Really?! Is this what has become of ATS?

So I guess there's no point in asking to stick with the OP? So cluttered already*shrugs*

a reply to: DJW001


I watched how major American news organizations aided and abetted the war on Iraq which turned out to be started on false premises.

a reply to: sosobad

So we're in agreement then?

RT is just as bad as all the rest?

So why wont they even attempt some serious journalism about Russian dirty laundry. I see Western media tearing apart their own Governments left, right and center.

a reply to: SLAYER69

That's because in Russia, president controls everything. But, in the US, president nor government can't make a single decision on their own. That's why i have said it many times, that we do not know who control american media, which is scary if you ask me. And who control the US, controls all other western countries.

That's the main difference.

a reply to: Nikola014

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTH. Do you think people here are stupid and we blindly believe in everything that RT publishes?

It's not lies, did you see the quote I posted from SO?

Where he says...

Because Russia Today is a state-run propaganda machine, while very few ATS members seem to be aware of that, and even fewer of the public at large.

That sentence is basically the entire premise behind the labelling of RT.

While I don't agree with the labelling, I do agree with that sentence.

a reply to: SLAYER69

YES RT is just as bad, as most seem to agree on, again no point in singling out RT on ATS tho.

originally posted by: Lady_Tuatha
a reply to: DJW001


I watched how major American news organizations aided and abetted the war on Iraq which turned out to be started on false premises.

Except for Fox, all of the media used the all important qualifiers: " According to Secretary of State Powell, citing CIA intelligence reports...." They reported the fact of the allegations, not the allegations as fact. RT states allegations as fact.

originally posted by: captiva
You are of course correct...we are guests here....but we are also the product that generates the advertising...its a numbers game and each one of the members is a number. Without the die hards ATS would just be another site, instead its the premium CT site and thats based on its members free mind, ability to think for themselves and maturity. With that comes the fact that we both need each other. No business is going to fail to consider the views of the customer or product...that would be bad business.

Respects
a reply to: eriktheawful

You are correct.

Member's here can complain about things here on ATS, on any matter of subject, just like the OP of this thread.

Sometimes the things complained about are changed.

Sometimes they are not.

"Bad for business" and "It's wrong" or "you are not allowed" are NOT the same.

For all I know, the site owners will remove this change they made. Or they may not.

In any case, the change isn't "wrong" or "not allowed" because it was not discussed with members first. It's because this site is privately owned, and not publicly owned.

THAT is what I'm pointing out to the OP and several members that have stated in this thread that TAN owners are not allowed to change things.

Sorry, but they are wrong. They can if they want, and without anyone's approval. They do not need their approval to change something.

They do welcome discussions like this however on changes.

But keep in mind: it's up to the site owners........not the members.

a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

And this has to do with trusting implicitly and using RT as your only source in what way?

What people on this site have asked for, time and time again, is to use more than one source, and make sure a story is true, to the best of your ability, prior to posting. It is done very nicely with MSM sources, everything that comes out of the MSM is questioned and double checked and double or triple sourced prior to posting.

Yet, when it comes to RT no one wants to do that. So the site owners gave RT a label, in order to help people either do that in their OP, or do it on their own after reading the OP.

I say its a good thing, given the attitude of people toward RT.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

Yet, when it comes to RT no one wants to do that. So the site owners gave RT a label, in order to help people either do that in their OP, or do it on their own after reading the OP.

I say its a good thing, given the attitude of people toward RT.

You went from assuming why ATS would do something like this, to claiming why they did. And apart from that being a load of bull**** it doesn't make any sense.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: sosobad

So we're in agreement then?

RT is just as bad as all the rest?

So why wont they even attempt some serious journalism about Russian dirty laundry. I see Western media tearing apart their own Governments left, right and center.

You see it depending on what channel you are watching and who is in office. RT is terribly biased but so is the US media, it has a channel to pander to everyone, if they don't like what is being said on one channel they just flick to the other, thus giving the illusion of being critical. It is perfected to a fine art at this stage. It barely matters who goes into office, the same laws will be passed while one media outlet shouts about it and one defends.

Russia has one channel, they can't get away with it so they are just blatant.

originally posted by: BobAthome

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
officially branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian crown corporation,
that serves as the national public radio and television broadcaster.

cough,,cough.

i will expect the same for anyone linking the CBC as well. As per ATS new policy.
slippy slope.

yes ,,very few ATS members seem to be aware of that

a reply to: MessageforAll

It's an assumption based on the many RT threads over the course of the last year, and the site owners answers in them.

As a matter of fact, there have been SO MANY threads on RT, either people angry because someone in their thread asked for a second source, or people angry because someone said RT is state run propaganda, that I am personally sick of RT.

And that says a lot, considering I use RT also from time to time in my posts.

I like this piece of propaganda myself



I don't like this



For saying this

Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas

Somehow one deserve a label and the other not

originally posted by: Lady_Tuatha
I watched how major American news organizations aided and abetted the war on Iraq which turned out to be started on false premises.

Fair enough, lemme ask

How do you feel about everything coming from RT about Syria, Ukraine etc

So when we link to a Western news outlet like CNN, FOX, and MSNBC this should read:
State Run Mind and Corporate controlled Propaganda

originally posted by: sosobad

You see it depending on what channel you are watching and who is in office.

Exactly

RT is terribly biased but so is the US media

True

Russia has one channel, they can't get away with it so they are just blatant.

And,,, whose fault is that?

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Lady_Tuatha

And this has to do with trusting implicitly and using RT as your only source in what way?

.

Who said anything about trusting implicitly? What you seem to be misunderstanding during the entirety of this thread is that people are annoyed at the fact RT is being labelled as propaganda whilst others are not, yet anyone with a brain can see that they are all doing the same thing.

I think a lot of posters are completely missing the point here.

RT parrots their government's brand of opinion.
Fox parrots their own brand of conservative opinion.
CNN parrots their own brand of flip-flop opinion.
MSNBC parrots their own brand of Left opinion.
HuffPo parrots their own brand of Left opinion.
So too does Press TV & BBC parrot their own brand of opinion, and CBC, and Australian ABC, et al.

The fricking point here is that when you take out the emotional buzzwords, every. single. one. of them is peddling their own point of view, regardless of who rubber-stamp's it. Media bias is still media bias no matter how you dress it up. I thought we already knew this? Now. To the original post I made:

Why aren't we labeling every news outlet accordingly? If the site is going to "help" readers by pointing out the source's bias, why only one thus far instead of an equally appropriate designation for each?

a reply to: Nyiah

Maybe because its only one media outlet that is the cause of so many members being angry that it is even questioned?

I think that has a LOT to do with it!