lol it is very anti American.. While they often give a interesting view it's very obvious they are more sided to the Russia when it comes to views on US related news. They are obviously pushing their pro Russia gvt anti American govt tone..

I mean a simple look at their front page news generally depicts mostly anti America reporting.

Everything on their front page in regards in the US section today, is anti-establishment toward the US govt..I'll give you a quick sample of the current headlines they have listed..

1) Google preaches Congress on Wikileaks-style embargo for the Web

2) Yuan to replace dollar in 10 years
3) CIA keeps manuscript away from its own author
4) Naomi Wolf fights fellow feminists over Assange

If you notice there is a trend going with their reporting on the US.. They selectively pick doom & gloom type reporting when it revolves around the US. ie.. showing big bad over powering CIA or Google talking about freedom of speech with Congress as well as pro wki-leaks stuff which is all for the most part very anti establishment..

Now there is nothing wrong with any of those articles on their own, but it's an obvious editors choice to push the anti US tone with the whole of their reporting.

Meanwhile when you look at the News they report for Russian Politics it's totally different tone. Lets see if you can figure it out.. :winkwink:


1) One small step for Russia, one giant leap for Eurasian Union
2) Early voting begins in remote Russian regions
3) Anti-drug Tsar demands digital warfare

I mean really You don't see any bias in their general reporting styles? It's all happy gogo in regards with their reporting on Russian politics and doom & gloom when it revolves around the US.

So while it's a interesting site to get a different view it's very far from being unbiased. I read it from time to time and I see the same kind of reporting trends on a very regular basis.

It's just like the differences of say Fox News & say CNN.. Each tends to favor news from their own so called side.

Another quick tidbit about the obvious differences in US vs Russian reporting on their site.

Check out the headlines for the military reporting and the differences between what they say..

http://rt.com/news/pentagon-new-bomb-681/

Look at this articles and then the ones one the right side..

If it's about the US.. it's about killing and attacks.. If it's about Russia it's defense and testing.

US

1)Hypersonic weapon: New US bomb kills long before you hear it
2)'Shocking' US military spending since 9/11
3)Pentagon could bomb enemy hackers

Meanwhile with Russians

1)Fly-by-photo’ Iskander missile test-fired
2)Russia’s Su-30MK maker boasts order portfolio for 300 fighters
3)In nod to European missile defense, Russia rolls out Iskander missiles

I mean really no bias there?

Those examples you gave aren't exactly a great illustration of RT being "anti-american." They are simply reporting on important issues. You call it "doom & gloom" while others simply call it "the truth."

Yet Fox News can report the truth yet still be overwhellinly in support of the right wing in their overal reporting trends.. CNN can do the same while being more to the left.

As which RT does it and is obviously pro Russian anti American establishment. Look at what I added to the bottom with my edit and the examples of their differences in military reporting.


If it's to do with the US it's about attacking, killing or build up of power. If it's about Russia's military it's about defense, business (ie growing economy) and testing new technology.

I mean a clear example in the difference is the article about the Russian missile that is guided by photo.. (something Us has had for years btw)

In regards to that missile their article title is about "testing" technology and defending against military build up in Europe.

Meanwhile when it comes to a new US missile the article headline is about "killing before you hear it". Another was titled the Pentagon can blow up hackers houses.. While the articles also cover the technology they also push the idea of US build up to attack.

I mean these are just single articles, but it's easy to see a general overall tone of the message when you look at the site as a whole.. Fox does, it, CNN does it Aljazeera does it.. every news source does it, so I'm not just singling out RT I'm just saying they are very far from being unbiased.

It just annoys me when people claim sites like Rt or aljazeera aren't bias because the message isn't the same as say CNN or Fox news. All of them are pushing their own agenda.

The agenda normally revolves around what their viewers "want" to hear. People aren't going to watch or read a news source that tells them what they don't want to hear so news is always bias for the audience they are catering to.

I'd love to see a credible source on what they are talking about behind the closed doors and specifically about eugenics and a 'dictatorial world'.

:thumbsup

I'd include Colbert, but facts have a well known liberal bias.

You are joking on the left wing bias? They didnt even report the NHS privatisation they just kept running stories about how awfull the NHS is and how much better it would be if private companies ran it.

Of course anything that supports your preferred narrative is "truth" and anything that does not is "propaganda".

BBC have been a government mouthpiece lately.... I still watch it though... but also watch RT. It's interesting seeing some of the stories that make it on RT that they don't even get a mention on UK TV even when it's big news.

yeah except for the fact that every one of those websites uses as source material news stories taken from mainstream media outlets. weird huh?

I agree. Unfortunately most people don't seek out alternative news sources, so they limit themselves to a very narrow band of highly controlled information/propaganda.


Some of my favorite alternative news sources..

http://www.activistpost.com
http://www.presscore.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.veteranstoday.com
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.canadianawareness.org
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.wnd.com
http://www.rt.com
http://www.tarpley.net
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.theintelhub.com
http://www.maxkeiser.com
http://www.zerohedge.com

As do people just shooting the shit around the water cooler. There is no such thing as unbiased human communication.

I want unbiased, I'll talk to one of my dogs.

use "news sources" lightly as none of these do the original journalistic fact finding just take mainstream media stories and put a crackpot spin on them.

Npr
pbs

Could it be that they've brainwashed the masses so fully that if "they" (the mainstream media) didn't say it, or if the news comes from somewhere else, that it's just not "real" or credible?

Could it be that if the alternative news sources are pointing to the fact that the mainstream media is also saying the exact same thing, that it might just snap people out of their corporate media induced trance? I dunno..

now that is an acrobat explanation that would make gideon gallery proud.

No, not at all. No fact finding at those news sources. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You kill me. ..Take www.tarpley.net for instance. Do you know where Dr. Tarpley is right now? Oh right, at this very moment he's right in the middle of the Syrian districts where the fighting is going on right now. So much for journalistic fact finding.

i listen to his radio show most weeks. but he has been perpetually wrong in his predictions over the last decade.

that's one example, but the majority of the rest of the sites do zero original reporting. they take news from the media that is controlled by the illumnati nwo.

Funny, I found the opposite to be true. I've read almost all of his books, and they are highly accurate in my opinion. I mean he wrote the book on Obama (Obama - The Postmodern Coup) before Obama was even in the picture, and that book was predictive, ..almost prophetic. Insanely accurate!

Yes, but as I tried to convey in my last post, it's a very sad state of affairs for most of these alternative news sources to have to spend so much time referencing main stream news reports to stitch together the narrative of what the Illuminati have said they want to do, and how they are doing it. Nothing else, no amount of reason or logic will snap people out of the trance they've been put in. You almost have to spoon feed their own information/propaganda back to them, like Baby Pablum, to make it digestible.

Again biased about Qatar but who gives a fuck about Qatar.

Riiiight. That's what the BNP says.

really good read.if there aren't any then why not? why is it hard to tell a story with no bias? just say the events that happened. hmm

Well...at least for the past 24 hours every news channel seems to be covering NOTHING but Natalie Wood's mysterious death 30 years ago. lol

Because the news agencies are in the "business" of selling the news. This means no matter whom they are they have an audience to cater to. That means they will provide news that interests their audience.

Simply put people themselves are biased and for the most part are only interested in what they want to hear.

Riiiight. That's what Blairites says.

I'm far from a Blairite buddy.

You trust on the ability of the average joe to spot the difference? Wow, that is naive. Consider yourself lucky if you cán spot it.

Now you are just trolling.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh