RT Is Literally Russian Propaganda -- Why Does Anybody Take it Seriously?

[DonViejo]

by Jon Levine | 4:06 pm, February 18th, 2017

On television and within the corridors of official Washington, Kremlinology is having a renaissance. But as questions swirl about the extent of President Trump’s relationship to Russia, it’s actually never been easier to take the pulse of Moscow. Americans have access to it on television and online 24 hours a day.

It seems innocuous enough: A small green square with “RT” in black letters. It looks cool, with a sort of edgy counter-culture mystique. It’s slogan — “Question More” — blares from the website’s masthead. Maybe you’ve even seen some articles linked around other sites you read or recognize some of the people on television.

That, of course, is the plan.

RT, however, is not cool. Far from some quirky left-wing media company, it is fully the mouthpiece of the Russian government. Formerly just Russia Today, its outlets and subsidiaries around the world regularly spew 21st century agitprop with the express aim of advancing Russia’s strategic interests.

more
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rt-is-literally-russian-propaganda-why-does-anybody-take-it-seriously/

[Squinch]

1. It provided lots of anti-Hillary stories during the election, which many useful idiots used to

elevate RT and insist that it was a legitimate news source.

When people from both ends of the spectrum are saying, "Yeah! That's a great source!" the stupid tend to believe it.

And now here we are.

[Blue_Tires]

2. Lot of useful idiots on the left who still think Vlad is a swell guy

and that the U.S. is the great satan

[Igel]

5. There used to be more idiots

on the left who thought Putin a good guy.

Just because they've been disabused of the idea that anybody who opposes the US is good doesn't mean they've decided that the US is good. (Although Obama's presidency, for as long as it lasted, was taken to mean "US good." But the US wasn't much different last summer than it was 4 years ago.)

[agincourt]

3. I watch Redacted Tonight

and that's about it

[kimbutgar]

4. Ed Schultz is the most disappointing to me now that he is supporting chump

[Skittles]

6. I never got onboard with Ed

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2017, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

there was just something about him - my instincts were dead on

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. Me too.

[yurbud]

9. He is? Got a link?

[kimbutgar]

12. I read it here a few times

But on the du search google ed Schultz and rt and you can read for yourself .

One night I was watching Ed before the elevtion and heard him attack Hillary and defend chump. Turned it off and never watched him again.

[yurbud]

14. on what issue? I agreed with Trump & disagreed with Hillary on one or two things but ....

that doesn't mean I wanted him to be president over her.

[RussBLib]

7. What? Larry King is now on Putin's side?

I kinda doubt it. Thom Hartmann too? Not likely.

If a hardcore lefty scored a show on FOX, would you not watch it because of the network it aired on?

[yurbud]

11. Ed got dumped from MSNBC because he refused to shut up about TPP. If RT asked to shill some BS...

or shut up about something, I doubt he would be any more willing to play ball.

[yurbud]

10. Like a lot of sources, I take it with a grain of salt and if some info sounds incredible...

compare it with other sources that have a proven track record over time.

The problem is until Trump, our mainstream media was so uncritical of government lies, didn't ask the right questions that got to root causes of problems and conflicts, and just plain didn't cover so many issues that they were practically worthless.

Only profoundly incompetent politicians like Sarah Palin and some of the other brain damaged Teabaggers couldn't hit their softball questions out of the park.

[yurbud]

13. if high profile lefty talkers have to go outside the US to get a TV platform...

Maybe the "center left" party should ask why there isn't room for left wing talk radio or TV here without the censorship or false balance of MSNBC.

There is clearly an appetite for it and there would be more if some American investors got it going and didn't exercise any editorial control so long as the content was factual and the show was popular.

But I think that has been the problem. Those with money who back the Democratic Party are only willing to go so far on some issues regardless of whether the public wants it or not.

Trade issues, what's really driving our foreign policy, and even Israel are just a couple of examples.