Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11

Reduce length of criticism paragraph in lead section
It is way too long and includes sentences that are either WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV (the Ofcom sentence; Ofcom is a British regulator, not the world regulator) or outright designed to scare (the "Russian Army and Defence Ministry" sentence", which itself is from a politically biased website based in Kyiv originally focusing on the Ukrainian Donbass war).

Almost all the other language wikis of this article have shorter or absent criticism in the lead section compared to this one, and even the French one makes note of pointing out that it's primarily Western media outlets that have been calling RT "propaganda" (as evidenced by the citations, including those used in an earlier topic on this talk page), an edit which I was reverted numerous times about, despite it being true, though it lives on on the other language wikis. SUM1 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ofcom is labelled as the "United Kingdom media regulator", I not aware of a world-wide equivalent or indeed a higher quality regulator. It is the lede because the article contains a reasonable amount of content about RT's problems complying with the UK's broadcast rules. While Stopfake may not be considered RS, if you had bothered to look more closely it is actually a republication of a EU vs Disinfo article which cites a Ben Nimmo article (an expert in the field) (source is already in the article). He cites a 2013 Simonyan interview in lenta.ru, offering what seems to be an accurate translation of what she said. As has already been covered many times on this talkpage, the idea that it is primarily Western media outlets that have been calling RT "propaganda" is nonsense. In the still-ongoing RfC, contributors have struggled to find any media sources that use their own voice to say as much. The content of other language wikis is irrelevant to the content of this one. The edit you refer to was a insignificant change, that was hardly worth the fuss you caused. Certainly not evidence of a major problem here. In fact the evidence suggests that no one can be really be bothered to do a better job. The length of that paragraph certainly could be reduced by making it more succinct, but as RT is blatantly a Russian propaganda operation, the lede needs to make that abundantly clear. TiB  chat  21:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Propaganda
Is it time to say in our own voice that RT (formerly Russia Today) is a propaganda outlet? Below the flip are some sources for verification. There are plenty more; other editors should feel free to add them. R2 (bleep) 22:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)



Survey

 * Leaning yes based on currently provided sources, to which I would add this piece published in The Intercept. I also found this Al Jazeera piece which is a video discussing RT––however, it doesn't quite call RT a propaganda source in the text describing the video, and I can't watch the video right now. If the AJ video calls it propaganda I would change my vote to a strong yes. signed,Rosguill talk 23:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I watched the video. It takes a very skeptical posture of RT, but most of it is clips of experts criticizing the channel. It doesn't state any conclusions in its own voice. R2 (bleep) 23:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, it's important to note that the Aljazeera source is from 2012, when most watchdogs were unwilling to draw firm conclusions about RT. The media started coming around in 2016-2017 due to a series of events. You really need to look at 2018-2019 to see the new consensus on RT. R2 (bleep) 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm striking my previous vote as I am now undecided: while several American and British sources describe RT as propaganda (as well as a Brazilian source and a Spanish source), the fact that France24, Al Jazeera, and Deutsche Welle all fail to directly call RT a propaganda source gives me pause (as well as the coverage in Le Diplo which I'm uncertain how to properly assess for weight on this issue). signed,Rosguill talk 01:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No Burrobert (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Back to yes thanks to the additional sources. This vote is unlikely to change unless someone can find an RS that specifically says that RT is not propaganda. signed,Rosguill talk 17:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)05:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Contentious labels. I posted my comments below. TFD (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Propaganda is point of view and therefore it would need to be consistently called as such on neutral sources for me to be happy to have such wording especially in the lead. While the BBC calls it 'propaganda' in the source given in another article focused around a statement that it was not propaganda it opts for 'there have been claims'. El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I am willing to sign up to news and propaganda as I'm willing to say that at least some of there stuff is propaganda. El komodos drago (talk to me) 06:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No – Some non-Russian sources call RT propaganda, others do not. Its status is no different than various international news channels biased from their home country's dominant point of view, and we don't call those propaganda either. — JFG talk 05:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is actually verifiably false. To my knowledge, there is no other modern international news channel that has been described as propaganda by a single reliable source, let alone by dozens. The underlying difference between RT and non-Russian media channels is that the Russian government actually has de facto editorial control over RT’s content. This has been documented not only by U.S. intelligence agencies but also by independent Russia experts such as Julia Ioffe. R2 (bleep) 05:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see: the Chinese government actually has de facto editorial control over Xinhua’s and CCTV's content, the French government actually has de facto editorial control over much of France Télévision’s content, the Polish government actually has de facto editorial control over the Polish Press Agency’s content, the Qatari government actually has de facto editorial control over Al Jazeera’s content, and obviously the U.S. government actually has de facto editorial control over Radio Free Europe's and Voice of America's content. To each their brand of propaganda. Incidentally, that Julia Ioffe passes for an expert on Russia despite being raised in the USA since she was 7, before the fall of the Soviet Union, says a lot about the dismal state of current international awareness among U.S. media pundits. — JFG talk 02:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources describe those outlets as propaganda, then by all means they should be described as propaganda. RFE already is. That's a straightforward application of our verifiability policy. R2 (bleep) 03:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No struck previous vote, I was swayed by requesting academic sources that both apply and justify the label of "propaganda". signed,Rosguill talk 05:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC) struck vote 15:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I've screened through several articles on the topic "Russia Today" + propaganda and nowhere did I see a refutation of the thesis that this is a propaganda source. They discuss RT methods, goals and so on, but not the fact that it is a tool of the Kremlin.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly, just like newspaper Pravda. There are many books which tell just that, for example . And BTW, this page is already correctly assigned to the Category:Russian propaganda organizations. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No not a WP:NPOV. Similar RfC here Talk:5G.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes obvious. What is Russia Today? "The Kremlin's propaganda outlet" (Columbia Journalism Review). Other sources like NYT, Washington Post, BBC - the top-tier journalism and academic institutions all say the same thing (when they say something about RT). Ex-CIA director James Clapper has called RT "a mouthpiece of Russian governmental propaganda." It's so bad, the US government forced RT to register in the US as a foreign agent, which is "all agencies, individuals and organisations controlled or funded by international governments and undertake political activity". It must now label all of its material shown to Americans as "on behalf of the Russian government". If this isn't a propaganda outlet I don't know what is. -- Green  C  00:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ultimately, "propaganda" has a definition, and while we should be cautious of contentious labels, they're not banned if reliable sources regularly use them. Similarly, some sources sidestepping controversy by saying "it is has been referred to as" isn't the same as a refutation. We call 9/11 'terrorism' even if Reuters doesn't. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  No Call it "News and Propaganda", per WP:WIKIVOICE. That said, I like the fact that we cover the controversy in depth. And I wouldn't mind stepping up the treatment in the lead a bit. Perhaps an earlier mention would be in order. Perhaps it could be worked in with the phrase "a Russian viewpoint on major global events"? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources. The situation is much more complicated than the “Russian view”. RT promotes conspiracy theories, incites controversy, etc.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. That's why I'm suggesting stepping up the treatment in the lead, possibly by working in the "propaganda" issue at that earlier point. But WP:WIKIVOICE says to "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and also to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". As this discussion shows, many sources make the assertion, but I don't think we're to the point where we can call it a consensus of sources.
 * What sources "seriously contest" it? One never sees sources defending RT as objective news, at best they don't make a definitive statement because the given article is not about RT itself. But the articles that are about RT are definitive. -- Green  C  13:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources and the arguments above, I'm persuaded. I think "News and Propaganda" is best because it really does have both and the sources say as much. And lastly, because the best way to make one's case is to avoid overstating it.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. We have a huge pile of reliable sources that say RT is peddles propaganda, and none that contradict them. That's verifiability in a nutshell. In-text attribution implies that there's a dispute among reliable sources when in fact there is none. R2 (bleep) 00:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Over the years I've been involved with this article I've read 100s of sources about the propagandistic nature of RT. Aside for a few people with obvious links to RT or the Russian government, they all seem to agree, perhaps because all you have to do is watch a couple of hours for it to be blindingly obvious. The problem here is a Wikipedia policy issue about not finding appropriate sources, RT has always been a propaganda operation. Hopefully now we have better sources the article can improve. TiB chat  19:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes RT has been proven routinely publish distorted or completely invented stories with the only intent of inciting hatred and violence (Criminal case of Lisa F.) or whitewash violent acts by Russia (MH17, Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal). These fake stories constitute a large fraction of all RT publishing and are key information warfare tool of Russian Federation imperialist ambitions. Cloud200 (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No - While RT is a propaganda outlet, calling it that is a contentions label. The lede already does a good enough job explaining that by saying:
 * RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters. The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality and on one occasion found it had broadcast "materially misleading" content. RT's editor-in-chief compared it with the Russian Army and Defence Ministry, and talked about it "waging the information war against the entire Western world.
 * Anyone reading the lede will get the point. It is better for us to stick to what others have said about it.  Readers can make up their own mind.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No due to previously described opposition on the basis of contentious labels. (Beyond that, but delving a bit into OR, the case of external services is far more complex and nuanced than black and white labels of "propaganda" versus "news." There's an emerging tract of scholarship on this topic, not seen since a brief period following Don Smith's 1970 study Some Effects of Radio Moscow, within communications science that is helping better contextualize outlets like RT which are more likely to use outlier framing than blatant mistruth [though there is some of that, too]. This gets more messy since some media, like Deutsche Welle, have liberally sourced informational content to RT while simultaneously declaring it a propaganda outlet. And, RT shares membership in respectable trade associations like AIB along with more mainstream external broadcasters like Antena 3 and France 24.) Chetsford (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , can you identify the sources that use "outlier framing"? R2 (bleep) 03:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't I just do that? RT? I'd probably also count into that Telesur and PressTV. Though in a Reuters-Oxford fellowship paper from a few years ago (I can't recall the author but the name of the paper was something like 'the Arrival of Counter-Hegemonic Programming' or 'the Boon in ...' or something like that) the case was made that France 24 could be grouped into that category too since its reporters were required to agree to report a French perspective on the news as a counter to dominant Anglo-American frames. A Yugoslavian research time led by Martelanc offered an interesting, but rudimentary, taxonomy of external broadcasters in a 1977 UNESCO study "External Radio Broadcasting and International Understanding" if you're interested in this subject. Even though it's dated the taxonomy is a good vehicle for understanding the role of international broadcasters. And in "Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy" Arsenault and Cowan position external broadcasters as monologic disseminators of official perspective; one couldn't call them propaganda anymore than one would call a press release propaganda (they both are, but nomenclature has moved away from that terminology). Though I'd recommend Don Smith's 1970 paper "Some Effects of Radio Moscow" above everything else as a good starting point. Anyway, I digress, none of this has anything to do with WP policy and is not what I base my !vote on but I appreciate the discussion as this is my offline area of study so forgive me if I start to ramble! Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those sources mention RT though, do they? I mean obviously a source published in 1970 doesn't, as RT didn't exist until 2005. R2 (bleep) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those sources mention RT though, do they? That's correct, because you didn't ask about RT. You asked can you identify the sources that use "outlier framing". Though that has nothing to do with this RfC, I was happy to oblige you a reply. Now, that said, RT is part of a specific class of media outlets generally bulked under the catchall "external services" which encompass, also, PressTV, France 24, Channel News Asia, Radio Prague, Voice of America, RFE/RL, Radio y Television Marti, teleSUR, etc. Educated analysis will only address RT as part of a type, not as a unit, as we know from 70 years of research on this type class of media outlets that they so tightly share common characteristics that they can only be differentiated by the colors of their logos, not the composition of their content. But, of course, WP doesn't (correctly, IMO) deal in educated analysis which is proscribed by OR. For that reason, my !vote was based solely on our guideline on contentious labels. Everything that has followed is simply a pleasant conversation we're having, unrelated to the RfC. I'm sorry if you misunderstood it to be anything else. (Though, for purposes of thread efficiency, I'd suggest we either terminate it or move it to Talk.) Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just seeking clarification, which you amply provided, thanks. R2 (bleep) 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome. Chetsford (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes - this description is supported by an extensive array of reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 14:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it can be described as such "in our own voice" because this is justified by a large number of RS currently cited on the page. However, I do not see significant problems with the current version, which tells "it was described as". My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. The "propaganda" label is backed in detail by almost more than two dozen high-quality reliable sources (including academic sources) based in multiple countries. 's listed sources are sufficient to support the extraordinary claim. —  Newslinger  talk   04:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added some additional sources, and I will continue adding more as I find them. —  Newslinger  talk   05:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Added 9 sources (mostly books and academic journals) for a total of 30 in-depth reliable sources. My search was not exhaustive, so I'm sure there are many more. —  Newslinger  talk   07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. If a website routinely comes up with completely invented stories, presents obscure conspiracy bloggers as "experts" or actually creates a whole sophisticated chains of paid sources ([air controller Carlos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5-jUM4OFpQ]) to amplify a fake news - then it's a textbook propaganda. Cloud200 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes per recently added sources by Newslinger. signed,Rosguill talk 15:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hell no. WP:NPOV, politically charged term, same could be said about numerous Western outlets. Also, a majority of your listed sources are Western news media outlets. SUM1 (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, My very best wishes, you voted "Yes" twice... SUM1 (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion
Looking at more recent coverage, AJ seems to steer clear of calling RT propaganda, even in articles directly addressing news related to RT's status as a media organization. . I'm honestly a bit uncomfortable using just American and British media sources (plus a think tank), even if they're generally RS (and even if I personally believe RT publishes Russian propaganda), and would feel much more confident in my vote if we could find additional sources from other parts of the world or more strictly academic publications. signed,Rosguill talk 00:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More sources: here's Estadao O canal Russia Today (Rússia Hoje, em português) é um dos pilares da máquina de propaganda do Kremlin (transl. "The channel Russia Today...is one of the pillars of the Kremlin's propaganda machine") signed,Rosguill talk 00:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * El Pais (Spain) calling RT propaganda
 * To complicate things however, here's Le Monde Diplomatique giving RT and CNN equal weight . A much more in depth piece in the same publication documents RT's coverage in various different geopolitical regions, and comes to the conclusion that À l’instar de CNN pour les États-Unis pendant les guerres américaines, RT devient un instrument de propagande lorsqu’il s’agit de couvrir des conflits présentant un intérêt stratégique majeur pour la Russie (transl. "Like CNN does for American wars, RT becomes an instrument of propaganda  when it comes to covering conflicts that represent a major strategic interest for Russia). Taken one way, this is further confirmation that RT is a propaganda outlet, but it also directly equates it with a source that is not generally described as propaganda by the other sources that are denouncing RT.
 * Deutsche Welle appears to avoid calling RT propaganda outright, preferring instead to refer to it as "Kremlin-controlled" or kremlnahen (lit. "close to the Kremlin)
 * France24 does not appear to call it propaganda.
 * I also searched for coverage in La Jornada, Folha, and Cumhuriyet and found nothing there. signed,Rosguill talk 01:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that there are some outlets that have not (yet) called RT a propaganda outlet. Then again, I'm not aware of any reliable sources, anywhere in the world, that have contradicted or disputed the assertion in the last couple of years. (Le Monde Diplomatique is not a reliable source.) I've added a few new sources that verify that RT is propaganda, including Asia Times (Hong Kong). Also bear in mind that Glenn Greenwald (The Intercept) is out of Brazil, not the U.S., and frequently defends Russia against claims by the U.S. national security establishment. (I include this for the benefit of other readers as you appear to know this already.) R2 (bleep) 16:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've generally seen Le Diplo treated as an RS (here's one discussion where it's treated as baseline reliable, with the issue at hand being whether its presentation of primary source information was as reliable as its usual publication). The position of The Intercept is a little more complicated than that, as it's funded by First Look Media, which is based out of New York, despite Greenwald's immigration to Brazil, but you're right about its editorial stance. I think with the added Asia Times source I'm comfortable reinstating my yes vote. signed,Rosguill talk 17:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Per Contentious labels, we should avoid value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I also think it is a case of Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Certainly a number of sources, primarily media, but also academic books about Putin, routinely refer to it as a propaganda channel, but I could not find books about propaganda that refer to it. It seems that the term propaganda can be used in different ways from outright lies to a biased selection of news stories. We can't just call something propaganda unless we are clear what is meant. Another problem is that the term is used almost exclusively to refer to the other side. Left-wing news media in the U.S. for example often cover social problems in the U.S., and provide less coverage say of entrepreneurs creating jobs. That's considered constructive because the non-Communist American Left is trying to resolve these issues. But when the Communists in the 1960s wrote about segregation and poverty in America, it was considered propaganda, because the Soviet Union was an adversary intent on showing the U.S. in a poor light. Similarly, Radio Free Europe, which presented a rosy picture of the U.S. to Eastern Europe, was see as public relations, rather than propaganda, although its aim was undermining Communism. TFD (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth, the Radio Free Europe article calls it a propaganda source. signed,Rosguill talk 06:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see where RFE is described as a propaganda source in its article. There is an attributed claim that "In an interview with Radio Liberty in 2003, he justified the bombing on the grounds that RFE/RL was an American propaganda tool against the Soviet Union". In the "See also" section there is a link to "Operation Mockingbird and white propaganda". In the list of categories there are a number of items involving propaganda. The initial sentence describes RFE as "a United States government-funded organization that broadcasts and reports news, information and analysis to countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East where it says that "the free flow of information is either banned by government authorities or not fully developed" ".Burrobert (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead: RFE was founded as an anti-communist propaganda source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe. signed,Rosguill talk 03:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies I overlooked that sentence. Would it be quibbling to say that the sentence leaves open its current status 70 years after its establishment, i.e. is it still a propaganda outlet? Burrobert (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I totally agree that it's not particularly strongly worded, and this RfC if closed as "yes" is likely going to license stronger wording, but I think the way to solve the cross-Wikipedia neutrality issue here would be to make RFE's status as propaganda more prominent (as well as potentially providing sources to prove that it's currently propaganda if anyone finds this contentious). signed,Rosguill talk 06:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it ‘’is’’ still open. If you find reliable sources saying that RFE is (still) propaganda then you should introduce them. That’s rather off-topic, however. R2 (bleep) 06:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Calling something 'propaganda' with more than half a century of hindsight is a different thing to calling RT propaganda now. El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * TFD, I think we have exceptional sources. Also, you do know that RT isn’t called propaganda because of a biased selection of stories, yes? R2 (bleep) 06:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not have an academic source that explains what propaganda source means and why RT means the criteria. I have always insisted on using this approach for unpopular groups. Bear in mind that articles are meant to explain topics rather than to provide labels. Also, if Russia tomorrow becomes our friend (countries switch from U.S. "adversaries" to friends on the turn of a dime), we'll have to switch the description tout suite. TFD (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , you could have just asked for a source that meets your criteria. There are plenty of academic sources that describe RT as propaganda, and a number of them that provide in-depth explanations. For instance, here's a source written Computer Science prof Kalina Bontcheva and team, who have helped Twitter identify Russian propaganda accounts. The article is specifically about online media. It describes RT as state-backed "online propaganda" which it defines as "engaged in spreading manipulative content and disin-formation often with the intent to deepen social division and/or influence key political outcomes." Then we have this source from Russian media expert Ilya Yablokov, who (in article article examining RT's efforts to push U.S. conspiracy theories) says that RT is "Russia's public diplomacy tool" intended to advance Russian foreign policy. Then we have this source from propaganda expert Paweł Surowiec, who writes, "Putin’s media is packaged for global audiences in a liberal 'sugarcoating of a sweet and sour flavor' through a mimetic mix of strategies, includ-ing RT’s  international  broadcasting." I could go on. And by the way, none of those experts is American. R2 (bleep) 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yablokov's paper says RT "has thus far attracted largely journalistic attention, with little academic analysis. In an attempt to fill this gap, this article outlines the political agenda behind the channel." Per Scholarship, the conclusions of one or a number of scholars does not necessarily mean that is academic consensus. If it had, one would expect that a standard textbook on propaganda (and they do exist) would have a section on RT
 * I don't think Pawel Surowiec calls RT a propaganda channel. Instead, he uses the less pejorative term "soft power" - "the means of influence by “non-material capabilities such as reputation, culture, and value appeal that can aid attainment of a state’s objectives."" He uses the term propaganda to refer to attempts to influence public opinion on social media.
 * It seems to me that at present, this is a case of Contentious labels. Russia supports terrorists, we support freedom fighters. Russia broadcasts propaganda, we promote democratic norms. I don't see why there is so much concern to put in the label, rather than to describe how the network advances Russian goals.
 * TFD (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my frustration, but this seems like a case of shifting goalposts. First you say you could not find books about propaganda that refer to RT, I can list those if you want. Then you say you need "an academic sources that explains what propaganda source means and why RT [meets] the criteria," so I find that, you nitpick about Surowiec but the other two seem to fit the bill, yet now you say we need "academic consensus," which I presume means tens or hundreds of academic sources? How many would you need? Because there are a whole bunch. R2 (bleep) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I'm currently on the fence (fancy that), I would note that of the three scholarly sources provided above, only the first one actually calls RT propaganda in its own voice. That paper is by a computer science professor and appears to largely concern itself with analyzing the methods of propagation of what it considers propaganda, but it doesn't really engage in an in-depth analysis of why or how any one source is propaganda beyond providing a definition and asserting that individual sources meet that definition. Taking all of this into account, I think it's valid to argue that it does not represent the level of academic analysis that we should be looking for when assigning contentious labels, WP:SCHOLARSHIP issues aside. Additionally, it doesn't appear to have actually been published anywhere, only submitted, which is grounds for ignoring the source altogether. signed,Rosguill talk 20:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There might be a misundertanding here. To determine whether an outlet is propaganda, you can't look at a single source from that outlet, you necessarily have to look at an overall pattern. All you can determine from a single source is that the one source is false or misleading. The primary way that reliable sources have determined that RT is propaganda (whether academic or journalistic) is to track RT's messaging over periods of time and to watch out it tracks with Russian foreign policy and messaging. The Bontcheva source is in pre-publication, but it would definitely be considered reliable per WP:SPS. R2 (bleep) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, I misused the term "source", by which I really meant "publication". Rephrased for clarity, my concern is that the paper contains only a cursory analysis of why RT should be considered propaganda and instead focuses on the impact that RT (and other publications) have on online debate. Bontcheva doesn't make a case for why RT is propaganda beyond a parenthetical assertion that it is propaganda. My understanding of the point of insisting on academic sources is to find sources that do show their work and make a detailed case for why and how RT is propaganda, not to simply find academics that agree with the label. signed,Rosguill talk 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what TFD was looking for, but if that's what you're interested in, then you should review the Yablokov source. I think there are other academic sources that would fit the bill you're looking for as well. This one might be one, though it's behind a paywall. You might also appreciate this Columbia Journalism Review analysis from Julia Ioffe. She wrote it in 2010, when RT was still relatively young. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Yablokov piece is pretty careful about not actually calling RT a propaganda outlet in its own voice. The CJR piece is certainly another piece of evidence in favor of the propaganda label, but it's a trade magazine, not a peer-reviewed academic journal, affiliation with Columbia University notwithstanding. At this point, I'm going to hold off on swapping my vote for at a few more days at least, as I've littered this page with enough struck-out comments as is. signed,Rosguill talk 22:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The CJR is the pinnacle of journalistic excellence, but I didn't mean to imply it was an academic source. I brought it to your attention since it's a top-quality source that goes into great detail about exactly why RT is a propaganda outlet. But it might be useful to return to the policy issue we're discussing. The question here is WP:V, i.e., whether one or more reliable sources supports the proposed content. If you take the reasonable position that this is an exceptional claim, then we need exceptional sources. But that doesn't mean that we have to meet the impossibly high (and shifting) standards set by TFD. We have already have numerous reliable news journalism and academic sources of impeccable quality, all saying the same thing. R2 (bleep) 03:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not so familiar with this discussion but we have plenty of reliable sources that don't say "propaganda" on it's own voice. Should we use propoganda on Wikivoice? probably not.--SharabSalam (talk)
 * Well sure, we also have plenty of sources that don't say that Putin is short. That doesn't mean we can't say that Putin is short. R2 (bleep) 04:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is an impossibly high standard. If we want to say for example that Mercury is a planet, then we can find a textbook on planets and every one of them will say that Mercury is a planet. But when I consult textbooks on propaganda, they don't say that RT is a propaganda channel. Take for example, Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion - Second Edition, (Broadview Press, 2013) by Randal Marlin, there is no mention of RT. See also, How Propaganda Works (Princeton University Press, 2016) by Jason Stanley. Same thing. I think too that this article could be greatly improved if it incorporated analysis about why and how Russia uses RT as a channel of soft power, whether it is effective, and how it compares with earlier propaganda such as Lord Haw-Haw and Radio Tirana.
 * The problem with citing multiple opinions that RT is a propaganda journal is that they do not tell us the degree of acceptance of the opinion by experts. One can find many sources for example to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but that does not mean that is the academic consensus.
 * That's a pretty bitchy thing to say about Putin btw. If an article began, "Vladimir Putin is a short man and president of Russia," then one would expect it to be propaganda.
 * TFD (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If we want to say for example that Mercury is a planet, then we can find a textbook on planets and every one of them will say that Mercury is a planet. - Well, I will give another example. There are many sources that consider Pluto to be a planet. There are many sources consider it a dwarf planet. But there are sources discussing whether Pluto is a planet. And they are now, concluded that it is not. As you can see, quite a lot of sources consider RT propaganda. Do you have similar sources that try to prove that RT is not propaganda?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In How Propaganda Works there are only two cases of using the word "Russia". And both dedicated to Peter Kropotkin. I strongly doubt that this book can draw any conclusions about RT.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * May be this book will be more useful: In this confrontation Russia uses propaganda, cyberoperations, and proxies to influence neighboring and Western countries. A state-funded Russian television (TV) network, Russia Today (RT), broadcasts abroad in English, Arabic, and Spanish.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a true deduction. This latest new York article says something like this: (it has been described as "propoganda outlet"). The New York times attribute it and doesn't make it in its voice. Therefore I don't think we should make it in wikivoice.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There are many sources that consider Pluto to be a planet. That's why we use a standard textbook written by someone familiar with all the major views who can make a judgment about the weight of various opinions and determine that the view that Pluto is a planet is not a consensus view. In How Propaganda Works there are only two cases of using the word "Russia". Then find another textbook that does. May be this book will be more useful? Here is a link to the full text of the book in English. It's a report by the RAND Corporation, a think tank which is funded by the U.S. government and once had Donald Rumsfeld as chairman of the board. No one questions that some sources describe RT as a propaganda channel, but whether there is sufficient consensus that we can state it as fact.
 * Per SharabSalam's comments, the most we can say is that it has been described as a propaganda outlet. And we could use the RAND corporation source to explain why they see it that way.
 * TFD (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So, let's start by proving that such "textbooks" exist. What you took as an example are obviously not “textbooks” where there is a fresh and fairly comprehensive list of propaganda sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a report by the RAND Corporation, a think tank which is funded by the U.S. government and once had Donald Rumsfeld as chairman of the board Well, it sounds like people quite experienced in matters of propaganda. And they put RT in the first place as the most brilliant case of Kremlin propaganda source. Do you deny that such propaganda exists?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not deny that the United States government and people in their foreign policy establishment view it that way. It is irrelevant whether they are right or wrong and I have no opinion on the topic. What I do have an opinion on is what policy dictates, which is that we cannot act as umpire and pick and choose views we support, but must use the phrasing in reliable sources, which is that RT has been described as a propaganda outlet in some sources. While you may have strong opinions, the problem is that expert opinion is often nuanced. Well, it sounds like people quite experienced in matters of propaganda. Is that a reference to the how Rumsfeld sold both Gulf Wars? I don't think the argument that it takes one to know one is very persuasive, certainly there is no policy based support for it. TFD (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we’ve gone too far to Gulf Wars. So, in the book, devoted to the modern Russian propaganda, the RT took the honorable first place. We may like Russian propaganda, we may not like it, but one cannot deny that RT was its front-man quite recently. Unless, of course, you consider Russia the only state in the world that does not use propaganda. And what about "textbooks"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The RAND Corporation's self-described mission is to further promote scientific, educational, and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare and security of the United States of America (emphasis mine), not to mention its long history of working on US Military and US government projects, including many projects which were and/or remain classified by the US government. As such, it has a clear and strong bias on the issue of Russian propaganda––while this does not make their contributions worthless, in this context I don't think it adds much to the case for labeling RT as propaganda. signed,Rosguill talk 20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, in this case, the possible bias is not fundamental. I repeat, RT in their first place. If there were a dozen pro-Kremlin mass media on the list, it would be possible to discuss that, for example, starting with the fifth, to call them “propaganda,” this is already a bias. But, as it seems to me, about the first place such disputes are meaningless. Unless, of course, you consider Russia the only state in the world that does not use propaganda.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To ensure that no one is misled: Don Rumsfeld stepped down as RAND board chair in 1996, 22 years before RAND published the report and 9 years before RT even existed. To be sure, like many RAND studies, the report was based on private research sponsored by the U.S. federal government, but the suggestion that the report is conflicted or otherwise unreliable because of Rumsfeld (or because of some sort of Rumsfeld-influenced bias) is totally unfounded. R2 (bleep) 17:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or as the disclaimer says, "RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors." However one cannot assume that what a government funded report says is definitive. This isn't Russia. TFD (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What about this book? This is a new type of Kremlin propaganda, less about arguing against the West with a counter-model as in the Cold War, more about slipping inside its language to play and taunt it from inside.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It is just another person's opinion. His expression a "new type of Kremlin propaganda" is intersting. The Soviet Union never gave Larry King his own show, did not have UK politicians from Farage to Galloway as guests, did not get Emmy award nominations for news documentaries. (All of these are mentioned.) To most people, propaganda channels would not provide editorial independence to at least some shows or produce acclaimed documentaries. So why not present in the article why the author considers it a new type of propaganda?
 * I note that part of the facts presented are misleading: "Some [journalists] even resign or complain on air, saying they no longer want to be 'Putin's pawns'." One journalist (Liz Wahl) resigned on air, one journalist (Abby Martin) complained about Putin, but said she had editorial independence. Neither used the term "Putin pawn." This is the type of error that would be corrected had the book undergone fact-checking.
 * TFD (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It starts to seem to me that you will reject all sources that say "Yes." So what about sources that prove your point? Do you have these "textbooks" that discuss the situation with modern Russian propaganda and, at the same time, exclude RT from the list of propaganda sources? The second of the books you cited, "Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion," also does not contain a single word about Putin or post-Soviet Russia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What about the book of Marcel van Herpen? There is a chapter Russia Today (RT): Conspiracy Theories and Weirdly Constructed Propaganda--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will summarize what I have written so far. Some writers refer to RT as a propaganda channel, while others do not. In order to say that it is a fact that it is propaganda, you need a reliable source that says there is a consensus that it is propaganda. One place you should be able to that is in textbooks about propaganda. Unless we can find that, we should do what reliable sources do, which is say that it has been called a propaganda network. Bear in mind that the purpose of articles is to convey information and relay opinions not to sledgehammer readers. Time would be better spent explaining who considers RT to be a propaganda channel and why they say that.
 * There's a book, Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in the "War on Terror, that says the American media are propaganda networks. As you may recall, they misrepresented the evidence about Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD program and links to al Qaeda in order to support the U.S. government's efforts to invade Iraq. I can find lots of sources that say the same thing and you probably cannot find any sources that are written in rebuttal. Does that mean we should label these networks as propaganda organs? No. Because we cannot show that that is academic consensus.
 * TFD (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC) But you have failed to cite sources that would confirm that RT is not propaganda.
 * I will summarize what I have written so far. Some writers refer to RT as a propaganda channel, while others do not. But you've failed to cite sources who would discuss the modern Kremlin propaganda and at the same time did not consider RT as such a source. Statements that "all Western media is a single network of propaganda" are under another category.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, you consider academic sources that you do not agree with as fringe, and non-academic opinions you agree with as truth. TFD (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I ask you to cite credible sources, who disagree with RT as a propaganda outlet, but you instead start talking about the Gulf War.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Perhaps this version, which summarizes the sources found, is suitable for everyone? "Studies on Kremlin propaganda under Vladimir Putin single out RT as one of the most prominent cases." So the problem will be solved with the "opinion", if the problem was really in it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not good, the determination was made by more than more than just studies. I'm not even sure what would qualify as a "study" and what wouldn't. R2 (bleep) 00:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, may be not "studies" but "works" or "research".--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That wording is against WP:WEASEL, because it does not say who conducted the studies or how scientific they were. Did they establish criteria for what would be considered propaganda and what networks did they use as control samples? Be interested if you have a link. TFD (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All the works on this topic that I have found so far make this conclusion. From your side there are still only books about Prince Kropotkin and stories about the Gulf Wars.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is governed by policy. If you think that RT should be described as a propaganda channel, please quote the relevant policy (and don't just type in WP:NAMEOFPOLICY). If you disagree with policy, get it changed. TFD (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't bite newer editors that way. The most relevant policy is WP:V. You may disagree with how your fellow contributors are applying it, but to imply that no relevant policy has been identified for Nicoljaus's position is quite ostrich-like and misleading. R2 (bleep) 21:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not describe an editor who has been here two years as "newer." Also, according to WP:V, WP:NPOV must be followed, per WP:V. There is no question that some sources have called RT a propaganda channel. The question is how that information should be reported. I prefer the approach of the BBC in "Salmond interviews Puigdemont on RT show": "RT, which has been described as a propaganda outlet for Vladimir Putin's government." However, per WP:WEASEL, we would need to explain who uses this description. TFD (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no question that some sources have called RT a propaganda channel. - Since you have ignored all requests for credible sources that dispute that, I think that they simply do not exist or they seem fringe even to you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, may be Verifiability, not truth is our case? You may not believe that the RT is the most prominent example of Putin’s propaganda, but you have to follow the sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A couple more non-media sources I found while watching this discussion:. And here is someone arguing that RT is needed in spite of the propaganda issue, but she did used to work there . TiB chat  09:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Right Web, "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a spin-off the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC], is an influential beltway think tank whose members have advocated a host of hawkish, “pro-Israel” policies over the years. It is considered a core member of the “Israel lobby,” a constellation of policy and advocacy groups devoted to pushing an Israel-centric U.S. agenda in the Middle East. Many of WINEP’s current and former scholars have been closely associated with neoconservatism, and the organization has generally been supportive of the “war on terror” policies pushed by groups such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies." I don't think per weight articles should be written from their point of view. TFD (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with any of the publishers. Shall I assume you feel the same way about the European Values Think-Tank? It seems like a good one to me. TiB chat  20:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also recommend this from the policy institute at KCL. less use of the P word, but it goes into detail on disinformation element. TiB  chat  18:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Disinformation and propaganda are effectively synonyms in this context. Btw I suspect europeanvalues.net wouldn't be considered a reliable source. They look like an advocacy organization with an explicit goal of exposing Russian propaganda. R2 (bleep) 19:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * While many sources that mention propaganda focus on disinformation, they aren't synonyms. Everything RT does is about becoming a more effective propaganda tool. Only a proportion is out-right disinformation. While "Russian government propaganda" is certainly the label we should be aiming to achieve, the lede needs to go into detail, so that the reader (and certain editors) can't easily dismiss that label with something like "but Larry King's on there". Depending on what actually changes in the article, these sources may not be needed. If they might be we can always go to the Reliable sources noticeboard. TiB chat  19:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Trappedinburnley, That's another think tank. In this case it is a report funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundations. It doesn't actually say "RT is a propaganda channel!" but instead describe how it plays "a variety of roles in different situations, ranging from coordinating damage control messaging, to amplifiers of Russian prestige and aggregators of negative content about Western domestic politics." I don't understand why no one seems concerned to add this type of analysis to the article, but instead concentrate on how to label the channel. TFD (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The things you list are all aspects of propaganda. While it doesn't use that exact form of words, the entire report is dedicated to explaining why RT is a propaganda outlet! It is written to an academic standard by someone whose doctoral thesis (while studying at Oxford) is about the effectiveness of modern Russian propaganda, with input from a number of experts (actual experts, not pretend RT ones) in the field. As far as I can see it contains nothing outside of the mainstream viewpoint, while it does provide an excellent analysis. I believe it has also been cited by several RS. I'm not aware of a ban on using this type of source, but if someone want's to point me at a policy, I'll happily be corrected. Should it not get used in the article, I'd recommend reading it to anyone who want's to get involved editing here. TiB chat  19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment there is a RfC in 5G talk page about the same issue. What if the outcome of this RfC contradicted the outcome of the one in 5G? Seems like a big problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Just want to put in a plug for calling it News and Propaganda per my changed vote above. I think that fits the sources quite well; even the ones that don't call it propaganda in their own voice are frequently writing about someone else who does. And it's got to be less contentious than just calling it propaganda.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with this approach. I think we can agree that at least some of what RT does comes under any definition of "propaganda" and is recognised as such, even if calling it a "propaganda outlet" point-blank is a little all-encompassing. Ultimately, I also agree with Adoring nanny that the article works either way because we go into the issue in detail. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would sign up to that, like the commenter above I am relucltant to flat out call it a properganda network but atleast some of there stuff falls under properganda. El komodos drago (talk to me) 06:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If this does close end up closing with no consensus we could just say "It is widely [considered/described as] a propaganda outlet" (and put it earlier in the lead) to make the level of consensus clearer than in our current phrasing of "It has been frequently described as" while sidestepping the issue of using the word in Wikipedia's voice. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not ideal, but it would be a step in the right direction. R2 (bleep) 18:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to rephrase that without violating WP:WEASEL? It would be ironic to call RT a propaganda station using language typically used by propagandists. TFD (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , This wording does not violate WP:WEASEL in my understanding. It isn't exclusively the phrasing, but the lack of sources that make weasel words what they are. Here is the second paragraph of the policy:
 * "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source" ... "Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources"
 * In case, we can see that there is an abundance of credible sources. I think "It is widely [considered/described as] a propaganda outlet" accurately describes the current state of understanding among credible sources, and can be written as such as long as they are cited.
 * Neuralnewt (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In case, we can see that there is an abundance of credible sources. I think "It is widely [considered/described as] a propaganda outlet" accurately describes the current state of understanding among credible sources, and can be written as such as long as they are cited.
 * Neuralnewt (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neuralnewt (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Biased wiki page
This wiki article shows a bias that is common in Western media. Just compare these two introductions:

BBC ''The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcaster. Its headquarters are at Broadcasting House in Westminster, London, and it is the world's oldest national broadcasting organisation[4] and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees. It employs over 20,950 staff in total, 16,672 of whom are in public sector broadcasting.[5][6][7][8][9] The total number of staff is 35,402 when part-time, flexible, and fixed-contract staff are included.[10]''

RT RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic and Russian.

The BBC is also funded by the government, yet that isn't mentioned. This is but one of many such examples of bias against RT and for the BBC. B5429671 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an extensive discussion in a section higher up on this page that specifically addresses this issue, which is still yet to be closed. signed,Rosguill talk 15:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The article has no comments about nor references to sources that have even a modestly good opinion of RT. Surely, some people in the world have a different view than the one expressed in the article. Surely people should be skeptical of an article that can't find any references to positive comments about RT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:6C7F:E823:AC81:8E8E:5640:B2A0 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's true. The sources are Western have been selectively chosen by pro-Western editors. Any attempt to describe them as Western (as they are described on the other language wikis) is immediately reverted by these editors. SUM1 (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The bias is quite remarkable, as though the CIA recruits wrote it.Hecatoncher (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Richard Spencer
RT News has also frequently hosted Richard B. Spencer, an American white supremacist airing his opinions in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad,

The connotation from this sentence in this overwhelmingly critical and negative article is that RT is associated with and promotes white supremacists. But Richard Spencer was interviewed by CNN, The Guardian, and Time Magazine.  I don't believe Richard Spencer is mentioned in articles about CNN, so therefore I feel like there's a bit of a double standard with attempts to connect white supremacists to RT. Hecatoncher (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You have spectacularly missed the point here. All the examples you list deal with Spencer's neo-Nazi opinions. Like many guests, RT repeatedly portrayed him as a world-affairs expert, giving "expert" opinion on how Assad was heroically saving his country from terrorists. I'll need to revert this edit, perhaps it could be refactored to avoid this mistake in the future? TiB chat  22:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That's actually not true. Spencer was not described as a "Syria expert" or "Middle East expert" by RT. When Spencer appeared on RT, his affiliation was explicitly identified: "Richard Spencer, a founder and co-editor of the online magazine AlternativeRight.Com, says the opposition is taking its lead from Libya and using foreign forces to help propel itself.”. Richard Spencer having an opinion about race relations in America does not automatically discredit Richard Spencer's thoughts about protecting the environment, unemployment insurance, or American foreign policy in the Middle East. In college, it's taught that stuff is complicated.


 * RT has invited a butt-load of people to talk about the Middle East, at least some of whom are without a doubt experts: "The situation in Syria showcases the US-Israel failure to pursue their plans on the ground, Lebanese military specialist, law professor, General Amine Hotait told RT. He believes this attempt blocks the use of force in the war-torn state – for good.".


 * "We ask a leading voice on Syria, the director of the University of Oklahoma’s Middle East Studies Center – Joshua Landis."


 * And I feel it's disproportionate and unusual to associate RT with a white nationalist and reduce RT's coverage about the Middle East to allegedly presenting Richard Spencer as a scholar on the Middle East. Hecatoncher (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You are clearly very pro-RT and surprisingly adept for someone who's WP career is less than 24 hours old. So far as I'm currently able to ascertain Mr Spencer's views on everything are utterly worthless. That RT has found other pretty much unknowns to offer opinions that Putin would like, is not an argument that Spencer should be removed. That the existence of this content doesn't give a complete picture of RT's Middle East, again is not justification to remove it. Do you have any ideas to better explain the situation? TiB  chat  23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I absolutely despise RT. Hecatoncher (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda outlet
There does not appear to be a consensus among academics regarding the identification of RT as "propaganda outlet". Responsible scholarly research has a tendency to shy away from such colorful and passionate language.

Galina Miazhevich of Cardiff University's School of Journalism wrote this article in a scholarly article in which she identifies RT as "international multinational broadcaster" Miazhevich's analysis and opinion about RT is more important than and supersedes commentary found from non-experts about Russia such as Ioffe and Luke Harding.

Moreover, I noticed that many of the sources cited in this article do not call RT "propaganda outlet" in their own voice. In particular, CBS and BBC merely quoted other people or institutions calling RT propaganda, but the BBC did not call RT propaganda in its own voice.

The article examines Russia’s international multinational broadcaster RT (formerly Russia Today), which was launched in 2005 with the direct support of the Russian government. RT promotes a distinct ‘counter-hegemonic’ brand of broadcasting. This article goes beyond RT’s branding to explore the broadcaster’s nation branding of Russia. It considers the range of strategies used by RT, placing these within RT’s change of mission – from ‘informing others about events and life in Russia’ to comprising those ‘who question more’. By analysing RT’s coverage of the Republic of Crimea in 2016, and using a framing approach, the article explores RT’s branding of Russia and the online audience’s engagement with this within the contemporary transnational, convergent media environment.... So the BBC contributes to the nation branding by broadcasting in line with its ethos of neutrality, objectivity and balance as reflected in the Charter. As an emerging broadcaster with a less established status, RT is unable to capitalise on its reputation in a similar vein. Instead, it strives to enhance the country’s image in a less subtle and consistent way as part of its ‘counter-hegemonic’ agenda... In 2010, RT’s slogan was changed to ‘Question More’, to ‘provide an alternative point of view’ (Shepovalnikov, 2012). Thus, its activity is similar to other broadcasters pursuing a ‘counter-flow’ remit, such as Al Jazeera and Press TV...International broadcasters are a soft power tool. Their task is to ensure that they represent and subtly promote the values and culture of their founding nation, shaping international perceptions and opinion and simultaneously catering for a globalising transnational audience

RT is identified as "rolling news channel" by Stephen Cushion, professor at Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Culture.

"'Today, rolling news channels appear to be a familiar part of the television landscape. Tuning into Sky - the dominant satellite provider n the UK - television viewers are able to access a News Section on the menu. Subject to different levels of subscription, they can then have a choice of 15 dedicated channels, including Sky News, Bloomberg, BBC News, BBC Parliament, CNBC, CNN, Euronews, Fox News, CCTV, NDTV, Russia Today, France 24, Al Jazeera, press TV, and NHK World TV...this is just the tip of the iceberg. They mapped hundreds including 'commercial, public and non-profit broadcasters, at global, regional, national, and even sub-national levels.'"

A discussion by Liudmila Voronova from Södertörn University's Media and Communication Studies department and Andreas Widholm, Associate Professor of journalism in the Department of Media Studies at Stockholm University does not contain phrases such as "propaganda outlet", although it notes that some commentators have labeled RT as such.

"'While the discussion of RT as the 'Kemlin's mouthpiece' has been colorful, some media scholars suggest that viewing RT purely as propaganda is a simplification. According to Saunders (2016), RT's pro-Russian bias is essentially comparable with CNN International's relationship with Washington, or the BBC, which he argues is distinctly pro-British in its international coverage...Hutchings and Tolz (2017) call RT a 'mixed bag', comprising misleading stories, alternative perspectives on events, but also narratives that contradict the Kremlin's positions. Some media scholars look at RT as a brand and as a tool of nation branding. As such, the channel positions itself as a 'cool' media source for rebellious audiences, and a 'counter-hegemonic' brand of broadcasting (Miazhevich)."

RT is identified as a news channel on par with CNN International and BBC World by Kevin Grieves, professor of Communication Studies at Whitworth University.

"Other all-news channels have positioned themselves as counterpoints to this perceived Anglo-American dominance of CNN International and its UK-based counterpart, BBC World. Al Jazeera represents one answer on a relatively significant scale, and to a lesser extent, so do France 24, DW-TV, CCTV9, and Russia Today (RT), among others. In the mid-1990s, EuroNews appeared, with the initial backing of the EU Parliament, as a European voice in transnational journalism." Hecatoncher (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your logic is faulty again here. 1) It doesn't matter how many sources you can find that don't explicitly label RT as propaganda, they don't represent an alternative view to the sources that do. You need ones that explicitly say RT is not propaganda for that. 2) While academic sources are great for use in the article, the prose has to be written in a way that a non-expert could understand ie plain English. 3) If there was a clearly identifiable consensus, the prose would call RT propaganda in it's own voice, which it did not. However RT is blatantly a propaganda outlet for someone, anyone with even a basic understanding of journalism could see it after watching for a few hours. As it is funded and editorially controlled by the Kremlin, "Russian government propaganda outlet" is appropriate and easy to understand. To reduce the summary to "RT has been described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy by commentators such as Luke Harding." is down-playing the issue to the point of ridiculousness. Finally the text you keep moving from the lead has been argued over and over for many years. The talk page archives are full of the stuff, nobody (including you) has ever offered a successful argument for removal. The RfC from last year, still showing at the top of this page, concluded that the status quo should be maintained, so unless you can clearly show something has dramatically changed in the last four months, you lost the battle already. TiB  chat  22:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed references to Ioffe
Ioffe wrote: "The Russians Think I'm a Russophobe? They're Right." - I don't think think someone who writes something like this is a dispassionate and credible observer about Russian media. There's clearly an agenda at play. Max Boot, Masha Gessen, Cathy Young (Ekaterina Yung), and Julia Ioffe, despite having been born in Russia, write an awful lot about bad the Russian government is.

It's pretty extraordinary for a Russian-born individual to basically say "I'm a Russophobe". Ioffe was born in Russia and vehemently support Israel's nationalism: Julia Ioffe '05, vice-president of the Princeton Israel Public Affairs Committee, however, said the wall is necessary for Israel to protect its citizens against suicide bombers.

Ioffe called Putin an anti-Semite because of how Putin said that the majority of Russian Army troops were (shock, horror!) Russian Hecatoncher (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What matters here is the Ioffe is extensively published in reliable sources on the subject in question, her bias is not a problem. So again you are mistaken to remove this content. TiB chat  22:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Guests
Perhaps thousands of guests have appeared on RT? Why then are Richard Spencer and a guy falsely identified as a German neo-Nazi emphasized? Stephen Cohen, for example, is one of America's leading experts about Russia. Jill Stein, who received many votes in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also appeared on RT.. So did Marine le Pen, who drew 34% of the vote in French presidential elections. So did Spain's Pablo Iglesias, who occupies the complete opposite of Le Pen on the political spectrum.Hecatoncher (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Again you appear to have misunderstood. We are not making a list of all the bad people that RT have interviewed. And why on earth are you giving Marine le Pen as an example of a good thing RT have done? You have made me laugh though so maybe it is comedy? TiB chat  22:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * But who said that interviewing Marine le Pen was a good thing? It sounds as though you're putting words in my mouth. The point is that she's an important politician in France, having garnered nearly 11 million votes in France's 2017 presidential election. Hecatoncher (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * She is also Russian-funded, pro-Putin, and her father (and previous head of the ultra right-wing party she now leads) is, as far as I know, also a Neo-Nazi. While it might seem odd that the Russian Government would give so much money to these people when so many at home are suffering, I believe the consensus view is Putin does it in retaliation for the West's attempts to foster a functional democracy in Russia. I think it would be useful to better explain this in the article. Right now I'm done for the day, but as many of your edits are problematic I expect other editors will be along shortly. TiB  chat  23:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You're getting off-topic. By the way, the BBC interviewed Jean-Marie le Pen. I reckon Britain wants to stir chaos and bloodshed in France by promoting him! Hecatoncher (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As I already explained the issue is not that it is wrong to interview certain people. It is one the most basic journalistic standards that people are allowed the right to reply, therefore people accused of the most terrible things are perfectly acceptable, if unpalatable, interviewees. To repeat myself, the problem is RT using these people repeatedly to provide expert opinion on subjects that they are clearly anything but experts. If anything RT was trying to promote and finically support these people in exchange for pro-Putin content.
 * Also, as I already said there has not been an intentional attempt to list all the bad people RT have interviewed. Your continued additions of people RT have interviewed is also deeply problematic. Firstly using RT as the reference is self-sourcing, you really need independent sources. But before you go looking for them I would advise that you look the article of the other news channels, and ask yourself why they don't have vast lists of the all the VIPs they've interviewed. TiB chat  23:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"you’ll find 'experts' lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line".
The article contains:

you’ll find 'experts' lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line".

Peter Lavelle hosts the discussion show "Crosstalk". On recent episodes, the following guests were invited:

CrossTalking with Mohammad Marandi, Christopher Neiweem, and Ali Rizk.. Marandi is professor of North American Studies and dean of the Faculty of World Studies at the University of Tehran.. Ali Rizk is an independent journalist from Lebanon. Neiweem wrote an article for US News & World Report. The discussion is on Iran & Iraq, and there's a pretty high level of expertise among the guests.

British election topic - CrossTalking with John Wight, Mitch Feierstein, and Alan Sked.. John Wight is a writer and political commentator. . Feirstein is a Brexit Party politician. Alan Sked is a professor of history. Again, that's a pretty high level of expertise.

The coup in Bolivia - CrossTalking with Pablo Navarrete, Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, and Francisco Coloane. Pablo Navarrete is a journalist, documentary filmmaker and the founder of Alborada, an independent voice on Latin American politics, media and culture.. Correa-Cabrera is a professor. Coloane is a sociologist and international analyst. Where are the "'experts' lacking in expertise"? Hecatoncher (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I added that content to the article, happy times. That was the view after a long-term, detailed, academic study, I also strongly agree with every single word. I haven't got time to get into details on all of the these, but I'll pick the British election as I know most about that. I've never head of any of the panellists. None appear to have much expertise in the subject, Wight appears to have had the odd thing published in newspapers, but his books are not about politics. Feirstein went on to amass a deposit-loosing 1.5% of the vote in Reading East and is not actually a politician. Sked is a professor of history, not politics.
 * I somehow must have missed the episode, but let me guess! Egged-on by Lavelle, Feierstein and Sked blamed the EU for everything, especially immigration. Predictions of a bleak future for the EU, with more countries leaving. Wight probably offered a little pushback here, but was still happy to be leaving because now Scotland can finally get out of the UK. A no-deal Brexit was presumably popular and of course all strongly agreed on the importance of improving relations with Russia was super-important for our future success. Am I close?? TiB  chat  00:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Manuel Ochsenreiter
Manuel Ochsenreiter, a neo-Nazi, has repeatedly appeared on RT to represent the German point of view.

It's potentially libel? The German article about this guy does not describe Ochsenreiter as neo-Nazi, but as far-right. Nor is the magazine that he edits described as neo-Nazi. I'm removing this sentence.Hecatoncher (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The prose accurately represented the referenced source which is RS, unlike Wikipedia. So if Mr Ochsenreiter want's to sue (which I expect he would have done already as it's been in the article for years) he won't be suing us. I note you also removed Ryan Dawson in the same edit. Again like Richard Spencer, RT regularly employed these men to pretend to be independent experts, who "independently" held the exact same view of world affairs as the Russian government line. So again the question is, how can we avoid another editor make this mistake in the future? TiB chat  22:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It is potentially libelous. Manuel Ochsenreiter worked as an adviser to AfD legislator Markus Frohnmaier. AfD is populist or conservative, but not neo-Nazi. Hecatoncher (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * RT interviewed Germany's Die Linke lawmaker and also a populist AfD lawmaker. Together, those parties control more than 20% of Germany's parliament and are on the opposite of the political spectrum. In Thuringia, Die Linke controls 32% of the state's parliament's seats and AfD has 23% of the seats. Yet this article instead chooses to focus on relatively insignificant Manuel Ochsenreiter, a mere adviser to the AfD and he was slandered in this article as neo-Nazi. Hecatoncher (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You downplay the significance of Mr Ochsenreiter, I expect the security services of many countries have large files on both him and Frohnmaier.. I expect there will be a Snowden-esk relocation to Russia in the future. Again, that the article doesn't contain content you think it should, is not justification to remove things. TiB chat  11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot edits reverting (seemingly as vandalism) removal of non-expert blog post ref
It seems that an editor and a bot account of some kind, are removing any attempt to verify in talk the expert credentials of a so-called expert. A man who only appears to be an expert in talking to the media about his beliefs some Twitter accounts are Russian bots. 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:69CF:4B3B:4259:D48B (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"interviewed militia organizer Jim Stachowiak and white nationalist Jared Taylor"
A 2010 Southern Poverty Law Center report stated that RT extensively covered the "birther" and the "New World Order" conspiracy theories and interviewed militia organizer Jim Stachowiak and white nationalist Jared Taylor

Again, I feel as though RT is being unfairly singled out with regard to people who have appeared on it. Jared Taylor has also been interviewed on CNN. and on Fox media. Hecatoncher (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And again you though you should remove all the content, instead of modifying it. RT's rampant promotion of conspiracy theories, is undoubtedly a significant element of its operations. If I research Stachowiak and Taylor, do you think I will also find suspiciously close links to the Russian Government also? TiB  chat  11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Having looked through a large volume of the comments made immediately prior to the decision to delist RT as a reliable source, I found many links cited by Wikipedia core editors supporting the decision. Of the dozen or so I looked through, on things like climate change and birtherism, the body of the articles always contained a neutral discussion of both sides of the argument including quotations and direct evidence where it existed (Obama's birth certificate and statements from Hawaii's officials stating that he was indeed born there, for example). Of the rest, all were either vague opinion pieces about Russia and its media policies in general, or largely unrelated articles, often outlining conspiracy theories about Russian bot networks that had nothing whatsoever to do with RT. If you have research you can bring to the table then I'd be very interested in it, but so far all I have seen are spurious and mislabelled citations and a lot of rhetoric. I am more than willing to look over anything that might actual provide proof RT ever pushed those conspiracies, but so far I've seen nothing that would indicate the evidence actually exists. 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:69CF:4B3B:4259:D48B (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this article should distinguish between news reporting and presenters. CNN had Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs are presenters at the same time and then they moved to Fox News Channel. Fox today has both Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity as regular hosts. They've had a lot of conspiracy theories, racists, climate change deniers, and far right activists on their shows in softball interviews. All the networks also gave a lot of unchallenged presentation of the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was behind 911. TFD (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Certainly this is so, but as an editor, I currently trust the Fox News main website to the degree I regularly check them to try to understand the right-wing point of view, despite being far more in sympathy with the US center-left, and even Bernie Sanders, to some degree. RT I personally go to to be presented with 'outside of the box' ideas and I've never seen them lie -- except that their headlines are sometimes a little misleading. CNN and other left-wing media I go to when I want to know what my 'side' think. I wouldn't trust the Fox News talking heads like Tucker Carlson. Yet, is my personal view on that important? 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:69CF:4B3B:4259:D48B (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They have a number of progressive presenters, sort of like MSNBC used to be. I imagine they do that because progressives are more critical of U.S. foreign policy. Larry King said that today CNN is all about Trump, while MSNBC is about Trump all the time. Their narrative is that all problems are caused by Trump, who is acting on the orders of the Kremlin. TFD (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling RT state-controlled is unsubstantiated, personal opinion, and contrary to the determination listed the US government's own registration of RT as a foreign agent
NPR reports that the US's foreign agent registration for RT, which has been reviewed and accepted by the US government, describes it as having editorial independence and its hosts as being free to speak their own opinions: " As for the content on RT America (formerly known as Russia Today), the FARA filing states, the "registrant has editorial control over these programs, and on-air talent is given reasonable creative discretion." ". NPR also reports that RT is unfamiliar with who owns and controls its parent company, ANO TV-Novosti: "To the next question — which seeks a full explanation for those foreign ties — the response stated, "Registrant is not sufficiently aware of who supervises, owns, directs, controls or subsidizes ANO TV-Novosti to answer the foregoing questions."": https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/564045159/rt-america-firm-registers-as-foreign-agent-in-u-s-russia-looks-to-retaliate The head of RT UK has also stated in an interview with BBC that there is no communication between RT and the the Russian government regarding broadcasting content: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08wmk2q If the US government had grounds to not accept the details of RT's foreign agent registration, it would take issue with that registration, launch an investigation, and probably impose sanctions of a kind. But as things stand, there is no greater confirmation concerning RT's independent status than the foreign agent registration and the head of RT UK stating that there is no contact with Russia's government over broadcast content. That means that opinion to the contrary remains conspiracy and not established fact. State-funded and state-controlled are not the same thing. And due to the much more authoritative information establishing that RT is not state-controlled, personal conjecture, suspicion, opinion, and cynicism are not enough to warrant replacing established fact with conspiracy. Nozoz (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable secondary sources, not our own creative interpretation of primary documents.  Volunteer Marek   23:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for the article to be protected
Hello! RT is an article with substantial potential to be vandalized or maliciously edited due to its nature. To prevent trolls, bots, or vandals from harming this article's factual information, I would like to petition this article to be shielded from vandalization. Thank you for your time. R. J. Dockery (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , your best bet would be to take it to the WP:RFPP. While I personally agree with the idea, it is still better to take it there than to petition it here.  Free Media  Kid!  09:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories - an academic source
I do not have access to this text, but the title seems to be interesting. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275588820_Conspiracy_Theories_as_a_Russian_Public_Diplomacy_Tool_The_Case_of_Russia_Today_RT The article is quoted in RT America. The two pages are very different. Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * While looking for a free to access version of this, I found “Anything that Causes Chaos”: The Organizational Behavior of RT, which cites this and many other interesting sources. TiB chat  18:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No Balance
Hello friends. This article is unbalanced. "...cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." What does this mean in this context? There is no mention of VOA and the many other US and Western government-supported 'news' agencies. Will anyone here claim that these billionaire-controlled 'news' corporations, themselves subsidiaries of even larger conglomerates, are what they claim to be? The oligarchy-controlled media in the West are clearly engaged in as much propaganda (presentment of state views) as their bought and paid for minions in the US and its satellites are. As we all know, they are infiltrating Wikipedia. (Yes, we know you are here, Integrity Initiative.) RT is the successor of the Voice of Russia! Formerly available on short-wave when I was young. Nobody in those days doubted that VOR expressed the views of the Soviet government, just as nobody doubted that Radio Free Europe did the same. So let's stop this nonsense about 'propaganda.' If RT lies, I want to know. But until then, put up (your evidence) or shut up. And balance it with the daily lies we hear coming out of the Washington regime and the oligarchy-controlled Western corporate media. As if they didn't have their own agenda..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.22.190 (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other government channels. Not to mention, many articles critical of the US mainstream media, e.g.: Corporate media, Mainstream media, Media bias in the United States, Politico-media complex. Concentration of media ownership, etc. Those subjects aren't mentioned in this article, because that isn't what this article is about. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I feel the article on RT should strive for a first line that uses as neutral language as possible, and doesn't play into established anti-Russian tropes about Communist authoritarianism and propoganda (unless there is a defensible reason that some outlets would be considered "state controlled" and others "publicly owned" or similar?). I don't expect the first line will be improved, and I don't want the futile edit war, but it would be nice to at least see the site getting a bit more consistant in the way it approaches things. 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:69CF:4B3B:4259:D48B (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would find your opinions more serious, if you register and edit different pages.Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember WP:IPs are human too. (though in this case, this seems rather irrelevant). ~ El D. (talk to me) 02:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Aristophile (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? 2A00:23C4:1591:4C00:69CF:4B3B:4259:D48B (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "As neutral as possible" DOES NOT mean "bullshitting people and misleading readers". "Neutral" means accurately reflecting reliable sources.  Volunteer Marek   20:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is kind of like using downplaying language that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi gang (a neutral description, considering that group's systemic violations of natural law) were not antisemitic, just that they had problems with the Jewish people. In my opinion, using such language for the sake of "neutrality" is grossly antisemitic and thus not neutral.  Free Media  Kid!  08:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it's nothing like that at all. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's ideology was explicitly and proudly antisemitic, and they carried out a genocide. Even the most neutral language regarding this is going to reveal that. Saying they "had a problem with the Jewish people" would not be neutral, it would be charitable and disingenuous. RT, however, is not demonstrably "state-controlled" news, and the sources provided don't do an adequate job of proving the claim. Claims of RT as "propaganda" are covered in full in a later section of the article, and such controversial claims have no place in the header imo. Jackwc123 (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an abundance of evidence in the sources used in this article to support that RT is both state controlled and a propaganda outlet (at least some of the time). Denials from the staff do not equal controversy, bad people generally don't admit to being bad people. If you can find independent reliable sources that argue otherwise, bring them to the discussion. Otherwise of course we aren't interested in your opinions! TiB  chat  18:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Great -- then change the citations to reflect sources containing this supposed evidence. Jackwc123 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine the level of evidence you would find acceptable for this?? Presumably nothing that could be found on the Internet? I can't see a problem with the cites currently used, and they are only there to stop inexperienced editors from trying to claim it is unsourced. As I said if someone provides some reliable sources that indicate a bias problem we can take a look. It doesn't matter how many comments we get here, I can happily dismiss them as the work of a small number of people working for the Russians. Good luck searching! TiB  chat  20:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is flaming dog feces.
'Nuff said. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7C26:3ED1:9621:64DD (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not nearly enough said. Please be more specific so that your concerns can be addressed. Britmax (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Whiny UK/US government criticism - removed from lead
Yes, the RT is a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.

But on what basis are the views, assessments and reactions by the UK/US governments towards RT are given all this undue weight in the lead section of the article? the UK/US governments are NOT neutral, and themselves have quite a history with engaging in propaganda around the world at a far worse level than Russia. Al-Andalusi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 22 January 2021‎ (UTC)


 * I don't have a massive problem with your edit, but your justification here is BS. Labelling legal actions taken by Ofcom and the DOJ non-neutral views, assessments and reactions by the UK/US governments is outrageously misleading. Your view on which country has committed the worse propaganda is irrelevant, even if you could offer evidence to support it. TiB chat  08:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * your justification look questionable for me. American and British assessments are not "opinions", "views" or "reactions" but facts. They proved the information about RT. It is not a question of "neutrality" (btw you said in your edit that you deleted it because of weight, not neutrality). The fact that this section named "Whiny ..." look more "non-neutral" than the UK and the US assessment.--Renat (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the Ukraine, Latvia, and Lithuania bans to the lead section (Special:Diff/1013545288) to address the undue weight concern. —  Newslinger  talk   05:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ruptly
Please take a look at the article about RT outlet, looks like Russian bots occupied it. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The relationship between RT and Ruptly is presented in a confusing way in both this article and the Ruptly article. The Ruptly article cites a press release from RT titled "RT Launches 'Ruptly' – Full-service Global Video News Agency", but took major pains to describe Ruptly as "independent" from RT instead of a subsidiary. Can Ruptly be described as a subsidiary of RT? —  Newslinger  talk   05:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. 1) Ruptly's official registered trademark is "RUPTLY RT RUPTLY". Here - link (in Russian). 2) Interfax says that RT owns Ruptly. Here - link (in Russian). 3) Der Spiegel also, here - link. 4) The most important information - Russian version of RT website also confirms, that Ruptly is a part of RT. See here - link (in Russian). It says (translation): "The RT television network includes eight news and documentary channels, online information portals in six languages, and the global multimedia agency RUPTLY, which offers exclusive content to TV channels around the world." For some reason, English version of RT website says "sister Ruptly", but Russian version directly says "RT includes Ruptly".-- Renat 06:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Press Gazette, which was already cited in the Ruptly article, confirms the subsidiary relationship as well. I've made this connection clear in the Ruptly article. Since Ruptly is a major YouTube channel, it should also be mentioned in the lead section of this article. —  Newslinger  talk   12:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Business Casual Holdings, LLC lawsuit
Hi, I noticed that you restored a section discussing a pending lawsuit from Business Casual Holdings, LLC in Special:Diff/1013751186 without citing any reliable secondary sources or providing an edit summary. Lawsuits that are not covered by reliable secondary sources are generally undue weight, and should be excluded from the article, especially when the party (Business Casual Holdings, LLC) is non-notable. Is this particular lawsuit covered by any reliable secondary sources? —  Newslinger  talk   08:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you have also added the exact same content to the following articles: RT Arabic (Special:Diff/1012957415) and RT America (Special:Diff/1012960082). Both additions were then reverted as undue weight because the paragraph did not cite any independent sources. —  Newslinger  talk   08:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, yes. The lawsuit is public information. It was filed in the S.D.N.Y. and you can view a copy of the lawsuit via the PACER system. Other credible sources are available below.

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2021cv02007/555642

A copy of the lawsuit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MEg0faycmmCy0bRVfTtk2hjrj0HLZZrk/view — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeniusHistory (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. However, legal filings are primary sources, and do not establish due weight for this lawsuit. Are there any independent secondary sources for this information? —  Newslinger  talk   22:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead: "state-controlled"
about this edit: diff. 1) Usually, when your edit is reverted and explained why it is better to follow WP:BRD, instead of reverting it back and turning the process into edit summary chatting. Especially, when it comes to the content based on reliable sources. 2) You say, that “individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources” if they do not meet academic consensus". Okay. So you are saying, that there is no consensus, that RT is state-controlled? Based on what? Because for now you just removed 3 reliable sources that say that RT is state-controlled and replaced it with 1 source that says that RT is government-funded. Don't you think that "state-controlled" and "government-funded" are different things? The fact that RT is government-funded doesn't contradict the fact that it's state-controlled. 3) Usually, editors are required to read the sentence before changing it. Previous version was: "state-controlled ... funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government". You changed it to: "government-funded ... funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government". Do you see what the problem is with your wording?-- Renat 14:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

-The reason that I am saying that there is no consensus that RT is state-controlled is because there are various different sources that contradict that claim. The source I cited specifically mentioned some academic sources that don’t view RT as simply government-controlled media. I don’t think that “government-funded” and “government-controlled” contradict each other, and I should clarify I didn’t put my source to specifically contradict the claim that it is governed-controlled (even though it does contradict that claim), but just to back up the claim that it is government-funded. One can certainly be both, but sources disagree on whether the 2nd description is true. I think that we should leave the introduction with the non-controversial description “government-funded” because it is something that every scholar and non-scholar agree on, and we should leave phrases such as “government-controlled” and “propaganda” later in the article, where criticisms and debates about RT are explained, because there are scholars that don’t accept these descriptions.

- You are right about the wording that resulted from my edit, I did not carefully read the sentence, I apologize for that. Veritaes Unam (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And ideally, shouldn’t a good source that backs up a claim specialize on the given field? In other words, sources with an expertise in media and press are better to back up claims about the media than just any source source that happens to mention “state-controlled” even if unrelated. Veritaes Unam (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You still haven't shown which reliable source contests the claim that it is state-controlled (which is perfectly compatible, of course, with being state-owned or state-funded, but not a necessary result). And you still haven't indicated why you consider the sources you deleted unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey BobFromBrockley! These are two sources which contest the claim that RT is controlled by the Russian government:

1.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1940161220980692 Under the heading “RT’s Operational Paradigms: Reviewing the Literature,” the authors write:

“there is ‘no single organizing principle, let alone controlling agency’ that manipulates RT as an organization or dictates the agenda for the journalists who work for it. Just because RT positions itself at times as an alternative to, and an opponent of, ‘mainstream media,’ this does not mean that it operates exclusively as “Putin’s puppet” or a simplistic propaganda agent for Russia’s neo-authoritarian regime.”

2.https://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php In the Columbia Journalism Review, the author writes about RT: “Usually, though, the Kremlin line is enforced the way it is everywhere else in Russian television: by the reporters and editors themselves. “There is no censorship per se,” says another RT reporter. “But there are a lot of young people at the channel, a lot of self-starters who are eager to please the management. You can easily guess what the Kremlin wants the world to know, so you change your coverage.”

I want to note that the respective publishers of these sources at least specialize in journalism/media/press as fields, while the two sources cited for the claim of government control don’t come from that field of expertise. I don’t know if this makes them unreliable, but I think it makes them inferior than journals that specialize in the given field. Veritaes Unam (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The article you cite is hardly earth-shattering new evidence. It simply highlights some areas coverage of RT relies on untested claims (such as the huge ratings it gets) and were addition research would be useful. The specific quote you have posted cites which contains passing mentions of propaganda, but only to explain what hybrid warfare is. It does not cover the relationship between the Russian government and Russian media in any way and certainly does not mention RT. The other cites (which I'm assuming are general references) don't appear to be freely available (I did not look very hard), but I doubt any will argue that RT is not state-controlled. The same goes for both quotes you have chosen to post, they just imply that state-control may not be total and is not achieved by way of an official censorship department. TiB  chat  18:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please, indent your messages. 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1940161220980692 says: ... as Galeotti (2018) convincingly argues, there is “no single organizing principle, let alone controlling agency” that manipulates RT as an organization or dictates the agenda for the journalists who work for it. What exactly Galeotti 2018 says: First of all, there is no single Russian “doctrine.” If anything, their campaign is dangerous precisely because it has no single organizing principle, let alone controlling agency. There is a broad political objective — to distract, divide, and demoralize — but otherwise it is largely opportunistic, fragmented, even sometimes contradictory. Some major operations are coordinated, largely through the presidential administration, but most are not. Galeotti wasn't talking about RT at all. He was talking about Russian influence campaign in general. Based on what he said we can not state that "there is no single organizing principle, let alone controlling agency” that manipulates RT as an organization". Just because RT positions itself at times as an alternative to, and an opponent of, ‘mainstream media,’ this does not mean that it operates exclusively as “Putin’s puppet” or a simplistic propaganda agent for Russia’s neo-authoritarian regime." No one is saying that Putin directly operates RT or whatever the assumption was. It is just some pretty heavy original synthesis that has nothing to do with the "state-controlled" thing.-- Renat 21:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a highly selective quote from "Understanding RT’s Audiences: Exposure Not Endorsement for Twitter Followers of Russian State-Sponsored Media". Here is the full paragraph:


 * Your quote starts mid-sentence and omits "Yet, as Galeotti (2018) convincingly argues" in the beginning. Galeotti (2018) is a citation of "I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'", an article in Foreign Policy by Mark Galeotti that does not mention RT at all; it discusses Galeotti's regret for unintentionally coining the term "Gerasimov doctrine" in 2014, and Galeotti expounds on this in a 2018 journal article. Neither of these other articles by Galeotti mention RT. The full paragraph from Galeotti (2018) in Foreign Policy is:


 * The quoted text from Galeotti (2018) refers to Russian information warfare in general, and not RT specifically. It does not support the assertion that RT is not state-controlled. Examining the other sources cited in the last sentence of the quoted paragraph from Rhys et al. (2020):
 * Chatterje-Doody and Tolz (2020): "Regime legitimation, not nation-building: Media commemoration of the 1917 revolutions in Russia's neo-authoritarian state"
 * This source states that RT is "Russian state-aligned" and "state-funded", but does not comment on whether it is state-controlled. It asserts that "Russian state-aligned media, executives and journalists are allotted significant leeway to co-produce, not just disseminate, official discourse", but that does not contradict RT's status as a state-controlled broadcaster. For comparison, the Chinese state-controlled tabloid Global Times is known for taking significant liberties with the Chinese government's official positions, yet its "nonofficial, pluralist Chinese perspective" is still part of China's overall communication strategy and does not make it any less state-controlled. Likewise, RT's propensity to broadcast views that may not align with the Russian government's official positions (whether as disinformation or as a pluralist Russian perspective) does not make RT any less state-controlled than if it echoed the Russian government's official positions without deviation.
 * Dajani et al. (2019): "Differentiated visibilities: RT Arabic's narration of Russia's role in the Syrian war"
 * The source states that RT is "Russian state-funded", but does not dispute that RT is state-controlled. It notes, "As to RT Arabic more specifically, its website does not include a mission statement at all, simply describing it as a subsidiary of RIA Novosti and listing the satellites through which it transmits its broadcasts to the region." The source describes RIA Novosti as "Russia's state news agency".
 * Tolz et al. (2020): "Mediatization and journalistic agency: Russian television coverage of the Skripal poisonings"
 * The source states that RT is "Russian government-funded", but does not dispute that RT is state-controlled. It describes Margarita Simonyan as "RT's editor-in-chief, who maintains close Kremlin ties". In the context of RT's coverage of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the United Kingdom, the article concludes, "Intuiting the need to protect their professional credibility in a media environment dominated by narratives hostile to Russia, certain RT journalists were far bolder than their domestic counterpart in signalling ambiguity towards official narratives" and "These examples suggest that Russian broadcasters performed distance from the Kremlin-sponsored narrative at the point when the credibility of their outlets and/or specific journalists were overtly at stake", attributing RT's deviation from the Russian government's official positions to RT's regulation by Ofcom. However, as mentioned above, just because RT is forced to modify its narrative due to non-Russian regulation does not make RT any less state-controlled than if it had promulgated the Russian government's official positions without deviation (and were penalized for it).
 * Finally, "What Is Russia Today?: The Kremlin's propaganda outlet has an identity crisis" from the Columbia Journalism Review explicitly describes RT as a "shrill propaganda outlet" and states that "When there’s nothing for the propaganda channel to propagate, RT's message becomes a slightly schizophrenic, ad hoc effort to push back against what comes out of the West." I am not sure how this source would support your argument.
 * In conclusion, while RT does deviate from the Russian government's official messaging at times – to disinform its audience, to comply with non-Russian regulations, or to provide a pluralist Russian perspective – the provided sources do not support the claim that RT is not state-controlled. Further, the deletion of other academic sources from the article is unjustified, as they are reliable and provide support for the article content. —  Newslinger  talk   22:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"state-controlled" vs. "public broadcasting"
Why are foreign networks like RT listed as "state controlled" (implying a bias) while American networks which receive government funding are not?

For example, Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes tax dollars to networks like PBS and NPR, yet they aren't listed as "state controlled."

This seems like an odd way to explain the funding of RT, which comes from taxpayers via their version of congress in an almost identical fashion.

Asaturn (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Because "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". See WP:RS. 2) This article is about RT (TV network), not PBS, NPR or something else. So we expect to discuss RT (TV network) only. -- Renat 04:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the question was why is this public network "scary Russia-controlled propaganda!!!" but PBS, which is both public-funded and corporate-spoonsored, "kind, gentle public broadcasting?" Which "reliable, published sources" explain the distinction here? the phrasing introduces bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias Asaturn (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * if you want a source, the article for "Public Broadcasting" defines the term as funded at least partially by the state, but not editorially controlled by the state. PBS, as an example, is funded in part by CPB but also by private corporations, which exert editorial control. The article for RT (this article) clearly cites funding as coming in part from "the Russian government" (the Duma - Russia's version of the US House of Reps - allocates tax dollars for RT). Nowhere has anyone linked to a reliable source (non-commentary/opinion) proving that the Russian government itself decides RT's content. An article in the Chicago Tribune explains that RT's Editor in Chief, Margarita Simonyan, has never even spoken to Putin (https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-russia-television-foreign-agent-order-20180122-story.html). This entire article, including the infobox, have been spammed by bad-faith actors with a gish-gallop of "citations" that amount to personal opinions and no actual relevancy to explain the tags of "state-controlled media" or "propaganda." Asaturn (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)