Ukraine

[Mikey77]

Have a watch of this and see if you still stand by that assessment

Yes I do. Amanda Paul of the European Policy Centre offers an alternative view, speaks up on behalf of the protestors in Kiev, and criticises the Pro Moscow administration that was overthrown.

Contrast that with, for example, BBC coverage of the Russia - Georgia war where you had Saakashvilli on the BBC saying whatever he wanted, and not much of any opinion to the contrary. I agree RT has an editorial line, but the BBC editorial line is just as bad, biased, and in my experience permeates throughout their programming.

Thanks for the clip.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yes I do. Amanda Paul of the European Policy Centre offers an alternative view, speaks up on behalf of the protestors in Kiev, and criticises the Pro Moscow administration that was overthrown.

Contrast that with, for example, BBC coverage of the Russia - Georgia war where you had Saakashvilli on the BBC saying whatever he wanted, and not much of any opinion to the contrary. I agree RT has an editorial line, but the BBC editorial line is just as bad, biased, and in my experience permeates throughout their programming.

Thanks for the clip.

She's pathetically bad at it though, and everything she says is rebutted. The host has an obvious bias as well. I'd say presenting the illusion of real debate - by allowing someone utterly useless and clueless to come on from the other side - is a far more effective propaganda strategy than only allowing one 'side'.

I don't think there's much to pick between them on this topic to be honest and for most news the BBC is far more reliable (their unwillingness to give conspiracy theorists and antisemites and uncritical platform puts them ahead IMO)

 

[Mikey77]

She's pathetically bad at it though, and everything she says is rebutted. The host has an obvious bias as well. I'd say presenting the illusion of real debate - by allowing someone utterly useless and clueless to come on from the other side - is a far more effective propaganda strategy than only allowing one 'side'.

I don't think there's much to pick between them on this topic to be honest and for most news the BBC is far more reliable (their unwillingness to give conspiracy theorists and antisemites and uncritical platform puts them ahead IMO)

You do your own phrase an injustice when you say "far more reliable". Really? I watched Russia - Georgia war coverage and listened to propaganda from a man who was later found to have ordered attacks on civilian areas. Is that reliable?

BBC hosts also have a bias (including Andrew 'dipstick' Neil). I agree with your first point but BBC newsnight has used the tactic of getting opposing opinions from Russians who can barely be understood in English. It is effective - I agree.

 

[Eastern-Odyssey]

The BBC is forced by its range to be a battle of opinions in its news reporting - an ongoing class war (one witin limited windows and that we never win). RT isn't. It's people selected for their skill at tailoring news to fit the states agenda. It's news reporting fits one profile and one profile only. That is supported - rather than challenged - by their opinion pieces. David Dimbleby openly saying jews brought the holocaust on themselves and may bring another - BBC = out.

RT is what is, an international news channel run by the Russian government just like CCTV, VOA, Al Jazeera, the BBC etc. Like all government run international news channels their objective is projecting their countries foreign policy, which for RT means a Eurasionist and anti-American/EU/Israeli focus which ends up on focus on a small geographical region, of first world liberal leaning countries. People tend to hate RT not because their quality of reporting is different to any other international news channel, but because they detest what they see as a barrage of constant anti-Western propaganda.
On the other hand the BBC is very much like VOA and other US government affiliated media organizations, they handed the power out to an external organization outside the central control of government. For this reason you tend to get the usual unbiased reporting on domestic issues, but when it comes to international news it still always fits the official line of Whitehall. However, I think it's fair to say RT's Russian language news is a little less propaganda orientated that their English language news, just like BBC's foreign service is a little more propaganda orientated than their English service.
I don't know much about the BBC international service, but I've watched some of RFA and VOA's and read some articles on Radio Liberty and their horrendous for their propaganda. During last years Cambodian elections I was reading some of the independent opposition blog's that live of news from RFA and VOA and lets say they remind of the mix of libraterians and Nazi's that comment on RT's Youtube.

 

[butchersapron]

I hate RT because it's shit. Anyone who doesn't think that it's shit after this, well, i'll never trust anything out of your mouth ever again.

 

[frogwoman]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/eastern-ukraine-referendum-donetsk-luhansk

But Andrei, a philosophy student who did not want to give his surname, said: "I haven't voted and nor have any of my friends. It's a referendum for idiots, organised by idiots. Of course I don't want to be part of their absurd republic or join Russia. But having said that, I don't like the new Kiev government either. Basically, we're screwed."

Some said that voting yes would improve their material position. Andriy Penishenko, 41, said he feared that staying within Ukraine would mean he would lose his job at a locomotive plant.

"If Kiev drags us into the EU or Nato, then they will come and close our plant. Our plant sells its products to Russia and feeds half of the city," he said.

 

[Eastern-Odyssey]

I hate RT because it's shit. Anyone who doesn't think that it's shit after this, well, i'll never trust anything out of your mouth ever again.

You should never trust any news, it's impossible for any media source not to fit to some degree into the Herman/Chomsky's propaganda model. The task is on you as the viewer to be sceptical of reports and research the story yourself otherwise your views will just be shaped by you preferred propaganda source.

P.S don't think any Western media source has not been biased on Ukraine, if anything they have been worse than RT. Like come on most of them refused to mention far right elements in Maiden until a day, or two before coup, or after the coup. They've basically ignored the violence in Odessa to one headline and painted it along the official government line and worse of all not one channel has ever mentioned these "black men" which I would assume be important information that a paramilitary group that's part of Right Sector is currently carrying out military operations in the East.

 

[Mikey77]

Where are the Klitschkos in all of this? The two buffoons.

 

[butchersapron]

Stop telling me the BBC is biased, I'm not a fucking idiot. I've probably been pointing it out just as long if not longer than you. But, i repeat, I hate RT because it's shit. Anyone who doesn't think that it's shit after this, well, i'll never trust anything out of your mouth ever again.

 

[Mikey77]

You should never trust any news, it's impossible for any media source not to fit to some degree into the Herman/Chomsky's propaganda model. The task is on you as the viewer to be sceptical of reports and research the story yourself otherwise your views will just be shaped by you preferred propaganda source.

People tend to like the BBC because it fits their agenda in its bias. The same reason many Guardian or Mail readers will think their paper is great. I agree Chomsky makes a great point. There is always an editorial process and selection that results in biased journalists.

 

[Eastern-Odyssey]

Where are the Klitschkos in all of this? The two buffoons.

Probably buggered of back to his mansion in Germany, a long long way away from the coming civil war.

 

[butchersapron]

People tend to like the BBC because it fits their agenda in its bias. The same reason many Guardian or Mail readers will think their paper is great. I agree Chomsky makes a great point. There is always an editorial process and selection that results in biased journalists.

Who knew? OMG! The curtains fall.

That wasn't chomskys point anyway - it was about filters that shape what is seen as or acceptable as news - not biased journalists. That was almost his whole point in fact.

 

[butchersapron]

Probably buggered of back to his mansion in Germany, a long long way away from the coming civil war.

Vitali is about to take Kiev as mayor.

 

[SpineyNorman]

You do your own phrase an injustice when you say "far more reliable". Really? I watched Russia - Georgia war coverage and listened to propaganda from a man who was later found to have ordered attacks on civilian areas. Is that reliable?

BBC hosts also have a bias (including Andrew 'dipstick' Neil). I agree with your first point but BBC newsnight has used the tactic of getting opposing opinions from Russians who can barely be understood in English. It is effective - I agree.

Not pretending there's nothing wrong with the BBC. But the absence of complete and utter woofbark donkey mentalists given an uncritical platform to espouse their favoured antisemitic conspiracy theories is most certainly an advantage the BBC enjoys over RT.

 

[DairyQueen]

Not pretending there's nothing wrong with the BBC. But the absence of complete and utter woofbark donkey mentalists given an uncritical platform to esouse their favoured antisemitic conspiracy theories is most certainly an advantage the BBC enjoys over RT.

Ah yes, the prestigious halls of the BBC would never resort to including any old riff-raff. That's why David Starkey, James Delingpole, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Paul Dacre, Kelvin MacKenzie, Piers Morgan, and an assortment of loony MPs are regularly given platforms by the prestigious halls of the BBC to participate in the public debate as informed people. None of them are clearly mentally disturbed with lunatic views on just about everything (global warming, war, drug policy, race relations).

 

[butchersapron]

Ah yes, the prestigious halls of the BBC would never resort to including any old riff-raff. That's why David Starkey, James Delingpole, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Paul Dacre, Kelvin MacKenzie, Piers Morgan, and an assortment of loony MPs are regularly given platforms by the prestigious halls of the BBC to participate in the public debate as informed people. None of them are clearly mentally disturbed with lunatic views on just about everything (global warming, war, drug policy, race relations).

If you play tit for tat the BBC will destroy RT. NO question. If you say that you trust RT after this - regardless of the bbc - then there is no hope for you. I don't think that you're saying this though are you?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Ah yes, the prestigious halls of the BBC would never resort to including any old riff-raff. That's why David Starkey, James Delingpole, Peter Hitchens, Melanie Phillips, Paul Dacre, Kelvin MacKenzie, Piers Morgan, and an assortment of loony MPs are regularly given platforms by the prestigious halls of the BBC to participate in the public debate as informed people. None of them are clearly mentally disturbed with lunatic views on just about everything (global warming, war, drug policy, race relations).

Yeah, just the same. For fuck's sake

 

[DairyQueen]

If you play tit for tat the BBC will destroy RT. NO question. If you say that you trust RT after this - regardless of the bbc - then there is no hope for you. I don't think that you're saying this though are you?

I don't trust RT any less after this (or any less than the BBC). RT gives a Russian perspective on the Ukraine situation. That is interesting. I agree it is shit, but that, to me, is just a style thing (they copied an American news agency),

 

[butchersapron]

I don't trust RT any less after this (or any less than the BBC). RT gives a Russian perspective on the Ukraine situation. That is interesting. I agree it is shit, but that, to me, is just a style thing (they copied an American news agency),

It's a content thing - not a style thing. Now you've seen it in battle it hasn't lessened your opinion of it? Was it about as low as possible to judge a news service before?

 

[DairyQueen]

I watched it during the South Ossetia War and the coverage was similar. You tended to get reports of Russian attacks and victories before the West (a few were wrong but withdrawn). This is dragging on a bit longer, and the west are giving MUCH more airtime to the Ukrainian cause than we did the Georgian one, although RT had 24/7 coverage.

 

[J Ed]

It depends on the issue, doesn't it? The BBC is consistently better, though in terms of funding and history and experience we aren't comparing like with like. Still, when it comes to Ukraine, or some other international reporting, the bias doesn't seem too dissimilar.

 

[butchersapron]

Can i just make clear once more that i am not comparing them, i am saying that anyone who, after this now trusts RT is someone i will never take seriously ever again.

 

[Eastern-Odyssey]

It's a content thing - not a style thing. Now you've seen it in battle it hasn't lessened your opinion of it? Was it about as low as possible to judge a news service before?

You said previously:

Stop telling me the BBC is biased, I'm not a fucking idiot. I've probably been pointing it out just as long if not longer than you. But, i repeat, I hate RT because it's shit. Anyone who doesn't think that it's shit after this, well, i'll never trust anything out of your mouth ever again.

I think most people on here are in agreeance that most mainstream news organization can be just as biased as each other, just from a different perspective depending on their nations foreign policy. However, you keep mentioning again and again that your views of RT have declined following their reporting on Ukraine. I think it's on you to point out these incidences which have affected your views, because so far from my perspective all mainstream media sources have been just as biased as each other playing a tit-for-tat propaganda campaign.

 

[butchersapron]

You said previously:



I think most people on here are in agreeance that most mainstream news organization can be just as biased as each other, just from a different perspective depending on their nations foreign policy. However, you keep mentioning again and again that your views of RT have declined following their reporting on Ukraine. I think it's on you to point out these incidences which have affected your views, because so far from my perspective all mainstream media sources have been just as biased as each other playing a tit-for-tat propaganda campaign.

My view of RT hasn't declined in the slightest. I'm inviting people to say they trust RT now today. But obv either no one does or they won't say that they do.

 

[Mikey77]

That wasn't chomskys point anyway

It was. The man makes more than one point and did indeed make the point I attributed to him.

But the absence of complete and utter woofbark donkey mentalists given an uncritical platform to espouse their favoured antisemitic conspiracy theories is most certainly an advantage the BBC enjoys over RT.

Strange that. I watched a BBC journalist on Youtube interviewing a young nazi in Kiev who gave a conspiracy theory involving jews and russians. And is that guy not an "utter woofbark":

 

[Mikey77]

My view of RT hasn't declined in the slightest. I'm inviting people to say they trust RT now today. But obv either no one does or they won't say that they do.

Why are you inviting this, and who expressed that opinion? I don't trust any media outlet. I just think some are more obvious in their agenda across their programmes than others, and I believe the BBC is worse than RT.

 

[butchersapron]

It was. The man makes more than one point and did indeed make the point I attributed to him

No it wasn't. It was that structural filters produce filtered news not biased journalists. That even 'unbiased' journalist' get filtered. Go back and have a proper read.

 

[butchersapron]

Why are you inviting this, and who expressed that opinion? I don't trust any media outlet. I just think some are more obvious in their agenda across their programmes than others, and I believe the BBC is worse than RT.

Nothing worse than someone whose only read the last few pages of a thread barging in.

 

[Mikey77]

No it wasn't. It was that structural filters produce filtered news not biased journalists. That even 'unbiased' journalist' get filtered. Go back and have a proper read.

Yawn. Do you own the thread? I heard Chomsky make the point on Youtube. I don't care where you seen it written. I certainly don't remember him calling reporters who end up being selected in this way "unbiased" in the interview I seen.

You seem to think there is only one point that Chomsky makes, and only one source for that point, and we have all read it from the same source earlier in this thread. Go to bed and get some sleep you pugnacious person.

 

[butchersapron]

Yawn. Do you own the thread? I heard Chomsky make the point on Youtube. I don't care where you seen it written. I certainly don't remember him calling reporters who end up being selected in this way "unbiased" in the interview I seen.

You seem to think there is only one point that Chomsky makes, and only one source for that point, and we have all read it from the same source earlier in this thread. Go to bed and get some sleep you pugnacious person.

No you didn't. Chomsky makes one point about media filters over and over. It's the one that i just repeated - and he makes it against yours.