Coverage of Trump by RT and Sputnik is, in fact, uncharacteristically balanced. Some recent reports have presented the Republican candidate favorably, such as when he endorsed a number of critics for re-election 'in an attempt to ease party tensions', or accused Clinton of founding the Daesh terrorist group. Others, however, were unfavorable. One quoted a neo-Nazi leader as backing his candidacy; another accused him of hypocrisy. One report even asked, 'Is Trump an embarrassment to the GOP because he's an incompetent, uninformed, pathological menace, or because he's just saying out loud what most Republicans now believe?' No such balance is apparent in the two outlets' coverage of the other candidates. Clinton is the most obvious target. In August alone, RT reports covered accusations of corruption, lying and ill health against her; accused her of launching a McCarthystyle 'witch hunt' against Trump; and linked her to the use of nuclear weapons in 1945. Sputnik's reporting called her and her team 'war hawks', accused her of wanting to 'make more families suffer' the deaths of soldiers, and named her the 'Queen of War'. Earlier in the electoral cycle, Bernie Sanders enjoyed similar lavish coverage, with headlines such as 'Why only Sanders can prevent "President Trump"'. In March, RT even ran an interview claiming that Clinton and Google were collaborating to rig the results against Sanders, with the interviewer asking, 'Sanders scored a 35% swing, maybe, in Michigan, I mean, it hasn't worked so well for Clinton, has it?'Exactly right. A correct summary of the real data. So the intel agencies can't be forgiven on the basis of self-contained ignorance. They KNOW they're lying about Russia.
Labels: Asked and answered
The current icon shows Polistra using a Personal Equation Machine.