LL
London Lite
Founding member
RT may soon may be dropped by US providers.
RT may soon be dropped by US providers, courtesy of @SenJohnMcCain & @LindseyGrahamSC - @SameeraKhan reports. pic.twitter.com/w4kSWsEJ58
— RT UK (@RTUKnews) September 21, 2017
RK
Sounds like this would be limited to cable and satellite providers. From what I've seen Dish Network is the only one that distributes it nationally but cable carriage seems to be limited to the immediate D.C. region. I imagine the cable networks do it as there are many dilomats and government officials know what's going on.
MHz networks broadcasts RT OTA as a subchannel from one of their in the D.C. region transmitters. There's are also a low power affiliate in Cortez, CO (which maybe signing off soon) and the soon to be dead WYME who surrendered their license in the spectrum auction.
I'm sure it'll be available in The White House....
RT may soon may be dropped by US providers.
RT may soon be dropped by US providers, courtesy of @SenJohnMcCain & @LindseyGrahamSC - @SameeraKhan reports. pic.twitter.com/w4kSWsEJ58
— RT UK (@RTUKnews) September 21, 2017
Sounds like this would be limited to cable and satellite providers. From what I've seen Dish Network is the only one that distributes it nationally but cable carriage seems to be limited to the immediate D.C. region. I imagine the cable networks do it as there are many dilomats and government officials know what's going on.
MHz networks broadcasts RT OTA as a subchannel from one of their in the D.C. region transmitters. There's are also a low power affiliate in Cortez, CO (which maybe signing off soon) and the soon to be dead WYME who surrendered their license in the spectrum auction.
DS
DarthSidious
Trying to silence more voices and different opinions, just like the ones who want Fox shut down.
Like the phrase goes, the truth hurts sometimes.
Like the phrase goes, the truth hurts sometimes.
PS
I live in Indiana and have DirecTV. I was scanning channels the other evening and buried between the odd shopping channels and other obscurities was RT. I did a double-take and it was really there. It was still there last night. I'm not sure if it's part of a free preview, a permanent addition or a goof up. I haven't made any changes to my plan so I was quite surprised to see it there considering all the news this week from Washington about it being dropped.
JO
Like the phrase goes, the truth hurts sometimes.
Indeed it does - but I'm not sure what 'truth' has to do in a discussion about RT...
Thing is, noggin, that "truth", for want of a better word, is often a subjective opinion.
The Russians, the Iranians, and a whole host of other governments/peoples that the British government is "against" think the same about our news media.
If RT is a provocative news station to "us", BBC Persian is a highly provocative news station to Iran.
johnnyboy
Founding member
Like the phrase goes, the truth hurts sometimes.
Indeed it does - but I'm not sure what 'truth' has to do in a discussion about RT...
Thing is, noggin, that "truth", for want of a better word, is often a subjective opinion.
The Russians, the Iranians, and a whole host of other governments/peoples that the British government is "against" think the same about our news media.
If RT is a provocative news station to "us", BBC Persian is a highly provocative news station to Iran.
DO
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies.
Only to people who thought Gove was on to something when he said "we've all had enough of experts". Truth is factual. RT like to present opinion as truth, but until they provide something reliable and verifiable to back those opinions up, that's all it remains. It doesn't become truth just because it matches what the consumer thinks themself.
If RT is a provocative news station to "us", BBC Persian is a highly provocative news station to Iran.
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies.
Thing is, noggin, that "truth", for want of a better word, is often a subjective opinion.
Only to people who thought Gove was on to something when he said "we've all had enough of experts". Truth is factual. RT like to present opinion as truth, but until they provide something reliable and verifiable to back those opinions up, that's all it remains. It doesn't become truth just because it matches what the consumer thinks themself.
JO
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies..
OMG - how naïve.
The establishment of BBC Persian and BBC Arabic was to further British foreign policy. Now, in my eyes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it.
Only to people who thought Gove was on to something when he said "we've all had enough of experts". Truth is factual. RT like to present opinion as truth, but until they provide something reliable and verifiable to back those opinions up, that's all it remains. It doesn't become truth just because it matches what the consumer thinks themself.
Truth is absolutely not factual. Ten people can examine the same situation with exposure to the same information and come up with 10 different versions of what happened.
Those 10 people will generally come to a conclusion that fits closest to their own worldview and values system.
Take for example, this study of "BBC impartiality" in the run up to Gulf War Episode II. For whatever reason, having access to the same information and the same sources as other broadcast news organisations. "The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent (and often sceptical) sources such as the Red Cross."
The BBC is as closely allied to the UK Government as RT is to the Kremlin and will warp the news to fit the narrative it seeks to persuade us to follow.
johnnyboy
Founding member
If RT is a provocative news station to "us", BBC Persian is a highly provocative news station to Iran.
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies..
OMG - how naïve.
The establishment of BBC Persian and BBC Arabic was to further British foreign policy. Now, in my eyes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it.
Thing is, noggin, that "truth", for want of a better word, is often a subjective opinion.
Only to people who thought Gove was on to something when he said "we've all had enough of experts". Truth is factual. RT like to present opinion as truth, but until they provide something reliable and verifiable to back those opinions up, that's all it remains. It doesn't become truth just because it matches what the consumer thinks themself.
Truth is absolutely not factual. Ten people can examine the same situation with exposure to the same information and come up with 10 different versions of what happened.
Those 10 people will generally come to a conclusion that fits closest to their own worldview and values system.
Take for example, this study of "BBC impartiality" in the run up to Gulf War Episode II. For whatever reason, having access to the same information and the same sources as other broadcast news organisations. "The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent (and often sceptical) sources such as the Red Cross."
The BBC is as closely allied to the UK Government as RT is to the Kremlin and will warp the news to fit the narrative it seeks to persuade us to follow.
LL
The BBC is as closely allied to the UK Government as RT is to the Kremlin and will warp the news to fit the narrative it seeks to persuade us to follow.
Tell that to President Trump who considers the BBC part of the supposed 'fake news' machine.
I'd also add that UK government ministers have complained about the BBC not exactly towing the line either. The same can't be said for RT which is nothing more than a propaganda machine for Vladimir Putin.
London Lite
Founding member
The BBC is as closely allied to the UK Government as RT is to the Kremlin and will warp the news to fit the narrative it seeks to persuade us to follow.
Tell that to President Trump who considers the BBC part of the supposed 'fake news' machine.
I'd also add that UK government ministers have complained about the BBC not exactly towing the line either. The same can't be said for RT which is nothing more than a propaganda machine for Vladimir Putin.
DO
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies..
OMG - how naïve.
The establishment of BBC Persian and BBC Arabic was to further British foreign policy. Now, in my eyes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Find something reported by BBC Persia or BBC Arabic, that is factually incorrect, and known to be so at the time of broadcast (and where not clearly attributed to another party).
There's tonnes of evidence of RT and Press TV doing this.
(And before you start your search, you might want to double check you know the difference between reporting and opinion)
And how do we establish what actually happened? Oh, yeah, we look at the facial information.
If person A says the sun rose at 6.50am and person B (in the same street as person A) says it rose at 8.45am, they can't both be telling the truth. One of them might have a broken watch and honestly believes their version is the truth, but it isn't. How do we work out what's real then? Do we just accept the sun rise twice that day, or do we look at other evidence, like previous / next sun rises, or get people with knowledge of the sun to tell us?
And did the BBC say "this is the exact truth of what is happening", or did they say "Iraqi officials report...".
Part of the reason 'fake news' has become such a problem is that people want everything condensed into a 30s twitbook video, rather than being given the parts of a story and having to work out the connections and repercussions themselves.
In your opinion. It's not the truth until you can get some cold hard facts to back that up.
They might paint a rosier picture of certain situations than is strictly accurate, but that's a long way from the blatant lying and misrepresentation practiced daily by the likes of RT.
If RT is a provocative news station to "us", BBC Persian is a highly provocative news station to Iran.
For different reasons. The latter is not provocative because it's telling state sponsored lies, but because it knocks holes in state sponsored lies..
OMG - how naïve.
The establishment of BBC Persian and BBC Arabic was to further British foreign policy. Now, in my eyes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Find something reported by BBC Persia or BBC Arabic, that is factually incorrect, and known to be so at the time of broadcast (and where not clearly attributed to another party).
There's tonnes of evidence of RT and Press TV doing this.
(And before you start your search, you might want to double check you know the difference between reporting and opinion)
Truth is absolutely not factual. Ten people can examine the same situation with exposure to the same information and come up with 10 different versions of what happened.
And how do we establish what actually happened? Oh, yeah, we look at the facial information.
If person A says the sun rose at 6.50am and person B (in the same street as person A) says it rose at 8.45am, they can't both be telling the truth. One of them might have a broken watch and honestly believes their version is the truth, but it isn't. How do we work out what's real then? Do we just accept the sun rise twice that day, or do we look at other evidence, like previous / next sun rises, or get people with knowledge of the sun to tell us?
Those 10 people will generally come to a conclusion that fits closest to their own worldview and values system.
Take for example, this study of "BBC impartiality" in the run up to Gulf War Episode II. For whatever reason, having access to the same information and the same sources as other broadcast news organisations. "The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent (and often sceptical) sources such as the Red Cross."
Take for example, this study of "BBC impartiality" in the run up to Gulf War Episode II. For whatever reason, having access to the same information and the same sources as other broadcast news organisations. "The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent (and often sceptical) sources such as the Red Cross."
And did the BBC say "this is the exact truth of what is happening", or did they say "Iraqi officials report...".
Part of the reason 'fake news' has become such a problem is that people want everything condensed into a 30s twitbook video, rather than being given the parts of a story and having to work out the connections and repercussions themselves.
The BBC is as closely allied to the UK Government as RT is to the Kremlin and will warp the news to fit the narrative it seeks to persuade us to follow.
In your opinion. It's not the truth until you can get some cold hard facts to back that up.
They might paint a rosier picture of certain situations than is strictly accurate, but that's a long way from the blatant lying and misrepresentation practiced daily by the likes of RT.
Last edited by dosxuk on 24 September 2017 1:40pm