Hacker News Reader

Comment by tastythrowaway | Hacker News Reader

What makes RT propaganda? The fact that they are critical of the US in ways our own media isn't?

Uhh, the fact that they are the state run media arm of a notoriously free press-hostile regime in a country with a famous history of a government propaganda arm?

RT is state-funded as is the BBC and PBS, among many others. But none of them are immediately dismissed as propaganda. Why? Simply because "it's Russia?"

> Why? Simply because "it's Russia?"

Yes.

No. Simply because it's propaganda.

BBC has spent decades earning a reputation for being (mostly) accurate and unbiased. RT has spent at least one decade earning a reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece, and part of his mechanism of control over Russia. The two are not remotely equivalent, despite lapses you can cite at BBC.

Where is evidence of this 'reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece?' Other than your impassioned assertions? Also, all media is biased. BBC is biased toward Western and UK interests, RT is biased toward Russian interests. This is something RT freely admits. But does BBC?

RT is beyond biased. Your claim, if true, equates all media to propaganda. Biased media is simply not the same as propaganda.

Secondary and tertiary definitions from MW for propaganda:

- the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

- ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

That certainly sounds exactly like the media's behavior in this country to me.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

EDIT: formatting

> RT is state-funded as is the BBC

Is the BBC state funded?

"The BBC is established under a Royal Charter and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Yes, most of their operating funds come from taxation. Technically only people with televisions have to pay.

I decided to look, given that I'd heard a lot about Rt being untrustworthy. Here's what a cursory search found, but it's possible the results may have been biased by my search term. It's up to you to determine whether these are credible or if there's another side not represented here. One (American) new sanchor for RT quit on the air because they believed the agency was advancing Putin's agenda over the news[1][2]

As to how much of a public institution it is, I think it's important to look at how much of the organization's budget is from the state. For PBS, it appears it was around 12% in 2010[3]. RT appears to get almost all its funding from the government (if Wikipedia is to be trusted)[4].

Sorry for the Quora links, but really, there's no reason to accept anything I present over what people there might be able to supply anyways. I present them not as sources, but as additional discussions about the topic.

1: https://www.quora.com/How-biased-or-accurate-is-RTs-coverage...

2: https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-...

3: https://www.quora.com/What-portion-of-PBS-funding-comes-from...

4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Budget

The BBC gets almost all of its budget through taxation and mandatory purchases of "television licenses"

No, the fact that they're state owned media and used by the Russian government to put out propaganda makes RT propaganda.

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/

EG: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/

While the article mentions RT as an example of state-owned media, none of the cited incidents actually involve it. Also this website self-identifies as anti-Russian "disinformation." RT, ironically, has a similar mission against mainstream Western and EU media. So every one of these outlets has bias (even though not all of them are honest enough to claim it). So who should we believe?

ahh a classic

А у вас негров линчуют

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Ironically, your implication of tu quoque is itself a logical fallacy. I am not saying "RT is unbiased because Western media _is_ biased" - in fact I am saying all media is biased but of the parties mentioned only one consistently draws ire for its bias.

"RT is the only media outlet criticized for bias"

riiight

You quoted something I didn't say. How does that even work? Is there a word for this? There should be. Anyway that's not what I said - I said they are the only ones who draw consistent ire. As in they are forcefully denounced as biased consistently, instead of all of them being called out for bias and conflict of interest equally (which, really, many more news networks should be).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com