Thread: RT Documentaries

Similar in-depth documentaries can be watched on Al-Jazeera. Just now running one about Castro and Che-Guevara.
And they do not add any commentaries, just letting the people speak who know something about that and were close to the events.

And just now announcing:
Al Jazeera: Israel seeks to shut offices and take network off air

Israel is seeking to close Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera's offices in the country and revoke its journalists' media credentials.

Communications Minister Ayoub Kara alleged that the channel supported terrorism, and said both its Arabic and English-language channels would be taken off air.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accuses the broadcaster of "incitement".

Al Jazeera has condemned the decision.

The Israeli government said it was basing its decision on a similar ban by several Sunni Arab states, amid their diplomatic rift with Qatar, which hosts and funds Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera: Israel seeks to shut offices and take network off air - BBC News

RT. "Unbiased and Factual".

Only Albert.....

^
And up pops one of the highest ranking UK dumbfucks posting here on the door.

FOH

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty2017

Just watched a documentary on RT about the US/Mexican border. Was an unbiased and factual account of the misery the US inflicts on the native American tribes whose traditional homelands reach across the "borders".

Now there's a lot of dumb fuck American, Aussie and Brit tossers who post on here, who claim RT is Russian propaganda, but they are what they are. Dumb fucks.

i haven't seen this particuar doc, but RT is financed by the russian government--therefore it would be absurd to claim that the organisation as a whole is unbiased.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty2017

^ Try reading.

The documentary was an "unbiased and factual account".

try getting better educated.

documentaries are inherently biased.....and this one was funded by the russian government.

are you just trolling?

You're so dumb I don't know where to start.

Originally Posted by raycarey

i haven't seen this particuar doc, but RT is financed by the russian government--therefore it would be absurd to claim that the organisation as a whole is unbiased.

Unlike e.g. BBC. Wondering, how they are financed?

About US media financing - and their bias/unbias - I do not dare to guess...

the BBC docs i've seen do show the documentarian's bias....as for the organization itself, i can't say with any certainty..but probably.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty2017

^ Try reading.

The documentary was an "unbiased and factual account".

try getting better educated.

documentaries are inherently biased.....and this one was funded by the russian government.

are you just trolling?

No, it's Albert. He genuinely is that retarded.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnasty2017

^ Try reading.

The documentary was an "unbiased and factual account".

The DOCUMENTARY.

geddit?

There was no commentary. It was simply an account of the people who suffer under the US tyranny in the US itself.

And all this bullshit "RT is a Russian government mouthpiece" is utter shite. It simply broadcasts an equalizing view against the utter propaganda spewed out by almost all corrupt and biased US media.

The US is the warmongering, deceptive nation which fucks with the world.

Not Russia.
Or Syria.
Or Iraq.
Or Libya.
Or Venezuela.
Or Iran.
Or North Korea.

I would like to see an RT documentary about Assad and Putin bombing Syrian Sunni rebels with chemical weapons.

But my spidey senses tell me they haven't got the budget or something.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I would like to see an RT documentary about Assad and Putin bombing Syrian Sunni rebels with chemical weapons.

But my spidey senses tell me they haven't got the budget or something.

If you had spent some of your valuable time visiting that station you could have learned something (and your spidey senses would be surprised) ...

Some money still available, not so much spent on missiles (as the others...)

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I would like to see an RT documentary about Assad and Putin bombing Syrian Sunni rebels with chemical weapons.

But my spidey senses tell me they haven't got the budget or something.

If you had spent some of your valuable time visiting that station you could have learned something (and your spidey senses would be surprised) ...

Some money still available, not so much spent on missiles (as the others...)

Fuck me, you really are that dim. I thought it was an act.

I would think ANY government funded Media would have a natural bias ... understandably so.

It's the veracity of that bias which determines if Media is creditable or not.

I've watched some interesting RT stuff.

All "documentaries" have a bias, look to who finances it.

^ Right. It's absurd to think that profit-seeking businesses are somehow going to be magically impartial while state-funded broadcasters are completely untrustworthy. Not that it would even be possible to be impartial - there is no view from nowhere.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

^ Right. It's absurd to think that profit-seeking businesses are somehow going to be magically impartial while state-funded broadcasters are completely untrustworthy. Not that it would even be possible to be impartial - there is no view from nowhere.

..."while state-funded broadcasters are completely untrustworthy."
This is not absurd, it is really true once the state follows its very untrustworthy politics of deceiving own people - for a purpose - same as the profit-seeking businesses ...

^ The problem with this kind of global skepticism is that it's nonsense. If all privately- and publicly-funded sources of news are completely untrustworthy then you don't have any grounds for thinking that that's the case; it is self-defeating rubbish.

^
Without having all the "evidence" and/or being on the spot to see by oneself, everybody with a brain can consider the news "trustworthy" or "untrustworthy".
There are so many such "trustworthy" news nowadays, just an idiot can believe ...

One very first question is : Cui bono, "for whose benefit?"

You can't have the evidence unless you are "on the spot to see by oneself". That means that you can never have sufficient evidence to conclude that a news source is or isn't trustworthy. All that you can do is to sit silently in your cloud of suspended judgement.

One very first question is : Cui bono, "for whose benefit?"

The words on the lips of every 14-year-old on Reddit.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

You can't have the evidence unless you are "on the spot to see by oneself". That means that you can never have sufficient evidence to conclude that a news source is or isn't trustworthy. All that you can do is to sit silently in your cloud of suspended judgement.

One doesn't need to go around the world to see all the disasters and graves if he is in possession of a brain.

And if he - after all what is trumpeted around the world - and on him around the clock - does not see what is a lie and deception, then he has to sit silently in a cloud of suspended judgement. Then, he can also do what such idiots (useful) do for centuries - ask for a uniform and a weapon and go to lay down his life for the interests of his leaders.

It's impossible to not be biased - surely that's obvious?!

One doesn't need to go around the world to see all the disasters and graves if he is in possession of a brain.

No. You need to watch/read the news, and that will either be state-funded or privately-funded, so it can't be "completely untrustworthy". This is not a difficult point to grasp, surely.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

One doesn't need to go around the world to see all the disasters and graves if he is in possession of a brain.

No. You need to watch/read the news, and that will either be state-funded or privately-funded, so it can't be "completely untrustworthy". This is not a difficult point to grasp, surely.

I guess this photo hasn't been photoshoped...


and this?