Why MSM is useless in the fight against a free society.

Some Americans will see this as the concern it is and some will hoist RT & RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan as another goddess for their cult worship.

NBC is owned by whom again?

NBC brings Kremlin Propaganda to mainsteam.
Why?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/amp/u-s-needn-t-fear-russia-rt-editor-chief-margarita-n831736?__twitter_impression=true


SNIP

Asked if RT aims to influence audiences in the West, Simonyan maintains RT sets out to inform. "If you think informing is influence, then you can put it in those words."

U.S intelligence agencies disagree. A declassified version of the "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" report said:

*"RT's criticism of the U.S. election was the latest facet of its broader and longer-standing anti-U.S. messaging likely aimed at undermining viewers' trust in U.S. democratic procedures and undercutting U.S. criticism of Russia's political system."

*"The Kremlin staffs RT and closely supervises RT's coverage, recruiting people who can convey Russian strategic messaging because of their ideological beliefs."

*"In recent interviews, RT's leadership has candidly acknowledged its mission to expand its U.S. audience and to expose it to Kremlin messaging."

*"RT's reports often characterize the United States as a 'surveillance state' and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use."

*"RT America formally disassociates itself from the Russian Government by using a Moscow-based autonomous nonprofit organization to finance its US operations ... In addition, RT rebranded itself in 2008 to deemphasize its Russian origin."

*"Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences."



How is it that all those American comentators & guests on RT somehow just never figured out who RT was & what their purpose was in our US media.

They all knew. They brought in American audiences who would never have watched RT.

They all knew what they were doing when they signed on to RT.
They were all Complicit in normalizing Kremlin ops & bringing in Trump to the WHouse.

Everyone of them brought an American audience and gave credibility to Kremlin propaganda via RT.

Complicit & well compensated.

Has Manafort & Devine's fingerprints on this manipulation. RT needed an American audience. These two Kremlin/Ukraine electioneers delivered.
$10 million payout + was their compensation.

Fked-upedness of 2016 was a coup with many players & moving parts.
We're seeing the faces of traitors emerge.

RT was also playing that role for Russia. I rarely watch news programs on TV, and I don't think I ever watched RT, but the RT reporting/commentary I heard second-hand seemed reasonable enough in the beginning. (And they hosted Thom Hartmann...) In retrospect, that kind of "reasonable" profile just made it more insidious.

Owning the media control of a population is a KGB tool from the old days.
It worked.

I'd like to know what the US guests were paid & offered for their complicity.

...funded by an assortment of millionaires and billionaires, not to mention the stuff that''s funded primarily by people seeking to snort another line of their favorite ax-grindings. It ranges from "respectable conservative" to full-on Wingnut loony-tunes, and it's EVERYWHERE. It's as pervasive as background radiation.

The liberal-to-left side doesn't have anything comparable. There aren't nearly as many venues where liberal-to-left arguments and viewpoints can reach a large audience.

Enter RT, back during the Bush years, where it provided an outlet where people could talk about the Bush (mal)administration and what it was doing without being "balanced" by Bush spokescritters, as happened often in mainstream outlets. Only a few years earlier MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's high-rated show because then-MSNBC owner General Electric saw profits in an impending war in Iraq.

So RT filled an under-served market niche, at the time seeming to expand liberal media space in cable TV as Air America had in radio only a few years earlier.

This framed RT as a "liberal" outlet, when in fact it was merely the fact that Vladdy Boy was perfectly fine with providing a place where people could be critical of American government policies and practices. And once some people put it in their mental pigeonholes as a "friendly" source, They became quire lax about revising that status as Vlad had it acting more directly as a mouthpiece for his own policies and practices.

Takeaway lessons: 1) Always pay attention to whose house you're staying in, and #2) the dangers of outsourcing. We need to build an explicitly liberal media infrastructure.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.amp.html


SNIP

But the West is not laughing. Even as Russia insists that RT is just another global network like the BBC or France 24, albeit one offering “alternative views” to the Western-dominated news media, many Western countries regard RT as the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the West.

Western attention focused on RT when the Obama administration and United States intelligence agencies judged with “high confidence” in January that Mr. Putin had ordered a campaign to “undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process,” discredit Hillary Clinton through the hacking of Democratic Party internal emails and provide support for Donald J. Trump, who as a candidate said he wanted to improve relations with Russia.
MORE..
----------

Not one of RT's hired US guests nor commentators spoke well of Hillary Clinton.

They all were aware of the message they were to deliver to their American audiences on behalf of the Kremlin.
Every one of them knew their purpose on RT.
They were complicit & they were compensated.

"Analysts are sharply divided about the influence of RT. Pointing to its minuscule ratings numbers, many caution against overstating its impact.

Yet focusing on ratings may miss the point, says Peter Pomerantsev, who wrote a book three years ago that described Russia’s use of television for propaganda. “Ratings aren’t the main thing for them,” he said. “These are campaigns for financial, political and media influence.”


From NYTimes, March 2017
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.amp.html


They did it for "Media & Money".
Every complicit one was in it for media & money. Traitors.

Last edited Sat Dec 30, 2017, 02:59 PM - Edit history (3)

"One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption. . . In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens to stations of great pre-eminence and power may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds actuated by superior virtue may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty."

No one in Agent Orange's circle can be accused of possessing "superior virtue."

Yet focusing on ratings may miss the point, says Peter Pomerantsev, who wrote a book three years ago that described Russia’s use of television for propaganda. “Ratings aren’t the main thing for them,” he said. “These are campaigns for financial, political and media influence.”


From NYTimes, March 2017
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.amp.html

That's not news, Margarita.

He said that RT gave him complete editorial control of his program.

"Thom" could spout whataboutisms better than many working in the kremlin. It was truly cringe-worthy.

I was in Reno Nevada a while back and noticed that the Atlantis Casino had it as a selection on the TV in the room I was staying in. I was appalled. It is absolutely a propaganda channel, in the vein of Faux News. I can't believe it is even allowed to broadcast in the US.

That's why they can. If they couldn't, then it's likely we are not living in a free country.

Is RT Russian propaganda? Yes. Is Voice of America American propaganda? Yes. Is the BBC British propaganda? Sometimes yes. Out of these three sources of information which do I trust most? Well given my own personal biases you'd be right to say I'd trust the BBC more, but that is because they are much more independent than RT or VOA. I trust VOA more as they have more editorial Independence, but less than the BBC because VOA is directly funded through the US government, whereas the BBC is funded in main through the tv licence fee, supplemented with commercial income and some government grants for specific overseas services (e.g the new Korean Service). I trust RT less because they are funded in the main by the Russian government and there is no transparency on their editorial independence.

RT is not over-the-air and is carried exclusively on closed-circuit (i.e., some cable and satellite systems.) These cable and satellite companies are under no obligation whatsoever to carry any particular closed-circuit programming. Instead of being good corporate citizens, they opt to take kremlin money to carry their propaganda channel.

https://www.freeview.co.uk/why-freeview/channels/rt

They have a licence to broadcast by OFCOM (UK equivalent of the FCC) and pay Arqiva carriage fees - just like the BBC, ITV and other broadcasters in the UK.

You may be right in saying it is not a first amendment thing. However it is a sign of a free society that we are able to see and hear this propaganda easily... easier in my homeland than here anyway (but not much harder since they stream online). Do I agree with RT's message? No. Do I watch RT? No routinely. Should they broadcast in the US? Absolutely.

In "ye olden days" if you wanted to seek out the Soviet view you would have to go to shortwave radio. Cable and satellite TV were in their infancy, or non existent. But you knew Radio Moscow was Soviet propaganda. Same thing with RT... It's Radio Moscow... with pictures.

Now if you were living in a non free society e.g. People's Republic of China, you can watch BBC, CNN, etc but anything controversial gets blacked out. Immediately. Russia is similarly not free but in a different way... If programming is controversial they will yank the licence of the broadcaster. Non Russian programming on satellite is tolerated but BBC tried partnerships with Russian broadcasters only for these to end when government officials complained.

If RT was found to have broken its licence agreement then yes OFCOM would pull RT off UK TV screens. RT is subtle... obeying all the laws yet putting a very pro Kremlin message out.

We should be teaching our kids what Swedish kids are learning... Lessons on how to spot "fake news". I had these lessons... albeit it was in history class and how to spot propaganda.

Russia Today is happy to work the left and the right sitting Michael Flynn at the same table as Jill Stein.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696