Russian TV Trying Hard to Expose US - rt.com

Is it just me or has russian TV (rt.com) been kicking ass at exposing Western exploitation?

Everytime I see Lew Rockwell on TV, its always on RT.  Theire frontpage looks pretty darn good.  Breaking stories that western mainstream media is not allowed to report on.

Do you think the Russians are funding this tv station/website to win as much Western support as they can? 

And is that ok?  It seems to be truth coming out.  I mean, they have Lew Rockwell on for goodness sake.  Western Media is not allowed to have him on, for the most part.

 

current examples:

http://rt.com/usa/news/paul-gingrich-donald-trump-181/

http://rt.com/news/richard-stallman-free-software-875/

 

 

Too badd all of this is an attempt to advance Russia's political agenda.  Whoy wouldn't you want a military isolantionist in office when the U.S. sphere of influence is one of your greatest obstacles toward hegemony?

"Whoy wouldn't you want a military isolantionist"

An isolationist believes in free trade and travel? 

I am not sure who owns russia today. A russian billionaire bought the evening standard newspaper in london a few years ago. When he bought it he made the paper free, this put two other newspapers out of business. The evening standard newspaper is pretty decent, especially considering it is free. But then i don't buy newspapers but i read them when they are free. I get my news from the internet. I am not sure if we can equate the russian buying the london newspaper and russia today as a russian government psy op on the west. It would be interesting to see who owns it and what sort of relationship it has with the russian government.

Russia Today is completely owned by Ria Novosti, the State news agency.

Their news are usually a mishmash of gobbledygoock and good quality journalism: you space from interviews with people like Marc Faber to "breaking news" about Bigfoot-like entities. 

So why do they give news the Western media are not "allowed" to give? Very simple. Despite all the hugging with an inhebriated Boris Eltsin in the '90s, Russia has a deeply seated, amply justified distrust of the US. People in Russia believe (rightly) the only thing keeping the US from stabbing them in the back is their nuclear arsenal: that's why it was kept in tip-top shape even in the darkest days of the early '90s. They also know a thing or two about "exporting" political systems and  engineering "revolutions".

Russia Today is seen by the Kremlin as a counterweight of sorts to the all-powerful US media machine. That's why RT will post new stories you are unlikely to read on the Washington Post or The New York Times.

So you are saying that russia today is funded by the russian people via a tv license fee? The BBC has a bbc world service which is akin to a global propaganda broadcast. So russia today is the bbc world of russia? I can't say that i have watched excessive amounts of russia today, but from what i have seen they have a very impartial view, as would be expected from a news agency. Even on matters involving their own country. Although i have not seen them cover their own country as much i have the west.

That's why I (poorly) typed "military isolationist", rather than just "isolationist".

"That's why I (poorly) typed "military isolationist", rather than just "isolationist".

 

So a military isolationist is someone who what?  Doesn't keep endless wars going?

Lincoln was a military isolationist. He put up machine guns to stop MD from seceding and to prevent their citizens from interacting with citizens of the southern states. Although he wasn't anti-war or nativist, he was a protectionist and would gladly use the military to keep people in.

I agree with Dr. Paul that it's the neocons who are isolationists.

Whoa, whoa, take it easy fellas, I'm on your side! 

What would you call him?  Non-interventionist?  Does that label raise your hackles, too?

Although i have not seen them cover their own country as much i have the west.

Is it really their country? Have you noticed most show hosts will say 'we' and mean the United States?  It's an English language television, so it isn't exactly like BBC World. All anchors, most hosts, many journalists, and most interviewees are Western. It isn't so much Russian TV as it is Russian-funded TV.

It seems to be an attempt by Russia to give greater exposure to views that are otherwise actively sidelined in the Anglo press. Not views that come from Russians but from sidelined, dissident Westerners. I think it works because they don't pick and chose, there isn't any particular ideological profile anyone needs to fit — if you're being sidelined and what you're saying is inconvenient for Western governments they will air you.

I can't approve of the way it is funded, but I do like the product.

Press TV (Iran) said that The Japanese PM had sent the Russian PM a memo pertaining to the U.S. "executive level media blackout" order of Ron Paul.

It is a shame that if it is made public knowledge that Japan, Russia, and Iran want Paul covered more.  It will make him look like a foreign candidate.

Because Israel has nothing to do with our elections, like the CIA has nothing to do with elections in the 3rd world.

Jack Roberts:

So you are saying that russia today is funded by the russian people via a tv license fee? The BBC has a bbc world service which is akin to a global propaganda broadcast. So russia today is the bbc world of russia? I can't say that i have watched excessive amounts of russia today, but from what i have seen they have a very impartial view, as would be expected from a news agency. Even on matters involving their own country. Although i have not seen them cover their own country as much i have the west.

 

Like English language al-Jazeera, Russia Today mostly caters to foreign viewers. Officialy it's "an internation broadcasting service".

Also another thing: the former KGB bureaucrats now running Russia know perfectly well the value of information as a weapon. They know very well the never-ending campaign against their country waged by the West is centered around "freedom of speech". So, as the consumate counter-intelligence types they are, they got back at the West in the best possible way: "here are the news your governments and their cronies in the media don't want you to read". Part of this campaign involved the famous leaked CRU files: when servers around Europe and the US were being "mysteriously" blacked out, servers in Russia continued to host the files depsite international pressure (I personally suspect Russia had more than a hand in the whole affair, but that's just a personal consideration). For Putin it was a small but significant victory: who's the bad guy now?