| > but they are blatantly using this term to spread to say whatever they want. That's what pretty much all major western media outlets do as well. > Their defence is of course 'freedom of speech'. But what if that 'freedom of speech' breaks laws (usually it's on the brink of the law)? Like what laws? > What if their reporters are filming themselves near infamous rocket artillery launchers[1][2], launchers who are hitting civilians [3][4]? Whats wrong with filming action? Seems like courage and dedication to me. > But what if they say that oppression against occupied soviet countries didn't happen? You don't realize how hilarious that is? You can find 100 equivalent western propaganda pieces for every one of RT's. I don't see people like you being against those media outlets. > Someone like RT will never say two different opinions and most importantly not even mention another opinion exists. Yes they will. They invite plenty of people for interviews that criticize Putin and Russia, and actually give them decently long time which Western media almost never do (like Noam Chomsky - youtube it). > Russian information channels work very well, they just work with KGB and Goebbels strategies. Not nearly as well as Western media channels. Russian propaganda is children's cartoons compared to Western propaganda. > "Freedom of speech" is no more freedom of speech when it breaks laws or is blatant and utter photoshoped lie. Funny how you only have a problem with this when its a particular party expressing views you happen to disagree with. |