[laumars]

RT is a Russian national news service. They're quite anti-US, anti-NATO, etc.

I actually quite enjoy the RT TV station - they have some rather amusing reports. However, like all stations, they have their bias. So it's worth noting that their reports against the US should be taken with a pinch of salt (much like how I wouldn't trust any reports from Fox News).

[BrokenPipe]

RT is seemingly biased yes, mostly on the Russian issues. I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets.

But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ? Informed people usually see the US foreign policy as very bulling, strong armed and imperialist, and rightly so IMHO.

And don't get me wrong, I like many aspects of the US and many people from the US, unfortunately is very hard to be informed and as such the administration is influenced by the few for the benefits of the few.

[laumars]

    > I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt

I'd already said that: "However, like all stations, they have their bias."

    >  but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets.

Which is why I follow RT ;)

    > But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ?

I wasn't.

I was only advising people about a bias. Which is only fair given the likelihood of myself being one of the few in this thread who actively follows RT - so other readers on here may not be familiar with their editorial style (and let's not forget that the commenter before me did ask why RT may have ran this particular story).

Plus, to be fair, if you followed RT yourself, then I'm sure you'd agree that they are very one sided (almost to the degree of Fox News - albeit delivered less like a cabaret!). Where as many other stations and publications (eg BBC News) are a lot more balanced. I'm not trying to imply that the BBC doesn't have their own biases as well - but they are less polarised by it. So it's often worth noting which reporters are more reputable than others (another example: any health scare published in by the Daily Mail has to be treated with a huge amount of skepticism as they have a long history of adding dramatised editorials, skipping over vital facts and misquoting scientific research).

[BrokenPipe]

I follow RT sometimes, aljazeera and in fact any source of information on any topic that interests me. All in all, I think I agree with what you're saying. The best way to try to remove bias is merge the stories and take it from there.

Anyway, I think sometimes there is some truth in the daily mail, fox news, the sun and all that junk media and I wonder if the truth that gets published there is published there such that it can be discredited :P

[laumars]

Craprags don't exist to discredit the truth. They exist to sell their version of the truth. Sometimes that means distorting reality a little, by promoting statistics that appear -to the uninformed- to support their argument. However sometimes their version of the truth can be served verbatim.

However sometimes, the truth is distorted simply because the reporter isn't educated on that subject. It's a common problem with articles on legal proceedings, and with science papers too (the reporting on the "faster than light" neutrino is one great example of the press not understanding their subject!)

[BrokenPipe]

More often than not I'm not that upset either way between malice and stupidity.

The issue I have is, mostly and particularly on important topics, with their arguments themselves.

Because with big topics, you can excuse errors with stupidity (or malice as you will) but truly can't excuse the rhetoric and central message they try to convey.

On big topics and high profile news you would suspect the message is not the journalist's independent bias but is instead the management's or dare I say administration's, not just some slipped piece of news that hasn't gone through central editing and review.

[laumars]

    > On big topics and high profile news you would suspect the message is not the journalist's independent bias but is instead the management's or dare I say administration's, not just some slipped piece of news that hasn't gone through central editing and review.

All bare one of my points* was about the managements bias.

* re science reporters