[Closed] Newsreader resigns live on air

[i]Is RT the only media which whitewashes the evils of the state? [/i]

Nope.

Nato member Turkey;

Identical pro-government headline in all 10 national newspapers today.

[img] [/img]

fair play to her for not going quietly though.

If you're going to do it then do it right.

If she's out of work, I'm looking for an au pair... :p

"[i]Is RT the only media which whitewashes the evils of the state?[/i]"

Other than the BBC you mean?

State media is state media.

I'm not even sure what RT is, but as far as it being the only media which whitewashes the evil of the state, seriously?
There are probably dozens, I would guess many African nations, Middle Eastern, a few South American, and a few Asian and Far Eastern.
D'you imagine North Korea has a free and open press? Zimbabwe? Angola?
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, really; newsreader shows courage of her convictions, resigns.

[i]I'm not even sure what RT[/i]

Russia Today.

Kind of like the World Service.

[i]would[/i]

Seems Russia Today is actually quite a force for free speech~ can't see this happening on the BBC (or any other Mainstream UK network) without serious repercussions, but Abby Martin is free to speak her mind and has apparently not had any discipline imposed, which is nice:

Russia Today has a specific remit to paint the West, particularly the EU, UK in particular and US in the most negative light possible inside and outside Russia. It is to it's benefit for it to appear to uphold free speech as much as possible.

Anywhere where you might expect the UK or US media to be negative about something, then RT is positive about it. as an example, thinking back to the 2010 student protests in the UK. RT was very positive about them, "anti-government protesters" in the same way that our media has been positive about the motley crew of people who have got rid go the Ukrainian president, and been applauded for it by our media and political class, RT has broadly taken an opposite view.

I don't think this specifically highlights a fundamental dishonesty behind what RT does, certainly not over and above the fundamental dishonesty of our state media (BBC) in this country, which lies, misrepresents and obfuscates reality in it's news reporting all the time.

It seems the BBC gets a lot of stick for not reporting all the news as fact (ie the giant lizard mega corp that runs the world) it tends to get knocked from both sides of politics which generally means it's getting things right.

Having read some of RT recently it's not exactly unbiased but at least it's not hard to spot it's agenda.

bokonon - Member

"Is RT the only media which whitewashes the evils of the state?"

Other than the BBC you mean?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_JC371jxPI

State media is state media.

Are you suggesting that ITN and Sky News were able to provide very different objective reporting of the Iraq War ?

If so, can you provide some evidence of this ?

Are you suggesting that ITN and Sky News were able to provide very different objective reporting of the Iraq War ?

If so, can you provide some evidence of this ?

No, I compared RT to the BBC specifically because they are both state funded - commercially funded networks are worse.

commercially funded networks are worse.

Well that's a relief to hear.....I was beginning to think that having state funded media might be a bad thing!

No, I compared RT to the BBC specifically because they are both state funded - commercially funded networks are worse.

bokonon - Member

Russia Today has a specific remit to paint the West, particularly the EU, UK in particular and US in the most negative light possible inside and outside Russia. It is to it's benefit for it to appear to uphold free speech as much as possible.

Anywhere where you might expect the UK or US media to be negative about something, then RT is positive about it. as an example, thinking back to the 2010 student protests in the UK. RT was very positive about them, "anti-government protesters" in the same way that our media has been positive about the motley crew of people who have got rid go the Ukrainian president, and been applauded for it by our media and political class, RT has broadly taken an opposite view.

I don't think this specifically highlights a fundamental dishonesty behind what RT does, certainly not over and above the fundamental dishonesty of our state media (BBC) in this country, which lies, misrepresents and obfuscates reality in it's news reporting all the time.

Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post

This.

Watch both. Recognise agendas. Draw your own conclusions.

There is a difference between funded and controlled.

There should be yes, in reality, this is not the case with the BBC - who are controlled through soft controls, like the government taking stories elsewhere if they allow certain speakers*, or report on certain things in a particular way, this removes the possibility of having a news network that covers the day to day, so they do as they are told. In addition, finding means that you can continue, as long as they are holding the purse strings, the consideration is always going to be to think about what happens.

There are notable exceptions, but on the whole, this seems to be the case with the BBC.

jambourgie - Member

would

Wood.
😉

this is not the case with the BBC - who are controlled through soft controls, like the government taking stories elsewhere if they allow certain speakers*, or report on certain things in a particular way, this removes the possibility of having a news network that covers the day to day, so they do as they are told.

"The government" can do that with any broadcaster, whether they are publicly funded or not is completely irrelevant.

The reality of course is that there isn't any sort of conspiracy by the government to withhold stories from broadcasters who displease them.

If they did try to manipulate news dissemination to that extent there would quite rightly be a public outcry.

Besides, all governments are always more than happy to receive whatever publicity they can, being awkward and finicky with respect to who they supply press releases etc to isn't a luxury they can afford. It simply gives the opposition a clear run.

Governments do attack the independence of the BBC. Probably the greatest attack the BBC has ever faced in that respect was when the New Labour government orchestrated the sacking of the BBC's Director General, because they had been outraged that the BBC had suggested that Tony Blair's Dodgy Dossier might have been "sexed up". Something which eventually turned out to be completely true.

Today the BBC is imo more timid than it had previously been, another lasting and unattractive legacy of Tony Blair's premiership. But it was done above board for all to see and it didn't seem to bother the electorate who returned Blair to power. The BBC's Director General never got his job back.

The BBC telling the truth about the government lying was less important than Tony Blair getting away with lying.

Is it school holidays again ? To save another thread, sometimes parents lie, there is no such thing as the New World Order, and people in forums might not be who they say they are.

Now eat some fruit, drink some water, put on a jersey, clean your room and go to bed earlier.

At which point in the previous 2 years had she not realised that she worked for an outpost of a state owned media?

Judging by her resignation speech it seems that she hadn't realised it was Russian.

The irony will not be lost on me when she pops up on [s]another state mouthpiece[/s] Fox in a couple of month's time.

Unless the Republic of Rupert has been founded fox is not a state mouthpiece. Several politicians are mouthpieces of Rupert though.