Russia Today reliably chooses to tell only half the story about the DNC e-mails

[DetlefK]

https://www.rt.com/usa/352934-trump-sanders-wikileaks-dnc/

Wikileaks this, Wikileaks that, DNC bad, poor Bernie, Trump was right...

But why doesn't the article mention what happened before Wikileaks got their hands on the e-mails?
Who gave those e-mails to Wikileaks?
And as this is an article about e-mails of the DNC, why doesn't the article mention that the DNC was hacked a few months ago?

It's almost as if Russia Today cherrypicks what to mention and what not to mention.



The comment-section is a combination of "crooked Hillary" and "Trump 2016".
Which begs the question: What kind of red-blooded, super-patriotic, all-american Trump-voter reads and comments on Russia Today???

[meow2u3]

1. What do you expect from Putin TV?

The whole truth? Pull-eeeeze! We can't have that!

[geek tragedy]

2. Putin TV is pulling for Trump.

Hopefully the people dumb enough to trust what they see on Putin TV aren't so stupid as to vote for Trump.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Isn't that kind of like blaming Deep Throat and the Washington Post for Watergate?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. It's the only way RT could ever be described as reliable. nt

[DetlefK]

5. Lie-by-omission is standard for Russia Today:

When russian and british hooligans clashed in France during the EM2016: There were instances where the Russians were the aggressors and there were instances where the british were the aggressors. But mostly Russians.

RT reported about this. It covered several incidents in one big article.
Whenever the British were the aggressors, it was "british fans attacking russian fans".
Whenever the Russians were the aggressors, it was "fans attacking british fans".

Throughout the whole article, RT carefully avoided associating russian hooligans with beating up people, even when they were clearly the aggressors and had beaten people bloody.