Quote:

---

“It was my first job and I feel embarrassed and ashamed.” An inside look at what it’s like to work at the Kremlin-funded media outlet.

Staci Bivens knew something was seriously wrong when her bosses at Russia Today asked her to put together a story alleging that Germany — Europe’s economic powerhouse — was a failed state.

“It was me and two managers and they had already discussed what they wanted,” Bivens, an American who worked in RT’s Moscow headquarters from 2009 through 2011, said of a meeting she’d had to discuss the segment before a planned reporting trip to Germany. “They called me in and it was really surreal. One of the managers said, ‘The story is that the West is failing, Germany is a failed state.’”

Bivens, who had spent time in Germany, told the managers the story wasn’t true — the term “failed state” is reserved for countries that fail to provide basic government services, like Somalia or Congo, not for economically advanced, industrialized nations like Germany. They insisted. Bivens refused. RT flew a crew to Germany ahead of Bivens, who was flown in later to do a few standups and interviews about racism in Germany. It was the beginning of the end of her RT career.

“At that point I’d been there for a little bit and I’d had enough of the insanity,” Bivens said. She stayed until the end of her contract in 2011 and didn’t make an effort to renew it.

Judging by interviews with seven former and current employees, Bivens’ story is typical. RT, the global English-language news network funded by the Russian government, has come into the spotlight since the Russian invasion of Crimea, which the network has defended tooth-and-nail. The invasion has led to two high-profile rebellions within the ranks: first, an on-air condemnation of the invasion by RT America host Abby Martin, followed days later by the live resignation of another host, Liz Wahl. Martin, who hosts an opinion show, said that Russia’s actions were wrong; Wahl, a news anchor, went one step further, saying that she could not work at a network that found Russia’s actions acceptable.

The public shake-up and skewed coverage of Ukraine has pulled aside RT’s curtain, exposing the network’s propaganda apparatus, which relies on a number of Western reporters and producers. Former and current RT employees from both the Moscow headquarters and its D.C. bureau, which heads a channel called RT America, described to BuzzFeed an atmosphere of censorship and pressure, in which young journalists on their first or second job are lured by the promise of a relatively well-paying position covering news for an international network. Except for Bevins and Wahl, all spoke on the condition of anonymity — some because they didn’t want their name associated with the network or were afraid they would face repercussions in their current jobs.

Soon after joining the network, the current and former employees said, they realized they were not covering news, but producing Russian propaganda. Some employees go in clear-eyed, looking for the experience above all else. Others don’t realize what RT really wants until they’re already there. Still others are chosen for already having displayed views amenable to the Kremlin. Anti-American language is injected into TV scripts by editors, and stories that don’t toe the editorial line regularly get killed.

Bivens, a native of the Chicago suburbs, was freelance producing in Chicago when a friend told her RT was hiring in 2009.

“To be honest… I hadn’t heard of it before,” Bivens said. “I assumed that it was comparable to DW or France 24,” she said, referring to English-language channels based in Berlin and Paris.

The Kremlin had launched RT four years before in an attempt to better project its message on the world stage. Putin said in 2013 of the founding of RT, “When we designed this project back in 2005 we intended introducing another strong player on the international scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean — try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams.”

Bivens flew to D.C. for an interview with Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan and the D.C. bureau chief, Denis Trunov. Shortly thereafter, she was hired as a reporter and moved to Moscow.

The job quickly began to seem strange. The editing process was multilayered: “First you have somebody who’s a native English speaker, usually British,” Bivens said. This person edits the script for clarity and tightness. “Then you have a Russian and they make sure that it fits whatever narrative they want it to fit.”

Bivens said that apart from the “failed state” story, she was asked to do a segment claiming that Russia did not have a problem with alcoholism after Dmitry Medvedev, then president and now prime minister, proposed legislation that sought to address Russia’s problems with drinking.

“I said, I don’t feel comfortable reporting something I know is not true,” Bivens said. “They sent me to some bogus website that proved this editor’s point. There was all this back and forth. Finally the producer called me back and said, ‘You know what, you’re not the reporter for this job.’”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I always wondered how Faux News, the propaganda wing of the RNC, operates. Thanks!

---

Quote:

---

Why would Western press fail to report on anti-Yanukovic snipers killing police? Why would all Western countries' press sing from the same hymn sheet?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And you only have to watch American television for five minutes (ten, if you're slow) to know that IT'S propaganda.

The trick is to sift truth from spin.

---

Quote:

---

Why would Western press fail to report on anti-Yanukovic snipers killing police? Why would all Western countries' press sing from the same hymn sheet?-KPO

Is this a real question, or are you being ironic?-signy

It's a real question. -KPO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Anyone who has an ounce of sense knows every media outlet spins somewhat. What's almost funny about RT is that it doesn't even try to disguise its pro-Russia, anti-West position.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Why would Western press fail to report on anti-Yanukovic snipers killing police? Why would all Western countries' press sing from the same hymn sheet?-KPO

Is this a real question, or are you being ironic?-signy

It's a real question. -KPO

---

Oh, OK.

Governments... and I don't care WHOSE government... want to do certain things that aren't necessarily to the benefit of the average citizen. So they create a narrative, an explanation for their actions which sounds caring, responsible, NECESSARY. If they repeat the narrative often enough, people eventually believe it. But allowing conflicting information brings the narrative into question.

I can point to a lot of actions that were justified by strange narratives. For example, the invasion of Iraq was justified by (the non-connection to) 9-11 and (non-existant) WMD.

As another example, we invaded Panama because Noriega was a hated dictator (he wasn't) and because Panama was a major drug route (it wasn't).

The Ukrainian narrative was that the nation consisted of a population of hostages... Ukrainians yearning to breathe the free market air, longing to join the west, held in place by a corrupt dictator and Russian puppet, Yanukovich. Those poor protesters tried to peacefully express their views in the central square of Maidan, and were brutally put down by that horrible tyrant Yanukovich.

So, in the overall narrative, it wouldn't do to have those "peaceful protesters" as snipers, shooting policemen and "their side" alike in an effort ramp up the violence. Therefore, those images never appeared in western press. It's that simple.

---

Quote:

---

I asked about Western media, you answered about Western governments. So apparently you have the view that the media is tightly state-controlled in all Western countries, like it is in Russia. This is news to me. We're coming at this from radically different worldviews.

---

Quote:

---

Hello, I’m Byron Christopher, a Canadian reporter with more than three decades’ experience in the mainstream [commercial] media, unfortunately also known as the “lame-stream” media. I’ve worked for independent media as well... Journalism plays an important role in a democracy. I realize that’s stating the obvious, but if people are to make informed choices — the hallmark of a true democracy — they need balanced, verifiable information. Some say that free, uncensored journalism is the very heart of democracy.

What it boils down to, is that reporters should try and make some sense of what is happening in the world. However, that’s easier said than done.

When we read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the radio, it’s impossible for us to know how much is actual news, how much is opinion … and if we’re getting propaganda or corporate public relations. Or, if management has ordered reporters to do stories for political reasons. Thousands of “ifs” could be at play here.

Most grocery products have labels indicating what consumers are getting. But with news content, we will never see the following …

Fact: 30% … Speculation: 40% … Influence by sales staff trying to woo a client: 20% … Censorship: 10% …

The public is at the mercy of news organizations which have their own agendas and bosses to answer to. That’s why it’s hard — perhaps impossible — to find news that’s truly independent.

Another thing: in North America, the vast majority of news organizations are in the hands of very few companies. And, as is the case in Canada, the heads of those news organizations are there because they passed the right test — a DNA test. That’s right. “Daddy owns the company.”

Do you really think a military that hands out junkets to reporters wants the reporters to do an independent job? Not likely. Why do you suppose most news organizations fail to mention that their staff are on paid junkets? That’s easy. It destroys credibility. And when one is on the take, it’s also a tad embarrassing.

---

Quote:

---

Also no answer yet on why other news media from around the world report on the situation differently to Russian media. I've just spent the last 15 minutes looking at random 'neutral' countries' media (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, Nigeria) reporting on the situation in Ukraine. They look very similar to Western media's reporting. So Russian media seems to be the exception

---

Quote:

---

The current crisis in Ukraine should be viewed in the context of Iraq and Afghan wars as well as centuries old European rivalries. The two contemporary wars produced an economically, diplomatically and militarily weaker USA. This means that America that is a leading power in NATO can no longer afford to engage in another prolonged military struggle with a major power in the world. It is even more difficult because European partners are struggling with economic recession; are exhausted from long wars in Middle East; and are too concerned with maintaining their own alliance in Eurozone as well as need time to convert it into a political entity. ...

....President Putin has a unique profile among the current cadre of world leaders. He has been a soldier, an intelligence officer, a chief of staff and a top politician. No other leader can match this profile in terms of depth of understanding of various dynamics involved in solving a crisis including political, military and diplomatic.

---

Quote:

---

Russian interests in Ukraine's Crimea ‘legitimate’, India says
NEW DELHI: India believes Russia has "legitimate interests" in Ukraine — a position that is opposed to the stand of the west on the latest crisis. Interestingly, China has opposed Russia's intervention in Crimea, deviating from a long-standing support to Moscow in the UN Security Council.

---

Quote:

---

Crimean parliament declares independence from Ukraine 03-17 18:12
The Crimean parliament Monday declared independence from Ukraine, after latest official results show 96.77 percent of Crimean voters chose to join Russia in Sunday's referendum.

---

Quote:

---

Russian economy braces for punishment after Crimea seizure
Zero growth or even recession in 2014, asset freezes in the West and tens of billions of dollars in capital flight -- Russia must brace for the consequences of putting political ambition above economic sense in seizing control of Crimea, analysts say.

Pro-Russian Crimeans gather to celebrate in Lenin Square in Crimea's capital Simferopol on March 16, 2014 after exit polls showed about 93 percent of voters in Ukraine's Crimea region supported union with Russia

The huge 'yes' vote in the disputed referendum in the Ukrainian region of Crimea to become part of Russia means Moscow has claimed an addition to its territory for the first time since the end of World War II. But President Vladimir Putin's swoop has given the Kremlin's economic policy makers an unenviable task of limiting the inevitable damage to the economy which was already showing troubling signs of weakness.

"There are many signs the economy is now being hit by an uncertainty shock," said analysts at VTB Capital, slashing their forecast for growth in Russia in 2014 to zero. "We see downside risks if uncertainty remains elevated for a protracted period or if severe sanctions are imposed," VTB added.

It remains to be seen how far the European Union and the United States dare to go in sanctions -- they could choose more superficial measures like visa bans or tough measures freezing state assets and hitting the wider economy. Analysts call the second option the "Iranian scenario" as it recalls the measures slapped against Tehran over its nuclear programme that eventually brought the Iranian economy to its knees.
...

There are already signs that Russia has been battening down the hatches in anticipation of serious trouble. A record drop of over $100 billion in US treasury securities held by foreign banks in the week ending to March 12 was attributed by analysts to Russia taking its money elsewhere in anticipation of possible asset freezes.

---

Quote:

---

A referendum on political status was held in the Falkland Islands on 10–11 March 2013. The Falkland Islanders were asked whether or not they supported the continuation of their status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom in view of Argentina's call for negotiations on the islands' sovereignty.

On a turnout of 92%, an overwhelming 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against.Had the islanders rejected the continuation of their current status, a second referendum on possible alternatives would have been held. Brad Smith, the leader of the international observer group, announced that the referendum was free and fair and executed in accordance with international standards and international laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Anyway, I have to go for now. I understand other countries have their public news agencies, unlike the US. But even there is a strong drive to cut costs. Am I right? And a strong dependence on official sources. And growing competition from commercial journalism. And many of the same cultural constraints.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The first is that there is very little investigative reporting. "The news" consists almost entirely of press releases by government functionaries at various levels of authority, and repeats from various other media.

---

Quote:

---

Just grabbing the top hits from my search engine

---

Quote:

---

But imo not enough to add up to a complete muzzling of the press, which is what you've implied.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, as far as the Falklands are concerned, I guess you've forgotten Maggie Thatcher's favorite little war? Which is SO different from Putin!

---

Quote:

---

The Falklands have never been settled or controlled by Argentina, except when they invaded in 1982. When Britain throws them out *they* are the outside invaders? It's a dubious comparison.

---

Quote:

---

BUT KPO... you haven't addressed the main point, which is the fact that our press has been "wrong" over and over... and over... for decades. Including misreporting events in Ukraine.

---

Quote:

---

Did you see the video in the other post? Have you made any attempt to acquaint yourself with something other than the western press?

---

Quote:

---

The Falklanders spoke English, and had a long historic connection with Britain. Let me ask you: What language do Crimeans speak? How long had Crimea been part of Russia? Why don't you go answer those questions before you tell me how dissimilar the situations were?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
KPO

Do you have any recent conclusions about the reliability of the 'news' you access every day?

---

Quote:

---

Well look, I'm challenging your assertion that the West has a completely government-censored media.

---

Quote:

---

Did you see the video in the other post? Have you made any attempt to acquaint yourself with something other than the western press? -SIGNY

No, and yes, you know that I have. Think back to earlier in the thread. -KPO

---

Quote:

---

As far as the video is concerned, WATCH IT.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57662

---

Quote:

---

Weak propaganda.

---

Quote:

---

- and it's what? People being forced to get off buses, and lie on the ground, and sing the Ukrainian national anthem, and pick up shards of glass. Oh the horrors.

---

Quote:

---

You would have preferred "strong propaganda"?

---

Quote:

---

No matter what was shown, you would have just dismissed it as propaganda anyway, right?

---

Quote:

---

And beaten, don't forget that.

---

Quote:

---

Yanno, KPO, I wonder how you would have reacted if that had been western sympathizers dragged off buses and beaten by Russian thugs. I'm sure you would have been all over yourself about the horrors of it all!

---

Quote:

---

What I wanted you to see was the protests. No, they're not the "most shocking" videos (there is worse), but it does show the rioters in a different light than in the western press. There were peaceful innocent protesters, but there were also a phalanxes of trained street thugs, neo-Nazis

---

Quote:

---

So back to the original question: How is is that the western press has so throughly misrepresented everything of importance for the past 40 years or more?

---

Quote:

---

KPO - whatever happened to Fukushima? How is it out of the news?

---

Quote:

---

Here is some information about how news was suppressed and distorted re Fukushima:

---

Quote:

---

Is anything 'new' happening there?

---

Quote:

---

I think the questions are, has it stopped happening, and has it become less important.

---