"It also frequently quotes U.S. extremists as authorities on world events or interviews them at length without asking anything more than softball questions."

They've just described every American news network. Every. Single. One. Fox is the worst of the lot about it, both in terms of frequency and extremism, but they all do it on a regular basis.

There are well-known corporate links to the media among other influences.

However, some treat RT as if it's without other influences or minimize those influences. They also have an agenda.

Pointing out a bias in RT does not mitigate bias by any other media in any other country not just the US.

You are assuming a position on my part that I did not make.

Nice try.

I find the pearl-clutching about RT to be... kind of oblivious. Of course they're biased. But then,where the fuck can we get independent and informative information? It's just pointing out that someone's farts stink, really.

but IMO the BBC is the best of the bunch.

In terms of relative neutrality, I'd rank as following:

1) BBC, Sky News, and CNN International.
2) France 24, DW, NHK World.
3) Al-Jazeera, Fox News and VOA.
4) RT, Press TV and CCTV.

All of these stations have their inherent biases but the stations on the top of the list can and will do reporting criticizing their home nation and government. Those toward the bottom generally do not... and may have an overt anti-x bias in their output.

Fox News IMO is a special case in that they are very critical over the present US Administration, but generally balanced on non political stories.

OK.

It is pretty clear that in the last year or so, they received some kind of direction from someone/somewhere that really caused their coverage to jump the shark. It was noticeable to me in particular as someone who only did segments over there periodically. The entire tone changed.

It's too bad. They ruined what had started to be a really good network.

The USA might not have invented all the techniques, but boy they have it down to a science.

To get you from Point A to Point Z, the USA smoothly lays it down one layer at a time, each layer smoothly on top of the one before it, so if you're not paying attention, Point B logically follows Point A, Point C logically follows Point B, and so on. It all appears to be one logical story. And Americans have been propagandized for so long, they need the long smooth transition.

Russia? They don't do propaganda well at all, not to outsiders. Russians can follow Russian propaganda, but to Americans, it seems you start with Point A and immediately go to Point Z. No nuance, no transition. This is way too direct for Americans, and they immediately suspect something fishy.

"The channel has also reported on the false notion that Obama was born outside the United States and therefore is ineligible for the presidency. The channel in March interviewed Dr. Orly Taitz, an émigré from the former Soviet republic of Moldova and a chief proponent of the "birther" movement who gained notoriety in August 2009 by unveiling Obama's supposed Kenyan birth certificate — a document quickly exposed as a laughable forgery — and also has made a whole raft of other completely unsupported claims. Though the host noted that major American media outlets have refuted birther claims, he did not state that Obama has made public his birth certificate, even when Taitz asserted that "Obama himself owed allegiance to three other nations." Taitz has made other appearances on Russia Today.

Sometimes Russia Today seems to want to have it two ways. A July 31, 2009, article on its website reported that Hawaii officials had confirmed that Obama was born there. It went on to state, however, that Obama was "being asked a lot of questions," including the "particularly embarrassing" one about his birthplace. It quoted a correspondent for the far-right website World Net Daily who suggested that, if the birth certificate exists, Obama should display it. The article didn't mention that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told World Net Daily that the birth certificate is posted on the Internet."
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/from-russia-with-love

"Its slickly packaged stories suggest that a legitimate debate is under way in the United States about who perpetrated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

Is SPLC saying there *isn't* a legitimate debate under way in the United States about who perpetrated the 911 attacks?

There is no well-publicized debate in the mainstream media. But plenty of people question the official 911 story, a story that does not hold up to examination. See, for example, ae911truth.org

Questioning the official 911 story belongs on the list of things Russia Today has done right.