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

[ag]

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?

Hint, in case you have not heard: Russia has replaced communism with fascism years ago.

[ag]

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

[ag]

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.

Again, this is not "Russophobia". This is not about talking on a Russian channel.  It is which Russian channel he chose. Had he come on, say,

https://tvrain.ru/

I would have had no objections

[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.

[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?

[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.

[ag]

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

Whether we want it or not, you are welcome

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ag]

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.

Oh, the overconfidence of youth

[ag]

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.

Again, this is not "Russophobia". This is not about talking on a Russian channel.  It is which Russian channel he chose. Had he come on, say,

https://tvrain.ru/

I would have had no objections

TV Rain is also, propaganda, but propaganda made by the Russian pseudo-liberals (I can not honestly call people who think that Germany winning WWII would be better liberals).

This, probably, describes you better than them (yes, I know, they ran a provocative poll on the issue, but at no point they implied that they themselves think that). Unlike you, they have no sympathy to Nazi-type regimes.

[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.

Because of course the US never lies in its propaganda arm. Are you really that naive or are you simply pretending?

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.

Yes, I know it's difficult to admit that you've been influenced by propaganda.

"Propaganda" means, merely, "advertising" in Spanish

Anyway, having some whippersnappers teach me about VoA is quite funny

[ag]

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.

ЛОЛ, русские-то тебе чем насолили, мурзилка ты картонная?

А если серьёзно, то ты жалок. Но ты и сам об этом, наверное, догадываешься, судя по твоим "философским" изречениям amIright?!

Translation for the public:

"LOL, Russians have pissed you off somehow, you, the cardboard fool.

If seriously, you are pitiful. But you yourself, probably, guess that, judging from your "philosophical" sayings amIright?"

Yeah, our suave Swede turns out to speak fluent idiomatic Russian. I guess, that explains a lot

So, yeah, another Russian troll. Merely with somewhat better command of English.

Why am I so bored?

[ag]

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.

ЛОЛ, русские-то тебе чем насолили, мурзилка ты картонная?

А если серьёзно, то ты жалок. Но ты и сам об этом, наверное, догадываешься, судя по твоим "философским" изречениям amIright?!

Translation for the public:

"LOL, Russians have pissed you off somehow, you, the cardboard fool.

If seriously, you are pitiful pathetic. But you yourself, probably, guess that, judging from your "philosophical" sayings amIright?"

Yeah, our suave Swede turns out to speak fluent idiomatic Russian. I guess, that explains a lot

So, yeah, another Russian troll. Merely with somewhat better command of English.

Why am I so bored?

Now it is better

Sure. You are no great poet, so I did not bother with the literary quality of translation.

How is the weather in Питер?

[ag]

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.

ЛОЛ, русские-то тебе чем насолили, мурзилка ты картонная?

А если серьёзно, то ты жалок. Но ты и сам об этом, наверное, догадываешься, судя по твоим "философским" изречениям amIright?!

Translation for the public:

"LOL, Russians have pissed you off somehow, you, the cardboard fool.

If seriously, you are pitiful pathetic. But you yourself, probably, guess that, judging from your "philosophical" sayings amIright?"

Yeah, our suave Swede turns out to speak fluent idiomatic Russian. I guess, that explains a lot

So, yeah, another Russian troll. Merely with somewhat better command of English.

Why am I so bored?

Now it is better

Sure. You are no great poet, so I did not bother with the literary quality of translation.

How is the weather in Питер?

Lol, you have no sense of humor, have you I'd like you move to USA just to deport you by myself

IDK, the same as in Stockholm, I guess

Have you ever been to Stockholm?

[ag]

BTW, my gradfather is from Chilie,

Yeah, and he learned Russian at Lumumba.

I guess, comrade junior lieutenant, you have blown your cover again. Be more careful next time.

[ag]

BTW, my gradfather is from Chilie,

Yeah, and he learned Russian at Lumumba.

I guess, comrade junior lieutenant, you have blown your cover again. Be more careful next time.

No Kudos from Putin now

Nah, he's been such a bad spy himself, he, actually, identifies with your type.

[ag]

BTW, my gradfather is from Chilie,

Yeah, and he learned Russian at Lumumba.

I guess, comrade junior lieutenant, you have blown your cover again. Be more careful next time.

No Kudos from Putin now

Nah, he's been such a bad spy himself, he, actually, identifies with your type.

Pics, or it didn't happen!

Товарищ начальник, it is his official bio

[ag]

BTW, my gradfather is from Chilie,

Yeah, and he learned Russian at Lumumba.

I guess, comrade junior lieutenant, you have blown your cover again. Be more careful next time.

What an convenient world view: anyone who speaks Russian and doesn't agree with your views is actually a paid Russian troll.

Oh, yeah, a Swede with that kind of Russian idiom. Must be a professor of Slavic studies, no less. Though, actually, any professor would know that it should be "дурилка картонная". "Мурзилка" here is a bit of an idiomatic mix-up: the one that a not very educated Russian could easily make, though.

[ag]

This, probably, describes you better than them (yes, I know, they ran a provocative poll on the issue, but at no point they implied that they themselves think that). Unlike you, they have no sympathy to Nazi-type regimes.

I would be offended by this personal insult, but then I realized that you probably have a definition of Nazi that is unique to you, like your definition of fascism.

In this case, my definition is fairly standard. I wonder, in fact, why you would object. You have dedicated your entire performance on these boards to showing off your support for Hitlerite regimes and policies. Then, again, given Bulgarian history, there is no surprise there whatsoever.