> There is apparently a rule that says it’s perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (Kaplan/The Washington Post), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it’s an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government.

Full Analysis and links: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/attacks_on_rt_and_assange_re...

The problem with that analysis: "US media isn't perfect" ==> "Any media outlet that isn't perfect is as good as the US media". The key indictment of US media is that they all disagreed with him on the Iraq war, at least in the beginning.

What's missing from the analysis is degrees of imperfection. RT will tout the Kremlin line even to the point of being comical. Even if Assange's show doesn't contribute to this, he still serves to legitimise the rest of the channel. He is extremely naive if he doesn't think he's going to be a cog in RT and Putin spinning itself and Russia as a home to disenfranchised and persecuted western intellectuals - while conveniently not mentioning the fact that disenfranchised Russian intellectuals, especially of the journalist variety, have a nasty habit of dying young - which is very unlike their western counterparts.

Haha. Assange serves to legitimize the rest of the channel. Good one!

When it comes to news organizations, it's not the presence of an organization-wide viewpoint that's objectionable - every organization has a viewpoint. The content of that viewpoint is what's being objected to.

You might feel that the viewpoint of RT is no less objectionable than the viewpoints of the other news organizations you mention. Others disagree.

The mainstream press in America is very pro America. They don't air lots of news pieces that would paint a critical picture of the US. Is it any surprise that Assange's show is not aired by the mainstream press? How is RT's slant towards Russia any different from CNN's pro-America stance?

Say what you want, there is still a real democracy in US and people are not put to jail for being against the government.

But that real democracy won't air Assange's show.

Btw, our real democracy harasses people who are critical of the US gov. E.g., see David House.

In the US anonymous individuals, groups or corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising. Super PACs and (c)4's makes the current US political system more like the political system the founding fathers created. A system where only wealthy white men could vote.

So yeah, the US is a _real_ democracy _if_ you happen to be a rich white man. Not unlike Russia.

US politicians are passing voter repression laws in states with the specific aim of making it harder for voters to vote. Not to mention the gerrymandering of districts.

In the US people are assassinated and jailed for being against the government. Anwar Al-Awlaki and Tarek Mehanna.

This isnt the issue. You said the channel was very quiet about Russian protests and the same can be said about a lot of US media outlets (Some even call OWS nazis). This is actually true of any government; it is very hard to find a media outlet that escapes the government narrative, and when they do, they will be called many things, among them is anti-said-government, like you exemplified above.

There's only a duopoly democracy, where the most popular two people are the only potential choices. If you don't like either the two choices, tough luck. Welcome to USA's FPTP.

As for being against USA government, obviously Amazon, Visa and Mastercard's suddenly decided to stop Wikileaks was due to their own decision, not by a visiting congressman?

Being consistently pro-America is not, by a long shot, the same as being an uncritical vehicle for government propaganda.