Why should we be aware of journalism funded by the US or their interests. Where should I get my news from RT or Sputnik?

Because "journalism funded by the US or their interests" is most likely propaganda.

Why do we not get similar long form articles about Saudi Arabia?

Russian doctrine of information warfare seeks to create confusion, distrust and ambiguity about truth. Part of this ideology is to label everything as propaganda, to claim there is no objective truth, that everything is influenced by the funding agent. This allows to claim, that Russian-backed news sources that form an integral part of their information warfare machinery and spread blatant lies, are as legitimate as any other source of information. This allows the state to keep the monopoly of truth which allows for removal of any accountability from government actions. Which perpetuates status quo of power.

There are in fact shades of grey. All journalists are biased by their world-view and of course backers at least fund the ones the views of whom they like. But there is such thing as journalist ethics and not all funders exercise the sort of control over the writers as the fsb does. Not all media is propaganda.

We don't get such articles about Saudi Arabia because there is no war there.

> We don't get such articles about Saudi Arabia because there is no war there.

Yeah, but they're fighting in Yemen and have a heavy hand in Syria. A lot of long form articles from our main steam media can be written about Saudi Arabia if they really want to.

In the same way as you shouldn't blindly consume RT, you shouldn't blindly consume stuff from Washington, London, Paris or anywhere else. There is precious little journalism that is not a front for someone's agenda, so it's important to know that agenda and "weight" content accordingly.

Let me bring to your attention this [0]; there are very few places online (that I know of) that have the sort of analysis presented on this blog (granted, World Affairs is published by a USA-based company, but bear in mind that the journal is almost 200 years old, its editor is intimately familiar with Eastern Europe and its post-Soviet democratization, is a publication of a pacifist organization, and is a 501(c)3 organization; what I am trying to say is that there is some pedigree here and the quality of the comments is immensely refreshing).

The bulk of this additional material reflects the OP’s submission [1], while [2] highlights the issue from a related angle. As for the organization that published this article (The Black Sea), I think that they do not deserve the pessimism [3]. They have a reputation for publishing high-quality, investigative pieces on topics that several major organizations would not touch.

[0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs_Institute; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Affairs; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Denton

Tax returns: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/271...

[1]

(January 2014; about this time, talk of a civil war was already becoming heated)

Standoff in Ukraine: Mafia Regime vs. Mobilized Citizens (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/st...

(February 2014; in this article, the author concedes that war might break out due to the division between East and West Ukraine)

Should There Be One Ukraine? (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/sh...)

(April 2014, predates Russia’s decisive intervention in the Donbass by a couple of days)

Could Russia Occupy Ukraine? (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/co...)

(June 2015; the comments are a gold mine)

On Donbas Autonomy—Again (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/do...

(February 2016; Motyl formalizes his argument against re-integration)

Why Reintegrating the Donbas Is Suicide for Ukraine (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/wh...)

(May 2016; a case for disengaging from the Donbass)

Answering the Critics: Donbas Disengagement (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/an...)

(June 2016; even greater clarity)

A Donbas Strategy Going Forward (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alexander-j-motyl/do...)

[2]

Does Anyone Want Ukraine’s Donbass? (http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/world/2406-does-anyone-want-...

[published by the the New York-based Institute of Modern Russia, IMR, whose president is the son to the former Russian political prisoner and exile Mikhail Khodorkovsky and, by virtue of this association, would be despised by Russian authorities as “unpatriotic” and partisan; IMR’s tax returns are here (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/611...]

(2016 report; PDF at the bottom of the summary)

Doing business in Donbas: what are the main obstacles? (http://www.ua.undp.org/content/ukraine/en/home/presscenter/a...)

[3] (Here, the organization is upfront about its manifesto; tellingly, the organizations was Wikileaks’ sole publishing partner in Europe; also they closely coordinate with the widely respected International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, invite journalists that have been censored by their employees to pitch them, and cover taboo and under-reported stories)

Diving Deep Into Stories (http://theblacksea.eu/index.php?idT=88&idC=88&idRec=1105&rec...)

(They have won numerous awards; certainly that counts for something)

Mission (http://theblacksea.eu/?idT=3&idC=3)

(The organization is funded by Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation Initiatives as part of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, GMF. Firstly, there is a difference between the Marshall Plan and GMF; a quick Wikipedia search will suffice. The thing is GMF has funded 100s of projects since its formation, given 1000s of scholarships and grants, and is notable for its involvement in civil society i.e. soft power advocacy. A search of the term “grant” on its homepage <<http://www.gmfus.org/search/grant>> brings up several of its other initiatives. The Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation is a multi-stakeholder initiative and funded TheBlackSea.eu as part of a cross-border project run by Journalismfund.eu to improve journalism quality. Frankly, these guys do not deserve the conspiratorial skepticism)

Launch of the Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation (http://trends.gmfus.org/doc/BST%20Launch%20Program.pdf)

Working grant - Ghosts of Sochi (http://journalismfund.eu/ghostsofsochi)

Working grant - Land Grabbing in the EU: How Rabobank is profiting off theft and abuse in Romania (http://journalismfund.eu/landgrabbing)

Working grant - The Gold Trail (http://journalismfund.eu/gold-trail)

You posted a lot of links in your post and I've read your post multiple times yet I'm still not really sure what you're going for. Most of them are links to other articles that support the facts from the original article, but I don't dispute the veracity of the article. Actually I found the article an interesting (although one sided) look into a situation that is not well covered in the media. In your post there are a number of tax returns, but I fail to see how those are relevant to the point that theblacksea.eu is funded by a US/German-backed NGO. I couldn't find a tax return to theblacksea.eu either, which is more relevant here. If I missed that link do let me know. You also don't dispute that the GMF is funded by the German/US government, which is one of points I brought up. And the description of the GMF frankly sounds like what a NGO that promotes US interests would do. Which is what I mentioned in my post.

Furthermore, I don't dispute the journalistic integrity of the authors. As you mention, they've won awards, good for them. You bring up the word conspiracy, but I think there's none at all. Really, this article should be viewed as a clever way to promote US policy. To illustrate, take an example: let's say I set up a news agency in Poland about foreign issues, gave it a nice budget, and hired journalists (indiscriminately) from the local area. Let them to write whatever they want, but require it to be in English so foreigners can read it (key ingredient). Wait a bit and no surprise: eventually the journalists will write and share pro-NATO, anti-Russia articles. Which casually aligns with US policy. There is no need for conspiracy here with me telling journalists what to write. Simply, I am giving a voice to sentiments people already had and helping share them with English speakers around the world. That's what I see happening at theblacksea.eu.

The end product is you end up with high production-value articles that align with US interests, like the one submitted. In contrast, the Russians prefer a more direct approach to spread their interests, namely by employing people to spread rumors and disrupt online conversations. I actually think the Russian approach is more effective, mostly because most people don't have the time to read longform articles like this. Perhaps we will see the US adopt more of a Russian approach in the future.