Question ATS More…

If Sorcha Faal and Dale Carnegie had a baby and it was taken away and raised by J. Edgar Hoover and Ray Palmer?

You'd have RT.

Is this really an argument over the veracity of RT?

Do people still really not get what SkepticOverlord was saying. Even after he clarified his statement over and over. The thing is we all already know about the bias and sometimes propaganda the western media displays. We are all already on guard and question what the U.S. media does and says. There are countless threads on here questioning the veracity, of darn near every news story ever reported by the western media. That is pretty much what this site is about in a nutshell. SkepticOverlord is simply saying be on guard with RT like you are on guard with every other news source. People are starting to listen to RT like it is a religion and never wrong just because. That is why SkepticOverlord made his post IMHO.

Having said that. You should of course question everything more regardless.

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
...SkepticOverlord is simply saying be on guard with RT like you are on guard with every other news source. People are starting to listen to RT like it is a religion and never wrong just because. That is why SkepticOverlord made his post IMHO.

Having said that. You should of course question everything more regardless.

Nothing wrong with that. I think the problem comes in calling one "bias" and the other "propaganda." Which of course is true about RT and some long-range goals to foment trouble here. However, it's just as demonstrably true that we are victims of propaganda at home and it's not even really debatable.

For the record: I have never sought out new stories from RT because I do understand what they are. I'll click a link sometimes from here. Is there some good information there? Sure, sometimes. Other times not so much. Much like CNN. Go figure.

originally posted by: Liberal1984
Now: If anyone (yep anyone) can please reveal some examples of where RT has actually lied, then I will begin to Question them More.

RT isn't fooling anyone, join a few dots, and see who is actually behind it:

The same globalists that own the western media...

RT is nothing but controlled opposition 100% financed by the Kremlin budget.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
RT is one of the most successful KGB programs of all time. Can you imagine a foreign news station being more popular in the US than a national one? Clever KGB and your propaganda news channel. ( although the reporting is better than most MSM..which says alot since it's still a bunch of crap overall.) ~Tenth

originally posted by: ausername
RT (English) is the most effective propaganda outlet, and psychological operation the Russians have ever ran. It's so good that some Russians involved don't deny this.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Considering that News Limited (aka News Corp, owner of Fox) is partnered with RT, that could almost be seen as manufacturing dissent.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
RT is a mouthpiece for the Govt of Russia - for which read Tsar-wannabe Putin - and is funded from the russian Federal Budget. they are not allowed to criticise the Government, or report any disaffection within Russia (unless simultaneously condeming the protestors!) or any criticism of Putin. RT has a very anti-western and pro-Russian agenda as such many conspiracy theorists view it as reliable and trustworthy, but not because this is true, but because both have the same agenda. Yes it is quiet ironic that people who believe in all sorts of conspiracies about Western govt's are willing to believe such an obviously biased and self-serving site as RT - thus supporting a conspiracy that does actually exist!

originally posted by: Antonio1
Really? A state owned Russian "News Agency" might have an agenda?! Who would of thought?

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
...SkepticOverlord is simply saying be on guard with RT like you are on guard with every other news source. People are starting to listen to RT like it is a religion and never wrong just because. That is why SkepticOverlord made his post IMHO.

Having said that. You should of course question everything more regardless.

Nothing wrong with that. I think the problem comes in calling one "bias" and the other "propaganda." Which of course is true about RT and some long-range goals to foment trouble here. However, it's just as demonstrably true that we are victims of propaganda at home and it's not even really debatable.

For the record: I have never sought out new stories from RT because I do understand what they are. I'll click a link sometimes from here. Is there some good information there? Sure, sometimes. Other times not so much. Much like CNN. Go figure.

Well this is 2014 every piece of media is carefully constructed to get someones view and bias out there. There is very little reporting of just facts without someones spin on it. It is the world we live in today. Again this is just my honest opinion. I think SkepticOverlord made the distinction of propaganda and bias based on one primarily being funded by and owned by the state and one being primarily funded by and owned by corporations. Now you can argue that said corporations now own the state so it is not bias but propaganda. But I can see SkepticOverlords view and why he chose to word it the way he did.

a reply to: Mikehawk

As the OP stated RT, regardless of their obvious pro-Russia stance in defense of Putin are STILL THE BEST NEWS OUTLET OUT THERE.

RT is a decent news outlet. Of course, they have their bias, lies and propaganda, but I have enjoyed their coverage from time to time on certain events. For example, when the plane went down in the Ukraine, they were only stating the facts as they knew it at the time and were not speculating very much. They were very careful to add caveats to certain info if needed.

The US news outlets were going apes**t trying to place blame on terrorists, Russia, the rebels...etc. It was a complete mess.

I think most of us are intelligent adults and understand that you cannot trust anyone. You have to verify facts yourself and cannot take anyone's word as fact. That includes RT, CNN and the rest.

But I will say that when it comes to propaganda......FoxNews is by far the worst. RT makes you think and question things. Fox makes you angry and outraged. They definitely have a good system at Fox.

Interesting "Propaganda" Thread ...

Today's (blatant?) Example:

Most Americans Believe Migrant Children Should Be Allowed To Remain In U.S., Poll Shows

Do YOU ... Believe It or Not ?

Breitbart believes "Not" ... as evidenced by:

Huffington Post Lies About Border Poll Results

-
OBSERVATION:

Regardless ... SOMEONE is "Propaganda"ing and/or "Lie"ing.
.

FlyersFan: I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question. I already know about Western bias. I asked why Russia Today should be trusted.

What do you want? An peer reviewed academic study? If only these weren’t guilty of bias!!!

And as a previous poster/s pointed out, Russia Today will use anything that confirms their anti-western bias, including using Sorcha Faal as a source.

Find me a link with Sorcha Faal and www.rt.com in it.
The member asserted (without any evidence) that RT uses Sorcha Faal as a source. Even if RT truthfully has, this could only make RT the nth channel occasionally guilty, of using bad information sources –not full-out lying the way CNN did through their e.g. Danny agent (this dude is quite comparable to Sorcha Faal).

They have been caught in propaganda lies numerous times, including saying there are no Russian soldiers in the Ukraine.

Is that a verifiable truth? Of course there’s active Russian soldiers in Ukraine, and RT will tell you as much… but in Crimea!

And just because they report on things the West doesn't, that doesn't mean that what they are reporting is accurate or trustworthy.

True. But it does follow that (as serious opponents of Western media) if they start to lie, then their lies will be ceased on by other Western media (who let’s not forget collectively possess far greater resources).

You said "RT is closer to the truth then any other media."
I'd like to be shown how they are trustworthy. Thanks.

The actual sentence was: “In my experience RT is closer to the truth than any outlet I’ve ever found.” I.e. I expressed this as an opinion –not a fact that could somehow be chemically verified in the lab. I backed my opinion with more observations, plus by inviting counterevidence. Surely that’s reasonable enough (for an opinion)?

karmiceecstasy: Do people still really not get what SkepticOverlord was saying. Even after he clarified his statement over and over. The thing is we all already know about the bias and sometimes propaganda the western media displays. We are all already on guard and question what the U.S. media does and says. There are countless threads on here questioning the veracity, of darn near every news story ever reported by the western media. That is pretty much what this site is about in a nutshell.

If SketpicOverlord had simply said: “Dear ATS I am worried that many here are treating like RT like a religion when actually it is comparable with the Kremlin’s equivalent of Fox News and CNN” then I’d have far more respect for this position. I still wouldn’t agree, as I believe RT is better.

Unfortunately he only used the words “Fox News” and “CNN” to basically say they’re better than RT. For evidence he does employ a video that’s most clearly, anti-RT, but…
Unfortunately even that video doesn’t include examples of RT literally lying (unlike my OP which has examples of CNN lying, and in case I missed it, here’s Fox making up the news in a big way (showing a booing crowd from 2010 to defame Ron Paul in 2011: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

sheepslayer: I have enjoyed their coverage from time to time on certain events. For example, when the plane went down in the Ukraine, they were only stating the facts as they knew it at the time and were not speculating very much. They were very careful to add caveats to certain info if needed.

The US news outlets were going apes**t trying to place blame on terrorists, Russia, the rebels...etc. It was a complete mess.

I think most of us are intelligent adults and understand that you cannot trust anyone.

Couldn’t agree more! Just think: If everybody starts to ignore all RT for being “pro-Russian” (which it evidently is), then this means when the next MH-17 type event happens “it’s can only the Russians that would have done it” (at least in the Western, TV viewing, minds)
Consequently this would increase any popular support, for some kind of war with Russia, and that in turn (could theoretically at least) damage your TV, house, even life on Earth, etc).

So despite whatever some say: RT is an invaluable counterbalance (and until somebody starts proving otherwise) a just as credible, information source.

a reply to: Liberal1984

Fact is this. EVERY SINGLE NEWS CHANNEL has an agenda.

Fox gets ripped to bits on ATS.
CNN Gets ripped to bits on ATS
BBC gets ripped to bits on ATS
Al Jazeera gets ripped to bits on ATS.
Haaretz gets ripped to bits on ATS
Suprise suprise... RT gets ripped to bits on ATS.

The big suprise to me is that people are somehow amazed that someone called RT out as propaganda. Of course it is. Does anyone think it was created by accident to be impartial?

Are people really that naive?

And why on earth people might get upset about it I'll never know.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: Liberal1984

Fact is this. EVERY SINGLE NEWS CHANNEL has an agenda.

Fox gets ripped to bits on ATS.
CNN Gets ripped to bits on ATS
BBC gets ripped to bits on ATS
Al Jazeera gets ripped to bits on ATS.
Haaretz gets ripped to bits on ATS
Suprise suprise... RT gets ripped to bits on ATS.

The big suprise to me is that people are somehow amazed that someone called RT out as propaganda. Of course it is. Does anyone think it was created by accident to be impartial?

Are people really that naive?

And why on earth people might get upset about it I'll never know.

Exactly. The only reason RT is being singled out. Is because it is the newest kid on the block. That is it. Now that you have heard what various people for and against believe and think. It is up to you to decide what you want to think and believe. Isn't that awesome.

a reply to: Liberal1984

Excellent post. I smell a lot of gatekeepers around here. It makes me question this entire website. And that makes me sad.

originally posted by: GrantedBail
a reply to: Liberal1984

Excellent post. I smell a lot of gatekeepers around here. It makes me question this entire website. And that makes me sad.

And what the hell is a "gatekeeper"

Also if it makes you question the website why are you still here

Seriously if I suspected that ATS was "monitoring" me in some nefarious way I just quite simply would stop using this website.

That is what i do not get about all these claims that ATS is a government controlled entity, if you really truly believed that there is not a chance you would ever use the site.

a reply to: Liberal1984

Find me a link with Sorcha Faal and www.rt.com in it.
The member asserted (without any evidence) that RT uses Sorcha Faal as a source. Even if RT truthfully has, this could only make RT the nth channel occasionally guilty, of using bad information sources –not full-out lying the way CNN did through their e.g. Danny agent (this dude is quite comparable to Sorcha Faal).

Hey man, I'm totally with everything you have posted so far.

I wasn't making up the Sorcha Faal RT incident. The incident took place a month or two ago I believe, I'm not a very active poster but I read a lot. I remember all the "RT Haters" having a field day over this. I was rather saddened that they used one of "her" articles as a source.

Hopefully someone with a better memory can remember the story and maybe find a cached link. I have tried and have no luck, but unless I was dreaming/hallucinating I am 100% certain this took place.

And please remember I was defending RT against its unfair criticism.

I believe all stories need scrutiny, even from RT. My mention of the Sorcha incident was to prove no matter where your loyalties lay, it does not mean you can always trust them. I'm not saying that you always believe which ever news source but am only trying to get my point across.'

I'm still with you OP!

Can anyone find proof of that Sorcha/RT connection so I don't look like a liar?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I come here for the user content, not that I owe you any explanation. But there you have it. And a gatekeeper is someone who controls the truth. Not that you didn't already know that. AND, I will go anywhere on the internet I choose. How's that???

a reply to: The GUT

Isn't there some recent legislation or debate going on about further legalizing/legitimatizing lying to the American public for propaganda purposes?

If there isn't, there should be. Especially since Fox News won the right in court to lie to the American public all they want. They are an "entertainment" network after all.

originally posted by: GrantedBail
a reply to: Liberal1984

Excellent post. I smell a lot of gatekeepers around here. It makes me question this entire website. And that makes me sad.

I could be wrong. Unlike a lot of people, I admit, I often am. I think you are confusing gatekeepers with moderators. Have you ever been on a forum like this where they do not have strong moderators. It is complete and utter chaos. Just people swearing at each other and trolling. The only thing that allows us to discuss and debate these topic. In a semi civilized manner, is the strength of the moderators. We are all free to believe what we want.

a reply to: Liberal1984

Simply Brilliant!

One of the best threads I've seen here in a long while.
Would love to see more.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
RT is Anti-western propaganda

It is a unreliable source because it will take any line automatically that is anti-western particularly if it puts America in a bad light.

It is a pure propaganda machine.

Sure FOX, CNN, BBC and all the rest of them are bias or could even be accused of pushing propaganda but they are not quite in the same league of RT.

That is why i support Skepticoverlord (who is not the owner of the site fyi) when he says that RT is not a reliable source.

I would rate it as reliable as infowars or before its new or other alternative media outlets.

Yet it tries to dress itself up as mainstream

its not, its just propaganda it is totally bias and as such i believe it should never be used as a source in isolation.

It says right on SO's avatar that he owns the site... now I know why I have so much trouble with the way you post your personal truth as fact...

I haven't found that RT is anti-Western at all; I especially appreciate that they will interview people for more than the Fox and other MSM sites' two or three minute sound bites, which do utterly nothing to advance understanding of what are often complicated topics. As a matter of fact, if the issue isn't complicated, a MSM source probably shouldn't be bothering trying to 'cover' it at all. Issues are often nuanced and I find RT's coverage often very meaty and fair, and their presenters highly intelligent and they seem to actually do their own research, unlike most of the others in the MSM who are often simply reading copy someone handed them.

I also don't know how any given news outlet can 'dress itself up as mainstream'... you mean because they're on air every day or what? Any given internet site is also available 24/7.

I'm pretty sure that very few people here are 'using only one source in isolation', thank you. It takes curiosity about the world to find this site (and turn off your teevee and go elsewhere) and few here are gullible; open minded to possibilities, perhaps to even the highly unusual, but true knowledge is acquired over time and from many sources; that means that sometimes even Fox News gets it right. And so will RT, and so will ATS.