Last edited by Mick.w; 16-01-2012 at 02:02.
and all from RT TV and well known reliable sources. You can't go wrong.
(Original post by Aj12)
Great a load of youtube videos.
just the reply I was expecting
Keeping on topic. I am guessing she is a British Citizen. Since, she hasn't apparently committed any war crimes then I don't think really see the problem.
Last edited by Rgman27; 16-01-2012 at 02:13.
the fact that its from the NY times. an american publication could be considered riddled with bias as america is the traditional rival of russia.
personally i dont think american or british media sources are in anyway fit to unhypocritically judge any "supposedly" corrupt media source given their own shady lineage and indeed largely embarrassing recent exposés. rupert Murdoch anyone?
but back to americas bias on russia... lets just take a look at some of the best selling video games recently.
despite the cold war being over they still insist on making russians the baddies in games like the Call of Duty Modern warfare series or Battlefield Bad Company.
nice conditioning there. "its ok to kill them little timmy... they're russian"
as for the article its pretty weak. the fact that the new york times quote them selves as a source is a little desperate.
their only academic actually says russia today is a good thing.
the random russian token at the end of the article is paraphrased and not directly quoted in saying that he believed it to be propaganda. as im sure you know, when you get into paraphrasing you can quite easily misinterpret and put a spin on things that have been said.
and the few things they did directly quote him saying is that western media only portrays the negative things about russia and that its "not all mafia red square and prostitutes"
other things they talk about in it are irrelevant. patronisingly claiming that because a state financed russian media channel has merely attempted to present its self in a serious way with professional media standard backgrounds and cuts and general appearance that this is somehow some sinister attempt at dressing up their lies. then rather immaturely poking at a few technical mistakes they made. like all the other tv channels have had no bloopers or embarrassing moments.
which is very unfair considering at the time of this article being written the channel was only 3 years old. lets compare that to say bbc which has been in operation for almost a century.
they then talk about 2 journalists one who argues with the editor and one who feels unchallenged. welcome to media. like there has never been a reporter in the bbc or guardian that ever was held back by their editor.
i wonder who's great unbias decision it was for the bbc to ONLY cover the rebels side of the story in libya?
i find it funny how the bbc is government financed yet nobody questions its legitimacy.
and as for one of the editors receiving flowers from putin. id be very surprised if none of the members of british government tried sweetening up their most widely projected media sources.
having said all of this. even if you believe its giving off bias presentation of russia, would it really be fair to say that they then give bias cover of absolutely everything?
even then this entire article is just full of speculation and ZERO fact.
however thats all just for arguments sake.
in my own personal opinion i think all media is bias. i dont find it hard to imagine that RT would give bias info on themselves to counter the massive tsunami of demonisation and negativity from america. only problem for america is russia is a little too close to europe and people can tell its bull****. when a picture is painted of russia being some scum hole and then people go to moscow and see how amazing it is all of a sudden all that propaganda is exposed as what it is... propaganda. more distant countries like iran, china and korea where no real european or white audiences travel to in large numbers are fair game and MUCH easier targets for being demonised and labelled as evil.
however i would much rather believe coverage of military aggression and bullying on a global scale at the hands of European or North American countries from RT than merely believing the standardised propaganda from the same nations that are currently bombing people and will therefore naturally spread propaganda that leads people to think it is justifiable violence.
since iraq i think the british public has pretty much given up on believing that they can tell their government not to go around bombing the **** out of people they want commodities from.
Last edited by Mick.w; 25-01-2012 at 11:32.