Ship of Fools: Russia Today accounts closed

Thread: Russia Today accounts closed Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030547

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

I enjoy many shows on RT; any thoughts on accounts being closed?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

What is Russia Today?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
What is Russia Today?

A de facto dictatorship.

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

Russia Today broadcasts news programs on You Tube which present alternative to western media.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

We've just returned from holiday where the only English language TV programme was Russia Today. My goodness it was so biased against Britain.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Russia Today is funded by the Russian government, so...

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

I didn't understand this news story. It was reported that the accounts had been closed - presumably from an RT press release. Then the bank said that the accounts were still operative. I've not heard any explanation of why any action was taken or whether any action was in fact taken. There must be more to this story than we're hearing.
Do you have any more information, Meconopsis?

And welcome to the Ship, if I may be so bold.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meconopsis:
Russia Today broadcasts news programs on You Tube which present alternative to western media.

Also broadcasts in the UK on terrestrial and satellite networks.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We've just returned from holiday where the only English language TV programme was Russia Today. My goodness it was so biased against Britain.

So different, so very different from the way our media tends to report on Russia?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Russia Today is a veritable curate's egg. It's sometimes very good in providing an alternative angle to world news and coverage of issues sometimes overlooked by the BBC and Sky, but in so doing it is also a petri dish for the festering of conspiracy theorists and other nutjobs.

The one conspiracy theory they don't give credence to is the one (attested to by their former journalists) is that there is editorial interference, with the end goal being to show the Russian government in a positive light.

It's a tough issue, because if you view it as a dissenting voice in a democracy, then the interference from the banks can be seen as deeply worrying. But if you view it as a propaganda channel for a hostile government, then it doesn't seem quite so bad an infringement of free speech, as it is free speech which is abused for the distortion of facts.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I shall miss it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We've just returned from holiday where the only English language TV programme was Russia Today. My goodness it was so biased against Britain.
So different, so very different from the way our media tends to report on Russia?

Yes.

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

No, I don't have any more information or clarity to add (I was hoping to find it here, lol - I am in USA). In fact, the whole thing is opaque, which really has me curious.

I find the programs refreshing.

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We've just returned from holiday where the only English language TV programme was Russia Today. My goodness it was so biased against Britain.
So different, so very different from the way our media tends to report on Russia?
Yes.

No - which is why it is refreshing to me.

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

Also befuddling to my poor brain was the Ukrainian situation; the coverage on RT has made a lot of sense to me. (to wit, that the new "rulers" are oligarchs installed by war-loving neocons.

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

somewhat clarifying article on Ukraine

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

British perspective

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meconopsis:
Also befuddling to my poor brain was the Ukrainian situation; the coverage on RT has made a lot of sense to me. (to wit, that the new "rulers" are oligarchs installed by war-loving neocons.

Russia Todaynis funded by the Russian government and approved by Putin. It might well be a change from Western coverage, but it will not be free of bias.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
The coup against Yanukovych played out on Feb. 22, 2014, as the neo-Nazi militias and other violent extremists overran government buildings forcing the president and other officials to flee for their lives...Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had been presiding over the Winter Olympics at Sochi, was caught off-guard by the coup next door and held a crisis session to determine how to protect ethnic Russians and a Russian naval base in Crimea, leading to Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and annexation by Russia a year ago.

Now that's a gem of revisionist propaganda if I ever saw one.

What's next? Putin left his World Cup watch party to fight ISIS in Syria? Putin had a civil discussion with a New York businessman about the US election? Putin could be confused for a 400-pound guy sitting in his bedroom? Putin wrote an editorial in the local paper responding to a story he didn't quite agree with?

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

quote:
Russia Todaynis funded by the Russian government and approved by Putin. It might well be a change from Western coverage, but it will not be free of bias.

I don't expect anything, really, to be bias-free, but I do value differing points of view. These wars are being done in the name of the American people, they don't make sense to me, and I need more information than I get in NY Times, LA Times, & the British press. Journalists who become elite, seem too cozy with the status quo.

[fixed code]

[ 25. October 2016, 03:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meconopsis:
I don't expect anything, really, to be bias-free, but I do value differing points of view.

OK, I was being mildly sarcastic when I said bias. Russia Today are a propaganda arm of the Russian state. Much as I am frustrated by the British and American press, they are not arms of the state. BBC, which are funded by the state, will criticise government in ways Russia Today will not dare to criticise the Kremlin.

quote:

These wars are being done in the name of the American people, they don't make sense to me, and I need more information than I get in NY Times, LA Times, & the British press. Journalists who become elite, seem too cozy with the status quo.

You mentioned Ukraine. How on earth is that in the name of the American people? I doubt too many Americans know where the Ukraine is, much less are interested in its struggles.
Russia Today is not where one goes for unbiased information on Russian activity.
Russia Today is sadly lacking in journalistic standards, even forgetting the bias. Though, if you like them, may I suggest, The Sun or Fox "News"?

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

so, you are confident that U.S. neocons are not deliberately attempting to provoke Russia by replacing elected Ukrainian officials with hand-picked neo-Nazis?

BTW, I don't see that your gratuitous insult regarding what American people are or are not interested in, is helpful to discussion. I am certainly interested in what "my" government does. It's my money, & I will pay the consequences.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meconopsis:
so, you are confident that U.S. neocons are not deliberately attempting to provoke Russia by replacing elected Ukrainian officials with hand-picked neo-Nazis?

Yes. That narrative is a little tinfoil hat for me.

quote:

BTW, I don't see that your gratuitous insult regarding what American people are or are not interested in, is helpful to discussion.

It is not gratuitous, nor was it intended as an insult. It is an acccurate assessment. Americans are not, as a group, very well informed about what happens outside their borders. It is a function of size, power and isolation.

[ 25. October 2016, 17:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0