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

[cMac36]

It's Larry King. Comeon now.

Yeah, one of the key forms of postmodern censorship is to only grant certain networks, all of which are controlled by the same cartel of for-profit advertisers, legitimacy in reporting.  

And in postmodern imperialism, Russia is not allowed to have news networks.  It is, simply, unthinkable. The only way to get legitimate news to the public is to filter it through the capitalists who control our major networks.

[cMac36]

Trump makes me freaking sick. The guy supports our enemies and people that mistreat their own people.

Sometime around 1966 liberal hero MLK Jr called the US Government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the World".  Things have only gotten worse since then as the US operates in every crevice of the globe.

And as for mistreats own people, the US locks more people in prison than PRC or DPRK or Russia.  US police harass blacks for a living.  US weapons kill labor organizers in Columbia, partisans (or not) in Syria.  Israel uses US weapons to mass-murder persons in the Gaza Strip without fear of retaliation.  Saudi Arabia lynches homosexuals thanks to US support.

Power and evil go together.  The US is civilized in that we respect a form of the Magna Carta idea, that the nobles have access to due process.  We postmodern nobles here in the US number in the tens of millions.  If you can buy a lawyer's labor, you might be able to buy justice.

But most of America is one or more of hungry, incarcerated, beaten on, has untreated PTSD from Iraq or Afghanistan, is in debt, treated to nothing but harassment from birth, stressed out so their employers can enjoy "labor flexibility".

We of the political class(the mostly White, mostly upper-income/wealth 15-30% of people that have bother voting repeatedly) pretend it isn't happening, and simply don't bother to learn what the US actually is doing Worldwide.  Why do we need military presence in 135 countries?  Why are we conducting airstrikes in half-a-dozen countries in the Middle East? For "defense"?  You all buy this nonsense?

[cMac36]

It's Larry King. Comeon now.

Yeah, one of the key forms of postmodern censorship is to only grant certain networks, all of which are controlled by the same cartel of for-profit advertisers, legitimacy in reporting.  

And in postmodern imperialism, Russia is not allowed to have news networks.  It is, simply, unthinkable. The only way to get legitimate news to the public is to filter it through the capitalists who control our major networks.

You prefer Russian capital to American?

The distinction is blurred, as most "American capital" became transnational capital long ago.  "What's good for GM is Good for America" died long ago as anything but a bad joke.

Beyond that I'd recommend people look at both the news outlets controlled by American capital as well as all the others, and actively seek out those "independent" outlets that are NOT controlled by capital (community or University radio etc.), and decide on their own picture of the World.

As for US vs Russian imperialism in places like Syria or Ukraine, as an American I don't feel compelled to have any dog in the fight.

The main reason I am speaking in this particular thread is because the Russophobia American liberals have embraced bothers me: that somehow it is illegitimate act to appear as a guest on Russia Today.  That stinks of a desire to control information.

[cMac36]

On the other hand, the US has done some good in the world. For example, tens of millions of people in Africa have access to cheap AIDS medications thanks to some US charities. A child born with HIV has only a 50% chance of making it to his second birthday. In some countries, up to 30% of pregnant women have HIV. Retrovirals can reduce the chances of mother to child HIV transmission by 75%.

And I take it upon myself as a citizen to be a critic of the society, because I know there will be plenty getting in on the celebrations.

Being a critic does not mean cutting oneself off from or discarding the society.  One thing that is very much better in the US that almost anywhere else in the World since the late 1700s, is press freedom.  That is very important to me and the struggle to preserve free press against attempted incursions, both the legal incursions that the Federal Gov't has tried to make on the Bill of Rights since the late 70s/early 80s, ramped up to the extreme under Reagan and hasn't let up, as well as the capitalist and ideological filters that are used to control the public mind.  Because the latter is a perversion of the free press, as well as the ideological incursions that result of commodifying coverage of the election and politice into certain private for-profit companies that really are selling advertisements to capitalists, not news to you, that to me is a perversion of effective communication in the democracy.

Thankfully the capitalists will always sell you the rope you want to hang them with.  Twitter and smartphones is a nuclear nightmare for law enforcement as well as those who would seek to control information flow.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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).

[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.

[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.