It's completely optional whilst tax isn't (if you're over a certain income threshold). I'm also waiting for you to provide links to the BBC putting out anything as propagandist as RT does.
Russia Today - now in the UK, for the UK. Really.
- Thread starter randal
- Start date
It's completely optional whilst tax isn't (if you're over a certain income threshold). I'm also waiting for you to provide links to the BBC putting out anything as propagandist as RT does.
Sadly, I don't watch any news or read any newspapers, I just don't trust any of them enough to base my "did you hear" remarks off.
Sad really, as it's hard to keep up with current world affairs whilst wading through the general crap that the big news bodies spurt out to get a reaction from listeners/watchers/readers.
Sad really, as it's hard to keep up with current world affairs whilst wading through the general crap that the big news bodies spurt out to get a reaction from listeners/watchers/readers.
The license fee is only otpional if you can prove you dont have a tv in the house and never watch the bbc.
It is a stealth tax.
Most major broadcasting corporations in the world are government funded.
as for the propoganda, its so easy!
Russian Sub Hunt - no evidence, no boat found plain propoganda
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29727311
Ukraine Airline shot down by 'pro Russian rebels' - no evidence, in fact evidence of a cover up by the Ukranian aurhtorities, but goes unreported
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28354856
I could honestly go on all day with examples.
The BBC is just a mouthpiece for gov/ big corp / american interests.
Has anyone claimed that the west doesn't do propaganda? I don't think so. The difference is that media in the west is free to judge the information put out by governments and decide if it's worth the paper on which it's written. A good example is the Iraq dodgy dossier put out by the Blair government - almost all British media outlets were very critical of the information in this dossier, especially the BBC. Turns out they were right. The only time RT is critical of Putin's regime is when one of their presenters has had enough and spectacularly quits on air
Last edited:
Not that I'm justifying propagandha in anyway, but it's the manner in which say the BBC or RT go about implementing it. At least the BBC is the least bit subtle about it!
Take the examples I listed above, RT's agenda is state sponsored brazenness. Brazenness that now has a purposely created channel, specifically designed to send that message into the UK.
Tin foil fat, wheelbarrow of salt but you'd almost think that they were trying to condition a population for some kind of invasion/take over. /runs
Take the examples I listed above, RT's agenda is state sponsored brazenness. Brazenness that now has a purposely created channel, specifically designed to send that message into the UK.
Tin foil fat, wheelbarrow of salt but you'd almost think that they were trying to condition a population for some kind of invasion/take over.
/runsPlease give an example, its interesting to me that I find the BBC to be brazen where you do not and vice versa
Please give an example, its interesting to me that I find the BBC to be brazen where you do not and vice versa
Pick me a topic and I'll try and find you an example of subtlty, alternatively please show me some brazenness on the scale of RT.
For reference check the summary page on rt.com/uk , which is a great collection of negative UK news. Certainly in the top most section anyway.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
RT has its own propaganda, but the BBC is a lot more insidious and subtle in its propaganda. bbc has never had a show like Breaking the Set or the old one with Lauren Lyster Capital Accounts. Lauren Lyster left to go to yahoo. BBC has never had any show since its inception that is not pro establishment and left. They had some stuff on bbc4 once or twice but no one watches that. Also russia today presenters are far hotter.
lauren lyster
lauren lyster
I find with RT (like most overseas news), it's wise ignore anything said about the home nation (as it's usually so bias to the point of hilarity) & take news about everybody else with a pinch of salt.
I also do the same with news in the UK, which overall gives a more balanced view of world.
I also do the same with news in the UK, which overall gives a more balanced view of world.
Probably because you agree with it's bias?
If the BBC article is so neutral then why does it keep emphasising that the Latvian jet is 'Russian made'? same goes with most other UK articles. They're obviously trying to forment another cold war scenario and you only have to read this forum to see that most of the populace are falling for it.
RT recently had a poster campaign around London criticising western leaders for their illegal wars censored, most people here agree that Tony Blair etc should face war crimes. If the shoe had been on the other foot we'd have never heard the end of it "Putin is suppressing free speech in Russia, evil evil man" etc.
RT recently had a poster campaign around London criticising western leaders for their illegal wars censored, most people here agree that Tony Blair etc should face war crimes. If the shoe had been on the other foot we'd have never heard the end of it "Putin is suppressing free speech in Russia, evil evil man" etc.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,420
- Location
- Rugby
I think he meant the BBC world Service which was partly government funded although it no longer is.
RT is perfect for certain types of people in the UK such as conspiracy theorists, nationalists, xenophobics/racists, homophobics because they share their views with those at the top of the Russian Government.
I sometimes sit and read what some of the people here are posting and I think to myself "Are they for real? Do they actually believe this?". This no doubt what Merkel was thinking when Putin was trying to explain how his actions in Ukraine were made to stop an American conspiracy to take over the world and whatnot.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-vladimir-putin-angela-merkel-russian
I sometimes sit and read what some of the people here are posting and I think to myself "Are they for real? Do they actually believe this?". This no doubt what Merkel was thinking when Putin was trying to explain how his actions in Ukraine were made to stop an American conspiracy to take over the world and whatnot.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-vladimir-putin-angela-merkel-russian
Funny really, all those with a right wing persuasion claim the BBC is left wing whereas all those with a left wing persuasion see it as being right wing... Personally it's pretty unbiased IMO. Or at least less bias than most other sources.
As an example of how it's not that left wing go and look at the articles discussing the latest female equality report and compare it to something like th Guardians reporting.
It's quite different to Fox News. Fox definitely has its own agenda, but that agenda isn't that of the US government and is quite often critical of the White House's policies. If you look at the output of the media on a holistic basis then you probably get the best view you can, the problem is when the media industry in one particular country (Russia in this case) all tow the same line, that's when you know something isn't quite right.
Last edited:
I think it is the antithesis of Fox