Recently there are daily headlines about "fake news" in the U.S. and even some news sources are confirming that U.S. news is sometimes "made-up". Equally important is that U.S. audiences are learning just how orchestrated Internet search results can be when searching for specific [news] topics; and this is totally dependent on whims of search engine owners. In tech circles for example, Google has long been recognized as a pioneer in a form of censorship that manipulates the rankings of search engine results via bots and human intervention. These days it's called "gatekeeping".
Many Americans seem shocked by such revelations and a few even surmise that the news about fake news is in itself fake. However Western outlets supplying news for profit harbor long histories of prevarication. The two most famous American newspaper Moguls, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, became known as fathers of yellow journalism while building mass audiences and competing heavily against one another in the late 1800s. There even are persistent legends about Hearst telling photographers to supply pictures and "I'll supply the story".
Such founding traditions still plague American news outlets vying for audience share—because audience share is all important when supplying news for profit. The currently fashionably reported nevertheless bogus Russian threats are cases in point. For example politicized "intelligence" communities provided insinuation until media "caught on" and began reporting a non-existent Russian "hack" of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) as fact.
Even after Julian Assange [Mr. 100% credibility] revealed otherwise and VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) showed the "hack" to be in reality a "leak", MSM (western mainstream media) continues to report the alledged Russian hack as fact despite no credible evidence whatsoever. This is as good as contemporary American journalism gets since it draws substantial audiences. Likewise today's politicized "intelligence" communities are long on innuendo and insinuation but short substantiation of official narratives—zero credibility.
Nowadays the Russian owned and funded RT news organization seems to be the most consistent provider of well-researched, in-depth reporting within U.S. borders and for that reason alone America's floundering "Deep State" would bury that entity. American demonization of RT began in earnest several years ago coincidentally as RT was providing excellent reports from Syria. Western foreign policy narratives frequently are riddled with deceit and cannot withstand glimpses of truth.
RT did not by accident become "the most viewed TV news network on YouTube" in less than 10 years despite orchestrated opposition. RT is a better alternative for worldwide audiences and the continuing growth of those audiences confirms that fact. Politicized U.S. "intelligence" communities fear and loathe RT since uncontrollable narratives are bugbears to peddlers of fraud.
And collusive Google has dropped RT from its premium advertising service without notice. A few days ago RT's own announcement of the situation said this in part: "This speaks to the unprecedented political pressure increasingly applied to all RT partners and relationships in a concerted effort to push our channel out of the US market entirely, and by any means possible."
What is truly shameful is that the U.S. can no longer abide professional competition, free markets, or free speech. The fragility of contemporary Western narratives can't be shored-up by MSM without employing both transparency and truth—neither of which is especially palatable to today's organization of political means and media minions. It's much easier to legislate RT out of the country than it is to legislate official transparency and help raise news-for-profit journalistic standards. .
After learning first-hand how manipulative Goggle has become in providing search results, we typically use Bing for locating things of interest on the Internet. That approach seems to deliver more pertinent results more quickly and without significant filtering biased by commercial interests and/or political philosophy.
Nevertheless this morning we used both Bing and Google in attempts to locate recent mainstream news about America's intent to keep a continuing military presence in Afghanistan "indefinitely". Guess what: Only RT.COM picked up on yesterday's comments by US Defense Secretary James Mattis. Secretary Mattis was in the company of Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and both men were testifying before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) about current military "strategy" in Afghansitan.
In August a few mainstream outlets reported on Trump's 4,000-or-so-man troop buildup there. Typically the reports also projected that the U.S. could be entangling herself in a tar baby. However no one but RT reported today on yesterday's lame-assed comments by Mattis before the lame-assed SASC: "We want them [the Taliban] to have no hope of ever winning." Mattis and Dunford must be very persuasive. Everyone present seems to support another 16 years of frittering away good resources in "the graveyard of empires".
One reason there are official U.S. efforts to ban RT from America is that RT more fully informs.
FYI America's Afghanistan invasion history—excerpt from American Warpaths Since 9/11:
"Gore Vidal informed us in 2002, via an interview published in Dreaming War, that the U.S. had intended occupation of Afghanistan in October 2001 long before events of September unfolded. Impetus for that sinister schedule seemed to be the incremental unpredictability of US-cultivated Taliban leaders' arrangements with California-based Unocal over its intended oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to Karachi's seaport for ultimately shipping Caspian-area crude to Chinese destinations".1
"Consequently after 9/11 Afghanistan, a country innocent of that episode and coincidentally the place Osama bin Laden was first employed by America and trained to assist the Taliban in opposing Soviet occupation, was invaded by the U.S. using Hitler's rationale for entering Poland. In 1939 the Fuhrer claimed Polish saboteurs so seriously threatened the homeland that invasion was actually a defensive maneuver. In 2001 the U.S. proclaimed the Afghan countryside to be harboring a presumably safeguarded bin Laden and to be nurturing terrorism in a fashion that warranted the illegal U.S. invasion of that sovereign nation as a defensive maneuver. Thus Nazi rationale was recast, ultimately perhaps with even less desirable results still unfolding. Interestingly the first US-installed Afghan ruler was Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal adviser according to numerous sources."
1 "Gore Vidal and Marc Cooper, 2002. "Last Defender of the American Republic?: An Interview with Gore Vidal" published in Dreaming War,
Thunder's Mouth Press / Nation Books, New York.
The following comments were added to this endnote 09/16/2016:
According to Wikipedia Unocal merged in 2005 with Chevron and "continues to conduct many operations as Union Oil Company of California, a Chevron company".
Also Dreaming War contains additional substantive information about Caspian-area to Karachi pipeline plans—information which is presented outside
the interview cited here."
It's tough to find a consistently credible news organization these days and American audiences seem especially disadvantaged in that respect. Nevertheless this is nothing new. Samuel Clemens used to say that those who failed to read the daily newspapers were "uninformed" whereas the loyal readers were "misinformed". And A.J. Liebling is credited with summarizing it best: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
Cheerleading for money and power is pretty easy and generally ensures that everyone is "thinking the thoughts that others think" and "doing the things that others do"—a form of training as Nock showed us and anathema to education. Ideally worldwide media outlets earnestly will seek to educate and to shed light into the dark corners of human existence and expose the excesses of both government and private sector hoodlums in order to incite public dialogues and ultimately facilitate corrective actions. This is the difficult charge of journalistic excellence.
Unfortunately nowadays the U.S. government cannot abide transparency and withers within the light of truth. A nation so underpinned by deceit that she cannot withstand the public airing of either less-deceitful narratives or axiomatic truths is in desperate need of an honest modus operandi. Squashing RT news organization's outlets inside western countries is no solution at all. Mending American foreign policy and raising American journalistic standards are much better ideas.
For those who don't know, RT is a Russian owned and funded news organization which came on strong about 10 years ago with a very young editor-in-chief. By airing excellent in-depth reports and a greater variety of newsworthy stories, RT garnered an incredible worldwide following in less than a decade. Western views are frequently aired and those same views with a different spin are also presented. In other words RT is simply a more palatable and credible news organization than can be otherwise found stateside.
By simply being a superior news organization, RT has become quite popular very quickly. RT is not afraid to say in-depth that U.S. foreign policy is a disaster and this scares warmongers beholden to the military-industrial-surveillance complex—as are senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Both of these men support legislation requiring RT to register as a "foreign agent" and to face restrictions untenable to legitimate news organizations.
Keep in mind that BBC is government owned and funded yet not registered as a foreign agent in America. It appears that, irrespective of fact, opinion is everything when disseminating information in the "land of the free". Uncle Sam seems to be saying: "If you don't agree with us, we cannot allow your information into our county. It's too accurate and therefore very dangerous. We are too weak to withstand competent competition and the light of truth." So much for America's free speech, free enterprise, and tolerance of alternative views. So much for American ideals.
Nonetheless Larry King's new show hosted by RT is wonderful—or "was" wonderful. Several months ago, presumably because of Washington DC's paranoia, we lost our access to RT via Roku wireless TV.
Thanks to a currently unfettered Internet, the link provided above uncovers a great and informative read. Try not to miss it. If you have strong opinions about RT, please let us hear from you.