Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

christopera said:

So yeah, RT is full of it just as much as Fox News Entertainment is, but they do it in different ways.

---

Have you posted a fake news article from RT yet?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Quote:

‘Oddly enough, if you talk to most reporters, most of the reporters I know who are giving me stories about censorship, about top-down control and all, are ex-reporters. They’re often people – I began noticing, “Well I used to work for Associated Press…”, or “Well, I used to work for CBS…” – “Well I used to…” The ones who are still in there absolutely vehemently deny that there’s any such thing like this. They get very indignant. They say: “Are you telling me that I’m not my own man? I’ll have you know that in 17 years with this paper I always say what I like.” And I say to them: “You say what you like, because they like what you say.”

‘And, you know, the minute you move too far – and you have no sensation of a restraint on your freedom. I mean, you don’t know you’re wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day. It’s only if you then begin to wander to a prohibited perimeter that you feel the tug, you see. So you’re free because your ideological perspective is congruent with that of your boss. So you have no sensation of being at odds with your boss.‘

---

‘Michael Parenti – Inventing Reality', talk on 17 October 1993)

---

Brian Jones said:

For you,  Bellingcat has an anti-Russia bias, so they are not to be trusted. RT has a pro-Russia bias and you trust them.

---

Brian Jones said:

RT was developed and funded by the Russian state to improve their image. That's fine, except that public relations combined with journalism doesn't lead to objectivity. Every source is slanted. There are a few not so slanted but RT or American media are not among those.

---

That's because the West keeps lying about them. 

Brian Jones said:

OK, so when something is funded by the U.S. government or funded by Petroleum companies we all see bias. But when something is funded by the Russian state, we're supposed to...shrug?

---

Brian Jones said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/putin-accused-using-troops-ethnic-minority-backgrounds-as-cannon-fodder-1539841

This is a topic we haven't gotten into yet (but it keeps showing up on my screen, because of the algorithms of what I want to see I guess).

I think this is one of those true or false questions and not a matter of interpretation. Are non-ethnic-Russians within Russia treated like shit in general, and specifically more likely to be conscripted to fight in Ukraine.

I never believed one of the real reasons of the war was to protect Russians in Ukraine. But either way, what is the conditions for non-Russians in Russia. I think we know how this works in every other country in the world.

---

Brian Jones said:

Are non-ethnic-Russians within Russia treated like shit in general

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Ok, understood.  Thanks for the explanation.

But I stand by my comment that RT allows them (reporters) to say things that the mainstream media won't allow.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

No comment on your double-standard?

These two statements are not mutually exclusive: RT allows reporters to say things that Western corporate media won't allow; and RT limits their ability to report outside a pro-Putin perspective.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Where did I get this impression? Earlier you posted personal testimony from Ed Schultz, Abby Martin, and Lee Camp as supporting evidence that RT allows reporters to say things that "the mainstream media" won't allow.

Then I post personal testimony from Liz Wahl saying that RT limits her ability to report outside a pro-Putin perspective - and you apparently no longer consider personal testimony to be valid - preferring to instead believe the response by RT.

What kind of response did you expect them to give??? 'Oh yeah she's right we do censor our reporting lololol!'...

So yes - that you believe personal statements made in support of RT, while you seek to discredit personal statements that don't support RT is a fact - and another example of your bias-induced double-standard.

---

Ok, understood.  Thanks for the explanation.

But I stand by my comment that RT allows them (reporters) to say things that the mainstream media won't allow.

---

The Blind Ass said:

You might think I found what follows somewhere deep within the asshole of 4Chan, but no…

All from  RT.com -  in regards to the BioLab “situation” in UA…

lol…

https://www.rt.com/russia/553067-ukraine-biolabs-hunter-biden-documents/

---

Quote:

According to Kirillov, all pathogenic biomaterials stored in Ukraine were “transported by military transport aircraft to the United States via Odessa,” in early February 2022. On February 24, as Russian troops entered Ukraine, the ministry of health in Kiev ordered the remaining strains to be destroyed, the general said.

Kirillov said that the Russian intervention halted activities at five Ukrainian biolabs that had been working with anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, cholera, leptospirosis, and African swine fever.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

So you can't explain?  I didn't think so.

---

Plus, no one's responded to this question:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Which of the above has been disproven?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

So you can't explain?  I didn't think so.

---

It's been explained - you just pretend to not understand it rather than debate honestly.

---

Kryptos said:

It's very hard to make someone understand when their salary depends on them not understanding.

---

Quote:

Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, smoking hot founder of ArmsWatch, has reported that contractors working in these labs were given diplomatic immunity, meaning they could take whatever they liked in and out of Ukraine/Georgia/Afghanistan + another 22 countries without being searched etc.

Why would a harmless research project have the need to give diplomatic immunity to a bunch of nerd researchers? Is there a logical reason for this that I'm missing?

---