MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I can't quite remember what hyperlink route I followed to end up on a youtube video entitled "another BBC moron owned".
In the text below the video there was a reasonable question from John Simpson, which was replied to in the video by Mr Putin in, if the subtitles are to be believed (my Russian isn't too hot) quite a convincing manner.
The only thing I can find out about the publishers of the video "Russian Insider" is published by themselves, so I'm not minded to spend too much time listening to it in order to find an idea of the truth. But this video has piqued my interest. Well done them, you might say.
I am very open to the idea that the stories we're fed by the media about Russia and Russian involvement in e.g. Syria aren't 100% free from bias. So what sources would you point me to for a more balanced view?
Cheers Graham, that'll keep me going for a bit!
http://russia-insider.com/
http://sputniknews.com/
https://theintercept.com/
http://consortiumnews.com/
http://journal-neo.org/
http://www.counterpunch.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.zerohedge.com/
http://thesaker.is/
http://21stcenturywire.com/
Enjoy 🙂
russia today is controlled by Putin, so dont expect balance, just an official russian view
RT is a news organisation funded in exactly the same way the BBC is funded, you could equally say the BBC is controlled by Cameron. But yes, expect bias wherever you seek your news.
[edit]
I've found 21st century wire too tin-foily for my liking BTW, still have it on my rss feeds though.
That's complete cobblers - it's not just a question of funding, it's also of editorial and institutional independence, which RT doesn't have. The BBC has defects but it's simply absurd to suggest that Russia Today has one tenth of the objectivity of the BBC.
Konabunny and Kimbers hit the nail on the head.
RT is about as fair and even handed as the IRB Citing Panel. With or without biscuits.
The BBC is far more communist-leaning than RT. I read that in the Telegraph, so it must be true.
Russia has the right to support, defend, fight for Syria, Iran etc coz they are Russian's friends. No big deal. I think it's a good thing.
The purpose of the West is simply to sabotage them in order to make in road to gain territories like their ancestors did. The West are trying to dismantle them piece by piece slowly slowly catchy monkey type ...
I think Russia is the only nation in recent time looking to gain territory. The West were/are trying to protect our supply of oil....Russia is motivated to protect some of it's largest customers. There is no such thing as 'Friends' in international politics. If it were not for oil I think the West's and Russia's interests in the M.E. would be hugely less than they are now.
FFS! RT?!? Captainflasheart, konabunny, and kimbers understand.
I am all for a balanced view, but RT is NOTHING like the BBC. It is more like if Conservative Party HQ ran a news outlet. And not just [I]any[/i] news outlet, but [i]the[/i] single most important British new outlet going out to every other country in the world.
Don't ever, ever assume that Putin's Russia - or Russia, generally - operates in ways comparable to Western liberal democracies. The press in Russia has no parallels here. If you want balance, and don't feel the BBC is trustworthy enough, I'm afraid you're unlikely to find anything better.
A clever thing, that RT, disguising itself to look like a new outlet...
Can anyone explain why the US failed to stop Isil/Isis oil production and export, which it uses to fund itself?
FWIW I wasn't suggesting RT was free from bias. Quite the opposite, it gives the other side of the story/propaganda as the OP wanted.
It is still worth reading for the same reasons it is good to read newspapers you disagree with: it is always good to know what the other side are being told. The truth usually lies somewhere between.
Ok, I'll (briefly) bite: -
it's also of editorial and institutional independence, which RT doesn't have
RT is about as fair and even handed as ... something possibly sports-related
Now would these bold and confident statements be just your opinions, or would you like to back them up with (independent, and verifiable) facts to take to OFCOM?
I'm sure you both know that as a UK broadcaster RT has to abide by their guidelines ([url= http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/guidance/programme-guidance/bguidance/ ]sections 5 and 7[/url], are the ones, I think you both crudely allude to). The only recent and relevant investigation is explained [url= https://www.rt.com/about-us/press-releases/ofcom-decisions-rt-disappointment/ ]here[/url]. I'm sure STW is in complete agreement that RT is a [b]monster[/b] 🙁
it's simply absurd to suggest that Russia Today has one tenth of the objectivity of the BBC
I "suggested" nothing of the sort, fraction / percentage / ratio or otherwise. Attributing words to me those that you just made up in your head, solely in order to make your point seem more valid than mine - or indeed try to appear more clever - detracts from your credibility, which I'm sure is most impressive by STW standards.
Anyway and whatever, I'm not interested in a [i]'my preferred new sites dad can beat up your preferred news sites dad'[/i]; I shall therefore end with a gratuitous, and quite pithy I thought, self-quote: -
expect bias wherever you seek your news
wobbliscott - Member
I think Russia is the only nation in recent time looking to gain territory.
If that's the case then they would have taken back Ukraine as well as territory belonging to Soviet Union.
The West were/are trying to protect our supply of oil....Russia is motivated to protect some of it's largest customers.
So who are the good guys?
There is no such thing as 'Friends' in international politics. If it were not for oil I think the West's and Russia's interests in the M.E. would be hugely less than they are now.
Friends with benefits ... 😛
RT is NOTHING like the BBC
Congrats, that's the whole point of this thread.
It is more like if Conservative Party HQ ran a news outlet
Russia - being a traditionally conservative country - whose predominant news broadcaster is also conservative? I'm really quite surprised actually.
Anyway, time for the flounce.
It is more like if Conservative Party HQ ran a news outlet. And not just any news outlet, but the single most important British new outlet going out to every other country in the world.
'BBC is Mouthpiece of Tory Government’ – Alex Salmond
I think Russia is the only nation in recent time looking to gain territory.
Israel
FKN news.
"i used to be a conspiracy theorist. I'd believe and old rubbish about lizard people, mind control, shadowy puppet masters, and global domination by an elite Kabal of banking families."
"but then i realised that it's all ****ing true"
Let's not be all smug about the BBC's editorial independence. Despite the constant claims of left-wing bias, BBC news is increasingly towing the government line because they are constantly threatened with losing their funding.
'The chairman of the BBC Trust is Chris Patten [now resigned for health reasons], a former Conservative cabinet minister. The BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, was once chairman of the Young Conservatives. His former senior political producer, Thea Rogers, became George Osborne's special advisor in 2012. Andrew Neil, the presenter of the BBC's flagship political programmes Daily Politics and This Week, is chairman of the conservative Spectator magazine. His editor is Robbie Gibb, former chief of staff to the Tory Francis Maude. After the BBC's economics editor Stephanie Flanders left for a £400,000-a-year job at that notorious leftwing hotbed, JP Morgan, she was replaced by its business editor Robert Peston. His position was taken by Kamal Ahmed from the rightwing Sunday Telegraph, a journalist damned by the Guardian's Nick Davies for spinning government propaganda in the run-up to the Iraq war.'
See also - http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc
Russia Today is obviously biased but that doesn't mean it can't offer a useful alternative perspective. People need to be able to critically assess any source of information, but most seem to fail miserably.
BBC is clearly pro establishment and conservative with a small c as it is a british institution
It is pretty balanced as no govt really likes it
that said it does seem to be acting a little scared, with good reason, to tory threats to their charter and status.
[url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/591/22028012208_f71d4ed6b5_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/591/22028012208_f71d4ed6b5_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/zyxjzW ]Putin[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
I like RT, I actually prefer it to BBC news now,it maybe biased but most everything is, I think it gives you a much more balanced perspective than just listening to the Wests view. I quite like the way they disect all the US press statements.
RT do some interesting things, they're very into their uninterrupted video and live feeds- I think they know their reputation, this is one way to remove a bit of doubt. Course, they still decide what to show and not to show but at least you know it's not being cunningly edited.
First time i noticed them doing this was the indy ref, funnily enough. In general, they were running with a "Not democratic" agenda to get at the UK government there wasn't much impartiality in the overall coverage.
But, on referendum night while most UK outlets were running with "Pro and anti independence activists clash in George Square", "Yes rally degenerates into violence", RT just ran a non stop live feed for hours showing rangers fans fighting the police. Barely any commentary, mostly it was just a camera stuck out a window, every so often they went for a walk. That's a pretty interesting approach- just showing what's actually happening right now, in a world of clever editing and misrepresentation.