NRK is Norway’s equivalent to the BBC. I’m not sure about the BBC, but NRK is not allowed to run ads. More importantly, they have a number of great in-house developers that churn out quality content and a great video streaming service (tv.nrk.no).
They can display adverts under certain circumstances though. Public billboards aren't censored in news reports, and adverts on the sidelines/stands of sporting events (like football) can still be seen.
Which is britain's equivalent to RT?
The BBC under Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies was fiercely independent and objective though, until they were unceremoniously let go for not towing the party line on Iraq's WMDs.
Also, noteworthy, is that most people can not remember, or talk about, the fact that certain nations lie to us so they can go to war. They also can't think about the whole actual reasons why what's happening is happening.
Always remember that 99% of all people only parrot what the mass media present to them, with no critical/analytical thought applied whatsoever.
It isn't by accident George Orwell modeled the Ministry of Truth after the BBC. After all he worked as a propagandist for the BBC during ww2.
You truly have to be brainwashed to believe that the BBC is any different from RT. Just gotta tip your hat to the BBC. They do a good job.
I'm surprised that, having held such a strong opinion about the BBC for such a long time, you are still able to immediately make a factually incorrect statement regarding such common knowledge as where its funding comes from.
That's a long-winded and highly convoluted way of saying government funded.
You have to admire the BBC. They've done such a good job brainwashing people that they jump through all kinds of hoops to hide the fact that the BBC is government funded state propaganda. BBC is what RT aspires to be one day.
The TV license system is set up specifically so that the institution is somewhat isolated from day-to-day politics. It's a completely different situation if the PM can decide on a whim to fund you or not, or if there's a difficult-to-change law that sets the fees that you get for a decade in advance
If you insist that everything is the same and all politicians are corrupt and all media are lying then you're just giving away any power you might have. Why would any politician not turn corrupt or leave id you are screaming invectives at them at the top of your lung, completely divorced from their actual work?
That's why RT loves cynicism and tries to amplify exactly that work view: it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Arguably there has been a multi-decade push to extinguish the institution altogether, or at least to drastically shrink it and simultaneously bring it under more rigid government control. The trend towards official state broadcaster and away from public interest broadcaster has been ongoing for many many years.
I think the BBC is not exactly like RT in degree or in kind, but there is a definite trend towards its kind. It's also interesting to note that some of the official US complaints about RT influence on US public opinion are based on RT platforming legitimate social critics in the US. Dissidents for thee but not for me.
Or maybe I've heard the "tv license" excuse for many years now. Nothing you wrote is new to me. Surprised you didn't post a link to BBC edited wikipedia article.
> If you insist that everything is the same and all politicians are corrupt and all media are lying then you're just giving away any power you might have.
No. I insist that propaganda is propaganda. I've no problem saying RT is state propaganda because that's exactly what RT is. I've no problem saying that BBC is state propaganda because that's exactly what they are. I've no problem calling putin a corrupt politician. Just like I have no problem calling zelensky or biden or trump a corrupt politician.
What you are saying is my corrupt politician isn't corrupt because he is on my team. My favorite propaganda outlet isn't propaganda because they are on my team. That's the difference between you and me.
> That's why RT loves cynicism and tries to amplify exactly that work view: it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Where did I hear that from? Oh that's right, it's the anti-RT propaganda. Funny how that works huh? Funny how propaganda say X and people just repeat it endlessly? You are the one amplifying propaganda you heard not me.
But believe what you want. BBC is a government created and funded state propaganda. This is a historical fact. You can invent all kinds of excuses if it helps you sleep at night. But it doesn't change reality. How crazy is it that only our enemies have propaganda? Only russia, china, north korea, etc have propaganda. We don't have propaganda. Nope. Your comment is proof that we have the best propaganda.
> I've no problem calling putin a corrupt politician. Just like I have no problem calling zelensky or biden or trump a corrupt politician.
Don't forget Pol Pot. These politicians are all the same.
I'm reminded of murderers Oscar Pistorious and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Likewise the terrorism of the French Resistance and Osama Bin Laden.
What a unique and valuable perspective to have. I'm sure you'd agree that such enlightenment is a curse, which is why the more feeble minded of us hide our eyes from these blinding truths.
> Likewise the terrorism of the French Resistance and Osama Bin Laden.
I mean, Robespierre probably killed more people and not exactly for better reasons. Reign of terror was exactly what the name implies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_mile
TIL.
This was a first, and I blame someone else.
Naturally, I can't get Google Translate to do this now, but I see text like "Vi kjører 100 km. Det koster 30 kr" translated to "We drive 100 miles. It costs 30 SEK" -- km/miles is obviously wrong, and I think kr→SEK (even when it's either kr, kronor, crowns or NOK in English) is because there's more Swedish than Norwegian on the internet.
(I get unreasonably annoyed when people convert metric units into American when translating text into English. The English is used by a far wider audience than Americans, and outside the USA it's reasonable to expect Americans to understand metric units.)
Actually, my experience was the exact opposite on a desktop. First, I landed on a black page which showed some video for less than a second and afterwards the page didn't respond anymore. After switching from Firefox to Chromium, the page probably worked as it was intended.
Nevertheless, scrolling with a mouse I landed somewhere between the right positions. So I tried using the buttons on the left and while the positions, I landed were much better, it felt very awkward to continuously press buttons on the left while my hand was on the right (might be good for left-handed people). Furthermore, the videos played somewhat irritating, as if they continued playing when you went to the next part or paused a bit delayed. So when switching to a previous part you land somewhere in the middle of the clips.
So while admire the story, I didn't enjoy the experience.
How out of touch are you?
For God's sake, they can practically see Kharkiv out of their window!
Heck, in many places around the world people get most local news from social media apps.
In one of these incidents the news article seemed like it might be a coverup to me so I looked up user forums in case someone leaked the real information.
In my original post I was referring to an explosion _inside_ Belgorod: https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-strikes-fuel-depot-rus... which may or may not be directly linked to the war; Ukraine has denied responsibility.
Imagine an alternate universe where Canada and USA went to war. Do you really think that people in Seattle would have to depend on German social media apps to figure out what goes on in Vancouver while it's being bombed? Seriously?
The US operated censorship during WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ; who knows what would operate during the war with Canada?
I'm not sure whether you're ignorant of the near-total state control of media in Russia and Belarus, but how do you expect them to get accurate news?
Because that thought's beyond ridiculous.
Picking a random story from the BBC front page, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61002096 , what do you think is inaccurate about it? Do you think the MD has not resigned? That there have not been queues? That they have mistaken the names of people involved? That Manchester does not in fact exist and is a liberal conspiracy?
(The main problem with political news is disproportionate coverage, double standards of scandal, and the selection of who gets quoted - as well as a vast area of "op-ed" which is not technically news but is on the same websites.
As well as reporting on "future" or "possible" events, which by definition are difficult to be accurate about)
I intentionally didn't call "descriptions of what happened" as "facts", because that would sidetrack the discussion on how to determine what's true or not etc. Just force media to clearly separate "here's what our reporters saw" from "here's what they think it means"
But that requires an active desire to go find the truth. Such people already know the truth of the war.
But plenty of Russian citizens are just following the state propaganda right now, and are consuming zero information outside of it. If such people saw the reality of the war while casually scrolling through Tik Tok, that might make it harder for such people to deny what's going on.
Trump tried and failed to ban TikTok is exactly the difference being discussed.
Famously debunked the justifications for the Iraq war at the time they were being spread.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/sergei-lavrov-...
The Russians view Fox News as a balanced news source.
Walter Kronkite, perhaps the most famous TV anchor in US history was publicly against the Vietnam war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite
Iraq war is where "embed" journalism became the only acceptable source where journalists were killed by US.
Fox News is the most widely watched news network in the US.
Tucker Carlson has the highest rated show on that network and has taken an anti-Ukraine stance.
The insanity that they are spewing is just a tool to create the illusion of a debate.
Russia has banned foreign media, in addition to restricting local media to publishing the government view.
Since I'm British, and you'd probably consider the US and UK equivalent for this purpose, here's a major British newspaper article arguing against NATO action in Libya: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothin...
(Given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US, it probably counts for the US anyway.)
Yes the US has problems. But Russia is just on another level considering that being a free and independent media source is literally illegal there.
Even forgetting the Pentagon Papers already mentioned, papers have published the abuses in Guantanamo and the Iraq War Logs. Plenty of articles have documented killings of civilians by US drones. And plenty of editorial boards have written articles calling on the US to end whatever current war it's fighting.
Sure, big media probably kowtows more to the government than we'd like, but they absolutely are free criticize the wartime actions of the government.
It doesn't. At all. Why?
Because it's the same dumb people, regardless of source.
It doesn't matter if they believe TikTok or any other mass media. At all.
On thing that caught my attention was the supposed USCentric approach since it counted a distance in miles. I also wonder whether it was translated into russian so it can be shared with russian citizens that they’re being lied to by TikTok