RT hires Americans the same way MSNBC does. You don't get the gig if they think you will talk against the desired outcome. But those who have done both say RT has less editorial control over what they do say. Even for guest spots.
Remember Ed Schultz? The bulk of the interview resumes at 5:05 after Cenk's comments, so don't stop after the first segment. Cenk comes from MSNBC, too, and talks a bit about it.
After Krystal Ball urged Clinton not to run in 2014 she was told that any HRC coverage she wanted to do would have to be approved by the president of the network, after Clinton's campaign threatened their access.
Here's her description of the aftermath.
FWIW the Ring of Fire guy is very anti-Trump and anti-republican, and he's part of RT as far as I know.
They have a range of views, but people who don't judge for themselves don't know it.
Chris Hedges is Anti-Trump, very dedicated to small-d democratic action and he has a show. I ignore Scottie Nell Hughes, she is a former Trump spokesperson. Rick Sanchez is not a Trumper. Jesse Ventura isn't a Trumper, although I don't really watch him. He's more prone to third party, but last I checked, that was a valid part of being in a democracy. I have not really bothered to watch Larry King so I can't really say anything about him.
I don't see RT America behaving that much differently from other news outlets, foreign and domestic, in fact sometimes I learn more about things going on that are not being covered in typical American media. There was more frequent coverage of what was going on in Hong Kong than what was on American media. The biggest difference is that they don't spend days obsessing over things like Elizabeth Warren intimating that Bernie Sanders is a secret sexist, doing things like bringing on a "body language expert" to prove it. The fact that the reporters have all said that they have more journalistic independence than at other stations is just waved over.
Letting thoughtful people who are offering an opposing point of view have a platform isn't a bad thing. People act like we aren't saturated in propaganda from our own government here. MSNBC and CNN have former National Security State people who have lied to Congress on their payroll. All the mainstream outlets ran with the garbage and sold the Iraq War. These are supposed to be authoritative sources? And even last week or so, it was declassified that Crowdstrike testified that it didn't have clear evidence that the hacking was done by Russians, though it postulates so.
The bottom line is that when you actually watch it, RT America does not behave much differently than any other news outlet in the lion's share of situations. In my experience, it's when they report on things going on in Russia where things seem sketchy. Other than that, giving anti-war advocates a voice isn't a bad thing, in my opinion. That anti-war is now Russian propaganda is the stunning thing. It's funny people talking about fascism but there is a hell of a lot of squashing of dissent going on inside the ranks.
Also, isn't it interesting how the people who swear by RT seem to curiously have the same viewpoints in relation to our democratic process? They all post from similar disreputable sources, they all consume disreputable media and they all insist that water is sand. Between them and Fox News/OANN America certainly seems to have bested Pravda in almost every way. At least the citizens of the former USSR generally knew they were being fed propaganda.
What points do you find objectionable? That I (not going to speak for anyone else) think it's candidate's job to earn someone's vote and that it is not owed? That it's fine to vote for anyone you want, or leave the top block blank, in accordance with your conscience? Those choices are part of our democracy. You're turning the word on its head if you want to merely have a democracy and yet not really have one, to not give people that choice. There are many valid critiques of the system, you are just not bothering to listen and want to shame people for not towing the line. Ain't gonna work.
What I've gotten out of this is that its totally cool to rely on state operated propaganda created by a country we've been at literal cyber-warfare with for the past four years so long as it confirms your beliefs, but totally not cool to point out that kool-aid is being consumed.
Because, you know..if you want to tear everything down, who better to help than those who really want to see it torn down?
Facts are facts. RT is propaganda arm of the Russian government created to sow disinformation in America. It literally isn't even a fact in dispute by any major agency charged with identifying such outlets. Believing the propaganda being spread doesn't make it real - it just means that you want it to be.
That's so fucking laughable when all our major outlets sold the lies of the Iraq War and are red-baiting to increase hostilities with Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and gloss over the atrocities we are complicit in, in Yemen and Syria. The Democratic Party has become the war party. And you will go right along with that state operated propaganda because it comes from "acceptable" sources.
www.theguardian.com
