Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Not a forum

I skimmed through this talk page, and I feel like it may be necessary to remind some people that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. - Anonimski (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pls feel free to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Quotes from Simonyan

This isn't an article about Western media coverage of the Moscow apartment bombings, nor is it an article about CNN. Putting in random, cherry picked quotes - and they are very much that, since overall both sources, NY Times blog, and Southern Poverty Law Center give a very much different picture than the quotes suggest - about what the editor of RT thinks about these things is inappropriate. They simply do not belong in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever mainstream media comments on RT are, or whatever is said by others that is detrimental to the network, we just cannot have an article that has the silly ungrammatical heading "Propaganda etc." ([1]). I'm not personally worried about the content that follows. --Vrhunski (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Me neither, but when you are about to revert a user with five-digit contribution, sometimes it does not harm to look at the edit history: [2].--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I will self-revert now. --Vrhunski (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda as "axiomatic" instead of "alleged"

Could you explain what you meant, User:Galassi? Because it seems like your edit didn't contribute to NPOV. If we look at how CNN is presented, for reference, nobody has even bothered to cover the criticism of the pro-war content (Afghanistan, Iraq) and label it axiomatically as propaganda (the article however includes an allegation of propaganda for an Iran-related issue at the bottom). - Anonimski (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources have repeatedly and specifically called out RT's propaganda. There's no need to pretend that it's just one point of view; it's a fact. bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing IRL content dispute - two political blocs describe each others' material as propaganda. I wouldn't disagree on that RT has broadcasted propagandistic material, although there should be a NPOV presentation of the accusations, whichever the direction. - Anonimski (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a strange way of putting it. Anyway, comparing RT and CNN is apples and oranges. Rotten apples and oranges.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And the bottom line is that it is alleged and not an "axiom". The so-called reliable sources to made the accusations including the former correspondents (Liz Wahl, Sarah Firth, etc.) still represent one political block which will be the same sources which - to give examples - will back Ukraine's government position over the eastern rebels; were ready to blame Vladimir Putin on day one for the Malaysian plane bombing which accorrding to the airline flew at low altitude and off the main flight path under instructions from Kiev, and similar examples. Meanwhile, you don't see RT criticised by other networks such as Press TV or CCTV (China) and yet their international coverage is in tune to each other, but when taking the views of pro-NATO pro-EU pro-Western Foreign Policy news outlets that constitute the western media, the reviews on those networks are also "propaganda", so it really is "one block versus the other". --Vrhunski (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Marek, In what way is it strange when there's a significant history of pro-war material from both of them? Remember the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction"? If you're putting it that way, why not "rotten apples and rotten oranges"? That would be more inline with the NPOV policy. - Anonimski (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

While I could ramble on about how ridiculous the previous two posts are, I’m too busy. Using "alleged" in a subheading in the criticism section is superfluous. Also I think one of the subheadings currently used is unneeded.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome to attempt to "ridicule" my remarks, if I am wrong in any way then I am all ears. In the meantime I will just add one thing, somebody here introduced the term "axiom" with the language of sanction to the point that "alleged" is not the case. When something is proven beyond reasonable doubt, nobody can dispute the term and this includes the RT Network. I am aware that many people to have edited this article have never actually watched RT but have paid close attention to the negative coverage it has received from the mainstream media - the same goes for people you may meet day to day as it is shocking how many people admit they "will not" watch it out of principle, and yet are under the impression that RT is somehow censored and acts like a North Korean style state tool for Moscow. In fact, RT watches over mainstream media like a hawk and tells its viewers exactly what is being reported in the corporate-owned networks - in particular when RT itself is the subject of criticism. A good example is when John Kerry some months back made his famous "bullhorn" speech in reference to RT. Obviously the corporate-owned western media and the BBC - for whom Kerry is a darling and therefore infallible - could find nothing to add to his comments. RT however devoted a good ten minutes responding to and refuting the comments through a set of representations. And of course, anyone to watch RT will also know that the persons interviewed are frequently scholars, authors and persons knowledgeable in what is being discussed (e.g. former advisors to U.S government positions), the very examples of what is considered WP:RS here. And given RT responds to absolutely every single remark against it, I believe that this could be added to the article too - and once that is done, anyone will see that the "propaganda" accusation has been trumped every time. Not exactly "axiomatic". --87.250.52.46 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My comments, logged out by mistake. --Vrhunski (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done some work to the article. There are now seven clear sections on criticism with next to nothing on the response to these. Unfortunately, only RT can respond so nothing else can be used by any other editor. It is not for others to do the refuting for them. --Vrhunski (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"RT is a brand of "TV-Novosti", founded by RIA Novosti on April 6, 2005."

Can someone clarify this sentence in the lead? The two references are in Russian. What does it mean "..is a brand of ..."? If someone can confirm from the reference and explain that here. Thnx, Sohebbasharat (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've linked to the article on brand--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what a brand is. Thank you for your explanation. "TV-Novosti" has no wiki link. So, i dont know what this is. I merely want clarification for this. Because the references given are in Russian, so if someone who understands Russian could comment...ThanxSohebbasharat (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

RT TV network or channel?

The heading says that this article is about RT the TV network, but the lead begins like it is an article about one channel. Which is it? The two should be brought in conformity. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely an expert on RT such as yourself can tell us?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am no expert on RT. I dont know where you are coming from... I am just asking, is this article for RT (as a network) or RT (one channel from among others that are part of the RT network)? Because the opening sentences of the lead refer to "channel" while the article title is "network".Sohebbasharat (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The following would seem an improvement to me:

RT (formerly named "Russia Today") is a Russian state-funded television network that produces cable and satellite television channels and Internet content directed to audiences outside of the Russian Federation. RT International, which is headquartered in Moscow, presents round-the-clock news bulletins, documentaries, talk shows and debates, as well as sports news and cultural programs on Russia.[3] RT operates a multilingual service with channels in three languages; the original English language channel was launched in 2005. The Arabic language Rusiya Al-Yaum was launched in 2007, while its Spanish language channel RT Actualidad was launched in 2009. Since 2010, RT America, and 2014, RT UK have offered some locally based content for those countries.

RT is a brand of "TV-Novosti", an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti (now "Russia Today") on April 6, 2005.[1][5] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian Government included ANO "TV-Novosti" in the list of core organisations of strategic importance of Russia.[6][7][8]

Any complaints?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks very good now. Much clearer. Thanx. Just one thing, "founded by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti (now "Russia Today")" so its not that RIA Novosti is now called Rossiya Segodnya; in fact RIA Novosti was closed and a new agency is started. So, i dont see any purpose of mentioning Rossiya Segodnya here in the parenthesis; the information is complete even without that. People can read further on RIA Novosti page that it has now been succeeded by another agency. AND EVEN IF it has to be mentioned, "Rossiya Segodnya" is enough, no need to write this as "Russia Today", because that confuses it up with the channel RT that was previously Russia Today. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already updated the first part (with some tweaked grammar), and I think that the rest is fine too. - Anonimski (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. looks good now. just that rossiya segodnya point that i mentioned in reply to Trappedinburnley needs to be discussed. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it as it is already linked in the "not to be confused with", but I'd prefer to wait for other editors to comment before changing the article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the lead too biased?

So, its the first time I am viewing this RT article and the lead seems too biased. I mean, its alright to level all the criticisms in the Criticism section but the lead should not be that biased. Just look at the Fox/CNN lead and u barely find a sentence of criticism regarding bias; although they are also quite biased (being pro-US). Sohebbasharat (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead is accurate, because this is what it is, and this is its purpose. If we removed it, it wouldn't be accurate. (you see the situation in Ukraine today, which country is invading and being deceptive, and which is their state funded media) The only thing that is questionable in the lead is the ofcom statement, but to the British, it is an important statement for the lead. That statement needs to be nonspecific about overall tv sanctions, and have more refs behind it for the lead. Then the original ofcom statement definitely belongs in the article. The sanctions statement might be better off in the criticism section, to make the lead appear more balanced. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether the conflict is presented with WP:UNDUE weight, if we compare with similar CNN pro-war and pro-invasion material during the Afghanistan/Iraq time, and their comparatively low representation on Wikipedia. - Anonimski (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead with the exception of the Ofcom sanctions is due weight, for 2 reasons: they have a lot of reputable references, and because this is accurate. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, if there are references available that a channel is biased, should they all be lumped up in the lead? while giving not enough positive opinions? Fox is a war mongering channel that justifies every US atrocity. Go check its lead. It is not littered with criticism references. There is one sentence of criticism in the Fox lead with the second sentence rectifying that criticism. Compare that with RT. I know RT has criticisms. But it is WP:UNDUE if 80% of the lead is discussing the criticisms. There is a specific criticism section for a reason. And dont bring up discussion of Ukraine here. Be objective. Otherwise i can also name examples. You should read "Manufacturing consent" to get a good know how. All these channels propagate state objectives. Dont think that all the media in US is "objective" while RT is the first biased news channel ever.Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The criticism is a good part of this article because criticism is a lot of what's found in reliable sources. So the lede summarizes that. This is not WP:UNDUE (and it's nowhere near 80%), it's exactly as it should be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sidelight12, CNN reporting was fairly nuanced. They would say things like "according to the U.S. state department" or "according to Ukraine officials", rather than saying "Russia invaded Crimea today. A lot of the perception on the difference between RT and CNN reporting could be subjective. When a CNN reporter says "according to the U.S. government" we perceive that they are implying the statement is true, while when an RT reporter says the same thing, we perceive that the reporter does not necessarilty believe the statement to be true. TFD (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Because those sources are more credible than RT. At one point, RT had the benefit of being assumed credible. There are defected RT reporters who say they are fed up with RT. The wording of saying, who said what, is unbiased. It's up to the reader to determine if the US State Department, Ukraine officials, etc are credible; and apparently they at least have some credibility to many. Not everything in the news here is done by CNN. While RT once used legitimate instances to go on about to gain a base of followers: they used this to add false information to these concerns, to further their own purposes. I'd say find a new source, that supports the ideas and doesn't distort them to intentionally further Putin's corruption. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree on the credibility issues with RT, although the reliability gap to other equivalent news sources isn't of the extremely large magnitude like the current Wikipedia coverage suggests. A very notable example is how the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" thing got much more exposure than the later information about how the reports were faked so that the wars and invasions could be done with less public protests. Right now, we do have an issue with WP:UNDUE weight and bad adherence to NPOV policies in certain places. - Anonimski (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I partially agree. I may not agree if that was going on anything further. I knew "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" was a lie from the beginning, and things like this not getting enough coverage, like how people get away with cheating, after facts come out is unfortunately a fact of life. Many people, including Americans, are aware of this. Even Al Jazeera helped expose abuses in Iraq. RT is not the answer, in fact it makes things worse, by being done in a hypocritical sense. I'm fine with adding some balance, like a reasonable counter claim not done by RT, but im against removing the two sentences pertaining to propaganda and false information. However, I disagree with it being undue. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What are your opinions on clarifying the subsection title so that it's clear that the controversy is about allegations? I suggested it earlier because allegations is all that we have here at the moment, we don't have a situation where any side has faced an international court to settle the issues about war propaganda, etc. and agreed with the results. - Anonimski (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the subheadings are still overdone. It doesn't necessarily have to get that far to the international court for it to be noted as real, especially considering that Russia is one of 5 countries immune to the international court. The claims are also more than allegations. Wording something neutrally is fine, as long as it doesn't cover up facts, or truths about what reliable sources say. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC) On second thought, those subheadings are borderline ok. It seems overdone, but it does describe the passages well. For many reference points to find text and for organization its ok, but otherwise it is overdone. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the claims are way beyond a reasonable doubt. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparing RT with CNN or even Fox is false equivocation. Also, it's WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you have a problem with the CNN and Fox articles, take it up there. Don't POV this article on that kind of a flimsy excuse. Statements like "all these channels propagate state objectives" are ignorant at a level which suggests that the person making it may not be sufficiently neutral and/or competent to edit this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Comparing RT with CNN or even Fox is false equivocation". Wow. It seems to me that you have pre-decided and hence u will not be very objective. The lead of this article is already POV'd. I am only discussing to remove that POV. The OTHERSTUFF that i mentioned is to show you how an unbiased lead is constructed.Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, I have decided. Not "pre-decided", but decided. Based on the coverage in reliable sources. No "pre" there. Just following policy. Here it is, you should read it: WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The intro is fine. It simply reflects what sources tell. FOX may be biased, but the current reporting by Russian TV is simply not a journalism, but an outright propaganda, intentional disinformation and fear mongering. This is very different. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Fox telling people what to think, biased reporting, and some propaganda. In fact, some of this is stated in their lead, and Fox News even has its own criticism article. RT takes the cake, it is so bad with disinformation and propaganda it makes Fox News look honorable. I don't know why I can't bring up Ukraine. Ukraine, and that plane incident is why more people started seeing RT for what it is, and RT's propaganda has been going on at least since the Syrian War.

It is the people's fault who initially tried to defend this article, by placing "by whom" tags behind the disinformation and propaganda statements. So now it exactly says by whom. Besides, it is Due weight, based on reliable sources. RT's mission is to promote propaganda and disinformation, and Fox at least has a little bit of real news. Sure, Fox has news then adds its own conclusion, but at least much of it was based on real news to begin with. It doesn't matter, you won't have to convince me, there are a lot more people who agree that the introduction is fine, and won't have it changed. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We've done this argument to death over the last year. If "new" contributors wish to contribute I suggest they read this talk page first. If someone wants to add new content to the article that is relevant and accurately reflects a reliable source they are free to do so. If someone has an idea for a "better" lead that won't just lead to re-run of the problems we've already had then post it here for discussion. Otherwise we are just wasting time--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The propaganda and false information claims are solid. There is at least one English source like Huffington Post that supports RT. If there are enough of those by more (real) sources, I don't mind adding a counter claim, that is done as I think is properly, to the lead. However, it cannot be too heavy, because of due weight, and to maintain fact. I don't have consensus to do that, but I don't mind either way. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here questionened propaganda or false or misleading information by RT. The argument is/was about whether RT is treated "harsher" than comparable outlets (such as fox,hungarian state media, cctv, press tv, voice of america).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly - and we should avoid a situation where the various emotions caused by the war in Ukraine make Wikipedia articles stray from the norms of having balanced and neutral representation of topics. - Anonimski (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "emotions" - please don't insult other editors. This has everything to do with reliable sources. That's it. As to "comparable outlets", take it up on the respective article pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a public dispute about reliability, it's not only local to Wikipedia. As RT is one of the media outlets involved in the dispute, this page is one of the places where the NPOV discussion belongs. And since when did the usage of the word "emotions" become an insult? You're not making any sense there... - Anonimski (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to falsely characterize those who disagree with you as making "emotional" arguments. This is a rhetorical trick. There's nothing emotional here. It's just following what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing me of a "rhetorical trick", when I'm describing the observation that certain topics got some really intensive attention and heated debates when the war started. That is definitively a real issue and a concern related to the NPOV goals. If there's anyone that has come with an insult here, it's you. - Anonimski (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not. Again, you are just attempting to paint those who disagree with you as "emotional". This is dishonest and insulting, especially since it's those who disagree with you are the ones who are insisting we follow Wikipedia policy and follow reliable sources, whereas your suggestions for changes essentially amount to "my own opinion".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As has already been covered many times, the question of does this article treat RT more harshly than other articles treat their subjects is irrelevant. NPOV doesn't mean removing info because although no reliable sources can be produced, people don't like what an article says.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate RT, for distorting facts to support corruption at the cost of many innocent lives. There are editors here who I think have an emotional attachment to RT, because it starts off on subjects which may be legitimate concerns, then they cling to this blindly. RT has its base, then it uses that to distort, and influence events. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant if the harshness has undue weight compared to how similar issues are treated. Wikipedia must represent a worldwide view, and that means neither pro-US nor pro-Russia. No agendas. - Anonimski (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not represent "a worldwide view", whatever the fuck that is. It presents the view of reliable sources. Period.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And how exactly are you supposed to define reliable sources when we have a significant reliability dispute IRL? We have several sides who have been actively spreading propagandistic and biased content in some certain contexts. You can't just come and dictate that one of them should be a special case with a special type of coverage. - Anonimski (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. It's in there. I don't know about "several sides". The criticism of RT are well sourced. If you really really really want to you can go to WP:RSN (again!) and argue that the relevant sources are not reliable. Just to save you some time, it's not going to work, it'll only waste people's time and energy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am for moving the ofcom statement from the lead, and putting in that RT drew criticism or action from government entities/organizations in the lead. Then inserting a mildly weighted counter claim by Huffington Post (not like they have it right, but I don't mind expressing their opinion) with more refs from other sources, and possibly a review too. The criticisms in the lead are well weighted, and my proposal here will weigh it more equally. Of course, I don't have consensus to do this, and I'm also worried that my attempts would get abused by people who support the network, but they haven't been around recently. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The current lede is fine and does not need changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would still like Volunteer Marek or Trappedinburnley to provide a link to any RT articles that fabricate facts. TFD (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There are too many examples. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is beside the point but I have provided such examples in the past, in discussion at WP:RSN and, IIRC, the discussion at Malaysia Flight 17 articles. Feel free to dig'em out. I'm not gonna waste my time endlessly repeating the same thing just because some people are incapable of listening or because they think that wearing and tiring out others is a valid Wikipedia editing practice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the question itself strays away from the purpose of this discussion, and into the field of WP:OR. We are dealing with a news outlet that has been involved in dishonest representation of some events, and we have a debate on how it should be treated in relation to other news sources that have displayed similar behavior. - Anonimski (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think the lead is too biased and there is too much focus on criticising Russia Today.A short one sentence stating that RT has been criticized by its opponents and accused of propaganda should be enough.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That goes too far, and many including me won't agree with that. I'll assume that is an honest intention. The first two sentences of the section are sound, if this seems like too much, it's because that is much of RT's purpose. Next, I'd like to move the Ofcom statement down, and replace it in the lead with something like, RT has drawn reactions from foreign government agencies. After that, a mild refutation by the Huffington Post and similar sources. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We use reliable sources. Not what somebody happens to "think". The present lede is just fine. Changing it because of someone's IDONTLIKEIT, in contradiction of coverage in reliable sources, is the essence of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's not just "foreign government agencies" that RT has drawn reactions from. RT has been pretty universally criticized in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It already has that, it drew vocal reactions from news and other sources. It drew action from the British government agency ofcom, and from the US Department of State. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that it's not just those agencies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If that means criticism and/or claims, the first two sentences in that section of the lead say that. I'm referring to additionally (actions, not just vocal reactions) sanctions from government agencies such as Ofcom, and the (reaction by the) US Department of State. What else are you referring to? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What's with adding back the heading propaganda, when the overhead heading says propaganda. It is harming our case to hit RT so hard, it turns readers away from learning that RT is real garbage. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ok that makes sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "harming our case"? Could anyone of you two please explain in a more clear way, what is it that you want to do? - Anonimski (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It feels that many of the editors here are seeing all of this from a very "anti-Russian" angle and that is not good for the neutrality. Many people here are assuming that all the US media is inherently superior than RT; while reality is far from that. US media tows their government's line (Iraq War; a case in point) just like RT is towing its government's line. But reading the article here feels as if RT is somehow a convicted criminal while all the US channels are icons of honest journalism. Let me also say that i am not from US and not from Russia. I am from Pakistan; so I have really no side to take here. (neither pro-Russian, nor anti-Russian). But i do feel that the lead needs to be toned down to make it NPOV.Sohebbasharat (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make baseless accusations. No one here is "anti-Russian". Nevermind the fact that you are fallaciously equating being critical of Putin's policies with being "anti-Russian", which itself reveals a bit about your mindset and your capability to edit this article neutrality. And yes, most of US media is superior to RT. Hell, most of the media in Antarctica is superior to RT. They just don't set a very high bar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole approach of establishing what is "superior", and acting thereafter, is not really inline with Wikipedia's goals. Doing that kind of evaluation here on this talkpage, and basing our edits on that, would cause us to stray too far into something that could only be categorized as WP:OR. (Edit: And I am aware of that there are reliable sources and unreliable sources, although here we're evaluating news sources with different political alignments and interests (and similar incidents related to passing on POV-pushing material to the public), which makes the situation radically different to, for example, a dispute regarding a scientific publication and a religious text). - Anonimski (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll speak for myself. I'm seeking the balance of truth to NPOV. People need to see RT for what it is. No, my angle is not anti-Russian; my angle is anti-hidden-agenda by RT. At one point, RT had the same chance of being considered trustworthy as any other news source; and their propaganda efforts eventually exposed itself. At times, some, but not all American or other sources did tow their government's line, but not to the extent as this organization, afaik. But you are on about something, recently there has been anti-Russian, anti-US, anti-country sentiment across the web, because of recent global events, and media portrayal. This amount or type of anti- sentiment wasn't around 3 years ago. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective (who entered this dispute in a very late stage), all I see is an example of the "WP:But it's true!" syndrome. Completely removing everything about RT's problematic aspects would of course be wrong. In this case, however, there have been excessive emotional (this word is still not an insult, Marek) attachments to this whole ordeal, and this has made the coverage to be out of proportions to how issues like these are normally dealt with (if we look at pro-war apologism and misleading info from other media). We need to be concise and focus on the notable and important aspects of criticism against RT and not mindlessly absorb any comment wherever it comes from. And the articles about other news providers need to be updated so that they also display info on their equivalent controversies and problematic sides that have been noted. - Anonimski (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As has also been covered before all the major news network articles have accompanying "criticism of" or "controversies of" articles. You are welcome to contribute to them. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that someone scraped together every negative source available and put it in the article. These are but a tiny sample. As just about everyone who considers themselves a journalist becomes aware of RT promptly recoils in horror, they tend to write about it.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'WP:But it's true' is an opinion essay. Truth is my fundamental principle in editing, NPOV is second. It just so happens that, it is verifiable, and well sourced. I've said, I was willing to work on neutrality of the article, without removing the well sourced facts, so I don't understand why such the difficulty. Secondly there were defenders of RT who appeared had an emotional attachment to the network. Also, I agree with Trappedinburnley's assessment below, with the addition that this costs thousands of lives where Russia intervenes; and this explains some of the anger at RT. Despite my personal opinions, I reason logically. So next, what are suggestions for a counter (which is mild, by due weight) by not-RT (including neutral and RT supporting) sources. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

After many hours viewing the channel since 2008 I firmly believe that RT is a hardcore propaganda service masquerading as the Russian (insert your own international news service). Its primary agenda is pretty obviously to manipulate the viewer (and by extension in a democratic country, the viewer’s government) into supporting whatever benefits Putin’s government. Whether it is trying to make everyone dislike the US, or prevent the spread of fracking to keep demand for Russia’s primary export high, or break-up the EU to facilitate the restoration of the USSR, or stop the west’s interventions in places that are friendly to Russia, just about everything they broadcast is suspect. The only believable stuff I’ve ever watched on RT is when the truth happens to fit the agenda. My goal here as with any other article is to give our readers a full understanding of the subject, but as always we are limited by the sources available to us. That’s not to say any other media organisation is blameless but this isn’t about them it's about RT.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, sir but I have also lately been viewing RT quite a lot and comparing it with CNN for example, i dont see but a small difference. Russian media propagates its foreign policy just like almost all of mainstream US media propagates its own foreign policy and neither is pro-world peace; both want the greatest share of the pie that is the resources and power. So, i disagree with the notion that RT is particularly bad. I have barely, if ever, seen any major US media diverge from the foreign policy that the gov is pursuing; and the few times they do are only minor to's and fro's. I can go from Vietnam war, to interventions in South America, to middle east, to Israel, to Iraq war, to Afghanistan etc but that is besides the point. I admit i am a human and so by definition subjective. Of course lots of RT criticism is valid and needs mention. My only humble opinion is to make the lead a bit balanced. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to take a more sober second look at US (mainstream) media, while certainly can detect somewhat of "pro american" bias and a lot of "jingoism", you cannot claim it doesn't critize the government's foreign policy (or the government a such), the rather often do. In particular the most propagandistic outlet (fox) does constantly criticize the current president over its foreign policy. Propagandistivc or biased reporting in US media is not pro government but pro various factions in the US, which may or may not be aligned with government policies. For istance under Bush fox usually supported US foreign policies whereas under Obama they often don't. They do not represent the opinion or propaganda of the US government but that of certain conservative factions and movements in the US. The same goes for historical examples as Vietnam and Latin America policies. Parts of the mainstream media were extremely critical of US policies there i fact one might argue that the press has lost the Us the war, as its critical reporting killed the war support at home. This was one of the main reasons for the current embedded war journalism, the pentagon changed its handling of the press, because it was so critical in the past. You find similar critical pieces about US policies towards Latin America, moreover there are even various major "Hollywood" movies directly attacking US Latin America policies (Costa Gavras' "Missing", Oliver Stone's "Salvador", ....). So the argument that the US media does not criticize US foreign policy or does not divert from it has really little to stand on upon closer inspection.

As far as RT goes i'd consider it as particularly bad as far as any serious journalism is concerned, probably not much worse than Fox. However Fox is more or less the worst case in US mainstream media. However with RT journalistic quality depends on the subject, while it's Ukraine reporting and show's like Peter Lavalle are big biased propaganda mess, some of US reporting of RT USA is actually reasonable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is no forum to debate this issue. I can only advise you to please give "Manufacturing consent" a read. As you mentioned that RT is probably similar to Fox. I would advise you to check the lead in the Fox article and compare it with the lead in this article. I think you would understand why i am saying the lead in this article is pushing a negative POV.Sohebbasharat (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You started the "debate" not me. As far as the lead of the fox article and this one is concerned, instead of arguing that this one pushes negative POV in comparison, you could also argue the Fox one pushes (falsely) positive POV in comparison whereas this one is getting it right.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok guys, the thing is, your own personal impressions that you've gotten out of watching RT yourself are completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. As are mine. Bottom line is that what matters is how reliable sources talk about it. And that's exactly what we have in the article right now. You might not personally agree with reliable sources and that's actually fine. But Wikipedia is based on reliable - and MAINSTREAM - sources. There are other venues and outlets on the internet for expression of personal opinions and original research. But an encyclopedia isn't one of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia's emphasis for sources is more on quality than on mainstream aspect. Hence we rely primarily on reputable scholarly sources rather than the mainstream media/press. Also the question of similar/comparable treatment is not necessarily of question of sources, but the question why in some article have the sourced criticism in the lead whereas others just have it further down. However the WP might not have gotten it right for article A (yet), is not a good argument for not getting it right for article B as well (in the sense of "equal treatment").--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Since when do we avoid mainstream media/press sources? I think it is probably time to review WP:RS policy again. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't avoid them as such but we tend avoid them where scholarly sources are available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent developments section

I know this article has been through a serious POV edit war recently, but the "Recent developments" section reads as a massive violation of WP:WEASEL, WP:NOTSCANDAL, MOS:OPED from go to whoa (beginning to end). The tone is unencyclopaedic and journalistic in itself. I'm just giving other editors a heads up on the fact that I intend to redact it heavily per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Stringing together bits of bitching and various other WP:UNDUE incidents does not meet with WP:BALASPS standards.

Feel free to argue a case for the majority of it being retained now... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the article back then, but I think that someone thought it a good idea to move some of the older content from the Criticism section to History. Some of the content (or the sources at least) may be more appropriate there, or in a new Controversies section that I've previously suggested.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The previous section is also messy. Basically, Development and expansion (2007-2014) and Recent developments (2012-2014) are forks for the same topic. They should be trimmed, merged, and perhaps segmented into subsections (for example by year). As for the trimming, for some reason we have quite a lot of overweight on the 2012 part, there are some low importance things there that just take unnecessary space. - Anonimski (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in agreement with you both on this matter. The first paragraph of "Recent developments" alone is completely redundant. The merge idea into yearly subsections of "Development and expansion" would work, as would creating a "Controversies" section. I'll have to find that proposal again and refresh my memory, Trappedinburnley. Would you consider the two proposals for a clean-up mutually unworkable, Anonimski? "Development and expansion" could be proscribed to the nuts and bolts, while "Controversies" should be able to be developed without overlapping. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear my feeling is that the current "Responses to news coverage" subsection in Criticism should be turned into a "Controversies" S2. Other contributors have countered with: you can't have Criticism AND Controversy sections; there shouldn't be either section, the content would be better incorporated elsewhere; or negative content shouldn't be allowed because it is un-encyclopedic / western government propaganda / the mainstream-media ganging-up on RT.

I suspect that by the time the History section has been cleaned-up, it won't need subsections, but if it does, I'm relaxed about the headings. Obviously ambassador McFaul's treatment by the Russian media (who seemed convinced he's a CIA revolution specialist) is significant, and may be relevant from the angle of RT's links to other Russian state-owned media outlets. But I agree that the issue mentioned in the article is pretty insignificant.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning as to having criticisms and controversies as separate subheaders if necessary. My concern about proscribing how they are handled (whether under the one subheader or both) revolves around the fact that either/both sections have the potential to be turned into POV spin-off articles. Of course, that only reflects my own predilection for containing as much as possible about any given WP:TITLE content in the one article, particularly when dealing with potentially op-ed/journalistic content where the issue at hand is adherence to the project's (Wikipedia's) NPOV, encyclopaedic content premise.

My intention in starting this section was in order to get some civil and rational discussion underway in light of the edit war mess without triggering a fresh bout of edit warring. I, too, am flexible as to how this is handled, and prefer not to approach it per WP:BRD but by consensus on this talk page. I'd prefer not to remove content I consider to be relevant simply because it could be merged "elsewhere" where instances of "elsewhere" will probably be dismissed as being UNDUE. Given that we've allowed for a few days between discussions, I would suggest that, if there is no other input here, we should allow for another couple of days then start on a restructuring. Anyone with doubts as to how we handle it will, then, be welcome to express them in this section. Cheers, Trappedinburnley! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Simonyan's "Larry King" quote

The quote "Whether a president or an activist or a rock star was sitting across from him, Larry King never shied away from asking the tough questions, which makes him a terrific fit for our network" was recently removed obviously because it is pointless fluff. However it seems surprisingly important to User:Mercy11 that it remains in the article. Although I doubt anyone cares enough to get in a argument about it I thought I'd mention it for posterity.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Trappedinburnley. It was still in there, so I've removed it per WP:UNDUE and WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is not a PR company for promoting RT's programming. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Funding compared to other articles

Comparison article on Voice of America which is also a gov funded broadcasting network mentions the America first (as is now the case for RT) and funding is mentioned in line 3 (as it is important, but not for the first sentence). The article needs to read neutral and not emphasize one fact over another by placing it in the first line. 209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is neutral. If you got a problem with the Voice of America, then discuss that there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about how Voice of America is, but I can't really agree on that this article is neutral in all aspects. There are neutrality issues that other users including me have debated about earlier on this talk page. But as for now, the best idea would be to bring up those questions at the Voice of America talk page, as Marek said. As for the overall neutrality, I think that it would be good to start a WP:Wikiproject about neutral representation of media where category-wide trends can be examined without having the discussions get stuck on individual talkpages. - Anonimski (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual but not neutral

A self-test for bias: What is the first thing that comes to your (and mine) mind when you hear or see "RT"? Is it: a) a televisions network? b) funded by Russian state? c) alleged propaganda for Russian government? d) adversarial to west?

If you say funding, allegation (very plausible),... check for bias

"a television network" and then all the others should be explored (factually with sources) in appropriate sections of the article.

When the FIRST word after the name of the entity is its funding source, it begs to invite criticism of biased writing/editing. Every one is biased by nature. Please try to stay neutral. Someone had mentioned that only cited FACTS are added. is the following not factual? RT is a Russian state funded, highly criticized adversarial television and internet network and is alleged to be an arm of Russian Federation's foreign policy. These are facts written in a biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just a descriptor, and the sentence flows better that way.

What is the first thing that comes to your (and mine) mind when you hear or see "Google"? "Internet", perhaps, or "search-engine"; but our article on Google uses the word "American" before any of those, because that's a helpful adjective and in English we typically put adjectives before nouns. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fair; I will change to Russian television... Again, I understand the funding issue is important, but before mentioning its a television network doesn't seem logical. I read the first line and it popped out as being written by some one who wants to emphasize "hey this is propaganda". Same goes for placing a whole paragraph of specific criticism in the introduction. ex: (Prof so and so, who is about to lose his job, has been associated with college of ....) The first line is crucial for setting the tone. Please keep it neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Added Russian before television... as is the case for google article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good question. What is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear about the contemporary "Russian state-funded television" ? None of the above. What comes to my mind is disinformation and propaganda of hatred. "Kulture" channel was good a year ago. Now one can only watch Dozhd, but this not a state-funded, but a state-persecuted channel that was recently evicted to a private apartment. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

you proved the point. The first thing that comes to your mind is your opinion. Look in the mirror and see the bias. Or don't. There should be at list a minimal respect for neutrality. No is interested in your opinion or mine. Stick to facts, and place them in appropriate are. This article needs to be flagged. I'm working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.105.237 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2015

Dear Team,

I watch Russia Today regularly and I realised that the name of the anchor I see most often, Thabang Motsei, is not mentioned in the anchors list. Is there any reason for that? Or is it an unintentional omission?

Thank you.

Regards I. Pinto 2A01:E35:8B51:BFA0:3CB5:2B22:9C88:DA55 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, she is clearly notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

About Russian propaganda

Not only about the RT specifically but more general [3].Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ad of the month

I think the only remaining dispute on the article is whether the stuff about "ad of the month" should be added. I think one editor who wanted to add the material missed the part that it was "of the month". Another editor wants to add it "for balance", which is a basic misunderstanding of WP:NPOV.

So can we just remove it and unprotect the article (although semi-protection would be a good idea)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for allowing this to be restored. With all of the reverts, I didn't realise this slipped through. It's OSE at the very least and is a truly bad attempt at GEVAL by an editor at some point during the previous edit war. It really needs to go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Marek, why are you saying that this "ad of the month" thing is the only remaining dispute? Look at the previous sections, nothing has been resolved there. I've been attempting to bridge the gap between the two sides regarding on how to describe RT in relation to other media, but I've come nowhere yet. - Anonimski (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that some editors JUSTDONTLIKE what reliable sources say is not a "neutrality dispute". If persistent enough, it's disruption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing is WP:WIKILAWYERING. The protests and remarks have been backed up with argumentation, and you're pretending like those parts haven't been written. - Anonimski (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As the claim was originally sourced to RT I looked for a better one, once I found this [4] I thought it pointless to continue. Also someone may want to sort out the section titles when we get unlocked --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice bit of research, Trappedinburnley. I'd say this is an excellent reason to lose the advertising award... or should we act as PR proxies for networks and append a trivia section for every network featuring which network came up with "Must see TV", ad nauseam (pardon the pun)?

I would also appeal to admin for semi-protection on the basis of discussions as to how to clean up the unencyclopaedic content added during the last bout of edit warring. Please see recent discussions (above) which are policy and guideline-based, and dependent on consensus before the fact. Serious problems with the layout and content of the entire article have been presented. Any of the contributors who disagreed with the proposed changes to sections, started here on the talk page, have had ample opportunity to join in and present solid arguments for their objections changes before they were initiated, yet there was no activity here until the content in question was changed in the article. Does being held to ransom with reverts after the fact of discussion equal "Edit warring / content dispute" on behalf of good faith editors who are discussing changes before initiating them, only to be pounced on and reverted by edit warriors only lurking in the wings of the article itself? This should be left open to discussion, not simply as what can be understood to be a punitive action in shutting out all editors without evaluating the processes being followed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection would be nice, but to be honest I think the only way we're going to get an serious work done is to create a sandbox version and switch it out when we're ready.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's for creation of new articles. I've never seen that kind of solution used in a minor case like this. The sandbox approach would favor the status quo unfairly, as it is too easy for one side to stall everything through small technicalities. - Anonimski (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of a reason why it can't be done. This is not a minor case, it's part of a longer term pattern. Every time people show an interest in fixing the glaring issues in this article the following two things happen: edit warriors get the article locked or at least make every change a painful experience, and "new" contributors appear insisting that we rehash every old argument. The end result being very little change. Otherwise I suppose I'll see you all here in a week for more of the same.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not aware of any policies or behavioural guidelines preventing development of content (particularly messes that keep getting locked by edit warriors who don't even bother to engage in how to improve the article as stands) in their own sandbox. We're never going to make progress with a trashed article otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent developments ?

2012 isn't recent.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Is early 2012 recent? For me recent starts with Euromaidan and Crimea.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Economist description of RT

Article in The Economist describes RT:

At home Russian media, which are mostly state-controlled, churn out lies and conspiracy theories. Abroad, the main conduit for the Kremlin’s world view is RT, a TV channel set up in 2005 to promote a positive view of Russia that now focuses on making the West look bad. It uses Western voices: far-left anti-globalists, far-right nationalists and disillusioned individuals. It broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and is planning German- and French-language channels. It claims to reach 700m people worldwide and 2.7m hotel rooms. Though it is not a complete farce, it has broadcast a string of false stories, such as one speculating that America was behind the Ebola epidemic in west Africa.

-- GreenC 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just reading The difference between real journalism and Russia Today in the Spectator, and plan to incorporate it into the article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While sources with a distinct POV/agenda are okay, they should be incorporated into Wikipedia with NPOV as a guiding principle. Furthermore, in this case, there's an active dispute on how to narrate certain parts of geopolitics and assign guilt for tragedies, conflicts and incidents. The two mentioned sources are not wrong to include per se, but they are of low quality, even if they do have a point in several cases. It would be better if someone could find sources that analyze these disputes from a third-person perspective and compare the interests of different geopolitical actors in a non-participatory way. - Anonimski (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Economist as a source is fine, although the text based on it should be attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

let be neutral and only mention the negative. All Media organizations have biases. I should add a few quote from RT to The Economist's page for balance. Wow since when the economist is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.105.237 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Economist presents views acceptable to millions of it readers, RT presents the opinions of Russian leaders. The Economist isn't able to misinform on many subjects during long time, RT is able. RT could be much more succesful telling 90% of truth and 10% of propaganda but it doesn't care. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The economist has masters just like RT does. They don't owe anyone the truth. It is up to us to be skeptics. And your statement here demonstrates your POV which you are entitled to. But I'm afraid it is not left at the door (or by the keyboard) when you edit. Again I understand your view and respect it. But It seems like it's taking away from neutrality of your edits. Wikipedia is best left factual and not popular.Paulthemonk (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, actually it's not. It is up to us to follow reliable sources. Please see WP:OR and WP:NOTTRUTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere, the author of the Spectator editorial writes, “This (human-caused climate change) is a monumental fraud… we are cracking the fraud wide open.” How do we assess what weight to give this writer's opinion? Are his views on RT any different from his views on the mainstream media? TFD (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really aware of author's previous work, but given that this is in The Spectator, I would expect his views to lean toward the conservative, old-fashioned end of the spectrum. Surely an old-fashioned, conservative who doesn't think much of global warming, would offer a softer view of Putin's pet news channel? Oh but no, he's just as critical as everybody else.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This explains why you insist on leaving criticisms in lead of article. "Putin's pet", "end of spectrum", No wonder why the article looks like this.Paulthemonk (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Liz Wahl

At the end of the little section on Liz Wahl there are two sentences that are loaded. The first says Ron Paul said he wasn't censored but that is irrelevant as Wahl said a question she was wanting to ask was censored, so it never even got put to Paul, that's how I interpret that bit, and then the next sentence says a journalist was quick to publish his 'exclusive' about Wahl quitting and had been in contact with her for six months but how can her on-air leaving of the propaganda channel be an 'exclusive'. Both sentences look like an attempt to present things in a stupid lurid light that just is not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.3.229 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)