Should Russia Today be allowed as a legtimate News Source on ATS?

rigel4
I ask this question seriously.. because Fox reporting is corporate funded
propaganda.

Their (What are grudgingly called ) news items are fabricated versions
of events that the Murdoch family/zionists wish to spread to the Western World .

Gullible types in the West use these as news items and links.. thusly
helping propagate the Murdoch/zionist lies.

I am asking the board and members if links to Fox should be banned in the same way as God Like Productions are.

Both sources are equally false.

You made a few spelling errors, but I have fixed them for you.

reply to post by rigel4


Since the OP brought up fabrication of news, should any American news source be allowed then?

reply to post by rigel4

I ask this question seriously.. because RT's reporting is state funded propaganda.

Based on that logic, then we might as well ban ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CTV, CBC, CBS, Fox, PressTV, Associated Press, BBC, Al Jazeera...

ALL mainstream news outlets are state/corporate funded biased propaganda.


Or are you expecting ATS to become a nanny site that needs to babysit everyone and everything and all member posted content because nobody is capable of thinking for themselves and picking through the BS in order to find the truths hidden within ?

There's this interesting little notion called "Using that thing between your ears"... it's an expected common practice of anyone who's reached adulthood.

Stop expecting ATS to do the nannying for you.

OK I hate RT

I just hate it, anyone with half a brain can spot right away that its just a big Russian anti-western propaganda machine, it is the modern equivalent of picking up a copy of USSR in Construction and believing every word in it.

What is also true is that many on ATS are very anti-Western government, most dispose the American government for instance and as a anti-western news source its just going to chuck out as much anti-American propaganda it can. This just so happens to be a view that many on ATS just love, and they love it even more that a "reputable" (LOL) mainstream news outlet is also agreeing with them that Obama is from Kenya, that they are "trying to take our guns" and that "9/11 was a inside job".

But for anyone else, like i say, who is not super paranoid and living in a strange fantasy world where Hollywood movies become realist, its quite obvious that RT is as reliable as say, the North Korean State media, PressTV, Infowars, Beforeitsnews and the man down the chip shop who swears he is elvis.

But the question is, should ATS still allow RT as a source.

I would say yes, we should let members use RT if they want to, I am all for free press and freedom of speech I would hate for ATS to ban even more sites it would really be a slippery roads.

I know that RT is utter rubbish, most of the people who claim it is reliable also deep down know that what they are really reading is Russian anti-western propaganda but it is rubbish that fits in with there "everything is a conspiracy theory" view of the world so they chose to ignore that.

I know RT is rubbish, lost of other members know its rubbish, if ATS were to "ban" RT that would not make any difference to this simple fact. Furthermore I dont need ATS to "ban" a website for me to know its full or junk, i knew beforeitsnews was full of rubbish before ATS banned it.

reply to post by rigel4


It should be used. If people can refference fox or abc on here then there should be no problem. It is MSM, RT Is a pretty good station, the obviously do more research then american news stations.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

It's not a news sources, and never should be considered so by anyone.

Although it is biased and agenda driven just like EVERY OTHER news outlet, it most certainly should be considered a source of news, and a rather decent one at that. There have been many times that RT has reported on things way before other MSM outlets have. Just because you are biased against them it does not mean your opinion is fact.

I would like to know what your definition of a news source is...

I think RT is the Russian worlds equivalent of FOX, so completely unreliable.

So I think it should be banned as a source, unquestionably, I just think this would be difficult because you'd have to then ban FOX, the Daily Mail, and other extremist media outlets.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


My definition of a news source ? Well that depends doesn't it!

Any type of information coming from any source could be loosely
acknowledged as a news source.

For instance "Water cooler chat" is a news source.

We are both talking about main stream commercial sources here I hope!

All news channels and mass media (I've already went over this) Yawn..
have an editorial Bias to them, We as the news consumer either agree with this bias
or we don't (irrelevant anyway).
We all no that FOX is the American pinnacle of conservative spin.. the others in order below FOX is
basically (insert your list here).

My most listened to News source is Al Jazeera (I personaly find them the least biased) of any of the MSM.
That is my opinion.

RT Is a blatant Propaganda machine for the Kremlin.. and that's the difference.
Some of you say that RT interview people in the street and that gives them credibility, but who are these people?
are they just other employees of RT.. I think so usually.
They never seem genuine to me.

Look with the best will in the world here.. Your all welcome to defend RT.. But I can see straight through them.

My original point was to ask if as a news source it should be taken seriously enough to be allowed to link in to forums
as proof of what the op or poster is saying. I still think RT should not be allowed or at least taken seriously..

However I believe i have opened up a debate that questions the authenticity of Russia Today and that for me has made the
thread worthwhile.

If i have made noob members realize that RT is not what it seems then i have fulfilled my purpose.

SkepticOverlord

rigel4
I ask this question seriously.. because RT's reporting is state funded
propaganda.

I've always been against RT as being significantly worse than Fox News. It's not a news sources, and never should be considered so by anyone.

Thank you ! Your opinion is always valued.

it has been some time since I posted anything. Let's see if I can still do it.
Perhaps I have been mistaken, but I was under the assumption that ATSers were at least reasonably intelligent. If we generally are, then any of us ought to be able to think for ourselves. If somebody posts something factually incorrect, or uses a biased source, I have noticed that there is generally not a shortage of others posting objections and or corrections. Personally, I do not like CENSORSHIP for any reason. I know some "sources" are frowned upon if not outright banned here on ATS. I'd prefer to see NO more Banning of any source.
Perhaps I am just older than most of you since I graduated high School in 1970, but I learned in the Decade of the 1960's that Media and Governments can Both be untrustworthy. Sometimes the truth can only be found by seeking common parts of divergent news articles from biased sources.
Even a broken Non-Digital clock is correct two times a day, if you are not using a 24 hour clock, that is.

Are there legit news sources (without the drama inducing/reality show/used car sales spin) out there anymore?

Where's the "Walter Cronkites" of the world? Point me to 'em, I'd love to know...

reply to post by rigel4

However I believe i have opened up a debate that questions the authenticity of Russia Today and that for me has made the
thread worthwhile.

If i have made noob members realize that RT is not what it seems then i have fulfilled my purpose.

So basically pushing your opinion on gullible new members hoping to sway them to your way of thinking....... what is the definition of "propaganda" again..?

Flatcoat
reply to post by rigel4

 

However I believe i have opened up a debate that questions the authenticity of Russia Today and that for me has made the
thread worthwhile.

If i have made noob members realize that RT is not what it seems then i have fulfilled my purpose.

So basically pushing your opinion on gullible new members hoping to sway them to your way of thinking....... what is the definition of "propaganda" again..?

Lol..no, I don't think i am doing that..
You're welcome to accuse me though.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Waves Hi..

reply to post by paraphi

As the establishment’s propaganda about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq was getting in full swing, Simpson said he was asked to report bogus information about Serbians selling WMD delivery parts to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The Serbs, however, were actually just selling spare airplane parts, not WMD delivery systems, he explained.

"They were looking for every possible way of getting this weapons-of-mass-destruction story into the news media," Simpson told RT, adding that the Washington Post quickly jumped on the dubious allegations. "So I came under enormous pressure from my bosses to start looking at it the same way, and I couldn't see any evidence for doing that."

While the Times did apologize for some of its most outrageously bogus WMD “reporting” — or war-mongering, as critics have labeled it — the paper "hasn't really changed its policy," Simpson explained

Source

No, we should ban all media who would dare to interview people like Daniel Simpson who quit their job with the Times disgusted with the propaganda that was being peddled as truth to the American public.

No More Free Speech! We should only be allowed to hear what the American government wants us to hear!

reply to post by LadySkadi


Anyone with any integrity has been quitting their jobs and there doesn't seem to be anywhere for them to go - not anything close to mainstream anyway - they can have blogs, that's really about it.

Wow...

Really kind of a sad day when we are asking this question. Show me a news source which in not bias in some manner?

I like ATS because it all gets thrown up against the wall and the community makes sense of it...or at least as much sense as one can expect. I really do not want to be a part of something which broad-brushes sources based on, what? Nation of origin?

it would be like shuffling a deck of cards

reply to post by rigel4


In Other Words . . .

as false as

the oligarchy's owned and managed propaganda noise organs like

--CNN
--MSNBC
--CBS
--ABC

ETC?

So . . . would the goal be to remove all the available horrific sources . . . i.e. every known public media organization serving as lying propaganda house organs of the globalist oligarchy

and leave us with . . . uhhhhhh . . . . uhhhh . . . . . leave us with . . . uhhhh . . .

wellllllllll . . . uhhhh . . . [pondering] . . . uhhhh . . . uhhhh . . .

tin cans and strings between the 3 Amigos

as the only allowable sources?