(Partly?) Ban RussiaToday (RT) as a source in Sensationalist Headlines - General

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42110766]RT is little more than a propaganda machine for the Kremlin[/QUOTE] A hobby of mine is to read RT for any signs of an article that was posted elsewhere, critical of Russian activities.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42110852]A hobby of mine is to read RT for any signs of an article that was posted elsewhere, critical of Russian activities.[/QUOTE]Like a particularly fiendish version of Where's Wally?

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;42110866]Like a particularly fiendish version of Where's Wally?[/QUOTE] Oh yes. According to RussiaToday, no protests or the gay laws ever happened. Praise Putin and the Holy Mother Church of Russia.

Instead of banning news that you don't like, ban people who shit in the thread, "CAN THIS BE BANNED NOW?" instead of discussion the article topic. [editline]7th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;42110883]Oh yes. According to RussiaToday, no protests or the gay laws ever happened. Praise Putin and the Holy Mother Church of Russia.[/QUOTE] Have they actually said there were no protests or gay laws, or are you complaining about the lack of coverage of such things (which really isn't that big of a deal in my opinion).

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42110885]Have they actually said there were no protests or gay laws, or are you complaining about the lack of coverage of such things (which really isn't that big of a deal in my opinion).[/QUOTE] Well actually I did manage to find one article: [url]http://rt.com/news/mutko-gay-propaganda-law-comment-666/[/url] [quote]He also accused the Western media of overplaying the anti-gay issue, while saying that Russia wanted to protect its children from the propaganda of “drug addiction, alcohol abuse and non-traditional sexual orientation.” Media coverage of the Athletics Championships, which closed Sunday in Moscow, has been overshadowed in the West by comments over Russia’s “gay propaganda law.”[/quote] [quote]Russian lawmakers suppose it is not about punishing people for being homosexual, but rather it intends to keep minors from being influenced by non-traditional sexual relationship propaganda.[/quote] Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost sounds as though they support the government.

That article clearly states there are gay laws in Russia, which you said they either deny or don't acknowledge.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42111041]That article clearly states there are gay laws in Russia, which you said they either deny or don't acknowledge.[/QUOTE] I was exaggerating earlier. But they are somewhat more difficult to find than they should be, given that those laws were more prominently covered in the west.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42111081]I was exaggerating earlier. But they are somewhat more difficult to find than they should be, given that those laws were more prominently covered in the west.[/QUOTE] Then go to western news sources to read about them?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42111025]Well actually I did manage to find one article: [URL]http://rt.com/news/mutko-gay-propaganda-law-comment-666/[/URL] Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost sounds as though they support the government.[/QUOTE]They've posted quite a few articles on the law itself (in quite a bit of detail), but coverage of the protests has been lacking. Broadly, they maintain the purpose is for stopping the promotion of non-traditional sexual orientations to minors, mention the high public approval of the law, and attempt to link Western LGBT rights groups with some sort of infringement on Russian sovereignity. Quite the juggling act they need to maintain, considering Russian government opinion on the one hand and their main audiences' opinion on the other. [editline]7th September 2013[/editline] To be honest, it's not their coverage of the gay rights issue that's been the most problematic; it's more issues like Magnitsky and Litvinenko e.g. asserting the value of a [URL="http://rt.com/news/lugovoy-innocent-detector-test-953/"]polygraph test[/URL], which are categorically bunk. Because of that, polygraph tests can be easily cheated, and agents have been trained since the Cold War to cheat them.

'sensational headlines' get a grip

I bet there are a shitload of Russian sources that aren't RT that people could use

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;42112516]I bet there are a shitload of Russian sources that aren't RT that people could use[/QUOTE] I posted the Moscow Times earlier, but [url]http://barentsobserver.com/en[/url] is another fine one.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;42112516]I bet there are a shitload of Russian sources that aren't RT that people could use[/QUOTE]Damn right there are. For starters, RT's parent company RIA Novosti is actually fairly decent.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42106325]You really shouldn't be using facepunch as a news hub to begin with. Most of the BS posted in SH is purely for comedy reasons rather than informative ones. It's not really big deal if we restrict the septic tank to only certain kinds poo.[/QUOTE] That was such a fucking stupid analogy

[QUOTE=Bazsil;42112960]That was such a fucking stupid analogy[/QUOTE] Have you actually read some of the shit that gets posted in SH? The place is an absolute shit fest and it should be the last place anyone looks for news.

I would rather make people [I]put the source in the thread title[/I] to tone down the sensationalist BS that comes from RT and other terrible news sources so people can avoid them. "[I]Syrian Rebels kick babies, punch kittens, and hate Putin[/I]" - RussiaToday "[I]Obama DECLARES WAR on Syrian Activism[/I]" - FOX News et cetera

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;42110814]RT can just open those up like some political Goatse and shove a few conspiracy theories in there.[/QUOTE] That's the most horridly graphic analogy I've read on this site so far.

Don't forget the reason [I]why[/I] the Reddit ban happened; RT was suspected of vote manipulation. There's no equivalent of that going on in SH so the whole Reddit ban is a red herring. We really don't need these kinds of rules. If you encounter a bad thread, just leave a rating and don't reply...

Hello Hello. Every news source is biased these days.. Fox, RT, MSNBC.

Ok let's remove all bias from SH sources so no RT or fox, bbc, cnn, or most local news sources, or msnbc or all news ever

[QUOTE=zakedodead;42117757]Ok let's remove all bias from SH sources so no RT or fox, bbc, cnn, or most local news sources, or msnbc or all news ever[/QUOTE]Could we not have a half-baked false equivalence post every 5 minutes?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42106270]Might as well ban all the fun news sites.[/QUOTE] the onion is banned for a long time, for example.

So many opinion recyclers on Facepunch.

The issue I see is the RT opinion pieces, which is most of what people are complaining about. RT's actual news isn't [I]too[/I] biased. I thought opinion pieces / op-ed's were banned anyway? [editline]8th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42106325]You really shouldn't be using facepunch as a news hub to begin with. Most of the BS posted in SH is purely for comedy reasons rather than informative ones. It's not really big deal if we restrict the septic tank to only certain kinds poo.[/QUOTE] Its a perfectly fine source for news, a lot of it is posted for comedic purposes but there is so much that is posted 100% seriously which provokes interesting discussions.

no biased sources should be banned for bias, obvious joke ones like the onion yes.

Fox News is better than RT

I don't think we should ban certain sources, rather certain topics. Namely the Zimmerman case and transgenderism, as SH is not mature enough to handle either one of these.

[QUOTE=lavacano;42123812]I don't think we should ban certain sources, rather certain topics. Namely the Zimmerman case and transgenderism, as SH is not mature enough to handle either one of these.[/QUOTE] That's censorship either way.

Maybe we should just have a blanket ban on opinion pieces?

[QUOTE=_Kent_;42124364]Maybe we should just have a blanket ban on opinion pieces?[/QUOTE] It's already a thing. It's just not enforced, apparently.