Agreed to the bolded. I thought it was common knowledge that RT was a Russian state mouthpiece like VOA.
The results are definitely not the same. There is simply no equivalence between the US media response and RT's obvious state-run cheerleading.
The only reason anyone should read RT is to learn what the Russian government is putting forth. Everything in it should be presumed to be dishonest as it is a propaganda network.
US corporate media does voluntary self censorship to avoid contradicting the government foreign policy
Proof that Crimeans were sent to Siberia? Oh yeah, you don't have it.
2/3Nope. All Tatars. He made a stupid claim and couldn't back it up. <shrug>
Agreed to the bolded. I thought it was common knowledge that RT was a Russian state mouthpiece like VOA.
WTF?
no really... WTF?
Did you watch MSNBC during Bush or have you watched FOX during Obama's current terms?
Avoid contradicting the government foreign policy? lmfao.
trick question! D: I'd hate to see you employ the "candy lineup."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/u...erage-suggests-new-fox-effect-television.html
MSNBC got inline on Iraq war, just like Fox. Objectivity stops at the water's edge.
It is not. Specifically, VOA is explicitly and openly broadcast by the US federal government, with no pretense otherwise. RT claims to be an objective news source independent from the Russian government, but this is clearly a lie.
You didn't know RT was a Russian government mouthpiece? Wow.
He made the claim about how easy it was to tell the difference between Tatars and Russians. I'm a bit surprised that he didn't mention 'swarthy skin' or 'hooked noses' or some such nonsense.
He's deliberately marginalized the Tatars and their issues and has acted as an outright apologist for their previous ethnic cleansing by the Russians by insisting that it's 'trivial history'.
I figure anything I can do to show this person for what they are is fair play.
2/3
The first ones in real life shots are a no-brainer.
You'd be hard pressed to tell a Russian from a Ukrainian with 66% accuracy.
I have no idea how you would get that from what I wrote.
You are whining, but you aren't proposing anything. Do you think 12% Crimean Tatars minority should have a veto over the direction of Crimea just because they once upon a time were a majority?
Me: I thought it was common knowledge that RT was a Russian state mouthpiece like VOA.
You: It is not.
I guess that knowledge wasn't common to you
You are whining, but you aren't proposing anything. Do you think 12% Crimean Tatars minority should have a veto over the direction of Crimea just because they once upon a time were a majority?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/u...erage-suggests-new-fox-effect-television.html
MSNBC got inline on Iraq war, just like Fox. Objectivity stops at the water's edge.
There is a continuing argument that the ethnic Russian majority should be catered to in Crimea despite the fact that the only reason there is an ethnic Russian majority there is due to Russian crimes against humanity.
Why do you think that this is a compelling argument? Please answer this without resorting to 'two wrongs make a right'.
My argument is that current residents of Crimea get to vote on Crimea's future. That's how democracy works everywhere in the world. You are not happy with it, what specifically are you proposing?
Ethnic cleansing apologist.
Do you also believe Texas should be able to secede?
Still whining and still not proposing any alternatives. At least you know how ridiculous it is to take your argument to its logical conclusion. I'll give you credit there.