PDA

View Full Version : Poll on whether people trusted "RT" or "the economist"



rumple_stilskin
11-02-2015, 13:46
Will Stevens(the economist) did an online poll recently, as to do you trust RT or The economist on news.

retweet for the economist, or favorite for RT

there were: 86 RETWEETS 1,532 FAVORITES

Anyway, he was so sure of himself, but it backfired. people are waking up. This was to his own audience....

Maybe even Will Stevens might stop believing his own propaganda...


details on this link, hard to read....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-02/us-moscow-embassys-whose-propaganda-do-you-trust-poll-blows-face

Russian Lad
11-02-2015, 13:52
In the mainstream Russian media, they do cover the crisis, but it is only a little portion of their air time, and very often - from the angle "How can we benefit from the crisis?". A standard procedure, it seems - bad news should cover only a small portion of the air time. The rest - about success in this or that area, blah-blah-blah. At this point it is impossible to hide the crisis anymore. And these media were in complete denial when it started. So, I would trust the Economist...
Look at many "patriots" here - many are still in the denial mode. Dollar costs 65 rubles instead of 32? Great, Russia can have more rubles! (C) Wally
I remember when the dollar was 40 and a lot of Russians from the government were saying "Don't go to buy dollars, it is too late now, the ruble will bounce back, blah-blah-blah". There were hundreds of programs quite cheerful about the economy. Then the dollar was 90 rubles within a few days, they had to adjust the tune a bit in order not to sound completely crazy. It was a forced adjustment, that's all.

Tzushima
11-02-2015, 13:52
Russia Times, the king on online polls :piano:

rumple_stilskin
11-02-2015, 13:57
Actually, he is the spokesman for the US embassy in Moscow.

He needs to get out more.

Russian lad: ok, i'll consider that as 87 retweets

Tzushima
11-02-2015, 14:04
did you make this thread because you just wanted us to ask you who YOU trust more? :agree:

AstarD
11-02-2015, 14:07
did you make this thread because you just wanted us to ask you who YOU trust more? :agree:


Ooooooooooooo, I think I know!

quincy
11-02-2015, 23:20
Will Stevens(the economist) did an online poll recently, as to do you trust RT or The economist on news.

retweet for the economist, or favorite for RT

there were: 86 RETWEETS 1,532 FAVORITES

Anyway, he was so sure of himself, but it backfired. people are waking up. This was to his own audience....

Maybe even Will Stevens might stop believing his own propaganda...


details on this link, hard to read....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-02/us-moscow-embassys-whose-propaganda-do-you-trust-poll-blows-face

The public have been lied to by The Economist, the New York Times, CNN and many other 'free' media outlets too often (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq...). Increasingly the public are realizing that nearly all media channels are the voices of the same Corporate elite

RT's Kaiser Report is way more investigative than any of the financial stories in the corporate media

Uncle Wally
12-02-2015, 00:58
RT has many different stations, they deal with each country specifically. Reporters or host are not Russian but come from the country they work in. On one such show, Breaking the Set with Abby Martin she came out against Russia on Crimea and was not fired. Her shows deal with problems in America and no other news station would let her report on the things she does so it's good for America but not "propaganda". RT America now has two shows by Larry King!


Russian Lad I don't know about RT Russia or any other Russian news nor do I watch TV Russian or American but I think it's all the same but RT America does have some good shows and is becoming more popular in the US.

AstarD
12-02-2015, 09:55
RT has many different stations, they deal with each country specifically. Reporters or host are not Russian but come from the country they work in. On one such show, Breaking the Set with Abby Martin she came out against Russia on Crimea and was not fired. Her shows deal with problems in America and no other news station would let her report on the things she does so it's good for America but not "propaganda". RT America now has two shows by Larry King!


Russian Lad I don't know about RT Russia or any other Russian news nor do I watch TV Russian or American but I think it's all the same but RT America does have some good shows and is becoming more popular in the US.Another "I don't actually watch it (read it see the movie), but I know it's like this." :spam:

rumple_stilskin
12-02-2015, 11:11
Another "I don't actually watch it (read it see the movie), but I know it's like this." :spam:

funny you should say that.

I tried to suggest to my brother in law to watch RT for another view. Extremely quickly he replied propaganda.

He is glued to FOX news via pay TV. Lucky for him, his existing news source has already saved him some time and told him repeatedly that it is mere propaganda "funded by kremlin". and scoffed at the idea.

not necessary to check, he already knows.

Tzushima
12-02-2015, 11:15
"funded by kremlin"

question: who do you think funds RT.com?

I am 100% serious, I am curious.

Armoured
12-02-2015, 11:24
question: who do you think funds RT.com?

I am 100% serious, I am curious.

The Kremlin.

Well, technically I guess the (Russian) White House. Or Ilyinka if you prefer.

FatAndy
12-02-2015, 11:25
question: who do you think funds RT.com?

I am 100% serious, I am curious.
RF government, for sure. And it is good and correct. :cool:

Tzushima
12-02-2015, 11:27
RF government, for sure. And it is good and correct. :cool:

I was just making sure he knew that. I am not commenting on the usefulness of RT.com, a site which I happen to read daily, but he sounded like he was mocking his brother in law's assertion of who funded it.

FatAndy
12-02-2015, 11:32
I was just making sure he knew that.
Well, even toddlers know this.


he sounded like he was mocking his brother in law's assertion of who funded it.
Is it forbidden to mock brothers-in-law? :)

Tzushima
12-02-2015, 11:36
Is it forbidden to mock brothers-in-law? :)
I highly encourage it even

Armoured
12-02-2015, 11:56
Is it forbidden to mock brothers-in-law? :)

It's obligatory.

But it works better if it makes a modicum of sense.

Uncle Wally
12-02-2015, 12:07
Another "I don't actually watch it (read it see the movie), but I know it's like this." :spam:



I did watch it, I grew up watching it and it's only gotten worse. I read news from America and it's easy to tell it's bullsh!t.


I didn't see that movie but I was right about it being lies and distortion.

Uncle Wally
12-02-2015, 12:09
question: who do you think funds RT.com?

I am 100% serious, I am curious.



They don't hide who funds RT.


Who funds CNN? That is not so clear.

Tzushima
12-02-2015, 12:12
They don't hide who funds RT.
that was my entire point to him, in fact

ConanS
12-02-2015, 12:13
RT America is pretty decent and they're generally really good at breaking news, I've found. I do trust the Economist more for overall coverage, however.

AstarD
12-02-2015, 12:33
funny you should say that.

I tried to suggest to my brother in law to watch RT for another view. Extremely quickly he replied propaganda.

He is glued to FOX news via pay TV. Lucky for him, his existing news source has already saved him some time and told him repeatedly that it is mere propaganda "funded by kremlin". and scoffed at the idea.

not necessary to check, he already knows.Indeed. And WillyWally is just as foolish as your brother-in-law.

Uncle Wally
12-02-2015, 12:44
Indeed. And WillyWally is just as foolish as your brother-in-law.



I don't care how much you insult me I am not having sex with a fat ignorant American woman so get it out of your mind!

Uncle Wally
12-02-2015, 12:45
RT America is pretty decent and they're generally really good at breaking news, I've found. I do trust the Economist more for overall coverage, however.



You just like being in the minority you rebel you.

AstarD
12-02-2015, 12:46
I don't care how much you insult me I am not having sex with a fat ignorant American woman so get it out of your mind!And I don't care how much you beg me, I am not having sex with you, you drug-addled turncoat loser, so get it out of your mind.

Tzushima
12-02-2015, 12:48
for what it's worth I would have sex with both of you :plane:

ConanS
12-02-2015, 13:10
You just like being in the minority you rebel you.

To quote the annoying peasant from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

ConanS
12-02-2015, 13:12
And I don't care how much you beg me, I am not having sex with you, you drug-addled turncoat loser, so get it out of your mind.

That escalated quickly

FatAndy
12-02-2015, 13:47
It's obligatory.

But it works better if it makes a modicum of sense.
Better maybe, but generally not necessary.


That escalated quickly
Welcome again to the forum. :D

Fantastika
12-02-2015, 21:49
RT America now has two shows by Larry King!


Russian Lad I don't know about RT Russia or any other Russian news nor do I watch TV Russian or American but I think it's all the same but RT America does have some good shows and is becoming more popular in the US.

Yes, but only about 10% of the dumbed-down American couch potatoes know that RT means "Russian Television."

Larry King? I know no one on this forum has ever listened to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbuagh, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, Roger Hedgecock, Chris Plantt, Mark Levin, Dave Ramsey, John Batchelor, etc., but they are likewise talk-show hosts, all more popular than Larry King.

Larry King is known internationally because the rest of the agenda-driven Western media pushes him as some sort of cool or intelligent host. In reality, King gets or got, less than a million viewers/night. Bill O'Reilly (FOX) gets 3x that number and Sean Hannity gets double. Rush gets 15-20 million listeners/day. The US media demonizes all the conservative hosts daily, and suppresses any information about their popularity. You will never see anything on the BBC or Euronews about Rush unless it is a hit piece to assassinate the character.

But King is promoted as the only "real" talk-show host, because he toes the Leftie, Progressive line. He's a joke.

Larry King still thinks it's 1969. He can pontificate all night about the civil rights struggle, discrimination, racial injustice, the feminist struggle, the mean treatment of homosexuals, civil rights for drug users, blah, blah, blah.

Uncle Wally
12-02-2015, 22:02
for what it's worth I would have sex with both of you :plane:



Do you have Skype?

quincy
13-02-2015, 00:58
They don't hide who funds RT.


Who funds CNN? That is not so clear.

we will never be told....

zzhhst
13-02-2015, 02:14
Time Warner
Industry Mass media
Predecessor Warner Communications
Founded 1990
Headquarters 1 Time Warner Center,
Columbus Circle, Manhattan, New York, United States
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Jeff Bewkes
(Chairman and CEO)
Products Film, Television, and Entertainment

Russian Lad
13-02-2015, 02:27
Do you have Skype?

I shag everything that types (C) Wally

Uncle Wally
13-02-2015, 09:31
I shag everything that types (C) Wally



And some that go woof woof.

quincy
13-02-2015, 10:36
Time Warner
Industry Mass media
Predecessor Warner Communications
Founded 1990
Headquarters 1 Time Warner Center,
Columbus Circle, Manhattan, New York, United States
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Jeff Bewkes
(Chairman and CEO)
Products Film, Television, and Entertainment

who controls their editorial policy?

how is it possible that in a "democracy", CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, Public Radio, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe...all agree with all foreign policy decisions all the time?

How different is that to the media in dictatorships?

Tzushima
13-02-2015, 10:37
how is it possible that in a "democracy", CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, Public Radio, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe...all agree with all foreign policy decisions all the time?
ok, so you have no idea what you are talking about. I suspected, but thanks for confirming.

Where do you live?

quincy
13-02-2015, 10:40
ok, so you have no idea what you are talking about. I suspected, but thanks for confirming.

Where do you live?

No, you are so thoroughly brainwashed you don't see the obvious

Tzushima
13-02-2015, 10:47
No, you are so thoroughly brainwashed you don't see the obvious
says the guy advocating totalitarianism is better for independent media lol:rolleyes:

ConanS
13-02-2015, 11:10
In anything, the majority of media outlets play to the least common denominator (especially Fox)

Capman
13-02-2015, 17:56
When I first found RT on YouTube I found it extremely interesting. It gave me a completely different viewpoint on international affairs. After a year or so I was really happy for them when Putin recognized them and paid a visit to their studios. Over the next couple of years I noticed that the shows were becoming increasingly negative toward the U.S. government, U.S. foreign affairs and even our judicial system.
The last show I watched was kinda like a newscast about either a race discrimination case or sex discrimination, I canít remember which it was for sure. The case sounded odd to me so I decided to research it myself. Come to find out it was a case that was over a year old and the outcome was actually quite a bit more positive than what RT implied and as something that was recent. That is when it dawned on me that there sole purpose is to generate a negative light for the American citizen in regards to their own government.
To anyone who watches them over a long period of time it is easy for me to see how they would begin to despise the U.S. and UK governments and the way they conduct foreign affairs.

I would warn anyone to watch them only as an alternative perspective to events. I do see the one-sidedness of the mainstream media in the U.S. as well. The only way to know the truth is to do your own research, but even then it would be difficult at best to get all of the facts.

I never watched the Economist so I canít speak to that show. :suspect:

ConanS
13-02-2015, 18:51
I would warn anyone to watch them only as an alternative perspective to events. I do see the one-sidedness of the mainstream media in the U.S. as well. The only way to know the truth is to do your own research, but even then it would be difficult at best to get all of the facts.

I never watched the Economist so I canít speak to that show. :suspect:

As far as I know, The Economist only exists in print and their website.

Also, you hit it right on the nail: use these news agencies to find some information, but don't use them as your sole source of information. Nothing wrong with critical thinking after learning about things!

rumple_stilskin
13-02-2015, 22:18
In the mainstream Russian media, they do cover the crisis, but it is only a little portion of their air time, and very often - from the angle "How can we benefit from the crisis?". A standard procedure, it seems - bad news should cover only a small portion of the air time. The rest - about success in this or that area, blah-blah-blah. At this point it is impossible to hide the crisis anymore. And these media were in complete denial when it started. So, I would trust the Economist...
Look at many "patriots" here - many are still in the denial mode. Dollar costs 65 rubles instead of 32? Great, Russia can have more rubles! (C) Wally
I remember when the dollar was 40 and a lot of Russians from the government were saying "Don't go to buy dollars, it is too late now, the ruble will bounce back, blah-blah-blah". There were hundreds of programs quite cheerful about the economy. Then the dollar was 90 rubles within a few days, they had to adjust the tune a bit in order not to sound completely crazy. It was a forced adjustment, that's all.

if you trust the economist better than RT. what do you think of this article on Putin by the economist?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter

Uncle Wally
14-02-2015, 00:39
if you trust the economist better than RT. what do you think of this article on Putin by the economist?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter



I'd say who ever wrote that is paranoid.

Fantastika
14-02-2015, 08:39
I never watched the Economist so I can’t speak to that show.

The Economist is a magazine. I used to love it because of all the statistics (suits my math background). Now it's very obviously biased.


As far as I know, The Economist only exists in print and their website.

Also, you hit it right on the nail: use these news agencies to find some information, but don't use them as your sole source of information. Nothing wrong with critical thinking after learning about things!

No, you can't even start there. There's a more basic, a more fundamental, lack of balance in the "news."

The media picks what issues *are* the "news."

For example, they will make an issue of "Sarah Palin is stupid." Such as Tzushima has been brainwashed by the media. Then if you want to disagree, and you have read about her background and it turns out Sarah Plain is bright, articulate, honest, etc., the media will not back off, so at best you get a stalemate. Maybe 50% of the people have swallowed the disinformation from the media and think Sarah Palin is stupid, the remainder, upon further research, know that she is not.

HOWEVER, the media does NOT raise the "issue" of Obama being stupid, or Joe Biden being really stupid, even though there exists far more evidence (using a google search), and many more examples, of moronic statements made by either of them.

In this regard, you are left with one issue, and one issue only about stupid politicians - "Sarah Palin is stupid" - if you read the "news." You can compare later and discover she is not stupid, but you will not find out anything about the stupidity of media heroes such as Hillary, Biden and Obama, from the "news" because those are not "issues" in the "news."

So, no, you don't get "some information" from reading the lamestream media, which you can then compare to other sources of "news." What you get is selected "information" from selected stories which fit the "narrative" that the media wants you to believe.

One media narrative is that in America, "Armed bad white policemen murder innocent black children" and the media then highlights anything close to this narrative they can find. Ferguson, Travon Martin, etc. The media does not make a race issue or a civil rights issue of white cops killing whites, black cops killing whites, or black cops killing blacks. So if you are reading the "news" you may think, like Yaks and Wally, that America is a racist society where white cops kill innocent black children.

Another media narrative is that Putin is an evil tyrant and homophobic, and the cause of everything wrong in Ukraine, and he wants to make a new Russian empire or USSR. There will never be peace in Ukraine, because no matter what peace accords or agreements are signed, the media will continue with this narrative and promote discord and violence.

FatAndy
14-02-2015, 12:15
if you trust the economist better than RT. what do you think of this article on Putin by the economist?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter
I like the header pikcha of The Darkest Lord :rasta:

Tzushima
14-02-2015, 14:28
The Economist is a magazine. I used to love it because of all the statistics (suits my math background). Now it's very obviously biased.



No, you can't even start there. There's a more basic, a more fundamental, lack of balance in the "news."

The media picks what issues *are* the "news."

For example, they will make an issue of "Sarah Palin is stupid." Such as Tzushima has been brainwashed by the media. Then if you want to disagree, and you have read about her background and it turns out Sarah Plain is bright, articulate, honest, etc., the media will not back off, so at best you get a stalemate. Maybe 50% of the people have swallowed the disinformation from the media and think Sarah Palin is stupid, the remainder, upon further research, know that she is not.

HOWEVER, the media does NOT raise the "issue" of Obama being stupid, or Joe Biden being really stupid, even though there exists far more evidence (using a google search), and many more examples, of moronic statements made by either of them.

In this regard, you are left with one issue, and one issue only about stupid politicians - "Sarah Palin is stupid" - if you read the "news." You can compare later and discover she is not stupid, but you will not find out anything about the stupidity of media heroes such as Hillary, Biden and Obama, from the "news" because those are not "issues" in the "news."

So, no, you don't get "some information" from reading the lamestream media, which you can then compare to other sources of "news." What you get is selected "information" from selected stories which fit the "narrative" that the media wants you to believe.

One media narrative is that in America, "Armed bad white policemen murder innocent black children" and the media then highlights anything close to this narrative they can find. Ferguson, Travon Martin, etc. The media does not make a race issue or a civil rights issue of white cops killing whites, black cops killing whites, or black cops killing blacks. So if you are reading the "news" you may think, like Yaks and Wally, that America is a racist society where white cops kill innocent black children.

Another media narrative is that Putin is an evil tyrant and homophobic, and the cause of everything wrong in Ukraine, and he wants to make a new Russian empire or USSR. There will never be peace in Ukraine, because no matter what peace accords or agreements are signed, the media will continue with this narrative and promote discord and violence.

sarah palin IS stupid:11513:

quincy
15-02-2015, 11:09
I like the header pikcha of The Darkest Lord :rasta:


Russians are well known to have horns and tails !

FatAndy
15-02-2015, 13:19
Russians are well known to have horns and tails !
Moreover we use them a very artistic and efficient way. ;)

Uncle Wally
15-02-2015, 14:19
Moreover we use them a very artistic and efficient way. ;)



Yeah that's why all Russians wear those big fur hats, to hide the horns.

Fantastika
16-02-2015, 15:14
sarah palin IS stupid:11513:

You're like a trained frog.

Someone says "Sarah Palin" and you ribbet "Sarah Palin is stupid."
Someone says "Sarah Palin" and you ribbet "Sarah Palin is stupid."
Someone says "Sarah Palin" and you ribbet "Sarah Palin is stupid."
...
That's the extent of your knowledge of this great person.

You've been brainwashed, by the media.

Do yourself a favor, read her autobiography. It describes how an ordinary person ran for mayor of her small town, lowered taxes, improved services, then ran for governor, having to fight through layer after layer of entrenched "good ol' boy" corruption, cleaned up the corruption, and after being elected, eliminated taxes and got Alaskans bigger shares of the huge oil company profits.

Her resignation, which you probably say (repeating the media mantra) proves she is a "quitter," was brought about by hundreds of frivolous lawsuits filed against her, her children, extended family, and her friends and associates. Lawsuits can be filed, under Alaska law, for free, by any member of the public against any Alaska government employee. These groundless accusations were all filed by Progressive Democrats and Obama associates. Not a single one of the lawsuits had any merit, and all of them were ultimately dismissed, but as a government employee she was required to personally file lengthy responses to every one of them, according to Alaska law.

In order to return to a normal life, because filing responses to each of the baseless lawsuits was requiring more time than she had to fulfill governor duties and time with family (her family and friends were also targeted), she resigned. No longer the governor, as a civilian, Democrats were no longer able to file additional lawsuits targeting her. The remainder of the flimsy lawsuits and accusations, being groundless, were later all thrown out by the court.

However, Democrats achieved their goal of forcing of forcing the resignation of this honest person, a person of integrity, a person who had made many enemies by cleaning up the entrenched corruption.

FatAndy
16-02-2015, 16:09
Sarah Palin is stupid :agree:

But she looks not bad ;)

Capman
16-02-2015, 18:17
Anyone can appear stupid in front of the camera ...

"The mind is a wonderful thing, it
starts working from the moment you
are born and it never stops working
until you get up to speak in public"

-Roscoe Drummond

Fantastika
16-02-2015, 18:33
Sarah Palin is stupid :agree:


Brainwashed by the Western media, even in Russia?

I have read 3 books by her and her abused-by-the-media daughter, and no one else here has read more than a tweet, saw a skit on TV, or a critique by her corrupt enemies.

What else do you "know" about Sarah Palin?


Anyone can appear stupid in front of the camera ...


This is true. Such is the transitory power of the media. It depends on what you do with what's on the camera. If you publish it or suppress it.

Anyone here know who the vice-president of South Africa is? QUICK! Who is it? We're on the air, we're on camera here...You don't know? Well, if you don't know who the vice-president of an important country is, then you must be *stupid*.

http://www.fairbrothers.com/expatphotos/obamaselfie.jpg
Obama from yesterday.

Tzushima
17-02-2015, 09:45
You're like a trained frog.

Someone says "Sarah Palin" and you ribbet "Sarah Palin is stupid."
Someone says "Sarah Palin" and you ribbet "Sarah Palin is stupid."
Someone says "Sarah Palin" and you ribbet "Sarah Palin is stupid."
...
That's the extent of your knowledge of this great person.

You've been brainwashed, by the media.

Do yourself a favor, read her autobiography. It describes how an ordinary person ran for mayor of her small town, lowered taxes, improved services, then ran for governor, having to fight through layer after layer of entrenched "good ol' boy" corruption, cleaned up the corruption, and after being elected, eliminated taxes and got Alaskans bigger shares of the huge oil company profits.

Her resignation, which you probably say (repeating the media mantra) proves she is a "quitter," was brought about by hundreds of frivolous lawsuits filed against her, her children, extended family, and her friends and associates. Lawsuits can be filed, under Alaska law, for free, by any member of the public against any Alaska government employee. These groundless accusations were all filed by Progressive Democrats and Obama associates. Not a single one of the lawsuits had any merit, and all of them were ultimately dismissed, but as a government employee she was required to personally file lengthy responses to every one of them, according to Alaska law.

In order to return to a normal life, because filing responses to each of the baseless lawsuits was requiring more time than she had to fulfill governor duties and time with family (her family and friends were also targeted), she resigned. No longer the governor, as a civilian, Democrats were no longer able to file additional lawsuits targeting her. The remainder of the flimsy lawsuits and accusations, being groundless, were later all thrown out by the court.

However, Democrats achieved their goal of forcing of forcing the resignation of this honest person, a person of integrity, a person who had made many enemies by cleaning up the entrenched corruption.
like I said before, Palin IS stupid. I don't need to waste my time explaining it to people like you.

Thanks for the post!


Sarah Palin is stupid :agree:

I cannot wait for the 2 page Fantastika rant in response to this lol:10806:

FatAndy
17-02-2015, 11:02
Brainwashed by the Western media, even in Russia?
:agree: