Is RT a state run russian propaganda outlet?

[boston bean]

The evidence points to yes, imho...

then why are politicians participating or appearing on the station?

Also, why are we to believe anything that comes from a left wing media personality who is paid and supported by such an outfit?

[Wounded Bear]

1. Magic 8 Ball says...

[hrmjustin]

2. Yes and anyone on the left who gives them credibility should be ashamed of themselves.

[Iggo]

8. Left or right. Just anyone.

[Lee-Lee]

3. Of course it is

You don't think any form of actual free presss exists in Russia do you?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. This American Life had an excellent podcast episode about Russia

Pretty much everything is stage-managed, the ultimate "reality show". According to the podcast, Putin and his associates literally created the opposition parties in the country to project the illusion of democracy.

[bettyellen]

27. Just like Trump claiming relations with Russia couldn't be worse- of course he's

Setting himself up to "fix them".

[2naSalit]

37. +1

[Ninsianna]

4. Isn't this a settled question?

It has always been known, but oddly enough of all the candidates pushed by RT only Trump was ever criticized for it.

If you look at the content of these so called left wing people on RT, you find some rather right wing, pro Putin stuff.

Just look at the twitter timelines, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Lee Camp etc. speaks volumes.

[Iggo]

9. I thought so. (n/t)

[DFW]

5. Funnily enough, I don't think that was the original intention

I think in the early days, it was just meant as a competing media outlet like Al Jazeera America. But now that Putin has been feeling his oats in every other area in which he has stuck his dirty hands, from oil to imperialistic designs on recapturing the old Soviet Empire bit by bit, I think he just thought to himself, "hey this worked for Rupert Murdoch and the Republicans, why shouldn't I grab this for myself?"

[bettyellen]

28. He set it up to have credibility in the west -so when he started using it, it wasn't tainted ...

I thought it became pretty obvious last year, but I knew many people who'd been using it as a source for some time by then. He hired lefty journalists to use them to establish credibility- but they always controlled it. It's not like he took it over later.

[stevenleser]

62. I think Putin intentionally made it less biased initially.

A number of thing coincided with the period right before the invasion of Crimea.

#1 - A massive buildup of the Russian armed forces in number and in technological advancements many of which were unveiled by troops participating in the invasion. For instance, the troops had a new body armor designed to withstand standard NATO rounds and at the same time were using guns and rounds designed to penetrate standard NATO body armor.

#2 - RT became much more stridently anti-American and Anti-Europe

#3 - The anti-gay law was passed in Russia.

These things all happened in the the 6-12 months preceding the invasion of Crimea. I don't think it's an accident. I think Putin planned all of that to include the timing.

[MedusaX]

6. Theoretically, It should not matter ...

if RT is a Russian State Controlled Propaganda Station, so be it.

When non-Russian Federation politicians appear on RT the significance & appropriateness is based on
THE CONTENT of their MESSAGE/ WHAT they SAY ...

Why would anyone believe without question what any media personality says about anything??

Technology gives us access to a world of Media Sources and various other information resources....

It is our job to gather & review the information, research the sources,
verify assertions made as factual evidence,
analyze and compare viewpoints,
and then ultimately decide for ourselves
how to interpret the information and what significance it holds.

[Iggo]

11. So yes, then.

[bettyellen]

30. Nope- it's just as often that the lies are of omission- what news they refuse to tell

Suxh as the case with Fox in America too. It's framing and it's the omission of important information that counters the bullshit they sling. Yeah, people should be critical, but- it is state sanctioned propaganda.

[mwooldri]

7. Was Radio Moscow a propaganda outfit for the USSR?

RT is just today's Radio Moscow IMO.

[PoliticAverse]

21. Indeed Radio Moscow was. However I don't recall them inviting American politicians on...

to give their views on what was being said.

If they had should the American politicians have appeared to present an opposing view?

[PoliticAverse]

12. Why did President Obama do multiple interviews with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News? n/t

[emulatorloo]

13. Because Fox is not state-run by Russia and Obama wanted to reach out to Fox Viewers.

who vote in our elections.

This is about the lamest apology for RT I've seen yet.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Which network do you think is more damaging to the US, RT or Fox News? n/t

[emulatorloo]

16. More "whataboutisms" as a distraction.

This isn't a thread about Fox.

[boston bean]

17. Russia did a hell of a job in 2016. Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012... even though fox news

existed.

[Foamfollower]

18. RT, by leaps and bounds

RT is dangerous to the very fabric of Democracy.

Fox is just bullshit.

[SalviaBlue]

29. I disagree.

Fox is dangerous to the very fabric of Democracy... It is everywhere.

RT is just bullshit... and easily ignored.

[PoliticAverse]

40. And its viewing audience is probably a very small fraction of Fox's. n/t

[SalviaBlue]

42. Exactly!

[Foamfollower]

49. Then you and I will never agree on this.

RT is threatening democracy in every democratic nation on the planet.

Fox blows smoke in the US.

Major difference.

[stevenleser]

63. That's an interesting point. True story...

I went on Safari in Kenya back in 2011. I had bee a semi frequent guest on RT the 2 years prior.

I was recognized in Kenya several times from RT, not Fox News.

RTs global reach shouldn't be underestimated.

[Chevy]

55. But it is not being ignored is it?

In fact it has interesting bed fellows who link and retweet it often.

[Ninsianna]

20. They were both in unison in their anti HRC anti Democratic

Propaganda, so they equally damaged us. Fox by brainwashing the right, and RT doing the same to the "left", they are both still at it. Why the deflection and defense of the propaganda arm of Putin?

[PoliticAverse]

22. Comparing Democratic politicians appearing on Fox with appearing on RT is a defense? Do you consider

Fox News to be a force for good? Why should a Democrat appear to present an opposing view on
one but not the other?

[CreekDog]

24. Stop trolling the thread, this thread is about RT not about Obama or Democrats

Oh but why are you trying so hard to change the subject from RT?

[PoliticAverse]

26. The op specifically asked "why are politicians participating or appearing on the station?"

My question is this. Given that RT and Fox News are both types of propaganda outlets
if Democrats appear on one to present an opposing view why shouldn't they also appear on
the other?

Do you want to discuss the OP's question? Should Democrats appear on both, neither, one or the other?

[Ninsianna]

41. What opposing viewpoint was being presented on RT

while it was wholeheartedly endorsing one candidate and maliciously maligning the other?

My question is what is with the false equivalence?

Russian propaganda and right wing propaganda are two separate beasts, even if they sound very similar.

OP didn't mention Fox, you did.

[Ninsianna]

39. In case you missed it, I equated the two and stated otherwise. There was no opposing view

on RT, they were endorsed by it. Putin"s propaganda network endorsing candidates is a good thing for whom exactly?

Well, one is a tool of a foreign government that is not friendly to our country, the other, for its sins, is still American media, and a way to reach Americans.

Not sure why this is so confusing, or why the need to attack Obama to defend foreign propaganda is so paramount.

[CreekDog]

23. This thread's about whether or not RT is a gov't propaganda outlet. You tried to make it about Obama

I am calling you out on this. Nice try.

[PoliticAverse]

25. The op specifically asked: "then why are politicians participating or appearing on the station?"

It's not about Obama, many Democrats have appeared on Fox News. The question is should
Democrats appear on any "propaganda outlet", be it Fox News or RT? Is it bad to have a Democrat
go into "hostile territory" to expose the viewers to an alternative viewpoint?

[bettyellen]

34. RTs specific strategy was to first obtain "street cred" from the far left and then USE them as tools

To attack the Dem party. I've yet to see anyone admit they were taken in, but I know quite a few who salivated over the Guccifer crap.

[hrmjustin]

33. Because Fox hosted the Superbowl​ and by tradition the hosting network gets a interview

with the president.

[MineralMan]

15. Yes, of course!

Always has been.

[dalton99a]

19. RT is Putin's favorite tool for disinformation in the West

[JesterCS]

31. In as much as CNN is state run propaganda.

Certainly there's a bias at RT though

[bettyellen]

35. "Fake news" - Putin would be proud.

[Leith]

38. Uh... No

RT is owned entirely by the Russian government and it does not show anything that Putin doesn't want shown.

Is CNN owned by the US government? Does it broadcast anything that the US government doesn't want it to show?

Your comparison failed.

[Ninsianna]

43. CNN reports directly to the government?

RT actually does report to Putin. Literal state run propaganda arm.

[Adrahil]

45. daFuq? RT is funded by the Kremlin.

Did you think it was a private endeavor?

[JCanete]

56. CNN is definitely not state run propaganda. It is corporate propaganda, which really has no

investment in keeping America safe or making it better or more democratic, etc. More accurately would be to say, the government is often corporate run policy making and propaganda.

[pnwmom]

65. No, they are NOT comparable. RT is state run and funded, and CNN is a private corporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government.[

[nycbos]

32. Is water wet?

Is the pope catholic?

I was here for awhile before hack.

During the Obama presidency I routinely saw RT posted here as legitimate news. Anyone who question RT wasn't a "real progressive."


I am going to say something that is true but unpopular.

Places like DU contributed to Hillary's loss. Because during the primary many of the folks of supported Sanders just parroted same attacks on Hillary that the far right loved.

[Ninsianna]

44. Concerted effort to intimidate and silence anyone daring to challenge the lies,

Saw it all over the progressive blogs and social media, specially Twitter.

[JCanete]

36. oh lord...probably, totally unlike our own corporately owned stations, which certainly could give

fuck-all about american interests in the face of profit and power grabbing. Thom Hartmann has been a solid liberal voice for decades. Sanders used to (or still does?)go on his show.

hmmm, Sanders + Hartmann = Putin? !!!!@#$%#$@

oh, of course it does.... ... ... ...

You name a pristine "American" news outlet that can be trusted for the news you get, and then I'll say we need to worry about this kind of thing. As it stands, I'll take all of my news with a pillar of salt according to what they are talking about and from where they are reporting, and I'll cross-reference.

I suggest if you don't like what someone is saying, you should definitely make them into russian agents. That solves the problem of any possible cognitive dissonance.

[Adrahil]

46. It's not a matter of "pristine" American news outlets....

It's about the interference of a foreign power in our political affairs. And the complicit behavior of some of our citizenry.

[JCanete]

48. promoting liberal ideas is not complicit. If russia thinks that harms our major democratic party,

that's Putin's business, and he had better be wrong, because if he's not we're fucked anyway. We need those voices to have an outlet, and guess who won't be putting them on....yep our fucking corporations. That doesn't mean Hartmann is doing Russia's bidding or that he is taking talking points from Putin, even if it probably does mean that anything that makes America look bad is something Putin would support.

Anything that makes America look bad is something we need to fucking know about as citizens so that we can force our politicians to correct it. That's how democracy is supposed to work. It requires that we get the information. That's why I think Putin is miscalculating.

[Ninsianna]

47. Not just Hartmann, quite a few others on RT.

His boss is Putin, and arguing about pristine purity and equating corps to the Russian government is well, ... odd to say the least.

We need to worry about this kind of thing, period.

I suggest that just because you like what someone is saying, you not blind yourself to the organization, and its boss. Pretending Russia Today is not a Russian government operation based on the flavor of propaganda they are churning out is the source of the cognitive dissonance.

[JCanete]

50. I don't, and said so in my post. I suggest that you take that into account when you craft your

retorts. Russia isn't churning out Hartmann. Hartman isn't a product of Russia. If I were to listen to him and got the impression that he was avoiding negative things about Russia or Putin, or worse, promoting positive nonsense about him, I would first, be surprised, but second, absolutely not trust him on the subject of russia....but as an alternative news outlet covering things our media wont, he would still be a valuable place to get certain information about what is going on here. That doesn't mean he would be my last stop, or that I wouldn't question the content or the spin, but again, our corporations have been selling us out for decades, so I don't know why you think that is somehow okay, or not as bad.

[SalviaBlue]

53. Putin is not Hartmann's boss.

Nice try though.

[Ninsianna]

60. Sure, keep denying the fact that Hartmann is deeply involved with the Russian propaganda

unit, which sends in fill in hosts, controls production etc. That's not at all working for the man who runs RT at all.

Enjoying the flavor of the propaganda does not make it any less what it is, nor does it change its origin.

[SalviaBlue]

71. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have been listening to Thom Hartmann for 15 years, he is a liberal American who speaks his mind. He has posted on this website, try looking a his posts. Or, here is an idea, try listening to him and using your own critical thinking skills to judge him. Your attack on him indicates to me that you are being influenced by propaganda.

[pnwmom]

67. You are right, Ninsianna. It is very odd to see people here who are pushing the RT line. n/t

[pnwmom]

66. Thom Hartmann is allowing himself to be used by Russian government television.

He should find other ways of making money.

[JCanete]

70. then Michael Moore was alllowing himself to be used by big movie studios, and Rachel Maddow

is allowing herself to be used by a big mega-corporation who's interest is not us, etc. etc. I already explained why I think Putin or russia might like voices like Thom's, but far more importantly, why democracy needs voices like that. That's why I say that if Russia thinks sewing discord is harmful to us, it does not understand that access to information about what is going on in our country is paramount to our ability to self-govern. Without it, we're in far worse shape.

weren't you just talking about how shitty the MSM has been in another thread, cuz that is on point. corporate news media has an interest in protecting corporate interests, and that is all. Some of the voices may be democratic or republican, and individually, they may be bastions of progressive principles, but if they are promoting the whole team-sports political game, that's what corporations like. Anything outside of that is where they get uncomfortable.

[pnwmom]

72. And neither of them are allowing themselves to be used by our biggest political adversary nt

[JCanete]

73. you didn't address why this is better, not worse for democracy. More information better. Different

information ignored by corporate media for whatever reasons, sadly not because its fake news either, = better

[NurseJackie]

51. Absolutely. Yes! Of course it is.

Anyone who appears on that outlet is deserving of contempt.

Also, why are we to believe anything that comes from a left wing media personality who is paid and supported by such an outfit?

We shouldn't! I question the judgement and ethics of anyone who chooses to become a supporter (or pawn) of a Russian propaganda outlet.

[Chevy]

52. The defense of RT in this thread

and comparisons to CNN in this thread is most telling..

[dalton99a]

54. +1

[SunSeeker]

57. Yep. nt

[JI7]

58. yup. cnn and fix fox suck but RT is Putin controlled

[JCanete]

74. to just say they suck is really really understating the harm they are causing and the agenda behind

it. To pretend Putin delivered Trump to the White House after all the work Fox News did and CNN did to make this happen, is laughable. Putin is a thug and a monster. He's just not all powerful. Did he try? Yes. Does he like sewing dissent by putting on liberal voices that challenge America's status quo? Almost certainly, but it is good for democracy when those voices get an outlet, and he clearly doesn't understand that.

It is our own corporations selling us out undemocratically, misinforming us to the point where Clinton's emails is the only thing we hear about for 2 weeks before the election, and no vetting of trump gets done at all for his entire primary campaign...not to mention all that free sweet coverage. You think maybe, the corporations like it when the GOP, even GOP crazies with agendas as unAmerican as Trump's, get into the white house? I do.

[etherealtruth]

69. It certainly is! n/t

[roamer65]

59. Yup, run by the GRU.

Russian Intel all the way.

[Kimchijeon]

61. Just like CNN or MSNBC

Being mouthpieces for their corporate masters... So consider the source , mind the "divide and conquer " tactics please , there are bigger fish to fry.

[stevenleser]

64. No it's not just like, even considering the distinctions you mentioned

The people/person pulling RTs strings are the actual folks implementing policy. They are the actual folks who control the police and military in their country.

That is nothing like MSNBC or CNN

[pnwmom]

68. WRONG. Russia Today is funded and operated by the Russian government.

CNN and MSNBC are both privately owned and operated.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government.