realweirdo wrote: » Here is an average debate on Crosstalk on RT which is probably their equivalent of Meet the Press.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSHH6YFLaXs It's just three guests all bashing America and America foreign policy... Not a single criticism of Syria, Russia, China, Iran or Hezbollah who have played the biggest part in the destruction of Syria. RT is just so anti American, they just don't do balance.
Syria, Russia, China, Iran or Hezbollah who have played the biggest part in the destruction of Syria.
donegal__road wrote: » ..... your joking, right?
bmaxi wrote: » But what are reputable sources? Before the advent of FTA satellite TV we were dependent on Western media, now we have RT, Al Jazeera, Press Tv etc. To say that these are not reputable sources is to form a biased opinion, I certainly wouldn't say all western media is a reputable source.
Jonny7 wrote: » RT is as bad as, if not worse than Fox. I've yet to find any article or report on RT that is in any way critical of Putin or the Kremlin. Activists with microphones become war correspondents, debate shows are one-sided affairs and the channel is a lucrative podium/soapbox for anyone disgruntled with the US or Israel, no matter how loopy. What's sad is it's a reflection on the nations press - whom are absolutely terrified to the point of self-censorship. There are still hundreds of incidents of sackings, intimidation, beatings and worse on editors, journalists and staff - it's the most dangerous place for a reporter in Europe by a long shot.
bumper234 wrote: » Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:
Seaneh wrote: » The most populated part of it is. Most of the land mass is in Asia, but most of that is sparsly inhabited, almost all the major cities are in Europe.
WakeUp wrote: » I dont think there is such a thing as non bias news, the source of its information is its bias. Media exectutives and editors sit around a table and decide what the news is for the day everyday. Some stories are told some are left out. Political and economical factors come into play. If you want to be truly unbiased you need to get your news from as many conflicting sources as possible and take a look at everything being said. What is being said and the source is important not the presenter on a television screen reading a written script be it Western media or somewhere else. Selective coverage and bias narratives cant really be avoided which is why I read as many sources/angles as possible to try and get the overall picture of whatever it is I want to find out about and look into it more myself. Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar they had their political independence called into question.http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/30/al-jazeera-independence-questioned-qatar RTs first editor said part of the channels remit was to "reflect Russias opinion of the world"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29 Just two examples no such thing as a totally unbiased news source I dont think
bumper234 wrote: » How the hell are we supposed to take your world view on journalism and politics seriously when you don't even know that Russia is not part of Europe. :eek:
Suff wrote: » I would suggest reading the following article by Adrian Salbuchi; a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. RT published the article, which outlines some interesting pointers on why USA are trying to take out Assad. I happen to agree with him, the conflict in Syria has surpassed 'selling' a freedom and democracy package to yet another ME state. It's far more complicated... and thankfully people are becoming more aware now. Why the US, EU and Israel hate Syria.Link Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.
7) Syria is one of the last secular Muslim states in the Middle East, whilst Zionist Jewish supremacists - in line with born-again-Israel-First-Bu****e ‘Christian’ kooks in the West - need for everybody to align to the will of their dark demiurge god which has its own ‘chosen people’. The Global Power Elite’s implicit order is clear: everybody must believe in Israeli superiority, whilst our young Syrian friend aptly points out that Syria, like Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya and Iran just could not be convinced of that.
8) Syria proudly maintains and protects its political and cultural national identity – she stresses how Syria “holds on to its uniqueness,” whilst respecting the uniqueness of others. The standardized coming world government simply abhors anybody standing up to its imposed standardization of thought, behavior and ‘values’, where the West’s global megabrands, shopping malls, and fashion & style dictatorships “makes every place look pretty much the same, which leads to a very boring world.”
Jonny7 wrote: » This is typical fare on Russia Today.
Suff wrote: » Note; Try to read it with an open mind before you throw it into the conspiracies theory bin.
Suff wrote: » So you decided to ridicule RT rather than discuss the points ...
Rascasse wrote: » Yeah, right. Googled the guys name and what a surprise, another conspiracy theory nut. Everything is the fault of the NWO and Israel, perfect for RT.
Suff wrote: » Regardless of who and where it was published (actually it was SyrianGirl who composed the 8 points), some of the points are interesting and shouldn't be dismissed under the tattered banner of conspiracy theories. I happen to fully agree with points 5 and 6. 5 - Syria has large Gas and Oil reserves, this is documented by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) they have published a number of studies on the levant region. Syria has 20.50 billion barrels proved reserves in 2013, noting that the entire levant region has 20.51 billion barrels (Israel has 0.01). As for production, in 2011 Syria produced 277.93 billion cubic feet compared to Israel's 91.82. Significant reserves wouldn't you agree? Link Here's the EIA page with detailed analysis on Syria's reserves. link 6 - Syria in state of war with Israel, this doesn't need further clarifications, clearly Israel is the only benefactor from destroying Syria which ultimately would result in the removal of Hizbollah.
donegal__road wrote: »
Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months. This past week however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed has finalized plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or the 2011 attack on Libya.
How would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But, for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russian have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico.
We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire.....Besides, we’re broke, we can’t afford it, and worst of all, we’re fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home.
bmaxi wrote: » This was actually the point I was making. I've no doubt that Al Jazeera, RT and Press TV will put their own slant on what they report but in the West we were inclined to take every position taken by the press as the correct one. Western media is no more immune to political manipulation than anywhere else. If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion. Where are these WMD that the war was supposedly fought over? The truth is, just like the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis killed since the invasion, they don't exist. We in the West however, without the benefit of the alternative viewpoint provided by RT et al, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, there was hardly a dissenting voice as the coalition forces bludgeoned their way through the country. Things are different now, the alternative view is there, whether true or not, and Uncle Sam is not getting it all his own way.
bmaxi wrote: » If you remember back to the Iraq war and the WMD, this point, and with it the saturation of the media making Iraq out to be the cradle of evil in the world, was given as justification for invasion.
donegal__road wrote: » Date of speech: June 19, 2012 Ron Paul:
Suff wrote: » you cannot simply follow one source or a particular media channel, since each have a political agenda of their own (CNN, FoxNews, Aljazeera and SkyNews) To form some sort of an understanding to a very complex topic, you'll need to listen to all sides to make up your own.
Jonny7 wrote: » Galloway is an angry man who hates the establishment and takes every opportunity to bash his favorite targets For this reason he has a lucrative circuit, especially on foreign government controlled stations It's a bit like speaking on North Korean TV about how awful human rights in China are
