| Revision as of 08:01, 17 August 2022 editXx236 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,481 edits →Propaganda← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:27, 5 September 2024 edit undoEvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,365 edits Reverted 1 edit by 70.51.215.103 (talk): Can only be added by adminTags: Twinkle Undo |
| (44 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|e-e|restriction=1RR}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|e-e|protection=semi|1RR=yes}} |
|
|
{{Gs/talk notice|rusukr}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=Society|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|pol=yes|media=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=Top|pol=yes|media=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Media|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television|television-stations=yes|television-stations-importance=high|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television|television-stations=yes|television-stations-importance=high|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism |class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views }} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |class=B}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Refideas |
|
{{Refideas |
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
{{page views}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
| Line 31: |
Line 30: |
|
|archive = Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==Request for Comment== |
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive top|result=Editors achieved a consensus to omit the term "propagandist" from the first line. {{nac}} — ] (]) 03:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Does the first sentence in the lede, "a Russian state-controlled '''propagandist''' international television network" go against ]? Should the article take sides and categorize it as "propaganda" or only report what news outlets categorize it as? ] (]) 06:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
|
|
|
* I've removed ''propagandist'' from the first sentence in ], returning to the longstanding article version. That word was added very recently (]), and I had missed it in your edit (]).{{pb}}However, the ''propaganda'' descriptor is exceptionally well-sourced and the article should be amended to '''explicitly describe RT as ''propaganda'' in Misplaced Pages's voice'''. Since the 2019 RfC at {{slink|Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11#RfC: Propaganda}}, many additional academic sources have been added that explicitly describe RT as a source of propaganda. There are currently 6 peer-reviewed academic sources cited for the ''propaganda'' descriptor (]). Different facets of RT's propaganda have also been examined in detail, with 8 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of ] (]), and 4 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of ] (]) – some of which are also in the preceding groups. Adding reliable non-opinion news sources raises the number of citations to over 30, with an incomplete list from 2019 at ].{{pb}}According to ], neutrality on Misplaced Pages entails {{xt|"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant ] that have been ] on a topic"}}. Reliable sources uniformly agree that RT is a propaganda outlet, and this article should reflect that in Misplaced Pages's voice. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 06:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I think "propaganda" is too subjective and too dependent on the editor's political views. |
|
|
*:Many ]s call Fox News "propaganda". ] Should we "explicitly describe Fox News as propaganda in Misplaced Pages's voice"? |
|
|
*:If for example the President of the U.S. referred to RT as "propaganda," we would have lots of Misplaced Pages-defined ]s referring to RT as propaganda. You could replace "RT" with anything. --] (]) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::] has nothing to do with this discussion. ] 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::And yet people drag it in. ] (]) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: I'm not a fan of using ] as a rhetorical technique, which is what this Fox News argument is. But if this type of argument were accepted, I'd point out that the ] article currently describes the Azov Battalion as '']'' in the very first sentence, with no ] whatsoever, and the citations on that article are just a few news articles. In contrast, the ] article has 7 high-quality academic sources for the ''propaganda'' descriptor which I've just reproduced in ] plus several other reliable sources in ], and dozens of reliable news sources in ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 11:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: You're not a big fan of using ], yet you drag in what is likely the most contentious article in a long-term contentious topic area currently under ] with a ] going on now with reams of ink and walls of reliable sources on both side of the question filling multiple Rfc subpages to contain them—arguably the most contentious article on Misplaced Pages right now. ] (]) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Sourcing requirements for "have published propaganda" and starting off the article with "RT ... is a propagandist television network" should absolutely be different, should they not? I see your comment above made no distinction. For instance, it would be silly to argue that ] has never published propaganda, but slapping the "propagandist" label on the first sentence of the lead of their article would be ridiculous. (Though, yes, there is a difference in degree here so RT's article should discuss their propaganda more prominently than VoA's) ] (]) 00:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Voice of America has nothing to do with this discussion. ] 00:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::I don't understand what you're saying. Examples and analogies can go along way in discussions like these and can be quite explicative. If you've argued (not saying Newslinger necessarily did) that sourcing which allows us to write that an organisation has published propaganda is sourcing which allows us to describe them as a "propagandist" organisation in the lead, then I could either attack that idea directly, or offer up a counter example which (if you agree with it) would mean the argument doesn't hold. |
|
|
*:::For an abstract example (see!), if we were discussing apples, and you said apples are yellow because we know that fruits are yellow, I could either try and argue directly that apples are actually green/red, or I could instead offer up a counter example which attacks your reasoning -- e.g., "but fruits aren't always yellow, for example, cherries are red!" If you were to then respond with "cherries have nothing to do with this discussion, we are discussing apples", I would assume you are either being dishonest or don't understand what we're talking about. ] (]) 01:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Exactly, I can write, I don't know: "Misplaced Pages is biased" on Google, and these "credible sources" will say that Misplaced Pages, is in fact biased. But we aren't going to get up and arms about it because they say that! This is something else, this is because people have western bias and think that RT is against their political view, its propaganda and they are wrong. Also, the Russian Misplaced Pages doesn't say that its propaganda. it just says that: "A number of politicians, media and media specialists characterize RT as a propaganda channel..." I think the reason for this is because the people writing this, are most likely Russian, and aren't western sympathizers so they aren't directly saying its propaganda. This is further proof that it only says that RT is propaganda on the site because of biasism. ] (]) 19:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::It is not necessarily ridiculous. ] (]) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
*:: To clarify, I don't support using the ''propagandist'' descriptor in the first sentence, which was added in ] before it was removed. I am primarily responding to the second question in the RfC statement. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 11:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{od}} I '''support removing the word "propagandist"''' from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why. We wouldn't put "liar", "stupid," or "ugly" into the first sentence of an article, and for exactly the same reasons we shouldn't put "propagandist" there. I don't oppose calling it "propaganda" in Misplaced Pages's voice; <nowiki>]</nowiki> does that. ] (]) 00:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support question 1 and 2''' The lead in an article generally shouldn't have loaded language, especially such as "propagandist," without attribution. ] (]) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* I also '''support removing the word "propagandist"''' from the first sentence. It's inclusion, though a reflection of truth, is also redundant in its use. It can already be safely assumed that by virtue of being a "state-controlled" media outlet that some amount of propaganda is being peddled.] (]) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose "propagandist" label''': state-controlled news orgs often pump out propaganda, and RT is no exception, but slapping the label "propagandist" on them is silly and not something reliable sources tend to do either. It is far, far better to explain why people consider them to put out propaganda, as is done in the lead now in the third paragraph, rather than just slap a snarky and denigrating label on them. ] (]) 00:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support removing "propagandist"''' from the first sentence. {{tq|Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why.}}, per HouseOfChange. This is better achieved by giving a fuller account later in the lead, rather than shoving the crude 'label' into sentence one. ] (]) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Agree''' with ]'s reasoning. ] (]) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''' We need to avoid misleading readers by using descriptions that can be misinterpreted. RT is seen by some as part of a propaganda effort because it includes commentators that formerly worked for U.S. media and cover topics including foreign affairs and social issues that may make the U.S. appear in a bad light. For example, by covering the Black Lives Matter protests, they drew attention to Americans that the country had racial issues, which would undermine their confidence in their government. Without this explanation, readers might think that RT invented the protests. This should of course be explained in the text. ] (]) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''' since most media have some kind of agenda. ] (]) 12:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''' word and label per above and ] "Present opinions in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." ] (]) 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*I do not think it necessarily goes against ] regardless of whether it has attribution or not, but as per the above comments I think it should be removed. ] (]) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''', because Russian state controlled already implies propagandist. It is egging on the obvious.--] (]) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Remove''' The claim against RT was that it served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S., such as former talk show hosts on mainstream U.S. media. So for example covering racism in America serves a propaganda purpose because it makes the U.S. look bad. But that does not mean the presenters' intentions are to do that or that their claims are false or exaggerated. ] for example was perhaps the most respected anchor in America and joined RT because it allowed him editorial independence. ] (]) 02:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{reply to|The Four Deuces}} In case you're interested, the "claim against RT" is not simply that it "served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S." The "claim" against RT is the same as the claim against all public and private broadcast media in Russia - with the previous exception of TV Dozhd, which, in the wake of the "special military operation" in Ukraine, was forced to close - is that it functions as an extension of the ]. Anti-American (]) content is only one part of RT's output, albeit the largest and most important feature of its output. ] (]) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::A search for the word "propaganda" in '']'' has 9 hits, '']'' has 13 and ] has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda. |
|
|
:::I notice too that no editors have presented sources in this discussion. Most of the discussion I have read is about what talk show hosts and their guests said. But then that should be compared with CNN, which had ], ] and ]. |
|
|
:::It is more important to explain what RT does than to add another mention of the word propaganda to the article. |
|
|
:::] (]) 10:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: You seem to have missed the sources mentioned in my earlier comment. I've reproduced a selection of the ones currently cited for the ''propaganda'' descriptor in the form of a list in ]. See also the list in ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 10:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::{{reply to|The Four Deuces}} {{ font color | green | "A search for the word "propaganda" in '']'' has 9 hits, '']'' has 13 and ] has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda."}} Wow. That's one for the ages. *head in hands*. - ] (]) 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Sarcasm is unconstructive. If you have a point to make, you should explain it. ] (]) 16:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Read ], in particular ], ], ], and ] ("Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"). ] (]) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Not for first line''' - that phrasing of a summary judgement is contrary to ]. I think starting an article with use of such a ] just comes across as showing the article is heavily biased. There is notable amounts of such concern, so the article body should mention such comments in ] manner and ] weight, perhaps even into a lower section of the ], but not in the first line. Try to follow ]. Cheers ] (]) 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Remove''' {{sbb}}{{snd}}primarily per ], which says: "{{xt|The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.}}" It doesn't say anything about including critical evaluations in the first sentence; in fact, the guideline goes on to say: "{{xt|Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.}}" Given that the word ''propaganda'' is a ], that seems all the more reason to keep it out of the lead sentence. I'm pretty sure that close to 100% of reliable sources would agree that RT is a "Russian state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian government", which is a factual, non-judgmental sentence, and that should be plenty for the ]. Judgments (necessarily objective, even when uniform) about its propagandistic nature can be left for the remainder of the lead. ] (]) 19:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== References (Request for Comment) === |
|
|
|
|
|
The following is a selection of the sources currently cited in the article for the ''propaganda'' descriptor, taken from ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
# {{cite book |last1=Langdon |first1=Kate C. |last2=Tismaneanu |first2=Vladimir |title=Putin's Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and Violence in the Twenty-First Century |publisher=] |isbn=978-3-030-20579-9 |pages=189–224 |date=9 July 2019 |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Putin_s_Totalitarian_Democracy/FG-hDwAAQBAJ |url-access=limited |via=] |access-date=21 March 2021 |language=en |chapter=Russian Foreign Policy: Freedom for Whom, to Do What? |quote=Soviet-born British journalist Peter Pomerantsev documented the typical newsroom antics in one of Russia's largest propaganda outlets, RT News (formerly known as Russia Today). When his acquaintance composed a piece that referenced the Soviet Union’s occupation of Estonia in 1945, the writer was chewed out by his boss, who maintained the belief that Russians saved Estonia. Any other descriptions of the events of 1945 were unacceptable assaults on Russia's integrity, apparently, so the boss demanded that he amend his text.}} |
|
|
# {{cite journal |last1=Reire |first1=Gunda |title=Euro-Atlantic values and Russia's propaganda in the Euro-Atlantic space |journal=] |date=2015 |volume=13 |issue=4 |url=http://www.spcentrs.lv/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Reire-2015-Yearbook-IESW.pdf |access-date=21 March 2021 |via=Center for International Studies |quote=Nowadays, Russia attacks the Western value of rationality and uses the argument of "the second opinion" or plurality of opinions. The phrase "the second opinion" has even become the slogan of RT. For instance, this propaganda channel used the public opinion's contention as to the nature of the Iraq war, to sell itself as an impartial, objective media outlet in the USA. Overall, Russian propaganda involves a clash of political systems, which is more dangerous than the old-school Soviet propaganda.}} |
|
|
# {{Cite book|last1=Benkler|first1=Yochai|author-link1=Yochai Benkler|last2=Faris|first2=Rob|last3=Roberts|first3=Hal|chapter=Epistemic Crisis|chapter-url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624-chapter-1|title=Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics|url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624|publisher=]|date=October 2018|access-date=21 March 2021|isbn=978-0-19-092362-4|doi=10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001|doi-access=free|pages=358|oclc=1045162158|quote=The emphasis on disorientation appears in the literature on modern Russian propaganda, both in inward-focused applications and in its international propaganda outlets, Sputnik and RT (formerly, Russia Today). Here, the purpose is not to convince the audience of any particular truth but instead to make it impossible for people in the society subject to the propagandist’s intervention to tell truth from non-truth.}} |
|
|
# {{cite book |last1=Karlsen |first1=Geir Hågen |editor1-last=Matláry |editor1-first=Janne Haaland |editor2-last=Heier |editor2-first=Tormod |editor1-link=Janne Haaland Matláry |title=Ukraine and Beyond: Russia's Strategic Security Challenge to Europe |date=5 August 2016 |publisher=] |isbn=978-3-319-32530-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-32530-9_9 |page=199 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-32530-9_9 |chapter-url-access=subscription |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ukraine_and_Beyond/BNHMDAAAQBAJ |url-access=limited |access-date=28 February 2022 |language=en |chapter=Tools of Russian Influence: Information and Propaganda |via=] |quote=The propaganda apparatus proper consists of four means: media, social media, political communication and diplomacy, and covert active measures, all tied together in a coordinated manner. The main international media channel is the RT broadcaster and website, formerly known as ''Russia Today''. It is complemented by ''Sputnik'' radio and website, news and video agencies, and the ''Russia Beyond the Headlines'' news supplement, making up a news conglomerate operating in almost 40 languages.}} |
|
|
# {{cite journal |last1=Ižak |first1=Štefan |title=(Ab)using the topic of migration by pro-Kremlin propaganda: Case study of Slovakia |journal=Journal of Comparative Politics |date=January 2019 |volume=12 |issue=1 |page=58 |url=http://www.jofcp.org/assets/jcp/JCP-January-2019.pdf |access-date=28 February 2022 |publisher=] / ] / ] |language=en |issn=1338-1385 |quote=Almost all important media in Russia are state controlled and used to feed Russian audience with Kremlin propaganda. For international propaganda Kremlin uses agencies like RT and Sputnik. Both are available in many language variations and in many countries (Hansen 2017). Aim of this propaganda is to exploit weak spots and controversial topics (in our case migration to the EU) and use them to harm integrity of the West (Pomerantsev and Weiss 2014).}} |
|
|
# {{cite book|last1=Oates |first1=Sarah |last2=Steiner |first2=Sean |section=Projecting Power: Understanding Russian Strategic Narrative|title=Russia's Public Foreign Policy Narratives|journal=Russian Analytical Digest |date=17 December 2018 |volume=17 |series=229 |pages=2–5 |doi=10.3929/ethz-b-000311091 |doi-access=free |url=https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/RAD229.pdf |access-date=21 March 2021 |publisher=]|location=]|via=]|quote=The analysis of Russian strategic narrative allows us to understand more clearly the logic in Russian propaganda found on English-language outlets such as RT and more effectively deter Russian information aggression.}} |
|
|
#: Page 2: {{xt|"Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."}} |
|
|
# {{cite journal|first1=Media|last1=Ajir|first2=Bethany|last2=Vailliant|title=Russian Information Warfare: Implications for Deterrence Theory|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26481910|jstor=26481910|journal=]|date=Fall 2018 |issn=1936-1815|pages=70–89|volume=12|issue=3|jstor-access=free|access-date=21 March 2021|quote=The real-world repercussions of these objectives are identified through several forms of attack. The first is through disseminating official Russian state propaganda abroad via foreign language news channels as well as Western media. Most notable is the creation of the very successful government-financed international TV news channel, Russia Today (RT).}} |
|
|
|
|
|
— ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 10:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Most of those statements come down to the lynching analogy. So for example, RT hired Ed Schultz after he was fired from MSNBC when they decided to reorient the network to the center. While it served the interests of the Kremlin to provide a platform for people critical of U.S. government policies, it didn't necessarily mean that those hosts were reading material written by the Kremlin. Larry King for example said that all his shows were prepared by his staff. I don't think he thought he was undermining Western civilization. I think it is better to explain how RT fulfils a propaganda function, rather than repeat the term propaganda 94 times without any explanation. Your sources in fact explain why RT fulfils a propaganda function. They don't just say "It's propaganda!" ] (]) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022 == |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|RT (TV network)|answered=yes}} |
|
|
The reporter who was referenced in the Buzzfeed RT article is named Staci Bivens not Stacy. ] (]) 06:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''Done'''. Thankyou for pointing out the error. ] (]) 07:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 'censorship' == |
|
== 'censorship' == |
| Line 110: |
Line 36: |
|
:If you do not understand - ask instead to censor me. |
|
:If you do not understand - ask instead to censor me. |
|
:Usage of the word 'censorship' in this context is a pro-Russian statement, a neutral word should be used. This is not a computer game, this a genocidal war, in which any military, propaganda, economic tool is being used by Russia. Russia is the invider.] (]) 09:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Usage of the word 'censorship' in this context is a pro-Russian statement, a neutral word should be used. This is not a computer game, this a genocidal war, in which any military, propaganda, economic tool is being used by Russia. Russia is the invider.] (]) 09:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Be careful with tossing the word 'genocide' around. Definitions don't change during times of international conflicts and we should beware not to let our sense of reason be overtaken by which side we may or may not pick in any conflict. ] (]) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Anther joke 'an autonomous non-profit organization' under Putin's rules. Russia is not the UK, please do not misuse Western words descibing the authoritarian state. ] (]) 09:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Anther joke 'an autonomous non-profit organization' under Putin's rules. Russia is not the UK, please do not misuse Western words descibing the authoritarian state. ] (]) 09:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
:'after Russia's annexation of Crimea' - the referenced sourse says also about Donbas, not only about Crimea.] (]) 09:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
:'after Russia's annexation of Crimea' - the referenced sourse says also about Donbas, not only about Crimea.] (]) 09:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
| Line 115: |
Line 42: |
|
:Recent opinions presented by ] are genocidal ("Russian media chief welcomes prospect of global FAMINE" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10940035/Russian-media-chief-welcomes-prospect-global-FAMINE-sparked-Ukraine-invasion.html). ] (]) 10:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Recent opinions presented by ] are genocidal ("Russian media chief welcomes prospect of global FAMINE" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10940035/Russian-media-chief-welcomes-prospect-global-FAMINE-sparked-Ukraine-invasion.html). ] (]) 10:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023 == |
|
== Propaganda == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|RT (TV network)|answered=yes}} |
|
There is an edit war regarding 'propaganda'. As far as I know the goal of RT is not propaganda of Russia as a successful land (there is such a recent video), but anarchization of the West, hybrid warfare. So perhaps not propaganda, but '] (] and individual terror)? Or Political warfare only?] (]) 06:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"resorting to calling anti-vaccination activists "imbeciles"" |
|
:https://www.state.gov/report-rt-and-sputniks-role-in-russias-disinformation-and-propaganda-ecosystem/ Disinformation and propaganda ] (]) 08:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Remove "resorting to", as it implies it is wrong to do so. ] (]) 20:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> in ]. Thanks for suggesting this. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#Propaganda bullhorn}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
Russia censors all its media. Russia uses the RT as a tool of his war in Ukraine (as far the only Russian war). No w we have ban of war hate propaganda 'censorship'.Xx236 (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Done in Special:Diff/1177822256. Thanks for suggesting this. — Newslinger talk 20:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Propaganda bullhorn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1 § Propaganda bullhorn until a consensus is reached. — Czello 09:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)