• Haystack

    Unfortunately, the drawback of having a show on Russia TV is that it hurts your credibility when you attempt to debunk criticism of a Russian ally.

    • Hocketeer

      Like destroying a TV on TV while hosting a TV show.

  • luther_blissett5

    Every news source has its biases. American corporate media has lost all credibility long ago when it comes to covering anything other than sports and weather. RT and Breaking the Set should be commended for saying what needs to be said about the push for war in Syria.

    • Haystack

      Isn’t that kind of a double-standard, though? America corporate media has lost “all credibility,” while state-controlled RT is doing something commendable by supporting a policy of the Russian state.

      Not that I’m pro-war, mind you, or that I necessarily disagree with what Abby Martin is saying. I just think we need to be aware of how any medium is compromised, regardless of how we feel about the message.

      If Abby Martin did support intervention in Syria, would she feel free to say so on her show?

      • luther_blissett5

        It’s not a double standard. I would be just as critical of any RT coverage of a pro-Russian government policy I didn’t agree with. In the case of Syria, their interests just happen to overlap with those of intelligent Americans and most of the world. But I would argue RT’s perspective on current events is especially important to have on American airwaves which have been dominated by pro-corporate pro-U.S. policy propaganda. In the U.S. there may not be overt state control but there is definitely influence and censorship from conservative corporate CEOs of parent companies, advertisers, U.S. government contacts, sources, advisers, Project Mockingbird-style insiders, etc. There is also self censorship from the corporate culture and structure of corporate newsrooms (ie. choosing what to cover based on what will get them promoted and not fired).

        • Haystack

          I agree with you for the most part. Certainly, I entertain no illusions about what corporate media is, and I can see the value in having news coverage that is, at least, biased in the opposite direction. However, I would argue that we also have to be skeptical of RT coverage of a pro-government policy that we *do* agree with, because in any event the source is still compromised (just like corporate media is compromised, even when we agree with the direction it takes.)

          If you get your info from Abby Martin, you’ll get legitimate reasons to oppose US intervention, but how much can she talk about Assad’s brutality, or of non-military solutions to the Syria crisis which might run counter to Russia’s interests? How much value is there in a news source that tells the truth, but only when it supports the political interests of its sponsor? Is a show that is sponsored by the Russian government a valuable tool in convincing pro-intervention Americans to change their position, or does it tend to associate peace with anti-Americanism? Could Abby Martin get her message out without wedding herself to a proto-fascist dictator?

          To return to my original comment, I’m not trying to discredit everything she says on her show. I’m only saying that, in trying to make a case against intervention in Syria, it doesn’t help her that she’s sponsored by Russia.

          • luther_blissett5

            Good questions.

            “If you get your info from Abby Martin, you’ll get legitimate reasons to
            oppose US intervention, but how much can she talk about Assad’s
            brutality, or of non-military solutions to the Syria crisis which might
            run counter to Russia’s interests? How much value is there in a news source that tells the truth, but only
            when it supports the political interests of its sponsor? ”

            That speaks to the danger of getting info on current events from any one source. For a long time, the majority of Americans have been dependent on the same corporate news sources owned by an ever-shrinking number of parent companies. Today we have access to a greater diversity of viewpoints not just from independent news sites but also foreign news sites (which may be influenced by the government and corporate interests of those countries) and I think it is good to get a balance of different viewpoints to get a more accurate view of the current situation.

            “Is a show that is sponsored by the Russian government a valuable tool in
            convincing pro-intervention Americans to change their position, or does
            it tend to associate peace with anti-Americanism? Could Abby Martin get
            her message out without wedding herself to a proto-fascist dictator?”

            I think shows such as those on RT probably would have the most influence on younger pro-intervention Americans who have not been as conditioned by cold-war propaganda to view the Russians as monsters. From what I have seen, they do not associate peace with anti-Americanism because they interview American peace activists and cover American antiwar protests to a far greater extant than corporate news. Abby, who is American, is more likely to get her message out on RT than on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc., whose talking heads do seem wedded to Obama and the corporate/security state.

  • B Park

    Abby Martin will not take talking points from any government, truth is always her talking point. Need more like here!!