Greenwald shamelessly shills for Russia Today (again)...

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

https://twitter.com/cjcmichel/status/572501639476711424
https://twitter.com/Knobelsdorff/status/572489493523111937

More info:
http://rtwatchcuj.tumblr.com/


And for those of you who would jump to proclaim that Greenwald's concern over this issue is legitimate, let me point out some stories he *isn't* reporting (or even commenting) on:



Journalists' safety and media ownership – two challenges for Brazil's President Rousseff
https://www.ifex.org/brazil/2014/11/10/rsf_recommendations/

Brazil's Dilma Rousseff is popular, but not among news media
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/03/world/la-fg-brazil-hostile-media-20130304

Brazil gathers experts to discuss media regulation
https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/brazil%E2%80%99s-government-gathers-experts-discuss-media-regulation

As Brazilian elections near, free expression debate continues to polarize
https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/brazilian-elections-near-free-expression-debate-continues-polarize

Brazil: Humiliation of young TV opens debate on media regulation
http://en.wikinoticia.com/lifestyle/social-criticism/118398-brazil-humiliation-of-young-tv-opens-debate-on-media-regulation

Halftime for the Brazilian press -- Will justice prevail over censorship and violence?
http://cpj.org/reports/2014/05/halftime-for-brazilian-press-censorship-violence.php

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. By all means, let's suppress media we don't like. That's so American.

Er, British.

[Blue_Tires]

5. I just wish he'd return the Pulitzer

if he's this hellbent of pimping state-run propaganda outlets...

I thought that was one of the things he was supposedly fighting against?

[JonLP24]

12. It isn't state run

it receives or received government funding (especially went starting up) but RT isn't the same as the 100% Russian owned media outlets. Russia has a variety of news sources but unfortunately most of it is in Russian.

RT America has a noticeable liberal bias, especially when it comes to the NSA issue but the bias is in the selecting which stories to report or topics to interview on or guests. There is Larry King where all he does is ask questions, out of all the television news out there -- he is one of the least bias. Anyone that knows what to look for can figure out the bias or check for other sources, RT on Western issues are often easily backed by searches for other sources.

Here is the top story on RT America

Protests over LAPD fatally shooting mentally ill homeless man

Video footage of Los Angeles police officers shooting dead a homeless black man, aka Africa, has triggered an avalanche of protest on social media. The man had allegedly been just recently released after spending 10 years in a psychiatric facility.

Footage of the incident, published on Facebook by one of the witnesses, shows a group of LAPD officers scuffling with two people. After two officers dragged one person away, others wrestled the second person to the ground. One of the officers is heard saying “Drop the gun!” About five shots can then be heard.

http://rt.com/usa/236677-lapd-shot-dead-homeless/

Given that there is video at the link I don't really feel the need to look for another source but to make my point...l

What We Know About the Mentally Ill Homeless Man Killed by the LAPD

There was exactly one topic of conversation on downtown LA's Skid Row Monday morning: the shooting death of an approximately 28-year-old African immigrant now known alternately as "Africa" and "Cameroon."

LAPD cops shot the man five times Sunday while responding to a robbery call just outside a homeless shelter in the middle of the district known for having the highest concentration of homeless people in the United States.

While the facts are still somewhat foggy, it seems most likely at this point that during the altercation between Cameroon and the officers, he grabbed at one of the officer's guns, prompting the officers to shoot him lest he open fire on them or bystanders.

Most critical, however, is the question of how Cameroon's alleged mental illness played into the entire incident.

http://www.vice.com/read/what-we-know-about-the-mentally-ill-homeless-man-killed-by-the-lapd-302

[Blue_Tires]

13. Hmm...State funded but NOT state run??

If you say so...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/09/ria_novosti_russia_today_putin_replaces_a_state_run_news_outlet_with_a_state.html


Please read RT's coverage of Russian issues before trying to tell me they're just another 'Mother Jones'...Go read their nutbar "coverage" of MH17, of the Ukraine invasion, of U.S. foreign policy, etc., which makes InfoWars sound sane and level-headed...Hell, go see what they're saying about the Nemtsov assassination and get back to me...

[JonLP24]

16. They actually have a documentary on MH17 up

http://rt.com/shows/documentary/

I haven't watched it but I may give it a try, if it is accurate than it shouldn't be anything too conclusive because I don't believe the Dutch has issued a report regarding its investigation yet. FTR, I do believe it is like a rebel group did it because of the web posting claiming success of an Air Force plane being shot down and when it was revealed a civilian airliner was shot down there was a "our missiles can't go that high" (oddly, the same thing the Government said but they do have an elite air defense unit though in southeast territory) and the most impressive open source investigation I ever saw implicating a rebel faction but it could have been presented in a very deceiving way, I trusted it was presented in a legitimate way but given that an independent is in charge of the official investigation, the truth will come out one way or the other if evidence of the truth is there but the web posting points to the probability.

Russia issues or strictly Russia issues is interesting because you can't find much reporting anywhere else and you know the 100% state owned media is bad but you don't know what the credible Russia media is and all of it is pretty much reported in Russian anyway.

Supreme Court upholds hijab ban in Russian region’s schools

Russia’s Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban of Muslim headgear in schools introduced last fall by authorities in the Republic of Mordovia.

Wednesday’s verdict by the Supreme Court rejected a complaint lodged by the Mordovian Muslim community, who claimed that the ban on religious headgear in schools violated the constitutional principle of freedom of conscience. However, as in previous similar cases, the judge ruled that the ban on wearing headscarves in schools did not prevent Muslims from believing in God and did not infringe anyone’s constitutional rights.

The Mordovian government’s order banned not only hijabs, but also any clear demonstration of any attributes of any religion. The ban also extends to blue jeans, mini-skirts, low-cut tops, bright makeup or hair dye.

The ban on hijabs has caused protests from Muslim believers and clergy, at regional and federal levels. The head of the Mordovian Muslims, Fagim Shafiyev, appealed to prosecutors with a request to investigate the decision of the republic’s government, and Grand Mufti Ravil Gainutdin sent Russian President Vladimir Putin a letter, calling on him to defend the right of Muslim girls to wear the hijab in schools and universities.

http://rt.com/politics/231311-russia-hijab-school-ban/

I both did not know this & oppose this. It does give Putin's opinion but no noticeable editorial slant and I can usually recognize that sort of thing. There reporting on Ukraine is very polarizing but it is easy to tell the truth about the US foreign policy that comes out negative. The reporting is troubling in regards to Russia ally Syria, US doesn't need chemical weapons to show Assad as a bad guy. He indiscriminantly uses airstrikes, torture in prisons, and "disappearances" are enough to earn him the title of as the #1 "human rights violator of 2014".

Regarding Ukraine, it is one sided & polarizing but not necessary false. For example, you can reliably find a video of US State Department officials grilled by reporters -- I'm always interested in the news organizations the reporters work for but overall Vice, The Guardian, and sometimes the New York Times is all I trust in regards to this conflict. There is an incredible amount of bias -- everywhere on this issue. It reminds me of Iraq War 2003 media coverage x10

[geek tragedy]

14. how do you figure that the owners of a media outlet don't run it? nt

[JonLP24]

18. I see clear evidence of funding, especially as a startup

but not much regarding ownership. Most of the reporting of the international news organization is in English but the claims made against its reporting (such as the story isn't true) is largely unsubstantiated. Certainly more conspiracy theories reported on but the unique perspectives & uncommon guests for interviews are more interesting than not, its just 1 source out of many I go through. It is a good place to look for something that isn't given a lot of attention to, especially regarding the US (which another source reporting the same thing is easy to find).

[geek tragedy]

24. so your position is that a media outlet that depends on Vladimir Putin's government and allies

for 100% of its funding exercises editorial independence?

That's terribly, terribly naive.

As to the independent management . . .

The editor of Russian international broadcaster RT, Margarita Simonyan, is to head a new news agency, as the Kremlin consolidates its media hold.

Simonyan, 33, will merge her RT post with the role of editor-in-chief at Russia Today, which will replace state-owned news agency RIA Novosti.

President Vladimir Putin shut down RIA Novosti, which was respected for its news coverage, earlier this month.

So, now heading up the official state news agency and heading up RT is one person, an employee of the Russian state. The head of Russian state media is the person who's calling the shots at RT.

And who does this wonderfully independent head of state media trust to run daily operations?

Russia Today's managing director will be controversial journalist and keen Kremlin supporter Dmitry Kiselev, who is known for his ultra-conservative views, such as saying that gay people should be banned from giving blood, and that their hearts should be burnt rather than used in transplants.

RT is a propaganda outlet of the Russian government. It is funded by the Russian government, and managed by the Russian government.

That tells you everything you need to know about RT--when you watch it, you're watching what Vladimir Putin wants you to see.

Even Glenn Greenwald--who has made a career recently of refusing to criticize anything Russia does, says:

That RT is “biased” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far at all. It is expressly funded by the Russian government to present a Russian viewpoint of the world.

[randome]

2. Now where have I heard these words before?

UK Media Regulator Again Threatens RT for "Bias": This Time, Airing...
This move is the classic hallmark of how a government propagandizes its citizens: ensuring that they hear only those views of which the government approves.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_Tires]

7. Here's the story minus the Greenwald slant:

Last edited Mon Mar 2, 2015, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)

http://mashable.com/2014/11/10/rt-bias-ofcom-sanctions/

Here is the code:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/

And for comparison, here is our FCC code:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title47/47tab_02.tpl

[pampango]

3. Shills got a right to shill.

[Blue_Tires]

6. Your noting of my concern is noted...

[Sienna86]

8. It was interesting to assess his personality in Citizenfour..

Have any of you seen the movie?

[orpupilofnature57]

28. He and the movie were great .

[840high]

31. Yes.

[pnwmom]

9. It's no accident that Snowden ended up in Russia. I'm sure that was Russia's plan all along.

And Greenwald helped it along.

[elias49]

21. Haha! Pretzels. Everywhere pretzels.

[Marr]

10. What's funny is that you seem to think it's scandalous to oppose gov'ts censoring the media.

[grasswire]

20. yes, especially funny in a weird way!

Pretzel.

[JonLP24]

11. The Guardian is critical of the UK Media Regulators

They probably have the best overall reporting regarding this & they're correct as the BBC is very noticeable biased when it comes to reporting over this issue.

Biased broadcasting corporation

The recent furore about the BBC's coverage of the war in Iraq has generated rather more heat than light. But behind the government's attack on the BBC lies the serious accusation that the corporation's coverage of the conflict was anti-war. This claim goes much further than the much publicised attack on Andrew Gilligan - the BBC's critics in the government have clearly implied that Gilligan's stories are part of a more systematic, institutional bias.

So, is it true? The answer has little to do with the work of individual reporters - we know from previous research that people are influenced by the general weight of TV coverage rather than by particular reports. For this reason, we have conducted a more comprehensive survey of the way the four main UK broadcasters - the BBC, ITN, Channel 4 and Sky - covered the war. After careful analysis of all the main evening news bulletins during the war, we have been able to build up a fairly clear picture of the coverage on the different channels.

Matthew d'Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph described how "in the eyes of exasperated Blairites - the BBC whinged and whined, and did its best to sabotage the war effort". But the pattern that emerges from our study is very different. For example, we asked which of the four channels was most likely to use the British government as a source. The answer, it turns out, is the BBC - where the proportion of government sources was twice that of ITN and Channel 4 News. The BBC was also a little more likely to use British military sources in its coverage than the other three channels.

When it comes to reporting the other side, on the other hand, the BBC was much more cautious. Sky and Channel 4 were both much more likely than the BBC to quote official Iraqi sources. The BBC was also less likely than the other three channels to use independent sources like the Red Cross - many of whom were critical of the war effort (Channel 4 used such sources three times more often than the BBC, Sky twice as often).

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/jul/04/comment

So I'm not crazy in my noticing the bias of the BBC.

[grasswire]

19. what I take from this is that BBC and our MSM...

....are compromised and in the pocket of government. How can Brits and Americans complain about RT when their own "news vendors" are corrupted?

[JonLP24]

22. This story won a Pullitzer

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand



To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There are several parts to this reporting than just the article. Very impressive overall but none of it was shocking given how bad the cable news media was. C-Span & The Daily Show were the only places I could get accurate war coverage (I didn't watch a lot of PBS back then)

[Blue_Tires]

35. The guardian also reported this:

I don't recall any Greenwald outrage over these stories...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/aug/17/radio.russia
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/05/bbc-world-service-website-siberia-artem-loskutov

[Luminous Animal]

15. That was a good article. Thanks for the link

to the link.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/uk-media-regulator-threatens-rt-bias-airing-anti-western-views/

[Blue_Tires]

36. If by "good" you mean "shamelessly hypocritical and slanted"

you're welcome...

(For the record, I don't post direct links to fraud news outlets)

[uponit7771]

17. FUCKIN WOW!!!!!

[elias49]

23. Imagine finding posts on TWITTER that are anti-Russia.

TWITTER! Come on.
Am I to be impressed? My understanding expanded?
Fail.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. I see this didn't get the response you expected

That's largely due to the fact that there was no substance to your post. Just as I did the last time around, I'd ask you to respond to what Greenwald wrote. I'd ask you to specify what he wrote that you take exception to. If you want to talk in some detail, we can do that. But if you just want to hit and run as you've done with a few Greenwald-related OP's, please realize that you started from a weak and difficult-to-defend position, and that's why you're seeing the pushback. Rational people are looking around wondering what Greenwald said that was so out of place. It's hard for them to understand that sometimes motive comes from nothing more than hatred. Thanks.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. + 1000 !!!!

[orpupilofnature57]

26. Are you crazy? Glen Greenwald and Amy Goodman aren't MSM

So I guess that could be characterized as Shilling for the inconvenient truth, unless your more comfortable with' Misanthropic Sycophant Monsters ' .

[Cooley Hurd]

38. Well said, my friend!

[orpupilofnature57]

39. My Brother !!!

[99Forever]

29. Oh noez!

[truebluegreen]

30. Haven't you got any other hobby horses to ride? nt

[Luminous Animal]

32. Well, no he doesn't. And you've the intellectual capacity of a navy pea bean to support

your assertion.

[L0oniX]

33. As a Putin luv'r I approve of RT ...especially when Tom Hartman is shilling for Putin.

[Blue_Tires]

34. kick

[orpupilofnature57]

37. Not to many Recs, hah ?