To a certain and I'd even say lesser extent. In most cases. The default position of RT, or I'd say The Hill on youtube (to a lesser extent), or 'insert whatever pundit show you like', is to put an agitation spin on news items, if one is to be had.
The default position of (non yellow press) western news media outlets is not.
That said, when it comes to potentially controversial subjects, or subjects where there is a strong indication, that the governments line of thought (or the line of a financier of a paper) needs to be represented - read around, and maybe even screen some of the more controversial sources.
But whats not true is, that RT is just another news outlet, with a slightly different perspective. Same as with The Hill on youtube, they usually are agitating against 'the default position' any chance they get. They move more on what I'd call a PR spin, than conventional outlets.
Does it mean, that they are always wrong? No. But it means that they will represent a world view to you thats largely different from what everyone else gets, and largely for no reason.
I'll watch, or read them - when I'm in the mood, but you layered them in as a 'just another source' on a 'normal' (conventional, undisputed, matter of fact reporting) newsitem, and understanding their mode of operation, thats not ideal.
On certain news items, they even might be more 'to the point' than the majority of western outlets, but that is not because of diligent efforts in reporting. Thats usually because one governments line added more spin on an issue, than another one..
Also - I believe, that most people will be better off, if they dont take the 'devils advocate' position on newsitems in their own jurisdictions as fact.And RT is a russian state financed media outlet, targeting western markets. Its not 'a russian newspaper' its a propaganda outlet. That said, sometimes there can be inklings of truth even in propaganda, or counter propaganda, so watching what they say can be a fun recreational activity.
Until you start posting them as 'just another source' on the Covid outbreak. Looking at russia and the Covid outbreak specifically, they probably would be the last news media outlet I'd try to get my Covid-19 scoops from. But even then, the newsitem in itself wasnt problematic - what was, imho, was, to just allow for people to pick them up as 'just another news source' - without at least hinting at any of the things we just went through.
Because - from a PR view, Covid-19 and other largely neutral, but highly emotional, high profile news items are great for them to acquire new audiences. Which then might even just expect factual reporting on the rest of what they produce, when not looking too closely.
The video to usually link, when trying to explain what RT "is", is this one:
edit: It is this one h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOaQA6uFacA but no subtitled version is to be found on youtube... I saw parts of that speech translated afair on an Arte documentary. Its a head of state gratulating them on their success (youtube clicknumbers), and what they had achieved, and praising their management, and... and they arent a news medium thats active (as in relevant) in russia. And when Putin is in that room, thats not a 'fluke' or a nice gesture, thats state protocol - and every one around knows, what the important speech that evening is..
Last edited by notimp,
