Is this a real news network?

[too-open-minded]

Is Russia today a real news network?

 

http://rt.com/

 

I'm seeing videos like http://rt.com/shows/the-truthseeker/operation-gladio-usa-terrorism-565/

 

I'm thinking WTF!?!? After i just saw this lol. I'm pretty sure it is some bs website, I think anybody who says 9/11 was a conspiracy is a nut.

 

 

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

I think it is as official as FOX news. It's just the Russians broadcasting their biased news. Many news channels have actual news, where they claim objectivity, and opinionated pieces, where they don't.

 

Anyway, do you want to discuss RT (Russia Today), or also the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

[too-open-minded]

Not really because I believe it's kind of ignorant to think that the government would conspire such a tragedy. Unless anyone has any evidence to prove the government did it.

[CaptainPanic]

So, you don't want to have a discussion, but you do allow yourself to have the last word. I'll bite.

 

I am curious. You think that the US government would never cause such tragedy as 9/11, yet there are plenty of other (evil) governments worldwide that obviously would. Why is your government so much better?

 

I agree that there is insufficient data to say that the US government was involved. But I think there is also insufficient data to be certain that they weren't somehow involved.

 

So far, your best argument against this is that it is ignorant to think that your government would do that. So, your argument is based on belief, which is not a strong argument at all. Personally, I do not blindly trust my own government in the Netherlands and in the EU. I think it is important that government institutions do not get too much autonomy. They must be kept in check by a parliament or otherwise democratically chosen government. The Separation of Powers can guarantee this. And personally, I think that in the USA, the separation of powers is a little broken. Certain government agencies have a lot of power, and operate nearly autonomously.

 

Because 9/11 is generally a sensitive topic for Americans, I want to once again state that I also agree that there is no proof that the US government was behind it. I merely want to warn against blindly trusting your government.

[pears]

I merely want to warn against blindly trusting your government.

I'm not sure how trusting them in the absence of evidence of a conspiracy and then stating you'll review that trust in the presence of evidence can be called 'blind trust'.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm not sure how trusting them in the absence of evidence of a conspiracy and then stating you'll review that trust in the presence of evidence can be called 'blind trust'.

When you trust them to be good, you essentially also trust them to give the evidence for government involvement if there is any. Even if they do something unlawful, the government can just withhold evidence, and that means you can continue trusting them. You don't force the government to play any of its cards this way. It is a status where all the initiative is with the government, even if they do something bad (and decide to hide it). It is a typical relation that a small child has with its parents. I think this is an undesirable relation between a citizen and its government.

 

What you suggest is that you trust your government until someone else finds out that it is not worthy of your trust. You put the entire burden of checking on your government with someone else.

 

On the other hand, if you are more critical, and hold your government guilty until proven not guilty, you (if you get enough support) force them to show some of their cards. Almost every government will have some corruption, and there are always some bad apples. It is not just important that your country has methods to check on the politicians, agencies and the justice system. It is also important that you as a citizen are critical and engaged.

[pears]

That's a fair point, though I think that if you live in a liberal democracy with a free press you can have some degree of trust in the system - not that that makes it perfect, or guarantees it is curruption-free by any means.

[CaptainPanic]

That's a fair point, though I think that if you live in a liberal democracy with a free press you can have some degree of trust in the system - not that that makes it perfect, or guarantees it is corruption-free by any means.

Alright, so you say it is the press who must keep an eye on the government, not you yourself. But you have to read/watch that press, or they will stop doing what they do.

[Phi for All]

That's a fair point, though I think that if you live in a liberal democracy with a free press you can have some degree of trust in the system - not that that makes it perfect, or guarantees it is curruption-free by any means.

 

But surely you aren't describing the US. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, corporations are allowed to own media as well as other concerns (prior to that, if you were in media that's all you could be into, to avoid the obvious conflicts of interest). Now you'd be hard-pressed to find a story that isn't being spun the way the owners of the outlet want it spun.

 

You're never going to hear about lawsuits over Domino's Pizza drivers or bad meat at Burger King or flammable children's coats at Burlington Coat Factory from any of the 800+ Clear Channel radio stations, because they're all owned by the same company. Bain Capital owns the companies, and also owns the ability to control public perception of those companies. Informing the public is now a much more sinister business.

 

I find little to trust.

[pears]

Alright, so you say it is the press who must keep an eye on the government, not you yourself. But you have to read/watch that press, or they will stop doing what they do.

Not just the press no - I said a liberal democracy with a free press - there are more features to a liberal democracy than a free press and I said "some degree" of trust.

 

 

But surely you aren't describing the US. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, corporations are allowed to own media as well as other concerns (prior to that, if you were in media that's all you could be into, to avoid the obvious conflicts of interest). Now you'd be hard-pressed to find a story that isn't being spun the way the owners of the outlet want it spun.

 

You're never going to hear about lawsuits over Domino's Pizza drivers or bad meat at Burger King or flammable children's coats at Burlington Coat Factory from any of the 800+ Clear Channel radio stations, because they're all owned by the same company. Bain Capital owns the companies, and also owns the ability to control public perception of those companies. Informing the public is now a much more sinister business.

 

I find little to trust.

OK I don't know so much about how liberal democracy is acheived in the US.

 

When it comes to a lot of conspiracy theories I generally don't have enough faith in the competence of governments to pull off such a thing.

[too-open-minded]

My argument isn't that I think it is ignorant to think that. That is my opinion, you wanna hear my argument? Show me your evidence.

 

Yeah our government is all kinds of screwed up, it's become monopolized in a way. Money runs the world, our current system allows for major technological and population growth. It's not perfect, corrupt as hell in the sense of it be dominated by currency. I think it will blow up in our faces, like Carl Sagan said. Then we'll learn our damn lessons and build a stronger less corruptible system that isn't ran by only holding wealth, producing, and consuming.