The United States on September 13 said the Russian news outlet RT is taking orders directly from the Kremlin and working with Russian military intelligence to spread disinformation around the world to undermine democracies.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States has gathered new evidence that exposes cooperation between RT and four other subsidiaries of the Rossia Segodnya media group, and it intends to warn other countries of the threat of the disinformation.
In addition to RT, Rossia Segodnya operates RIA Novosti, TV-Novosti, Ruptly, and Sputnik, but the announcement on September 13 focused largely on RT. The outlet, formerly known as Russia Today, has previously been sanctioned for its work to allegedly spread Kremlin propaganda and disinformation.
I’m genuinely confused as to what USA’s point is here. I mean they do this constantly. Are they saying it’s OK when USA does it but bad when anyone else does it?
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00552r000201100005-4
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/house-passes-16-billion-to-deliver-anti-china-propaganda-overseas/ar-AA1qp59U#:~:text=This legislation authorizes more than %241.6 billion for,the world that counter Chinese “malign influence” globally.
I mean it sounds to me like they just don’t want competitors.
*Edit: I just want to add, I think Russia should get out of Ukraine and what they’re doing is awful. But USA complaining about propaganda from other countries is hilariously hypocritical.
Yeah, we’re not new to information warfare, this stuff goes all the way back to the Cold War at least.
The point is that its on, and since its on, it’s a question of do you want to win or lose.
Spanish American war, and some *say the revolutionary war. We all lose with lies, especially when it’s done to a propagandist’s own people (except the billionaires and corporations).
Yeah I agree, I don’t like it when we push propaganda overseas. That does not mean, however, that we shouldn’t pay attention when its being done to us.
Does that person want us to just shut up and take it? Let this happen to us without complaint or countermeasure? It’s a whataboutism, ultimately.
Critical assessment of all information we have available to us isn’t whataboutery, imo, and often means breaking down large chunks of information into digestible bits. If it’s not acceptable for them to do it to us or their own, it’s not acceptable for us to do it to ours, or our own, full stop. From my obviously limited perspective, there are very few who benefit from regular people infighting or fighting regular citizens of other nations, about this. The people benefitting from this aren’t us regular people.
When someone points out a wrong, and someone else points out a different wrong of the same sort with the intent of making an argument around hypocrisy, that’s a whataboutism.
In this case it’s an article about Russia doing it, and a commenter essentially saying “what about when America did it?”
I ask again, what decision do they want us to make right now, in the current moment? We can’t go back in time and undo what we did. So what is that commenter’s proposal, what do they think would be the best path forward concerning RT, today?
We can stop pretending we didn’t, and aren’t still doing that.
I can’t speak for that person. I also can’t raise Ed Bernays from the dead and lock him up, but guess who he worked for?
Nobody is pretending we didn’t. The articles linked were all in our news, right? And you and I are talking openly about it right now on the internet, yes? So, who is pretending it never happened?
It’s about what next? What should we do concerning RT in your opinion then? Because I haven’t personally had any good ideas asides avoid overseas propaganda efforts in the future. But that’s not an idea about RT, and it won’t make RT go away.
So we can enact criminal and financial penalties on untrue articles, and stop redefining terms when what is untrue when it becomes inconvenient for us, especially businesses and politicians. And redirect institutions away from retribution to rehabilitation. If a behavior is repeated, by domestic or foreign entities, they don’t get to operate here.
Oh that’s some wild whataboutism. It’s OK for USA to do it because everyone else does. Man that’s some awful way to think.
Yeah, at no point did I say anything was okay. That’s a strawman you concocted.
What are your solutions?
So yeah the head of a crime organization probably shouldn’t be pointing their fingers at other crime organizations. Just because crime exists historically doesn’t mean you should head a mafia group.
This is exactly what a whataboutism is. Let’s take an axe murderer who murders people’s families. If another axe murderer goes and murders that guy’s family, would it be smart to just ignore it?
The question isn’t what has been done in the past or who deserves what. It’s what should be done now?
You clearly do not understand whataboutism. It’s when someone uses someone else doing the same thing as an excuse. If Russia does it it’s OK for USA to do it. That’s whataboutism.
And yes. Let the criminals kill themselves. That’s why USA doesn’t really do anything about gang wars.
No, that is not a whataboutism in general, perhaps it’s your personal definition to just reverse it like that. This is whataboutism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Note, my example was not an axe murderer murdering another axe murderer. It was murdering the axe murder’s family. Not him, his family. Siblings, children, cousins, aunts and uncles, you know. People related to you that aren’t actually you.
Your article agrees with me. But it’s clear I’m not going to be able to explain it to you.
Are all those involved in gang wars guilty? Probably not but it’s still wise of the police not to get involved.
And similarly, yes the axe murderer who just murdered the other guys family and is asking for help. I’m probably gonna ignore him.
deleted by creator
No you see it’s different when RFA/RFE/RL/VOA, a CIA creation, under the wing of the State Department exist because…
Imo, it’s different. When your own government is heavily invested in your nation’s citizens believing lies to prop up your own nation’s financial elites, individual or corporate, it’s especially egregious.
Do you read yourself? Jesus.
Yes, and I try to think about it, and ask questions. What’s wrong with what I said?
You’re literally posting this on the thread for an article by a government funded news organization created to propagate US foreign policy.
Yes I am.
And apparently you don’t see a shred of irony in it.
That’s where it’s especially appropriate, in my estimation.
You’re not supposed to talk about that.
The BBC is, has always been, state apparatus. Parts of its , especially the World Service, was set up to promote Britain around the world. It’s been fantastically successful. The Brits are masters.
For the US, this week they were fed the news that China has raised the retirement age by 1 year, in order to pour scorn on it.
No mention of the fact that the Chinese have on average been retiring 5-7 years earlier than Americans for many years.
That’s why I talk about it, and ask questions. It’s not appreciated, and people dismiss these conversations as not worth talking about. The consequences of not talking about core issues and focusing on identity politics are about to become very real.
ETA; I had to look that up. Retirement age for men is going from 60 to 63 over a period of 15 years. We recently raised our own retirement age to 70, and we still don’t have universal health.
Do you know what platform you are own lol