:

ABC
FOXNEWS
Al Jazeera
CNN
Deutsche Welle
RT
CBS
MS-NBC
France 24
Current
Democracy Now!
BBC
NBC
Euronews
Alex Jones TV shows
China Central Television
SKY
Berlusconi channels
RTL
CBC
C-SPAN (1, 2 and 3)
ANT1 (Greek, available here)
HBO documentaries and news (e.g., "Real Sports")
NatGeo
ITV
Military Channel (private)
History
Channel 4
Pentagon Channel
NASA Channel

Also, on the Web, what about Wikipedia? Counterpunch? WSWS? Fire Dog Lake? Chomsky? Bill Weinberg? Antiwar.com? Greenwald? WSJ?

Because I need someone to sort this out for me! Thanks.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

OMH, just for the record, please rank the following TV news sources from first to last, first being the best to cite, and last being the worst:.

Here's a quick sourcing off the top of my head-

ABC = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
FOXNEWS = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
Al Jazeera = MI6 (British intelligence)
CNN = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
Deutsche Welle = BND (German intelligence)
RT = KGB (Russian intelligence)
CBS = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
MS-NBC = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
France 24 = DGSE (Frence intelligence)
Current = CIA Left gatekeeper by design
Democracy Now! = Left gatekeeper, coerced-unwillingly
BBC = MI6 (British intelligence)
NBC = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
Euronews =
Alex Jones TV shows = CIA-promoted Libertarian gatekeeper-by-alienation
China Central Television = MSS (Ministry of State Security)
SKY = MI6 (British foreign security agency)
Berlusconi channels = AISE and COPACO (Italian intelligence)
RTL
CBC = CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service)
ANT1 (Greek, available here)
HBO documentaries and news (e.g., "Real Sports") = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
NatGeo or National Geographic = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
ITV
Military Channel (private) = Defense Intelligence Agency and Central Intelligence Agency
History = CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency)
Channel 4 = MI6 (British intelligence)
Pentagon Channel = Defense Intelligence Agency and Central Intelligence Agency
NASA Channel = Defense Intelligence Agency and Central Intelligence Agency

Also, on the Web, what about
Wikipedia? = masses available but CIA-edited and administered
Counterpunch?= CIA Left gatekeeper by design
WSWS?
Fire Dog Lake?
Chomsky? = Left gatekeeper by coercion-unwillingly
Bill Weinberg?
Antiwar.com?
Greenwald?
WSJ? = Central Intelligence Agency

Because I need someone to sort this out for me! Thanks

Yeah, right. As if.

[AlicetheKurious]

I just came across this relevant article: The Arab Spring Has Shaken Arab TV's Credibility

The comments are surprisingly similar to the ones we've made in this thread.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

SNARK!! Cite no one!
(unless it's giggle worthy)

[jfshade]

Not to ignore the facts of its ownership and ideological slant, but I find RT engaging and not always as predictably scripted-sounding as some here have implied. There was a link in the #Kony2012 thread to an RT interview with Keith Harmon Snow wherein he argued that the Invisible Children film was not just inaccurate and exploitive, but pure, USG-generated propaganda. Pretty much the point of view one would expect to hear promulgated on RT. But the interviewer was fairly contentious with him, defending the film and the filmmakers' motives.

Here's part of an exchange late in the piece:

KHS: "... so it's a profit-making venture, first of all. Second, they're a bunch of white guys who don't know nothing about nothing."
Interviewer: "I've met these guys, they're from my home town, and they're religious. They look like blond surfer guys. They're very passionate about what they do, but when you say they don't know nothing about nothing, they've been over there. Do you think it's wrong that they've brought the issue to light for the American people, or are you saying they're just painting the picture falsely?"
KHS: "They're painting the picture falsely. That's what propaganda does..."

And so on.