Talk:RT (TV network)

NPOV issues need major cleanup

Compare this page to that of it's counterparts like the BBC, which are just as much government run and just as much criticized for propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit, at least in the Programming section. It was full of anti-RT propaganda and lies. mixer (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There was a debate about the lede of this article which I started up again in December 2015 by moving the criticism area of the lede, however the debate has all but been removed and no conclusion seems to have been reached as the lede still contains the heavy criticism. There was 50/50 sided support for the move initially. My proposal was to include the criticism currently present in the lede in the Criticism section instead of in the lede, just like in the articles for many other TV networks, state-owned included. But I fear if I do that, my edit will be reversed again. At least there'll be debate on it. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was to keep the paragraph in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but RT is not the equivalent of BBC. The BBC is a public broadcaster which is run on an arms-length principle. This is increasingly being disputed by credible mainstream sources, in my view rightly, but Britain is not an autocracy, nor are western dissident journalists being murdered at regular intervals, unlike the Russian Federation. 10 Downing Street only intermittently has something to say about public and commercial broadcasts in the UK, but RT is run from the Kremlin, The BBC and the other broadcasters have comment from all the main political parties: RT and Russian national broadcasters ignore the country's dissidents, like the old days. In other words, it is not being disputed, except by people with significant conflicts of interest, that RT is not a conventional, non-propagandist, broadcaster, and the practically universal criticism should be mentioned in the opening summary before a section on the various responses. That would allow the minority viewpoint of RT's defenders to be articulated too. We are not supposed to give undue prominence to the defence over the majority viewpoint which is highly critical. Philip Cross (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, consensus was for the paragraph to remain in the lead. I've reverted the removal. Stickee (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

If we are talking about the "majority viewpoint," CNN is often referred to as "Clinton News Network" as noted on the CNN Controversies wiki page. On the main CNN page under the Controversies heading, it states that CNN deliberately lied to help Clinton; plus Time Warner, the parent company, is a major donor to her campaign. There's also the issue of their lack of Wikileaks coverage, suppressing anti-Hillary information. So, why is RT called propaganda in its intro while Fox is a softer "biased reporting" - yet CNN is considered legitimate and has no critique of its reputation in its intro? When the centrist mainstream media lies/omits fact/editorializes it is called "controversy." All three news sources consistently twist info or outright lie to promote an agenda, the definition of propaganda; all three are financially tied to a national political party. I would really like to know how Wikipedians decided that Fox at is anything but Republican propaganda; they filled the role for Bush that RT does for Putin. I think we should just note the biases (left, right, whatever) they are all accused of in the intro. In fact, since 2005, less than half the population trusts mainstream news outlets, and it is declining. Even the Hill has called out CNN as "compromised in favor of pushing one candidate's narrative in this election." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.230.47 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You raise issues which should be in the CNN and Fox articles, probably sourced. Wikipedia covers subjects based on reliable sources, the bulk of which tend to call out RT. Personal opinion is of no account here. When it arises, by perhaps citing excessively sources one agrees with, WP:UNDUE tends to be used in an ensuing debate. Philip Cross (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of "reliable sources" saying CNN is biased, from Fox to the Hill to HuffPost. I'm asking why all the reliable sources that support center-left American media (CNN) are not labeled for bias, while Fox is, and RT is "propaganda." I'm more concerned with the semantics, labeling RT propaganda vs biased (Fox) vs no label at all for liberal American news outlets for doing ultimately the same actions (CNN). I'm not saying RT isn't propaganda, it is; I'm saying that CNN has recently been exposed by Wikileaks (as has MSNBC) for colluding with the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and all the operatives who move between them, like Donna Brazile. CNN very clearly has a pro-establishment narrative with Democrat propaganda, just like RT is with Putin. The Washington Post has the same problem, and yet there is no disclaimer of its bias in the intro. The New York Times has been called out as have various journalists from "reliable" sources for collusion.

There is a pattern visible of Wikipedia immediately labeling foreign propaganda for what it is, while Western center-left MSM like WaPo, NYT, or CNN gets a brief header at the bottom of the page ("controversy") instead of an immediate reference to verifiable biases. Different labeling isn't neutrality, it is using different wording for a reason. In the RT intro it says "critics and commentators" vaguely, when the reliable sources you linked to clearly says that it should be attributed, i.e. "Western mainstream media regard RT as..." The CNN "controversies" section includes a Harvard study that shows liberal bias. So, as a format, all three (CNN, Fox, and RT) pages should use the same language ("x & y have criticized them for z bias") in the same place (intro or subheader, or both). CNN's Democratic bias is buried and mislabeled, while RT's bias is foremost, called propaganda, and later repeated as a section. Fox's bias is called for what it is, yet is a reliable source whereas RT is not simply because the Republicans don't legally own it.

I also noticed that the Spanish CNN and MSNBC pages do not include the "controversies" section or liberal bias critiques, however the Spanish Fox and RT page includes the same sources, phrasing, and disclaimer of bias in the intro. The pattern if inconsistency on Wikipedia in favor of liberal media is obvious in format and two different languages. Jill Stein's page was a mess in August because Wikipedia of this center-left corporate bias and had to get flagged for not having a neutral tone; part of this is due to sources like CNN and MSNBC providing ample propaganda against the American left, which was also proven in the Democratic primary in their Bernie-bashing, reported by multiple reliable sources as well. Unless I'm missing some huge technical distinction between bias vs propaganda, I don't see why the wording is different or not included for CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.230.47 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The block of criticism in the lead section is completely unacceptable with regard to the body of the article. Several times it has been removed, changed or questioned, and several times it has been reverted with no conclusion reached, except by the criticism editors who seem to keep thinking "consensus" has been reached that it must stay. It's not just that the sources might be biased, it's also that it takes up over 1/4 of the intro to this webpage which is ridiculous. The edit which Gobonobo made (id=745459894) that included some criticism was fine. I actually campaigned about moving the entire criticism to the criticism section (now called the "Responses" section here) - no other state-controlled or state-subsidised news network article on Wikipedia has that level of criticism, if any at all, in its lead section. I accepted that the intro should reflect the article, however the current version first re-added by Stickee is ridiculous.

The Gobonobo version was also originally written better by referring to the criticisms as coming from "Critics" (implying not coming from any random person and with no history of politics education or article writing), and was also better by not throwing the words "frequently called a propaganda outlet" 2/3 of the way into the lead before average readers have a chance to confirm their hunch by reading more. It's simply bias. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@SpikeballUnion: I fully support the current version of the lede, but appreciate a healthy skepticism, so I will elucidate. First off, there is no state-controlled news network quite like RT, so "other stuff exists"-type arguments hold little water for me. Policy-based arguments do hold sway though, and I support anyone who wants to use policy to improve the articles for CNN, BBC, or any other news outlet.

I don't think that having three sentences of criticism towards the end of the lede is undue, in fact, I would support giving the criticism more prominence by moving it to an earlier paragraph. Many readers will move on after reading the lede, so it is vital that we clearly convey that RT acts as a propaganda outlet of the Kremlin. My personal take is that RT is a reliable source only when it is stating the official Kremlin line. Any time they are addressing issues related to Western governments, NATO, or Ukraine, the spin kicks in and their coverage quickly becomes apoplectic. I'd support a statement along those lines if we can find a source supporting it. (Full disclosure: I'm a regular RT viewer as I enjoy trying to deconstruct its snarky, campy bias and as it basically doubles as a master class in modern propaganda.) gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"First off, there is no state-controlled news network quite like RT" How did you get to that conclusion? Looks like a no true Scotsman to me. "...so it is vital that we clearly convey that RT acts as a propaganda outlet of the Kremlin." No. That is an opinion, not an encyclopaedic directive. "My personal take is that RT is a reliable source only when it is stating the official Kremlin line." My personal take is that no major news network is a reliable source especially when describing political matters. The bare base facts are usually there, but the icing, the way it's presented, is almost always biased, on any network. Regardless, the point is that the amount, and wording, of the criticism in the lead section of this RT article should be improved and, ideally (if we don't want 2/3rds of the lead to be inappropriately saturated with attacks which are claimed to be "frequent" and are not claimed to be from critics), reverted to how it was before Stickee edited it. The lead section should summarise RT for what it actually is - a news network - and not what critics think it is, a "propaganda" machine. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that because you mentioned my username and an edit that I made, that you might be interested in my point of view. What you are characterizing as "attacks" are neutrally-presented, reliably-sourced statements that belong in any encyclopedic article on RT and certainly shouldn't be removed from the lede. You should expect strong opposition to any attempts to whitewash this article or water down conclusions reported by numerous reliable sources. I'm finding dozens of reliable sources that discuss RT's disinformation campaigns and propaganda in depth. Have you even seen RT's preposterous denials of Russian involvement with the downing of MH17? That should be mentioned here. The section devoted to propaganda is woefully inadequate and I support expanding it. Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the Internet Research Agency has been supplying sockpuppets to sanitize this article. I'm willing to check the edit history to see if other editors have been deleting sourced statements from the article. It will be very easy to restore them. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I mentioned your username and an edit you made because I supported the particular edit (its content) that you made. I say that clearly in my post. That was all. Now I can see you've half missed some major points in my post and half gone on a rant about the Russian Federation. The RT network is one of those Wikipedia articles that attracts Americans (especially the critical) in flocks, despite it not even being an American thing. It's one downside to the majority of the online (and Wikipedia) community being American and being unable to escape that lingering scepticism drilled into them from the media of the country they live in. You don't need to call me out on that, you'd say the same thing about Russians and their media. In fact, you already did. Anyway, the points in my post that you missed included the wording of the lead criticism; the proposed re-addition of "Critics argue" and the omission of "frequently" as it was in your reverted edit; just in general the reversal to the reverted edit you made. It's a good thing at least that I accepted that criticism should exist in the lead section. Obviously trying to argue this point to you in particular, now that I've seen your true viewpoint, will be impossible, so I now wait for some potential outside input into this debate. SpikeballUnion (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Accidental independent opinion (clicked-through from "Fake news by country#Poland"): I am assuming the issue is whether the lede must contain the paragraph about RT being biased. Well, the answer is pretty much straightforward: a prominent, factual and well-referenced section of the article covers exactly this. Per Wikipedia style guidelines, the lede must adequately summarize the article content. Therefore the paragraph in question does belong to the lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Ofcom censure in lead/edit warring

This has been taken in and out repeatedly [sic] over the past few days. I would argue it's too much detail for the lead, and is covered within the broader reference to the criticism RT has faced, especially given that it is a UK regulator and this is about the wider network. Ofcom has ruled against something pretty much every news broadcaster has done in the UK at some point (see here and here for example). That's what a regulator does, and I don't see that all those news organisations need a mention of those instances in their leads (they certainly don't have them currently). As for "repeatedly", as if RT is a special case, the cited sources appear to list a total of about three occasions only. N-HH talk/edits 15:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Ofcom line isn't about the problems RT faces in the UK, it's about the problems with RT's English language "news". There follows a number of excellent sources (not currently in the article), that I feel offer an update on the situation. I would specifically draw attention to the following statement (from the Bloomberg article) "Ofcom, the British media regulator, has found RT in breach of impartiality standards 10 times —more than any other broadcaster— since the channel started operating in the country in 2005". I would also point out that in these types of cases Ofcom only respond to complaints from viewers. RT's audience share should mean it has far less opportunity to get in to these problems.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

It has been an interesting read. I have to admit that the headline on the EUvsDisinfo site (and Nigel's tash) brought a smile to my face.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• This phrase was in lede for a long time, and no one really disputed it. Why? It tells The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality.... This is simply a summary: Ofcom was mentioned many times in the body of the page. and this phrase nicely summarizes it. I do not see any reason for moving this phrase [9] to section entitled "2017". This is not about something that had happen in year 2017. This is summary of something that had happen in all years ("had repeatedly"). My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the reasons above for leaving it out of the lede. It's in the article 107.77.223.173 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Right now we have this section entitled "2017". It tells: The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality, and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content.[224][218][215] RT is currently banned in Ukraine.[225]. Why this should be in section about year 2017 if it describes criticism by Ofcom during many years and it was banned by Ukraine not in 2017, but a few years earlier? My very best wishes (talk)

I agree it makes no sense to move it to a 2017 section (and that it being in the body is a reason of course for it to be reflected in the lead, not excluded from it). My point was that it is a specific detail, of the sort not found in similar pages, and the lead is meant to summarise. The argument that it has a lot of rulings against it for size of audience is not really probative of anything, especially given the hostility the channel gets. I'm sure it's not regular viewers by choice, who presumably like the channel, who are making complaints. Personally I would rewrite the whole paragraph to say something like "RT has faced criticism from commentators and politicians, and censure from regulatory bodies, in the west for ....", while adding for balance that the station says it is simply putting forward a Russian perspective. And lose the citation overload. The broader problem here is the common one on controversial pages: people just want to use it to score points and lay on criticism (here largely sourced to rival media outlets or politicians, who often have their own agendas) with a trowel, rather than have an article that simply explains factually what something is or has any balance to it. N-HH talk/edits 11:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would rewrite the whole paragraph to say something like "RT is a purveyor of disinformation masquerading as an international news channel, part of the Russian government's larger propaganda operation against its enemies". For balance we could add "RT will either deny this or argue that all news is propaganda depending on how stupid they think you are". However as we all know Wikipedia doesn't work like that. If you familiarise yourself with the previous discussions regarding this subject, you will see that virtually every word and citation has been argued over already and is as it is for a reason. As the new sources I've brought show, the argument for it being there is stronger now than ever. The Ukraine ban bit can either be removed as the cite doesn't support the statement, or expanded with new sources as it is likely correct. I can't see it needs to be in the lede.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Ofcom is an important organization and therefore mentioning it in the lede seems to be OK. In any case, we need consensus to move or rewrite this, and I think we do not have one. Not surprising because that was already discussed a number of times on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed some unbalanced terms to neutral ones. I would suggest that more effort be made to separate critical sources from "They would, wouldn't they?" sources. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Regarding the lede, the cites shouldn't really be needed (WP:LEADCITE), but were included mainly because any summary of the criticism in the article was removed many times as unsourced POV. Some were selected to demonstrate a long-term issue after accusations of recentism, others because they used specific words or phrases (synthesis). I imagine the odd one or two came from people just wanting to add a new source to the article. Add in the alterations that resulted from at least a dozen edit-wars and this is the result. Experience leads me to believe that attempts to make significant changes will likely spiral into more edit-wars and reams of discussion. Perhaps you could raise specific sources you find problematic? They should be easily replaced as we have so many to choose from.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the lead, I meant the article, which is one-sided in its lack of context for claims by rival organisations who have obvious conflicts of interest. Has the questionable nature of Ofcom been made clear in the article or that BBC regulates itself so is immune to Ofcom censure? At the moment the article reads like a litany of complaints from everyone and every organisation that has an obvious incentive to hide ulterior motives. I altered some words in the lead because of obvious judgemental bias and replaced them with neutral descriptive terms. That these matters have been discussed by others is irrelevant to my edits, which were fair and reasonable. I'm quite happy to discuss each word I edited and you reverted to reach consensus. Have you defined frequently and compared similar organisations to create context? Repeatedly has a judgemental connotation and "several times" means more than once, which is neutral. Regards (PS I'm trapped in Hull, it's like a 1970s Dr Who episode) Keith-264 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley and Philip Cross: Apols, I hadn't realised who had reverted. I refer my comments about the lead to Philip and invite discussion. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In virtually all admissible sources, RT has been described as "Kremlin backed", "Kremlin funded", or similar, so "frequently" is a sustainable and accurate term. "Several times" implies only a handful, whereas "repeatedly" is in the version Keith-264 finds objectionable, but this document mentions only a few of the multiple occasions RT has fallen foul of Ofcom. Philip Cross (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all? Does the description of such terms follow NPOV by referring to the nature of the "admissible sources" such as "the state broadcaster BBC" or the "corporate-owned New York Times"? Frequently has a pejorative connotation, "several times" means more than once, you are glossing it with an inference which is OR and NPOV. Ofcom the "British state-backed censor" has ruled on many occasions about many broadcasters so using "repeatedly" without context is also a disparaging term. Several times implies no such thing, it is a neutral term for "more than one" free of the inference you project. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264 As you seem to have noticed I was just responding to your post here, and again I will just respond here to elements I have an issue with. As far as I am aware the BBC is as liable to Ofcom censure as any other license holder who breached the Broadcast Code. I think you may have confused something about the upcoming move to Ofcom of the responsibilities currently held by the BBC Trust, giving them addition powers over the BBC? [10]. While the article can undoubtedly be greatly improved, you are wasting your time on me if you're trying to make a 'potential ulterior motives=less reliable conclusion' argument. I know what RT is and believe Ofcom have treated them very, very reasonably. I'm also not sure how much more description is needed in this article than "United Kingdom media regulator Ofcom", I'll assume you aren't serious about "British state-backed censor".--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying any sort of argument, I changed a couple of words in the lead on the grounds that they were pejorative and am discussing it with Philip. I made general observations about the article because I am concerned that WP:Synth has not been sufficiently taken into account in the use of sources or their impartiality. You are welcome to your opinion of Ofcom per se and its regulation of RT (as are we all) but that is OR if it affects your editing of the article. I'm not sure what you mean by your Ofcom comments, are you referring to Ofcom this one? Perhaps you could get to know me better before you embark on a conspiracy theory, that said, what does "government-approved regulatory and competition authority" mean in plain English? I agree that "the article can undoubtedly be greatly improved" and suggest that a better balance of sources is a good place to start. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me for expecting you to do your own research on Ofcom (and might I suggest the BBFC also), but this isn't the forum. If you are unhappy with the balance of sources I'd suggest you find some that demonstrate that an alternate view is more than fringe. I know I can find plenty more supporting the majority viewpoint. Feel free to edit the article I won't be the only one watching, I might even get involved, it would be a bit of a waste not to use the new sources I found.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, I can do my own sarcasm too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As Trappedinburnley said, this isn't the place for OR. Reliable sources have said it "repeatedly" breached Ofcom rules ([11] [12]), so that's what the article says. Stickee (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I did too but now the word has been justified in this way, it should be rendered as a "quotation". RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think if we say that Ofcom accused them of bias, we should explain why they said this, because the statement tells readers nothing. According to the Telegraph, "In a programme called CrossTalk last July, RT broadcast a debate about a Nato summit in which all members of the panel were critical of the military alliance." Does anyone know if any channels have been sanctioned when no members of a panel were critical of NATO?" TFD (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

On all Wiki articles about news sources I think that a comparative approach to criticism and approval is best. Since Ofcom is supported by some sources as an impartial regulator and by others as a censorship agency, statistics about its activities would be helpful, descriptive and enlightening. When BBC is criticised for bias "In a programme called CrossTalk last July, RT broadcast a debate about a Nato summit in which all members of the panel were critical of the military alliance" like this it claims that balance can be found in several programmes rather than only in each one. Treating RT as inherently questionable and other participants in the field as inherently reliable obviously raises questions about NPOV, cherry-picking, POV pushing and writing a mediocre article, the most un-Wiki act of all. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Question: is the word "repeatedly" used because there are six sources cited? Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Adjectival phrases such as "repeatedly" should not simply be transposed from cherry-picked media reports and declared to be "sourced" as if they are factual description. Language is, to state the obvious, inherently subjective. Nor should one-off issues be highlighted in the lead, which as noted is meant to summarise not enumerate. Anyway, as the childish and partisan responses from users like Trappedinburnley – mimicking those they are responding to while openly declaring their hostile view of the topic (and completely misunderstanding the point about "personally", which was not "this is what I think of RT myself", which I've never made clear anyway, but "this FWIW is how I would neutrally summarise the position, but it's never going to happen") – show, this will never be dealt with properly, especially as we have the former EEML members all over it as well, and the current insane paranoia and conspiracy theorising about Russia in the US at the moment. There's a way to objectively reflect the criticism that something has received, whether you happen to think it's legitimate or not, without turning a page into a hostile, media-driven polemic from the lead onwards. N-HH talk/edits 10:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[13] [14] [15] Since Ofcom has a statutory role its pronouncements should not be denied but if it criticises a broadcaster's impartiality, it should not be considered to be above suspicion, especially when there are RS that treat it as an open question. I'm glad that Burnley agrees that the article has a long way to go but I fear that without debate like this, it could be in the wrong direction. What is EEML? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Ofcom's rulings should be included. My issue is more with the phrasing and level of specifics in the lead, as well as the overall tone of the page, which reads more like a scrappy charge sheet than an encyclopedia entry. The Eastern European Mailing List was a group of editors who co-ordinated activity off-site to marshal anti-Russian edits here. Several editors were censured and/or topic-banned by ArbCom for their behaviour, but several have since returned to active editing, sometimes having changed their usernames but not their perspective. N-HH talk/edits 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we have consensus, which is nice (pace The Fast Show). Is there was a standard way to describe criticism of any news source? If there is, I think that would help with balance, NPOV, prominence in an article etc if it were followed. My view of the article is that half of it is missing, which is a description of the positive judgements of RS and RTs achievements. Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope, regarding "is that half of it is missing, which is a description of the positive judgements of RS and RTs achievements." see false balance. Stickee (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

FALSEBALANCE is about fringe, or at least less popular, theories about ultimately discernible facts, eg whether the earth is flat or HIV causes AIDS. Whether RT is appallingly biased and/or a propaganda machine rather than a TV station is not a matter of fact but a matter of point of view or judgement. Also, the page is not called "RT: good or bad?" and like any other encyclopedia entry, it should primarily factually explain what the thing is and its history. That would include reporting on the negative (and positive) commentary, but not just loading the page up with direct claims from either. Any such commentary should also be contextualised and not define the page as if we are trying to prove one side or other of a point. As for what any of us think about RT and some of its programmes, that's even less germane to the page. N-HH talk/edits 11:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of assumptions, what seem to be unfounded insinuations, and some things that could be construed as personal attacks (on an article currently under discretionary sanctions!). I shouldn't need to remind people this talkpage is for. However I will admit to having erred. It seems that currently there are differences in the Ofcom rules that apply to the BBC compared to other broadcasters, especially the relevant section 5 of the code. [16]. @@Keith-264: Thank you for bringing some sources to the table, but they are not going to be sufficient to even suggest a problem with the judgements they have delivered here. Realistically we are not going to be able to use something here that isn't covered in the Ofcom article. I'm sure RT would love us to believe that this is a case of them being treated unfairly by the big bad state for bringing the news that the MSM have been hiding from us. However if you read the Ofcom reports you will see that in every case RT didn't have a leg to stand on. The reason I feel they are useful for this article is they give info on the extremely questionable practices they employ, and of course the often ridiculous attempts to defend themselves. To use the latest case as an example. Peter Lavel's crosstalk show, billed as three specially invited experts debating current world affairs for 30 minutes. The episode in question last July, featured 3 guys with no more knowledge of the situation than a guy you met in the pub, taking turns (with Peter) to implore the viewer to really hate NATO. RT's defence for this shameless propaganda? They couldn't find anybody with alternative views willing to come on the show. It seems they proceeded to film planning to add just enough captions to get them back on the correct side of that pesky impartiality rule. However someone accidentally loaded the wrong text into the caption software before it broadcast. Classic RT! If you wish to improve the article that is great, but if you think you are going to argue away sourced content, you are going to need impeccable sources to back you up.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Soap Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources WP:rant Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding quotes around repeatedly is basically using them as scare quotes. Stickee (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Fox News Channel has been sanctioned three times in the last 18 months,[17] while the BBC, CNN and MSNBC together racked up 50 offenses.[18] Are any editors working to ensure that this information is put into the leads of articles about those networks? TFD (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just the sort of context that the article lacks. Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good luck trying to use that RT op-ed by the presenter of Going Underground as source anywhere on WP!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

[19] Keith-264 (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah a bit of whataboutism from Snowed-in's buddy? Better, but still not even close. He casts plenty of aspersions, but I can't see much in the way of specifics (at least about RT). Funnily enough the two Ofcom cases he briefly mentions Syrian chemical weapon attack / Ukraine one I've just been reading again, and the 3 guys from the pub debate I already talked about. I suggest you read them, and try to find a fault on Ofcom's part (Sorry I know they are long).[20][21] What you will see is that they are not about what was broadcast, it's what was missing. That may lead to the thought that Greenwald might not actually know very much about the situation. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Quoted word

WP:Scarequotes doesn't apply when marking a quotation with quotation marks.Keith-264 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It does risk confusion though, also as to whether the quotation is directly from Ofcom itself. As noted above, I would prefer to just lose the word altogether (and indeed that whole level of detail about Ofcom from the lead, as it sits better in the body, with only a broader reference in the lead). It's a loaded term, and just because one source happens to use it, that doesn't mean WP has to. N-HH talk/edits 11:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Not just "one source". Many:

• "Ofcom, the British broadcast regulator, has singled out RT repeatedly for its lack of impartiality." The New York Times
• "Media watchdogs have called in executives from RT, the Kremlin-backed news channel, to discuss its repeated failure to meet the impartiality standards" The Telegraph
• "after repeated breaches of broadcasting regulations on impartiality last year" The Guardian
• "and repeatedly receives slaps on the wrist from UK’s media watchdog OFCOM," Euronews
• " OFCOM, the British broadcast regulator, has repeatedly singled out RT for its lack of impartiality," TOL

Stickee (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Please read my above comment as reading "just because one source – or even more than one source – happens ..." I mean, way to miss the fundamental point actually being made about language and sourcing. Although thanks for providing evidence of why WP leads end up with multiple-citation overload, due to pointless and point-missing arguments like this. N-HH talk/edits 12:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to dump the word but since sources were found that used it, altering it to show that it was a quotation and in ellipses seemed a compromise, unsatisfactory though it was. Does anyone know of published sources (books not newspapers etc) which describe RT and leave the ideological posturing and commercial point-scoring to journalists and other hacks? Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: How about expert evidence submitted to the UK parliament defence committee or an EU parliament briefing? I presume they are too political? Would you believe that someone once tried to convince us that the only RS for this article would have to come from the Russian government or RT itself? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:dead horse WP:appeal-to-authority-while-advocating.... You've made your bias quite clear, you don't need to keep digging. What I want you and the other editors to do is to stick to descriptive terms, avoid promiscuous adjectives and adverbs and remember that some turns of phrase are pejorative. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I was hoping to make my superior knowledge of the subject quite clear, but hey-ho. I have to admit my knowledge doesn't extend to knowing the difference in meaning between "repeatedly" and "several times" or why it couldn't have just been left alone once it became apparent that changing it is an issue.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:own Greater perhaps but clearly not superior. Do you deny that "repeatedly" has pejorative connotations? Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it does particularly, but at the same time it didn't bother me when you substituted it (for "several times"). The word does appear in 34,886 WP articles [22] so you might have quite a lot of work ahead of you.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

They will be the ones written by Americans and illiterate English EngLit graduates. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Headers

There are two 3rd level headers called Programming (sic), which is un-wiki [23]. Section 7 is far too big for an article this size and lacks a comparative dimension.Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've felt the layout of the article is wrong for some time, the critical stuff should be closer the top. However that would be quite a big task. It seems it got into it's current "un-wiki" state with this edit by @Philip Cross: while he was adding some pretty insignificant content to the wrong place, apparently because RT told him it was important. I think we can safely return to the previous layout, however unideal.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that more like equivalent articles such as the British and American state broadcasters?Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

For that matter, the article has sections entitled "Guests" and "Choice of guests". The "pretty insignificant content" I added around January 19–20 related the apparent likelihood the channel would not be able to carry the Trump inauguration. Not quite as significant in retrospect as it seemed at the time, if one ignores the irony around Flynn and Sessions' difficulties, but not trivial. I did not add any RT sources, only reports from RS. The problem with the two "Programming" sections mentioned by Trappedinburnley, by merging them, and my prose/list split follows usual practice.

As it is, in the Responses section, we have thematic sections followed by a chronology. It doubtless is not perfect at present, but some incidents do not fall easily under themes as currently outlined, the resignation of staff like Linda Wahl and Sara Firth for example. Philip Cross (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Somebody previously pointed out WP:Criticism, which recommends that criticism is integrated into other sections rather than having a dedicated section of its own. I've argued previously that most of the content would fit into a Controversy section split into Georgia, Syria, Ukraine (as each has seen staff resign) and maybe Libya. Other content would fit into an expanded Programming section that delves a little more deeply into content issues. And of course merging the two Guests sections. However some stuff, such as criticism of the launch should be near the start of the History section, which I think some will disagree with a little bit. Lately I've been pondering a dedicated Ofcom section to allow for a little more explanation, but that could also be achieved by expanding the Ofcom article. @Philip Cross: If you insist on keeping those bits, I think they should be moved to the Network section.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead says: about Russia

My sources say RT used to inform about Russia. Now the RT mainly criticizes Western world.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

http://muftah.org/instead-closing-rts-bank-accounts-expose-disinformation-strategy/#.WLkvDThsQil Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

http://infowar.cepa.org/briefs/Romania22-28August2016 Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/authoritarianism-goes-global Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

https://www.diplomaatia.ee/en/article/the-challenge-of-russias-anti-western-information-warfare/ Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe you are correct but I'm struggling to find anything about it in the links you provided. There is a mention on p3 here which links to this which contains this quote from Simonyan: "When we were a quiet, little-noticed channel telling stories from Russia, our audience was negligible. When we started being really provocative … our audience started to grow". Ideally we need a more in-depth source.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My sources are about anti-Western policy of the RT and I want to replace about Russia with anti-Western or similar.

You are right that the evolution should be described.Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The source currently cited in the lead for "about Russia", the network's "about us" page, doesn't even say that, nor is it accurate, since AFAIK RT in the UK at least barely does any reporting about domestic Russian issues in its main news sections. Maybe an older version did, when that might have been more accurate. I'd be happy to have an up-to-date quote or paraphrase from that page, so long as it's clearly attributed as what RT says it does. A lead is not going to describe any station, without qualification, as "anti-anything". There's already enough there about how terrible the station is without adding cheap polemical slogans. N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree, the article would be much better if there were more citations to books rather than partisan newspaper and periodical articles. Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete text

The paragraph Programming informs about the years 2008-2012, two 2014 texts are also quoted.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole page is obsolete, only few sources are newer than 2014.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well as far as I know articles don't update themselves yet. If you can find good sources, I'd welcome some additions.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is being continuously edited without adding recent sources, it's strange.

I have proposed 4 references (above).Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK over the last three years new editors have mainly come here to argue about the lead, rather than contribute to the body of the article. It puzzles me because in my experience it is better to start your involvement with research and uncontroversial edits, rather than go straight to removing stuff you disagree with. Regarding your proposed references I can see a few issues: the first is an opinion piece on a fairly insignificant issue that was moved (perhaps incorrectly) to the RT UK article; #2 is too focused, it deals with just a single RT article (does RT have a Romanian language channel now?); #3 is a book that I'm not about to pay to read; while the final one looks at the wider Russian propaganda operation (something I do think needs to be expanded upon here), I only see a passing mention of RT. Let me re-phrase my previous comment: If you can find better sources, I'd welcome some additions to the body of the article, but lets give the lead a rest for a while.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you believe I'm new here, check View history. I have written almost the same a year ago and obtained only one IP answer. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Shuster's text [24] is quoted only as a source about finances. What about reading the whole text?Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that is a good source! I had a quick skim over it but couldn't find any detail on the change in focus. Maybe I missed it or perhaps you are talking about a different issue? Reading it did remind me about Simonyan's secure phone line to the Kremlin which I don't think has been covered yet. And FWIW my post was not intended to be critical of your actions specifically.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia Beyond the Headlines

It seems Russia Beyond the Headlines has ceased producing the paper editions in newspapers (such as The Telegraph) but as of the start of the year the websites have transferred to the control of RT (TV-Novosti). The only source I could find besides the RBTH site is this which I don't think is of sufficient quality. Maybe a better source will be found/written soon? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed edit

A 16-page report based on reports in newspapers and periodicals released by the US state and business financed RAND Corporation in 2016 This is a perfectly valid form of words, legitimised by the same form used all over the article for RT, see the lead, "RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government."Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the equal treatment of Rand and RT please indicate. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your proposed language is (1) just wrong and (2) is not a necessary short-form descriptor of RAND, nor is it a common or typical short-form descriptor of RAND used in the reliable sources. As to (1), the RAND report was not just "based on reports in newspapers" but in fact also relied upon peer-reviewed journal studies in psychology, as can be seen in the footnotes of the report itself. As to (2), your language is far too long and fails to actually identify the RAND Corp. as a think tank/research organization, which is what it is. The right way to say this is something simple and consistent: "A 2016 report by the RAND Corporation, a U.S.-based think tank..." Neutrality^talk 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I looked at the footnotes; perhaps you could count how many weren't corporate media sources. I can't get the report up again but I'll bet a pint of Guinness that fewer than 50% are to anything remotely peer reviewed.
  • Got the pdf, 14 of 37 citations are from corporate rags. Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• "A 2016 report by the RAND Corporation, a U.S.-based think tank..." financed by the US state and US corporations....Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your modification to my edit does seem to be poisoning the well, and you seem to indicating that you did it knowingly to prove a point. Perhaps you'd like to suggest an alternative? Otherwise this would seem to be a waste of time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made a comparison and lurkers jumped out; obviously I was aware that it could happen but that wasn't the point. Anyone who is unbiased will accept that the edit is in the same vein as descriptions of RT all over the article. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. To help you, I suggest that all adjectival and adverbial terms be removed from mentions of RT except for a section on bias, where the sources alleging partiality are equally related to sources of bias like being beholden to a government or a corporate media owner. Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "the US state and business financed" is not an encyclopedic descriptor in this context and that it does not belong in the sentence. --Tataral (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What form of words would you find encyclopaedic? '''RAND Corporation''' ("Research and development")<ref name=RANDhistory>{{cite web|title=History and Mission|url=https://www.rand.org/about/history.html|website=RAND Corp|accessdate=16 January 2015}}</ref> is an American [[nonprofit]] global policy [[think tank]]<ref name="Medvetz" /> originally formed by [[Douglas Aircraft Company]] to offer research and analysis to the [[United States Armed Forces]]. It is financed by the [[Federal government of the United States|U.S. government]] and private [[Financial endowment|endowment]],<ref name=RANDAnnualReport/> corporations<ref name=RANDfunding>{{cite web|title=How We're Funded|url=https://www.rand.org/about/clients_grantors.html#industry|website=RAND Corp|accessdate=16 January 2015}}</ref> including the [[health care industry]], [[university|universities]]<ref name=RANDfunding/> and private individuals.<ref name=RANDfunding/> the RAND Corporation? Keith-264 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And claiming that it's an "academic study" that has definitively "identified" RT as propaganda and misinformation is no problem? Come on. There's no need to lard the reference to RAND with excessive details on the fact that this seems to be a short briefing paper by an utterly partisan US think-thank, but the wording as introduced, as if it's a lengthy, objective analysis by some disinterested international academics, is just as bad. The suggestion above that it should be described as a "report" by a "US think-tank" is closer to it. And of course beyond that, yet again we have people who are quite open on the talk page about their animus towards the topic bloating the page by doing nothing else than just flinging more and more of the negative commentary they can dig up into the main page, rather than updating it with actual details of what the thing in question actually is or does. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you put that rather well, mud slinging is not an academic activity (or Wiki).Keith-264 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"Anyone who is unbiased will accept..." Uh. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I rest my case.Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. Then I take it you will quit edit warring over this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Btw, re this personal attack, my edits were not "malevolent" (Sheesh! Drama much?) Nor were they "insinuations". I didn't insinuate anything - I said it straight up - you're trying to poison the well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, there is no way the description of RAND as a "US think tank", and this publicaiton as a "report" is well poisoning. Indeed, as also noted, another user suggested it first. VM, you could have made further tweaks if you disliked the use eg of "alleged" rather than blindly restoring the original, contested wording, which included a blatant grammar error too, which I had also corrected in my edits. This is becoming more tedious and transparent with every edit here. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Describing it as a "think tank" is fine. It's also fine to call it a report. Sticking in "alleged" when the source doesn't say that is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

More on the impartial BBC and Ofcom

[25] "For the first time, the state broadcaster was flushed out of its hiding hole. First, it tried more misdirection, telling him that Ofcom had reviewed the programme and sided with the BBC. But the Ofcom decision was about an RT investigation into the footage – note that Ofcom has hardly been impartial in its treatment of RT – and not a ruling on the accuracy of the BBC footage’s, which Ofcom admitted it was not in a position to assess." Notice the term "state broadcaster"? regardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, Keith-264. The citation is to the blog of Jonathan Cook which is obviously not a reliable source. Nor is he a mainstream pundit. For those unfamiliar with this individual, try Cook's "The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian" from September 2011.

Philip Cross (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A palpable hit I fancy; I know where it came from, look at the url. It isn't a try, it is a mirror example of the trite references that pass for reliable sources when they're trashing RT. I invite everyone to refer to The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian, a description which is apposite. Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Are you saying that your crappy low quality source is comparable to the sources being used in the article currently? If so, then the answer to that is: That. is. simply. not. true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:civil, WP:RS, WP:self-serving inferences.Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264 you are making it very difficult to Assume good faith. I find it hard to believe that someone with 71646 edits over 11 years is this shitty at finding sources. I also can't see how the point you seem to be trying to make is going to affect the way in which the article develops. If you have issues with the BBC or Ofcom they both have articles you can edit.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:civil, WP:RS, WP:self-serving inferences WP:manners; of the first 100 [200, typo] citations, I counted 100 that come from sources equal to or worse than the one I offered. I suggest that you stop name calling, setting yourself up as the credibility police and making veiled threats; it isn't nice. Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPS --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the spirit, try this [26]Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good for you Keith-264 you (almost) found a reliable source [27] would you like to add this Johnson's opinions on the ineffectiveness of RTs propaganda to the article? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's a shame, you almost responded to a good example. Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure much of this is going to help with page content, but the opprobium being heaped on Cook tells us quite a lot. His opinions on the BBC and RT are as "reliable" as plenty that have been stuffed quite happily into the article. Just because the mob here do not agree with them does not make then "unreliable", either in a real-world or a WP sense. N-HH talk/edits 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Without going on about it too much, my scan of the citations revealed some sources that you wouldn't trust to sit on a toilet the right way round. Perhaps we could persuade an outsider well-versed in Wiki to review the article and the quality of the sources? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

N-HH and Keith - because you guys are trying so hard to be snarky and condescending, it's actually hard to understand what it is you're talking about. There is a source. Cook. It's a blog. Not reliable. So what? What else is there to say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop name-calling, it makes you look like someone losing his own argument. Try to be constructive instead, "The results were compiled in a Tumblr blog.[152]" is this any better?Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264 I think we have already established that quality of sources is not your strong suit. While you are correct that the reference for that statement is (shockingly) a blog, it is also a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement. I added it purely to make it easy for interested readers to find the results of the previously mentioned Columbia School of Journalism study. Do you really think the source you provided is similar?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I perfer not to notice guttersnipe abuse but I am ready to give you a taste of your own medicine if you want me to. You object to one blog source and endorse another, this is partiality on stilts. Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I removed a paragraph with no relevance to RT and a reprehensible comment from Burnley. Pls explain here why it should be reinstated.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)