Jump to content

Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Lead on Simonyan words

…Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world"…[1]

In the lead above I've clarified (yellow) that Margarita Simonyan's opinion is expressed in the context of the war so it doesn't appear that it was taken out of the context. To be fair it would be best to make an additional topic on the RT's role in the Russo-Georgian War coverage. My best.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov since her interview is a primary source you might want to see WP:PRIMARY.
  1. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
And that is exactly what you did. Editors really should stop doing that. Renat 10:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@RenatUK: And that is exactly what you did I suggest you to take down this guesswork before you end up on WP:ANI board. The source you referred also refers to the medium article that say just what I've highlighed: [2]. The said words were said in 2012 in the context of the 2008 war. Read sources before you insert them. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alexander Davronov I will repeat it again: use secondary sources, not primary. We do not need original research here. Renat 10:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alexander Davronov Read source before you insert them. I did. Renat 10:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: 09:46, December 25, 2021 - «‎top: per source»

I'm going to partially revert this edit (to return Kommersant source, highlighted words, and add fresh source). You don't omit the words that your own source says. The article shouldn't present words that are taken out of the context and juggled.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov you are not going to revert anything. Because your introduced your own original research (your interpetation of a primary source). WP:ONUS is on you. And I used the information from secondary sources. And just to be clear: you are not the only person here who can read and understand the Russian language. I read her interview. Renat 10:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@RenatUK: Because your introduced your own original research (your interpetation of a primary source)
Dont' force me to warn you (my suggestion made on [10:07, December 25, 2021] stands). I will repeat once again: the source[3] you have provided on [09:46, December 25, 2021] refers to an article on medium[4] that says:

Question: Really? Are we fighting someone at the moment?
Simonyan: Right now, we’re not fighting anyone. But in 2008 we were fighting. The Defense Ministry was fighting with Georgia, but we were conducting the information war, and what’s more, against the whole Western world.

It's perfectly within WP:PRIMARY/WP:RSCONTEXT to describe that Simonyan's comparison was made in the context of Georgia war. She didn't compare it to ministry however, she just said that at the time her RT was warring with west (I think the comparison should be removed, but that's not something we dispute here right now). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@RenatUK: I suggest we end this discussion because I see you kept highlighted words (i.e. Referring to the Russo-Georgian War) in another statement so basically there is nothing to dispute here. My best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

British law says its public broadcast

State-controlled mass media is not allowed here. It is the Russian equivalent of the BBC world service or Radio Free Europe or .... Either none or all are propaganda if you want the article to appear neutral. 31.125.39.26 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I guess you should have a look at the rather thorough discussion #Lead: "state-controlled" above. If you can provide any new reliable sources that contribute relevant information, please go ahead. Otherwise, I'm afraid a vague and unsourced comment like yours will mostly be ignored. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am saying the British Government disagrees with the classification of RT as "propaganda". Just thought someone would like to know. I can't cite the law (I have a job to do) but perhaps someone would like to look into it. The evidence I have is that a while ago a Chinese "public broadcasting" company had its licence revoked because it was state-controlled. Thus, one can infer that RT is not "state controlled" by the definition the British government uses as it operates here. This is not opinion. But as many seem to be trying to tell someone, it looks as if the process for filtering for opinion on wikipedia is broken. 31.125.39.26 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bots did not work and your IP address and the time of your post was added by this editor. Please use four tildes (~) to sign your posts in future. On the points you raise, Wikipedia operates by citing reliable sources. Without them what you suggest will only be described by editors as original research which is liable for deletion. Please read these and other policy documents, as has already been suggested on your talk page, for your edits to be viewed as constructive. Philip Cross (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the British Government is not a reliable source?

2A00:23C5:5997:E01:6B6F:A832:E254:E1B5 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No he is saying that you are not reliable. If you want anyone to do anything about this you need to provide a suitable source that agrees with your assertions at the very least. FWIW When RT ran into almost the exact same problem a few years ago it quickly launched RT UK, in an effort to keep content Ofcom would have a problem with off its UK broadcast. This seems to have been sufficient to satisfy the regulator that the UK entity that holds the license is in control of the content of its broadcasts. In this case the Chinese government seems to have been quite happy for CGTN (TV channel) to loose its UK license, judging by the timing of the "retaliatory" ban the BBC got in China. I dispute your explanation of why CGTN had its license revoked, or that anything about RT can be inferred, so unless you bring a source there is no need to continue this.TiB chat 17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Guess what. I say he is unreliable. "30 others say X" does not provide truth, particularly if the 30 all have to get their TV licences in the anglosphere. I am not going to do anything about it - other things to do; just pointing out the CGTN issue. Thanks for clarifying it - Ofcom apparently doesn't mind RT being an instrument of Russian propaganda. Interesting. I shall talk to my representative in parliament and complain. Not. The worry is that Wikipedia's showing its underwear here. Very embarrassing IMHO, but as you say there is no need to continue this.

2A00:23C5:5997:E01:6B6F:A832:E254:E1B5 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original research, and editors are expected to uphold this policy consistently. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Request to implement consensus required provision

Hi El_C, I noticed that you implemented the 1RR restriction for this article. Would you please also consider implementing the consensus required provision for this article? In this article, 1RR provides a first-mover advantage, since editors who add content against consensus and then get reverted can immediately re-add the content against consensus. Removing the re-added content requires two reverts, which causes policy-violating content to stay in the article for a longer time due to 1RR. The consensus required provision would eliminate this first-mover advantage. Articles such as Breitbart News supplement 1RR with the consensus required provision to address this issue. — Newslinger talk 07:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I guess... But do you mind doing it yourself? CR is a chore to explain and maintain. El_C 07:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
​I can't, because I'm involved. Would you recommend that I submit this to AE? — Newslinger talk 07:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh. RE: WP:AE — I don't know. Don't know what the dispute is about to advise on that atm. But 1RR does not provides a first-mover advantage by definition. That scenario might happen only if certain conditions were met (like the reverts being limited to two users). And even if that was so, it'd be unlikely for it to be WP:GAME'd for a sustained period of time. El_C 08:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 08:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

E-International Relations in lead section

The recent addition to the lead section made by PeaceThruPramana26 in Special:Diff/1073677725 constitutes undue weight and should be removed from the lead section. I've reproduced the content below:

Nonetheless, according to research by Professor Ellen Mickiewicz, most audiences who watch RT News are aware of Russian state backing, with Professor Precious N Chatterje-Doody of The Open University stating: "Where audiences choose RT, they cite specific perceived merits such as digital innovation, or its inclusion of ‘non-mainstream’ stories and perspectives. Crucially, RT’s audiences tend to be aware of its backing from the Russian state, and approach its outputs critically. Yet if the network’s outputs consisted solely of base propaganda, then it would struggle to maintain these audiences."[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Chatterje-Doody, Precious N; Sanchez-Salas, Patricia. "How RT Navigates 'Us' and 'Them'". E-International Relations. E-International Relations. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
  2. ^ Mickiewicz, Ellen. No Illusions: The Voices of Russia's Future Leaders, with a New Introduction. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 288. ISBN 9780190688356. Retrieved 22 February 2022.

The first provided citation, an article from the E-International Relations website, is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Using this website (especially at length) in the lead section to "show that the propaganda hasn't had any effect" (as stated in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1073677725), contrary to the numerous peer-reviewed academic sources (including the ones here, here, and here) which show that RT's propaganda does have the effect of misleading its audience, creates an inappropriate false balance.

The second citation fails verification. I have access to the second citation, No Illusions: The Voices of Russia's Future Leaders, with a New Introduction, through The Wikipedia Library. The book only mentions RT once, and the mention is completely irrelevant to the content addition:

(16) Police in the small town of Kamensk-Uralsk suspect that at least eleven beatings of different victims were carried out between April and June 2013. The footage of one beating is a display of as many as half a dozen young men repeatedly beating, stomping on a helpless young man held down on the ground by the “Occupy” members. “Nazi-Linked Russian Vigilantes Busted in Bullying Footage Probe,” RT, August 8, 2013.
— Chapter 5: Megademonstrations

In conclusion, this content should be removed from the lead section. If there is consensus to mention the E-International Relations claims in the article body, the content should be presented in a proportional manner that does not give the content undue weight over the academic consensus that RT's propaganda does have the effect of misleading its audience. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that PeaceThruPramana26 had referenced a different edition of the No Illusions book than the one I have access to. I apologize for the error in part of my message above, which I have retracted. However, even if the citation passes verification, a claim supported by one peer-reviewed academic source should still not be falsely balanced with the consensus presented in numerous peer-reviewed academic sources.
PeaceThruPramana26, if you still have access to that book, could you please provide a quotation from the book (and a page number) on this talk page to substantiate your claim? Please note that the pages parameter in the {{cite book}} template is for the page(s) of the book that are cited for the article, not the total number of pages in the book. — Newslinger talk 10:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
We mention a number of sources that say RT contains misleading content. Have we cited any sources that have studied the effect of RT content on the audience as Professor Ellen Mickiewicz seems to have done? Does Professor Ellen Mickiewicz's research conflict with anything else that is currently on the page? Burrobert (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Burrobert what is the point of your message? Renat 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"the content should be presented in a proportional manner that does not give the content undue weight over the academic consensus that RT's propaganda does have the effect of misleading its audience ". Burrobert (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with these. Here are excerpts from peer-reviewed academic sources that substantiate the consensus that RT's propaganda does mislead its audience (emphasis added):

Finding 2: RT’s videos containing election misinformation have the ability to shift the opinions of viewers.

To understand the potential effects of electoral misinformation in the RT videos, we compare a non-political control video with an unlabeled RT video. In the first experiment, the RT video repeatedly dismissed claims that Russia had interfered in the 2016 US presidential election. As compared to the control group, Democrats who watched this video were less likely to believe reports that Russia interfered in the 2016 election (p < .05) and less likely to see that interference as significant (p < .01).

[...]

In the second experiment, participants were shown an RT video focusing on the 2020 US election, which claimed that elite media sources were spreading fake news about Russian attempts to interfere. In this case, the misinformation was successful in shifting opinions in reference to the control, and not just for Democrats, but all study participants who saw the RT video without a disclaimer. In this study group, the mean participant had a 5% decrease in trust in mainstream media sources, represented by “news outlets like CNN and NBC.” (p < .05).

Nassetta, Jack; Gross, Kimberly (30 October 2020). "State media warning labels can counteract the effects of foreign misinformation". Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Harvard University: Harvard Kennedy School. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-45.

And the Russian people have fallen for it repeatedly. They could choose, with a bit of effort, to find alternative sources of information on the Internet, or to make and talk to friends outside of Russia; they could wrack their brains to understand potential opposite perspectives and ask what pieces of data or analysis are missing from Russian media stories. But this does not happen with many Russians, nor does it happen often enough to cultivate a strong opposition or create a new media outlet outside of the state’s control. Instead, Russians will merely insist that American media is full of lies because it is American (actually, this case extends to any Western nation not friendly with Russia), whereas Russian media is trustworthy because it is Russian.

There is no objectivity here. American human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik’s book, The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Russia (mentioned in Chap. 1), asserts the very same preposterous tale. With little conclusive evidence, he writes of how awful the American media is and how Americans readily believe their lies; in defense of Russian news outlets, however, Kovalik assuages the guilt of RT News by saying that anyone who watches it knows it is the Russian view: thus, they cannot be blind believers, and it cannot be propaganda. This logic makes absolutely no sense—people watching American news know it is American, yet still fall for its lies, in Kovalik’s opinion, yet apparently they can suddenly accurately judge press when they know it is Russian.

Langdon, Kate C.; Tismaneanu, Vladimir (9 July 2019). "Russian Nationalism in Education, the Media, and Religion". Putin's Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and Violence in the Twenty-First Century. Springer International. pp. 157–161. ISBN 978-3-030-20579-9.

Typically, the comments repeat an article’s main points and seem to fall into a clearcut dichotomy in line with RT’s remit (Russia is great – the west is hypocritical, etc.). The most common RT frames are followed up in the commentaries. Namely, the 18/03 report (set 1) triggered negative attitudes towards Ukraine and America/EU, alongside positive statements about Russia: ‘need to continue unite the Slavic countries’, ‘congratulations [] for your democracy policies’, ‘Crimea returned to where it always belonged’, ‘a very moderate intervention’, [Putin] is too decent to cut gas [to Ukraine], ‘Russia-jack-in-the-box’ [will outwit everyone], ‘western media has no shame’. Other posts repeat RT’s frame that ‘Sanctions will never work against Russia, the people are the worlds greatest stoics’ (16/03), talk about stability and peace in Crimea as opposed to conflict-torn Ukraine, compare Kosovo and Crimea (18/03), reiterate Abby Martin’s contention of bias in the Western media, and argue that RT is not a propaganda outlet (10/01). Here the audience reproduces and reinforces RT’s ‘philosophy’.

For a long time, the West did not worry about authoritarian international media enterprises. Over time, however, it has become clear that outlets such as CCTV and RT are able to exert real influence. Although it may be comforting to think that people in the democracies have a natural resistance to foreign propaganda, this is not always the case. One need only look at how warped and false arguments about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine snaked their way into the debate in the United States and Europe.

Walker, Christopher (2016). "The Hijacking of "Soft Power"" (PDF). Journal of Democracy. 27 (1). Johns Hopkins University Press: 49–63. doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0007. S2CID 31802016. Retrieved 21 March 2021.

There are many more peer-reviewed academic sources which establish that RT's propaganda is effective at influencing its audience (setting aside whether the source also explicitly describes the propaganda as misleading). Here is one of the more detailed sources (emphasis added):

We then employ a survey experiment on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform to measure RT’s effects on Americans. We provide the first evidence that propaganda produced by foreign adversaries can influence public opinion in democracies. Exposure to RT, we find, induces Americans to prefer the United States withdraw from its global leadership position. These effects are substantively meaningful, obtain across party lines, and persist even when we disclose that RT is financed by the Russian government. On average, exposing American consumers to RT makes them between 10 and 20 percentage points less likely to support an active foreign policy, 20 percentage points more likely to believe the United States is doing too much to solve global problems, and 10 percentage points more likely to value national interests over the interests of US allies. These effects are substantively meaningful: approximately half the size of going from a strong Democrat to a strong Republican.

We're still in the process of verifying Mickiewicz's text, and we'll need to see what it actually says before we can determine whether it is fairly represented by the claims made in the added content. Passing verification would not automatically give the claim a spot in the lead section, and definitely does not justify a three-sentence quote in the lead section. — Newslinger talk 17:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Between your unwarranted warning on my talk page (which you yourself retracted) and this heavy POV pushing, this is literally the sort of thing that is driving away Wikipedia editors in droves. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Like, that isn't how scholarly criticism or debate works: It's not "X says this, here are a dozen googled sources on why X is wrong", because it doesn't agree with the narrative that is being attempted for (?) in the lede, it's just to contrast the information already present since, if you compare it to the articles on Al Jazeera, France24, I24, BBCWS, or even PressTV, none are nearly that hysterical. It doesn't say that 'RT is not an evil icky propaganda network', it even confirms that it is created for the purpose of Russian soft power. The fact that you so hastily jump to this conclusion and even rush to attack me on my page with wikipedia redtape like warnings is proof that I shouldn't assume that any of these edits are in good faith beyond pushing an agenda on this page, and then attempting to intimidate users who don't step in line with it. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If you had actually read Mickiewicz (2017) before citing it in Special:Diff/1073677725, a quotation and a page number would be appreciated. It is a violation of the neutral point of view policy to introduce a false balance "just to contrast the information already present". There is much stronger evidence supporting the "propaganda" descriptor for RT than for any of the other outlets you mentioned (many of which are not called propaganda outlets by reliable sources), which is why this article describes RT's status as a propaganda outlet in stronger terms than the articles for those other outlets.
To respond to your accusation, presenting evidence to substantiate article content is not "POV pushing", especially when it was requested in the discussion. — Newslinger talk 20:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

EU ban

RT has been banned across EU. https://www.axios.com/eu-ban-russia-aircraft-370db436-7502-4a6a-b37a-3cff5abc64cd.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.1.24 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Added to opening summary and main text. Philip Cross (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dish Network has dropped RT

Intersted editors will no doubt find many sources for inclusion. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Did this just happen? I can't find anything about Dish Network dropping RT yet, though the article already covers DirecTV and Roku. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It dropped it this afternoon. Channel 280 now says: INFO "This channel is no longer available". Now is just the RT App for getting it. In kind- Russia also banned news media today too. BBC, US government's Voice of America, D.W., Radio Free Europe. Serbia reversed its censorship of RT today as well. CaribDigita (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It looks like RT America shut down on 3 March, which the article now mentions. I can't find any news coverage of Dish Network dropping RT prior to the shutdown. Serbia is not part of the European Union, and it doesn't seem like Serbia has ever banned RT. If any sources contradict this, please feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 14:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

You state that it propagates conspiracy theories, and rightly so, but the example you have given is not an example of a conspiracy theory. You state the fact that vaccination and wearing masks do prevent COVID-19, but you don't give an actual concrete example of a conspiracy theory it is propagating. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. In Special:Diff/1076759748, I moved the recently added sentences to a new "COVID-19 misinformation" subsection under the "Content" section, and I rewrote the sentences to describe RT's broadcasting of "COVID-19 misinformation" instead of "conspiracy theories". — Newslinger talk 19:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I've re-added the "conspiracy theories" descriptor in Special:Diff/1076763960, since the cited Stanford Internet Observatory article does give clear examples of RT broadcasting COVID-19 conspiracy theories, including "Coronavirus crisis will be used as a way for the malicious narcissists in Washington, Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms to come together to assure that all their losses are socialized and their profits privatized - Michael McCaffrey". — Newslinger talk 20:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

rewrite

Post invasion of Ukraine RT may seem history but in case it is not, or as an object lesson in propaganda I hope to clean it up re the copy-edit tag


Specifically sorting out text so that evaluations of RT go in to the right sections (Programming, guests, content) that are currently scattered around. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article

I think that the propaganda attribute should be removed, this is not useful, misleading and moreover: every newspaper/tv channel has its editorial line, so this tag should be on every newspaper/tv channel page on Wikipedia then.. Everything (nations, newspapers etc..) has its ideology and its objectives, with which we can agree or disagree. Even if a source give fake news, we (with we I mean Wikipedia) can't tel that's fake news; we must say "this person said this" (with source link) "and this other person said it is fake news because.." (with source link). SO putting the propaganda tag is equivalent to taking a position, in my opinion. For controversial manners there's a special section (in this case called "Propaganda claims and related issues"). Let's stay neutral. Remember that a 6 could be a 9 if you look at it upside down. User:FinixFighter 3 March 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources calling RT a propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Please, can you share these reliable sources? User:FinixFighter 11:52 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Some of them are cited in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list, taken from Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda:

30 in-depth reliable sources describing RT as a propaganda outlet
  1. Warrick, Joby; Troianovski, Anton (December 10, 2018). "Agents of doubt". The Washington Post.
  2. Adee, Sally (May 15, 2019). "The global internet is disintegrating. What comes next?". BBC.
  3. Ward, Alex (March 12, 2019). "When a Dissident Becomes a Collaborator". The New Yorker.
  4. Paul, Christopher; Matthews, Miriam (2016). The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model (Report). RAND Corporation.
  5. Norton, Ben; Greenwald, Glenn (2016-11-26). "Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group". The Intercept. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
  6. Peinado, Fernando (16 April 2018). "La campaña de desinformación de Rusia sobre la guerra en Siria". El Pais.
  7. Flock, Elizabeth (May 2, 2018). "After a week of Russian propaganda, I was questioning everything". PBS Newshour.
  8. "RT's propaganda is far less influential than Westerners fear". The Economist. January 19, 2017.
  9. Manthorpe, Jonathan (May 2, 2019). "All the news not fit to print". Asia Times.
  10. Arrowsmith, Kevin (May 7, 2019). "Blame politicians for fake news, RT chief tells Whitehall media forum". The Sunday Times.
  11. Bidder, Benjamin (August 13, 2013). "Putin's Weapon in the War of Images". Der Spiegel.
  12. Riley-Smith, Ben (13 May 2019). "Kremlin propaganda arm RT America warns over dire health impacts of 5G networks". The Telegraph.
  13. Schwartz, Jason (February 6, 2018). "Russia pushes more 'deep state' hashtags". Politico.
  14. Seddon, Max (October 9, 2017). "Russia threatens severe curbs on US media". Financial Times.
  15. Graham, David A. (7 September 2017). "What the Russian Facebook Ads Reveal". The Atlantic.
  16. DiResta, Renee (30 August 2018). "Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach". Wired.
  17. Shuster, Simon (March 5, 2015). "Inside Putin's Media Machine". TIME.
  18. Aleem, Zeeshan (10 November 2017). "RT, Russia's English-language propaganda outlet, will register as a "foreign agent"". Vox.
  19. Morris, David Z. (17 September 2017). "Inside RT, Russia's Kremlin-Controlled Propaganda Network". Fortune. Retrieved 2019-07-18.
  20. Weir, Fred (17 January 2017). "Inside the belly of Russia's 'propaganda machine': A visit to RT news channel". The Christian Science Monitor. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2019-07-18.
  21. Yochai Benkler; Rob Faris; Hal Roberts (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4.
  22. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (24 September 2018). Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President. Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-19-091582-7.
  23. Marcel H. Van Herpen (1 October 2015). Putin's Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-1-4422-5362-9.
  24. Snyder, Timothy (3 April 2018). The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Crown/Archetype. pp. 161–162, 209–212, 306. ISBN 9780525574484. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  25. Nance, Malcolm (2016). The Plot to Hack America: How Putin's Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781510723337. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  26. Ajir, Media; Vailliant, Bethany (Fall 2018). "Russian Information Warfare: Implications for Deterrence Theory". Strategic Studies Quarterly. 12 (3): 70–89. ISSN 1936-1815. JSTOR 26481910.
  27. Oates, Sarah; Steiner, Sean (17 December 2018). "Projecting Power: Understanding Russian Strategic Narrative". Russia's Public Foreign Policy Narratives (PDF). 229. Vol. 17. University of Bremen: Research Centre for East European Studies. pp. 2–5. doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000311091. Retrieved 18 July 2019. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  28. Orttung, Robert; Nelson, Elizabeth; Livshen, Anthony (19 January 2016). "Measuring RT's impact on YouTube". Russian Analytical Digest. 177 (8). Center for Security Studies. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  29. Abrams, Steve (2016). "Beyond propaganda: Soviet active measures in Putin's Russia" (PDF). Connections: The Quarterly Journal. 15 (1). Partnership for Peace Consortium. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  30. Reire, Gunda (2015). "Euro-Atlantic values and Russia's propaganda in the Euro-Atlantic space" (PDF). Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. 13 (4). Retrieved 18 July 2019.

— Newslinger talk 03:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger and @Ymblanter these "reliable sources" are themselves unreliable and unsourced (editorial commentary and blog posts, not in any way demonstrating via a neutral fact-based or sourced viewpoint how the Russian government controls the editorial content of RT - which would be the requirement to meet the definition of "propaganda"). "State media" is one thing (as it is tax-funded) but "propaganda" is another thing entirely and the tag introduces bias into this article and should be removed. Asaturn (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. The policies say otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
No, these are indeed reliable sources. The list consists of content from high-quality academic sources, sources that meet the WP:NEWSORG guideline, and sources that are indexed in the list of perennial sources as generally reliable, which is determined by community consensus. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is so hard to find a neutral POV and wade through all the BS on Wikipedia. BBC or The Washington Post seem to slant the news in favour of their respective countries yet aren't classified as propaganda. Then you have an editor with a large Ukrainian flag on their talk page which highlights their own bias in trying to paint RT as propaganda. As an average reader of Wikipedia it would be good if someone could come along and mediate all of this bias so we can have a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.189.217 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article itself shouldn't categorize this network as propaganda or not, but instead, should only report what others categorize it as. A lot of reliable sources also state that Fox News is Trump propaganda, yet you do not see it categorized as propaganda in its article. Eden5 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
See the 30 sources from 2019 and earlier, listed above, and the high-quality academic sources in Special:Permalink/1077975588#cite_note-propaganda-2. If you have the reliable sourcing to establish that Fox News is a propaganda outlet, feel free to present that information on Talk:Fox News. Either way, what the Fox News article contains is not relevant to this article. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet. There is no such consensus for the BBC or The Washington Post. Also, editors of all political orientations are allowed to edit Wikipedia, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you've established that "The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet." Did you use an objective method to review all the academic literature, such as a key word search in major periodical indexes? Or did you just do a Google or other search and cherry-pick the academic articles that supported your position? Are there any academic articles that conclude, as many of us do, that the term "propaganda" is too subjective for such a judgment? --Nbauman (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
At his point it is irrelevant. There is a community consensus that RT is a propaganda outlet. May be all of us are stupid idiots, RT is a highly reliable academic source, and we all fail to recognize this fact. But to challenge this consensus, you would have to open a new RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Please don't use rhetorical or hyperbolic language. It makes it rational discussion difficult. (1) I don't see any RfC with the conclusion that there is a consensus that RT is propaganda. All I could find was a contentious discussion with editors arguing on both sides and no resolution. Could you please link to the exact statement in the RfC that there is a consensus? (2) You are claiming that there is a consensus in high-quality academic sources that RT is propaganda. What is your evidence for that claim? --Nbauman (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
See #References (Request for Comment). — Newslinger talk 11:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda network

Need a section about it being a Russian propaganda network. 2A01:598:91B9:3F2C:D0DD:4B54:286E:8904 (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

The reporter who was referenced in the Buzzfeed RT article is named Staci Bivens not Stacy. 2A02:8109:9AC0:69A8:5089:C58F:12D5:399C (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thankyou for pointing out the error. Philip Cross (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Editors achieved a consensus to omit the term "propagandist" from the first line. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the first sentence in the lede, "a Russian state-controlled propagandist international television network" go against WP:NPOV? Should the article take sides and categorize it as "propaganda" or only report what news outlets categorize it as? Eden5 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • I've removed propagandist from the first sentence in Special:Diff/1077979219, returning to the longstanding article version. That word was added very recently (Special:Diff/1077838994), and I had missed it in your edit (Special:Diff/1077975365).
    However, the propaganda descriptor is exceptionally well-sourced and the article should be amended to explicitly describe RT as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice. Since the 2019 RfC at Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda, many additional academic sources have been added that explicitly describe RT as a source of propaganda. There are currently 6 peer-reviewed academic sources cited for the propaganda descriptor (citations). Different facets of RT's propaganda have also been examined in detail, with 8 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of disinformation (citations), and 4 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of conspiracy theories (citations) – some of which are also in the preceding groups. Adding reliable non-opinion news sources raises the number of citations to over 30, with an incomplete list from 2019 at #About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article.
    According to WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources uniformly agree that RT is a propaganda outlet, and this article should reflect that in Wikipedia's voice. — Newslinger talk 06:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    I think "propaganda" is too subjective and too dependent on the editor's political views.
    Many WP:RSs call Fox News "propaganda". Fox News controversies Should we "explicitly describe Fox News as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice"?
    If for example the President of the U.S. referred to RT as "propaganda," we would have lots of Wikipedia-defined WP:RSs referring to RT as propaganda. You could replace "RT" with anything. --Nbauman (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Fox News has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    And yet people drag it in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not a fan of using whataboutism as a rhetorical technique, which is what this Fox News argument is. But if this type of argument were accepted, I'd point out that the Azov Battalion article currently describes the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi in the very first sentence, with no in-text attribution whatsoever, and the citations on that article are just a few news articles. In contrast, the RT (TV network) article has 7 high-quality academic sources for the propaganda descriptor which I've just reproduced in #References (Request for Comment) plus several other reliable sources in Special:Permalink/1077979219#cite_note-propaganda-2, and dozens of reliable news sources in #About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article. — Newslinger talk 11:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    You're not a big fan of using whataboutism, yet you drag in what is likely the most contentious article in a long-term contentious topic area currently under Arbcom discretionary sanctions with a contentious Rfc going on now with reams of ink and walls of reliable sources on both side of the question filling multiple Rfc subpages to contain them—arguably the most contentious article on Wikipedia right now. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    Sourcing requirements for "have published propaganda" and starting off the article with "RT ... is a propagandist television network" should absolutely be different, should they not? I see your comment above made no distinction. For instance, it would be silly to argue that Voice of America has never published propaganda, but slapping the "propagandist" label on the first sentence of the lead of their article would be ridiculous. (Though, yes, there is a difference in degree here so RT's article should discuss their propaganda more prominently than VoA's) Endwise (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    Voice of America has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you're saying. Examples and analogies can go along way in discussions like these and can be quite explicative. If you've argued (not saying Newslinger necessarily did) that sourcing which allows us to write that an organisation has published propaganda is sourcing which allows us to describe them as a "propagandist" organisation in the lead, then I could either attack that idea directly, or offer up a counter example which (if you agree with it) would mean the argument doesn't hold.
    For an abstract example (see!), if we were discussing apples, and you said apples are yellow because we know that fruits are yellow, I could either try and argue directly that apples are actually green/red, or I could instead offer up a counter example which attacks your reasoning -- e.g., "but fruits aren't always yellow, for example, cherries are red!" If you were to then respond with "cherries have nothing to do with this discussion, we are discussing apples", I would assume you are either being dishonest or don't understand what we're talking about. Endwise (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly, I can write, I don't know: "Wikipedia is biased" on Google, and these "credible sources" will say that Wikipedia, is in fact biased. But we aren't going to get up and arms about it because they say that! This is something else, this is because people have western bias and think that RT is against their political view, its propaganda and they are wrong. Also, the Russian Wikipedia doesn't say that its propaganda. it just says that: "A number of politicians, media and media specialists characterize RT as a propaganda channel..." I think the reason for this is because the people writing this, are most likely Russian, and aren't western sympathizers so they aren't directly saying its propaganda. This is further proof that it only says that RT is propaganda on the site because of biasism. 2607:FEA8:B060:248:C00E:CF98:237C:84A4 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    It is not necessarily ridiculous. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    To clarify, I don't support using the propagandist descriptor in the first sentence, which was added in Special:Diff/1077838994 before it was removed. I am primarily responding to the second question in the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 11:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why. We wouldn't put "liar", "stupid," or "ugly" into the first sentence of an article, and for exactly the same reasons we shouldn't put "propagandist" there. I don't oppose calling it "propaganda" in Wikipedia's voice; [[:Category:Russian propaganda organizations]] does that. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support question 1 and 2 The lead in an article generally shouldn't have loaded language, especially such as "propagandist," without attribution. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I also support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. It's inclusion, though a reflection of truth, is also redundant in its use. It can already be safely assumed that by virtue of being a "state-controlled" media outlet that some amount of propaganda is being peddled.Writethisway (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "propagandist" label: state-controlled news orgs often pump out propaganda, and RT is no exception, but slapping the label "propagandist" on them is silly and not something reliable sources tend to do either. It is far, far better to explain why people consider them to put out propaganda, as is done in the lead now in the third paragraph, rather than just slap a snarky and denigrating label on them. Endwise (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removing "propagandist" from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why., per HouseOfChange. This is better achieved by giving a fuller account later in the lead, rather than shoving the crude 'label' into sentence one. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Pincrete's reasoning. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove We need to avoid misleading readers by using descriptions that can be misinterpreted. RT is seen by some as part of a propaganda effort because it includes commentators that formerly worked for U.S. media and cover topics including foreign affairs and social issues that may make the U.S. appear in a bad light. For example, by covering the Black Lives Matter protests, they drew attention to Americans that the country had racial issues, which would undermine their confidence in their government. Without this explanation, readers might think that RT invented the protests. This should of course be explained in the text. TFD (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove since most media have some kind of agenda. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove word and label per above and WP:VOICE "Present opinions in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Eden5 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not think it necessarily goes against WP:NPOV regardless of whether it has attribution or not, but as per the above comments I think it should be removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove, because Russian state controlled already implies propagandist. It is egging on the obvious.--Seggallion (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove The claim against RT was that it served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S., such as former talk show hosts on mainstream U.S. media. So for example covering racism in America serves a propaganda purpose because it makes the U.S. look bad. But that does not mean the presenters' intentions are to do that or that their claims are false or exaggerated. Larry King for example was perhaps the most respected anchor in America and joined RT because it allowed him editorial independence. TFD (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: In case you're interested, the "claim against RT" is not simply that it "served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S." The "claim" against RT is the same as the claim against all public and private broadcast media in Russia - with the previous exception of TV Dozhd, which, in the wake of the "special military operation" in Ukraine, was forced to close - is that it functions as an extension of the Kremlin. Anti-American (And you are lynching Negroes) content is only one part of RT's output, albeit the largest and most important feature of its output. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
A search for the word "propaganda" in Völkischer Beobachter has 9 hits, Der Stürmer has 13 and RT (TV network) has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda.
I notice too that no editors have presented sources in this discussion. Most of the discussion I have read is about what talk show hosts and their guests said. But then that should be compared with CNN, which had Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and Piers Morgan.
It is more important to explain what RT does than to add another mention of the word propaganda to the article.
TFD (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the sources mentioned in my earlier comment. I've reproduced a selection of the ones currently cited for the propaganda descriptor in the form of a list in #References (Request for Comment). See also the list in #About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: "A search for the word "propaganda" in Völkischer Beobachter has 9 hits, Der Stürmer has 13 and RT (TV network) has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda." Wow. That's one for the ages. *head in hands*. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Sarcasm is unconstructive. If you have a point to make, you should explain it. TFD (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Read WP:RS, in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:NEWSORG, WP:PARTISAN, and WP:ONUS ("Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Not for first line - that phrasing of a summary judgement is contrary to WP:VOICE. I think starting an article with use of such a WP:LABEL just comes across as showing the article is heavily biased. There is notable amounts of such concern, so the article body should mention such comments in WP:IMPARTIAL manner and WP:DUE weight, perhaps even into a lower section of the WP:LEAD, but not in the first line. Try to follow MOS:LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove (Summoned by bot) – primarily per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which says: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." It doesn't say anything about including critical evaluations in the first sentence; in fact, the guideline goes on to say: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Given that the word propaganda is a contentious label, that seems all the more reason to keep it out of the lead sentence. I'm pretty sure that close to 100% of reliable sources would agree that RT is a "Russian state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian government", which is a factual, non-judgmental sentence, and that should be plenty for the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. Judgments (necessarily objective, even when uniform) about its propagandistic nature can be left for the remainder of the lead. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References (Request for Comment)

The following is a selection of the sources currently cited in the article for the propaganda descriptor, taken from Special:Permalink/1077979219#cite_note-propaganda-2.

  1. Langdon, Kate C.; Tismaneanu, Vladimir (9 July 2019). "Russian Foreign Policy: Freedom for Whom, to Do What?". Putin's Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and Violence in the Twenty-First Century. Springer International. pp. 189–224. ISBN 978-3-030-20579-9. Retrieved 21 March 2021 – via Google Books. Soviet-born British journalist Peter Pomerantsev documented the typical newsroom antics in one of Russia's largest propaganda outlets, RT News (formerly known as Russia Today). When his acquaintance composed a piece that referenced the Soviet Union's occupation of Estonia in 1945, the writer was chewed out by his boss, who maintained the belief that Russians saved Estonia. Any other descriptions of the events of 1945 were unacceptable assaults on Russia's integrity, apparently, so the boss demanded that he amend his text.
  2. Reire, Gunda (2015). "Euro-Atlantic values and Russia's propaganda in the Euro-Atlantic space" (PDF). Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. 13 (4). Retrieved 21 March 2021 – via Center for International Studies. Nowadays, Russia attacks the Western value of rationality and uses the argument of "the second opinion" or plurality of opinions. The phrase "the second opinion" has even become the slogan of RT. For instance, this propaganda channel used the public opinion's contention as to the nature of the Iraq war, to sell itself as an impartial, objective media outlet in the USA. Overall, Russian propaganda involves a clash of political systems, which is more dangerous than the old-school Soviet propaganda.
  3. Benkler, Yochai; Faris, Rob; Roberts, Hal (October 2018). "Epistemic Crisis". Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 358. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158. Retrieved 21 March 2021. The emphasis on disorientation appears in the literature on modern Russian propaganda, both in inward-focused applications and in its international propaganda outlets, Sputnik and RT (formerly, Russia Today). Here, the purpose is not to convince the audience of any particular truth but instead to make it impossible for people in the society subject to the propagandist's intervention to tell truth from non-truth.
  4. Karlsen, Geir Hågen (5 August 2016). "Tools of Russian Influence: Information and Propaganda". In Matláry, Janne Haaland; Heier, Tormod (eds.). Ukraine and Beyond: Russia's Strategic Security Challenge to Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 199. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32530-9_9. ISBN 978-3-319-32530-9. Retrieved 28 February 2022 – via Google Books. The propaganda apparatus proper consists of four means: media, social media, political communication and diplomacy, and covert active measures, all tied together in a coordinated manner. The main international media channel is the RT broadcaster and website, formerly known as Russia Today. It is complemented by Sputnik radio and website, news and video agencies, and the Russia Beyond the Headlines news supplement, making up a news conglomerate operating in almost 40 languages.
  5. Ižak, Štefan (January 2019). "(Ab)using the topic of migration by pro-Kremlin propaganda: Case study of Slovakia" (PDF). Journal of Comparative Politics. 12 (1). University of Economics in Bratislava / University of Ljubljana / Alma Mater Europaea: 58. ISSN 1338-1385. Retrieved 28 February 2022. Almost all important media in Russia are state controlled and used to feed Russian audience with Kremlin propaganda. For international propaganda Kremlin uses agencies like RT and Sputnik. Both are available in many language variations and in many countries (Hansen 2017). Aim of this propaganda is to exploit weak spots and controversial topics (in our case migration to the EU) and use them to harm integrity of the West (Pomerantsev and Weiss 2014).
  6. Oates, Sarah; Steiner, Sean (17 December 2018). "Projecting Power: Understanding Russian Strategic Narrative". Russia's Public Foreign Policy Narratives (PDF). 229. Vol. 17. University of Bremen: Research Centre for East European Studies. pp. 2–5. doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000311091. Retrieved 21 March 2021 – via ETH Zurich. The analysis of Russian strategic narrative allows us to understand more clearly the logic in Russian propaganda found on English-language outlets such as RT and more effectively deter Russian information aggression. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
    Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
  7. Ajir, Media; Vailliant, Bethany (Fall 2018). "Russian Information Warfare: Implications for Deterrence Theory". Strategic Studies Quarterly. 12 (3): 70–89. ISSN 1936-1815. JSTOR 26481910. Retrieved 21 March 2021. The real-world repercussions of these objectives are identified through several forms of attack. The first is through disseminating official Russian state propaganda abroad via foreign language news channels as well as Western media. Most notable is the creation of the very successful government-financed international TV news channel, Russia Today (RT).

— Newslinger talk 10:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of those statements come down to the lynching analogy. So for example, RT hired Ed Schultz after he was fired from MSNBC when they decided to reorient the network to the center. While it served the interests of the Kremlin to provide a platform for people critical of U.S. government policies, it didn't necessarily mean that those hosts were reading material written by the Kremlin. Larry King for example said that all his shows were prepared by his staff. I don't think he thought he was undermining Western civilization. I think it is better to explain how RT fulfils a propaganda function, rather than repeat the term propaganda 94 times without any explanation. Your sources in fact explain why RT fulfils a propaganda function. They don't just say "It's propaganda!" TFD (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propaganda

There is an edit war regarding 'propaganda'. As far as I know the goal of RT is not propaganda of Russia as a successful land (there is such a recent video), but anarchization of the West, hybrid warfare. So perhaps not propaganda, but 'Hybrid warfare (Political warfare and individual terror)? Or Political warfare only?Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.state.gov/report-rt-and-sputniks-role-in-russias-disinformation-and-propaganda-ecosystem/ Disinformation and propaganda Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
https://newrepublic.com/article/165813/russian-propaganda-rt-america-end Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps i dont understand how the Wiki works, but having read the whole article i found a lot of acusations. Many by people of dubious relevance - the director of some obscure series? what does he know of this? Credentials? Another: ONE blogger?
Then, right next, lots of data disprobing those acusations. ( Amount of viewers and record views, for example )
And lastly, i could not find any example of straight out lies or misrepresentation of news in the whole page. Just praise for showing independent views.
So the Wiki paints the Outlet as a propaganda machine, but never shows the data. What is worse, the hard data it shows demostrates the reliability of the Outlet on those topics.
What is going on? 2803:9800:9996:74EC:4D:234C:82C2:8B39 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The propaganda descriptor is supported by sixteen citations to reliable sources, authored by 22 people, none of whom are "bloggers". "Amount of viewers and record views" are irrelevant when determining whether something is propaganda or not. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Using just the first of those citations as example, its a Times article saying that a disaster documentary was made by a Russian company. With interviews and points of view of local people, not russians. Propaganda? ok i guess.
Go to Section GUESTS, there you have your blogger and obscure director sharing their thoughts. And not as Guests.
Nevertheless im not speaking of obscure sources or political labels, but the plain text of the article using the Ratings/impact section as an example. Ok, i ll show it right here. The section starts thus :
"The RT website (as of March 2022), maintains that "since June 2012", RT has "consistently and significantly outperforms other foreign channels including Euronews and Fox News. RT’s quarterly audience in the UK is 2.5 million viewers"
Next are 10 lines of multiple falsehood accusations challenging that. Then it closes with :
" In the UK, the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) has included RT in the viewer data it publishes since 2012. According to their data, approximately 2.5 million Britons watched RT during the third quarter of 2012, making it the third most-watched rolling news channel in Britain, behind BBC News and Sky News (not including Sky Sports News). "
Followed by another 7 lines finally the veracity of the opening RT Web statement and other positive observations.
This " format " is repeated over the whole place. Wich of the sources do i trust? All of them are supposedly reliable, but they contradict each other.
Re-read the article and everyone will find these inconsistencies all over the place. 2803:9800:9996:74EC:8460:E476:B944:63CA (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The first of the 16 citations for the propaganda descriptor is:
Langdon, Kate C.; Tismaneanu, Vladimir (9 July 2019). "Russian Foreign Policy: Freedom for Whom, to Do What?". Putin's Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and Violence in the Twenty-First Century. Springer International. pp. 189–224. ISBN 978-3-030-20579-9. Retrieved 21 March 2021 – via Google Books. Soviet-born British journalist Peter Pomerantsev documented the typical newsroom antics in one of Russia's largest propaganda outlets, RT News (formerly known as Russia Today). When his acquaintance composed a piece that referenced the Soviet Union's occupation of Estonia in 1945, the writer was chewed out by his boss, who maintained the belief that Russians saved Estonia. Any other descriptions of the events of 1945 were unacceptable assaults on Russia's integrity, apparently, so the boss demanded that he amend his text.
The citation from The Times that you are referring to is the first citation in the Wikipedia article, and is not one of the 16 citations for the propaganda descriptor. Additionally, your comment is conflating the number of viewers RT has with RT's purpose as a propaganda outlet; the number of viewers that RT has is irrelevant to the fact that RT is a propaganda outlet. — Newslinger talk 10:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The term propaganda appears in the article 93 times, including footnotes. Instead of listing sources that refer to RT as a propaganda network, it would be useful to explain what they mean by this and provide their arguments.
As I understand it, the reason it was seen as propaganda is that it provided stories and opinions that tend to be ignored in U.S. media. For example, it broadcast a debate between minor party candidates for U.S. president, which major media had chosen to ignore. Since these candidates tended to be highly critical of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, broadcasting alternative views would undermine popular support for them.
TFD (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
That is not what the cited sources say. Part of the reason RT is a propaganda outlet is that it has a history of publishing disinformation (14 citations) and conspiracy theories (7 citations). For example, "Kremlin-controlled news sources Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik reported that Macron was secretly gay, and that he was backed by a 'very rich gay lobby'". Reliable sources, including some U.S. sources and major media sources, ignored those types of "stories and opinions" because reputable sources tend to avoid publishing questionable content like that.
Your "93 times" count is highly misleading, since most of those instances of the word propaganda are in the citations. Since reliable sources provide frequent and detailed coverage on RT's status as a propaganda outlet, the article gives this aspect of RT its due weight. The RT (TV network) § Propaganda and related issues section does "explain what they mean by this and provide their arguments". — Newslinger talk 12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I actually wrote, "including footnotes." It's not misleading to mention them, because presumably articles with titles including "propaganda" are about accusations of propaganda.
Here by the way is in its entirety what Sputnik wrote when they "reported" that Macron was secretly gay: "In November 2016, Macron publicly denied a persistent rumor that he's secretly gay and living a "double life."" ("Ex-French Economy Minister Macron Could Be 'US Agent' Lobbying Banks' Interests," 09:19 GMT 04.02.2017)
Compare this with what was reported by Bruno Rieth in Marianne: "Emmanuel Macron...wanted to respond to the rumors that run about his private life [that] he is homosexual.""Rumor about his "double life": Emmanuel Macron comes out of silence" (11/03/2016).
So this isn't a case of a la Goebbels claiming that he is gay but saying "nudge nudge wink wink" there are rumors and using the fact that they had been reported in reputable media as plausible deniability.
I don't know btw if RT carried the story.
TFD (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
BTW does this appear in the published version of the paper? TFD (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the same text appears in the published version of the article, on page 209 of issue 1 (Spring 2021) in volume 37 of the Boston University International Law Journal, retrieved through HeinOnline. There is a difference between a magazine speculating on whether someone is closeted (gossip) and a state-controlled propaganda outlet speculating on whether someone is secretly backed by a "very rich gay lobby" (conspiracy theory).
Due to the volume and prominence of reliable source coverage on RT's role as a propaganda outlet, this Wikipedia article needs to cover RT's role as a propaganda outlet in depth to satisfy the due weight policy. While some of that role is covered in the "Propaganda and related issues" section, I agree that the sources that are cited in the article can be further expounded upon in the article text. Due to the verifiability policy, these sources would need to remain cited in the article for such expansion to be possible, and also to adequately substantiate the article's current content.
Almost all of the sources in the article were published before the enactment of the Russian 2022 war censorship laws (part of the Russian fake news laws), so there is also new coverage of RT's propaganda role that has yet to be incorporated into the article. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Crosstalk

Did RT cancel Crosstalk? 73.230.160.102 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the powers that be decided RT cannot operate in the western sphere of influence, so RT USA was canned through sanctions therefore all programs they made have ended, including the award winning On Contact with Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist because REASONS Apeholder (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:RT_(TV_network)/Archive_12&oldid=1226758364"