My general impression is, whenever they have me on, it’s to criticize the American government. Of course, that’s no big surprise because that’s pretty much what I do. That’s how I make my living. But I did start to wonder after a while what they were saying about the Russian government.Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum • Discussing his appearances on RT, formerly known as Russia Today, a network that, despite its ties to the Russian government, has gained a following among liberals and libertarians for its willingness to question U.S. foreign policy. The New Republic’s Jesse Zwick talks to a variety of serious journalists and pundits who have shown up on the network — some who are willing to get airtime anywhere, others who say RT treats them more fairly than other networks — along with some who choose not to go onto the network. “I have friends who I highly respect who have done RT, but the network also features guests who I would put in the conspiracy-theorist camp,” said one liberal journalist who chose not to give his name. We’ve had our opinions on RT in the past — not particularly positive, admittedly — but what do you guys think? Do you trust their coverage? (via Matt)
Okay, you’re confusing “state-owned” with “state-controlled” - okay, you made the mistake of using those two terms synonymously. There is nothing in this report that indicates a bias for or against particular policies or particular states…this is strictly a criticism of the poorly operated American media conglomerate News Corp. News Corp may not be “state-owned” (privatization is a benchmark of Capitalist society, and Russia is as well…) but it is state-backed, state-sponsored, state-consumed, state-supportive, state-collusive, and SO ON. So don’t try to bring down RT for simply being ‘state-run’, which merely implies that it is included in the Russia’s federal budget and does not mean that its policies and practices are dictated by the Kremlin..
One can watch both and make up their mind to continue to ignore Fox News, which is the correct thing to do because Fox is infamous for slanting things highly in favor of neoconservative US policies and neoliberal economic policies. Your criticism of this report is baseless, and it is you who is revealing your own bias, as a regurgitator of mundane news, supporting regurgitators of mundane Anglo-American opinions. Nothing can be learned from your criticism. It is useless.
» SFB says: Did you watch the same report we did? They brought up an issue from year ago in such a way that a non-observant viewer might misinterpret in such a way to make it seem like CNN did the same thing as Fox News, one which could’ve been an honest mistake.
The Fox News thing was brought up with so little detail that I have no way of proving the claims myself. Similar allegations of bias have faced Al Jazeera in the past, due to its ties to the Qatari government. Ultimately, those criticisms are fair. Look at it this way: Just as Fox News gets its funding by Rupert Murdoch, Russia Today gets its funding from the Russian government. Even if that may not mean state control, it certainly doesn’t make it immune to state influence. They’ve never hid their mission, even! Columbia Journalism Review once put this as such: “Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast outlet has become better known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin’s confrontational foreign policy.” All we’re saying is to be mindful of what the media is feeding you — no matter its source. — Ernie @ SFB
EDIT: While the ultimate thrust of this post stands, it’s worth noting that another media source checked out the Fox News clip and figured out they used Greek footage by accident. Excuse us while we eat crow.