
RT Anchor Quits Over Ukraine Coverage, Says Credibility Destroyed - dmazin
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/05/russia_today_anchor_quits_over_ukraine_coverage_former_host_says_network.html
======
bitwize
> Easy to see why; when, you know, Russia isn't currently invading a sovereign
> nation, RT is covering America from a declinist, civil libertarian
> perspective. RT's all over the WikiLeaks and Snowden stories; RT's covering
> Rand and Ron Paul whenever they make a peep.

This is pretty much "and in your country they hang Negroes" expanded to the
scale of a general principle of media coverage:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes)

------
hosay123
This is pretty hilariously written as if western media weren't up to the same
thing. RT and BBC News occupy neighbouring channels on local TV, so over the
past few weeks I've been entertaining myself by repeatedly flicking from one
view to the other.

As for the BBC coverage, this is one of my favourites:
[http://i.imgur.com/vkFqM3Q.png](http://i.imgur.com/vkFqM3Q.png) . It's as if
the Russians crossed the sea to invade the mainland of poor old Ukraine.
Compare to this:
[http://i.imgur.com/BXsojhV.png](http://i.imgur.com/BXsojhV.png) , notice the
magically disappearing expanse of water mostly segregating Ukraine from
Crimea.

~~~
mpyne
I'm not actually sure how the BBC coverage is worse... it shows the
geographical area with its surrounding and has an inset showing the
geopolitical borders to boot.

~~~
gregsq
Except that it doesn't. While Crimea is a peninsula, surrounded on three sides
by sea, there's only one major road from Crimea to the Ukraine, which runs
through Krasnoperekopśk. This is because the Crimean border with Ukraine is
mostly inlets lake and weirs, and there are just minor alternative bridges and
roads.

Neither map is correct, that is the point I take from the parents comment.

------
cjensen
Keep in mind that this anchor also thinks 9/11 was done by the US government.
[1] I'm really not sure what to make of this, if anything.

[1] [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-
echochambers-26453994](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26453994)

------
shitlord
RT has been spreading what amounts to propaganda for a long, long time now. If
that wasn't annoying enough, they vote gamed/spammed reddit enough to get
banned from the site.

Perhaps the worst part of all of this is that people _still_ lap that shit up.
Maybe it's because they think they are making a stand by being contrarians. Or
maybe they just can't see that they have a second-option bias.

\---

I predict that people are going to reply to this post and start complaining
about America. But this is not about the US; it is about RT.

~~~
ChuckMcM
When you look at places like Fox News objectively there are the same problems.
It is always a challenge for a media outlet to maintain high editorial
standards, when those standards put it in conflict with the very people who
provide the money to operate.

I give major props to folks resigning over having their integrity compromised.

~~~
jonnybgood
No, Fox News doesn't have the same problems. For one, Fox News is not state
sponsored and has no obligation to be a media arm of the US government. Fox
News, like MSNBC and other US media outlets, markets to a particular segment
of the population. In order for them to efficiently do so requires bias. There
is a clear distinction between bias and propaganda.

~~~
joe_the_user
_...Fox News is not state sponsored..._

So a privately sponsored propaganda outlet is oh-so-fundamentally-different,
how?

As the parent says, Fox plays the tune of he-who-pays-for-the-piper. That this
is Rupert Murdock and not a state really doesn't change the situation.

Edit: It is transparently obvious that Fox News doesn't put out anything and
everything that will get their demographic excited and that instead Fox News
puts out a cohesive line of what it's owners and their allies want it's
listeners to think. That makes distinction between Fox output and RT output
nominal.

And hey, at least an RT host had enough guts to want credibility. That
actually speaks better for RT than Fox.

------
ChristianMarks
Pardon my cynicism, but resignations are good for ratings.

~~~
fredoliveira
But bad for actually keeping jobs, so she wouldn't stand to gain much, would
she? Sigh.

~~~
ChristianMarks
You have a point: it may be that there is no news network that values
journalistic integrity.

