Russia Today

[albert]

Whilst on holiday the default TV channel when switched on was RT - Russia Today. Just so happened that the day we arrived Donald Trump was Interviewed by Larry King who obviously was a mainstay on CNN for a few decades.

Both men were criticised for their participation in that particular channel. Why?

We've seen a few non-western news channels appear and some succeed like Al Jazeera, now we have RT.

Seemed quite a refeshing alternative to me.

Thoughts?

[smilodon]

The Argument is that RT is a pro-Kremlin, heavily biased channel that regularly fails to check sources or facts, misreports news,  reports mad conspiracy theories as fact (The US Government orchestrated the Boston Marathon Bombings), and even has been accused of outright fabrication of news stories. Cleverly, so the criticism goes, it mixes this in with some half way decent reporting. This mix of the pro Russian, anti Western propaganda with credible news sources is an attempt to hide it's true motives which does set it above the Daily Express and Daily Mail as a news source.

Therefore as a news source it's appears to be an utterly compromised, integrity free, voice piece for Putin and the Russian Government and as a result useless as a news source.

Here's an interesting web site created by Students at The Columbia University of Journalism that keeps tabs on the reporting of RT

http://rtwatchcuj.tumblr.com/

Al Jazeera seems to be a much more level and unbiased news agency but is owned by The Royal Family of Qatar, so it's independence is a bit questionable.

[Chaosphere]

I tend to watch Al Jazeera. Like smilo points out though, most news sources are owned by someone (ok on the internet you can find a few truly independent, small outlets). Unfortunately that ownership soon turns to bias... pick your poison I guess.

[faust82]

BBC is beholden to the UK government for funding, Sky News to the advertisers, the american channels to advertisers again and in the case of Fox News the tea party as well...
When there's a major event, I catch the coverage from BBC, Al Jazeera and our own government broadcaster NRK. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle of that.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Galatoni]

BBC is beholden to the UK government for funding

Very much so. I've been becoming very frustrated with the way anything 'anti-government' is broadcast - if at all. The doctors strikes are always shown negatively. Teachers the same. The postal strikes have been as well, which is amazing considering it was sold to a private company. But we can't have the governments master-plan to privatise everything put in a negative light.

[Twyst]

BBC is beholden to the UK government for funding

Well, it's more beholden to the tax-payers.
I admire the BBC for trying to be mostly impartial, whilst I deplore them for using advertising if they think you connect from a non UK network address.

[Twyst]

Very much so. I've been becoming very frustrated with the way anything 'anti-government' is broadcast - if at all. The doctors strikes are always shown negatively. Teachers the same. The postal strikes have been as well, which is amazing considering it was sold to a private company. But we can't have the governments master-plan to privatise everything put in a negative light.

The act of striking is negative, so you should expect an impartial report to be negative.

As a parent, I find it amusing that teachers chastise you for denying your child education by taking them out of school (doctors, dentist appointment, day extra holiday as the return is cheaper), but they have no problem denying the same child education by striking themselves.

[faust82]

The act of striking is negative, so you should expect an impartial report to be negative.

As a parent, I find it amusing that teachers chastise you for denying your child education by taking them out of school (doctors, dentist appointment, day extra holiday as the return is cheaper), but they have no problem denying the same child education by striking themselves.

The curriculum is calculated to give the children the law-imposed education even with the strike days, so it's your frivolous use of doctors and dentists that upsets the apple cart >

Leaving jokes behind though, a strike is a last-ditch effort in negotiation, a sort of "well, let's see how you get on without us". In a strike, there's always two sides, and blaming just the one (if their demands are within reason, especially if they are within reason) becomes quite unfair. Sure, the teachers are striking, but why? For how long? Usually, the answers sit at the other end of that table.

Not counting, of course, the great British tradition of the completely unrelated political strike. Teachers striking because the government treats newly started religions discourteously is entirely different than a strike because the government cut education funding by 30% (as a hyperbolic example for us, perhaps closer to home for you brits).

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[albert]

The act of striking is negative, so you should expect an impartial report to be negative.

As a parent, I find it amusing that teachers chastise you for denying your child education by taking them out of school (doctors, dentist appointment, day extra holiday as the return is cheaper), but they have no problem denying the same child education by striking themselves.

But remember, the schools give kids holidays at set times so that us DINKs can get a cheaper quieter more adult friendly break just after the school resumes. It would be totally unfair if we had to suffer all these kids on our holidays

[Chaosphere]

And as a patient twisted, are the doctor strikes the same? Striking to protect patient safety, but hang on the strikes themselves endanger patient safety don't they?! - that is how the BBC has portrayed it, and why I will no longer have anything to do with them.

Anyway, off I go to work day 1 of 12 in a row, with 6x 12.5 hour on-calls. But you go ahead government stretch me and my colleagues even thinner, what can possibly go wrong.

[albert]

The curriculum is calculated to give the children the law-imposed education even with the strike days, so it's your frivolous use of doctors and dentists that upsets the apple cart >

Leaving jokes behind though, a strike is a last-ditch effort in negotiation, a sort of "well, let's see how you get on without us". In a strike, there's always two sides, and blaming just the one (if their demands are within reason, especially if they are within reason) becomes quite unfair. Sure, the teachers are striking, but why? For how long? Usually, the answers sit at the other end of that table.

Not counting, of course, the great British tradition of the completely unrelated political strike. Teachers striking because the government treats newly started religions discourteously is entirely different than a strike because the government cut education funding by 30% (as a hyperbolic example for us, perhaps closer to home for you brits).

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

You have to remember Willy that getting an appointment with a Dr or Dentist in the UK that a) even remotely suits the patient and b)happens on time is somewhere between 5% and zero unless you are privately insured.

Parents take kids to the dentists because it's free up to the age of 18 then they stick a £35 price tag on every checkup for which they do as little as possible because it's an "NHS" checkup not a "Private" checkup which is £60~

I Holland people whine about the health system, Brazillians I know whine about it here in Holland, so do many other European ex-pats. it's far better than the UK. They should try the UK NHS during a modest illness. UK NHS means not dying, don't bother if you're having some modest trouble it'll take so long.

[Twyst]

And as a patient twisted, are the doctor strikes the same? Striking to protect patient safety, but hang on the strikes themselves endanger patient safety don't they?! - that is how the BBC has portrayed it, and why I will no longer have anything to do with them.

They are not the same at all.

For the doctor strike, I see both sides in the wrong (ie, Government not helping doctors, doctors not helping patients). As such I would expect a negative news article.

[smilodon]

We're wandering off topic but not in a bad way so......

I has always amazed me how certain professions are required as a matter or routine to work very long hours with the real possibility that as they come to the end of a long stretch of continuous working their perception and mental faculties are diminished, possibly leading to mistakes and poor judgement calls.

At least no one would be so foolish as to ask the following to work excessive hours

Airline Pilots, Nuclear Reactor Workers, Air Traffic Controllers, Ambulance Drivers, HGV lorry drivers........ oh and of course Doctors working in Accident and Emergency Departments. No that would be just insane :blink:

[Chaosphere]

They are not the same at all.

For the doctor strike, I see both sides in the wrong (ie, Government not helping doctors, doctors not helping patients). As such I would expect a negative news article.

Problem with the BBC is it portrays too much of the doctors not helping patients side and not enough of the reality. And more to that point - do you seriously think 'harm' was done during the last strikes? They pulled in consultants like crazy to cover the absent juniors... consultants with far more knowledge and experience than those they were temporarily replacing. The suggestion that patients were harmed as a result of those strikes is utter nonsense, and just implies whoever is presenting that rubbish did not look into what actually happened.


We become doctors to help people. No one WANTS to strike. The fact that we as a profession feel it is so necessary given the already terrible state of affairs, and the fact that the government is trying to stretch a thinly stretched service even further, is the problem and what we are trying to make publicly known. The rubbish spewed by the BBC clearly is hindering this, and like I said leads to too much emphasis on the doctors being the problem here. Absolute nonsense. A negative news article is to be expected, but one that actually presents both sides of the coin equally is essential - the BBC is abysmal at this.

Good luck running any healthcare system in 10 years when you've forced all of your new doctors to fly the coop. I for one will almost certainly NOT be staying in the UK, which I find terribly sad but don't really see any other option anymore. Spending 7 years of your life working to help people only to find yourself in a crumbling system unsupported where it needs support the most is pretty disheartening.