Talk:RT America

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuki119808.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Did RT America ever have a Houston studios or bureau?
Very simple. Did RT America ever have a Houston studios or bureau? Provided reference makes no mention of any cities for bureaus at all (checked the exact date for the site at Internet Archive, as well as current site).

Found another primary source with bureau information (article updated as such), but Houston is excluded. Hesitant to remove Houston, since for all I know maybe they actually had a studio there for some period of time.

I can't find any evidence of an RT America Houston studio. Maybe someone else can, and provide the specific citation. Otherwise, Houston will need to come off this list. Mike Richardson (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't even notice the big mess in that paragraph that got added the other day. Mike Richardson (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Houston is gone. I've probably been too conservative in it's removal. Let's see the evidence before it gets put back. Mike Richardson (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What does RT stand for? The article does not say.
It's kind of weird to have an article that uses an acronym and never expands it. There should be a sentence like, The network was originally named "RT" to stand for "Russia Today". It's possible that, for marketing reasons, "RT" doesn't stand for anything anymore. Even so, the origin of the name is pertinent given the controversy over Russian bias. Ben (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

FARA registration
The fact of FARA (foreign agent) registration is of great significance; it belongs in the lead. Neutralitytalk 03:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The FARA registration was ordered by US, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russia-today-sputnik-us-foreign-agent-rt-news-affliate-kremlin-moscow-putin-anti-propaganda-fara-a7943131.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not waste people's time with sentences that could mean almost anything.
The last sentence in the second introductory paragraph reads as follows:

"The impact of RT America on the US public has been questioned."

The phrase "has been questioned" has a totally unclear meaning, and so, it could mean almost anything. Therefore it is a waste of people's time to have to read it: It conveys no information whatsoever.

It should be removed. If there is some is useful *intended* meaning, I hope someone who is knowledgeable on this topic — and who knows how to write meaningful sentences — will include that information at an appropriate place in this article.50.205.142.50 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to say RT denies the holocaust?
Is the point in the article trying to convey that RT denies the existence of the holocaust? That seems like an odd claim because RT shows the heart touching documentaryabout Sonia Warshawsk which counters this point. CaribDigita (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article does not directly accuse RT of denying the holocaust. It uses "guilt by association". Back in 2014, a website called interpretermag.com published an article that accused Ryan Dawson of being a holocaust denier. He had apparently appeared on RT as an interviewee on a number of occasions. I couldn’t tell how much of the interpretermag article is true and am not interested in looking into it. I followed one link from the article which was to a tweet by Dawson that no longer exists. The interpretermag source seems somewhat dubious judging by its 'about' page. For example, "Beyond focusing on the political, social and economic events inside the Russian Federation, it chronicles Russia’s war in Ukraine and its intervention in Syria, as well as Russia’s aggressive foreign policy posturing in Eastern Europe and beyond". It is not likely to be neutral about Russia’s actions which is its main focus. The assessment it made about Dawson is attributed in our article, as it should be, of course. The interpretermag article does not claim that Dawson made any controversial statements during his RT interviews. The main points it makes are:
 * Dawson is a holocaust denier etc.
 * RT used Dawson as an interviewee under a number of different titles
 * RT did not (but according to interpretermag should have) identify Dawson as a holocaust denier or as someone who writes for what it calls a 'bigoted conspiracy theory website'.


 * As far as I can tell Dawson hasn’t appeared on RT since 2014. The Southern Poverty Law Centre article uses interpretermag as the source for its article. Burrobert (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal
diff follow WP:BRD cycle and provide edit summary, instead of silently reverting back and forth. Explain your content removal, because it does not appear constructive.--Renat (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal
Some of these figures have ties to fringe or extremist groups that would render them unwelcome on some other channels. I've added "some" before "other channels" because of the absence of a clear definition of "other" here. User:Calton removed it thrice without any explanation except senseless "unnecessary" and "not coherent"(yes, only 3(three) words). I found this removals a disruptive behaviour. 31.134.178.99 (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And the other two editors who removed your change, what about them? I wasn't even the first.
 * "Not coherent" was a reference to your lazy mockery of the edit summaries reverting your actions. --Calton &#124; Talk 10:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither these two editors have explained their point. No offence, I don't find myself obliged to find out whether they are sockpuppets or share a same bias. Removals are not the proper way to reach a consensus, I think.
 * If what you call my mockery is hurtful, I apologize. No offence intended. Nevertheless, I cannot guarantee I won't do that in the future because: 1) sometimes by mirroring opponent's point I can show how much ground I see in it and why; and 2) sometimes it is convenient and short way to show what part of opponent's speech I'm answering to, i.e. it improves readability, I think. As of "The necessary weasel-worded modifier is the result of the absence of a clear definition of "other" here" (this is what you described as "not coherent") - I still don't see any wrong in this edit summary.
 * Also, I'll cite my response to ValarianB: Use the talk page to explain if you don't see a huge difference between "all other" and "some other" or if you think there's any reason to intentionally hide it or whatever your point is. 31.134.178.99 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor comment: There is a huge difference between "all other" and "some other", but the article does not say "all other". It says "other". Without qualification, the word other implies "some", so it's not necessary to add the word. It is only necessary to qualify it when there is a definite number involved, e.g. "20 other", "most other", "every other". So I agree with those who say that "some" is an unnecessary qualifier as the word "other" does not imply "all other". Lard Almighty (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

How is RT "Far Right"?
Is that source smoking something certifiable? The only Far Right show I can think of on RT is "Eat The Press" with Steve Malzberg. CaribDigita (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't get involved in Original Research. If reliable sources state the channel is "far right" It's OK to add that to the article. There may be, BTW, other equally reliable sources which describe the channel differently, perhaps even entirely contrary to sources with opposing views; in this case it's OK to present both sides, but must then do so in an equally weighted manner. In any event, I checked the David Z. Morris's FORTUNE magazine's article cite in the statement in question and it nowhere states "far-right" but simply "right", so I have modified the article accordingly. For the record, anyone wishing to triple-check the source, it's found here but a subscription is required. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

If RT America closed down yesterday, why is it still publishing new articles?
Despite the reports of RT America ceasing production on March 3rd, a dozen articles were published this morning. What is going on? 2001:48F8:7049:C24:20FA:DE8C:4AA:436A (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The television channel suspended operations. The website is their own territory. Until their web hosts pull the rug from them they can still publish articles--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Anon IP and There's a difference between production shutting down and operations shutting down. The various reports I've read stated that RT America production in the US shutdown, not operations. What I read from this is that no new programs are PRODUCED, but operations can carry on delivering material already produced by them in the last 10 years (that's how long I read they were in operation. Also, this production shutdown was only for the RT channel in the US; the global RT continues to both produce and operate from its Moscow headquarters; that is, the RT network continues to run undisturbed. This is, I guess, a consequence that video broadcasting nowadays isn't dependent on television transmission alone but can now also now be transmitted via the internet, etc. Mercy11 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

New York Times interview with employees contrasts info here
Interview with former employees counters much of the claims here.
 * What It Was Like to Work for Russian State Television, March 12, 2022 CaribDigita (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The tales of employee's still carrying Russia's water do not rally amount to much. ValarianB (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Odd, it's used as a major point for the one employee who walked off? CaribDigita (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Communication study
Here's the Journal of Communication study referenced in the Texas Monthly article:

https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/70/5/623/5912109 “Anything that Causes Chaos”: The Organizational Behavior of Russia Today (RT) Mona Elswah, Philip N Howard Journal of Communication, Volume 70, Issue 5, October 2020, Pages 623–645, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa027 Published: 28 September 2020

--Nbauman (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)