Trump goes on Russia-state-owned RT to slam the US media

[cMac36]

Beyond that I'd recommend people look at both the news outlets

Sure, look at the news outlets. I mean, Al Jazeera has a decent track record - by all means, get your news there. The problem with RT is that it is not a news outlet. It is a propaganda mouthpiece, which is very much capable of inventing "news" as needed. It makes as much sense to use it as a news source, as The Onion - actually, thinking of it, The Onion, is, probably, more likely to provide actual news.

This is not "russophobia": it is simply a statement of fact. Had the Russians actually created a credible news source, I would have happily endorsed it. They did not - whether by choice, or because those in charge simply do not know the difference, I cannot say for sure. I mean, back in the day, when I listened to short-wave radio back in Russia, I had a choice of BBC Russian service and Radio Tirana International. Sometimes I, actually, tuned into that last broadcast (for fun). But I never considered it to be a "news source". BBC, of course, was always pretty damn good

RT prints state propaganda, airs scripted interviews, probably plants sources, etc.  However it does not follow that they are incapable of producing 'real news'.  It also does not follow that Trump should be pilloried for being an RT guest but should not be for associating with (x acceptable sources).

In the US propaganda in news, particularly the most overtly political news, must not pass approval with an agent of the state.  And there is a measure of freedom within that: the goalposts are set, rather than an outcome strictly picked, only restricted (or attempted to be restricted).  With the major US media the filter is not a department of state but rather a complex web of interests that make up the profit drive of the outlet.  The first place to look is with the advertisers: for-profit advertisers on the elite networks want a rich audience that can afford their products, so the network adapts with content that, at least, does not piss them off.

In the system of legitimate and illegitimate news outlets, there is also ideological function, as, say, the NYT sets the liberal line, ok, this is as far as it is acceptable to go.  And you have the wacko right media that is treated as legitimate information, in places like the US and even worse, the UK.  It is astounding how bad it is in the UK.  I don't know the history of why this is but it certainly has played out over the last 18 months.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Larry King is a traitor. Hope Hillary gets him locked up.

[ag]

RT prints state propaganda, airs scripted interviews, probably plants sources, etc.  However it does not follow that they are incapable of producing 'real news'. 

Actually, it does. The outlet has no credibility whatsoever. I mean, they say that National Enquirer has published some scoops - but the fact that something is out in National Enquirer does not make it news. News outlets need credibility and both RT and NE have none. Hence, even if RT gets some real scoop, until and unless it is confirmed by a credible news source, it should be treated as a non-event.

As for Trump appearing on it - well, it is just extra evidence that Russian government is campaigning for him in the US election. Take it as you like it.

[cMac36]

RT prints state propaganda, airs scripted interviews, probably plants sources, etc.  However it does not follow that they are incapable of producing 'real news'.  

Actually, it does. The outlet has no credibility whatsoever. I mean, they say that National Enquirer has published some scoops - but the fact that something is out in National Enquirer does not make it news. News outlets need credibility and both RT and NE have none. Hence, even if RT gets some real scoop, until and unless it is confirmed by a credible news source, it should be treated as a non-event.

The good thing is we can use our brains and decide the value of the individual piece.  RT is rather sprawling now and provides all sorts of content.  Subject matter here is incredibly important: I see them of more value in covering a US race riot than a battle in Eastern Ukraine.  (This makes me no genius.)  In the former situation there is less likelihood a) of a strict editorial line beyond the old "but you are lynching negroes!" - interesting that that is mocked, because it was (and is) true; and b), less likely that their interests are in conflict with the actual fact, perhaps less likely than some of the US media.  If there were a racial disturbance in a major US City and I were forced to either have access to FOX News or RT I would pick RT.  Therefore we should see these issues on a continuum, rather than black and white legitimate and illegitimate, and the institutions themselves providing the news need to be thoroughly assessed before value is ascribed.  This does not preclude you from calling out RT for planting a source in Ukraine or scripting an interview with Putin's minister of agriculture.


Edit: Another example, I would see RT of comparable value in reporting over the Dakota Pipeline protests than I do NYT, and less likely to have (what I deem as) immediate nefarious interest.

[ag]

RT prints state propaganda, airs scripted interviews, probably plants sources, etc.  However it does not follow that they are incapable of producing 'real news'.  

Actually, it does. The outlet has no credibility whatsoever. I mean, they say that National Enquirer has published some scoops - but the fact that something is out in National Enquirer does not make it news. News outlets need credibility and both RT and NE have none. Hence, even if RT gets some real scoop, until and unless it is confirmed by a credible news source, it should be treated as a non-event.

The good thing is we can use our brains and decide the value of the individual piece.  

Unless you run a competing news operation, I do not see how you can do this. News is not a matter of being smart or plausible-sounding. It is a matter of being factually correct. If you are talking to a known liar, it is best to discard the stories s/he tells completely. They may be right, they may be wrong, you have no way of knowing it without actually checking yourself.

[ag]

RT prints state propaganda, airs scripted interviews, probably plants sources, etc.  However it does not follow that they are incapable of producing 'real news'.  

Actually, it does. The outlet has no credibility whatsoever. I mean, they say that National Enquirer has published some scoops - but the fact that something is out in National Enquirer does not make it news. News outlets need credibility and both RT and NE have none. Hence, even if RT gets some real scoop, until and unless it is confirmed by a credible news source, it should be treated as a non-event.

 In the former situation there is less likelihood a) of a strict editorial line beyond the old "but you are lynching negroes!" - interesting that that is mocked, because it was (and is) true; and b), less likely that their interests are in conflict with the actual fact, perhaps less likely than some of the US media.  If there were a racial disturbance in a major US City and I were forced to either have access to FOX News or RT I would pick RT.

And you would likely be wrong. RT people, in deciding what to put on the air, are not constrained with what actually happened - not concerned to an extent that is not something you are used to from US media. They might, on occasion, report factually - but they see no need to do so (at least, that is the view at the top of the organization). In fact, they themselves believe that this is how it is all over the world: they do not know what makes an actual news operation. They are properly Goebbelsian here - sincerely and without a shaddow of self-doubt.

As for their incentives: I do not think you really understand those people at all. There are many things that would appear meaningless to most sane people, that they find highly interesting: finding out what matters to a conspiracy theorists is a rather difficult task. But in this case it is much simpler: Vladimir Vladimirovich has decided he wants Trump to win. At this point, whatever works, works. What else would you like to know?

[cMac36]

RT prints state propaganda, airs scripted interviews, probably plants sources, etc.  However it does not follow that they are incapable of producing 'real news'.  

Actually, it does. The outlet has no credibility whatsoever. I mean, they say that National Enquirer has published some scoops - but the fact that something is out in National Enquirer does not make it news. News outlets need credibility and both RT and NE have none. Hence, even if RT gets some real scoop, until and unless it is confirmed by a credible news source, it should be treated as a non-event.

The good thing is we can use our brains and decide the value of the individual piece.  

Unless you run a competing news operation, I do not see how you can do this. News is not a matter of being smart or plausible-sounding. It is a matter of being factually correct. If you are talking to a known liar, it is best to discard the stories s/he tells completely. They may be right, they may be wrong, you have no way of knowing it without actually checking yourself.

One can be factually correct while emphasizing certain information and de-emphasizing other information.  This is the key function of information control in societies with open rights to information.

For instance: why do the papers write up things like paeans to the 3 Israeli Jews killed by a rocket attack in a given year, but not go interviewing the families of the 1500 people in Gaza?  They'd be printing for days, and people might figure out that something is going on.  A key aspect of news: especially in the educated dailies like NYT or WaPo, their articles on the UK, for instance, are awful and transparent with class interest.  I know that they were awful in covering US intervention in Latin America in the 80s, Nicaragua of course the worst, I believe there is even compelling evidence that the CIA murdered at least one journalist with a Sandista-favoring line by bombing a press conference.

It is funny, your first two sentences there remind me with the conundrum of imperfect information for economists.  It is true, we as consumers of the capitalist news have imperfect information, have imperfect information and the people selling to us know a lot more about what journalism is than we do.  But that is no reason not to trust our own brains, all the while knowing our limitations, espeically when the alternative is rather just hide behind ideological construct in deciding that certain outlets are legitimate news and others are not and can never be.

[cMac36]

But in this case it is much simpler: Vladimir Vladimirovich has decided he wants Trump to win. At this point, whatever works, works. What else would you like to know?

I agree that Trump is Putin's preference.  You're the one so interested by that, and you're the one who started talking to me, why are you talking as if I am asking anything from you?

[ag]

RT prints state propaganda, airs scripted interviews, probably plants sources, etc.  However it does not follow that they are incapable of producing 'real news'.  

Actually, it does. The outlet has no credibility whatsoever. I mean, they say that National Enquirer has published some scoops - but the fact that something is out in National Enquirer does not make it news. News outlets need credibility and both RT and NE have none. Hence, even if RT gets some real scoop, until and unless it is confirmed by a credible news source, it should be treated as a non-event.

The good thing is we can use our brains and decide the value of the individual piece.  

Unless you run a competing news operation, I do not see how you can do this. News is not a matter of being smart or plausible-sounding. It is a matter of being factually correct. If you are talking to a known liar, it is best to discard the stories s/he tells completely. They may be right, they may be wrong, you have no way of knowing it without actually checking yourself.

One can be factually correct while emphasizing certain information and de-emphasizing other information.  This is the key function of information control in societies with open rights to information.

For instance: why do the papers write up things like paeans to the 3 Israeli Jews killed by a rocket attack in a given year, but not go interviewing the families of the 1500 people in Gaza?  They'd be printing for days, and people might figure out that something is going on.  A key aspect of news: especially in the educated dailies like NYT or WaPo, their articles on the UK, for instance, are awful and transparent with class interest.  I know that they were awful in covering US intervention in Latin America in the 80s, Nicaragua of course the worst, I believe there is even compelling evidence that the CIA murdered at least one journalist with a Sandista-favoring line by bombing a press conference.

It is funny, your first two sentences there remind me with the conundrum of imperfect information for economists.  It is true, we as consumers of the capitalist news have imperfect information, have imperfect information and the people selling to us know a lot more about what journalism is than we do.  But that is no reason not to trust our own brains, all the while knowing our limitations, espeically when the alternative is rather just hide behind ideological construct in deciding that certain outlets are legitimate news and others are not and can never be.

This is all fine when talking about normal Western news sources. Yes, they can be partial, their emphasis can reflect the biases of the righters/journalists/editors, etc. But they are fundamentally grounded in actual reality. RT is not: reality is accidental to it. And this is why you should not treat it as a news source, whether it reports truthfully on a particular item or not.

Remember, when we, economists, talk of games of incomplete information, we take beliefs seriously. Alas, reasonable beliefs about RT imply one should treat all of what it says as merely babbling. Given their reputation and history they simply cannot credibly transmit any information. The best possible way of interpreting whatever it broadcasts is treating it like a blank sheet of paper: there is nothing written there.

[ag]

But in this case it is much simpler: Vladimir Vladimirovich has decided he wants Trump to win. At this point, whatever works, works. What else would you like to know?

I agree that Trump is Putin's preference.  You're the one so interested by that, and you're the one who started talking to me, why are you talking as if I am asking anything from you?

Me? No, I do not think you would like to learn anything from me. The remarkable thing is: you seem to be trying to learn something from RT.

[cMac36]

But in this case it is much simpler: Vladimir Vladimirovich has decided he wants Trump to win. At this point, whatever works, works. What else would you like to know?

I agree that Trump is Putin's preference.  You're the one so interested by that, and you're the one who started talking to me, why are you talking as if I am asking anything from you?

Me? No, I do not think you would like to learn anything from me. The remarkable thing is: you seem to be trying to learn something from RT.

I listen to one YouTube show that is under RT umbrella and check its homepage when I check the three or four dozen news sites I regularly will look at.  Even when it is purely obvious that the piece is propaganda, it is revealing (o in what it tells you what the Russian Government wants to say, or wants you to believe.

[cMac36]

But in this case it is much simpler: Vladimir Vladimirovich has decided he wants Trump to win. At this point, whatever works, works. What else would you like to know?

I agree that Trump is Putin's preference.  You're the one so interested by that, and you're the one who started talking to me, why are you talking as if I am asking anything from you?

Me? No, I do not think you would like to learn anything from me. The remarkable thing is: you seem to be trying to learn something from RT.

Why wouldn't I wan't to learn from you, I try to learn everywhere?  And why did you equate my question with a paternal-scholastic relation of "learning from"?  There are all sorts of ways you could conceivably help me, and me you.

My consumption of RT, I listen to one YouTube show that is under RT umbrella and check its homepage when I check the three or four dozen news sites I regularly will look at.  Even when it is purely obvious that the piece is propaganda, it is revealing in that it tells you what the Russian Government wants to say, or wants to appear, or wants you to believe (and may yet include facts statistics etc. that are not disputed throughout the global media).

[BaldEagle1991]

I minored in journalism, you guys want my perspective on RT?

[ag]

I minored in journalism, you guys want my perspective on RT?

Whether we want it or not, you are welcome

[cMac36]

I minored in journalism, you guys want my perspective on RT?

I assume I'm being addressed?  Of course I would, the more the merrier.

[BaldEagle1991]

Okay...

RT was set up mainly as an international mouthpiece for Russia. It is no different from Voice of America for our country. There is surely a lot of journalistic ethical issues with the channel, and it is up there with Fox News with loaded journalistic ethical problems. The biggest ethical violation you see in RT is objectiveness. This is something I see violated a lot unless you're watching your local news TV channel program. However RT is a repeat offender for it, they will overblow anything that makes America or The West look bad.

Now here's one thing RT does get right is showcasing certain stuff that major TV news nets won't cover in America because their for-profit sponsors will withdraw their support if they did. There's a reason why they're pretty much the biggest news channel covering the Dakota Pipeline issue; Chevron, Shell or whatever isn't a sponsor for their network. If CNN did wall-to-wall coverage on that then it would lose a major oil company as an advertiser as revenue.

I view this as perhaps the biggest issue with journalism ethics. Should media channels have anything beholden too anyone while maintaining integrity? It has NEVER happened at all and it's difficult to make sure it happens.

[ag]

Okay...

RT was set up mainly as an international mouthpiece for Russia. It is no different from Voice of America for our country.

Alas, I have to stop reading here.

[BaldEagle1991]

Okay...

RT was set up mainly as an international mouthpiece for Russia. It is no different from Voice of America for our country.

Alas, I have to stop reading here.

Ever heard of VOA? We're doing the same thing in other countries like RT. Only VOA has less journalistic ethic violations.

[ag]

Okay...

RT was set up mainly as an international mouthpiece for Russia. It is no different from Voice of America for our country.

Alas, I have to stop reading here.

Ever heard of VOA? We're doing the same thing in other countries like RT. Only VOA has less journalistic ethic violations.

Unlike you, I grew up listening to VoA, Radio Liberty, BBC Russian Service, Deutsche Welle, etc., etc.  I mean, my old Spidola short-wave radio must be still somewhere, unless I got rid of it when moving down to Mexico from the US (yes, I continued using it in the US).

This is exactly why I stopped reading where I stopped.

[ag]

I locked the door (you go find)
I sit and pray with ardor:
Please talk, please slander,
My dear friend transistor.

Over the globe, as if in school,
I search my way through ether:
Oh Comrade Mr. Goldberg,
Please have a word to utter!

Please slander! Talk!
I pray, my hands all sweating.
But from the nightfall to sunrise
I hear damned jamming.

He´s silent, Comrade Goldberg.
No word from BBC.
And only the song of Solweig,
Is heard all through Rusie.

Unlocked the door, the window wide,
And cursing sky and land.
And till the sunrise, be as may,
I sit and hear jam.

A. Galich, 1970

Sorry, I do not think this has been translated to English before. So, I had to do this myself for your edification. I wonder, if they teach that in journalism schools these days.

[Vosem]

I locked the door (you go find)
I sit and pray with ardor:
Please talk, please slander,
My dear friend transistor.

Over the globe, as if in school,
I search my way through ether:
Oh Comrade Mr. Goldberg,
Please have a word to utter!

Please slander! Talk!
I pray, my hands all sweating.
But from the nightfall to sunrise
I hear damned jamming.

He´s silent, Comrade Goldberg.
No word from BBC.
And only the song of Solweig,
Is heard all through Rusie.

Unlocked the door, the window wide,
And cursing sky and land.
And till the sunrise, be as may,
I sit and hear jam.

A. Galich, 1970

У тебя есть настоящий талант

[ag]

I locked the door (you go find)
I sit and pray with ardor:
Please talk, please slander,
My dear friend transistor.

Over the globe, as if in school,
I search my way through ether:
Oh Comrade Mr. Goldberg,
Please have a word to utter!

Please slander! Talk!
I pray, my hands all sweating.
But from the nightfall to sunrise
I hear damned jamming.

He´s silent, Comrade Goldberg.
No word from BBC.
And only the song of Solweig,
Is heard all through Rusie.

Unlocked the door, the window wide,
And cursing sky and land.
And till the sunrise, be as may,
I sit and hear jam.

A. Galich, 1970

У тебя есть настоящий талант

Ну, до Александра Аркадьевича мне все равно далеко С таким оригиналом, грех не перевести хорошо

Anyway, I mean, some of these kids over here thinking they can teach me what VoA is! They themselves have never touched a shortwave in their lives! Never heard a jammer! Children, be careful with old farts like myself. We know things you never even suspected of.

[cMac36]

Anyway, I mean, some of these kids over here thinking they can teach me what VoA is! They themselves have never touched a shortwave in their lives! Never heard a jammer! Children, be careful with old farts like myself. We know things you never even suspected of.

The same to you from the youth, old man.

[specific_name]

I love the "left" party is getting into Anti-Russian stuff it is truly laughable.

[ag]

I love the "left" party is getting into Anti-Russian stuff it is truly laughable.

First, I was an anti-communist before you were born. Second, modern Russia is fascist, not communist, anyway.