Uhh, the fact that they are the state run media arm of a notoriously free press-hostile regime in a country with a famous history of a government propaganda arm?
RT is state-funded as is the BBC and PBS, among many others. But none of them are immediately dismissed as propaganda. Why? Simply because "it's Russia?"
BBC has spent decades earning a reputation for being (mostly) accurate and unbiased. RT has spent at least one decade earning a reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece, and part of his mechanism of control over Russia. The two are not remotely equivalent, despite lapses you can cite at BBC.
Where is evidence of this 'reputation for being Putin's mouthpiece?' Other than your impassioned assertions? Also, all media is biased. BBC is biased toward Western and UK interests, RT is biased toward Russian interests. This is something RT freely admits. But does BBC?
"The BBC is established under a Royal Charter and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts."
